# 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:** 17
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/321 "2009-05-28T02:29:49Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, maybe. And Heaven knows, the prospect of stagnation is a dire one. But what some of us are saying is that we’d kinda like to take a run at that, just to see, you know, give peace a chance. Is what we’re saying. You sound like one o’ them thar hippies. Are you one o’ them hippies? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/322 "2009-05-28T02:45:51Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > 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. Taking such a “compromise” will make the conflict take LONGER. Possibly generations longer, as segregation did; that’s part of why such “compromises” are made. In reality, they are just writing prejudice into law. They make progress harder, not easier. It wasn’t the compromisers who won civil rights for blacks, or women. > [@buttonjockey308](#): > > 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. No, you are talking about taking a ghetto version of marriage and stalling. Of NOT going on. > [@tomndebb](#): > > I was forced to rule that language out of bounds because a number of posters–you primarily, but hardly exclusively–were making the argument that the discussion was resolved by the simple act of calling other people names. > > It may, (or it may not), be true that everyone who opposes SSM is a bigot, but that does not address the issue of whether SSM should or should not be recognized in law and it absolutely does not answer the question “what is the argument against SSM?” And not coincidentally, now that thread is full of people insisting that we just have to understand why the opponents think how they do, and we aren’t allowed to point out that we already know. It’s full of people saying things like “they say we are all bigoted”, and the the other side not being allowed to say “because we think you ARE ! Give me a non-bigoted reason !”. It means people can’t say they disapprove of bigotry, since that amounts to an admission that all the other side has going for it IS bigotry. > [@elucidator](#): > > Well, maybe. And Heaven knows, the prospect of stagnation is a dire one. But what some of us are saying is that we’d kinda like to take a run at that, just to see, you know, give peace a chance. Is what we’re saying. Yeah, those blacks shouldn’t rile people up complaining about separate water fountains. ---
**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 28, 2009, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/323 "2009-05-28T02:57:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, maybe. And Heaven knows, the prospect of stagnation is a dire one. But what some of us are saying is that we’d kinda like to take a run at that, just to see, you know, give peace a chance. Is what we’re saying. That’ll be of some limited comfort when the Nazi jackboot slams down on your neck. Yeah, that’s right, I Godwinned. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/324 "2009-05-28T03:26:44Z")
[QUOTE= Peanut Gallery] I don’t give them any benefit of the doubt. [/QUOTE] That’s pretty hateful and ignorant in and of itself. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/325 "2009-05-28T03:34:20Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > You sound like one o’ them thar hippies. Are you one o’ them hippies? 😃 Well. I wasn’t at Woodstock, or anything. But I did give a bunch of brown barrels to a guy who was going! You know, come to think of it, I never did hear how that turned out… ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/326 "2009-05-28T03:54:52Z")
> [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](#): > > That’s pretty hateful and ignorant in and of itself. Oh ? And if someone doesn’t give people who regard blacks as subhuman the “benefit of the doubt”, then are they being “hateful and ignorant” too ? The anti SSM side simply has no valid arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Sealemon2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@Sealemon2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sealemon2.0)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/327 "2009-05-28T05:15:46Z")
In answer to the OP, statistics say that there very well might be a few people opposed to SSM that are not bigots. I can envision someone being opposed to it simply becuase they are a moron and just go with what they’ve heard from others. With that said, all of the arguments against it that I’ve heard so far all smack of prejudice in one flavor or another. P.S. 5 states out of 50, and my own straight marrage doesn’t feel lessened at all (in response to the ever popular “Letting _them_ in would degrade the whole concept of marriage!” argument). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/328 "2009-05-28T05:28:36Z")
There are no valid arguments for the anti-vaccination movement, either, but we will make more progress by engagement and persuasion than by screaming that they are pro-smallpox. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/329 "2009-05-28T05:50:55Z")
I feel that would depend on what the antivax folks are trying to do with their views. If they’re just opposed to it as a private opinion, that’s one thing. If they’re out there with multimillion-dollar campaigns to legally deny people access to vaccinations, I’m gonna break out the “you’re pro-smallpox” chants. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/330 "2009-05-28T07:14:24Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > There are no valid arguments for the anti-vaccination movement, either, but we will make more progress by engagement and persuasion than by screaming that they are pro-smallpox. That’s because they AREN’T pro-smallpox. The anti SSMers are, however bigots, motivated by malice towards homosexuals. ---
**Author:** ![Abby\_Emma\_Sasha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e68b1a/32.png) [@Abby\_Emma\_Sasha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abby_Emma_Sasha)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/331 "2009-05-28T11:19:44Z")
Nobody cares what the fuck I say so I’m free to spout my useless opinion with abandon. Yes, you are indeed a bigot if you oppose marriage to couples of the same sex . Why? Because they they want to be married. There is no other reason that is needed to be heard. If you are going to counter this with someone being married to their goat or even equating this with plural marriage, no one has lobbied for that. Get back to me when society at large wants to marry their pet. When you can come up with a reason why my marriage and your marriage will suffer from from some homos taking the same vows then I willl take your views into consideration. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/332 "2009-05-28T12:48:13Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > So a person who believes that relgion is inherently evil or that all religious people are evil by nature is a bigot, since it’s demonstrable that this isn’t true. It may not be true, but the ideology of the group overrides that of the individual, and whether you are a good religious person or not, if your group adopts any display of exclusivity, you are as guilty as any of them unless you leave or try to change the group-think. ---
