# Should the "vilification" argument ever work? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 26, 2015, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570 "2015-06-26T22:38:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**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:** [June 27, 2015, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/41 "2015-06-27T14:26:40Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Scorn is fine. It goes a little beyond that though. Ask the Dixie Chicks. Do you believe anything that happened to the Dixie Chicks should be made illegal (if it wasn’t already)? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/42 "2015-06-27T14:29:48Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No, they never were, or at least there was never biblical support for such a view. You’re as likely to be able to make Jewish businesses open on Sabbath as you are to get churches to do gay weddings. Did you miss the list of churches that do perform gay weddings ? Post #25. I assume they have token biblical backing ;). I’m no theologian, but I figure you could go something like : Jesus made the OT obsolete, so all those Leviticus verses bigots love to thump on are just as void as those prohibiting the mixing of fabrics. Also, Jesus said to love (and treat) your neighbour as you would yourself and forgive, and that it’s god’s place to judge, not to cast the first stone and yadda yadda. Because it’s more important that they believe in and love god than what they do with their naughty bits in their spare time. Pretty hippy dude, that Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/43 "2015-06-27T14:35:14Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No, they never were, or at least there was never biblical support for such a view. You’re as likely to be able to make Jewish businesses open on Sabbath as you are to get churches to do gay weddings. Uh, yes they were, and still are. I work with pastor that is still against interracial marriage and preaches it to his congregation, obviously using the bible for his justification. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/44 "2015-06-27T14:37:58Z")
There’s also no Biblical support for prohibiting same-sex marriage, and no Gospel support for any opposition to homosexuality at all. And the really illogical part of Alito’s dissent is that he’s trying to martyr himself. He’s saying “Opponents of SSM will be vilified, and therefore I will oppose it”. Now, it would be a reasonable (though perhaps cowardly) argument to say the reverse: “Opponents of SSM will be vilified, and therefore I will support it”. But the way he said it just makes no sense. Unless he thinks that somehow, if the court had decided differently, people wouldn’t vilify opponents? But that doesn’t make any sense either: The Supreme Court of the US is not and never has been binding on the Court of Public Opinion. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/45 "2015-06-27T14:39:26Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No, they never were, or at least there was never biblical support for such a view. Bob Jones University certainly thought there was Biblical support for its opposition to interracial marriage. Enough to end up in front of the Supreme Court in 1983. And they kept their antimiscegenation policies in place until 2000. Seriously man, whether or not you feel there is Biblical support for it does not change the plain fact that a _lot_ of churches and religious institutions adamantly opposed “race-mixing,” and some still do. Respectfully, I’m a little surprised you didn’t know that. Do you need evidence? > [@](#): > > You’re as likely to be able to make Jewish businesses open on Sabbath as you are to get churches to do gay weddings. Plenty of Jewish-owned businesses operate on the Sabbath. Plenty of Christian churches perform same-sex weddings. No law of Man prohibits either, nor in this country ever will. . ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/46 "2015-06-27T14:40:49Z")
It’s interesting to hear arguments based on tradition from someone who apparently had no clue about history. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/47 "2015-06-27T14:45:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You’re ignoring a key distinction. SSMs are directly counter to some religious doctrines. Not so with interracial marriages. Eh, that’s not true. There’s a long history of Christian churches using religion to justify racism and slavery. And some very close parallels between the claims of religious liberty to hste on gays and earlier clsims of religious liberty to hate on blacks: [URL=“[http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/)”] ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/48 "2015-06-27T14:58:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No, they never were, or at least there was never biblical support for such a view. You’re as likely to be able to make Jewish businesses open on Sabbath as you are to get churches to do gay weddings. Nope, **DrFidelius** is right, you really do ignore that the bible was used not only to justify slavery but also to justify the prohibition of interracial marriages; thanks to the changes in the secular law the **old religious justifications have been reinterpreted, just as what a religion that wants to be relevant to a modern society has to do.** Of course the new interpretations make more sense nowadays, but that idea the Mormons also had against interracial marriage was not pulled out of nowhere: many people of faith in the past had the idea that the “mark of Cain” was the darkness of one’s skin, and the “curse” was supposed to be carried though generations. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htm](http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htm) > [@](#): > > Jeremiah 13:23: “Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil.” > > … > > ``` > Acts 17:24-26: "God ... hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation ..." > > Because of their conservative Christian faith, essentially all anti-miscegenationists believe that every human is a descendent of Adam and Eve. However, they believe that at some point in history, God intentionally separated people into different races, each in a different area of the world. > > The trial judge in a famous interracial marriage case appropriately titled "Loving v. Virginia" apparently agreed that racial separation was God's will and that mankind must not reverse that principle. He ignored the principle of separation of church and state as well as the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution when finding the Loving family guilty of miscegenation. Part of his ruling stated: > > "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix." > > However, the phrase "bounds of their habitation" could well refer to tribal and cultural rather than racial distinctions. > > ``` It is correct to report that the Anti-miscegenationists have no biblical justifications now, but a lot of old time religion leaders and followers had no trouble finding those biblical reasons. It seems to me that a good number of people in the south still have those silly views. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom\_mar14.htm](http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar14.htm) > [@](#): > > By 1967, 16 states still had anti-miscegenation laws remaining in place. **All were in the southeast quadrant of the United States** , from Virginia to Texas to Florida. These are shown in red in the following illustration: States shown in gray never had anti-miscgenation laws; those in green had laws repealed before 1887; those in yellow had laws repealed between 1948 and 1967: ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/49 "2015-06-27T15:03:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You’re ignoring a key distinction. SSMs are directly counter to some religious doctrines. Not so with interracial marriages. Yes they are. I’ve personally known Christians who held that interracial marriage was against their religion. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/50 "2015-06-27T15:18:36Z")
That shaking, thudding sound is the artillery of Cecil’s Army in its ongoing war. I love the smell of ignorance being fought in the morning. Smells like…hushpuppies. ---
**Author:** ![nachtmusick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ac91a4/32.png) [@nachtmusick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nachtmusick)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/51 "2015-06-27T16:06:58Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > There’s also no Biblical support for prohibiting same-sex marriage, and no Gospel support for any opposition to homosexuality at all. > > And the really illogical part of Alito’s dissent is that he’s trying to martyr himself. He’s saying “Opponents of SSM will be vilified, and therefore I will oppose it”. Now, it would be a reasonable (though perhaps cowardly) argument to say the reverse: “Opponents of SSM will be vilified, and therefore I will support it”. But the way he said it just makes no sense. Unless he thinks that somehow, if the court had decided differently, people wouldn’t vilify opponents? But that doesn’t make any sense either: The Supreme Court of the US is not and never has been binding on the Court of Public Opinion. Alito can kiss every bit of my ass, but I’m sure he understands that the Court of Public Opinion may eventually kick some decision up to him that will require him to rule on whether bigotry should be considered a federal thought crime. He knows he lost this one, he’s laying the groundwork for the next one. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/52 "2015-06-27T16:07:49Z")
Plus, they were getting called bigots before the ruling. The ruling isn’t changing anything in that regard. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/53 "2015-06-27T17:35:12Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > One part of Jim Crow was a refusal by some state governments to recognize interracial marriages. The Civil Rights movement put an end to that. However, despite that, no church in the country is required to perform interracial marriages. > > The comparison here is, of course, obvious: some state governments have refused to recognize gay marriages. The Gay Rights movement just put an end to that. However, despite that, no church in the country will be required to perform gay marriages. > [@magellan01](#): > > You’re ignoring a key distinction. SSMs are directly counter to some religious doctrines. Not so with interracial marriages. I presume you purport to have a point you think should be considered with that exchange, but for the life of me, I can’t seem to tease it out. Could I trouble you to walk me through it? Thanks! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/54 "2015-06-27T17:43:55Z")
> [@andros](#): > > That shaking, thudding sound is the artillery of Cecil’s Army in its ongoing war. > I love the smell of ignorance being fought in the morning. Smells like…hushpuppies. The cornmeal-based fried treat, or the shoes? Need answer fast. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/55 "2015-06-27T18:10:34Z")
