# 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:** 18
**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, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/341 "2009-05-28T14:56:11Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > It is rare that a person can be insulted into agreeing with your position You sure about that, dickface? Oops, sorry… yes, you’re correct of course, and this is why Der Trihs (and to some extent Diogenes the Cynic and that pseudotron guy and some others) are frequent embarrassments to us saner SDMB atheists because they insist on being polarizing rather than convincing. My own approach to the issue of gay marriage would involve all efforts to reassure those currently in hetero marriages that their relationships will not be altered one iota, hence none of this “all marriages should be civil unions” crap. I recognize that most of the voters are fairly indifferent so I’d try to avoid giving them anything that might case them to reflexively dig their heels in. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/342 "2009-05-28T15:01:53Z")
Heh, it keeps going and going. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/343 "2009-05-28T15:05:27Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > And yet, curiously, he referred to both later in the same post which I quoted above: And what is your problem here exactly? Atheism was central to communism. If that bothers you take it up with Joseph Stalin and Karl Marx. ---
**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, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/344 "2009-05-28T15:05:45Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > My problem is mainly with evangelical religion. I don’t have a real problem with religion itself, just with people putting it in my face or insisting that it drive public policy or whatever. As long as your religion (or your body odor, or your crazy driving skills, or whatever) doesn’t affect me, then we’re cool. This. In short, people should mind their own business and not try to to force their own brand of religion down someone else’s throat. As someone like Bill Maher might say (and actually did during his “eulogy” of Falwell), stop name dropping God all over the place and stop dressing up intolerance as a religion. Just because one person believes something or chooses to obey whatever religious ideas he has, does not mean everyone else has to. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM someone else’s brand. ---
**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, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/345 "2009-05-28T15:07:20Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You sure about that, dickface? > > Oops, sorry… yes, you’re correct of course, and this is why Der Trihs (and to some extent Diogenes the Cynic and that pseudotron guy and some others) are frequent embarrassments to us saner SDMB atheists because they insist on being polarizing rather than convincing. > My own approach to the issue of gay marriage would involve all efforts to reassure those currently in hetero marriages that their relationships will not be altered one iota, hence none of this “all marriages should be civil unions” crap. I recognize that most of the voters are fairly indifferent so I’d try to avoid giving them anything that might case them to reflexively dig their heels in. Yup, and to point to places that have it and have not suffered one bit of ill effects because of it. Really, it is a tempest in a teapot, a no-brainer - gay marriage in actual practice has had zero downside, there is no reason _not_ to enact it on the same terms as regular old hetero marriage. Once people realize this after it is enacted, their reactions are predictable: a tiny minority on the lunatic fringe continue to oppose it; the vast majority cease to even notice it. Hell, even our Conservative government just yawned when they came into power and endorsed it after a token vote … Those places which have _not_ enacted it are, I would predict, going to seem increasingly anacronistic, out of touch. Eventually it will be just plain annoying, like those places which still have Sunday “blue laws”. ---
**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, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/346 "2009-05-28T15:08:27Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Show me someone who sometimes makes logical errors that lead him to assert that other people’s rights should be curtailed, and who is **equally prone** to making logical errors that lead him to assert that **his own** rights should be similarly curtailed, and I’ll concede that you’ve found someone who is acting out of honest error rather than malicious bigotry. Hahahahaha I wanna see that. That’ll be the day. It’s almost always the OTHER guy who needs to be controlled or curtailed or limited. ---
**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, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/347 "2009-05-28T15:14:02Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > That’s all irrelevant to my point. Society is providing a water fountain. Gays are boycotting the water fountain becuase it’s not the same one provided to straights. Fine. But you are lying if you claim society won’t let you drink. Water fountains? As in separate but equal fountains, one for whites and one for blacks? As in the white fountain was clean and worked properly, but the black fountain was filthy and didn’t work? That is how separate but equal really worked. They were separate, but they were NOT equal. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/348 "2009-05-28T15:17:35Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Water fountains? As in separate but equal fountains, one for whites and one for blacks? As in the white fountain was clean and worked properly, but the black fountain was filthy and didn’t work? That is how separate but equal really worked. They were separate, but they were NOT equal. The other issue is that civil unions aren’t universally recognized. How can that possibly be construed as “equal?” ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/349 "2009-05-28T15:19:50Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > And what is your problem here exactly? Atheism was central to communism. If that bothers you take it up with Joseph Stalin and Karl Marx. Nationalism was central to fascism. Does that make patriots fascists? ---
**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, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/350 "2009-05-28T15:21:51Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Water fountains? As in separate but equal fountains, one for whites and one for blacks? As in the white fountain was clean and worked properly, but the black fountain was filthy and didn’t work? That is how separate but equal really worked. They were separate, but they were NOT equal. [This](http://www.worldsfamousphotos.com/segregated-water-fountains-1950.html) is a classic image. It looks likes the “white” fountain has an electric cooling system while the “black” fountain does not. ---
**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 28, 2009, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/351 "2009-05-28T15:27:03Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > 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. If “religion” or even “Christianity” were monolithic entities, then I would agree with you. I live in a very, very liberal town, and there are a bunch of denominations there that support gay rights 100%. They display rainbow flags, they hold rallies and marches for same-sex marriage, etc. There are many non-religious people who haven’t gone to nearly as much trouble to attempt a change in the status quo. Lumping them in with Fred Phelps because they all call themselves Christians is like saying that everyone in the US supported the war. Simply untrue. And the vast majority of the people here in the US were not willing to give up their citizenship