# 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:** 14
**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, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/261 "2009-05-27T18:24:36Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > 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? It might also be resignation. The blow was struck, the country took a step closer to Sodom. They knew that they didn’t have the votes or the voice to stop it, so they’d never have enough to repeal it. ---
**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:** [May 27, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/262 "2009-05-27T18:26:09Z")
If a man and a woman kiss, it’s called “kissing.” If a man and a man kiss, it’s called “kissing.” If a woman and a man date, it’s called “dating.” If a woman and a woman date, it’s called “dating.” If a man and a woman hug, it’s called “hugging.” If a man and a man hug, it’s called “hugging.” If a woman and a man go into business together it’s called “going into business together.” If a woman and a woman go into business together, it’s called “going into business together.” If a man and a woman kayak, it’s called “kayaking.” If a man and a man kayak, it’s called “kayaking.” If a woman and a man fall in love, it’s called “falling in love.” If a woman and a woman fall in love, it’s called “falling in love.” If a man and a woman eat dinner, it’s called “eating.” If a man and a man eat dinner, it’s called “eating.” If a woman gives birth to a boy child, it’s called “giving birth.” If a woman gives birth to a girl child, it’s called “giving birth.” If a man and a woman get married, it’s called “getting married.” If a man and a man get married, it’s called “anything but marriage you fucking perverts.” ---
**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, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/263 "2009-05-27T18:31:35Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > 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. > > Yup. They used to be against equality for gay and lesbian people, a bigoted point of view, and then stopped. Yay! I approve! The justice of a cause or point of view does not say anything about the _motivations_ of those who oppose it. ---
**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, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/264 "2009-05-27T18:33:00Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It might also be resignation. The blow was struck, the country took a step closer to Sodom. They knew that they didn’t have the votes or the voice to stop it, so they’d never have enough to repeal it. That would not explain people actually changing their minds and deciding that something, once thought a “bad” is now either a “good” or “indifferent”. ---
**Author:** ![mazinger\_z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@mazinger\_z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mazinger_z)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/265 "2009-05-27T18:39:27Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Here’s the problem, though…have the government call it a civil union, and have “marriage” be the sole province of religion. The term marriage is still going to lose the meaning you are granting to it because there will be (and already are) religions who will grant marriage to same-sex couples. I disagree. If my changes were to occur, then I would now assume that people who said that they were married were religious, in some form. I have no problem of people of the same sex declaring themselves married, if their religion allows it. It also tells me that such people are not catholic. > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > So, the state might not call it “marriage,” and likewise they wouldn’t call what my husband and I have “marriage,” because the fact that we had vows in a church would be meaningless within that context. But all our friends and family consider us married, and likewise, we all consider some relatives married who are lesbian and also had vows in a church. If that couple stood in the same church as a hetero couple, and said the same vows as a hetero couple, how can you then legitimately refer to one as a “marriage” and one not? Hopefully, my first response in this post makes my point more clear. If not, let me elaborate: couples (regardless of sex) who proclaim they are married, will now, if my changes were to happen, be known as “married” under some religious ceremony. A civil union is a marriage, if you will, recognized by the stated. I suppose then, we would have to create a new term, “civilly unionized,” to denote process of the actual act. ---
**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, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/266 "2009-05-27T18:44:36Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The justice of a cause or point of view does not say anything about the _motivations_ of those who oppose it. And what I’ve been telling you is that it doesn’t have to. It doesn’t matter why someone favours inequality for queer people, the result is the same either way: they favour inequality for queer people, which is homophobic and indefensible. ---
**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, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/267 "2009-05-27T18:46:22Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > That would not explain people actually changing their minds and deciding that something, once thought a “bad” is now either a “good” or “indifferent”. I’ve noticed in myself and others switching to apathy mode after losing something. It’s sour grapes, they shift their attentions to something else since they’ve already lost this battle. ---
**Author:** ![mazinger\_z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@mazinger\_z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mazinger_z)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/268 "2009-05-27T18:46:52Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > 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. Well, to be more accurate, they were a civil contract really only recognized between two parties (or their families), which they conducted and coordinated their actions amongst themselves. Then, they were recognized by third parties, like a church or a religion. Then, by the state. > [@matt\_mcl](#): > > 