# 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:** 6
**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 28, 2015, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/101 "2015-06-28T15:00:37Z")
I view their their fears of vilification, with floccinaucinihilipilification. -Bryan Ekers, 2015 ---
**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 28, 2015, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/102 "2015-06-28T16:52:10Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I view their their fears of vilification, > with floccinaucinihilipilification. > > -Bryan Ekers, 2015 Dammit, my chance at immortality and I double-type “their”. Well, let future scholars ponder the mysteries of Ekers, as they will the rest of my no-doubt storied life. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2015, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/103 "2015-06-28T17:26:50Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Well, provide your evidence. Leviticus says a man shall not lie with a man, and Paul says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. So if you believe these “interpretations” are wrong, find the contradictory passages that say homosexuality is okay. Granted, there is no specific prohibition on lesbianism, only male homosexuality, so I can see some room for differences of interpretation there. > > Yeah, but since interracial marriage as a sin is so weakly supported, few believe it. Gay relationships as sinful behavior on the other hand are as well supported as any other prohibition in the Bible. > > Churches will and should deemphasize homosexuality in their doctrines. It’s no different from any other sin and 90% of churchgoers are fornicators anyway. Tolerance will be normal in nearly all churches very soon. Acceptance and endorsement though, you’ll never see that outside of newfangled liberal churches that don’t really care much about the concept of sin in the first place. for what it’s worth, I have two Facebook friends that are ordained ministers. One is Episcopalian and is an associate pastor at a very large mainstream church. The other is a Baptist minister at a very small church. So I was curious about their take on the SSM ruling but I didn’t have to look far as both of them had put those ubiquitous Facebook rainbows over their profile pictures. The woman that was the Baptist minister seemed particularly involved, she had several post on the subject and talked about some of the ceremonies she had performed. My Moms’ Episcopalian church ( which is how I know the other minister ) has performed same sex commitment ceremonies for a while now and will probably move on to marriages now that they are legal. IIRC, one of their other associate pastors is a married gay man. My take is that no court or government is going to ever force a church, through tax laws or otherwise, to perform SSM ceremonies against their will but over time their position will change and more and more of them will do so until it becomes the rule, not the exception. ---
**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 28, 2015, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/104 "2015-06-28T17:35:21Z")
adaher has so far ignored this post, which makes the pro-gay case. > [@glowacks](#): > > Not according to this guy. Sure, he may not be particularly religious, but he makes compelling arguments concerning exactly what the text says. While it’s clear that people who engage in homosexuality are seen as scornful, there are reasons to believe it’s not the homosexual behavior itself that is the cause of that scorn. Sexual relations between men at the time the Bible was written were not acts of love, but of either power (dominion over slaves/conquered foes) or paganism (ritual sex). No one at the time contemplated homosexual activity as part of a monogamous life-long pair-bond. There is absolutely no indication in the New Testament that the acts themselves are sinful, the Leviticus passage is as irrelevant as the prohibitions on pork, tattoos, etc. > > [http://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/davidlovesjonathan/](http://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/davidlovesjonathan/) > [What the New Testament Says about Homosexuality | Westar Institute](http://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/what-the-new-testament-says-about-homosexuality/) > [When a Man Lies with a Man as with a Woman | Westar Institute](http://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/when-a-man-lies-with-a-man-as-with-a-woman/) (Ok, he addressed the divorce part.) You can be a strict literalist Biblist and still support sanctioned gay marriage. Though I’ve opined upthread that such an interpretation is problematic, as is the opposite one. The problem is the gospels didn’t say anything about gay sex (or abortion). The gospels had quite a bit to say about being a sanctimonious prick. Paul’s remarks are couched in the context of an _ad hominem_ attack on those outside of their community. It’s reasonable to think of Paul’s slur as a shorthand for the sorts of immoral behavior referenced in glowacks’ post. It’s also reasonable to take a harder line. According to my theology, conflicting evidence should be decided in favor of Christian love. But that’s a minority view within the modern evangelical community, which to be clear I am not a part of. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2015, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/105 "2015-06-28T17:37:34Z")
This is a stupid argument even by political standards. By this “reasoning”, prosecuting someone for building code violations is unfair because it “vilifies” slumlords. ---
