# We get it magellan01, you're the bigottiest bigot who ever bigotted. Now shut up about your POV. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 17, 2013, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967 "2013-04-17T19:27:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/261 "2013-04-22T19:38:53Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > The primary means by which we “treat” one another is through language. If you’re calling someone a special word to account for their special status, you’re not treating them the same. Should we abandon terms like gay, straight, bisexual, transgendered, man, woman, husband, wife, mother, father, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, son, daughter, family, tall, short, slim, stocky, blonde, brunette, challenged, genius? Any of them? Which? Why or why not? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/262 "2013-04-22T19:42:00Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Yes. The 1 set of statutes contains subsets, and one of those subsets ascribes rights common to both groups; one subset ascribes rights available to gay folks; one subset ascribes rights available to straight folks. > > In other words, > > 3 So, even in _your_ scenario (which is not mine) it would be correct to say all is contained within 1 set of statutes, because the other statutes (again, according to you) are subsets of the first. Well done. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/263 "2013-04-22T19:46:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Should we abandon terms like gay, straight, bisexual, transgendered, man, woman, husband, wife, mother, father, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, son, daughter, family, tall, short, slim, stocky, blonde, brunette, challenged, genius? No. > [@magellan01](#): > > Any of them? Which? Why or why not? No one is suggesting that all people are the same (they’re not). The only thing in question here is whether marriages between gays are the same as marriages between the straight (they are). ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/264 "2013-04-22T19:46:41Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, **Mags** , let’s say a life long friend came out to you, you didn’t know he was gay until he told you so. Naturally, being a tolerant sort of fellow as you are, you assure him that your friendship is secure. Then he tells you he is going to have a more or less traditional sort of marriage ceremony, and wants you to attend, it would mean a lot to him. > > So, do you chuck your principle overboard, or your friend? Pfft. Magellan01 wouldn’t have gay friends. They’d have to be called “civil companions” or something like that because friends \*traditionally _are straight in the US._ ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/265 "2013-04-22T19:46:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 1. As in 2 distinct groups > > 2. As in one set of statutes enumerating the benefits and privileges available to those those two groups That’s not actually possible, is the problem. By creating two distinct groups, you are creating two sets of statutes. You either have two groups, and two sets of statutes, or you have one group, and one set of statutes. You can’t mix and match. It just doesn’t work that way. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/266 "2013-04-22T19:50:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, even in _your_ scenario (which is not mine) it would be correct to say all is contained within 1 set of statutes, because the other statutes (again, according to you) are subsets of the first. > > Well done. Yes, exactly like in the proposed scenario, where everything is contained in one set of statutes: 1. White people go to white people schools. 2. Black people go to black people schools. 3. White people schools and black people schools will be equal in every way. One set of statutes contains everyone’s rights. See? Equality! In other words, putting everything in one set of statutes is a meaningless thing to do, because within that one set, there can be inequalities. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/267 "2013-04-22T19:51:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Should we abandon terms like gay, straight, bisexual, transgendered, man, woman, husband, wife, mother, father, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, son, daughter, family, tall, short, slim, stocky, blonde, brunette, challenged, genius? > > Any of them? Which? Why or why not? Aside from the familial terms, none of those words have any place in the law. The government has no business singling out people based on their hair color, weight, gender, or sexuality. In every day use, sure, those are all excellent and useful words. But they’re not things we should be writing legislation about. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/268 "2013-04-22T19:51:44Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > That’s not actually possible, is the problem. By creating two distinct groups, you are creating two sets of statutes. You either have two groups, and two sets of statutes, or you have one group, and one set of statutes. You can’t mix and match. It just doesn’t work that way. Technically, he’s right: you just have to make the set big enough. It’s a totally meaningless way to be right, though. I’m happy giving him this victory, if he’ll concede that it’s possible to put everyone into a single set of statutes while treating people unequally. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/269 "2013-04-22T20:00:01Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > No. > > No one is suggesting that all people are the same (they’re not). > > The only thing in question here is whether marriages between gays are the same as marriages between the straight (they are). Oh. So, you must want to retract this then: > [@](#): > > The primary means by which we “treat” one another is through language. If you’re calling someone a special word to account for their special status, you’re not treating them the same. Correct? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/270 "2013-04-22T20:01:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 1. As in 2 distinct groups > > 2. As in one set of statutes enumerating the benefits and privileges available to those those two groups You realize your argument essentially comes down to paragraphs, right? You’re admittedly using laws to create different classes of people and discriminate against one of them, but you think it magically becomes non-discrimination if they’re formatted a certain way? Who is supposed to give a shit? Even for you, this is really stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/271 "2013-04-22T20:01:18Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Oh. So, you must want to retract this then: > > Correct? What? Seriously, what? Reread what he wrote; he’s not contradicting himself at all. ---
**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:** [April 22, 2013, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/272 "2013-04-22T20:01:39Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > But the premise is that you aren’t treating them differently, you’re calling them something different. There is a difference is there