# 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:** 15
**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, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/281 "2009-05-27T19:23:42Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > 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. Except those opposed to SSM won’t lose anything when it’s finally legalized. I think their silence in the fifty thousand instances on this board where they’ve been asked to articulate what they will lose is sufficient evidence of that. ---
**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, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/282 "2009-05-27T19:25:02Z")
> [@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 am not religious and not spiritual. I was married in Vegas where I specifically requested that there be no religious ceremony. I really, really wanted a civil union. However, the certificate I received says I’m married. ---
**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, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/283 "2009-05-27T19:29:18Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > You quoted, but did not respond to, this: > [@](#): > > 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. I got lazy with my quoting, but I really didn’t have anything to respond to this. I will say, though, the more I think about it, my changes, if implemented will do a number of things: 1) provide a more accurate and descriptive terminology; 2) piss off religious people; 3) get the state and religious institutions separated; 4) force people to think beyond one stupid issue. ---
**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, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/284 "2009-05-27T19:32:30Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > Because the birthday offers no special protection under the law. Phew, that’s a relief. I’d hate to think some citizens were getting special protection while others weren’t. ---
**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, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/285 "2009-05-27T19:33:11Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > Except those opposed to SSM won’t lose anything when it’s finally legalized. I think their silence in the fifty thousand instances on this board where they’ve been asked to articulate what they will lose is sufficient evidence of that. Oh certainly. I’m saying there isn’t continued uproar after the fact because they’ve been defeated, not lost anything. Most anti SSM people are real shit-heads and I would assume whimper with their tails between their legs when beaten. ---
**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, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/286 "2009-05-27T19:33:44Z")
Hell, all marriages are civil unions, it is merely customary to empower clerical persons to perform them. You want a divorce, you go to court, not to your rabbi/parson/whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/287 "2009-05-27T19:38:48Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > If a man and a woman kiss, it’s called “kissing.” If a man and a man kiss, it’s called “kissing.”\ > 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.” And if a man loves another man, it’s called ‘gay’. If man loves a woman, it’s called ‘straight’. Separate terms are meaningful for different things. ---
**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, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/288 "2009-05-27T19:43:38Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Hell, all marriages are civil unions, it is merely customary to empower clerical persons to perform them. You want a divorce, you go to court, not to your rabbi/parson/whatever. A point I made upthread that doesn’t seem to matter much. ---
**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, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/289 "2009-05-27T19:45:12Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > And if a man loves another man, it’s called ‘gay’. If man loves a woman, it’s called ‘straight’. Separate terms are meaningful for different things. Gay is a descriptor not an activity. Sodomy or cunnilingus don’t connote gay or straight. Kissing or dating don’t. Neither should marriage. It’s amazing how stupid all the arguments are. 😃 ---
**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, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/290 "2009-05-27T19:46:59Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > And if a man loves another man, it’s called ‘gay’. If man loves a woman, it’s called ‘straight’. Separate terms are meaningful for different things. Sure, when the things are substantially different. In the case of SSM, there is no substantial difference. It is the union of two people for reasons of love or convenience. We don’t say “black marriage” or “disabled marriage” or “fat marriage”, do we? ---
**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, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/291 "2009-05-27T19:49:04Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > 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. If you are saying that it does not matter why someone holds a certain point of view, they ought to be labelled "bigots’ regardless, I’m going to have to disagree - the word itself is intended to describe what motivates someone. It is my impression that people use the word because they find it useful in a polemical sense, not because it is accurate. ---
**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, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/292 "2009-05-27T19:53:56Z")
You can take cunnilingus when you can pry it from my cold, dead…OK, that isn’t going to work… ---
**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, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/293 "2009-05-27T19:54:18Z")
> [@mazinger\_z](#): > > 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. So what? As long as it says nothing about religion, I couldn’t care less. > [@](#): > > 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? To be honest, I have no idea what you’re asking in the last sentence, so I’ll go with the first question. I don’t actually think that it will make people more religious, but it will force people to pay a larger amount of attention to the church, and there ain’t nothin’ like a bunch of people who don’t give a damn about religion but are affiliated with the church anyway just so they can get married instead of civilly unionized to dilute the importance of religion. It’s funny watching you and **magellan01** try to go through these linguistic backflips (although I’ll acknowledge that your particular view is more coherent and logical than his) when the populace at large doesn’t care and will never care. Even if laws are passed to categorize straights/religious into marriage and gays/seculars into civil unions, it’s not going to matter in common parlance. Everyone’s just going to call themselves married because it’s simpler, faster, and provides the necessary connotations people want to convey, and eventually we’ll wonder what the damn point of splitting hairs like that was in the first place. You want a distinction people will use? Marriage for love, civil union for personal partnerships that don’t have as much to do with love as legal convenience. _Then_ you’ll see people making the distinction, because that’s what marriage connotes. It has nothing to do with religion or sexual preference, but love. That’s how the word is used today, how it makes sense to most people, and how it will continue to be used regardless of what set of laws eventually get passed. ---
