Is The Gay Marriage Debate Over?

[tomndebb]

@Miller

That’s real nice, tom. But I’m not seeing where I claimed the word “bigot” had been defined in this thread. Nor, on a quick review, do I see anyone asking for a definition. The meaning of the term does not appear to be in question in this thread, only the applicability of the term to opposition to SSM.

So, your statement that I quoted in post #296 was taken from another thread on a different web site?

@Miller

Which is, itself, a bit surprising. It’s not often that we have to wait to page six for someone to come in with the “But what does the word meeeaan?” wheeze. Can’t say as I expected it to be you to run in and fill that breach, though.

I was willing to let everyone go at each other in the usual ways for nearly 300 posts. When you made the claim that “Considering that the reasoning behind characterizing opposition to SSM as bigotry has been explained repeatedly and in detail throughout this thread, . . .”, I was prompted to note that that was not, in fact, the case.

@Miller

So, opposition to SSM is not bigotry, because people are changing their mind about gay marriage, which means they weren’t obstinate in their opinion?

For the most part, that has been true. A new idea has been presented to the public and after initial resistance, based as much on surprise and tradition as anything else, the reaction to it, slowly at first, recently more swiftly, began to change. That does not exemplify bigotry.
The problem with using the word bigot when applied to everyone who does or has opposed SSM, is that it gives a false impression of what went on in the minds of the large number of people who have opposed it in the past or even those who oppose it now. I make no claim that there are no bigots opposing SSM. Dobson, Bachman, Coulter, and any number of others have demonstrated the characteristics of bigots. Obama, Cheney (the V.P., not his still bigoted daughter), have not.

@Miller

That’s just fucking stupid. Under that logic, George Wallace was never a bigot, because he changed his mind about segregation in the '70s. Neither was Robert Byrd, despite being an active Klansman. Neither was this guy, who had hate tattoos on his face, because he reformed and had them removed.

The claim is not that anyone who changes his or her mind was never a bigot. The claim is that large groups of people who move from a position of opposition to a position of support should probably be evaluated on an individual, case-by-case basis rather than claiming that everyone who possibly holds a position of opposition must be a bigot, even if they do not satisfy the basic criteria of the word.

@Miller

Gay marriage has been a major political issue in this country for going on twenty years, now. In those twenty years, there has not yet been a single internally consistent objection to legalized SSM raised anywhere, by any opponent of marriage equality. If an adult still, at this date, is opposed to SSM, despite the total dearth of evidence for any harm it could cause, and despite the overwhelming trove of evidence of the harm legalizing it could alleviate, then yeah, that person is being, at the very least, “obstinate.”

You are in the middle of the discussion. It directly affects your life. From your perspective, “everyone” should have already learned all the facts and made their choices. I doubt that that view is in any way accurate of most people. It has, for most folks, been a fringe issue that does not directly affect them and they have, therefore, rarely thought about it or tried to make an informed decision. This is true of most people in regards to most issues outside their own lives. (Pick any serious issue: death penalty, racism, drug legalization, global climate change, abortion, welfare, corporate welfare, and on and on. I suspect that regardless of which side of any issue they fall, the majority of people have a reflexive attitude based on how people around them have spoken rather than seriously studying the subject.) Dick Cheney was probably reflexively opposed to Gay rights or SSM until confronted with the situation of his daughter.

@Miller

I would say that cleaving to the dictionary definition of a word, despite massive evidence that changing the definition would materially benefit thousands of people at no cost, is the very definition of “obstinate.”

Which word? Bigotry or marriage?

@Miller

Yeah, Jesus, what the hell does religion have to do with the gay rights debate? Talk about a non-sequitur, amirite?

It had nothing to do with this discussion until OurLordPeace dragged it in to this exchange. Nothing regarding a discussion of whether it is accurate to label all opponents of SSM as bigots is affected by whether various religious groups are anti-Gay.

[iiandyiiii]

tomndebb, are there any non-bigoted ways to be opposed to legalizing interracial marriage?

[tomndebb]

@Trinopus

The definition OurLordPeace offered wasn’t something he made up on his own; it’s a notion that has been floating around, including here on the SDMB, for quite a while.

I would love to see where anyone actually has claimed that bigotry must be directed against an immutable condition.
If such has been asserted, I would consider that a small group usage, not a change to the definition of the word, in general. According to that definition, one may not be bigoted against various forms of music or entertainment, since those are not immutable conditions.

@Trinopus

You, yourself, noted that the word “bigot” has “come to mean” something different from what it once meant.

