# 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:** 33
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/641 "2009-05-31T05:48:56Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You know who’s smarter than you by at least 30 IQ points? > Me. > > And probably Clinton. How many IQ points are you smarter than me? (Remember I tested as GENIUS! in 2nd grade when I took my IQ test.) ;p ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/642 "2009-05-31T05:50:56Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Since it’s a basic right, yes. Just as if Arkansas ruled that black people weren’t allowed marriage, blacks would still have the right to marriage. The fact that they don’t recognize it doesn’t change that; any right, by nature, can be violated. That is a religious sentiment. The very notion of inalienable rights has no basis from a purely secular point of view, as all rights are merely granted by the will of the populus. If rights can be taken away then they are not inalienable right? Yes, we have an inalienable right to love whomever we wish, but we unequivocally DO NOT have an inalienable right to marry whomever we wish as marriage is a social construct and is subject to the recognition of others outside of the binding contract. ---
**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 31, 2009, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/643 "2009-05-31T05:58:55Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > That is a religious sentiment. The very notion of inalienable rights has no basis from a purely secular point of view, as all rights are merely granted by the will of the populus. If rights can be taken away then they are not inalienable right? That’s a silly argument. ALL rights, by definition can be violated; otherwise they’d be a physical law, not a right. And rights are granted by law, often AGAINST the “will of the populace”. And God is irrelevant; his opinion has no bearing on whether something is a right or not (even if he existed ). God has no more right to declare something right or wrong or for it to be a legal right or not than does any other random person. Call back when he’s appointed to the Supreme Court. > [@mswas](#): > > Yes, we have an inalienable right to love whomever we wish, but we unequivocally DO NOT have an inalienable right to marry whomever we wish as marriage is a social construct and is subject to the recognition of others outside of the binding contract. As has been repeatedly pointed out, marriage is recognized ALREADY as a fundamental right in our own body of law. Claiming that this right doesn’t apply to gays is no different than pretending it doesn’t apply to blacks or left handed people. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/644 "2009-05-31T06:24:29Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That’s a silly argument. ALL rights, by definition can be violated; otherwise they’d be a physical law, not a right. And rights are granted by law, often AGAINST the “will of the populace”. If they can be violated then a distinction between rights and privileges is just silly. The point of a ‘right’ is that they are not granted but exist naturally. If it’s ‘granted’ then it is a privilege not a right. If it’s against the will of the populace then it is undemocratic. > [@](#): > > And God is irrelevant; his opinion has no bearing on whether something is a right or not (even if he existed ). God has no more right to declare something right or wrong or for it to be a legal right or not than does any other random person. Call back when he’s appointed to the Supreme Court. Your opinion on God doesn’t interest me. If there are such a thing as inalienable rights, either prove objectively that they exist and demonstrate their cause or forever hold your peace. > [@](#): > > As has been repeatedly pointed out, marriage is recognized ALREADY as a fundamental right in our own body of law. Claiming that this right doesn’t apply to gays is no different than pretending it doesn’t apply to blacks or left handed people. Yes, it is recognized that way, ‘as defined’. But I am not even talking about that at this point. I am questioning the very notion of, ‘rights’. What differentiates them from ‘privilege’ if they can be infringed? If it can be granted or revoked by the state then it is a privilege not a right. ---
**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 31, 2009, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/645 "2009-05-31T06:33:42Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > How many IQ points are you smarter than me? Well, since you asked, I had you pegged as stubbornly misguided, as opposed to Carol’s determinedly stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/646 "2009-05-31T07:47:38Z")
> [@Carol\_Stream](#): > > Grow up. I stand by 95%, by population. Dearest Carol, Cite that 95% of the US population is opposed to gay marriage? Actually, fuck it. I’d rather just stream on you. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/647 "2009-05-31T08:46:10Z")
You guys are forgetting one thing in your application of Loving v. Virginia: context. In order to apply that ruling to the current situation, you have to verify that it really meant what you think it meant. I see no evidence that the judge had same-sex marriage in mind back in 1967 when he said that all men have the right to marriage. If not, then clearly all men have the right to marriage, but not necessarily to other men. Anyways, I think that if it was just a matter of applying existing laws completely without any interpretation, it would have already been done. It may look simple, but it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/648 "2009-05-31T09:44:43Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, since you asked, I had you pegged as stubbornly misguided, as opposed to Carol’s determinedly stupid. I’ll accept that. 😃 ---
