Is there a non-bigoted reason to be anti-same-sex-marriage?

[Sitnam]

@filmore

@thorny_locust

But if they choose to keep that particular provision, while ignoring others which their god also provided, that looks a lot less neutral.

Yeah, this would be one aspect that I would use to decide if the person was bigoted or just blindly following their religion. If someone picks and chooses what parts of their religion to follow based on their personal preferences, then that person is likely a bigot. But if the person strictly follows all aspects of the religion, even the inconvenient parts, then I’m more likely to think they are just doing whatever their god commands because their god commanded it.

A strange hairsplitting.

I don’t think there is anyway to follow any religion that doesn’t involve selective preferences. Contradictions abound in the text themselves and interpretation for a specific audience is the job description of so many. Either these are the preferences of the congregation, the officiant, the denomination or or a believers own personal choice. The singular person is responsible for their actions, those actions can be reasonably judged by our current society, and religion getting a pass is bizarre.

Are Ted Kaczynski’s actions more palatable if he had religious convictions for his actions?

[Sitnam]

@Telemark

I could possibly see someone who wanted to completely abolish marriage as an institution being opposed to SSM because it’s an expansion of something they’d rather diminish. They’d be against any additional forms of marriage but not because they are same sex or multi-partner but because they don’t want more marriages to unwind when it’s abolished.

Best reply so far. If you hate all marriage equally it’s not discriminatory.

[tavaritz]

@Thudlow_Boink

I get the impression that some of the people who oppose same-sex marriage have the idea that, in a marriage, “husband” and “wife” are two distinct roles, that must be played by a man and a woman respectively, sort of like a nut and bolt, or a mortar and pestle; and that a marriage consisting of two husbands, or of two wives, would be like having two mortars with no pestle, or two pestles with no mortar. People holding this view may have narrow, rigid, or outdated notions of sex roles or of how marriage works, without necessarily being homophobic per se.

When talking about adoption for SSM couples in Finland one sick bastard politician used this type of argument against it.Telling everybody that a child to be raised properly they need mother and a father. When single parent household heard this and raged against the bastard she shut down and did not even defend her viewpoint.

[tavaritz]

@kevlaw

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

If we give that arrangement some just-now-made-up name, would you be cool with it? And if we instead called it “marriage”, would you cry foul?

Is that the entirety of your objection?

And his reply was — “Yes, it is the entirety of my objection.“

And that, in fact, was the solution that France chose to implement until 2013. Not so ridiculous, perhaps.

In Finland marriage used to be defined in the law and gave some tax benefits and you needed divorce, which was hard, to get out of one. Then in 60’s people started to form what was called open contract where one did not need divorce procedure to exit the union. But they did not have the tax benefits. Nobody was talking about SSM.

Then law was changed and marriage was no longer defined in it. Instead there is a concept of registred partnership which does not preclude marriager but just giving the information to registrats. It automatically then gives the couple the tax benefits.

When same sex people started to register their partnerships to get the tax benefits the bureaucrats balked but the politicins said: What is the big deal in here. And all was hunky dory.

Except the same sex people wanted to have church weddings. And that was something that only church can allow. So now it’s up to each minister to decide will (s)he do it or not.

So my question is: Why in the hell you want church weddings when you know that religion is the most bigoted thing against anything that is, even minutely, different than the religious standard.

[Telemark]

Because not all churches are like that. Gay people are religious, too.

[MrDibble]

@kevlaw

Were there gays and lesbians in Israel, 500BC, who advocated for same-sex marriage?

There were in other ancient cultures of the region, so why not Israel? Why even mention it, with references to those neighbouring cultures, if there weren’t?

@kevlaw

I don’t think it crossed the minds of the people who wrote down the rule in question that same-sex marriage was a thing that they were excluding.

Why, when they were perfectly aware of it as a thing in their neighbouring cultures?

