# What the fuck is wrong with these homophobic bigots? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 1, 2000, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948 "2000-02-01T17:33:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Snark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Snark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snark)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2000, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/261 "2000-02-18T22:24:00Z")
test ---
**Author:** ![Snark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Snark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snark)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2000, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/262 "2000-02-18T22:32:00Z")
Exprix, the “accepted virtue” thing was a dig at liberal atheism. A joke, in other words. If I gave you the impression that I was looking down my nose at you, I’m sorry. I’m not. As for the polygamy question (have Mormons changed their doctrine concerning polygamy?), the answer is, no. According to the book called _Mormon Doctrine_ (McConkie), plural marriage will be resumed after the Second Coming of Jesus. The difference between homosexuality and plural marriage is, IMHO, the former is always immoral, while the latter is moral if sanctioned by God, and immoral if not. ---
**Author:** ![Snark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Snark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snark)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2000, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/263 "2000-02-18T22:56:00Z")
Polycarp wrote: > [@](#): > > Snark, not to agitate, but I was a bit mystified by what you meant about the “core doctrine.” I did read the next-to-last Section of the D&C where President Woodruff declared against polygamy, but was not clear on how it fits with Mormon doctrine on the family. Would you be willing to resummarize that? When I said “core doctrine,” I was referring to the **doctrine** of plural marriage, which was not changed when the **practice** was discontinued by revelation. > [@](#): > > And, while I can certainly respect your belief in what a contemporary prophet (per your faith) says, I do not see the connection between God’s judgment and just allowing others to do as they see proper, regardless of whether it fits your church’s idea of what is right. It seems to me that if God were to bring down his wrath on sinfulness, there have been plenty of things far worse, by your own church’s standards, than gay marriage to provoke him. (My opinion; I’m asking for yours, and for your understanding of your church’s beliefs on why this particular “abomination” is so particularly noxious in his eyes.) And, despite this being the pit, don’t hear that as a flame – I’m sincerely interested in learning the answers to something that does not make sense to me at present. Actually, Poly, when it comes right down to it, I don’t completely understand why SSM is coming under so much fire, except that it nullifies God’s intentions for establishing an eternal family unit with the offenders if they had not married homosexually. I take it on faith that there is some very important purpose that leaders of my religion are instructing us to opppose SSM. I support my leaders, and I understand that families are central to God’s purposes for us. Marriage between two men frustrates God’s purposes, which I admit I don’t fully understand. But I will support my church leaders. If they say vote against it, I will. This may seem to some like I am a mindless sheep blindly following his shepherd, but faith IS an important thing to have. So my answer is, faith dictates that I follow the prophets. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2000, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/264 "2000-02-18T23:38:00Z")
> [@](#): > > But what Dan Savage tried to do to Gary Bauer, former Republican candidate for President, CROSSED THE LINE. It was a joke. He didn’t really lick any doorknobs and didn’t try to infrct anyone with flu. Besides, he was already past the contagious stage by the time he started at Bauer’s headquarters. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2000, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/265 "2000-02-19T02:05:00Z")
First off, in **Snark** ’s defense, his opinion on the issue is that SSM’s run contradictory to his own beliefs. This reason is as valid as any to oppose SSMs. In my own defense, **jab** , you seem to be giving half the story on all those threads. In the drug one, it was suggested that if drugs were legalized, drug cartels would be once-and-for-all decimated by the crushing blow. I pointed out that that’s highly unlikely…that drug cartels are used to evading the CIA, and they’re not likely to be scared away by competition from the local liquor store. In the prayer thread, I asserted not that Christianity in its pure form was in majority in Japan, but that it has had a major influence on many of the religions that make up the majority there today. I was asked to give a cite, and I said that I couldn’t because I had learned it a year earlier in a course, and I had done away with all of the documentation. Yes, you, in your infinite wisdom, pointed out that the crime rate was lower although they do not post the Commandments. I then pointed out that the reason the crime rate is lower is because they don’t have guns (you forgot to mention this). > [@](#): > > You did not piss me off, dear boy, you ASTONISHED me with your inability to think logically and stubborness to ever admit that you are wrong. I assume this means "your inability to agree with the majority of the people on the thread. > [@](#): > > You have admitted to errors, occasionally, but you are very reluctant to do so. Whereas you have never done so. I guess that’s because you know everything, and you’re always right. **Esprix** : > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, are you a neurologist? Oh please. Are you a theologist? If not, then I demand that you stop discussing Mormon history with Snark. Here’s what I’m saying: you claim to have seen “factual data” that says that homosexuality is 100% genetic. I’m telling you that like every other non-instinctual behavior (that means everything but the inner workings of your body, breathing, and, ironically, sucking on breasts), homosexuality is acquired during the early developmental period. Genetics may very well predispose you to it, but it’s not a “death sentence.” And then you do my homework for me: > [@](#): > > most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a **complex interaction** of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. **In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age.