**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 31, 2009, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/649 "2009-05-31T10:17:26Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > If it’s against the will of the populace then it is undemocratic. So is the Bill of Rights. Were you under the delusion that America is a pure democracy ? Or that it should be ? > [@mswas](#): > > Your opinion on God doesn’t interest me. Then don’t bring up religion. > [@mswas](#): > > I am questioning the very notion of, ‘rights’. What differentiates them from ‘privilege’ if they can be infringed? If it can be granted or revoked by the state then it is a privilege not a right. Priviliges can be granted or withheld on a fairly arbitrary basis; rights are basic assumptions in the law. Your argument that it’s not a right if it can be abridged is stupid, since if they couldn’t be abridged there wouldn’t be any point in writing them into law. > [@BigT](#): > > You guys are forgetting one thing in your application of Loving v. Virginia: context. In order to apply that ruling to the current situation, you have to verify that it really meant what you think it meant. I see no evidence that the judge had same-sex marriage in mind back in 1967 when he said that all men have the right to marriage. If not, then clearly all men have the right to marriage, but not necessarily to other men. Wrong. By that logic we could forbid women or blacks to have free speech, because the Founding Fathers probably didn’t mean it to apply to them. What the judge thought doesn’t matter. > [@BigT](#): > > Anyways, I think that if it was just a matter of applying existing laws completely without any interpretation, it would have already been done. It may look simple, but it isn’t. Of course it’s simple. The problem is a collective lack of will, and the deeply held bigotry of our society. The actual changing of the law is trivial. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/650 "2009-05-31T10:55:56Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > What a trivial thing to care about. Caring about whether your debate opponents habitually get their facts wrong is hardly trivial. > [@](#): > > But of course I concede that you are correct. Yay! Progress… > [@](#): > > It’s funny how well you remember every single straw man you’ve ever used against me. That you make up facts and don’t check your sources is hardly a strawman. > [@](#): > > Considering my point was regarding how religion was persecuted by active communists relying on Marx’s theory. That’s not a point I disputed. Talk about strawmen. I disputed your interpretation of Marx’s position on religious belief. > [@](#): > > It’s just another one of those things where you find some little piece of irrelevant minutiae that has very little bearing on the point I was making, and doesn’t change a fucking thing and then add it to your catalogue since you are clearly obsessed with me and have a list that you like to trot out every chance you get. I’m hardly obsessed. If you stopped making shit up to suit your arguments, I wouldn’t constantly be reminded of it every time I interact with you. But you do, so I am. > [@](#): > > My point was about Soviet actions toward religious institutions. Your argument is simply wrong here, because the bottom line is that Marx thought that religion should be removed. Bullshit. The “why” of Marx’s point matters just as much. If the reasoning of the Soviets was not in line with Marx’s theories, then it would stand to reason that it was not Marxist ideology that was responsible for Soviet religious oppression. _BOOM_ goes every little Christian Culture Warrior’s favourite retort to the problem of Institutional Christian Evil. And I can assure you you will not find any Marx quotes on sending the religious to gulags or oppressing the proletariat if they hang on to their opium. That’s all Stalin’s idea, not the ideology. > [@](#): > > You are putting a finer point of distinction on it, and I agree it’s a more sophisticated reading, but it doesn’t even resemble a refutation of what I said because it’s not evidence contrary to what I said but evidence in support of what I said. You said Marx said religion was a tool of control. I showed that to be false. How you think that counts as “support”, I don’t know. > [@](#): > > I concede that you are right that I slightly misinterpreted Marx “slightly misinterpreted” is not what you did. You went with the “common knowledge” version of what Marx meant, which has squat to do with reality. You actually committed the exact same mistake as the Communists did by banishing religions outright. Nice going. Understand, it’s not supposed to be a criticism of your larger (ass-backwards) point about so-called atheist regimes. It’s a criticism of your methodology - the lack of fact-checking, reliable cites or any intellectual rigour in your arguments. > [@](#): > > I didn’t say state btw. You didn’t have to. You said “the elite”, which amounts to the same thing in Marx’s day - Marx (whom you were referencing) didn’t use “the elite” anywhere in the quote, but you did.I used _Marx_’s term, not yours. That you think that acts as some kind of gotcha is quite pathetic. But anyway, nice attempted deflection from actually answering the question. I’ll rephrase - where in the Marx quote does it say anything about “the elite” using religion as a tool to control the masses? Where does it make your point for you, as you are so quick to trumpet? > [@](#): > > Pwn Noob! 😃 I see you’re showing your real intellectual level at last, idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/651 "2009-05-31T11:08:40Z")
Want to get SSM laws passed in every state? I think we are going about it the wrong way. Why don’t we go undercover to the fundamentalist churches and complain that homosexuals are openly living together in sin and thereby setting a bad example for our young people? Then plant the idea that instead of laws _banning_ marriage, there should be laws _requiring_ marriage before homosexuals can live together. Plan demonstrations and marches, pass out materials, call out to hand-holders on the street: “Marriage Now! Marriage Now!” (Do this for all ages and sexes so as not to be obviously discriminatory.) BTW, it’s _unalienable_ rights you…you…third graders! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/652 "2009-05-31T13:32:18Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Declaration of Independence: > > “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are [Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness).” > > _Loving v. Virginia_: > > “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” > > The states are merely refusing to recognize an existing right. A couple of problems - [ul][li]If the DoI has the force of law, then God is the source of rights in the US.[\*]Do you agree that the definition of marriage used in _Loving_ is definitive?[/ul][/li] Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/653 "2009-05-31T13:44:20Z")