**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 28, 2015, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/106 "2015-06-28T17:49:32Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > This is a stupid argument even by political standards. By this “reasoning”, prosecuting someone for building code violations is unfair because it “vilifies” slumlords. > [@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. Alito provides us with a target-rich environment. Coming from a Supreme Court justice, that’s rather sadface. It’s also rare: I disagree with Scalia pretty much all the time, but at least he knows how to construct a cogent argument. As does Alito. This component of his opinion (which to be fair is not the major portion, but more like a tangent) is strikingly lame. ---
**Author:** ![CGav8r](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@CGav8r](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CGav8r)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/107 "2015-06-29T17:25:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Then, there is no actual down side. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/108 "2015-06-29T20:41:07Z")
Ultimately, it seems to me that most of the anti-SSM people aren’t as much butthurt about the idea that same-sex marriages are legal per-se, as much as they are butthurt about how they’re not able to dictate policy for the country, or their little pieces of it, and they’re conflating this reduction in political and social power and influence as an attack on their religion and religious beliefs, which none of this stuff is at all. I mean, a rational Christian would say that it’s not their place to judge, and that SSM as legalized by the court is a strictly secular thing, so why get bent out of shape about it? Let the gay people get “married” by the judge or whatever; it certainly doesn’t count in the eyes of God as a “real” marriage by a duly designated pastor/priest/whatever. ---
**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 29, 2015, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/109 "2015-06-29T22:12:17Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Ultimately, it seems to me that most of the anti-SSM people aren’t as much butthurt about the idea that same-sex marriages are legal per-se, as much as they are butthurt about how they’re not able to dictate policy for the country, or their little pieces of it, and they’re conflating this reduction in political and social power and influence as an attack on their religion and religious beliefs, which none of this stuff is at all. > > I mean, a rational Christian would say that it’s not their place to judge, and that SSM as legalized by the court is a strictly secular thing, so why get bent out of shape about it? Let the gay people get “married” by the judge or whatever; it certainly doesn’t count in the eyes of God as a “real” marriage by a duly designated pastor/priest/whatever. Christians, it turns out, aren’t uniformly that big on “live and let live”. ---
**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 29, 2015, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/110 "2015-06-29T22:15:14Z")
“Live and let live?” Sounds Communist. “Fake Christians” much prefer burning witches and declaring [del]jihad[/del] a crusade against something they are told they don’t like. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2015, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/111 "2015-06-30T12:50:07Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Ultimately, it seems to me that most of the anti-SSM people aren’t as much butthurt about the idea that same-sex marriages are legal per-se, as much as they are butthurt about how they’re not able to dictate policy for the country, or their little pieces of it, and they’re conflating this reduction in political and social power and influence as an attack on their religion and religious beliefs, which none of this stuff is at all. > > I mean, a rational Christian would say that it’s not their place to judge, and that SSM as legalized by the court is a strictly secular thing, so why get bent out of shape about it? Let the gay people get “married” by the judge or whatever; it certainly doesn’t count in the eyes of God as a “real” marriage by a duly designated pastor/priest/whatever. I’ll add a corollary to your theory – the mainstream majority had things pretty much its own way in the seventies and eighties and used that power to run roughshod over minorities of any kind. “Welfare queens” were sneered at, queers were beaten up and fired from their jobs and the “War on Drugs” was ratcheted up against the dirty smelly hippies who used them. If that is acceptable behavior when you are in the majority then there will be a concurrent fear about _becoming_ a minority. After all, those awful people will do the same things to them, won’t they? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2015, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/112 "2015-06-30T16:50:22Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Ultimately, it seems to me that most of the anti-SSM people aren’t as much butthurt about the idea that same-sex marriages are legal per-se, as much as they are butthurt about how they’re not able to dictate policy for the country, or their little pieces of it, and they’re conflating this reduction in political and social power and influence as an attack on their religion and religious beliefs, which none of this stuff is at all. > > I mean, a rational Christian would say that it’s not their place to judge, and that SSM as legalized by the court is a strictly secular thing, so why get bent out of shape about it? Let the gay people get “married” by the judge or whatever; it certainly doesn’t count in the eyes of God as a “real” marriage by a duly designated pastor/priest/whatever. I do think some are sincere. I have one Facebook friend who posted something about how she cried about the state of the nation, and I think she’s sincere, in that she’s worried about the morals of America. Her and some others are worried because they think that America is like in the last days of Sodom and Gomorrah or something like that. Of course I strongly disagree, and I think even if God was going to smite the USA, there would be many, many reasons that would come before allowing gay marriage. I don’t know what the sincere believers will do. If in the future when my Facebook friend meets a gay married couple if she’ll see that they’re just like a lot of straight married couples and change her views, or if she’ll pray for them and try to convince them of their sin. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2015, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/113 "2015-06-30T17:03:53Z")