The primary utility of the “innate characteristics” clause is that it short-circuits the insane self-referential notion that has been attempted by many: “It’s also bigotry to be unfriendly toward bigots.” If mere behaviors are considered as characteristics that cannot be frowned upon except as bigotry, then it would be “bigotry” to ask loud, rude, offensive, cruel, or even vandalistic customers to leave a restaurant.

“Dude, you just shit on the floor. Get the hell out.”
“You’re just a bigot; you’ve got this thing against people who shit on floors!”

The “innate characteristics” idea is coming to be a connotation of the word “bigotry,” even if it hasn’t been stabbed into dictionaries yet.

Dictionaries are only able to give a very brief summary, a coarse description, of a word. If you want dictionaries to cover all possible details of a word’s use and implications – we’re gonna need a bigger book.

Try the O.E.D.
I want something more than one select group of users on one message board who employ the word against people with whom they disagree in a specific context before I accept that their definition has actually made it out to the rest of the speakers of English.

Note that I was quite willing to watch, without comment, the word being used in its specific SDMB context for nearly 300 posts. It was only when a claim was made that its use had been explained that I went back through the thread, found no such explanation, and chimed in.

I will not bother “correcting” its usage throughout the rest of this thread, (or the next several threads), either, because I recognize that its SDMB usage means a particular thing to those who throw it around. That, however, does not mean that the word actually has that separate meaning in the real world.

[Cheesesteak]

@tomndebb

Well, we do have a word for this argument.

It is a straw man.

So, you’re saying they’re NOT in favor of denying people civil rights because they prefer a particular definition of the word marriage?

[Trinopus]

@tomndebb

. . . Try the O.E.D. . . .

For a full, total, functional and operational definition of a word, in all its implied connotations? Nope. The OED goes into more detail than, say, Merriam Webster, and it does give more examples in usage than most other dictionaries, but it doesn’t define a word (any word) with the kind of mathematical or legal rigor that would be needed.

One of the problems of allowing bigotry to be unfair dislike of “any group” of people is that I could point to the waiting line at the supermarket, and say, “them.” I’m bigoted against them. Well, why not? They’re a “group.”

The problem is that they aren’t a meaningful group. Only random chance defines the membership of the set. We want a definition that works with better-defined groups.

It is meaningful (although silly) to be bigoted against short people. But how many people would possibly be bigoted against that class of people who don’t have the letter “S” in their last name?

The dictionary definitions cited so far would fail to distinguish these cases.

[UltraVires]

@Cheesesteak

So, you’re saying they’re NOT in favor of denying people civil rights because they prefer a particular definition of the word marriage?

What is this circular logic? No matter your definition of the word marriage, you will deny some people, whether those are close relations, those already married, or those not of legal age. Are you likewise bigoted because of your opposition to my hypothetical incestuous marriage?

[Ludovic]

@Trinopus

One of the problems of allowing bigotry to be unfair dislike of “any group” of people is that I could point to the waiting line at the supermarket, and say, “them.” I’m bigoted against them. Well, why not? They’re a “group.”

The problem is that they aren’t a meaningful group. Only random chance defines the membership of the set. We want a definition that works with better-defined groups.

Yes, you would be bigoted against them if your actions and/or beliefs otherwise fit the definition of bigotry. I’m not sure why that situation would ever arise, but you would.

But another question is whether this situation would arise enough to warrant attention to supermarket-line bigotry either in the public consciousness or legislation, the answer is obviously “no”.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

@jtgain

What is this circular logic? No matter your definition of the word marriage, you will deny some people, whether those are close relations, those already married, or those not of legal age. Are you likewise bigoted because of your opposition to my hypothetical incestuous marriage?

You’re missing his point entirely, and probably on purpose.

Here, watch, let’s play a game: Cheesesteak, what’s the reason for your hypothetical opposition to jtgain’s hypothetical incestuous marriage?

[UltraVires]

@Ludovic

Yes, you would be bigoted against them if your actions and/or beliefs otherwise fit the definition of bigotry. I’m not sure why that situation would ever arise, but you would.

But another question is whether this situation would arise enough to warrant attention to supermarket-line bigotry either in the public consciousness or legislation, the answer is obviously “no”.

The problem is that the term “bigotry” attempts to short circuit the debate and win by default. In the above poster’s scenario a discussion could lead to the conclusion that he is upset with people in front of him in line at the grocery store because he leaves himself too little time to shop, the grocery store is short-staffed, or he is just generally an impatient person.

