What are you getting out of all this, Bricker?

[SolGrundy]

@minty green

The sum total of his offense, it seems, is to disapprove of the word “marriage” when applied to same-sex unions, even though he apparently supports all the rights and privileges of marriage under an alternative name. That, and daring to point out that the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision recognizing gay marriage appears to be prompting a counter-productive backlash on gay marriage across the country.

If this is what serves as grounds for a Pit thread, it’s time for someone to get some fucking perspective.

It doesn’t warrant a “Fuck you you fucking homophobic piece of shit” pit thread, no. But one of the rules of this board is that you don’t make personal comments against another poster in Great Debates; you only argue for or against the topic.

For what it’s worth: if anyone did come in here lobbing insults at Bricker, I’d be first in line to try and shout them down. I don’t hate the man; I don’t even dislike him. I’m not saying that in judgement, I’m only saying it to make my position clear in case it’s been mis-read. He’s always been tactful and polite, even in otherwise heated arguments, and he’s never intentionally insulted me personally unless I’d said something to warrant it.

Still, as Maureen says, that’s not respect. I would never, ever presume to tell any straight man that his relationship with his wife or girlfriend was somehow not valid or undeserving of the term “marriage.” Yet there are plenty of people who will and do presume to insist that my love for my boyfriend is “wrong” or at most charitable, so fundamentally “different” that it’s just not the same thing and not deserving of the same status. Even though we have both grown up in a culture that values marriage and family as being extremely important.

I can’t see this as simply a difference of opinion. I do not and cannot see the Massachusettes ruling as a misguided notion or an unfortunate turn of events or a dark blight on the democratic process. I see it as a single beacon of hope that there are some people with some sense in this country, and that it will be possible for me to be treated fairly, and it really fucking annoys me when people try to undermine that.

[villa]

@Brutus

A basic level of respect? Queers have that. What you are looking for societal acceptance of homosexuality at the same level as heterosexuality, and no court can force that. As recent events have shown, and will show again when the November ballot proposals are voted on, is that people don’t like having change forced on them by the courts. Pure and simple.

Nope, not as far as I can see. While full societal acceptance is IMHO a good thing, what gay marriage advocates are seeking is legal acceptance of homosexuality at the same level of heterosexuality. Important difference there. If people want to protest outside gay marriages, then I would defend their right to do so, while reserving certain choice epithets for them. But I don’t like a situation where the law is different for gays and straights.

That’s the change that I want to see ‘forced’ on people; a legal change. I am pretty confident attitudes will follow. Sometimes the courts have to lead on these matters (as they did with integration). Sometimes Congress leads and the courts eventually follow. But I for one, as a married straight guy, am not willing to sit back any longer and tell my gay friends to sit in the back of the bus longer, for ‘tactical’ reasons.

[lissener]

@Brutus

What you are looking for societal acceptance of homosexuality at the same level as heterosexuality

Bzzzt. Wrong. What YOU’RE looking for is societal acceptance of bigotry at the same level of constitutional rights.

[lissener]

In any case, let Bricker pride himself on siding with the majority. He would have sided with the majority in the Jim Crow South, in the antebellum south, and probably in wartime Germany. The majority is always right.

Good thing we don’t have a constitution to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority!

[matt_mcl]

@Brutus

A basic level of respect? Queers have that.

When I don’t get an article in my inbox every week saying another queer person has been murdered for being queer… that will be a basic level of respect.

[Otto]

@Bricker

I support civil unions that provide all the rights and privileges of marriage, but I do not agree that the word “marriage” can properly refer to a same-sex pairing.

Because you’re a bigot. Or if you don’t like the word bigot, we can revive a phrase that’s gone lacking here of late, straight supremist.

@Bricker

As I noted above, I will not work to persuade others to approve same-sex marriage, since I don’t support it.

Bigot.

@Bricker

And I would point out that the Louisana amendment does not purport to forbid same-sex civil unions.

Liar.

The amendment also would prohibit state officials and courts from recognizing out-of-state marriages and civil unions between homosexuals.

@Bricker

Finally, I would point out that I admit to a certain animus that’s developed over the course of these many debates here on the SDMB.

Isn’t it amazing how repeatedly spewing bigotry earns you “animus.” Knock me over with a feather.

@Bricker

I believe that support for civil unions in lieu of marriage is a perfectly reasonable and defensible position

And you’re wrong. Still.

@Bricker

and I strongly believe that this is an issue for state legislation, not federal control or judicial activism.

Because denying human rights is peachy dandy, as ong as it’s done state-by-state. “Judicial activism” is nothing but code for “decision I don’t like.”

@Bricker

For that attitude, I have been called homophobic, bigoted, and a liar

If the shoe fits, honey…

@Bricker

When I am faced with tactics like this, it is perhaps inevitable - or at least understandable - that I take some interest when my view is endorsed by the electorate.