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. You’re right, I would have no problem with you marrying a man and calling it a marriage, if your religion recognized it. If there was no religious ceremony, it would be a civil union. If no such union was recorded, then I would have problems with both you calling it a marriage and trying to claim rights afforded under civil/state law reserved for people in civil unions. ---
**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, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/269 "2009-05-27T18:49:30Z")
> [@mazinger\_z](#): > > Well, to be more accurate, they were a civil contract really only recognized between two parties (or their families), which they conducted and coordinated their actions amongst themselves. Then, they were recognized by third parties, like a church or a religion. Then, by the state. > You’re right, I would have no problem with you marrying a man and calling it a marriage, if your religion recognized it. If there was no religious ceremony, it would be a civil union. If no such union was recorded, then I would have problems with both you calling it a marriage and trying to claim rights afforded under civil/state law reserved for people in civil unions. I’m utterly secular and don’t want to give up my marriage term. ---
**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, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/270 "2009-05-27T18:50:19Z")
> [@mazinger\_z](#): > > If my changes were to occur, then I would now assume that people who said that they were married were religious, in some form. I have no problem of people of the same sex declaring themselves married, if their religion allows it. A concept which makes my skin crawl. I haven’t the rabid anti-religion streak DT does, but I will be very happy if religion never returns to the prominence it once enjoyed. Religion should be private, shared only among friends and family, and the idea that you should be able to tell anything about me and my religion (or lack thereof) from anything other than me saying “I am X” is something I’m very much against. Religion shouldn’t play a part in day to day society or within polite company. Not to mention that the word marriage will continue to hold its very strong connotations. People will feel pressure to be part of a church to take advantage of being married rather than _geck_ “civilly unionized”. Sorry, if marriage actually did originate with religion (which it didn’t, religion just usurped it), then it’s become a secular institution just as much as Christmas (which also, coincidentally, was merely usurped by Christianity and didn’t originate with it). It’s doubtful it’s ever going back. ---
**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, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/271 "2009-05-27T18:55:51Z")
> [@mazinger\_z](#): > > You’re right, I would have no problem with you marrying a man and calling it a marriage, if your religion recognized it. If there was no religious ceremony, it would be a civil union. If no such union was recorded, then I would have problems with both you calling it a marriage and trying to claim rights afforded under civil/state law reserved for people in civil unions. You quoted, but did not respond to, this: > [@matt\_mcl](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![mazinger\_z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@mazinger\_z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mazinger_z)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/272 "2009-05-27T18:56:57Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’m utterly secular and don’t want to give up my marriage term. Well, I believe that ideas and thoughts are best expressed and understood, not only between people, but between generations, if there is a uniformity in terms and commonality in language. IOW, too fucking bad. 🆒 I suppose that this makes me bigoted. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![BunnyTVS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BunnyTVS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BunnyTVS)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/273 "2009-05-27T19:04:59Z")
I may be getting a little lost here so apologies in advance… A number of you seem to be saying that “marriage” is an act reserved for religions. Anything else is something equal-but-different. If that is the case, and given the fact that some religions do perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples [and more](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-animal_marriage). How can the Californian SC define in it’s ruling that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman? ---
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/274 "2009-05-27T19:11:16Z")
> [@mazinger\_z](#): > > Well, I believe that ideas and thoughts are best expressed and understood, not only between people, but between generations, if there is a uniformity in terms and commonality in language. IOW, too fucking bad. 🆒 I suppose that this makes me bigoted. :dubious: No it makes your solution stupid. Your solution will involve taking something away. SSM involves giving something. ---
**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, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/275 "2009-05-27T19:16:35Z")
> [@](#): > > …How can the Californian SC define in it’s ruling that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman? Well, they’re kinda hoist on their own retard, there. Legally, its tough enough, but in terms of semantics, its even worse. The revision is in the “present tense”, if you will, marriage _is_ between a man and a woman, not marriage “will be”. Now, they’ve got a situation where marriages that can’t be are. Its kinda like saying same-sex marriage is impossible, except for when its already happened. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/276 "2009-05-27T19:17:14Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > 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. Exactly right. ---