**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, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/294 "2009-05-27T19:59:34Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > It has nothing to do with religion or sexual preference, but love. That’s how the word is used today, how it makes sense to most people, and how it will continue to be used regardless of what set of laws eventually get passed. I would agree. My impression is that “civil unions” is a halfway house solution that will not last very long - marriage is what it is and what it will be called; the sole use of “civil union” is to get those leery of change on board with a change that is I think inevitable - an inequity such as having marriage only for straight folk cannot stand. ---
**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, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/295 "2009-05-27T20:07:59Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > 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. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Wow, what a pointless threadshit. Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere, the adults are talking. > > 😃 > [@Revtim](#): > > 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. Can I point and laugh at all three\* of you at once and get it over with? I understood perfectly well what DT meant, but pretended not to for the sake of humour. You should try it some time. Rev, the OP’s honesty about what he thinks doesn’t bother me one whit. His insistence that those with whom he disagrees with are all hatemongering murderous bastards, however, I take less as honesty and more as… well, a clever man like you can figure it out. 😛 - Unless **Lobohan** ’s grin indicates that his post is a counter-whoosh, in which case, well played, sir. 😃 ---
**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, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/296 "2009-05-27T20:12:03Z")
The other reason why I’m not on board with the “Why don’t you just accept civil unions and shut up?” is because same-sex marriage _already exists._ It exists in this country, as well as in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, South Africa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa. Unless you’re prepared to argue that California can never attain the standards of human rights enjoyed in South Africa, which I am not, why should Californians settle for a cushioned inequality when the equality they want is within grasping distance? I went _in my lifetime_ from someone with no legally recognized rights to someone with the right not to be discriminated against by governments or private actors and the equal right to marry and adopt children. Between the time the Canadian parliament passed a motion affirming that marriage was between a man and a woman and the time it passed the act legalizing same-sex marriage was six years. The advance of our legal rights has proceeded at a dizzying pace, and what that tells me is that there is no point in backing off or compromising on full equality. ---
**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, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/297 "2009-05-27T20:19:33Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > 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??? 🙂 Actually, you said that your position is that you oppose government-sanctioned gay marriage. That makes you a bigot. You dress your position up nicely, and make it sound like you are not a bigot because you oppose all state-sponsored marriage, but that’s just a bullshit distraction, because you know GD good and well that the state is going to continue to sanction marriage. So you use that convenient little fact to obscure your bigotry. It’s just like when David Duke said that he had nothing against black people, but if they get the NAACP then white people should get an equivalent institution just for them. It’s just lipstick and rouge on a disgusting opinion. > [@](#): > > 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. Oh, I certainly don’t think I’ll have to wait until you die for your ilk to go extinct. There are some people around now who really believed all the bullshit racist arguments in favor of segregation, but you’ll never hear them make those arguments now. They are too far out of favor with too many people to be safely voiced in public. Segregationists are extinct, even though some are still living. I’m sure in 30 years you will not want the arguments that you have made here brought up. You’d look just like someone arguing that black people are inferior beings, and that segregation does them a favor by easing them gently into civilized society. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/298 "2009-05-27T20:20:18Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > - an inequity such as having marriage only for straight folk cannot stand. No? It’s stood since the beginnings of that institution, some thousands of years. I wouldn’t write it off just yet. And what’s in a word? If the same rights adhere to civil unions as they do to marriage (and if they don’t they should) then why not leave marriage to describe, as it always has done, the union between a man and a woman? ---
**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, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/299 "2009-05-27T20:26:10Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > No? It’s stood since the beginnings of that institution, some thousands of years. I wouldn’t write it off just yet. > > And what’s in a word? If the same rights adhere to civil unions as they do to marriage (and if they don’t they should) then why not leave marriage to describe, as it always has done, the union between a man and a woman? If it’s just a word, as you say, what do you care if it is applied to same-sex unions? ---
**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, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/300 "2009-05-27T20:26:32Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > And what’s in a word? If the same rights adhere to civil unions as they do to marriage (and if they don’t they should) then why not leave marriage to describe, as it always has done, the union between a man and a woman? Not this again. “It means so much to us! We can’t just let you have it! Why do you want it anyway? It’s just a word.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768.md?page=16)