> [@Sam\_Lowry](#): > > I don’t know what the sincere believers will do. If in the future when my Facebook friend meets a gay married couple if she’ll see that they’re just like a lot of straight married couples and change her views, or if she’ll pray for them and try to convince them of their sin. I was reading a discussion about the reactions of members of various Christian denominations to this sort of “Oh, I just met a gay person and she’s not evil” moment. The people in the discussion seemed to feel that when the basis of the opposition (at least as conveyed to the church members) is “Gays are evil!” then meeting a gay person and learning they are not evil might be all it takes. If the basis is a more complex theological argument, on the other hand, merely discovering gays don’t eat babies might not be enough. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2015, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/114 "2015-06-30T17:41:23Z")
Felix Salmon calls for taxation of bigoted churches: [http://fusion.net/story/158096/does-your-church-ban-gay-marriage-then-it-should-start-paying-taxes/](http://fusion.net/story/158096/does-your-church-ban-gay-marriage-then-it-should-start-paying-taxes/) Wow, that was quick. And clearly unconstitutional. Churches are not public accomodations, but private clubs. They can discriminate against whoever they want. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2015, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/115 "2015-06-30T17:51:37Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Felix Salmon calls for taxation of bigoted churches: > > [http://fusion.net/story/158096/does-your-church-ban-gay-marriage-then-it-should-start-paying-taxes/](http://fusion.net/story/158096/does-your-church-ban-gay-marriage-then-it-should-start-paying-taxes/) > > Wow, that was quick. And clearly unconstitutional. Churches are not public accomodations, but private clubs. They can discriminate against whoever they want. But that doesn’t mean they deserve to be tax-exempt. ---
**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 30, 2015, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/116 "2015-06-30T17:58:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Felix Salmon calls for taxation of bigoted churches: > > [http://fusion.net/story/158096/does-your-church-ban-gay-marriage-then-it-should-start-paying-taxes/](http://fusion.net/story/158096/does-your-church-ban-gay-marriage-then-it-should-start-paying-taxes/) > > Wow, that was quick. And clearly unconstitutional. Churches are not public accomodations, but private clubs. They can discriminate against whoever they want. I like Felix Salmon, but his proposal isn’t going anywhere. He hails from Britain, which isn’t big on charitable deductions. Salmon opines that private schools and private Universities shouldn’t be tax deductible either. I don’t know if his proposal is constitutional or not, but it’s not something that any politician would touch with a 10 foot pole. Ok: I just skimmed these links: [http://www.felixsalmon.com/2012/08/when-private-school-tuition-is-tax-deductible/](http://www.felixsalmon.com/2012/08/when-private-school-tuition-is-tax-deductible/) [http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/07/08/universities-shouldnt-be-tax-exempt/](http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/07/08/universities-shouldnt-be-tax-exempt/) Example quote from Felix Salmon: [INDENT][INDENT] I’m no fan of the tax-deductibility of charitable donations in the first place — it’s an enormous tax expenditure which results in a relatively modest amount of extra charitable giving. (Ed Dolan has a good two-part overview of why the deduction is a bad idea.) But let’s put that debate to one side for the time being… [/INDENT][/INDENT] Also: [INDENT][INDENT]. But if all colleges lost all their exemptions, and got their federal subsidy directly instead of indirectly — now that I would applaud. [/INDENT][/INDENT] These are political nonstarters. I predict that his tax the churches proposal will nonetheless remain a conservative bug-a-boo for years. They are gullible that way. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2015, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/117 "2015-06-30T18:03:33Z")
He’s right that tax exemption isn’t a right. Churches can be taxed. But tax policy can’t be used as a means to express disapproval of a person or organization’s morals. If you can tax churches for being prejudiced against gays, then you can tax individuals. Just pass a tax law that says everyone’s tax rate is 50% unless they affirm that they support gay marriage on their tax form. So everyone gets a tax exemption for being enlightened on gay marriage, but lose their tax exemption if they aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2015, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/118 "2015-06-30T18:49:07Z")
Churches shouldn’t be taxed because of their stance on gay marriage. Churches should be taxed because it’s the 21st century and a lot of people think it’s time. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2015, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/119 "2015-06-30T19:13:26Z")
I’m so cool I was vilifying SSM opponents _before_ the Court’s decision. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2015, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/120 "2015-06-30T19:37:42Z")
Fundamentally, the part I don’t get is this idea among the conservative, wingnut Christians that the laws of the land MUST mirror what their religion believes, or the nation is going to hell in a handbasket. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570.md?page=7)