**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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/277 "2009-05-27T19:19:33Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > 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? Never said that. Not once. I don’t believe that the two struggles are remotely similar, but that’s another fight. I agree with the idea that seperate but equal is a bad deal, but for the love of pete, we have to start somewhere. If civil unions are all that the majorty of people are comfortable with now, TAKE IT and continue the fight. I think it’s ok because even small steps are still steps. Sure, it’s a big, giant grandiose wish to make everyone exactly the same as everyone else. Problem is, it’s gonna take a lot longer than this lifetime to make that happen. I have a problem with people who, as elucidator mentioned, grab someone by the lapels and screams in their face. That tack never works. It does however create enemies where once a possible friend once was. I have no problem with gay marriages being called marriages. Lots of people do though, and they’re powerful enough to stop it from happening, so you take what you can and move on. Let’s be clear. I’m ambivalent on the subject on the whole. No dog in the fight and all that, but I recognize bad strategy when I see it, and this, is bad strategy. [QUOTE=Kalhoun] 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. [/QUOTE] Because that’s what’s available now, today. Tomorrow is another matter. The anti ssm crowd is saying exactly that, they dont want gays married in mainstream society. No matter the reason, they have not been convinced that ‘marriage’ is what should happen. OK, take civil unions today, and keep working. [QUOTE=matt\_mcl] 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?! [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: Oy. Because the birthday offers no special protection under the law. This does. It’s going to require a little patience. I would, but then I don’t object. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/278 "2009-05-27T19:19:50Z")
Well I have read/scanned most of the thread and just wanted to chime in (because I know without my viewpoint this is all pointless :). **Der Thrihs** is right. There is no way getting around the fact that saying “I have nothing aginst gays and lesbians, but…” without showing bigotry. It doens’t make you a raving bigot, but a bigot nonetheless. I would suspect we all have some bigotry in us. For example in my world Bears fans should not be allowed to procreate. Just sayin’… He may or may not be a bigot himself, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t right. And **tomndeb** was wrong from banning the use of the word in the context DT was using it. Bigotry is defined by an attitude and DT was using it to label people because of their attitudes. It would be like banning calling Steeler fans, ‘Steeler Nation’. Now folks can and obviously are debating whether the label fits, but it is perfectly appropriate to be able to use the word ‘bigot’ if in your mind that fits. The right response is not to ban the word, but to engage DT, like we get to do in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![mazinger\_z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@mazinger\_z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mazinger_z)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/279 "2009-05-27T19:20:57Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > A concept which makes my skin crawl. I haven’t the rabid anti-religion streak DT does, but I will be very happy if religion never returns to the prominence it once enjoyed. Religion should be private, shared only among friends and family, and the idea that you should be able to tell anything about me and my religion (or lack thereof) from anything other than me saying “I am X” is something I’m very much against. Religion shouldn’t play a part in day to day society or within polite company. Do you make no in-person contact with anyone at all? The way you dress, eat, speak, word choice, etc. all convey some information about yourself. In my scenario, saying that you are married, and nothing more, only tells me that you had a religious ceremony. If all religions recognized SSM, then I only know that you had a religious ceremony. I wouldn’t even know what sexual orientation you preferred. Hell, I wouldn’t even know you went through a civil union (because you secretly don’t want your “civil union partner” to have any benefits from your will) [\<– insert any crazy answer here]. Btw, I share your views on religion, but I would extend it to community(ies) as well. > [@Bosstone](#): > > Not to mention that the word marriage will continue to hold its very strong connotations. People will feel pressure to be part of a church to take advantage of being married rather than _geck_ “civilly unionized”. Well, change does happen. But, now as the trend appears to be people moving away from the church anyway, do you really think that people will go back to church and become more religious. I have relatives who are now getting married who do not want a mass with their marriage ceremony. Don’t you think that these same people will remain religious only when Easter and Christmas roll along? > [@Bosstone](#): > > Sorry, if marriage actually did originate with religion (which it didn’t, religion just usurped it), then it’s become a secular institution just as much as Christmas (which also, coincidentally, was merely usurped by Christianity and didn’t originate with it). It’s doubtful it’s ever going back. Ok, I agree that it’s become secularized. Then, I argue even more vehemently that the state should not ratify it. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/280 "2009-05-27T19:21:33Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > 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. It does. I am 100% sure, as I am of few other things, that I am not a bigot. So thanks for your your concern! Whew, huh??? 🙂 > [@](#): > > 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? No, but then lucky for me I never said anything like this. > [@](#): > > 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. I honestly don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about. It’s quite the fulminating screed, but it doesn’t bear any relationship to anything I’ve said, much less believe, so I can’t get too worked up about it. I’ll work on that extinction as a personal favor, though! Just give me another 55 years and I’ll be right out of your hair. In the mean time, if my presence on the earth in anyway bothers you, you’ll just have to suck it up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768.md?page=15)