# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/61 "2009-05-27T05:28:27Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Try to think, real hard, why equating people who believe that marriage should be based on religious laws but the state can set up some sort of lesser form of union are not the same thing as people who forcibly cram people into _concentration camps._. Bigots are not necessarily genocidally racist, this is true. But bigots do argue that certain sections of the population should not enjoy completely equal rights based on their ethnicity, creed, religion, or (in this case) sexual orientation. Advocating “a lesser form of union” for gays and lesbians is bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/62 "2009-05-27T05:32:14Z")
Der, I agree with you 100% in your argument. Honestly it’s not a subject I care to debate, because one might as well debate gravity. There is no argument that supports “traditional” marriage yet opposes same sex marriage that is not either outright bigotry, or outright delusional. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/63 "2009-05-27T05:36:14Z")
A few quick clarifications for the sock-o-rocks dumb: > [@Rubystreak](#): > > The part that really sticks out for me is the idea that gays would prefer to be straight because straight people enjoy, ahem, a “fuller human experience” because they can procreate. Do you _deny_ that it allows for a fuller human experience. Do you deny that part of our ability, indeed part of our reason for being here is procreation? If so, you are an idiot. In fact, either way, you are an idiot. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > He lets straights who can’t procreate off the hook and allows them to marry in his paradigm, but feels that the gay experience is less then fully human because they lack this ability. False. the experience is fully human, but it does not allow the human experience to the fullest. Straights that can’t or choose to not have children also do not experience as full a range of what it means to be a human on the planet. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > Then, he goes on to let us know that he believes that being gay is deviant. It deviates from “the norm.” Do you deny that it does? If so, you are an idiot. Have you ever seen a bell curve? Is this a whoosh? > [@Rubystreak](#): > > Even though it in fact occurs in nature among animals, even though it’s an unalterable part of a person’s identity, Being a product of birth would make it _natural_. But still normal, not representative of the norm. Wow. I don’t think a person come be as dumb or as dense as you. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > he still feels it’s correct and acceptable to label being gay “deviant from the norm.” The norm being, of course, straight people. How dare I state facts! How dare I say that heterosexuality is the the norm?!! The gall!!! > [@Rubystreak](#): > > A range of sexual identities is not, in his paradigm, normal, nor are those along the spectrum part of “the norm.” Only straight people are “the norm.” Wow, you rally are an idiot. Heterosexuality IS the norm. Don’t take my word for it, go look t a bell curve. Unbelievable. I can’t tell if dishonesty or imbecility is you strong suit. Which would you go with? I’ll check back in the Am to see what your answer is. ---
**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, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/64 "2009-05-27T05:38:40Z")
Hey magellan. Wanna post a single reason why SSM will be negative to society? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/65 "2009-05-27T05:46:23Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > Bigots are not necessarily genocidally racist, this is true. You totally missed th epoin tof the post you quoted. The point was that you can’t validly compare opposition to SSM with the holocaust. Nothing more. > [@](#): > > But bigots do argue that certain sections of the population should not enjoy completely equal rights based on their ethnicity, creed, religion, or (in this case) sexual orientation. Equivocate much? Bigots do argue that certain sections of the population should not enjoy completely equal rights based on their ethnicity, creed, religion _but_ (and this is the bit you need to pay attention to) so do non bigots. Otherwise you are arguing that pretty much every single US citizen is a bigot because they all argue that certain sections of the world’s population shouldn’t enjoy the right to live and work in the USA. To claim that is bigotry is absurd. Americans certainly argues that certain sections of the population should not enjoy completely equal rights based on their ethnicity. So by your equivocating argument we need to accept that Americans are bigots. Of cours ein the real world the position isn’t bigoted because it is based on arguments that don’t presume any superiority of US citizens. It’s based on all sorts of security and sociological and economic arguments. Not on an assumption of superiority. Similarly people can oppose gay marriage on all sorts of sociological and economic arguments without being bigoted. > [@](#): > > Advocating “a lesser form of union” for gays and lesbians is bigotry. So why is advocating a lesser form of residence for people of non-US ethnicity not a form of bigotry? Hmm? Could it be because it’s not based on sociological and economic arguments rather than any assumption of superiority? ---