** There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant **role** in a person’s sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably **many reasons** for a person’s sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people. Sheesh. > [@](#): > > How come their choice gets them protected status, but mine gets me discrimination? “Protected status?” In what respect? > [@](#): > > You’re quite a guy, there, Rous I like to think so, yes. > [@](#): > > if the research says homosexuality was observed in wild animals, then obviously the researcher was either biased or specifically looking for it; if not, then obviously it proves your point. Esprix, you are beginning to demonstrate some serious comprehension deficiencies here. Earlier, I pointed out some common sources of error in this type of research (by “this type” I do not mean on this topic, I mean the study of behaviors through naturalistic observation). Instead of providing me with actual research (and the APA’s written statement on the subject is not “research”), you continue to make statements like this. You’re becoming a little tedious here. > [@](#): > > Oh, but because that was the nature of the book he was writing, obviously he was biased towards finding it where it didn’t exist, right? Let’s say I decided that I believe the Earth is flat, and I wanted to write a book about it. I could spend ten years “scouring” for data to support my claim, and then theorizing as to the causes or effects of the data. > [@](#): > > Are you telling me that there has never been a black person or woman (or gay person, for that matter) qualified enough to be, say, president? When we elect someone other than a Christian, white male, then I’ll agree that affirmative action has run its course That’s the most innane thing I’ve ever heard. What in the good name of ChooChoo Charlie does being elected President have to do with Affirmative Action? You understand that you are not “hired” to be President of the United States. You are elected in by the people. If you are suggesting that a minority or woman being elected President would reflect that the social conditions are thus that the AA training wheels can come off, then I’d point out that the qualities people look for in a President are not the same as the qualities they look for in an employee. I’d also point out that we have minority and women CEO’s today, and that is far more pertinent to the issues at hand. > [@](#): > > And I’ll ask again - have you ever been the victim of discrimination, either by Affirmative Action or some other source? Not that I being aced out by AA is a prerequisite for disagreeing with it, but yes, I have. I’d rather not go into it, if you don’t mind. I said: > [@](#): > > The question was, assuming that SSM’s remain unrecognized, should companies make it easier for unwed gay couples to get benefits? You said: > [@](#): > > As I said, yes - it’s good business. As it stands, if someone wanted to defraud a business, it would be much simpler for them to either fake or actually perform a heterosexual marriage and get those benefits than a same-sex marriage, so I don’t see what your point is. See, you still didn’t answer the question. You went right back to “as it stands.” The question is (once again): Since SSM’s are not legal, and assuming that they remain illegal, would it be “good business” to lower the “burden of proof” for gay couples to get benefits? That is, should they only have to, say, live together? > [@](#): > > How is that cold? Anti-SSM activists are trying to portray SSM’s as “special rights,” or boil a gay relationship down to only sex, and I was pointing out how those 1,049 marital status-affected benefits affect someone so completely when they get married - as if when straights get married they just change their name and that’s that, so what are gays getting all bent out of shape about? Gay people are, at their core, people just like everyone else, who want the same things in life - we are more similar than different. Your previous quote (the one I quoted in the quote you quoted), as well as this one, implied that the important thing about marriage was “benefits” like food stamp allowances. That’s cold, 'Sprix. [quote] But you said before that you believed homosexuality could be changed, either because it’s a choice, or its determined after birth, but at a very young age (i.e., a genetic disposition, not set in stone). Expound, please, ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2000, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/266 "2000-02-20T06:59:00Z")
oooh boy. OK, this is for good old Otto: At one point you said, in response to someone else saying “right and truth are eternal”: > [@](#): > > Um, actually…no. It used to be “right” to deny women the vote. The “truth” about slavery used to be that it was A-OK. It used to be “true” that Jews were sub-human. It used to be “right” to shut cripples up in a room somewhere so they wouldn’t embarrass their families and it used to be “right” to forcibly sterilize the “feeble-minded” in the name of genetic purity. Concepts of “right” and “truth” are constantly changing. There is not fixed universal “truth.” Somewhere else, you said > [@](#): > > Homosexuality is not an illness. The professional opinion of every reputable mental health association as well as the personal experiences of millions of gay people are testament to that. Wonderful! So the assurance that homosexuals aren’t sick in the head is _currently true._ Good old cultural relativism–absolutely useless for perfecting society, because by cultural relativist rules, society is the only arbiter of right–thus cannot meaningfully be improved. Or do you go with Otto-relativism, where Otto is always right? > [@](#): > > By the way, It’s been my experience that those who feel the need to label themselves as “not a bigot” are usually bigots. I am _so_ tempted to claim to _be_ a bigot, but that’s \*my \*perverse psychological quirk. ;p Please refrain from calling the white male Baptists"…asshole shit-for-brain idiot whoresons…" A self-proclaimed gay, bashing others as the children of prostitutes, seems incongruously puritanical (no, wait, Puritans are seldom quite so rude–unfairly rude at that!) The quote about > [@](#): > > Sodom, which the Bible clearly states was destroyed for inhospitality and hardness of heart toward the poor reminds me of Sister Rossetta. Good old Sister Rossetta! “The bible clearly states,” some crap or other, when of course it doesn’t… OK. Sodom. Legendary city in the Book of Genesis. It was destroyed, all right–with extreme prejudice. The one truly memorable scene we have of Sodom is this: Couple of guys come into town looking for the legendary “one righteous man in Sodom,” which was apparently like hunting a jackalope. The jackalope in question, Lot the Hebrew, invites him to his house. Pretty soon, the male populace of Sodom comes banging on the door, demanding to gang-rape the foreigners. The two guys, being Angels of God, strike the mob blind & get Lot’s household out of the city before it gets bombed. I think this goes beyond “inhospitality & hardness of heart toward the poor.” The other incidence of this practice described in the Hebrew Bible proved fatal to the victim. (See the last couple chapters of the Book of Judges–the other time it was Israelites of the tribe of Benjamin, and that tribe was nearly wiped out by the other tribes in vengeance.) This appears to have been the practice of the people of the town collectively–not a “homosexual” 5%. These guys presumably had wives & kids. It may have been designed to KILL foreigners who dared to enter the town. While what is referred to involved what an observing anthropologist would call “homosexual behavior,” I remember no indication that they were exclusively homosexual members of the citizenry, nor that it would be equivalent to an affectionate homosexual act. Nonetheless, medieval Xtian scholars gave us “sodomy” as a word for (sexual or abusive) penetration of non-genital orifices, esp. with the male phallus. You’re right, it does not apply to lesbians–unless they use dildos or their hands. As offensive an association as Sodom is, the word has survived and evolved. An alternative is “buggery,” an eye-rolling reference to a heretical movement based in 1000’s Bulgaria–which believed that marriage (& procreation?) was sinful, but sex was OK. So they did it anally. (I think they died out for the same reason the American Shakers did.) Kind of unfair to the rest of Bulgaria, but sufficiently altered to be a different word. I use both. They’re established, concise, known words. I use “bugger” to describe “gays”–but I figure the Sodomites are extinct, so drop that one. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2000, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/267 "2000-02-19T19:32:00Z")
