# 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:** 9
**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 12, 2012, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/161 "2012-08-12T10:22:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well, we disagree. I’ll also add that just because you might have more at stake in the argument does not mean you are any more likely to hold the more valid position. Sure;y you can’t believe that, do you? I think that assumption is akin to what I’ve been talking about. Due to the passion, which is understandable, that comes from some on your side of the debate, there seems to exist the notion that one can shortcut through the logic. Granted, some of this is expected when discussing things with people who agree with you, but that doesn’t increase the validity of any position. If anything, it suggests a greater likelihood of invalidity, as nothing is challenged. Do you honestly think I was attacking your LOGIC? To be bogged down in the minutiae and ignoring the larger picture is not logical. Discussions of logic and validity demand that ALL the facts of reality be respected, not just the tiny details. But the fact remains: you are wrong in both the large picture and the details. And if you’re the only person who can’t see that, it hardly means everyone else is illogical. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/162 "2012-08-12T10:36:24Z")
I remember seeing that during the Loving vs Virginia case which overturned same race marriage laws the logic used that such laws did not violate the 14th amendment as everyone was free to marry within their race. Same deal to say hey gays and lesbians are free to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/163 "2012-08-12T13:54:44Z")
Are you trying to deny another, a right you enjoy entitlement to? Like marrying your life partner, say? Then it’s hateful and bigoted, in my opinion. If you claim adherence to a faith that preaches, “Do not Judge.”, and, “Live in peace with others.”, then you’re being hateful and bigoted, in my opinion. I think Bob Dylan was right; “…you’d better start swimming or you’ll sink like a stone, for the times they are a changing!” ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/164 "2012-08-12T15:26:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You’re 100% wrong. Am I? Let’s see. > [@](#): > > You’re saying, from this post and subsequent ones, that he was talking about civil unions. How did you reach that incorrect conclusion. Did you notice I never mentioned civil unions at any time? He specifically says “denying gays marriage” which happens to be the general topic of this thread. That’s what I was responding to. > [@](#): > > So, as I said, you’re wrong. Completely and utterly. Nope.Your mind reading powers have failed you, and it turns out you are wrong. Completely and utterly. > [@](#): > > You want to be able to be loose with the facts. That’s a laugh. I’ve looked at the facts and examined the arguments. I’ve asserted that you and other opposition to SSM have no facts , and therefore no solid reasoning to support your opposition. You’ve offered nothing to contradict my assertion, and , I predict, won’t, because you can’t. > [@](#): > > Sloppy. But I am under no obligation to play along. You’re under no obligation to discuss the specific subject at hand and so far you haven’t. > [@](#): > > I’m nitpicking a technicality. Here we agree. It’s a technicality that is so far back and so broad that it doesn’t address the specific topic at all. As I’ve pointed out, as soon as you get closer to the specific topic it becomes clear your technicality is useless. > [@](#): > > 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. I understand it’s uncomfortable for otherwise good and decent people to wear the label of bigot. People like my brother , my sister, my son. Their position on this issue doesn’t diminish my love for them at all because people are not one thing, one issue. I think they are dead wrong, and in this specific case being wrong makes the label of bigot accurate, but it is not their only or defining characteristic. For a lot of people , they haven’t really examined or given the issue a lot of thought because it doesn’t directly affect them and they have no close friends that are openly gay. Their conclusions are based on emotion and an overall distaste at the thought of “gay sex” probably born of generations of religious indoctrination. They base their opinion on what they’ve been taught in church and the consensus among their peers rather than a thoughtful examination of the facts and the lives of their fellow citizens that have been unnecessarily harmed. I think for a lot of people who oppose SSM, it’s not born of malice, but ignorance and a clinging to tradition, what they’ve been taught, and an emotional reaction. No different than the human factor in other civil rights and equality issues. The facts are the facts, whether they feel or sound nice or not. My position is that currently, given modern studies and the facts they reflect, there is no rational intelligent fact based argument left opposing SSM. There is only emotion and dogma which, as in past civil rights issues, will eventually fail. > [@](#): > > It is in interesting the lengths you and others are willing to go to to not grant me the smallest concession in the debate. Please don’t whine. Your latest tactic seems to be to make broad very general statements while avoiding the specific argument. Then you claim “logic” about your overly broad and semantic nitpicks as if it has any relevant meaning. It doesn’t, and I don’t care about placating you. You’ve had an opportunity to argue how your point applies to the topic at hand and you haven’t because the closer we get to the specific issue the more obvious the error is. > [@](#): > > “Denying gays marriage requires that you find them [different] than you.” > > If So, please, tell me what part of that statement you disagree with. And why. I don’t disagree. It is a more generic version of what Lobohan posted. On it’s own it appears to be a correct statement. I also happen to think Lobohan’s version is also correct and while you’ve claimed he’s mistaken you’ve done nothing to demonstrate that’s true REGARDING THIS SPECIFIC TOPIC. > [@](#): > > 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? Yes, people disagree with you so it must be hive mind , rather than you are mistaken. I expect people responded because they