**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, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/66 "2009-05-27T05:54:00Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Similarly people can oppose gay marriage on all sorts of sociological and economic arguments without being bigoted. Second try: Such as? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/67 "2009-05-27T05:56:26Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Hey magellan. Wanna post a single reason why SSM will be negative to society? Can you really not think of one? Given this thread and the events of the last couple of years one at least seems obvious. Gay marriage leads to social conflict. That’s a negative to society. Maybe you can argue that it _shouldn’t_, but clearly it _does_. Maybe you can argue that the conflict generated is less than the good, so it’s an _overall_ positive, but that doesn’t alter the fact that social conflict exists and in itself a negative to society. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/68 "2009-05-27T05:57:28Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Second try: > > Such as? So you are admitting you are fool and not worthy of repect are you? Because that was the condition for the retsof the list? Not that i wa stalking to you in the first place. I love the way this works. Someone says that ther isn’t a single justification for X. Then when I post the reason with an in depth reply you post a drive by 4 word post demanding more reaosns. You odnt; even have th ecourtesy to say whether you accept the given reason or even what your position is. Give me an in depth statement of your position as it relates to mine and I might spend the time repsonding to you. I know from experience that reposnding to drive by 4 word posts is just a waste of time and rapidly becomes frustrating. ---
**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, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/69 "2009-05-27T05:59:44Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Can you really not think of one? Given this thread and the events of the last couple of years one at least seems obvious. > > Gay marriage leads to social conflict. That’s a negative to society. > > Maybe you can argue that it _shouldn’t_, but clearly it _does_. Maybe you can argue that the conflict generated is less than the good, so it’s an _overall_ positive, but that doesn’t alter the fact that social conflict exists and in itself a negative to society. Not having gay marriage leads to social conflict. More in fact. So it makes more sense to get it over with. So sorry, please try again. ---
**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, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/70 "2009-05-27T06:00:47Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > So you are admitting you are fool and not worthy of repect are you? A lot of people respect me. From where I sit it looks like you’re the fool. Still can’t come up with one? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/71 "2009-05-27T06:04:11Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > One reason often given was that mixed race children were left in a cultural wilderness, accepted by neither one culture nor the other. The argument essentially being that it is unfair on the children. > > You may wish to argue that that isn’t/wasn’t true (although almost any mixed race child raised in Japan right now will tell you that it is), or that the effect itself is a product of bigotry (which it is in large part). But what you can not argue is that such a position is inherently bigoted. There is nothing bigoted in any way about the argument a stated since it requires no favouring of one race over the other. If the argument draws on bigotry for justification, then the argument is bigoted. Essentially it’s saying “Bigotry against interracial marriages is OK because people on both sides are bigoted.” Classic tautology. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/72 "2009-05-27T06:05:00Z")
I don’t have any problem with the claim that people who want to deny the benefits and privileges of marriage to a certain portion of the community are bigots. None at all. I don’t care how they try to justify it. It’s bigotry to me. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/73 "2009-05-27T06:08:08Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Not having gay marriage leads to social conflict. More in fact. So it makes more sense to get it over with. So sorry, please try again. Yep, you’re precisely the type of fool I thought you were. And like all fools when you ask a stupid question that destoys your position you seek tomove the goal posts. I adressed this in the very post you quoted. You can argue all you like that not having gay marriage leads to more social conflict so the net effect is positive. Doesn’t change the fact that gay marriage leads to social conflict which is a negative. But since you’ve proven that you have no intention of or ability to engage in reasoned discussion I think I can safely ignore you. My rep on this board is solid. You’re just another drive by whose name I don’t even recognise. ---
**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, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/74 "2009-05-27T06:08:30Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > So you are admitting you are fool and not worthy of repect are you? Because that was the condition for the retsof the list? > > Not that i wa stalking to you in the first place. I love the way this works. Someone says that ther isn’t a single justification for X. Then when I post the reason with an in depth reply you post a drive by 4 word post demanding more reaosns. You odnt; even have th ecourtesy to say whether you accept the given reason or even what your position is. > > Give me an in depth statement of your position as it relates to mine and I might spend the time repsonding to you. > > I know from experience that reposnding to drive by 4 word posts is just a waste of time and rapidly becomes frustrating. In other words you’re unable to come up with a non-bigotry argument? My position is simple. I strongly believe in equal rights. To deny a segment of the population a right requires a strong reason. There has been no such reason presented. Simple enough for you to follow? 😃 ---
**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, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/75 "2009-05-27T06:09:45Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Yep, you’re precisely the type of fool I thought you were. And like all fools when you ask a stupid question that destoys your position you seek tomove the goal posts. > I adressed this in the very post you quoted. > > You can argue all you like that not having gay marriage leads to more social conflict so the net effect is positive. Doesn’t change the fact that gay marriage leads to social conflict which is a negative. > But since you’ve proven that you have no intention of or ability to engage in reasoned discussion I think I can safely ignore you. My rep on this board is solid. You’re just another drive by whose name I don’t even recognise. You’re deflecting. Please give one reason that isn’t rooted in bigotry against SSM. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/76 "2009-05-27T06:09:52Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Otherwise you are arguing that pretty much every single US citizen is a bigot because **they all argue that certain sections of the world’s population shouldn’t enjoy the right to live and work in the USA**. I’m living proof of the falsity of the bolded part of statement. And it _is_ bigotry. > [@](#): > > _So why is advocating a lesser form of residence for people of non-US ethnicity not a form of bigotry? Hmm?_ Last I checked, US citizenship is a nationality, not an ethnicity. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/77 "2009-05-27T06:13:13Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > My rep on this board is solid. Yes it is. But not in the way you might imagine it to be. BTW - continually and relentlessly pointing out how stupid, idiotic and incapable of reason other posters are, does not make you look as smart as you probably think it does. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/78 "2009-05-27T06:14:29Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > It doesn’t. Someone can be a bigot _and_ oppose gay marriage on purely semantic grounds. The important point is that someone can also _not_ be a bigot and oppose gay marriage on purely semantic grounds. > To give an anlogy tht Der trihs should enjoy, people can hate all Americans _and_ oppose the war in Iraq on purely legal grounds, right. But that doesn’t mean that everyone who opposes the war in Iraq on legal grounds is a bigot, right? Someone could oppose the war in Iraq on legal grounds and love Americans? Right? > > I wouldn’t be in any way justified in claiming that everyone who opposes the war in Iraq is a bigot who hates Americans, right? And Der Trihs isn’t in any way justified in claiming that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot who hates homosexuals, right > > See how this works? Two sets can intersect without one being a subset of the other? Your analogy assumes equal treatment under the law for gays is as Iraq war is to Americans. Surely you can see the flaw in that right? There isn’t one credible threat gay marriage poses so the only reasons left are “I don’t like it, I want my tastes forced on other people”, and “fuck freedom of religion, I want my religious views forced on other people”. Some people have religious objections to Buddhism being practiced in their town. Should we ban that to? Let’s put this notion that religion is a valid objection to SSM marriage to pasture. Unlike the Iraqi war, freedom of religion is an American guarantee and a necessity in our government by it’s very definitions. > [@](#): > > Because if you really can’t think of at least 5 reasons why someone can oppose gay marriage on the grounds I listed without being hateful, shallow or stupid I will have lost all respect for you as a poster. Shoot man go for it if you like. I stand by my words. There’s been no demonstrable harm from SSM. There’s no solid reason to oppose it. What’s left? > [@](#): > > You should probably do more reading on the subject then. > One reason often given was that mixed race children were left in a cultural wilderness, accepted by neither one culture nor the other. The argument essentially being that it is unfair on the children. Well that’s interesting. I guess I could see that idea in the past, when people were generally more ignorant about things. That’s actually kind of thought provoking. The thing is though I’ve never had any trouble like that because stuff like that isn’t an issue anymore like it was. I’m American and I have American culture. My close friends are white, black, and hispanic. The first girl I made out with is from Peru. There’s a very white girl in english composition who I think likes me. I’ve never gotten any trouble from the white half of my family. Race isn’t an issue so much these days preciously because people are stopping making it an issue. I’ll concede in the past though that could be a legitimate concern. So not all of them were bigots. Modern day America though. No excuse. Mixed race couples and kids do fine. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/79 "2009-05-27T06:14:45Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > If the argument draws on bigotry for justification, then the argument is bigoted. Essentially it’s saying “Bigotry against interracial marriages is OK because people on both sides are bigoted.” Classic tautology. Just for fun I’ll dispprove this, because it’s so easy. Person X does not want to see children hurt. She believes that children of marriages beween race A and Race B are not welcomed into either parents culture. She believes that not being welcomed into any culture hurts children. If perosn X’s argument is bigoted as you claim then tell me: what race is person X and which group is she bigoted _against_? The fact that you can not tell me proves that the argument itself is not inherently bigoted. As for your claim that the argument " draws on bigotry for justification", what does that even mean? It’s total non sequitur. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/80 "2009-05-27T06:27:37Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Person X does not want to see children hurt. She believes that children of marriages beween race A and Race B are not welcomed into either parents culture. She believes that not being welcomed into any culture hurts children. > > If perosn X’s argument is bigoted as you claim then tell me: what race is person X and which group is she bigoted against? That’s irrelevant. The point is that the argument against interracial marriage is ultimately based on bigotry, because the reason that children of interracial marriages were unwelcome was because of bigotry in either or both of the races against people in the other race. Therefore, that argument is fundamentally bigoted, and Person X, **although she herself may not have any specific racial bias for or against Race A or Race B** , is endorsing bigotry by espousing it. According to the **Der Trihs** absolutist view, AFAICT, letting **any** consideration tip the scales against rejecting arguments based on bigotry counts as endorsing bigotry, and consequently being a bigot. This view may be too draconian to be really meaningful, but ISTM that it’s not _per se_ illogical. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768.md?page=5)