Of course, medieval Xtian scholars gave us “Onanism” too. If you don’t know Sister Rossetta, here’s the link. [http://www.rossetta.com](http://www.rossetta.com) Otto again, on White Xtian Str8 Males,or somesuch: > [@](#): > > …the single most culturally advantaged faction of the world’s population … Really? More than Arab sheiks? Even if that’s true, I doubt it helps Diamond _et al._ in the individual much… > [@](#): > > Try searching for the USSC decision in Griswold (381 US 479 (1965)) for the genesis of the constitutional right to privacy and the amendments from which it is derived … Always fun, building “constitutional rights” out of judicial precedent. If our society were more concerned with logic & practical theory than tradition (and the manipulation of tradition) we might ditch privacy and liberty as antithetical to law and order. But tradition is a good deal of what allows law to exist. Of course, tradition says you’re wrong about what marriage is. Better hope for theory, bubby. This looks good for you: > [@](#): > > The USSC ruled in _Zablocki…_ that no state restriction of the “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life” is sustainable under the 14th Amendment unless the state can show the restriction is narrowly drawn to serve a compelling state interest, and that a state law which places a “direct legal obstacle in the path of persons desiring to get married” denies these persons equal protection unless the law is “supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.” In _Turner…_ the Court unanimously found a “constitutionally protected marital relationship” without respect to ability to procreate. And in _Loving…_ the Court found the freedom to marry “fundamental.” What is the state interest in prohibiting SSM? OK, on its face, I see none. But if the question were “What is the state interest in instituting SSM?” would there actually be one? Well, hang on… > [@](#): > > Frank Vasquez was denied any of Robert Schwerzler’s $230,000 estate, including the home they shared …, because the state’s community property law only applies to heterosexuals, the Washington State Court of Appeals Division II ruled… OK, this ruling sucks. No, really, it does. That’s shoddy treatment, I agree. But. The points I tried (ineptly, I suppose) to make earlier (in Comments on Ceeil’s Columns) are these: 1. There is a fundamental physical difference between heterosexual coitus and homosexual intercourse–the one is spontaneously procreative, the other is not. 2. Therefore, it is not unreasonable–in moral philosophy, nor in law–to treat homosexual acts _and relationships_ as different things from heterosexual acts and relationships. 3. It \*is \*unreasonable, and disingenuous, to insist that homosexual acts and relationships are, or should be, legally identical to heterosexual acts and relationships. Please note, that the logic here is hardly anti-homosexual. If anything, “straight sex” outside of marriage is more dangerous and more worrying–for society and for the individual–than “gay sex.” on that note, another break. foolsguinea ---
**Author:** ![Rousseau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Rousseau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rousseau)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2000, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/268 "2000-02-19T19:49:00Z")
Oh, **foolsguinea** , where have you been?!?!? Post to this thread a little more often. * * * “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2000, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/269 "2000-02-19T20:07:00Z")
> [@](#): > > So the assurance that homosexuals aren’t sick in the head is currently true. Homosexuality never really was a mental illness. It was just sort of slapped into the category of “mental illness” because it was outside the norm. There never was any scientific research into it; it was the “ick” factor. > [@](#): > > Or do you go with Otto-relativism, where Otto is always right? Otto _is_ always right, and the sooner the world comes to recognize that, the better off we’ll all be. > [@](#): > > Please refrain from calling the white male Baptists"…asshole shit-for-brain idiot whoresons…" I called one person, whose religious denomination is unknown to me beyond “christian,” this in the midst of a rant. I included in the rant those who believe as he does, regardless of their race, religion, sex or parentage. > [@](#): > > OK. Sodom. Legendary city in the Book of Genesis. It was destroyed, all right–with extreme prejudice. The one truly memorable scene we have of Sodom is this: Couple of guys come into town looking for the legendary “one righteous man in Sodom,” which was apparently like hunting a jackalope. The jackalope in question, Lot the Hebrew, invites him to his house. Pretty soon, the male populace of Sodom comes banging on the door, demanding to gang-rape the foreigners. The two guys, being Angels of God, strike the mob blind & get Lot’s household out of the city before it gets bombed. I think this goes beyond “inhospitality & hardness of heart toward the poor.” The other incidence of this practice described in the Hebrew Bible proved fatal to the victim. (See the last couple chapters of the Book of Judges–the other time it was Israelites of the tribe of Benjamin, and that tribe was nearly wiped out by the other tribes in vengeance.) This appears to have been the practice of the people of the town collectively–not a “homosexual” 5%. These guys presumably had wives & kids. It may have been designed to KILL foreigners who dared to enter the town. While what is referred to involved what an observing anthropologist would call “homosexual behavior,” I remember no indication that they were exclusively homosexual members of the citizenry, nor that it would be equivalent to an affectionate homosexual act. 1. God decided to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah before the incident with the angels. God first mentions destroying the cities in Gen 18:20, not sending the angels until Gen 19:1. 2. As you note, the men of the city intended to rape the angels. Lot, righteous man that he was, offered up his virgin daughters in their place but the crowd refused them. Rape, however, is not properly categorized as “homosexual behaviour,” any more than it is properly characterized as “heterosexual behaviour.” It is not typical behaviour for any sexual orientation. 3. Eze 16:49 - “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.” No mention, in the **only verse** in the Bible which actually purports to enumerate the sins of Sodom, of sexual activity of any kind. 4. The Bible is not literal. Does it really make sense that the entire adult male population of a town would drop whatever it was doing to go off to rape a couple of strangers? 5. Jud 19:14-30 tell a parallel story, set in Gibeah, only in this story a woman is raped to death. Do we condemn all straight people as “gibeahites” or did anyone even coin the term? No, because it wouldn’t be accurate to portray all str8 people in this light, just like it’s not accurate to portray all gay people using the extremely pejorative term "sodomite. It strikes me that it doesn’t particularly matter what medieval scholars or historians might have passed down to us in the way of misinformation. Those same scholars tried to pass along the notion of tiny demons in our bodies manipulating the level of humors as an explanation for illness. I don’t hear too many Xians these days clinging to the “humor” concept as an explanation for illness, and if they did they’d be rightly ridiculed for it. Seems like the same rules ought to apply to the concept of “sodomite.” > [@](#): > > I use both. They’re established, concise, known words. “Nigger” is an established, concise, known word. So is “kike.” So is “cripple.” So are “chink,” “wop” and “mick.” Do you use those in your daily conversation as well? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2000, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/270 "2000-02-19T20:18:00Z")