related your initial statement to the subject matter of the thread and your position which they seem to be familiar with. You had ample opportunity to defend your position and relate it to , the point you imagined you were making , and relate it to the topic at hand, but since you can’t, you’d rather complain about being attacked. > [@](#): > > 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. I think we’ve already established that your mind reading abilities are less than stellar so please don’t tell me what I think. I and others have pointed out that your statement is so broad and general that it’s useless and offers nothing on this topic. You’ve failed to make it relevant to this specific topic. Please do so if you can or because your cries of victim hood are even less relevant. > [@](#): > > 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. Oh please. You were asked to make it relevant to the topic and failed. Several people pointed it out. What is required for an intelligent argument is to argue and defend why the specific difference we’re talking about justifies denying marriage. You haven’t and you can’t. Technically speaking , since you like nitpicking, every person in the nation is different than I am. What we strive for is legal equality as citizens and members of the same race and society. > [@](#): > > 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. In this case they didn’t shed any light. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/165 "2012-08-12T15:49:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. To be more specific , I’m not interested in a diversion into whether the social and legal institution of marriage is a right or not. IMO that’s a distraction from the ethical and moral issue. I believe this is contained in one of those documents you mentioned. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” and in the other; “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” We as a nation and society have continued the struggle to overcome the barriers that kept us from being a more perfect union and living up to the principles in those founding documents. Women didn’t have equality, and we journeyed from slavery to our first black President. So, while I’m not interested in a semantic argument about whether marriage is a right or not, I assert that equality , legal and social equality is the issue at hand and is reflected in our history of civil rights struggles. Not that long ago states had laws making interracial marriage illegal. Few would support that kind of ignorance now. Denying some group equality because of some innate quality about them, when they pose no threat to you or society, when there are no facts or reasonable arguments to support that denial fits the definition of bigotry like it or not. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2012, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/166 "2012-08-12T16:03:57Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > It’s more like the fact (in his mind) that marriage objectively means a union of a man and a woman and calling the union of two men or two women a marriage is as nonsensical as calling a cow a horse. You’re right, of course, my phrasing was presumptuous. Rather, I should have said “a relationship between two men or between two women is just too duh obviously different from a heterosexual relationship that demanding they be given the same label is absurd on its face”. I recall, but don’t feel like searching for a post of magellan’s in which he was asked to describe why homosexual and hetero couplings need be labeled or treated differently and his reaction was that the very question was comical and unworthy of a response, that the difference between penis/penis and penis/vagina was so cosmic that equating them was unfathomable. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/167 "2012-08-12T16:43:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Why should I. Well, then, why are you here? Is it to convince others of your position? To learn about other points of view on a current topic? To fight some form of ignorance somewhere? Or simply to entertain a feeling of self-righteousness and martyrdom? :dubious: OK, let’s leave marriage out of it and focus only on the question of race. You do seem to agree with the \*Brown \*ruling that separate accommodations for people of different races are inherently unequal. Do you in fact agree with that position? Why? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/168 "2012-08-12T19:35:38Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > Do you honestly think I was attacking your LOGIC? Not my logic. Logic. Period. > [@panache45](#): > > To be bogged down in the minutiae and ignoring the larger picture is not logical. To argue without being able to degree on foundational principles is insane. > [@panache45](#): > > Discussions of logic and validity demand that ALL the facts of reality be respected, not just the tiny details. Wrong. One can have a perfectly reasonable logical discussion on a tiny point or a very large complex point. > [@panache45](#): > > But the fact remains: you are wrong in both the large picture and the details. And if you’re the only person who can’t see that, it hardly means everyone else is illogical. I promise you that, taking into consideration your command of logic and argumentation, I will be giving your conclusion all the consideration it is due. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/169 "2012-08-12T20:09:01Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You’re right, of course, my phrasing was presumptuous. > > Rather, I should have said “a relationship between two men or between two women is just too duh obviously different from a heterosexual relationship that demanding they be given the same label is absurd on its face”. I recall, but don’t feel like searching for a post of magellan’s in which he was asked to describe why homosexual and hetero couplings need be labeled or treated differently and his reaction was that the very question was comical and unworthy of a response, that the difference between penis/penis and penis/vagina was so cosmic that equating them was unfathomable. Yeah, I’m looking at my post from last night and wondering why I thought what I said was different from what you said. I blame lack of sleep. The thing that gets me is the ‘objective’ part, that somehow we mere humans daring to expand or redefine what the word marriage means will rip at the fabric of…something. We don’t know what. But fabric will assuredly be ripped. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/170 "2012-08-12T20:10:51Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > The thing that gets me is the ‘objective’ part, that somehow we mere humans daring to expand or redefine what the word marriage means will rip at the fabric of…something. We don’t know what. But fabric will assuredly be ripped. Trouser fabric. By huge gay erections. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2012, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/171 "2012-08-12T22:23:08Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Yeah, I’m looking at my post from last night and wondering why I thought what I said was different from what you said. I blame lack of sleep. Well, it was a fair objection. I can’t honestly say “magellan feels such-and-such about gay marriage”, because it’s his overall stance that gay marriage shouldn’t exist, or at least not by that name. It’s begging the question on my part. ---
**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 12, 2012, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/172 "2012-08-12T23:47:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let’s start with part of my position. Is _this_ a true statement or not: > > \*\*Denying gays marriage requires that you find them different than you. > \*\* No, it’s not true. It’s possible to do so because you’re denying marriage to everyone, through, for example, a 100%-effective plague. Now, if you’d like to move from the realm of pure logic into the realm of reality, maybe we can discuss the issue with some nuance. > [@](#): > > 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. There are plenty of unethical reasons. I’ll give one example: some people want to deny marriage to SSC because they believe they have a right to impose their weird religion on everyone else. But I’m not going to go over every possible reason for such discrimination and say, “Is this one yours? What about this one? What about this one?” Rather, you offer your reason, and we’ll examine its ethics. If it’s like every reason I’ve heard in my life, and I’ve heard quite a few, it’ll be unethical. > [@](#): > > 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. It’s exactly like that. One set of laws: every child gets an education. There are two ways to access those laws: through a school, or through a State Education Facility. You must fall into one of two categories: white, or black. If you’re white, you access those laws and privileges through School; if you’re black, you access those laws and privileges through a State Education Facility. Exactly analogous to your proposal. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/173 "2012-08-13T00:44:33Z")
“How to decide which instances of opposition to gay marriage are hateful and bigoted.” I believe that using word Hate is a kind of cowardly way of avoidance of using the truer word Fear. Not specifically the OP here, but unconsciously, any time the word is used. That’s what I believe, anyway. Substitute the word Fear for the word Hate in the OP’S title, and it becomes evident that the answer is: They all are. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/174 "2012-08-13T02:13:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Why should I. I have given the reasons for my position before. You’ve probably read them more than once yourself, but maybe not. Regardless, I have very little interest in people asking me for reason, for a rationale, then when I give it, they say “those aren’t good reasons”. What they want are reasons _they_ feel comfortable ascribing to. But that’s a different animal. What I want, and I suspect others want are reasons that are grounded in facts , evidence and logic that is relevant rather than overly broad. Have you got that? If we’re having a debate on how modern farming affects the beef we consume “Cows eat grass” is logical and accurate but not relevant. That’s the problem with the opposition to SSM presently. Nothing is grounded in a foundation of facts, so ultimately fails logically as well. It’s all dogma, emotion and tradition , which are indeed NOT good reasons to deny a group equality. Just a cursory look at our history of civil rights studies This is Great Debates not “My 2 cents” Your personal opinion , without a foundation of facts and sound reasoning doesn’t cut it. You’ve been around long enough to know that. Maybe you shouldn’t discuss this topic in great debates until you have more than a personal opinion to offer. > [@](#): > > So, I;m not inclined to go through the same dance yet again with people who have no desire to debate in good faith. Debating in good faith in this forum requires bringing something of substance to the debate. You haven’t. Lobohan made a statement you wanted to correct but you have failed to show it was incorrect. You just made a much broader , less specific , less relevant statement. You’ve been asked repeatedly to relate your initial statement to the specific topic and have failed to do so. Now you’re refusing to state your reasons and complaining that others won’t debate in good faith. What a joke. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/175 "2012-08-13T02:34:59Z")
I don’t have much time, so I’m going to just address this. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > It’s exactly like that. One set of laws: every child gets an education. There are two ways to access those laws: through a school, or through a State Education Facility. Okay, stop right three. My idea does nothing of the sort. You’re saying there are two schools. A correct analogy to my idea would use one school. In my idea there is just (let’s go micro for a second) one school. One. Not two, one. Bringing it around to this debate: _one (1) set of laws_. Not two. One. _Two different groups_ qualify to be covered under that one set of laws, those who have been joined through marriage and those who have been joined through civil unions. Two different groups—akin to the two groups of children in Topeka, Kansas—and one set of laws—akin to one school (system). I really don’t know how it can be made any clearer than that. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > You must fall into one of two categories: white, or black. If you’re white, you access those laws and privileges through School; if you’re black, you access those laws and privileges through a State Education Facility. Exactly analogous to your proposal. As I hope you realize now, you’ve outlined separate but equal as it applies to the Brown court case. It does not resemble my idea—at all. ---