It must make you so happy that you can take refuge in your bigotry by hiding behing the bigotry of so many others…

How dare you disrespect the marriages of people who have had to fight for them for years, and who after battling for years still must settle for second-tier, one-state-only-and-no-federal marriage, instead of having marriage handed to them on a platter the way it was handed to you? How do you have the gall to tell couples who have been together longer than you and your wife in a society that offered them no love, support, encouragement or simple acknowledgement, that they are less than you, that they are unworthy of being called married? Why don’t you call up Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon and tell them that in your opinion their 50 years together, in the face of the sort of disgust and hostility that you espouse, doesn’t count as a marriage?

Maybe if you couldn’t take the respect of your basic human rights for granted every day you might have some inkling of exactly how evil your beliefs are.

[Miller]

@EvilGhandi

Miller,
“they voted that way because they’re bigots, plain and simple.”

If the vote reflects the veiw of the population of Louisiana, you just called over 3 and a half million people bigots.

http://www.areaconnect.com/population.htm?s=LA

Hmm. Well, coupla things. First, if that is my view of the population of Louisiana, then by your own cite, I’m actually calling just under four and a half million people bigots. Secondly, if you’ll actually read my post, I’m specifically refering to the people in Louisiana who voted, which according to this cite, was around 27% of the population. And, as I surely do not need to point out, I’m certainly not calling the people who voted against the bill bigots, only those who voted for it, which according to the same article, is a mere 610,690 knuckle-dragging, bigoted motherfuckers.

However, anyone who knows me, knows how much I value clear communication. So let me assure you that there is one, and only one, person in this thread I’m calling an idiot. And that’s you. Thanks for stopping by to embarass yourself publically. Y’all don’t come back now, y’hear?

[Captain_Amazing]

@SolGrundy

And you would be wrong.

Specifically, here’s the text, . Bolding is mine.

Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall construe this constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any member of a union other than the union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman.

[Miller]

Fuck. EvilGhandi, I misread your post as “if that reflects your view of the population of Louisiana.” Which means I’m the idiot. I apologize for that.

However, to be perfectly clear, if the vote on this bill does reflect the view of the population of Louisiana, then yes, all 3.5 million of them are bigots, and I have no qualms about saying so. Because it’s the simple truth, and because I don’t think it’s ever going to change if no one ever calls them on it.

Really sorry about calling you an idiot.

[iampunha]

@Miller

Because it’s the simple truth, and because I don’t think it’s ever going to change if no one ever calls them on it.

If some random person called you an idiot, do you think that would be significant impetus for you to even consider changing your ideas? Calling some specific people idiots may well work to cause them to reconsider things, but I’d be really interested to see a case where “you’re an idiot” worked in the situation detailed above (random person saying it) for at least, say, 50% of a significantly large sample.

In this case, I’m not sure what would work other than some covert ops, so to speak, and those usually take a while and with sometimes-unpredictable results. Also requires a lot more effort. However, for me at least (and I suspect I’m not alone), calling me an idiot first-off is usually a bad way to get me to consider an alternate viewpoint. Sometimes it’ll make me downright hostile…

[Miller]

@iampunha

If some random person called you an idiot, do you think that would be significant impetus for you to even consider changing your ideas?

Are you talking about what I said to EvilGhandi, or what I said about the population of Louisiana? Because I didn’t call the population of Louisiana idiots, I called them bigots.

Calling some specific people idiots may well work to cause them to reconsider things, but I’d be really interested to see a case where “you’re an idiot” worked in the situation detailed above (random person saying it) for at least, say, 50% of a significantly large sample.

One random person? No. If it were, say, a quarter of the population? That might give me pause. Now, if we’re talking about being called a “bigot” instead of an “idiot,” and if it were virtually every member of the minority I’m being accused of being bigoted against? Then yes, I can say from past experience that I would, indeed, change my mind.

In this case, I’m not sure what would work other than some covert ops, so to speak, and those usually take a while and with sometimes-unpredictable results. Also requires a lot more effort.

You lost me there.

However, for me at least (and I suspect I’m not alone), calling me an idiot first-off is usually a bad way to get me to consider an alternate viewpoint. Sometimes it’ll make me downright hostile…

Well, I was trying to make EvilGhandi hostile, although not because I thought he was homophobic, because I thought he was… well, an idiot.

Which, again: really, really sorry about.

Anyway, backing up a bit, I don’t actually believe that the turn out of that election is an accurate reflection of the opinions of the population of Louisiana. I think most people there don’t really give a shit one way or the other. Those are the people who need to be won over. The half million people who were actually motivated enough to go and vote bigotry into law - they’re lost causes. I don’t think it’s possible to convince them to change their minds. I do think, however, that demonizing them is an effective way to mobilize the undecided middle against them. The idea that bigotry is a bad thing has been pretty well internalized by most of the population. The trick is making it clear to them what is and is not bigotry: and this bill most certainly was. If we can succesfully brand the people who voted for it as bigots, then more and more people are going to want to distance themselves from them, and their political power starts ebbing away.