because of it, but still did as much as they could to oppose it. ---
**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, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/352 "2009-05-28T15:28:36Z")
Is the goal to persuade, or infuriate? If the latter, such tactics are admirable, and very effective at moving a potential enemy to a committed enemy. Who did more to move forward the cause of black equality, Malcolm X or MLK? Huey Newton or Thurgood Marshall? Who was more effective in changing the public mind about Viet Nam, Jane Fonda or Eugene McCarthy? The local pastor who marched in the demonstrations, or the raging Maoists who preached rage and broke windows? Do you want to persuade the persuadable, and win, or are you more interested in preening your self-righteousness in public? The cause of justice is winning this one, and that’s all to the good. But after we’ve won this one, there will be another, there always is. Whatever enmity and rancor we inspire this time, we will face next time. If you shit in the road on your way to market, you will encounter flies when you return. The going around, the coming around. I’m willing to compromise, if need be. I’m also willing to swear up and down that this is it, give me this compromise, and I’ll go away and not bother you any more. Honest! I’m lying, of course, I fully intend to solidify the gains made, and turn right around and start renegotiating. Willing to stifle my anger to advance progress? Sure. Willing to fib? Hugh Betcha. Willing to eat some shit? Here’s my spoon, here’s my grin. Willing to give up? Not a chance. ---
**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, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/353 "2009-05-28T15:30:14Z")
> [@mazinger\_z](#): > > At heart, I’m really against people abusing the definition of already defined words and twisting them into some other meaning to suit their own individual purpose. Even more, I’m against other people picking up on those changes and thinking that those words were correctly defined in the first place. One could say that I’m against the spread of ignorance. > > I’ve always thought of marriage as between a man and a woman. Often I would hear priests on tv claim exactly such, and reinforced from my own experience with catholic weddings that I have attended. > > When I met my first gay couple, when I was still in grade school, I really did wonder if they could get “married.” I don’t have a problem with it, and I now have friends who are gay couples. I want them to have all the bells and whistles that come with being married…but, I don’t want to call it marriage. > > In fact, I’ll go one further: the more I went to school, and the more I learned about the world, and the more I’ve come to define my beliefs about the world, the more I don’t want government defining what a marriage is. > > 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. > > Now, if this makes me a bigot, then that term has lost all meaning. “but, I don’t want to call it marriage” - Why not? You’ve apparently seen for yourself that it would cause no harm to you or someone else. So why? “I don’t want government defining what a marriage is” - They already are. They already did. And, where is the logic? On the one hand you want government interference, by saying you don’t want marriage (which is defined and controlled by government) but then you don’t want government involved. I have to think you want it “both ways” then. Government definition and interference is OK as long as it doesn’t limit you, bt it’s OK when it limits someone else. Did you agree with the old Defense of Marriage Act? I’m going to guess you did, just a wild guess. Why, if you want government out of the marriage business? It’s just the same old same old. It’s the old “we can control you but you don’t control me”. It’s a double standard. ---
**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, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/354 "2009-05-28T15:36:36Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Hahahahaha I wanna see that. That’ll be the day. It’s almost always the OTHER guy who needs to be controlled or curtailed or limited. Oddy, I just mentioned an example in the post immediately above yours - the Sunday “blue laws” which kept the non-religious and religious alike from shopping on Sunday. ---
**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, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/355 "2009-05-28T15:42:45Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > [This](http://www.worldsfamousphotos.com/segregated-water-fountains-1950.html) is a classic image. It looks likes the “white” fountain has an electric cooling system while the “black” fountain does not. And now, most of us realize how dumb it all was. Now, most of us realize it made no sense. But back then, people used to just shrug and say “that’s how it’s always been”. That’s one of the problems with the “marriage has always been this way”. 1. it may not be true, and 2. always been, doesn’t mean it’s right. ---
**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, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/356 "2009-05-28T15:49:50Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Oddy, I just mentioned an example in the post immediately above yours - the Sunday “blue laws” which kept the non-religious and religious alike from shopping on Sunday. Ah, the blue laws. Most of the people I’ve known, thought such laws were ridiculous. Having a BBQ on Sunday? Sorry, can’t get your beer today (blue law). Blue laws were put in place to make sure people went to church (?) instead of barbecuing (not true, but silly enough to say). What about people who don’t go to church? What about Jews, who hold their services on Saturday? What about the catholic or protestant who’s already been to church and just wants to have a beer or two and burn some steaks? It was/is a dumb law, instituted for religious purposes. I don’t consider it to be the dreaded Establishment Of Religion as such, but it had religious roots and was/is stupid unnecessary government interference. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/357 "2009-05-28T16:03:41Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > Nationalism was central to fascism. Does that make patriots fascists? No, can you point out where I argued that atheists were communists? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/358 "2009-05-28T16:06:04Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > She abhors and refuses to use any (patriarchal, misogynistic) terminology that is shared with heterosexual marriage. > > I want to reclaim and redefine the traditional terminology such that it no longer has patriarchal or misogynistic subtexts, and I wholeheartedly support those who make their partnerships and marriages their own, and to hell with what is average or expected or traditional. How is heterosexual marriage patriarchal and mysoginistic? Why isn’t it Matriarchal? Women don’t want to get married they are just forced into it by men? I don’t get it. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/359 "2009-05-28T16:10:19Z")
> [@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. Here here. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/360 "2009-05-28T16:13:28Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > How is heterosexual marriage patriarchal and mysoginistic? Why isn’t it Matriarchal? Women don’t want to get married they are just forced into it by men? > > I don’t get it. Tradition says the wife takes the husband’s name. That doesn’t always have to be the case and certainly isn’t written into law, but it is the norm and is undeniably patriarchal. That’s the single biggest indicator I can think of that’s still strong today; most male-dominated traditions in marriage, such as the man working and the woman keeping house, are no longer expected nor the norm (that is, deviations from such aren’t considered odd). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768.md?page=19)