[MrDibble]

@Velocity

Getting back to the OP, I don’t see how there could be a “non-bigoted” reason to oppose SSM, because it’s circular - nowadays, society basically defines such sentiment as bigotry. We’ve defined it in such a way that you can’t oppose SSM without being considered bigoted.

What about the gay people who are against it from entirely the other side, as I mentioned before? And these aren’t self-hating gays, they are out-and-proud gays. They’re just not down with gay marriage.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@kevlaw

Are you arguing that people are not losing their jobs or that they are losing their jobs and that’s ok with you?

People aren’t “losing their jobs”. They’re choosing not to comply with the business law that governs their industry.

Some people choose not to refrigerate the eggs in their diner, and the health department shuts them down.

Some people choose not to pay their employees mandated overtime, and they’re shut down.

Some people choose not to bake a cake for customers because they believe God doesn’t want them to, and they’re shut down.

But other people choose to refrigerate their eggs, or pay overtime, or bake cakes for customers, and they’re not shut down.

I’m not upset if people choose to violate a law and suffer consequences for it, unless it’s an unjust law in the first place. A law that forbids discrimination against mixed-race couples or same-sex couples is not such a law.

Kevlaw, it would be helpful if you could explain precisely what sort of argument you’re making here. Are you arguing that there are non-bigoted reasons to be anti-same-sex-marriage when it’s a solely religious marriage, but that those arguments don’t apply to being anti-SSM in civil cases? Some of your posts have implied that, but I can’t be sure. Your habit of single-sentence responses to questions with something along the lines of “that’s not my argument” is extremely frustrating: at least some of the posters here are genuinely trying to understand the point you’re making, and your refusal to clarify when they get something wrong doesn’t help at all. Nor does it help just to repeat yourself. If you’re interested in the conversation, it’d be super helpful for you to clarify what exactly is different between their understanding of your argument and what you intended to convey.

As for the question of whether a religiously-based argument can be non-bigoted, there’s the Nyarolathotep defense: “My god requires me to oppose same sex marriage. If I don’t, he’s going to torture me for all eternity, and straight up your earthly suffering due to repressive laws doesn’t even count against the hellfire he’ll visit on me otherwise.” Someone who genuinely believes in such a malevolent Lovecraftian deity can be non-bigoted.

But in general, I find that religious people who advance such an argument don’t acknowledge the supreme evil of the God they’re describing. Rather, they suggest through word and deed that they agree with Nyarolathotep’s commands and think they’re wise and good. When folks agree with their god’s villainy, the non-bigot exception no longer applies.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@MrDibble

What about the gay people who are against it from entirely the other side, as I mentioned before? And these aren’t self-hating gays, they are out-and-proud gays. They’re just not down with gay marriage.

Are they down with straight marriage? If so, do they have non-bigoted reasons for the difference?

If they hate all marriage, that’s non-bigoted IMO. (For myself, I’d prefer the government to issue only civil unions to everyone, leaving the romance out of it entirely and having only a bundle of legal rights available to adults who want to take advantage of them–but that’s a very minor point). If they think straight folk ought to get married but gay folk shouldn’t, because of patriarchy or something, honestly I’m gonna suspect them of bigotry against breeders, absent a really compelling explanation.

[Babale]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

As for the question of whether a religiously-based argument can be non-bigoted, there’s the Nyarolathotep defense: “My god requires me to oppose same sex marriage. If I don’t, he’s going to torture me for all eternity, and straight up your earthly suffering due to repressive laws doesn’t even count against the hellfire he’ll visit on me otherwise.” Someone who genuinely believes in such a malevolent Lovecraftian deity can be non-bigoted

Why is sincere belief a get out of jail free card? What if I sincerely believe that unless I rip the beating heart out of a living human atop a mighty pyramid every single day, Quetzlcoatl will not allow the sun to rise tomorrow, leading to 7 billion deaths? Should my sincere belief let me get away with building a giant pyramid in my backyard, despite the relevant zoning laws and without getting a permit? Oh, and should I get away with the murder thing, too?