[Brutus]

bigot:

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices…

Seems like a valid description of various parties regarding this issue.

[duffer]

@lissener

Good thing we don’t have a constitution to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority!

Especially on the SDMB. :rolleyes:

BTW, nice allusion to Bricker being a racist NAZI. And you criticize some of my arguments. :wally

[roger_thornhill]

Brutus, the word ‘bigot’ is in danger of what CS Lewis calls verbicide, of having its meaning diluted so much as render it virtually useless. But by virtue of being the most emotive of the Big Three snarl words in American debate (the other two being ‘liar’ and ‘moron’), it has carved out a niche for itself which has made it almost invulnerable.

An Argentinian pastor called Juan Carlos Ortiz once banned the use of the phrases “Hallelujah” and “Praise the Lord” among his congregation because tghey had become mere mantras, recited without thinking. ‘Bigot’ is fast becoming another of those words that contribute to what I call the abolition of thinking in the PC age.

[matt_mcl]

@Brutus

bigot:
Seems like a valid description of various parties regarding this issue.

I’m not seeing what I have to be ashamed of in being obstinately attached to my human rights.

[Miller]

@roger thornhill

Brutus, the word ‘bigot’ is in danger of what CS Lewis calls verbicide, of having its meaning diluted so much as render it virtually useless. But by virtue of being the most emotive of the Big Three snarl words in American debate (the other two being ‘liar’ and ‘moron’), it has carved out a niche for itself which has made it almost invulnerable.

An Argentinian pastor called Juan Carlos Ortiz once banned the use of the phrases “Hallelujah” and “Praise the Lord” among his congregation because tghey had become mere mantras, recited without thinking. ‘Bigot’ is fast becoming another of those words that contribute to what I call the abolition of thinking in the PC age.

Horseshit.

[roger_thornhill]

An improvement on ‘bigot’, I suppose.

[iampunha]

@Miller

Are you talking about what I said to EvilGhandi, or what I said about the population of Louisiana? Because I didn’t call the population of Louisiana idiots, I called them bigots.

For our purposes, I see no difference. Both are insulting, both are meant to cause strife and neither is especially given to promoting tolerance and understanding. Call them bigots, idiots, troglodytes, whatever insulting term you care to throw around. I doubt you’ll get many people saying “I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.”

One random person? No. If it were, say, a quarter of the population?

So, just to make sure I’m parsing this correctly, if a quarter of the population said you were an idiot, and offered while saying that no evidence or reason for saying it, that would cause you to rethink your position?

Or, to use an example you so courteously provide on this very page, what evidence have you given that roger thornhill should consider seriously your charge that his point is horseshit? You have told him absolutely nothing of where he should begin to try and figure this out. What is his motivation to respond with scholarship when you have not?

(Now watch roger respond courteously just to spite me;))

Now, if we’re talking about being called a “bigot” instead of an “idiot,” and if it were virtually every member of the minority I’m being accused of being bigoted against? Then yes, I can say from past experience that I would, indeed, change my mind.

Did they offer reason for what they said, or did they just label you a bigot and move on?

You lost me there.

Covert ops e.g. not challenging the held notion that one is heterosexual (for purposes of this discussion) and challenging beliefs held about the GLBT community. I was reasonably successful doing this, changed a few minds on the subject, actually came out to a few people who saw the error of their ways.

I think you really have to examine the situation on a more intricate level than “millions of people” before you decide how to proceed. For some people, obviously being called a bigot is something that will make you curious as to the reason. For others, being called a bigot is a sure way to get that person firmly entrenched in their ideas, especially if they gain some sort of satisfaction from the feeling that they are being persecuted for, say, their religious beliefs. They seek comfort in those with the same beliefs and are even more motivated to keep you from getting what you want.

Those on the fence? Well, consider two possible approaches:

1. The bigots want to ban gay marriage because they’re fucking morons.

2. We want to make recognized the rights gay people should have that they currently lack.

While you will certainly get people rallying behind the first, it has been my experience that the second tends to be more effective. Experiences and results, of course, differ.

[DarkPrince]

@Brutus

Seems like a valid description of various parties regarding this issue.

Yeah, them uppity faggots should rethink how they chose to love other men(see, lesbians are ok because guys think they’re sexy), and whether or not they want to be considered equal to the rest of the world’s non-gay population. Ah-hyuk!

:rolleyes:

[lissener]

@iampunha

Call them bigots, idiots, troglodytes, whatever insulting term you care to throw around.

This is ridiculous. *Bigot *has a literal definition that is relevant to a discussion regarding limiting the rights of a specific class of people. The word is being used literally and explicitly. *Idiot *and *troglodyte *are not intended to convey any literal information.