The discussion and argument would lead to a general solution. An accusation of bigotry, even if technically correct, does nothing to solve the problem.

[Dr.Drake]

@jtgain

What is this circular logic? No matter your definition of the word marriage, you will deny some people, whether those are close relations, those already married, or those not of legal age. Are you likewise bigoted because of your opposition to my hypothetical incestuous marriage?

False equivalence.

Are you saying that both gays and incestuous people are similarly constrained by biology in whom they find attractive? Are you saying that people are born with a predisposition to incest which cannot be changed?

Or perhaps you’re making the opposite argument: that gay identity is merely a choice, and that if you are attracted to the same sex you can stifle that and fan the flames of a latent attraction to the opposite sex, and remove this deviance from our society?

Because otherwise, you make it sound like marriage is the some total of the arguments for gay rights rather than the cornerstone.

[Trinopus]

@jtgain

The problem is that the term “bigotry” attempts to short circuit the debate and win by default. In the above poster’s scenario a discussion could lead to the conclusion that he is upset with people in front of him in line at the grocery store because he leaves himself too little time to shop, the grocery store is short-staffed, or he is just generally an impatient person.

The discussion and argument would lead to a general solution. An accusation of bigotry, even if technically correct, does nothing to solve the problem.

I only halfway agree with you.

The term “bigotry” does not, in fact, “attempt to short circuit the debate and win by default.” It’s a descriptive term of a particular social ill. It’s like saying that someone has cancer: that isn’t “winning by default.” It’s just an observation of fact. Mr. Jackson has cancer, and here are the medical recommendations, at this stage of medical technology.

Words like “racism” don’t attempt to win by default; the victory was won long ago, when we, by consensus, decided that racism was a bad thing. Only a tiny minority of people would say that bigotry is a good thing, and so that victory, too, was already won.

Where the folly comes in is in the attempts of some to re-define the word so broadly as to remove its value. “Cancer is runaway cell growth, right? Well, the growth of new skin tissue over a burn is also runaway cell growth, so anyone who burns his finger now has cancer.” Nossir! We don’t want to let them redefine the word that broadly.

Thus the ridicule at those who say that being intolerant of racism or arrant bigotry is, itself, bigoted. It’s only a childish attempt to say, “See! You’re just as bad as I am.” But…no. The guy who hates Jews is vastly worse than the guy who hates antisemitism.

We aren’t going to let anyone shoe-horn that last category into the envelope of “bigotry.” Rejecting antisemites is not “bigotry” in the sense we mean it, at least here.

(Also, nothing wrong with local parlances. “A list must consist of three or more items.” It’s a “house rule.” The SDMB has a number of local word usages. Thank Og, and throw something down the quarry.)

[tomndebb]

@Trinopus

The term “bigotry” does not, in fact, “attempt to short circuit the debate and win by default.” It’s a descriptive term of a particular social ill. It’s like saying that someone has cancer: that isn’t “winning by default.” It’s just an observation of fact. Mr. Jackson has cancer, and here are the medical recommendations, at this stage of medical technology.

Words like “racism” don’t attempt to win by default; the victory was won long ago, when we, by consensus, decided that racism was a bad thing. Only a tiny minority of people would say that bigotry is a good thing, and so that victory, too, was already won.

Nah. It is, in fact, an attempt to short-circuit the discussion.
Everyone knows that bigotry is “bad.” Therefore bigots are “bad.” Once one has assigned the label, one may simply point the word “bigot” at everyone who is not in complete agreement with the position set forth, leaving one free to not bother understanding their views and relieving one of the responsibility to educate them or demonstrate to them how their views are in error.

Unlike cancer, a physical condition, the word bigot explicitly focuses on mindset. Using the word bigot allows one to presume that all opponents have the same mindset, even when there are different reasons for their lack of support and even though that lack of support may range from simply not voting for pro-SSM candidates all the way to disrupting a day of prayer to launch a personal attack against Obama.

[iiandyiiii]

@tomndebb

Nah. It is, in fact, an attempt to short-circuit the discussion.
Everyone knows that bigotry is “bad.” Therefore bigots are “bad.” Once one has assigned the label, one may simply point the word “bigot” at everyone who is not in complete agreement with the position set forth, leaving one free to not bother understanding their views and relieving one of the responsibility to educate them or demonstrate to them how their views are in error.

Unlike cancer, a physical condition, the word bigot explicitly focuses on mindset. Using the word bigot allows one to presume that all opponents have the same mindset, even when there are different reasons for their lack of support and even though that lack of support may range from simply not voting for pro-SSM candidates all the way to disrupting a day of prayer to launch a personal attack against Obama.