**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 13, 2012, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/176 "2012-08-13T02:40:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Okay, stop right three. My idea does nothing of the sort. You’re saying there are two schools. Not at all. I’m saying there are thousands upon thousands of places kids can go to get educated: some of them are called schools, and some of them are called State Education Facilities. > [@](#): > > A correct analogy to my idea would use one school. Unless your proposal is that everyone enters into one magnificent group marriage, no it’s not. “Going micro” doesn’t solve it, because you’re not talking about micro, you’re talking about macro, and we need to examine it that way. Each individual marriage is, after all, a separate institution. Now, I’m going to quote you a bit more, but because of board rules, I’ll leave the quote box to show you something: > [@](#): > > _Two different groups_ qualify to be covered under that one set of laws, those who have been educated > [@](#): > > through schools > [@](#): > > and those who have been educated > [@](#): > > through State Education Facilities. > [@](#): > > Two different groups—akin to the two groups of children in Topeka, Kansas—and one set of laws—akin to one school (system). No more are yours one set of laws than mine are. The only substitutions I have to make to change your idea to mine are the names of the institutions and the verb of what’s done via the institution. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/177 "2012-08-13T03:03:26Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Not at all. I’m saying there are thousands upon thousands of places kids can go to get educated: some of them are called schools, and some of them are called State Education Facilities. > > Unless your proposal is that everyone enters into one magnificent group marriage, no it’s not. “Going micro” doesn’t solve it, because you’re not talking about micro, you’re talking about macro, and we need to examine it that way. Each individual marriage is, after all, a separate institution. > > Now, I’m going to quote you a bit more, but because of board rules, I’ll leave the quote box to show you something: > > educated > schools > > educated > State Education Facilities. > > No more are yours one set of laws than mine are. The only substitutions I have to make to change your idea to mine are the names of the institutions and the verb of what’s done via the institution. :rolleyes: What the fuck? Am I on candid camera? I thought you’d be able to understand going micro to clean up the language. Evidently not. Now try to digest this. Your idea broadly describes the state of education in Topeka before the Brown ruling. There were two different types of places to go to get an education and blacks went to one and whites went to another. You with me so far? Good. When this was challenged, the defense was that the two sets of schools (those for blacks and those for whites) were, or could be, “separate but equal”. It was ruled by the court that in light of the history of discrimination that a racial divide like that would never produce schools that were, in fact, separate and equal. So, they did away with having two sets of schools and just had one integrated set for everyone, both black kids and white kids. That was the post-“separate but equal” reality. Still with me? Let’s hope so as it’s just recounting history. Now, my idea resembles that post-“sepearate but equal” reality. The one that had one set of schools for all children. I’m advocating ONE set of laws (like one set of integrated schools) that are accessed by two groups, heterosexuals and homosexuals, akin to blacks and whites. Now THAT is my idea. You’re free to embrace it, criticize it or ignore it. But it would be helpful if you at least accepted what the idea I’m putting forth is. Otherwise you’re arguing against someone else. And if you continue to do so, you’ll have to wait for a response from that imaginary person. ---
**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:** [August 13, 2012, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/178 "2012-08-13T03:08:43Z")
So we’re back to “One! ONE set of laws!”, I see. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/179 "2012-08-13T03:10:21Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > :rolleyes: What the fuck? Am I on candid camera? I thought you’d be able to understand going micro to clean up the language. Evidently not. Now try to digest this. Your idea broadly describes the state of education in Topeka before the Brown ruling. There were two different types of places to go to get an education and blacks went to one and whites went to another. You with me so far? Good. When this was challenged, the defense was that the two sets of schools (those for blacks and those for whites) were, or could be, “separate but equal”. It was ruled by the court that in light of the history of discrimination that a racial divide like that would never produce schools that were, in fact, separate and equal. So, they did away with having two sets of schools and just had one integrated set for everyone, both black kids and white kids. That was the post-“separate but equal” reality. > > Still with me? Let’s hope so as it’s just recounting history. > > Now, my idea resembles that post-“sepearate but equal” reality. The one that had one set of schools for all children. I’m advocating ONE set of laws (like one set of integrated schools) that are accessed by two groups, heterosexuals and homosexuals, akin to blacks and whites. > > Now THAT is my idea. You’re free to embrace it, criticize it or ignore it. But it would be helpful if you at least accepted what the idea I’m putting forth is. Otherwise you’re arguing against someone else. And if you continue to do so, you’ll have to wait for a response from that imaginary person. Allowing any two unmarried person of age to marry is one set of laws. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/180 "2012-08-13T03:10:51Z")
And yet he can’t make that one last little step to dropping the civil union part. It’s kind of astonishing, really. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653.md?page=10)