The big push for legalizing SSM has been via a lawyerly cheat: “If a woman can marry a man, and a man cannot, then that violates equal protection of the laws.” WRONG. If you want to justify SSM, then defend it on open ground. But this is pure bad logic. Yeah, it worked in Hawaii–I don’t give a rat’s ass, it’s still bad lawmaking. I don’t want to live under some illogical legal system that twists old laws into new laws by fuzzy thinking and deception. Think that argument makes sense? Try this one: “Joe and Tom are both 25-yr-old single male American citizens; Jenni is a 24-yr-old single female American citizen. Equal protection of the laws demands that Joe & Tom both have the right to marry Jenni.” Sounds good, right? Think again. NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION. What if Joe is Jenni’s first cousin, and they live in a state whch prohibits first cousins from marrying (which is a lot of 'em)? What if Joe is Jenni’s brother, and they live in a state whch prohibits siblings from marrying (which is ALL of 'em)? These little details make a difference. IF a state defines ‘marriage’ as ‘a legal union of a man & a woman’–and you better believe, any state in the Union that didn’t define it specifically that way figured it was implied, 'cos society defined it that way (which it did and still does), & the dictionaries always defined it that way (which they always do)–THEN ‘equal protection’ has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT; by that definition–not just the US govt’s, or Ohio’s, or whatever, but the language’s, the culture’s, the race’s definition–SSM is logically and legally impossible. Actually, equal _protection_ as such has nothing to do with it anyway. There’s no great _danger from the state_ inherent in not marrying. “Equal Protection” is something the US Constitution _guarantees,_ though. “Equal Opportunity” might win with some judges, but it’s less of a trump, so the word “protection” leaks into the irresponsible rhetoric. OK, so what about equal opportunity, then? And what about poor Mr. Vasquez? Well. OK, look at it this way: Marriage is a kind of contract; it has legal ramifications for inheritance of property. Many of the ramifications of marriage (admittedly, not such ramifications as getting FEWER food stamps, and paying MORE taxes, which are great legal perks, lemme tell you!) can be duplicated through drawing up the appropriate legal documents. > [@](#): > > Schwerzler died at age 78 in 1995 without leaving a will. I’ve rethought this: a 78-yr-old man writes no will–leaving nothing to his 60-some lover? How thoughtless! Yes, Frank Vasquez was shafted–by his lover. If Robert Schwerzler wouldn’t write a will for him in the absence of SSM, he probably would’ve refused to marry him if it were legally sanctioned. Actually, my argument is less against SSM than against trying to foist it on a public that doesn’t want it and governments that don’t want through a deceptive bit of false logic. That’s cheap, shoddy, and unfair. And when someone in power figures out the argument I outlined above, it WILL be used against you. Take it to the people. * * * A new world order has been formed/between the cheque book and the dawn/A new renaissance man is born" Jim Moginie/Peter Garrett/Martin Rotsey(Midnight Oil), “Renaissance Man” ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2000, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/271 "2000-02-19T20:38:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Otto _is_ always right, and the sooner the world comes to recognize that, the better off we’ll all be. Ok, at least we’re clear on that–your egoism. The point on “sodomy” is well-taken, but you are _NOT_ gonna PC me out of using a legitimate English word like “cripple”! Actually, “chink,” in its literal sense, is inoffensive enough, but why would I call a Chinese a “chink”? (OK, maybe for a pun…) Of course, with an online name that looks a little too much like “idiot wop”, I can be expected to have a high tolerance for rudely misused words. (What did George Carlin say? “They’re just WORDS!” I think) Anyway, Otto, I’m glad you’re here, \'cos I’m just a \ **\_straight dope_\** \ and I’m sure you \ **\_gay geniuses_\** \ are sooo much smarter than I am!!!\ ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2000, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/272 "2000-02-19T20:43:00Z")
> [@](#): > > More than Arab sheiks? I don’t see “Arab sheik” as a cultural faction comparable to “str8 white Xian male” on the grounds of breadth if nothing else. > [@](#): > > Always fun, building “constitutional rights” out of judicial precedent. Are you disputing my reading of Griswold? > [@](#): > > If our society were more concerned with logic & practical theory than tradition (and the manipulation of tradition) we might ditch privacy and liberty as antithetical to law and order. But tradition is a good deal of what allows law to exist. Of course, tradition says you’re wrong about what marriage is. Better hope for theory, bubby. Not really sure where you’re coming up with this from, or how you’re relating it to the matter at hand, but hell, it sure reads fascinatin’, do elucidate! > [@](#): > > What is the state interest in prohibiting SSM? OK, on its face, I see none. But if the question were “What is the state interest in instituting SSM?” would there actually be one? The state’s interest in instituting SSM would be the same as its interest in instituting mixed-sex marriage. > [@](#): > > The points I tried (ineptly, I suppose) to make earlier (in Comments on Ceeil’s Columns) are these: > > 1. There is a fundamental physical difference between heterosexual coitus and homosexual intercourse–the one is spontaneously procreative, the other is not. Irrelevant, since marital rights extend to married couples regardless of their ability to procreate or their intent to do so. > [@](#): > > 1. Therefore, it is not unreasonable–in moral philosophy, nor in law–to treat homosexual acts and relationships as different things from heterosexual acts and relationships. Since point 1 is irrelevant, point 2 is also. > [@](#): > > 1. It is unreasonable, and disingenuous, to insist that homosexual acts and relationships are, or should be, legally identical to heterosexual acts and relationships. You seem to be hanging your hat entirely on the notion of reproduction as the key to marriage. Mixed couples are theoretically capable of reproduction. Same-sex couples are not. Thus the state is justified in denying legal recognition to same-sex couples. Here’s why you’re wrong. As I already stated, marital rights are not restricted to those couples who are willing or able to reproduce. People who are born sterile are not barred from marrying. Post-menopausal women are not barred from marrying. People who become sterile as a result of illness or injury are not barred from marrying. People who have had themselves surgically sterilized are not barred from marrying. In no jurisdiction in this country of which I’m aware is sterility grounds for an annulment or divorce (I’m talking sterility here, not impotence). If a married couple chooses to be celibate, they may do so without the state’s attepting to dissolve the marriage. This was precisely the question addressed by Griswold, and the USSC found that the individual’s and the couple’s right to control their procreation outweighed any state interest in that procreation. The USSC ruled in Turner that ability (or even opportunity) to procreate has no bearing on the right to marry. In the various state SSM cases (Baehr, Baker, the Alaska case the name of which escapes me) the state has tried to argue that the state’s interest in procreation and child-raising is a compelling state interest and may be used to deny SSM. In each case the argument has been rejected by the court. Since there is no legal basis for arguing that procreative capability is a requirement for marriage, there is no logical basis for imposing such a requirement on those marriages in which both participants are of the same sex. > [@](#): > > Please note, that the logic here is hardly anti-homosexual. Of course it is. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2000, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/273 "2000-02-19T20:54:00Z")
Yeesh, this argument always grows so long, I get sidetracked… The really interesting question in the original column was “Why do we have marriage laws at all?” HUH? WHY? If marriage did not exist as a legal entity–and I mean ‘union of two persons’ here–if it ONLY existed as a concept in certain religious or social traditions, none of which were dominant in a truly pluralistic society, would legal marriage be invented? Would it be ignored? Might a polymorphous system of multi-member ‘domestic partnerships’ be instituted instead? What’s your answer? (Actually, I thought I might just start a new thread with this–it goes beyond SSM.) ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2000, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/274 "2000-02-19T21:16:00Z")
> [@](#): > > The big push for legalizing SSM has been via a lawyerly cheat: > > “If a woman can marry a man, and a man cannot, then that violates equal protection of the laws.” > > WRONG. If you want to justify SSM, then defend it on open ground. But this is pure bad logic. Yeah, it worked in Hawaii–I don’t give a rat’s ass, it’s still bad lawmaking. I don’t want to live under some illogical legal system that twists old laws into new laws by fuzzy thinking and deception. I notice you didn’t actually indicate _how_ the above argument is “illogical” and a “cheat.” Just saying it is doesn’t make it so. > [@](#): > > Think that argument makes sense? Try this one: > > “Joe and Tom are both 25-yr-old single male American citizens; Jenni is a 24-yr-old single female American citizen. Equal protection of the laws demands that Joe & Tom both have the right to marry Jenni.” > > Sounds good, right? Think again. NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION. What if Joe is Jenni’s first cousin, and they live in a state whch prohibits first cousins from marrying (which is a lot of 'em)? What if Joe is Jenni’s brother, and they live in a state whch prohibits siblings from marrying (which is ALL of 'em)? > > These little details make a difference. The plaintiffs in Baehr are couples, the members of which are unrelated by blood or by statute. They wish to marry and take on both the responsibilities and the benefits of that status. Which details of that case are eluding you? Furthermore, were Joe and Jenni married in a state which prohibitied first-cousin marriage then later moved to a state which did not, their new state would still recognize their marriage. Since the subject at habd is same-sex marriage, what do incestuous marriages have to do with it? > [@](#): > > IF a state defines ‘marriage’ as ‘a legal union of a man & a woman’–and you better believe, any state in the Union that didn’t define it specifically that way figured it was implied, 'cos society defined it that way (which it did and still does), & the dictionaries always defined it that way (which they always do)–THEN ‘equal protection’ has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT; by that definition–not just the US govt’s, or Ohio’s, or whatever, but the language’s, the culture’s, the race’s definition–SSM is logically and legally impossible. So when several states defined “marriage” as a union between two people of the same race, then mixed-race marriages were logically and legally impossible? Gee, I’m glad you weren’t on the Supreme Court in 1967. And really…relying on dictionary definitions as part of your argument? So if I publish a dictionary tomorrow that says “marriage” includes couples of the same sex, you’ll abandon half your argument? Dictionaries list usage; they don’t define words. Onse SSM is made legal, then dictionaries will undoubtedly include them in the definition. > [@](#): > > Actually, equal protection as such has nothing to do with it anyway. There’s no great danger from the state inherent in not marrying. As if “equal protection” in a constitutional context has something to do with “danger.” Please. > [@](#): > > “Equal Opportunity” might win with some judges, but it’s less of a trump, so the word “protection” leaks into the irresponsible rhetoric. Couple A is afforded a right under the law. Couple B is not. Couple B is not afforded equal protection under the law. There may indeed be more in the details, and of course you have to look at the details, but in its most basic form that’s the heart of equal protection. > [@](#): > > Marriage is a kind of contract; it has legal ramifications for inheritance of property. Many of the ramifications of marriage (admittedly, not such ramifications as getting FEWER food stamps, and paying MORE taxes, which are great legal perks, lemme tell you!) can be duplicated through drawing up the appropriate legal documents. Why should Couple B have to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to secure a fraction of the rights that Couple A gets for 50 bucks and a marriage license? > [@](#): > > I’ve rethought this: a 78-yr-old man writes no will–leaving nothing to his 60-some lover? How thoughtless! Yes, Frank Vasquez was shafted–by his lover. If Robert Schwerzler wouldn’t write a will for him in the absence of SSM, he probably would’ve refused to marry him if it were legally sanctioned. You can’t legitimately argue what Schwertzler would have done had SSM been legal. As for not writing a will, you’re right, it was thoughtless. It’s quite possible, though, that Schwertzler thought no will was needed seeing as how he and his partner had been together for close to three decades. Yes, it would have been good of Schwertzler to draw up a will (assuming that the sisters wouldn’t have contested it and been able to get it overturned anyway). It would have been good of the State to extend the same legal rights to the survivor of a couple of 28 years that it would to the survivor of a couple of 28 seconds. > [@](#): > > Actually, my argument is less against SSM than against trying to foist it on a public that doesn’t want it and governments that don’t want through a deceptive bit of false logic. That’s cheap, shoddy, and unfair. No, what’s cheap, shoddy and unfair is appealing to a bigoted majority to deny the rights of a minority. I am sick to death of hearing people yammer about how unready the public is for SSM when it’s not the public’s damn business to begin with. > [@](#): > > The point on “sodomy” is well-taken, but you are NOT gonna PC me out of using a legitimate English word like “cripple”! I’m not trying to “PC” you out of anything, just expecting you to apply the same standards to all words which are considered pejorative. ---
