# 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:** 8
**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, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/141 "2009-05-27T14:01:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It does unless they also oppose different sex marriage. Which they never do. > > Or in other words, they are lying. Something ELSE I can’t point out in GD. > > Of course they are. Every single one. Yes, all dogs in fact ARE poodles. :rolleyes: Der Trihs, you are yourself a bigot, failing to understand beyond your own myopic attempt at reasoning, that there are reasons beyond pure and utter hate that people take the positions they do against SSM. It is incumbent upon those of us determined to fight ignorance on the whole, (as opposed to your strident efforts to exchange one type of ignorance for another), to change the minds of those who oppose us with open, trusting and honest discourse. Failing that, we do nothing. Calling opponents names, pointing fingers and the commission of your erroenous yet various and sundry methods of browbeating do nothing but discredit you, your argument and the idea that your argument should be taken seriously no matter who proffers it. SSM is not near or dear to me, I personally don’t care if it happens, though I wish the cause well, despite having you on its’ side. I suspect that your best efforts notwithstanding the folks who do care about it will make it so in the next 4 to 8 years in the majority of the country. Good for them. That kind of spirit and movement that inspires people is precisely what this country was built on. You and your motivtions on the other hand are boot on the coattails, an albatross on the neck, weights in the pockets. ---
**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, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/142 "2009-05-27T14:05:47Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Let me see if I’ve got this straight. You can’t accuse someone expressing bigoted thoughts - ie. opposing SSM. - of being a bigot, because then you are showing intolerance to someone else yourself? No. That’s not it at all. You can call someone a bigot if you know their specific reasons. But if you simply label a whole group of people as ‘bigots’ without any understanding of their individuality, then you are also a bigot, regardless if a subset of the individuals in question are bigoted or not. ---
**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, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/143 "2009-05-27T14:09:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Just to make it clear for you: the analogy had nothing whatsoever to do with a threat. The point of the analogy is that while bigots may oppose “black slavery” because they hate southerners, or they may oppose “abortion prohibition” because they hate Catholics that does not mean that everybody who opposes those things is a bigot. So give me a valid reason to object to gay marriage. Remember to not be bigoted it has to show a clear threat. Religious objections and cultural aesthetics are by definition bigoted > [@](#): > > Give me an honest answer, can you really not grock this: People can hate all Catholics _and_ oppose abortion bans on legal grounds, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who opposes abortion bans on legal grounds _is_ a bigot. Someone could oppose abortion bans on legal grounds and love Catholics. Right? Different kettle of fish. There’s solidly nonbigoted arguments for and against abortion. The main difference between the two camps is whether someone considers a fetus alive, and what rights they feel a person has over their body. Would you please provide one of these elusive nonbigoted reasons to to oppose gay marriage? Keep in mind other countries have done it with no ill effects. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t fucking matter whether we should or should not ban Buddhism. The question is whether people can object to Buddhism being practiced in their town on grounds that aren’t bigoted. And according to you they can not, which is patent bullshit. Fuck you Klan wanna be. Name one reason someone could object to Buddhism practice that isn’t religiously based. The one below doesn’t count unless you consider an objection to murder and objection to Christianity > [@](#): > > Real life example not long ago where a community objected to Buddhism being practiced in their town because they let off firecrackers every hour, on the hour, all night long. Was that objection bigoted? Of course it fucking wasn’t. Many of the objectors may well have been bigots, but the reason stated (and accepted by the court BTW) was not in any was bigoted. Were people allowed to practice Buddhism without firecrackers? If so than it’s a noise ordinance and not a Buddhist ban. Just like Christianity isn’t banned despite some old testament commands being nothing short of murder. If it’s an actual ban against anyone practice Buddhism no matter how quietly they do it then yes it’s fucking bigoted and so was any troglodyte limp dicked syphilitic fool backwards enough to support it. Also if it’s in the US I’d like to see cite for the case and an explanation for why it doesn’t violate the First Amendment. > [@](#): > > Are you getting this yet? The fact that a person can object to SSM, or Buddhism being practiced in their town, or abortion bans or anything else for bigoted reasons and _simultaneously_ have non bigoted objection does not make it impossible for another person to hold the non-bigoted reason _without_ simultaneously holding to the bigoted objection. Well give me that objection to SSM that isn’t bigoted than. Put up or shut up as they say. > [@](#): > > Shit, you always seemed like a smart fellow, and this concept isn’t that hard. You’re not winning any intelligence points on this side either [quote] It’s just a religious law. A Jew who opposed castrated men working in wineries need not be a bigot. He may be all sorts of other things but he need not be bigoted against castrated men.