**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 28, 2009, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/333 "2009-05-28T13:12:13Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > There are no valid arguments for the anti-vaccination movement There are _potential_ arguments, at least - concerns about potentially toxic additives and adverse reactions - that can be supported by statistical analysis. Granted, the antivaxers _don’t_ do this, relying on anecdotal evidence and pseudoscience, but they hypothetically _could._ I’ve never seen the anti-SSM argument even approach this potential. The arguments consists of things that are incorrect (homosexuals can’t reproduce), inconsistent (nonreproducing heterosexuals are okay, though), unprovable (homosexuals can’t possibly form an emotional bond comparable to heterosexuals), or biblical (God said it’s wrong). ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/334 "2009-05-28T13:31:34Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > If you lived in California, would you vote for Prop 8? Y’know, I think the answer to this is obvious, and I’m not really inclined to indulge the sort of person who quotes what I say but apparently doesn’t read it, much less a person who is so far up on their fucking high horse as to wish death on me. But neither do I want to give you an excuse to construe your lack of reading comprehension as evasiveness on my part, so . . . . No. Not just no, but fuck no. ---
**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 28, 2009, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/335 "2009-05-28T14:09:19Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Y’know, I think the answer to this is obvious, Then you think wrong. Your position was ambiguous. This: > [@](#): > > much less a person who is so far up on their fucking high horse as to wish death on me. Plus this: > [@](#): > > But neither do I want to give you an excuse to construe your lack of reading comprehension as evasiveness on my part, so . . . . equals 😛 So even though I explained that “extinct” did not mean “dead,” and gave an example of others who are extinct but not dead, I was “wishing death on” you. Oh, and also,\*\* I \*\*can’t read for comprehension. Comedy gold, Jerry! > [@](#): > > No. Not just no, but fuck no. Then I misunderstood. I’m sorry. ---
**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 28, 2009, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/336 "2009-05-28T14:13:01Z")
I’m just curious how being far up on a high horse means wishing death on someone, unless it involves threatening to drop things on them. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/337 "2009-05-28T14:18:15Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > There are _potential_ arguments, at least - concerns about potentially toxic additives and adverse reactions - that can be supported by statistical analysis. Granted, the antivaxers _don’t_ do this, relying on anecdotal evidence and pseudoscience, but they hypothetically _could._ > > I’ve never seen the anti-SSM argument even approach this potential. The arguments consists of things that are incorrect (homosexuals can’t reproduce), inconsistent (nonreproducing heterosexuals are okay, though), unprovable (homosexuals can’t possibly form an emotional bond comparable to heterosexuals), or biblical (God said it’s wrong). From what I’ve seen, aside from the very religious and those who truly hate, most who are against it are against it not for any of these reasons, but simply because they are against any major social change. These are the same people who, once gay marriage is in place (as it is here), cease to oppose it. In Canada gay marriage is now a non-issue, except for a fringe. This does not mean that the almost half of the population who opposed it initially used to be gay-hating bigots but have since seen the light. Those who are truly motivated by bigotry oppose it still, but are a small minority. Which is why I strongly disagree with the OP. Disapproving of change (or rather putting a very high onus on deciding that change is a good rather than a bad thing) isn’t bigotry, it is merely social conservatism, which in spite of the opinions of many on this board is not the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/338 "2009-05-28T14:23:20Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > This is what bugs me the most about people who argue that the solution to the debate is to have the government get out of marriage altogether. I’m a queer atheist, who wants to someday get married. How does making religion a solely religious institution help me at all? I still can’t get married, except now it’s because of my membership in an entirely different minority. You’ve just shuffled me from one ghetto to another. Thanks, but no thanks. But what that religious institution says will have no impact on you. They can say that marriage consists only of a man and a woman, or indeed any criteria they so select; that doesn’t mean they “own” the word, and that you cannot use it differently. We can do whatever we want and call it marriage, if we want; let alone if we marry a person of the same sex, we could call running a mile “marriage” if we wanted. You can get married now if you should so wish. The problem is that the government won’t recognise it - if they did, then who cares what Johnny Churchman says? ---
**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 28, 2009, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/339 "2009-05-28T14:37:10Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Which is why I strongly disagree with the OP. Disapproving of change (or rather putting a very high onus on deciding that change is a good rather than a bad thing) isn’t bigotry, it is merely social conservatism, which in spite of the opinions of many on this board is not the same thing. Yes, but it’s social conservatism with no regard for the unhappiness and suffering the ban creates. There may be a distinction in theory between a bad person and a good person who just does bad things, but in practice, not so much. The net effect is the bad thing gets done and the suffering continues. In any case, I don’t personally care for the bigot label simply it’s vague. I’d much rather call someone an idiot or a liar or a troll - something more personal and demonstrable. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/340 "2009-05-28T14:48:00Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Yes, but it’s social conservatism with no regard for the unhappiness and suffering the ban creates. There may be a distinction in theory between a bad person and a good person who just does bad things, but in practice, not so much. The net effect is the bad thing gets done and the suffering continues. > > In any case, I don’t personally care for the bigot label simply it’s vague. I’d much rather call someone an idiot or a liar or a troll - something more personal and demonstrable. My point is that if you really want to move a particular social change forward (rather than just blow steam), it is better to really understand what actually motivates your opponents and craft your response accordingly. Simply calling people bigots, idiots, liars or trolls when they oppose what you consider a necessary change isn’t very convincing - that only plays well with people who already agree with you. It is rare that a person can be insulted into agreeing with your position, whether the insults are true or not (and in this case they very often are not). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768.md?page=18)