**Author:** ![Rousseau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Rousseau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rousseau)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2000, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/275 "2000-02-19T22:35:00Z")
Interesting point, **guinea** (no assumption about your heritage is being made, and no offense is intended). The major basis of the SSM argument seems to be: 1. Anybody can fall in love with anybody. You should be able to marry whomever you fall in love with. If you wish to spend the rest of your life in holy matrimony with someone else, then the State has no right to stop you. 2. Married people have _hundreds_ of _inalienable_ rights that unmarried people do not. All couples should be able to enjoy “equal protection” (from what, I’m not sure) under the law. 3. Procreation has nothing to do with marriage (anybody who watches TV knows this). The ability to successfully produce offspring is not a prerequisite for marriage. Well, what if I fall in love with my sister? If we want to be locked in holy matrimony, then the State has absolutely no right or power to tell me that I can’t marry her. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t be able to enjoy “equal protection” under the law, just because we have the same parents? Sure, if we did procreate successfully there is a good chance that our offspring will be deformed or retarded, but that’s nobody’s business but ours. So I here and now call for the repeal of all laws that prohibit matrimony between siblings. Until then, I refuse to support same-sex marriages. * * * “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2000, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/276 "2000-02-20T14:56:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, what if I fall in love with my sister? If we want to be locked in holy matrimony, then the State has absolutely no right or power to tell me that I can’t marry her. Why is it that bigots are unable to discuss SSM without dragging incest into it? Is your case against SSM so weak that you can’t argue it on its merits, that you have to bring in your interest in boffing your sister? Tell you what, if you can convince a judge that being unable to marry your sister is a violation of your constitutional rights, more power to you. Since you have no idea how the Constitution works, good luck. Meanwhile, your childish pronouncement about refusing to support legal SSM until such time as sibling marriage is legal is ridiculous and stupid. That one group is legally disadvantaged is not an excuse for endorsing another group’s being legally disadvantaged. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2000, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/277 "2000-02-20T17:21:00Z")
{…since this is the \flame pit,\ after all…} \OOK, _YOU_ asked for it, bub-bee!\ > [@](#): > > Why is it that bigots are unable to discuss SSM without dragging incest into it? Is your case against SSM so weak that you can’t argue it on its merits, that you have to bring in your interest in boffing your sister? … **That one group is legally disadvantaged is not an excuse for endorsing another group’s being legally disadvantaged.** > {emphasis added} Funny, that’s what people against “gay rights” have been saying all along. **You’re** the ones equating denial of SSM with anti-miscegenation laws. **You’re** the ones claiming anyone who doesn’t recognize that gays are a persecuted class **is a bigot.** You practically claim that you’re a different race than the “straight man.” _“Ooh, pity the poor gay man! Born with his freakish psychological condition! He can never be happy with a woman, how AWFUL! Here, let’s give him special legal status and make it all better!”_ You ain’t getting any o’ that from me, bub. You do a lot of talking about how well you understand the laws as written. Fine. I don’t contest your legal knowledge. I don’t contest your reading of _Griswold._ \The difference is this: You argue like a lawyer, synthesizing precedents to “make your case”–which sounds to me like some dim variety of fundamentalist quoting his scripture. I’m probably not the lawyer you are–but I want to argue about what is _good law_ as a philosopher. **Why–anthropologically, sociologically, morally–does marriage exist?** \ The laws in our legal codes–both statute law and constitutional law–were written. They were written by human hands, and in the case of the United States, all rather recently. I’m not so impressed by such laws as by reasons for laws. And the **precedent** of a **decision** made by a **court** empowered by a **state** born of an **insurrection** against its previous legal rulers inspires me less than a _reason_ for a _rule_ by which men can live, and live justly. Furthermore: I don’t contest **your reading** of _Griswold,_ or _Zablocki,_ or any other court case. But I know that while legal precedent may act like the law of the land, walk & talk like the law of the land, have as much effect on a judge as the law of the land, it is not _really_ the law of the land. It is _not statute,_ and every lawyer has a _right_ to challenge it, to take it to the USSC if necessary, and it can be reversed–by the very same people that made it. And since it is _just_ a court’s interpretation of existing law, it can be nullified by legislation of new statute law. REALLY. **And even statute, for that matter, even constitutional law, can be changed. Sometimes it should be, sometimes it shouldn’t.** The real question is, what laws should we live by? And the answer to **that** isn’t found in legal precedent, nor in the proper parsing of constitutional law, nor even (I believe) in public opinion. Some things, like marriage, family, and justice, owe none of their existence or essential meaning to our lawbooks. Looking to the American legal recognition of marriage to define marriage is like looking to the Emmy awards to distinguish a comedy from a musical. Marriage, as a concept, is far older than the US Constitution. You want the rights given by US law to ‘the married’ given to other households; well enough; you have a point. But ‘marriage,’ as a word, describes a specific kind of relationship: a kind of relationship far older than our society; a form of relationship so long established that societies old enough to have their own creation myths speak of it as existing as long as there have been male and female. Gays can have domestic partnership, insurance rights and rights of inheritance for other members of a household; I agree that people who build a household together should. What I will not concede to you, is the word ‘marriage.’ That is _the_ word in our language for a specific relation, a relation of male and female. And it is as silly to call a gay household by the same name as a straight marriage as it is to call a dog a fish. ‘Marriage’ is to important a concept to too many people–to humanity–to be confused with something which is REALLY not the same thing. And you know it’s not the same thing, or you wouldn’t be complaining; if you couldn’t tell the difference between straight relations and gay relations, you wouldn’t identify yourself as ‘gay’!!! Anti-miscegenation laws were WRONG. They weren’t “right at the time,” they were WRONG. They were based on a false idea of what human ‘races’ were. The distinction which exists, and I contend should exist, between MARRIAGE, and long-term gay relationships, which admittedly are a lot like marriage, is a REAL one. \ **GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL!!