[/quot] Yes he would be a bigot. Forcing religion on someone else is bigoted. > [@](#): > > The point is that someone can oppose it on allsorts of grounds without being bigoted. Are you really having that much difficulty understanding the very topic being discussed? It’s right there in the OP. Would you please elucidate me with an example of nobigoted objection to SSM? You’re sounding like the kid telling about his phantom, body building, kung fu fighting older brother that’s gonna whip everyone’s ass, but no one ever sees him. > [@](#): > > It’s a problem in Japan even today. And while it’s largely driven by ignorance that isn’t the whole cause by along shot. Western and Japanese values just don’t mesh very well. Japanese Mummy is telling the child to be subservient and to place their duty to society first. American Daddy is telling the child to respect only those who deserve it and not to limit themselves. The child simply can’t be both those things and as a result they fail to integrate into Japanese society. That’s not due to ignorance, It’s due to inherent differences in societies. A child can’t be both perfectly integrated into Japanese and western societies. Bullshit. I used to know this lady who was half Japanese and half Mexican. High horse power sports car, told you exactly what she thought, liked to shoot guns, punk rock, and all that good stereotypical American stuff. Doesn’t have any problems visiting her family in Kyoto. Kids are remarkably adaptable. They simply learn when in mom’s country do x, and when in dad’s country do y, or if raised in one country then they assimilate to that country. I mean there’s nothing wrong with not acting culturally American or Japanese is there? Another fallacy of that argument is culture isn’t race. I mean I can go to Canada to visit my friend up there, and do all sorts innocent seeming things that mortify her in public because they’re rude up there. I made her turn beat red once. It was awesome. Ban canadio-american marraige I guess. This aside from Japanese racists apparently learning nothing from the Holocaust they inflicted in WW II. Why should the type of people responsible for the Bataan death march, and the Rape of Nanking be appeased at all instead of fought tooth and nail for the the horrors they’re bigoted racism inflicted on the world? There’s evils greater then not complying with one’s social status. If a few mixed race kids who don’t always know their place can shake it up then good. > [@](#): > > Halle-fucking-lujah. That’s the whole point of the thread. The fact that people objecting to various types of marriage need not be bigoted. Didn’t say that about the present. In fact on reconsideration, in part thanks to your brilliant examples, I retract that concession. > [@](#): > > Wanna bet? > Many people, mostly minorities, object to interracial marriage because it tends to bleed the best and brightest from the lower socio-economic cultures causing them to remain a perpetual underclass. The general argument is that every time a black (or Hispanic or whatever) person goes to college and starts making money they will marry outside their own race because the number of suitable, equal partners within their own race are so few. Professionals mostly want to marry professionals and with so few minority professionals they are forced to marry whites. > > That means the children will be rich and at leats half white, so they will identify as white culturally, live in white neighbourhoods, go to predominantly white schools and so forth. They will effectively be white with no contact with the black culture there parent came from. And when, in the next generation, a few blacks make it to college they can’t find any suitable black partners because the black professionals and their kids all married out. So they follow suit. The net result is that black communities never advance. They are always populated by non-professionals, the kids have no role models, the income levels never rise and so while individual blacks may improve the black community never can. > > Now there has been endless discussion on the merits of this argument. But it remains an argument against interracial marriage and it is not inherently based on bigotry. Indeed it is largely based on the fact of the inferiority of the cultures that mostly promote it. It’s an economic/sociological argument against interracial marriage. Essentially, if you want to solve the problem of minority underperformance then banning interracial marriage could go a long way. Nothing bigoted about that. > > And there are a dozen other reasons for opposing interracial marriage that also aren’t bigoted. > > So as you can see these things aren’t as simple as you thought they were. Sure most people who oppose interracial marriage and SSM are bigots. But the fact is that lots of people who oppose them are not bigots at all and have reason that have nothing to do with bigotry. It has everything to do with bigotry. You know what would help the poor of every race? Better educational opportunities. In fact the US has educational opportunities and universities generally try to have a diverse student body. It doesn’t matter if your cousin is black and marries a white guy. You can go to college too with your blackself and marry whoever the hell you like. Finally the bigots who expose this are fucking stupid too and fail at math. It doesn’t matter what race your kids are because they don’t affect the poverty level of other people. By appeasing bigoted KKK degenerates and banning interracial marriage all you’ve done is make the percentages change. Say you have 10 purple people in poverty. Two goes off to college and marries a green people. Well you still have 8 purple people in poverty. So you have 80% of purple people in poverty. Now those two purple people got married and had a kid named nurple instead. Well now that changes the percentages so that only 72% of purple people are in poverty but you still have 8 purple people in poverty. The percentage changed but you still have 8 bleedin people in poverty. In short my mixed race self finds the math on this complete fail, and the bigots who expose it to be bleedin stupid as well. Also mixed race doesn’t equal white. I do computer service for a very successful black and white couple. As hard as it is to believe white people can culturally assimilate to “black” culture. As the white guy did. Their kids are also raised “black”. Quite frankly it’s up to the kid which culture they want to assimilate to anyway. They’ll find peers and join in. I know a white chick same thing. Not black at all but you wouldn’t know it talking to her on the phone. Again equating culture to race is a fallacy. Culture is learned, race is ancestor based. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/144 "2009-05-27T14:11:01Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > No. That’s not it at all. You can call someone a bigot if you know their specific reasons. But if you simply label a whole group of people as ‘bigots’ without any understanding of their individuality, then you are also a bigot, regardless if a subset of the individuals in question are bigoted or not. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying it’s unfair to label all opponents of SSM as bigoted, because one or more of them may have a reason for their opposition that isn’t based on bigotry. Right? ---
**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 27, 2009, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/145 "2009-05-27T14:12:41Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > Der Trihs, you are yourself a bigot, failing to understand beyond your own myopic attempt at reasoning, that there are reasons beyond pure and utter hate that people take the positions they do against SSM. Which despite lots of people asking for them never seem to get articulated. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/146 "2009-05-27T14:16:54Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Really. My position is that I oppose government-sanctioned gay marriage because I believe marriage should be a religious or spiritual union the government has no business meddling in, while civil unions should be state-sanctioned and open to all on an equal basis. If your religion only allows left=handed blonde Albanians to marry, that’s your business, not mine, and certainly not the government’s. So you oppose my marriage? I’m a non-religious, non-spiritual person who just got married last year, and you want to tell me that I shouldn’t be able to call myself married? I don’t claim to know whether or not you’re a bigot but you’re definitely a nosy asshole with delusions of grandeur if you think you can tell me what to call my marriage. Stay out of my business. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/147 "2009-05-27T14:17:08Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Where are all the people murdering in the name of Christianity? Where are all the people forced at gun or swordpoint to convert to Christianity? And I’m talking specifically about modern Christianity, today, not a thousand years ago. Nope. You don’t get to employ the no-true-Scotsman fallacy in order to exclude evidence against your position. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/148 "2009-05-27T14:19:07Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Hey magellan. Wanna post a single reason why SSM will be negative to society? Wanna, no doubt. **Able** , not so much… ---
**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, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/149 "2009-05-27T14:23:58Z")
Der Trihs has a number of problems, but magellan (despite repeated opportunity) has never given me reason to doubt that he is a bigot. In fact, several statements of his suggest a determined ignorance with no desire to explore it and every desire to explain it away. He’s been given ample opportunity to give his reasoning but I’ve never seen anything I’d consider more than a fig-leaf rationalization. In recent weeks, also, the discussions have become increasingly acrimonious with magellan displaying a rather troll-ish glee at the anger he inspires. Perhaps he’s neither a bigot nor a troll. He just _acts_ that way. Gentle soul that I am, I’m willing to hold out a little bit longer in hopes of the dramatic moment when magellan, finally, gives a logical reason to oppose gay marriage. Not much longer, mind you. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/150 "2009-05-27T14:27:15Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > How fucking dense are you? > > This is hypothetical situation you ignoramous. It didn’t actually happen. For your next trick, are you going to cite a _Star Trek_ episode as proof that Einstein was wrong about the lightspeed limit? ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/151 "2009-05-27T14:28:44Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Instead, say that some people consider it a privilege and not a right. Say that some people consider it a religious institution that the state recognizes rather than the other way around. Say that some people are so averse to any form of societal change that they’d rather keep to the status quo than change for anybody, at all. Say that some people have a gut reaction to the semantics of the word and want a separate word/category/legal situation created to sooth their semantic gland. > > Say any of a number of things, but acknowledge that while opposition to marriage for all people regardless of sexual orientation may be something you (or I) think is wrong, irrational or unable to be defended on persuasive grounds, that does not mean that _everybody_ holding that position is, by _necessity_, a bigot. This thread grew since I went to sleep. I think most of us regard marriage as a right, not a privilege. I think if most of the people opposed to SSM were told by the state that they could not marry the person of their choice, they would feel pretty violated. They would demand a compelling explanation why they could not wed the person they loved. If that were not forthcoming, if it was as lame as semantics, they would feel like their rights were violated. The supreme court agrees. From _Loving v Virginia_: “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival… To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.” **@ Elucidator** Sure denying SSM is not as bad as lynching. Of course there are degrees of bigotry. A person who denies a Jew a promotion they would have received but for their background is not as bad as a death camp guard. They’re still a bigot. ETA: I realize **Der Trihs** is a controversial poster and a lot of people have a visceral dislike of him. But I would hope most people could pay attention to the substance of the post rather than the identity of the poster. ---
