# What is the argument against "separate but equal" civil unions? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2014, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764 "2014-11-16T13:37:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/181 "2014-11-20T01:51:36Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You are also changing the terms of the discussion. You explicitly noted evil motivation and I have limited my remarks to identifying those whose motives were not evil. > Nothing I have said has implied that the results were less than evil. In neither of your two options were the motives not evil, though. Othering for no reason isn’t evil? Putting your definitions of what a particular word means above people’s lives? Both of those seem like fairly evil motives for opposition to me. They’re different to me? Then I oppose them being allowed to marry. They’re using a word in a different way than I would like? Then I oppose them being allowed to marry. Evil motives doesn’t just mean “Fuck those gay people, I want to do maximum harm to them please.” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/182 "2014-11-20T02:28:35Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > This statement suggests that the perception of the opposition doing wrong (in scare quotes) is invalid. True in the context it was written. It is pretty much human nature to presume that one’s opponents are “doing wrong.” It has certainly been true of those who oppose SSM who have used everything from claims that homosexuality is sinful to accusations that the gay community wants to arbitrarily impose an artificial “change” on the language. However, it is also true of proponents of SSM who simply refuse to recognize the confusion and consternation that some opponents feel when encountering a concept that they have believed was wrong for their whole lives and who act as if simply declaring “its about equality” is supposed to magically make everything right in the minds of their opponents. > [@Dr.Drake](#): > > Any one of these statements is understandable, but there’s an overall pattern of you, trying to control the terms of the debate on behalf of gay people by minimizing the harm done by a complacent majority, and trying to protect the priveleged allies at the expense of the forward momentum. Actually, most of your explanations are little more than you inferring thoughts that are not found in the text. The only single suggestion that I have made has been that the emotional impulse for gloating or humiliating one’s opponents is unfortunate–something that I apply equally to both sides of this debate as well as most other social conflicts. Beyond that, if you actually follow your process, here, logically, an opponent of SSM could draw the same conclusions about proponents of SSM. (Since I do not accept your inferences, I do not lay the same charge against SSM proponents. And I reject any claims that it is only valid when describing the words of majorities, noting both that the majority now accepts SSM, making the opponents the minority and that in the parallel social phenomenon of racism, I have never accepted the silly claim that minorities cannot be racist.) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/183 "2014-11-20T02:36:58Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > You explicitly stated that people fell into the “popular” habit of assuming evil in others out of a desire for “self-righteous back patting”. _You said that._ That’s a direct quote of your chosen phrase. Yep. And I have never seen any major conflict in which that was not true. Not in regard to sexuality or gender issues or race or religion or any other human conflict. > [@Hellestal](#): > > You deliberately brought up their motives in a sneering, condescending manner. Not really. I made an observation about human nature that was pretty general. It was not sneering, but saddened. On the specific topic of humiliating one’s opponents or gloating in victory, I find it counterproductive and I work to avoid that in my battles. I have seen the harm that it can bring and I attempt to avoid that behavior. If you think that such behavior helps your cause, I cannot stop you, but I can suggest that you are mistaken. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/184 "2014-11-20T02:44:31Z")
Very well. It’s not worth arguing about. The pattern I see in your responses is, apparently, not there. You keep coming back to the point about insulting others, where you and I agree. What you don’t see is the problem I have with the way you plead on behalf of those who still have problems with SSM. I know change takes time; it’s just that I think that since the people who haven’t changed are actually doing harm, I don’t think any of the excuses for their reluctance should be accepted, even if true. I don’t think I’m capable of explaining the issue I have with it to you clearly, so it’s time for me to drop it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/185 "2014-11-20T02:44:56Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Evil motives doesn’t just mean “Fuck those gay people, I want to do maximum harm to them please.” Evil motives means just about that. One does not have to have an evil motive to carry out an evil action, but if you are looking at motives–the impulses that drive a person’s action–you do need to demonstrate some level of hatred to describe it as evil. An evil action might be driven by an evil motivation or it might be driven by motives that are foolish or fearful or ignorant or a number of other defects, but without some level of hatred or a deliberate intention to inflict harm, describing a person as having an evil motive is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/186 "2014-11-20T04:02:08Z")
. . . but first, if I may, I’d like to hearken back to this little golden apple, which friend **Shodan** , with Eris-like precision, rolled into the gathering: > [@Shodan](#): > > Most of this is simply “it is not enough that I win - my enemies have to lose”. ISTM that this can only be assailed when the issue at hand is _not_ a zero-sum proposition. Fodder for a different thread perhaps (only, I’m kinda lazy about starting threads in GD, so if someone wants to grab that ball and run with it, well . . .)? Anyway, back to the golden applesauce: > [@tomndebb](#): > > Evil motives means just about that. One does not have to have an evil motive to carry out an evil action, but if you are looking at motives–the impulses that drive a person’s action–you do need to demonstrate some level of hatred to describe it as evil. **An evil action might be driven by an evil motivation or it might be driven by motives that are foolish or fearful or ignorant or a number of other defects,** but without some level of hatred or a deliberate intention to inflict harm, describing a person as having an evil motive is wrong. At the outset, perhaps, but what about the persistence of the evil action _after_ it has been established as evil? ISTM that willingness to perpetuate the evil action that was initiated without evil intent can only be plausibly excused by one of two conditions:\* 1. the perpetuator is _ignorant_ of the fact that the action, is evil; or 2. the perpetuator has not had the evilness of the action established to his own satisfaction. Is it your contention that either of both of these conditions can be said to apply to your run-of-the-mill [“Martin Niemöller,”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller) if you will? \*If, in your view, there are other conditions that would perform this function, I’d be delighted to learn what they are. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/187 "2014-11-20T09:22:22Z")
