# Since I can't be honest in GD . . . **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 27, 2009, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768 "2009-05-27T02:40:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/241 "2009-05-27T17:44:47Z")
> [@mazinger\_z](#): > > Marriage has been, originally, a province of religion, and I think it should stay that way. While I abhor changes to definitions, if it must be done, it should be done so in the most fair and equitable way possible. Therefore, a marriage should be a union, recognized by a religion, and NOT sponsored/ratified by the state. Those arrangements/unions recognized by the state, should be all called civil unions, because that is the more accurate term. I have a huge problem if the state does not allow marriage between natural persons, regardless of creed, race, nationality, religion, or color. But marriage wasn’t originally the province of religion. Marriage started as, for lack of a better word, a civil contract. Religions started blessing such contracts as they blessed other things, and then they took over. But whatever. I assume you’ll have no problem with my eventually marrying a man, since my religion recognizes it as such. I just think it’s remarkable you’d want to go to the trouble of doing away with legal marriage entirely, rather than extending legal marriage equally to same-sex couples. It has proven far more practical to do the latter than do the former – in fact, I don’t think the former has ever been tried. > [@Jodi](#): > > Good thing I never said people’s opinions were obiligatorily determined by their heritage then. No, you didn’t. You gave a caveat, which is fine, and I gave a counterexample, which is also fine. > [@](#): > > AFAICT, your objection and wevet’s to what I originally said is one regarding terminology – “marriage v. civil unions”, or “civil marriage v. religious marriage.” That was never the thrust of the point I was making anyway. Good. I’m glad we agree. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/242 "2009-05-27T17:45:51Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Atheism doesn’t have “tenets”, dear, much less core ones. > > Even if it did, “the destruction of religion” wouldn’t be one of them. We don’t give a shit what you believe in. People keep pointing that out, but **mswas** has already [clarified and apologized](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11183099&postcount=214) because he meant “Communism,” not “atheism.” ---
**Author:** ![buttonjockey308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@buttonjockey308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buttonjockey308)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/243 "2009-05-27T17:54:16Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Won’t happen, since the point of civil unions is to create an inferior ghetto marriage where undesirables can be shoved. Which doesn’t work if everyone gets it. I’m not sure where you live, but here I don’t need the church to enter into an agreement with another. I could enjoin with my partner without a marriage ceremony. All that needs to happen is the same thing apply to homosexuals and poof! Marriage does not belong to the state or the people, marriage belongs to the church. All unions are civil ones first, the only ones that are truly ‘marriages’ are ones that involve a church. So, the answer is simple, afford all peoples the same rights, call it civil unions, call it anti-marriage, call it spacefarts and candied houseflies, who cares what you call it? If you get the EXACT same things in a civil union as you do in a marriage, you’re arguing over a word, if you argue over a word, you’re just an asshole picking a fight. ---
**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:** [May 27, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/244 "2009-05-27T17:57:29Z")
Say, Magellan, Mswas and Blake. Any luck with that argument against SSM that isn’t rooted in bigotry? I see a lot of deflection and attacks but no actual thinking going on with the big three there. Don’t you think it says something if you’re so vehement yet so unable to do this simple thing? Wouldn’t an honest person change their opinions if they found them unsupportable with resorting to bigotry? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/245 "2009-05-27T17:57:41Z")
And to clarify further, the left embraces many religious persuasions. Dorothy Day and the Catholic Workers, Archbishop Romero and Liberation Theology. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/246 "2009-05-27T17:58:14Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > People keep pointing that out, but **mswas** has already [clarified and apologized](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11183099&postcount=214) because he meant “Communism,” not “atheism.” And yet, curiously, he referred to both later in the same post which I quoted above: [QUOTE=mswas] Atheism WAS NOT a minor component of communism considering it was based off of the DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM theories of Karl Marx. [/QUOTE] ---