**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, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/152 "2009-05-27T14:31:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Which despite lots of people asking for them never seem to get articulated. I just posed this question to my email buddy for the third time. “What, specifically, makes you feel you have to define SS couples differently than het couples, with regard to marriage?” The silence is deafening. ---
**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, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/153 "2009-05-27T14:32:35Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > Two basic questions in this thread: > > 1. Are those opposed to SSM, for whatever reason, bigots. I say yes, until I hear an argument that is not based on bigotry. FTR, I’ve read all the arguments in this thread and I have yet to hear one that is not based on bigotry. > > 2. Is **Der Tris** a bigot? Well, perhaps, but there is a fundamental difference between **Tris** and anti-SSM bigots. **Der Tris** is merely ranting against the people he hates on a message board. The vast majority of the people he hates will never be affected by him, will never even know he exists. The anti-SSM bigots, OTOH, are doing real harm to the people they hate. I’m not aware of anything **Der Tris** has done to cause harm to those he hates. I’ve seen him \*wish \*harm on them, sure, but he’s never, AFAIK, done anything to harm anyone. So, is a bigot who just rants to those masochistic enough to read his posts as bad as the bigot who actively does deliberate harm to those he hates? I don’t think so. First and foremost all unions are technically civil first as well as religious. I was married in the catholic church, (despite not being catholic) I however do not recognize the place the church claims in my marriage. If I divorce my wife, it is the county I have to deal with, not the church. Other than for my own interest or reasons, I never have to step into a RCC again, however I MUST stop in a gov’t building if there are certian things I need done, this includes marriage. If I never went to a church, at least here in Illinois, I could still be ‘married’ but that’s a sematic point if ever there was one. No church = civil union. The county/state etc cannot, per-se ‘marry’ even though it’s called that, it is a union recognized by the AHJ, not marriage in the truest definition. Conversely, the church cannot entertain a ‘marriage’ without a license from the AHJ because it is not binding. The fact that these things are intertwined is the true source of the problem. Now, despite my previous post in this thread, I suppose that by the dictionary definition, those who oppose SSM would be “bigoted”. I do not believe however that this makes them all-around bigots any more than instaling an outlet makes one an electrician. I believe you can hold viewpoints based on your honest opinion that seem bigoted to others and still be a decent and good person. I believe this because I’ve seen it in my life first hand and because as people, we are not measured on a single point but on our lives as a whole. What **Der Trihs** does is say you’re anti-SSM, therefore you are a bigot. In fairness, I did the same thing, but that’s illustrative of the point I’m making; people have ideas, ideas do not have people. I can believe that SSM is wrong and I can still be a good person and do good in this world. A fact that I think Der Trihs has missed, or is ignoring. In fact, on review I retract my statement that **Der Trihs** is a bigot, instead, he is acting in a bigoted way, and should stop it. The fact is that by having such staunch and vehement arguments against those who believe differently than he, Der Trihs actually hurts the cause he champions, pushing those on the fence one way or the other. If the aim is to enact SSM and gain wide acceptance, then you have to appeal to a wide audience. The militant SSM crowd, indeed, the militant gay crowd is doing as much harm as they are good. If you just want to be accepted for who you are, that’s fine, but if who you are is a dude that wears assless leather chaps, platform heels and nipple clamps at noon on tuesday on your walk past the middle school, it’s gonna take people a while and you can’t just wander up to 'em and scream at them how they need to accept you. It will not work. For the very religious or very conservative, SSM (and the publicized argument therefore) is the equivalent to the assless chaps guy. People need to accept that and adjust their arguments, their PUBLIC arguments, to their actual audience, not the conservative or middle of the road straight people. The fist pounders, the screamers, the banner wavers are doing these things to inspire their own side, they aren’t changing minds on the other. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/154 "2009-05-27T14:37:02Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Look, let’s say we have Grandma Fuddyduddy. She’s got nothing, at all, against gay people. Not even a litlte bit. But change scares the granny panties off of her and she’d really rather not have society change at all if she could help it. She’s never quiet gotten over rock and roll and the internet just freaks her right the fuck out. She doesn’t want to see gay marriage as the law of the land simply because she wants things to stay the way they are. Based on your description, if Grandma Fuddyduddy’s doctor told her that she needed to take a vitamin pill every week in order to arrest a condition that would otherwise kill her in six months, Grandma Fuddyduddy would refuse to do so because it is different from what she did before. In other words, you are describing someone who is simply not mentally competent to manage her own affairs, or to have opinions driven by comprehensible motivations. You might just as well invoke the hypothetical opinions of hypothetical Grandma Fuddyduddy’s hypothetical Persian cat for your example. ---
**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, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/155 "2009-05-27T14:40:07Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Which despite lots of people asking for them never seem to get articulated. On the contrary, it’s happened quite often, the reasons just aren’t sufficient for the group who dismisses them out of hand, despite them being true for their believers, some of which are: [ul] [li]It is against the teachings of the church / bible :rolleyes:[/li][li]It is the next step to inter-species marriage (a particulary specious argument)[/li][li]It will cause incredible economic impact to businesses (somewhat true)[/li][/ul] I don’t believe any of these, and the only one that implies direct bigotry is #2. 1 and 3 are motivated by what could be considered bigotry, however even if #3 was debunked by study, that is not real-world, only a potential model of what might happen, so it’s a case of not knowing what we don’t know, but you don’t necessarily have to be a bigot to believe it. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/156 "2009-05-27T14:40:43Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > Oh, and by the way, basically everything **magellan** and **mswas** have said in the last couple of threads is complete and utter bullshit, and they are being intellectually dishonest in pushing the same tired arguments that have been debunked a dozen times before. Right ‘debunked’ aka ‘a bunch of people declared it debunked therefore it’s debunked’. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/157 "2009-05-27T14:42:11Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > But if you simply label a whole group of people as ‘bigots’ without any understanding of their individuality, then you are also a bigot, regardless if a subset of the individuals in question are bigoted or not. Nonsense. In the case before the thread, membership in the relevant “group of people” is **defined** by a specific bigoted viewpoint. Your position is equivalent to arguing that one cannot assume that someone is anti-black simply because he happens to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/158 "2009-05-27T14:46:25Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And of COURSE disapproving of people for their beliefs is just the same as disapproving of them for something they are born with. :rolleyes: > > Guess all those people who don’t like Nazis and Communists are bigots, right ? ‘Bigot’ is insufficient as a descriptor. It tells us nothing about the person other than they hold some vague irrational prejudice. Those people might actually be bigots, but bigotry explains nothing. You happen to be a bigot as it regards religious beliefs so you reduce any religious rationale to mere bigotry, but I don’t say you think the way you do because you are a bigot. Being a bigot isn’t the sum total of who you are even though you are without a doubt a massive bigot. ---
**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, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/159 "2009-05-27T14:46:28Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Tell that to someone who isn’t allowed to be with their loved one when they die, and then has their inheritance stolen by the loved one’s bigoted family from them thanks to being unable to have a real marriage. And similar disgusting behavior. Well, since you trotted out this old argument… I think it’s becoming increasingly obvious it’s not about these rights. California, for example, with it’s domestic partnerships, provides for all of these, and has for quite some time. Yet, despite that, only about 50,000 couples (including elderly hetero couples) have bothered with it over nearly 10 years of existance. [The San Diego Union-Tribune: Local News, Sports and Things to Do](http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081013/news_1n13partners.html) Yet, when marriage was briefly legal over a course of about 6 months, almost 20,000 couples got married. Why the difference? If it was about rights, why haven’t more people made use of the domestic partnerships? ---
**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, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/160 "2009-05-27T14:46:30Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > On the contrary, it’s happened quite often, the reasons just aren’t sufficient for the group who dismisses them out of hand, despite them being true for their believers, some of which are: > > [ul] > [li]It is against the teachings of the church / bible :rolleyes:[/li][li]It is the next step to inter-species marriage (a particulary specious argument)[/li][li]It will cause incredible economic impact to businesses (somewhat true)[/li][/ul] > > I don’t believe any of these, and the only one that implies direct bigotry is #2. 1 and 3 are motivated by what could be considered bigotry, however even if #3 was debunked by study, that is not real-world, only a potential model of what might happen, so it’s a case of not knowing what we don’t know, but you don’t necessarily have to be a bigot to believe it. Can’t it be “secondary bigotry”? You’ve adopted the bigoted stance of an established group (i.e., the church) for no other reason than because you’re a member of their group. In other words, you can’t be a “good believer” if you don’t marginalize the way they marginalize. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768.md?page=9)