> [@](#): > > If the DoI has the force of law, then God is the source of rights in the US. Sure God may have inadvertantly given gay people equal rights. But I’m sure plenty of fundamentalist Christians would be quick to explain that God didn’t have all the facts when He did that. ---
**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 31, 2009, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/654 "2009-05-31T13:58:19Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If the DoI has the force of law, then God is the source of rights in the US. Since God doesn’t exist - and even if he DID exist is dead silent, that’s simply wrong. If the DoI used the word Sauron instead, that wouldn’t make Sauron the source of rights in the US either, for the same reason. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/655 "2009-05-31T15:10:56Z")
Ah, no, says “endowed by the Creator”. It should not be forgotten that the deism of many of the Founders represented the very acme of rationalist thought in its time, in the framework of their time, it made vastly more sense than it might to us. It was simply another, albeit poetic, way of saying that these rights were natural and inherent. Of more interest to me is the prefacing clause “we hold these truths to be self-evident”, which is to say, not dependent on proofs and evidence. A secular dogma, a statement of faith, if you will. We’re not going to argue, we’re not going to depend on any authority but our own, these truths are so obvious, they do not need such authority. Works for me. ---
**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 31, 2009, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/656 "2009-05-31T16:19:38Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Of more interest to me is the prefacing clause “we hold these truths to be self-evident”, which is to say, not dependent on proofs and evidence. A secular dogma, a statement of faith, if you will. We’re not going to argue, we’re not going to depend on any authority but our own, these truths are so obvious, they do not need such authority. > > Works for me. The DoI is poetic and all, but isn’t the key phrasing from the beginning and end of the Constitution’s preamble: “We the people of the United States… do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” It’s the republic itself that will define its existence; it doesn’t ask for nor need the recognition or approval of any outside agency, including God. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/657 "2009-05-31T17:01:12Z")
Well, one might reasonably quibble that the phrasing I refer to directly defines the basis for human rights, whereas the Constitution is about how those rights might best be served in a governmental structure. Theory, application. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/658 "2009-05-31T17:06:05Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Caring about whether your debate opponents habitually get their facts wrong is hardly trivial. No, that’s not what you care about. You care that I do not have perfect knowledge of every little thing that I say, and that I sometimes make mistakes. I mean it’s funny how every nitpick you’ve ever come at me with I can drop without altering my argument. You just pick on some irrelevant bit of minutiae. OMG De Sade coined it not Marx, I’ve lost the debate. :rolleyes: So I appreciate you pointing out to me that Marx saw religion as a condition of oppression and not the cause of it, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Soviet Union banned traditional religious practice. Just like the Druids and the Source, or my typing Akhenaten when I was talking about Aten, you have picked on something that is just wholly irrelevant to the point I am making, that doesn’t change it in any way at all. I dropped the Druids and the Source thing because I realized I was quoting dubious secondary sources, and didn’t want to get into a nitpick with you over the value of my sources. The Akhenaten thing was by far the most ridiculous aspect of your irrationalia hate-crush, and this one, well this one is by far the most interesting of them, but it’s still pretty fucking pointless. > [@](#): > > Bullshit. The “why” of Marx’s point matters just as much. If the reasoning of the Soviets was not in line with Marx’s theories, then it would stand to reason that it was not Marxist ideology that was responsible for Soviet religious oppression. _BOOM_ goes every little Christian Culture Warrior’s favourite retort to the problem of Institutional Christian Evil. And I can assure you you will not find any Marx quotes on sending the religious to gulags or oppressing the proletariat if they hang on to their opium. That’s all Stalin’s idea, not the ideology. Funny how much this resembles arguments about Christianity no? Thanks again for making my point for me, which was originally about the irrational hate of Christianity. You have here demonstrated that it wasn’t the ideology but practitioners who wanted to commit murder that caused the suffering. Hmm…sounds an awful lot like the argument _I_ was making. But go ahead, continue to act like you are in disagreement. You are making my case much better than I did. So I thank you for the clear and concise demonstrations of exactly the point I was trying to make before you came in and started arguing as though you actually disagree with me. I’m glad we are in agreement, and am sorry that you are too stupid to see it. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/659 "2009-05-31T17:12:42Z")
**MrDibble** BTW, your misquoting of me was exactly as significant as the detail you are nitpicking over. That’s also the entire point of me bringing it up. So again in the entirely accurate spirit of your harassment…pwn noob. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/660 "2009-05-31T18:01:39Z")
> [@Carol\_Stream](#): > > You can hardly call SSM a right, if it doesn’t exist in 95% of the country. I was wrong, gay marriage is only available in 3 states (MA, CT, IA) so it’s not a right in 94%, not 95%, of the country. My bad. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768.md?page=34)