**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:** [May 27, 2009, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/247 "2009-05-27T18:05:13Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > I’m not sure where you live, but here I don’t need the church to enter into an agreement with another. I could enjoin with my partner without a marriage ceremony. All that needs to happen is the same thing apply to homosexuals and poof! Marriage does not belong to the state or the people, marriage belongs to the church. All unions are civil ones first, the only ones that are truly ‘marriages’ are ones that involve a church. > > So, the answer is simple, afford all peoples the same rights, call it civil unions, call it anti-marriage, call it spacefarts and candied houseflies, who cares what you call it? If you get the EXACT same things in a civil union as you do in a marriage, you’re arguing over a word, if you argue over a word, you’re just an asshole picking a fight. And having a whites-only water fountain and a niggers-only fountain is perfectly fine in your thinking, right? Separate-but-equal is inherently unequal. If there is no substantive reason to deny someone a right we shouldn’t deny it, that’s the core principle that motivates me here. As for religions, people married by judges are married. Unitarians officiate at SSMs. Why does your religion get its will enforced and Unitarians don’t? Why do you think it’s okay to split marriage up like that? Would you be okay with interracial marriages being called something different? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/248 "2009-05-27T18:07:02Z")
> [@](#): > > And having a whites-only water fountain and a niggers-only fountain is perfectly fine in your thinking, right? I don’t see where he said that churches (or justices of the peace, or whoever) who wish to marry same-sex couples can’t do so. ---
**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:** [May 27, 2009, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/249 "2009-05-27T18:10:29Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t see where he said that churches (or justices of the peace, or whoever) who wish to marry same-sex couples can’t do so. I assumed he didn’t know that Unitarians performed SSMs. Because what he’s saying would legalize SSM. If that’s what he’s going for, my bad. 😃 It would also make millions of Americans unmarried and merely civil unioned. I’m sure those people would be a little pissed. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/250 "2009-05-27T18:11:36Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > I’m not sure where you live, but here I don’t need the church to enter into an agreement with another. I could enjoin with my partner without a marriage ceremony. All that needs to happen is the same thing apply to homosexuals and poof! Marriage does not belong to the state or the people, marriage belongs to the church. All unions are civil ones first, the only ones that are truly ‘marriages’ are ones that involve a church. > > So, the answer is simple, afford all peoples the same rights, call it civil unions, call it anti-marriage, call it spacefarts and candied houseflies, who cares what you call it? If you get the EXACT same things in a civil union as you do in a marriage, you’re arguing over a word, if you argue over a word, you’re just an asshole picking a fight. The same thing could be said for the act of creating a separate class/word for EXACTLY the same thing. If it’s exactly the same, why call it something else, unless you want to somehow make sure _some people_ are never allowed to assimilate completely into mainstream society? It’s much more logical to call two identical things the same thing than to call two identical things different things. Unless you really don’t want to identify with some of those things. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/251 "2009-05-27T18:11:41Z")
I can’t be arsed to read all through this thread, which I suspect is going to prove quite the trainwreck before it’s all done, but I have to congratulate the OP on finally admitting his inability to be honest in GD. I have long thought he must be perfectly well aware of this character defect of his and it takes a big man to come out and say it like that. Well done and hats off to you, **Der Trihs**! 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/252 "2009-05-27T18:13:02Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > So, the answer is simple, afford all peoples the same rights, call it civil unions, call it anti-marriage, call it spacefarts and candied houseflies, who cares what you call it? If you get the EXACT same things in a civil union as you do in a marriage, you’re arguing over a word, if you argue over a word, you’re just an asshole picking a fight. Why don’t we make it so that both gay and straight people get to have birthdays, except the gay people have to call it an “annual festival.” You know, to send the right message to kids. If the word is so insignificant, meaningless, and not worth fighting over, then _why not just let us have it?!_ ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/253 "2009-05-27T18:14:05Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > I can’t be arsed to read all through this thread, which I suspect is going to prove quite the trainwreck before it’s all done, but I have to congratulate the OP on finally admitting his inability to be honest in GD. I have long thought he must be perfectly well aware of this character defect of his and it takes a big man to come out and say it like that. Well done and hats off to you, **Der Trihs**! 🆒 You’re an idiot. He’s saying he can’t be honest in GD because **tom** decreed his particular bit of honesty (that SSM opponents, including posters on this board, are bigots) to be off limits. He would if he could, but he can’t so he won’t. Disagree with DT all you like, but don’t misrepresent. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/254 "2009-05-27T18:14:18Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I assumed he didn’t know that Unitarians performed SSMs. Because what he’s saying would legalize SSM. If that’s what he’s going for, my bad. 