** \ * * * A new world order has been formed/between the cheque book and the dawn/A new renaissance man is born" Jim Moginie/Peter Garrett/Martin Rotsey(Midnight Oil), “Renaissance Man” ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2000, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/278 "2000-02-21T06:52:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Funny, that’s what people against “gay rights” have been saying all along. People opposed to “gay rights” have been saying “That one group is legally disadvantaged is not an excuse for endorsing another group’s being legally disadvantaged”? When was this? I must have missed it. What I’ve heard them saying is that God doesn’t like homosexuality; I don’t recall hearing of anyone’s opposing equality for gay people on the grounds of discrimination against another minority. > [@](#): > > You’re the ones equating denial of SSM with anti-miscegenation laws. You’re the ones claiming anyone who doesn’t recognize that gays are a persecuted class is a bigot. You practically claim that you’re a different race than the “straight man.” Um…nope. Never have I claimed that homosexuality is a race. Never said anything even remotely like it. > [@](#): > > “Ooh, pity the poor gay man! Born with his freakish psychological condition! He can never be happy with a woman, how AWFUL! Here, let’s give him special legal status and make it all better!” Where have I appealed to the idea of equal rights through psychology? Where have I stated that equality is due me because of a medical condition? What I have said is that equality is due me as a citizen of the United States and as a human being. > [@](#): > > You ain’t getting any o’ that from me, bub. Good. I don’t want it. I don’t want equality out of pity. By the way, the last I heard civil rights laws protected on the basis of class, not a division of that class. Thus, civil rights laws which forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation forbid discriminating against str8s too. So much for “special legal status.” > [@](#): > > Why–anthropologically, sociologically, morally–does marriage exist? BTDT in the original thread I started on SSM over in Comments. Marriage laws exist to help secure the orderly transfer of property. “Marriage” meaning two adult members of a species pair-bonded probably came into being because the offspring of those animals inclined to pair-bond and thus devote resources more or less exclusively to their own survival and the survival of their progeny survived at a higher rate than those who did not. Obviously that’s not universal as more species don’t pair-bond than do. > [@](#): > > The laws in our legal codes–both statute law and constitutional law–were written. They were written by human hands, and in the case of the United States, all rather recently. I’m not so impressed by such laws as by reasons for laws. And the precedent of a decision made by a court empowered by a state born of an insurrection against its previous legal rulers inspires me less than a reason for a rule by which men can live, and live justly. Fine. There’s no just reason for having a rule that says same-sex unions can’t be called “marriage.” Next? > [@](#): > > Furthermore: I don’t contest your reading of Griswold, or Zablocki, or any other court case. But I know that while legal precedent may act like the law of the land, walk & talk like the law of the land, have as much effect on a judge as the law of the land, it is not really the law of the land. It is not statute, and every lawyer has a right to challenge > > it, to take it to the USSC if necessary, and it can be reversed–by the very same people that made it. And since it is just a court’s interpretation of existing law, it can be nullified by legislation of new statute law. REALLY. Wow. Not too much understanding of how law and precedent actually work, huh? Here’s a little exercise. Laws against miscegenation are still on the books in a couple of states. Try enforcing them. > [@](#): > > Some things, like marriage, family, and justice, owe none of their existence or essential meaning to our lawbooks. I disagree. Social meanings are definitely affected by legal meanings. Harking back yet again to miscegenation, is there any doubt that the people of Virginia consider mixed-race families to be families? They probably didn’t prior to Loving, and they probably had little reason to. Do Schwertzler’s sisters think of the surviving partner as a part of their family? Might they had the couple been legally a family? Legalities do affect social outlook whether you want to acknowledge it or not. > [@](#): > > Marriage, as a concept, is far older than the US Constitution. You want the rights given by US law to ‘the married’ given to other households; well enough; you have a point. But ‘marriage,’ as a word, describes a specific kind of relationship: a kind of relationship far older than our society; a form of relationship so long established that societies old enough to have their own creation myths speak of it as existing as long as there have been male and female. Many of those same societies spoke of the world being flat or inhabited by talking dragons; last I heard the world was round and I haven’t seen any talking dragons in my neighborhood today (although I did see a squirrel climbing a tree with a pita). Many of those same societies looked upon outsiders as inferiors and themselves as their god’s chosen people. Many of those societies made war upon each other as a result. How much stock do we put in ancient societies? (Leaving aside entirely for the moment those societies which had same-sex mythologies and those which recognized same-sex unions) > [@](#): > > Gays can have domestic partnership, insurance rights and rights of inheritance for other members of a household; I agree that people who build a household together should. What I will not concede to you, is the word ‘marriage.’ That is the word in our language for a specific relation, a relation of male and female. And it is as silly to call a gay household by the same name as a straight marriage as it is to call a dog a fish. ‘Marriage’ is to important a concept to too many people–to humanity–to be confused with something which is REALLY not the same thing. And in 150 years when you and I are dead and buried and same-sex **marriage** is legal all over the country if not all over the world, your argument will look every bit as antiquated as it ought to. BTW, as far as definitions go, my Webster’s New Universal Unabridged notes “homosexual marriage” as the fourth definition of the word “marriage.” > [@](#): > > And you know it’s not the same thing, or you wouldn’t be complaining. I’m “complaining” because as long as the legal _status_ of “marriage” is denied to couples of the same sex, I will always be less than a full and equal citizen of this nation. > [@](#): > > Anti-miscegenation laws were WRONG. They weren’t “right at the time,” they were WRONG. They were based on a false idea of what human ‘races’ were. They were also based on a flase idea of what a “marriage” is. Marriages between people of different races simply could not exist. [quote] The distinction which exists, and I contend should exist, between MARRIAGE, and long-term gay relationships, wh ---