> [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](#): > > It’s an interesting counterfactual as to what might have happened in the 1990s if there’d been a serious push towards civil union legislation. If there had really been a good-faith effort to grant _all_ the rights of marriage, including interstate portability, tax advantages, joint adoption, and so forth, it might have been accepted as a solution. It has not been accepted as a solution in AUS. Outstanding issue is passport control, which affects immigration and emmigration, but I don’t recall hearing of anything else at all (state, tax, adoption, superannuation, divorce settlement, IVF or anything). NZ took it a step further: civil union is defined in the same place as marriage, the two are interchangeable except that most traditional couples choose the “marriage” clause, and most non-traditional couples are not permitted to choose “marriage”. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/188 "2014-11-20T12:19:30Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > An evil action might be driven by an evil motivation or it might be driven by motives that are foolish or fearful or ignorant or a number of other defects, but without some level of hatred or a deliberate intention to inflict harm, describing a person as having an evil motive is wrong. Foolishness, fear, and ignorance, can be “evil motives” as well, in my view. If one wants to kill all the Jews because they have a sincere belief that the Jews are trying to destroy their race/religion, that’s an “evil motive”. Similarly, if one wants to ban gay marriage because they have a sincere belief that legal gay marriage will turn children gay, and that their gay children will thus be condemned to hell, that’s still an evil motive. ---
**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:** [November 20, 2014, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/189 "2014-11-20T12:36:05Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > It was not sneering, but saddened. “Self-righteous back-patting” is not sneering. Go ahead, pull the other one. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/190 "2014-11-20T12:36:39Z")
I understand the desire of many people to enter into marriages or unions with people of the same sex instead of the traditional majority view of entering into opposite sex unions. I agree that such a characteristic is innate and is not some “choice” on the individual’s part. But these argument tactics are absurd. You cannot automatically gain support for your position by comparing your struggle to that of blacks or other historically discriminated against minorities, and then decree that your opponents are hateful bigots. Any law would fail under the same challenge. Since a minority of people violate a particular law, I could group those people, give them a name, compare them to blacks, and declare that opposition to my point of view discriminates against those people and is nothing short of bigotry. Then I “win.” Why no support for my cleanlosexuals? Sure, maybe there are only 10 of them in the entire country, but they want to be happy with their washing machines and are harming nobody. Why do you oppose their happiness? Are you George Wallace, or something? Further, one cannot just declare a new right from the 14th amendment that wasn’t even thought to exist until 15 years ago. The fact that it is new makes your side have a huge hurdle to climb in making such a statement. But the decree is made without any support to legitimize it. This is a disturbing trend from the left: agree with us or be considered outside of acceptable human decency and not fit to participate in reasoned debate. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/191 "2014-11-20T12:39:36Z")
A washing machine is not a consenting adult, _as you have already been told many times_, so I find this line of reasoning insulting. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/192 "2014-11-20T12:42:11Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Evil motives means just about that. One does not have to have an evil motive to carry out an evil action, but if you are looking at motives–the impulses that drive a person’s action–you do need to demonstrate some level of hatred to describe it as evil. An evil action might be driven by an evil motivation or it might be driven by motives that are foolish or fearful or ignorant or a number of other defects, but without some level of hatred or a deliberate intention to inflict harm, describing a person as having an evil motive is wrong. What about the person who bases their opposition to same-sex marriage on gay people being different isn’t a deliberate intention to inflict harm? It’s saying; they’re different from me, therefore I do not have to care/do not want them to have the same rights that I have. What about the person who bases their opposition to same-sex marriage on wanting to keep a particular definition of “marriage” isn’t a deliberate intention to inflict harm? It’s saying; I prefer keeping my preferred definition of this word as the legal meaning over allowing gay people to have the same rights that I have. In each case they’re selecting harm for other people. I can’t agree with your limitations on evil motives being entirely those based on hatred or intent to inflict harm. What about evil from banality? I see someone being beaten to death on the street, but I simply don’t care about the person being killed one way or the other, so I do nothing despite my ability to do so. I hold neither hatred for them, nor do I intend to inflict harm - I’m just as uninterested if the killer stops. That isn’t evil? How about if someone enjoys blowing things up. They plants bombs in random locations around the city - some deserted, some filled with people. They don’t differentiate. They hold no hatred for the people who will be killed; nor do they intend harm, it’s entirely incidental to their motives of enjoying watching things blow up. Not evil? Even if they deliberately pick deserted locations, it would still be evil. I think the problem you’re having is that you’re using motivations to describe only the prime want or desire behind what they do. But that isn’t the whole part of motivation. Someone’s weighing up of the pros and cons, their decision that their desire is above other factors, is part of their motivation - if it wasn’t, then people wouldn’t alter their behaviour based on differing circumstances. In your two examples, both persons have a non-hatred, non-harm based motive - but for them to oppose same-sex marriage they have to compare it to their desires and come up with the idea that those desires matter more to them. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/193 "2014-11-20T12:47:34Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > But these argument tactics are absurd. They’ve worked, at least for a significant chunk of the country. > [@](#): > > You cannot automatically gain support for your position by comparing your struggle to that of blacks or other historically discriminated against minorities, and then decree that your opponents are hateful bigots. Not “automatically”, but SSM supporters have gained support using this tactic (and others) just the same. > [@](#): > > Any law would fail under the same challenge. Huh? These arguments are about changing people’s minds so that more people support SSM, not about legal challenges. Other arguments are used in court. > [@](#): > > Why no support for my cleanlosexuals? Sure, maybe there are only 10 of them in the entire country, but they want to be happy with their washing machines and are harming nobody. Why do you oppose their happiness? Are you George Wallace, or something? Who has opposed their happiness? Further, how do we know what they need for their happiness if they haven’t spoken up? The arguments for SSM come from people in same-sex relationships. To properly consider the arguments of your cleanlosexuals, I’ll need to hear from some cleanlosexuals. > [@](#): > > This is a disturbing trend from the left: agree with us or be considered outside of acceptable human decency and not fit to participate in reasoned debate. Is opposing the legalization of interracial marriage “outside of acceptable human decency”? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/194 "2014-11-20T13:01:51Z")
For those not in the know, by “cleanlosexuals”, **jtgain** is referring to love between people and washing machines, as in “If people can marry their own sex, why can’t they marry washing machines, huh??” ---
**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:** [November 20, 2014, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/195 "2014-11-20T13:02:39Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I understand the desire of many people to enter into marriages or unions with people of the same sex instead of the traditional majority view of entering into opposite sex unions. I agree that such a characteristic is innate and is not some “choice” on the individual’s part. > > But these argument tactics are absurd. You cannot automatically gain support for your position by comparing your struggle to that of blacks or other historically discriminated against minorities, and then decree that your opponents are hateful bigots. > > Any law would fail under the same challenge. Since a minority of people violate a particular law, I could group those people, give them a name, compare them to blacks, and declare that opposition to my point of view discriminates against those people and is nothing short of bigotry. Then I “win.” Why no support for my cleanlosexuals? Sure, maybe there are only 10 of them in the entire country, but they want to be happy with their washing machines and are harming nobody. Why do you oppose their happiness? Are you George Wallace, or something? > > Further, one cannot just declare a new right from the 14th amendment that wasn’t even thought to exist until 15 years ago. The fact that it is new makes your side have a huge hurdle to climb in making such a statement. But the decree is made without any support to legitimize it. > > This is a disturbing trend from the left: agree with us or be considered outside of acceptable human decency and not fit to participate in reasoned debate. Of for the love of Pete. You have been told several times why your “cleanlosexuals” analogy is terrible, and this is something you shouldn’t have had to be told even once, because it’s so embarrassing. Nobody is just doing a group-compare-bigot-call like you claim. And these “absurd” arguments are the ones that have won in virtually every courtroom they’ve been advanced in, whether under Democratic or Republican appointed judges. This “disturbing trend” is nothing like a disturbing trend. Disagree with me on taxes, on charter schools, on unions, on foreign policy, and there’s room for principled disagreement. But disagree with me on whether black people sould be able to vote, whether women should be able to serve in the military, whether atheists should be able to hold public office, whether gay people should be able to get married, and there’s no room for principled disagreement. There’s the position that favors equality, and there’s the position of bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/196 "2014-11-20T13:06:30Z")
[QUOTE=jtgain] Any law would fail under the same challenge. [/QUOTE] No, it wouldn’t. In the example you provide, we ban _everyone_ from marrying washing machines. In the case at hand, you’ll let me marry a woman while banning a woman from marrying a woman, and that’s not equal justice under law. The first law can stand; the second should fall. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/197 "2014-11-20T13:19:00Z")
It’s not even as if we ban marriages to washing machines. We do not recognize the legitimacy of \*any \*contracts entered into with appliances. Let’s table this ridiculous “argument” until after the inevitable robot uprising. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/198 "2014-11-20T13:26:14Z")
Produce one cleanlosexual couple and I’ll hear their arguments, and ask them questions. Both of them. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/199 "2014-11-20T13:39:31Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > … > This is a disturbing trend from the left: agree with us or be considered outside of acceptable human decency and not fit to participate in reasoned debate. This is pretty ironic in a gay marriage debate. It’s not the left who are declaring some people outside of acceptable human decency. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/200 "2014-11-20T14:03:05Z")
“Opposing bigotry is bigoted against bigots!” It never grows old, does it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764.md?page=11)