😃 > > It would also make millions of Americans unmarried and merely civil unioned. I’m sure those people would be a little pissed. That is my next suggestion. Let’s give the title “married” to SS couples and “civilly united” to het couples. I mean, it’s exactly the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/255 "2009-05-27T18:14:39Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > People do not normally distinguish between “religious marriage” (“charriage”) and “civil marriage” (“marriage”) – and you know, I don’t think youre terms are any better than mine. That’s the problem: The lack of such distinguishment is the basis upon which non-SSM can argue against the extension of all marital rights to gays: They conflate their view of marriage/charriage (one man + one woman, only in a church, whatever) with government-sanctioned marriage, and insist that unless you meet the criteria for the former (in their eyes, of course), you should not be admitted to the latter. It’s not only what they can do, it is exactly what they are doing, and forms the very core of their opposition. This is a convenient little hiding place, and I hope it serves its purpose of helping you convince yourself that you are not a bigot. I agree that government should not be sticking its nose into marriage. But they do. And they’re not going to stop. So should that be an excuse to deny equal rights to an entire class of people? The system is flawed, we agree. So how does the fact that it is flawed lead to the conclusion that some people should be denied access to that system? In the end, your argument is just another rationalization, another excuse to continue the bigotry. Some people have no problem coming right out and saying they don’t like gay people, others need to find cover because it’s becoming less socially acceptable to do so. So they, just like the racists and the sexists before them, come up with arguments like this. In their mind it makes the bigotry easier to swallow. But, just like all the bigoted arguments that have been exposed in the past, these types of smokescreens are getting less and less traction. The tar pits are looming large, dinosaur. As far as I’m concerned, you can’t go extinct quickly enough. ---
**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:** [May 27, 2009, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/256 "2009-05-27T18:15:53Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > I can’t be arsed to read all through this thread, which I suspect is going to prove quite the trainwreck before it’s all done, but I have to congratulate the OP on finally admitting his inability to be honest in GD. I have long thought he must be perfectly well aware of this character defect of his and it takes a big man to come out and say it like that. Well done and hats off to you, **Der Trihs**! 🆒 Wow, what a pointless threadshit. Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere, the adults are talking. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/257 "2009-05-27T18:18:05Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > I can’t be arsed to read all through this thread, which I suspect is going to prove quite the trainwreck before it’s all done, but I have to congratulate the OP on finally admitting his inability to be honest in GD. I have long thought he must be perfectly well aware of this character defect of his and it takes a big man to come out and say it like that. Well done and hats off to you, **Der Trihs**! 🆒 That’s funny, I thought it was his consistent honesty about what he thinks of religion and other topics that made him so hated by many here. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/258 "2009-05-27T18:21:15Z")
It is sad to see so many truly believe that those who differ on an issue of social policy are of necessity “bigots”. I’m a long-time believer that SSM is both just and sensible (and the debate has been won in my country anyway). To my mind at least, it is obvious that what motivates much of the opposition isn’t “bigotry”, it is antipathy to what was seen as radical social change. The proof? That in this country, _once gay marriage was established and became the norm_ a huge percentage of the opposition dropped away. It cannot be the case that all of these people used to be “bigots” and have since seen the light and ceased to be bigots. Isn’t it rather more likely that they used to fear change, but once change happened and no ill effects followed, they ceased to fear it? ---
**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:** [May 27, 2009, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/259 "2009-05-27T18:22:39Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > If you get the EXACT same things in a civil union as you do in a marriage Big “if”. Such “ifs” tend to require court battles because someone opposed to the premise will quibble on the letter of the law, or if he can’t, he’ll quibble on the spirit of the law, or if he can’t he’ll quibble anyway because the people opposed to the premise have lots of money and too much time on their hands. I guess it’s just gonna have to take a well-publicized injustice like a hospital refusing to take direction from a civil-union partner in a case where they would casually do so from a spouse. I’m sure we’ll see it soon enough. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/260 "2009-05-27T18:23:54Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > It is sad to see so many truly believe that those who differ on an issue of social policy are of necessity “bigots”. Yes, bigotry is always sad. This isn’t a matter of “social policy,” as if we were talking about tax deductions; it’s a matter of discrimination, oppression, and denial of civil rights. I’ve given up regarding my equality and my status as a citizen equal before the law as something on which reasonable people can disagree. > [@](#): > > Isn’t it rather more likely that they used to fear change, but once change happened and no ill effects followed, they ceased to fear it? Yup. They used to be against equality for gay and lesbian people, a bigoted point of view, and then stopped. Yay! I approve! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768.md?page=14)