**Author:** ![Rousseau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Rousseau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rousseau)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2000, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/279 "2000-02-20T20:29:00Z")
> [@](#): > > How much stock do we put in ancient societies? (Leaving aside entirely for the moment those societies which had same-sex mythologies and those which recognized same-sex unions) That should read: “Leaving aside entirely for the moment those societies which support my view, and therefore that I may use during the course of the argument.” I couldn’t resist. That’s the most blatant example of self-serving bias that I have ever seen in this venue. * * * “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2000, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/280 "2000-02-23T22:31:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Snark: As for the polygamy question (have Mormons changed their doctrine concerning polygamy?), the answer is, no… plural marriage will be resumed after the Second Coming of Jesus. The difference between homosexuality and plural marriage is, IMHO, the former is always immoral, while the latter is moral if sanctioned by God, and immoral if not. Sheesh. I’m astounded. It must be nice to have God whispering in your ear. But, please, keep him out of my courtroom when it comes to my civil rights, ok? > [@](#): > > Snark: When I said “core doctrine,” I was referring to the doctrine of plural marriage, which was not changed when the practice was discontinued by revelation. “Discontinued by revelation?” Does “revelation” mean the U.S. Marshalls forced them to, or did God convenient “reveal” that polygamy was now uncool until the heat dies down? > [@](#): > > Snark: … I don’t completely understand why SSM is coming under so much fire, except that it nullifies God’s intentions for establishing an eternal family unit with the offenders if they had not married homosexually. I take it on faith that there is some very important purpose that leaders of my religion are instructing us to opppose SSM. I support my leaders, and I understand that families are central to God’s purposes for us. Marriage between two men frustrates God’s purposes, which I admit I don’t fully understand. But I will support my church leaders. If they say vote against it, I will. This may seem to some like I am a mindless sheep blindly following his shepherd, but faith IS an important thing to have. So my answer is, faith dictates that I follow the prophets. > > Rousseau: … in Snark’s defense, his opinion on the issue is that SSM’s run contradictory to his own beliefs. This reason is as valid as any to oppose SSMs. Well, I say, “Baaaaaaaa!”, but if we’re going to ignore reason and argue on blind faith, then we have reached a stalemate - Snark will believe what he will believe, I will believe what I will believe, and neither of us is going to change any time soon. I can disagree and still respect that. > [@](#): > > Esprix: As I’ve said repeatedly, the medical and psychological experts agree it is a complex combination of both and cannot be changed. Oh, wait, sorry - you don’t care what the experts think. > > Rousseau: I must say, I’m beginning to doubt your understanding of the neurological concepts involved here. > > Esprix: I’m sorry, are you a neurologist? I don’t claim to be - I’m only going by the factual data I’ve seen, the same data which contradicts your choice theory. And, if you recall, your response to that data was, “I don’t care.” Please don’t point fingers that I don’t understand the concepts involved when you dismiss them out of hand. > > Rousseau: Here’s what I’m saying: you claim to have seen “factual data” that says that homosexuality is 100% genetic… Jesus Christ, Rousseau, can’t you fucking **read?** I have **never** made such a claim, and I demand that you find where I have or offer an apology. Thus far we have **agreed** that homosexuality is a combination of nature and nurture, and I posed the APA summary because, suddenly, you expressed a fleeting interest in some factual data. Where we have _disagreed_ is over whether it can be changed or not. > [@](#): > > Rousseau: I’m telling you that like every other non-instinctual behavior… homosexuality is acquired during the early developmental period. Genetics may very well predispose you to it, but it’s not a “death sentence.” > > APA: … human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed… > > … homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable. > > Rousseau: … and the APA’s written statement on the subject is not “research…” Once again, I am astounded. What I posted was a \*summary[/I of _35 years_ of psychological research - no, not every single lab note and research paper ever printed on the subject, but rather a summary by an _acknowledged authority_. If you cannot accept such a statement from such a source, then I cannot provide you proof - we have reached stalemate. I will check with God next time I pray, for it seems that is the only source you will acknowledge (or perhaps Snark can get some of his prophets to clue you in). > [@](#): > > Esprix: Religion is a choice… How come their choice gets them protected status, but mine gets me discrimination? > > Rousseau: “Protected status?” In what respect? I believe that freedom of religion is quite clearly spelled out under law, but I’m a felon in several dozen states for doing something in the privacy of my own home, I cannot get the same treatment under the law if I want to enter into a life-long partnership with my lover, and I am intimidated by society to conform or be a second-class citizen. If it’s a “choice,” then why are churches treated differently than I am? > [@](#): > > Rousseau: I want to see reports that tell me the conditions and the specific results of the research {regarding homosexuality among wild animals} > > Esprix: You can determine from raw data the state of mind of the observer? … if the research says homosexuality was observed in wild animals, then obviously the researcher was either biased or specifically looking for it; if not, then obviously it proves your point. Homosexuality among higher primates in the wild is an accepted fact. If you like, go read “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity,” by Bruce Bagemihl, who spent 10 years scouring biological literature for data on alternative sexuality in animals. Oh, but because that was the nature of the book he was writing, obviously he was biased towards finding it where it didn’t exist, right? > > Rousseau: Esprix, you are beginning to demonstrate some serious comprehension deficiencies here. Earlier, I pointed out some common sources of error in this type of research (by “this type” I do not mean on this topic, I mean the study of behaviors through naturalistic observation). Instead of providing me with actual research… you continue to make statements like this. You’re becoming a little tedious here. Tedious is someone who will not recognize anyone more knowledgeable than himself. The American Psychological Association does 35 years of research on a subject which contradicts your beliefs - you say, “I don’t care.” A noted researcher works 10 years scouring other researchers’ works and comes up with a conclusion that you don’t agree with - you say, “Provide me with the actual research.” I have provided for you, to the best of my ability, factual data from knowledgable sources, and you dismiss it without regard. I put it to you, sir, that you are a hypocrite. Now I put this to you - how about **you** find **me** actual research data that proves that homosexuality is a choice and can be changed; and that homosexuality does not occur among wild animals in their natural habitats. Heck, I might even be more generous than you and accept the research findings of an expert or two on the subject. Otherwise, this thread, for me, has come to an end. [quote] jab1: You did not piss me off, dear boy, you ASTONISHED me with your inability to think logically and stubborness to ever admit that you ar [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948.md?page=15)