[MrDibble]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Are they down with straight marriage? If so, do they have non-bigoted reasons for the difference?

Some are, some aren’t down with any marriage.

The ones I know who are fine with different-sex marriage aren’t bigoted, exactly. They just think gays buying into that same lifestyle is something that removes something special from (their conception of) gay culture as a bastion of free love (and bear in mind I’m relaying my own understanding of things at one remove here). That it waters down a counterculture to fit in with the mainstream. They don’t think there’s anything wrong with the mainstream for mainstreamers, but they considered (their version of) gay culture to be special in some way, and to lose its specialness when other (usually younger) gays no longer participate but instead are off planning registries and honeymoons.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Babale

Why is sincere belief a get out of jail free card? What if I sincerely believe that unless I rip the beating heart out of a living human atop a mighty pyramid every single day, Quetzlcoatl will not allow the sun to rise tomorrow? Should my sincere belief let me get away with building a giant pyramid in my backyard, despite the relevant zoning laws and without getting a permit? Oh, and should I get away with the murder thing, too?

Oh, definitely not: it literally isn’t a “get out of jail free” card. But just as I wouldn’t consider the heart-ripper to be a bigot, I wouldn’t necessarily consider the Nyarolathotep-sacrificer a bigot. I’d consider them to be dangerously delusional cultists worshipping an evil god, but that’s a different character flaw from bigotry. (and remember–if they agree with their god rather than acting out of soul-crushing terror, it’s back to bigotry).

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@MrDibble

They just think gays buying into that same lifestyle is something that removes something special from (their conception of) gay culture as a bastion of free love (and bear in mind I’m relaying my own understanding of things at one remove here). That it waters down a counterculture to fit in with the mainstream. They don’t think there’s anything wrong with the mainstream for mainstreamers, but they considered (their version of) gay culture to be special in some way, and to lose its specialness when other (usually younger) gays no longer participate but instead are off planning registries and honeymoons.

I want to be clear here, though: are they arguing that same-sex marriage shouldn’t be legal, or just that gay folks are losers if they buy into it?

[Ann_Hedonia]

To someone like me, someone that considers “God” to be fictional character from a storybook, that sounds sort of ridiculous.

I say….yeah, if you believe it’s OK to deprive someone of their right to marry the person they love, you’re bigoted. Even if you’ve been taught from birth that behe ate up his homosexuality is wrong, you’re a bigot. Even if you wish gay people no harm, and pray that they see the error of their ways, you’re a bigot. Even if you are polite to gay people when you refuse to serve them in your business, you’re a bigot. Even if your only doing it because a fictional character in a storybook says you must. Maybe not a huge bigot, maybe not the biggest bigot on earth - there are degrees- but a bigot, nonetheless.

But that is my opinion only, and if you are someone that adheres to that flavor of religion, why would you care what I think? Seriously. I’ve been listening to religious people telling everyone that my friends and I are hell -bound deviants for forever. That we hate God — and America — and God hates us. We don’t like it, but we mostly just ignore you. We certainly don’t spend our days getting all butthurt because some tightly wound fundamentalists keep calling us perverts and telling their imaginary friend to consign our souls to hell.

But when those people who’ve been calling us perverts and trying to take our rights away start crying loudly that we’re being mean by calling them bigots, that’s suspicious- it’s like the bullying big brother who yells “stop hitting me” as he beats up his little sister.

And I’m not falling for it anymore.

[MrDibble]

I’d say it’s more that they look back with fondness to when it wasn’t legal. Now that it’s fait accompli, they’re not politically agitating to reverse that, or anything.

And they think the marriers are … “losers” isn’t the right word. “Sellouts” is more like it.

I want to stress, again, that it’s a small minority of the gay guys I know who’ve expressed this, versus being noticeably enthusiastic about legalization of SSM. Like, 4 or 5, out of dozens.

[ShadowFacts]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Kevlaw , it would be helpful if you could explain precisely what sort of argument you’re making here.