not? That’s a premise an ideallist might embrace, that the “equal” legal application of marriages and civil unions will remain forever so. As long as the idea is kept purely in the hypothetical, maybe the illusion could be maintained just for the sake of argument, like postulating on a perfectly frictionless surface or a spaceship moving faster than light. “Separate but equal” education failed because blacks were actively despised and distrusted by whites who also had many misconceptions about the moral and intellectual capacities of blacks, thus the black schooling systems were treated with (at best) indifference. Is there anyone so naive to think corresponding attitudes don’t currently exist toward homosexuals? > [@](#): > > Does equal mean same though? For instance, let us say you have to refer to a marriage between two people of the same sex, do you use any identifier at all? Do you, for instance, call it a gay marriage? _You_ can do whatever you want. The issue is what the _government_ does, and equal treatment under the law, as I understand it, does indeed mean “same”, to the maximum extent possible. We don’t issue blue ballots to men and pink ballots to women; we issue _ballots_ to _voters_. A thought occurs that magellan’s argument, ostensibly to protect marriage, could be interpreted as a call for censorship. He himself uses the phrases “gay marriage” and “ssm” at various times, so to him the concept of marriage with a same-sex qualifier is not unfathomable or harmful. Further, he has used “traditional marriage” as a descriptor for the one-man-one-woman model (which, as has been pointed out to him often, is not the only historical form), so he doesn’t seem to have a problem recognizing “gay” and “traditional” as two flavours of marriage (in the hypothetical, at least) - it’s not causing his brain to melt or misfire (or at least not more so than usual) and I don’t see any indication that he’s about to give up on women and spend his days in a frenzied search for good hard cock. Yet he argues that _others_ must be shielded, especially children lest they grow up thinking gay marriage is normal and, apparantly, cause social collapse in 40 years or so. magellan is fearful, and wants his fear written into law, I guess to make his fear more tolerable. It is a mistake to cater to his weakness. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/273 "2013-04-22T20:01:51Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > That’s not actually possible, is the problem. By creating two distinct groups, you are creating two sets of statutes. You either have two groups, and two sets of statutes, or you have one group, and one set of statutes. You can’t mix and match. It just doesn’t work that way. Actually it is. As I’ve demonstrated in the other thread. Glad I could clear that up. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/274 "2013-04-22T20:07:29Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Yes, exactly like in the proposed scenario, where everything is contained in one set of statutes: > > 1. White people go to white people schools. > 2. Black people go to black people schools. > 3. White people schools and black people schools will be equal in every way. > > One set of statutes contains everyone’s rights. See? Equality! > > In other words, putting everything in one set of statutes is a meaningless thing to do, because within that one set, there can be inequalities. This is really weak of you. You lay out a scenario, I use _your_ scenario and show the problem with it. But rather than attempt to defend what YOU laid out as an example, you shift gears. (Hmmm, wonder why?) And what do you shift to? The mind-numbingly dumb attempt to equate my idea with the SBE problems of Black and White schoolchildren of the 1950s. Please debate better. I know you can. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/275 "2013-04-22T20:08:55Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Aside from the familial terms, none of those words have any place in the law. The government has no business singling out people based on their hair color, weight, gender, or sexuality. > > In every day use, sure, those are all excellent and useful words. But they’re not things we should be writing legislation about. Oh really? Are you saying that none of those words are used in law? None of them qualify people for certain things that others don’t get? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/276 "2013-04-22T20:10:09Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You realize your argument essentially comes down to paragraphs, right? You’re admittedly using laws to create different classes of people and discriminate against one of them, but you think it magically becomes non-discrimination if they’re formatted a certain way? Who is supposed to give a shit? Even for you, this is really stupid. As much as I hold you to be an authority on stupid, I disagree. ---
**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:** [April 22, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/277 "2013-04-22T20:10:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This is really weak of you. You lay out a scenario, I use _your_ scenario and show the problem with it. But rather than attempt to defend what YOU laid out as an example, you shift gears. (Hmmm, wonder why?) And what do you shift to? The mind-numbingly dumb attempt to equate my idea with the SBE problems of Black and White schoolchildren of the 1950s. > > Please debate better. I know you can. So who do you think your utterly dishonest attempts and lying your way to victory are fooling? You’re not even being coherent, do you think repetition will make it so? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/278 "2013-04-22T20:13:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This is really weak of you. You lay out a scenario, I use _your_ scenario and show the problem with it. Listen, idiot, the problem is that you magically think putting everything into a single set keeps SBE from occurring. In order to disprove you, all I have to do is show a single set of laws that includes SBE provisions. That’s what I did. There’s no gear-shifting, there’s only a counterexample to your premise that SBE is avoided by virtue of having a single set of statutes. Is there anyone else who can’t understand the idea of a counterexample? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/279 "2013-04-22T20:13:36Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So who do you think your utterly dishonest attempts and lying your way to victory are fooling? > > You’re not even being coherent, do you think repetition will make it so? What else is he supposed to do? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967/280 "2013-04-22T20:14:06Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So who do you think your utterly dishonest attempts and lying your way to victory are fooling? > > You’re not even being coherent, do you think repetition will make it so? That was not directed to you. God knows that any post including the phrase “Please debate better. I know you can.” is not, cannot, be directed to you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-get-it-magellan01-youre-the-bigottiest-bigot-who-ever-bigotted-now-shut-up-about-your-pov/655967.md?page=15)