You eat one and throw the other at bigots. It’s all good. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/56 "2015-06-27T18:43:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is correct to report that the Anti-miscegenationists have no biblical justifications now, but a lot of old time religion leaders and followers had no trouble finding those biblical reasons. It seems to me that a good number of people in the south still have those silly views. And those were themselves the result of reinterpretations along the course of their respective time. In biblical times, your “race”, “nation”, and your ethnicity and religion were most often treated as one and the same thing. When the Israelites are mandated to not marry people of other races or nations it really means to not marry heathens who worshipped the wrong gods (see also the “unequal yoke” in the New Testament – that both spouses should be believers). The vilification argument does fail as mentioned in that nothing in the concept of Freedom of Speech has ever been understood to immunize against private social opprobrium, which itself does not even require a majority to take effect. Just about the only people I’d feel bad about are those who were not on the rah-rah-go-go side of the issue from day zero, and took some time to come about, or who were ambivalent at times but are happy with how the situation is solved, because you just know there will be some putz who’ll be wanting to make them feel bad about _that_. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/57 "2015-06-27T18:47:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > SSMs are directly counter to some religious doctrines. Then, I suppose, people who follow those doctrines probably shouldn’t get gay married. Not entirely sure what it has to do with people who follow different religious doctrines. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/58 "2015-06-27T20:37:38Z")
As noted earlier, inter-racial marriage was certainly counter to religious doctrines back in the days of segregation. And I provided an example of an obscure church where it still is. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Did you miss the list of churches that do perform gay weddings ? Post #25. > > I assume they have token biblical backing ;). I’m no theologian, but I figure you could go something like : Jesus made the OT obsolete, so all those Leviticus verses bigots love to thump on are just as void as those prohibiting the mixing of fabrics. Also, Jesus said to love (and treat) your neighbour as you would yourself and forgive, and that it’s god’s place to judge, not to cast the first stone and yadda yadda. Because it’s more important that they believe in and love god than what they do with their naughty bits in their spare time. Actually, that was a list of allegedly gay-friendly churches: not all necessarily would perform ceremonies. Essentially it was a list of plausible leads. That said Presbyterian Church USA will perform gay marriage ceremonies. I understand there are other denominations as well. I read the Presbyterian Church USA’s document on homosexuality in the early 1990s. It appeared to me to be a decent theological treatment. Honestly, I thought the Scriptural evidence against homosexuality was mixed: I could imagine hard questions asked of either side. It gets easier if you just kick back and resolve to love your neighbor in the light of changing circumstances, but I can understand if not all want to adopt such a loose interpretation. Those embracing that rough understanding can be highly pious though. Conversely, those focusing on stricter biblical interpretations still don’t have an airtight case against homosexuality IMHO, to my surprise back when I read about this. ## We discussed these theological issues here over 10 years ago. Today, we’ve moved on. Interesting. I still wonder what Alito is going on about. Another aspect might be that he and the other 2 stooges have absorbed some of the modern conservative sense of Christian victimhood displayed on Fox News. The conservative economist Bruce Bartlett wrote a working paper on [the Fox News effect](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2604679) last month (revised this month). Highly dubious or even borderline preposterous arguments can gain traction when repeated without challenge, if the viewer lacks sufficient curiosity to, well, check the facts at websites such as this one. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/59 "2015-06-27T21:08:09Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Then, I suppose, people who follow those doctrines probably shouldn’t get gay married. Makes sense. > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Not entirely sure what it has to do with people who follow different religious doctrines. Confusion will often arise when you attempt to make a point by taking something out of context. You’ll have to try harder. Either at sincere comprehension or snark, You choose. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2015, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/60 "2015-06-27T21:09:52Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I presume you purport to have a point you think should be considered with that exchange, but for the life of me, I can’t seem to tease it out. > > Could I trouble you to walk me through it? Thanks! 🙂 Since the rather obvious point has now been spoon fed to you via another poster, I can now find comfort that your mental torture is over. Thanks be to God. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570.md?page=4)