# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/121 "2012-08-11T02:57:12Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Incorrect. If a gay individual does not have the right to marry the consenting adult they love and who wants to marry them then that individual does not have the same rights as others. Define “right”. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/122 "2012-08-11T02:59:57Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > So if people wanted black people to use different restrooms and fountains and diners , it’s fine then? Not in my mind. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > It never did mean anyone thought black people were less than? Don’t know where you’re getting that. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/123 "2012-08-11T03:14:37Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > In the broadest possible semantic sense, you are correct: Two is less than four, seven is greater than four, and roast beef is incommensurate with four. All three are different; only one is less than. I’m not expecting this to end well, given your propensity to argue with one foot art the base of the altar and the other in with the pit bulls, but let’s see. I am correct in the broad _and_ narrow sense. It’s really as simple as that. Any insistence otherwise betrays any claim of rational debate. The rules of logic still apply, Sorry. > [@Polycarp](#): > > However, in the context that we have been debating, of two things declared to be “separate but equal,” Let’s stop right here. I wasn’t debating that. I simply commented on this one falsehood: > [@](#): > > Denying gays marriage requires that you find them less than you. I pointed out the error: that “different” does not equal “less than”. > [@Polycarp](#): > > …where there is a history of emotional prejudice against a group (black or gay people), with a centuries-old body of statute and case law built up around one of the two concepts (marriage), establishing a second category (civil union) will manifestly lead to inequities, just as the ‘separate but equal’ schools for black people got the short end of the stick 99.9% of the time. And your proposition that there be a single set of laws applying to both institutions equally will not work, for reasons history amply documents. History documents no such thing. > [@Polycarp](#): > > Here, for an inadequate but illustrative comparison, is Article XIV, Section 1, of the New York State Constitution, the “Forever Wild” guarantee. The portion in green is original; that in red, added by amendments. > While any one of those exceptions can be justified by an investigation into the background thereof, I trust that the idea that a law that started out as “these things are to be kept this and so, with no exceptions” can accrue dozens of exceptions over time. Which is the point why a “civil union giving the same rights as marriage” won’t work. So? Any law can be changed. You think this is news? Even one that grants SSM. That argument fails by suicide. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/124 "2012-08-11T03:23:03Z")
Y’know, you could much more economically diffuse this whole conversation by relating one possible reason for denying gay people the right to marry which doesn’t stem from finding them less than you. And it doesn’t even have to be one that you personally agree with. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/125 "2012-08-11T03:56:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Again, their being suspicious offers no commentary of the reality of the equality. Aside from that, your analogy assumes 1) a baseline with no history attached, and 2) that I see no value in the maintaining the traditional meaning of the word. Those assumptions, obviously, are incorrect. My assumption presume the exact opposite: the word has a history attached, and we believe that, **for all relevant purposes** , that history applies to folks who want to build a family with another consenting adult. The precise reason you want to exclude gay folks from this history is what makes everyone so suspicious. The only reasons for drawing the distinction you make are unethical reasons. It really is as if you declared that, because black people have historically been treated differently in our society, we ought to send white children to “school” and black children to “education buildings,” with the proviso that the two institutions be legally identical. There’s no good reason to do so, there are plenty of bad reasons to do so, and your desire to make this separate-but-so-called-equal pair of institutions reflects poorly on you. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/126 "2012-08-11T10:22:57Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > …but have exactly the same rights. > > Gay _couples_ may not, but gay _people_ have the same rights guaranteed in the Constitution. > > That said, you’re expanding on the original statement. Do you agree that my original statement is correct or not? Of course I don’t agree. “Different” is a fairly meaningless word without any context. Once you start asking “different in what respect(s)?” it rarely means “different but equal.” And “couples” in this context means “couples of people.” I can’t imagine in what respect the “couple” has rights of its own, apart from the individuals involved. If my partner and I each have the right to marry each other, as individuals, then in what sense do we, as a couple, not have that right? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/127 "2012-08-11T13:26:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No. I’m trying to prevent a statement from **Lobohan** , which is factually incorrect, from passing as true, and then that being treated as a “given”. You weren’t successful. His statement applied directly and specifically to the topic of discussion. You made a broad generalized statement which you have failed to apply to the specific topic. In fact your attempts to explain have only made it clearer that it does not apply. As I noted, semantic games and technicalities. > [@](#): > > I was using them as a simple example of sets and subsets. I could have used ice cream or cars. No difference from a logic perspective. It’s a false comparison for the reasons I noted. Again, you’re nit picking a technicality when it has no practical or realistic application to the topic at hand. Notice how the closer you get to a proper comparison the more your point falls apart. Technically, people could be perfect, but we’re not so it’s a useless point. > [@](#): > > Yes. And if the purpose is to ride it really fast to a town 20 miles away, neither of them are of much value. sure but that’s comparing different species which is why the comparison fails. > [@](#): > > Untrue. But fodder for another thread. If desperately interested, you can do a Search. I’ve seen your arguments and it is true unless you’ve come up with something new. You arguments are essentially the same as other opposition that attempts to appear reasonable. Semantic manipulation with no foundation in solid reasoning and facts. You have an opinion based solely on emotion and personal preference. A very bad reason to deny equality > [@](#): > > Also, you’re reading way to much into my example. Perhaps I should have used station wagons and sports cars. The analogy is getting tortured. I’m pointing out why it fails. The closer you get to the actual topic , rather than semantics, the more obvious that becomes. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/128 "2012-08-11T13:58:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Define “right”. I’m not interested in semantic games. Call it a right, a legal privilege, a social and legal contract, whatever. My point stands. Gay individuals are not treated equally under the law because they cannot enter the social and legal contract of marriage that heteros can. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/129 "2012-08-11T14:08:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Wrong. If I have any frustration it is how how some of those on your side feel that just because they feel strongly about something they can suspend the rules of logic. What logic are we suspending? What logic are you _using_? One more time: Why is separate \*not \*equal in a racial context, but _can be_ in a sexual-orientation context? Can you or can you not, _finally_, provide a “logical” reply? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/130 "2012-08-11T14:11:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Not in my mind. > > Don’t know where you’re getting that. Yeah, I believe that. :rolleyes: You’re the one that tried to provide a separate but equal example using bathrooms. I simply elaborated on it. Nobody objects or is harmed by separate bathrooms for men or women. It’s a social tradition that is flexible. People don’t normally have separate bathrooms ion their homes and if the “ladies” room is out of order women readily use the men’s room without objection. Our gay citizens are legally prevented from marrying in most states, just as our black citizens were legally prevented from using white bathrooms etc. My example is a more accurate example and demonstrates your error. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/131 "2012-08-11T17:08:49Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > Of course I don’t agree. “Different” is a fairly meaningless word without any context. Once you start asking “different in what respect(s)?” it rarely means “different but equal.” I responded to this: [QUOTE=Lobohan] Denying gays marriage requires that you find them less than you. [/QUOTE] That is a factually incorrect statement. It’s a fine opinion to have, but the use of the word “require” suggests that this is a universally factual statement, that a stance against SSM necessitates that one consider gays “less than” oneself. No even that is fine as an opinion goes. I was pointing out the error as I see it. I suggested a change in phrase that I think makes his claim universally true. > [@panache45](#): > > And “couples” in this context means “couples of people.” I can’t imagine in what respect the “couple” has rights of its own, apart from the individuals involved. If my partner and I each have the right to marry each other, as individuals, then in what sense do we, as a couple, not have that right? The point is that couples don’t Constitutionally protected rights. Individuals do. Let’s say I’m married to a non-citizen. _I_ have a right to vote, _we_ do not. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/132 "2012-08-11T17:31:18Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I see a lot of self righteous condemnation out there that IMHO only makes the divide greater and harder to eventually overcome. No, that’s wrong. The divide is shrinking and the fact that a lot of people are now willing to take a strong position in favor of sme-sex marriage is patr of the reason. Gay rights weren’t on the map 10 or 15 years ago. Today same-sex marriage is legal in several states and it’s part of the Democratic Party platform, and most people have figured out that the legalization of same-sex marriage on a nationwide or near-nationwide scale is inevitable at this point. That’s a tremendous amount of progress. There was no divide in the past because almost everybody was against same-sex marriage; there’s a divide now because large numbers of people have realized this is a bigoted position. That will fade over time. I’m happy not to condemn people more than necessary, but harsh words didn’t cause this situation. People who are against same-sex marriage will be against it regardless of how you make the case and will stay that way until they figure it out for themselves. > [@magellan01](#): > > The point is that couples don’t Constitutionally protected rights. Individuals do. I’m failing to see why any of this is supposed to matter. Individuals have the right to marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex, but that’s useless to gays and lesbians and denies them the ability to marry the people they want to marry. There’s no rational reason to deny them that ability, and opposing same-sex marriage does come down to an argument that gays can’t or shouldn’t have the legal protections and recognition that comes with marriage. Ultimately it is an argument that they don’t deserve that recognition. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/133 "2012-08-11T17:31:44Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > You weren’t successful. His statement applied directly and specifically to the topic of discussion. You made a broad generalized statement which you have failed to apply to the specific topic. In fact your attempts to explain have only made it clearer that it does not apply. > As I noted, semantic games and technicalities. You’re 100% wrong. Here’s what I initially responded to in Post 51: [QUOTE=Lobohan] If you’re bigoted because your dad told you nonsense around the dinner table or your priest told you nonsense from his pulpit, it doesn’t matter. You’re still bigoted. Denying gays marriage requires that you find them less than you. That they will somehow dirty the institution. [/QUOTE] You’re saying, from this post and subsequent ones, that he was talking about civil unions. That would at least give your point some weight. Yet, you’ll see that he doesn’t mention civil unions, does he? Well, you might think to say, that was the general discussion, and just because he didn’t use the term, that’s what he was referring to, as you can see in the exchange the lead up to his statement. But an actual look at what preceded his comment shows that only one poster, in one post (#35) even brought it up. And it did not become not the point of the discussion. If anything is to be _presumed_ to be what was responding to, it should **Clothahump’s** post #48. Again, nothing to do with civil unions. So, as I said, you’re wrong. Completely and utterly. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > It’s a false comparison for the reasons I noted. Again, you’re nit picking a technicality when it has no practical or realistic application to the topic at hand. Notice how the closer you get to a proper comparison the more your point falls apart. > Technically, people could be perfect, but we’re not so it’s a useless point. Look. I know what you want, and you get it on this board to great deal because it’s pretty much a hive mind, particularly when it comes to SSM. You want to be able to be loose with the facts. Sloppy. But I am under no obligation to play along. I’m nitpicking a technicality. I’m correcting a statement that implies universality in order to make it universal. Without doing so, the notion is allowed to stand that a necessary and ever-present component to a stand against SSM is that one hold gays to be less than oneself as a human being. I choose to call that mistake out. The more it is allowed to go unchallenged, the greater the rift between the two sides. It is in interesting the lengths you and others are willing to go to to not grant me the smallest concession in the debate. Even though the statement I suggested isn’t anything that I think anyone could claim is wrong. Here is Lobohan’s statement with my suggested change: “Denying gays marriage requires that you find them [different] than you.” So, please, tell me what part of that statement you disagree with. And why. If you can agree with it in full, then please try to explain why that simple suggestion on my part turns into this attack from the hive? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’ve seen your arguments and it is true unless you’ve come up with something new. You arguments are essentially the same as other opposition that attempts to appear reasonable. Semantic manipulation with no foundation in solid reasoning and facts. You have an opinion based solely on emotion and personal preference. A very bad reason to deny equality And this is a good part of the problem. You _know_ my position. (Or think you do, anyway.) You disagree with it strongly. But you then somehow think that any statement I make on the subject is something that you _must_ disagree with. Again, look at the rewriting of the original statement I just supplied. Do you really disagree with any of it? Is it wrong? The only way to consider it wrong is to hold the view that “Denying gays to marry requires that you find them the same as you.” Which, I have a hard time believing that you or anyone else with half a brain would agree with. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’m pointing out why it fails. The closer you get to the actual topic , rather than semantics, the more obvious that becomes. Analogies don’t have to work on every level. They are often, usually, offered to shed light on a particular point. This is especially true when they are far removed from the actual topic of discussion. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/134 "2012-08-11T17:41:01Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’m not interested in semantic games. Call it a right, a legal privilege, a social and legal contract, whatever. My point stands. Gay individuals are not treated equally under the law because they cannot enter the social and legal contract of marriage that heteros can. Oh yes you are. You want to employ some sleight of hand. The word “rights” has a lot of power. That power is derived from those rights laid out very eloquently in the Declaration of Independence and those that are enshrined in our Constitution. And when talking about “rights” (assuming those) there is a starting point of a moral high ground. So if we’re talking about _those_ rights that’s one thing. If not, than you shouldn’t expect to automatically be able to bask in their glow. So, before we get all emotional about a member of one group not having the same rights of members of another group, it seems fair to determine what you mean by “rights” in the context of your claim. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/135 "2012-08-11T17:52:49Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > My assumption presume the exact opposite: the word has a history attached, and we believe that, **for all relevant purposes** , that history applies to folks who want to build a family with another consenting adult. The precise reason you want to exclude gay folks from this history is what makes everyone so suspicious. The only reasons for drawing the distinction you make are unethical reasons. I’ll have to ask you to state the reasons that you’ve deemed unethical and to explain why you think them to be so. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > It really is as if you declared that, because black people have historically been treated differently in our society, we ought to send white children to “school” and black children to “education buildings,” with the proviso that the two institutions be legally identical. Actually, no, it’s not like that at all. I’m not going to rehash in this thread the long argumets I’ve already made on this subject, but in my idea, there are not the two entities. there is only the one—ONE set of laws. By definition one thing is equal and identical to itself. There are two ways to access those laws, privileges and benefits. You must fall into one of two categories: by part of a marriage or a civil union. Laws are written this way all the time. There is what the law is _and_ who it covers. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > There’s no good reason to do so, there are plenty of bad reasons to do so, and your desire to make this separate-but-so-called-equal pair of institutions reflects poorly on you. It may reflect poorly on me in your eyes, and to most members on this board, but that is something I have no problem living with. If I claimed that a position you held reflects poorly on you, would that matter? As far as my reasons, other than the fact thy’ve been stated, I’m curious to see your answer to the question above which of them you deem to be unethical and why. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/136 "2012-08-11T17:53:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’d think that gay-marriage supporters would be the last to say something like “it’s bad for society to have a large percentage of …” or argue against needed changes to our legal framework. Don’t both apply to gay marriage as well? No. It is evident on its face that shutting a segment of the population out of the prospect of forming a family is a Bad Thing. It is evident on its fact that a joining of three raises issues (e.g. what if one leaves but the other two stay together?) that cannot arise from a joining of two. Really, these points are so clear and so obvious that this “question” can only be considered an exercise in [JAQing off](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off). ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/137 "2012-08-11T17:55:35Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > No. It is evident on its face that shutting a segment of the population out of the prospect of forming a family is a Bad Thing. It is evident on its fact that a joining of three raises issues (e.g. what if one leaves but the other two stay together?) that cannot arise from a joining of two. > > Really, these points are so clear and so obvious that this “question” can only be considered an exercise in [JAQing off](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off). Ah, another blatant attempt to shut off debate. I love it. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/138 "2012-08-11T17:58:24Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Yes, but in my experience never in language remotely similar to what’s being hurled against Cathy. Yeah, and I hear that some guy who voted to blackball Jews from his country club got less criticism of his anti-Semitism than the head of Stormfront did. Your point? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/139 "2012-08-11T18:04:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, I repeat: “Different” does not equal “less than”. > > Before we move on, can we agree on that much? Nobody here is going to agree to idiotic nonsense no matter how many times you cut and paste it. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/140 "2012-08-11T18:08:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > We’ve been through this. I might be inclined to explain AGAIN how that does not apply to my view on civil unions, but why don’t you just do a search. Nope. We ain’t doing squat. **You** dug yourself into the hole; **you** try to extricate yourself from it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653.md?page=8)