# How to decide which instances of opposition to gay marriage are hateful and bigoted. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 6, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653 "2012-08-06T20:14:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 35
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/681 "2012-09-07T13:35:35Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Reminds me of some pre-law student practicing for a debate. Reducio ad exhaustion; repeat trivialities until your opponent gets tired and wanders off. Yes, I am getting tired. It’s me against several others after all. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/682 "2012-09-07T13:36:42Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It is when the argument is a lie. An argument cannot be a lie. Only a fact can be a lie, when it is false and when someone who says it knows it is false. An argument can only be right or wrong. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/683 "2012-09-07T13:41:29Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You’re sure spending a lot of time defending the views of people you don’t agree with to people who find your defense unconvincing, lancerino. No I’m not. I’m making a point. So what? And my point actually helps the gay rights cause. It forces people to continue to make rational arguments instead of just yelling “bigot.” Even a bigot won’t listen if you do that. But a bigot might change his mind if you take the time to discuss the issue, rationally, and let him speak his mind first. Convince him, respectfully and slowly, that his position fails, and he might agree. Calling someone a bigot from the start will just make him hold his position even harder. Even if you are certain that there’s no possible argument against gay marriage that isn’t bigoted - and maybe that’s true - this point is still good advice for those of us who are arguing for gay marriage. Because even if we are right, we aren’t going to get what we want by feeling all smug about it and refusing to take opponents seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/684 "2012-09-07T14:20:29Z")
I dunno, I got what I wanted by feeling smug in not taking _you_ seriously. This latest bit of pretentiousness on your part, that you’re “forcing” the use of rational argument, is further icing on that cake. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/685 "2012-09-07T14:22:30Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I dunno, I got what I wanted by feeling smug in not taking _you_ seriously. This latest bit of pretentiousness on your part, that you’re “forcing” the use of rational argument, is further icing on that cake. Feel free to ignore me then. You could even call me a bigot if that makes your job easier. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/686 "2012-09-07T14:27:43Z")
I get paid the same either way. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/687 "2012-09-07T14:49:59Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > If there is a legitimate, rational reason to for excluding gays, then it’s not bigoted. You’re back to the quibbling about the reasons again instead of the broader fact that excluding gays is bigoted. You never really answered the question I asked earlier about arguments that might appear, but I get the sense your answer would be yes, you think we can’t come to a conclusion because someday, an actual solid argument against legalizing gay marriage might turn up. I think that’s unnecessary and absurd on its face. Your objections to describing opposition to SSM as bigoted are centered around two equally weak ideas: the Bigfoot might exist argument (‘there might be a non-bigoted argument out there somewhere’) and an attack on the ability of everyone except you to listen to people who disagree with them (‘if you are sure opposition to gay marriage is bigoted, you’re not listening to the counterarguments’). You can’t support either argument with any facts. In fact I’m not sure either of your claims qualifies as an argument at all; they’re just tendentiousness. The Bigfoot argument is a hypothetical and the you’re-not-listening claim is an unfounded assertion about people who don’t agree with you (in light of your comments about bigotry I hope you’re aware of how deeply ironic that is). So where is the rational reason you keep proposing? Why hasn’t it been made public in the last 10 or 15 years of debate over gays and gay marriage? The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law in 1996 and there’s been an enormous shift in the public’s view of same-sex marriage since then, and since the early 2000s in particular. Why has nobody made or thought up this rational argument? And why is it wrong to come to a conclusion about the reasons that have been offered if nobody has made the hypothetical great argument? > [@](#): > > I can think of a perfectly rational reason to exclude whites from a certain job. Before telling you what the job is, can you conclude that my reasons are bigotry? An exclusion in a limited circumstance is not the same thing as a blanket ban on all people in a group just because they’re in that group. Change it to “whites are excluded from all jobs” (as gays are excluded from marriage) and I can tell you that’s bigoted without hearing your reason. > [@](#): > > Because you’ve already concluded they are bigotry. I concluded they are bigoted after considering the issue listening to the arguments. Tell me what’s wrong with this. > [@](#): > > I think you are more likely to win if you don’t simply declare the opposition to be bigoted from the start. Fortunately, you’re wrong: a growing number of people have come to the conclusion that gay marriages should be recognized and that it’s bigoted to oppose them. Public opinion has changed on an enormous scale. Mealy-mouthed arguments don’t help that cause. > [@](#): > > Let him speak first and reveal his own bigotry. I don’t recall suggesting that people not be allowed to speak. > [@](#): > > I’m saying that this is what you’re doing. But you’re wrong. I’ve specifically explained that I’ve heard the arguments on both sides. You have no basis for saying I didn’t. > [@](#): > > I just don’t think anyone can say they’ve heard all the opinions yet. Nobody said they’ve heard all the opinions. They said they’ve heard all the arguments. And there are really only a handful of arguments and types of arguments against recognizing same-sex marriage. It’s not as if a million people each make their own argument. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/688 "2012-09-07T15:00:05Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You’re back to the quibbling about the reasons again instead of the broader fact that excluding gays is bigoted. And you’re simply assuming your premise again. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/689 "2012-09-07T15:08:15Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But how is it bigoted? It’s not based on hatred of gays, simply a finding that gays aren’t qualified for what marriage is supposed to be about. The claim is false because it’s not internally consistent in any way. I’d add that I don’t think marriage has ever been restricted that way. The claim is bigoted because it’s premised on a ridiculous technicality that is designed to exclude one and only one group: same-sex couples. Gay couples can and do have children: they adopt and they use surrogates. So that should mean they can have children and get married, right? [Wait, say the people using this argument - those ways don’t count.] Straight couples also adopt and use surrogates and they can also have children “on their own.” Straight couples can also refuse to have children or may be unable to have children for medical or other reasons. (Of course couples who can’t conceive are still allowed to adopt.) So the argument that “marriage is about children” is reduced to a hypothetical: a couple should only be allowed to get married if they would be able to conceive children on their own even if the situation were different and they wanted to? My response is, “why is this a rational criterion for who should be allowed to marry and who shouldn’t?” It doesn’t touch in any way on a variety of issues relevant to marriage like medical care and property rights. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > And you’re simply assuming your premise again. I’m still not assuming the premise. I already explained the view and the premise. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/690 "2012-09-07T15:44:05Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The claim is false because it’s not internally consistent in any way. I’d add that I don’t think marriage has ever been restricted that way. I agree completely. > [@](#): > > The claim is bigoted because it’s premised on a ridiculous technicality that is designed to exclude one and only one group: same-sex couples. That’s about the MOTIVATION for the policy by the person making it. Not the policy itself. Like I said, one can argue that tax cuts for the rich are good for the economy (right or wrong). The fact that the person arguing is filthy rich and would benefit from those cuts may make his motivation suspect, but it doesn’t change whether tax cuts are good for the economy. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/691 "2012-09-07T15:50:56Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > That’s about the MOTIVATION for the policy by the person making it. It’s not about the person’s motivation, it’s about the intended effect of the policy. If marriage were restricted that way, it would exclude only same-sex couples without a sound basis. Are you familiar with the concept of disproporionate outcomes? That’s the idea being discussed here. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/692 "2012-09-07T16:27:37Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It’s not about the person’s motivation, it’s about the \*\*intended \*\*effect of the policy. You should probably pick a better word, since intention can mean motivation. Nevertheless, please explain your position without discussing the motivation of the person suggesting it. > [@](#): > > If marriage were restricted that way, it would exclude only same-sex couples without a sound basis. Are you familiar with the concept of disproporionate outcomes? That’s the idea being discussed here. So is every position that involves disproportionate outcomes automatically bigoted? A law that cuts taxes on the rich is racist simply because more whites than blacks would benefit, to use my example? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/693 "2012-09-07T16:37:31Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Nevertheless, please explain your position without discussing the motivation of the person suggesting it. I said nothing about the person or his/her motivation. I discussed the effect of the policy. If we can’t talk about that, what can we actually discuss here? Platonic forms? > [@](#): > > So is every position that involves disproportionate outcomes automatically bigoted? I didn’t assert that that was the case. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/694 "2012-09-07T17:01:00Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > You should probably pick a better word, since intention can mean motivation. Motivation and intention are not the same thing. A person’s motivation the reason he or she is doing something. The person’s intention is his or her ultimate goal. We can discuss the intent of a law or a proposal without talking about the motivation of a specific person. Laws are designed to do things. We can talk about the law without getting into the reasons the particular person supports it. I’ve been saying this throughout the thread. The intent of a “marriage is about children” argument is to prevent gay couples from marrying without excluding any straight couples. The argument is that couples who don’t want children and couples who are unable to have children should beable to get married because in a perfect world they’d be able to have children (even if they don’t want them) but gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they can’t have biological children without outside assistance even though they can get that assistance. Under this proposal, the only thing that determines whether or not a couple should be allowed to marry is the hypothetical possibility that they could have biological children without assistance. This is picayune and it’s illogical. “Straight who don’t want biological children or who can’t have children shouldn’t be allowed to marry” is an absurd position but it doesn’t create loopholes letting straight couples in and keeping gay couples out. So it doesn’t discriminate against gay specifically, although it’s still based on a misunderstanding of how society defines marriage and makes no sense because it leaves out adoption for no particular reason. It wouldn’t exclude gays specifically, so I wouldn’t call it anti-gay. See how that’s different? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/695 "2012-09-07T17:12:52Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Motivation and intention are not the same thing. A person’s motivation the reason he or she is doing something. The person’s intention is his or her ultimate goal. We can discuss the intent of a law or a proposal without talking about the motivation of a specific person. Understood and agreed. > [@](#): > > The intent of a “marriage is about children” argument is to prevent gay couples from marrying without excluding any straight couples. Well, no, on its face, the intent is to support children. > [@](#): > > The argument is that couples who don’t want children and couples who are unable to have children should beable to get married because in a perfect world they’d be able to have children (even if they don’t want them) but gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they can’t have biological children without outside assistance even though they can get that assistance. Under this proposal, the only thing that determines whether or not a couple should be allowed to marry is the hypothetical possibility that they could have biological children without assistance. This is picayune and it’s illogical. I agree that it’s illogical. Bigoted though? > [@](#): > > “Straight who don’t want biological children or who can’t have children shouldn’t be allowed to marry” is an absurd position but it doesn’t create loopholes letting straight couples in and keeping gay couples out. So it doesn’t discriminate against gay specifically, although it’s still based on a misunderstanding of how society defines marriage and makes no sense because it leaves out adoption for no particular reason. It wouldn’t exclude gays specifically, so I wouldn’t call it anti-gay. See how that’s different? So you are saying that this is an argument against gay marriage that you think is not bigoted? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/696 "2012-09-07T17:18:54Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Well, no, on its face, the intent is to support children. The obvious response is that I’m not required to think only about the “intent on its face” and can consider the broader context of an idea. Further, “support children” doesn’t mean anything. > [@](#): > > Bigoted though? I already explained at length why I think it’s bigoted. (I think I did it twice.) Do you have an additional question. > [@](#): > > So you are saying that this is an argument against gay marriage that you think is not bigoted? It’s not an argument against gay marriage. It does discriminate against people who don’t want to have children. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/697 "2012-09-07T18:00:39Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The obvious response is that I’m not required to think only about the “intent on its face” and can consider the broader context of an idea. Of course. Still doesn’t establish “bigotry.” > [@](#): > > Further, “support children” doesn’t mean anything. Sure it does. But this isn’t about the merits of this argument, which I also reject completely. > [@](#): > > I already explained at length why I think it’s bigoted. (I think I did it twice.) Do you have an additional question. And I don’t agree. > [@](#): > > It’s not an argument against gay marriage. It does discriminate against people who don’t want to have children. Now I get to “consider the broader context of an idea.” Why can’t I say that the biggest effect of this policy is to ban gays from marrying, since they will be the most effected? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/698 "2012-09-07T18:07:32Z")
Actually, since straight people outnumber gays about ten to one, I bet there are more straight people who don’t want children than gay people, period. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/699 "2012-09-07T18:07:43Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Of course. Still doesn’t establish “bigotry.” I believe it does for the reasons I gave. Do you have a response other than saying you don’t think bigotry has been established? > [@](#): > > Sure it does. To the extent “support children” means anything, it doesn’t have anything to do with the statement “marriage is about children.” “Marriage is about children” means that children are a defining characteristic of marriage. “Support children” sounds like it has something to do with providing the best environment for children. > [@](#): > > Why can’t I say that the biggest effect of this policy is to ban gays from marrying, since they will be the most effected? You can say that. I’m not sure you’re correct since there are probably more straight childless couples than gay couples, but I didn’t say you can’t say that. I said I don’t think it’s the case. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/700 "2012-09-07T18:16:06Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I believe it does for the reasons I gave. Do you have a response other than saying you don’t think bigotry has been established? Since that’s just an invitation to a dead end, no. > [@](#): > > To the extent “support children” means anything, it doesn’t have anything to do with the statement “marriage is about children.” “Marriage is about children” means that children are a defining characteristic of marriage. “Support children” sounds like it has something to do with providing the best environment for children. Someone can believe that marriage is about providing the best environment for children though. Or that it should be. Again, I don’t agree. But it’s not relevant unless that makes the argument bigoted. Is believing that marriage is about children bigotry? > [@](#): > > You can say that. I’m not sure you’re correct since there are probably more straight childless couples than gay couples, but I didn’t say you can’t say that. I said I don’t think it’s the case. Oh come on. Clearly a “with children or fertile couples only” policy would mostly exclude gays. It’s a disproportionate outcome. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653.md?page=36)