What about calling such opposition bigoted, without calling anyone bigots? For example, “it is as bigoted to oppose SSM as it is to oppose interracial marriage”.

[OurLordPeace]

@tomndebb

Unlike cancer, a physical condition, the word bigot explicitly focuses on mindset. Using the word bigot allows one to presume that all opponents have the same mindset, even when there are different reasons for their lack of support and even though that lack of support may range from simply not voting for pro-SSM candidates all the way to disrupting a day of prayer to launch a personal attack against Obama.

That personal attack is completely backward, inasmuch as the ACA is likely to collapse the abortion rate. This actually isn’t a tangent, as it shows the confusion and delusion (related to bigotry?) of most of the anti-gay and allegedly anti-abortion elements. Homosexuality also prevents abortion, as George Carlin noted.

[Trinopus]

@tomndebb

Nah. It is, in fact, an attempt to short-circuit the discussion. . . .

That’s just a phrase some people use to short-circuit the discussion.

[Dr.Drake]

Why are you meta-circuiting the discussion?

[wonky]

@tomndebb

Nah. It is, in fact, an attempt to short-circuit the discussion.

It’s an attempt to end a discussion that has already gone on far too long, with the anti-SSM people getting plenty of opportunity to explain any sort of reasoning that isn’t bigoted. Now, after all that rope, they can hang on it.

[Bryan_Ekers]

As a minor note, the aspect of religious belief that is immutable is what religion one’s parents are (or were). Someone who wants you out because you are Catholic or Jewish or whatever isn’t likely to care what latter-day conversion or atheism you might have adopted - if you were born Catholic, you’re a Catholic, period.

[Miller]

@tomndebb

You are in the middle of the discussion. It directly affects your life. From your perspective, “everyone” should have already learned all the facts and made their choices. I doubt that that view is in any way accurate of most people. It has, for most folks, been a fringe issue that does not directly affect them and they have, therefore, rarely thought about it or tried to make an informed decision. This is true of most people in regards to most issues outside their own lives. (Pick any serious issue: death penalty, racism, drug legalization, global climate change, abortion, welfare, corporate welfare, and on and on. I suspect that regardless of which side of any issue they fall, the majority of people have a reflexive attitude based on how people around them have spoken rather than seriously studying the subject.) Dick Cheney was probably reflexively opposed to Gay rights or SSM until confronted with the situation of his daughter.

It’s been twenty fucking years, tom. Gay marriage has been a major issue in the last four presidential elections. Laws have been passed and repealed on the subject at the federal level. There have been nearly three dozen attempts to ban it at the state level - almost all of them successful. At what point, exactly, does being a mouth-breathing provincial idiot stop being a valid excuse for not acting like a decent human being? Forty? Sixty? What exactly is the cut off point where we can hold people accountable for not pulling their head out of their ass and looking around at exactly what sort of harm their actions are causing? Is it something I can look forward to in my life, or are we talking more of a geologic time frame?

[Cheesesteak]

@jtgain

What is this circular logic? No matter your definition of the word marriage, you will deny some people, whether those are close relations, those already married, or those not of legal age. Are you likewise bigoted because of your opposition to my hypothetical incestuous marriage?

None of those prohibitions have anything to do with the definition of marriage. Neither the “traditional” definition nor the “new” definition would inherently or strictly bar any of these marriages.

WRT close relations, there is a sound scientific basis for avoiding incestuous procreation, if only around genetic disease. I really don’t care if you want to marry your sister, but society is going to be stuck caring for any genetically ill children you have, and you’re much more likely to have a sick child than if you had a relationship with an unrelated person. Therefore the State does have a direct articulable interest in keeping these relationships verboten.

WRT multiple marriages, it is a legal quagmire, and one with a long history of subordinating women. The legal framework around marriage is there to simplify, not complicate. It is a legal framework that recognizes the primacy of the marital relationship, inherently above all others, and is exactly what SSM proponents want for gay relationships. The legal framework is not the definition of marriage, it is the benefit of having a recognized marriage, a benefit that must be scrapped in order to accommodate multiple marriages. Give me MM without the quagmire and without subordinated spouses, and I’m in.

WRT the young. We protect young people from being taken advantage of by adults. Their rights to enter into contracts are strictly controlled. Marriage is an ongoing contract that requires legal action to end, a contract that gives another person legal rights wrt the spouse. It is a serious contract that can easily be argued should not be entered into by a Minor, even with the support of a guardian.