I think what he’s getting at (though I suspect he’ll pop in with a one-liner to tell me how wrong I am) is not really a point about SSM at all, but rather a meta point about posting behavior on this message board that comes from the ATMB thread that spawned this one. That is, this thread is to prove there is at least one non-bigoted reason to oppose SSM. Therefore, we shouldn’t automatically call posters who oppose SSM marriage bigots, because that just vilifies them, won’t change their minds, and turns them off from the board. And of course the wider point is that we should apply this practice not just to SSM opponents, but others who hold views we find problematic. I believe this is all a version of the “defeat bad speech with good speech” argument.

And honestly, I think there is some merit to this argument in general. I am concerned about increased polarization in the US (where I live) and - by extension - on this board. I think screaming “Bigot! Bigot! Bigot!” at people can be satisfying and cathartic, but it’s certainly not going to win them over to your side of the argument. (Note that I used the term “screaming” there on purpose - I have no qualms about clearly identifying bigoted or racist arguments.)

That said, the way kevlaw has chosen to go about expressing that in this thread through this kind of pseudo-socractic “I’m not touching you” argument style has been nothing short of obnoxious and frustrating. If this is the kind of debate he wants to see on the board, count me out.

[thorny_locust]

@Ann_Hedonia

that behe ate up his homosexuality

??

That’s got to be a typo for something; but I can’t figure out for what.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

I was always in favor of civil unions as far back as the 1970’s but I did not like the term marriage strictly for traditional reasons nothing else. I tended to connect marriage with child rearing and never made the connection that same sex couple could raise children. I wasn’t a biggot at anytime in my life but I was against the term marriage being used.

[Babale]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

(and remember–if they agree with their god rather than acting out of soul-crushing terror, it’s back to bigotry).

I know this was a throwaway line, but I think it exactly cuts to the point.

In practice, people tend to mold their faith to the ideas they favor anyways. Not in some negative, insidious way. But someone like Martin Luther King used his faith to push for civil rights. Meanwhile at the very same time there were white preachers using ostensibly the same faith to preach the exact opposite, arguing for segregation.

Today, we have very anti-gay preachers and churches as well as “all are welcome” types that fly a rainbow flag.

I don’t think that Aztec society had human sacrifice and a totalitarian government due to the tenants of their faith. Rather, their organized, state sponsored faith focused on human sacrifice because it encouraged a behavior that the Aztecs were already engaged in (fighting their neighbors and taking slaves). So if you took the High Priests or the Emperor aside and asked them why they sacrificed people, they’d tell you it was to appease Quetzcoatl. But if you examined the deeper question of why Aztec society and religion is built that way - and you could do it even while assuming that Quetzcoatl is a real entity, because many of the Aztecs’ neighbors believed in the same or equivalent deities but interpreted their will differently - you’d see that it comes down to what benefits the Priests and the Emperor, and now they’re back to being murderers who kill for selfish benefit.

By that same token, I think if you really examined why a certain sect within a larger religion is bigoted while another was not, you’d find that the bigoted religious group is using their faith to justify an already existing bigotry.

In other words, I think the religious guy who genuinely likes gay people but feels like he has to oppress them because his faith tells him to doesn’t actually exist. Even if the bigotry comes from being raised with a bigoted faith, it at some point becomes genuine - or else interpretations of the faith that are less bigoted would be more appealing.

[Ann_Hedonia]

Oh God, it’s not a typo ——it’s just random letters stuck in the middle of a sentence. It should just be “even if you’ve been taught from birth that homosexuality is wrong”.

I do all my writing in the notepad app on my tablet. It was behaving strangely last night, I’d type a few words, realize those words weren’t appearing in the expected place, then I’d realize they’d been inserted randomly into the middle of the piece, and “autocorrected” into gibberish. I thought I’d found them all.
But I will say, when I saw how this post formatted, how “You’re a bigot” lined up down the left side of the paragraph……I’m not at all unhappy about those extra random letters.