How is bigotry defined?
| March 30th, 2004One area of miscommunication in the marriage equality debate is about words like “bigot” and “homophobe.” Marriage equality opponents, quite understandably, don’t like being called bigots and homophobes. They might genuinely have nothing against lesbians and gays; some of them have good friends who are lesbian or gay, and some of them are lesbian or gay themselves.
The problem here, I think, stems from two different definitions of “bigotry.” Marriage equality opponents think “bigot,” in this context, means “someone who hates lesbians and gays.”
Speaking for myself, that’s only one possible meaning of “bigot” or “homophobe.” Another meaning, which is how I tend to use those words in the context of the marriage equality debate, is “someone who favors an unequal legal status for lesbians and gays.” And by that latter definition, it makes perfect sense to describe those who oppose marriage equality as homophobes and bigots.
This is no different from how I view any other issue involving bigotry. To reuse an example, consider someone in the 1960s who favored laws and rules excluding Jews from fancy country clubs. That person may have had many close Jewish friends; perhaps they only favored the exclusions because they valued the club’s longstanding traditions. But regardless of this person’s personal love for Jews, they nonetheless favored one law for gentiles and a different law for Jews, and that made them an anti-Semite.
Put another way, our opponents think that being a homophobe is only about what’s in their heart. I think that being a homophobe can be about what’s in one’s heart, but it can also be about what’s in one’s policies.
Of course, it may make marriage equality opponents - some of whom I quite like and respect - uncomfortable or unhappy to be described thus. I’m sorry about that; but truth doesn’t cease being true just because it makes some people uncomfortable. If the stigma bothers them that much, they can avoid it by changing their minds and favoring equality between gays and straights.
March 30th, 2004 at 10:28 am
Point well taken, Amp. I think the part that pisses me off is that . . . well . . . these words mean things. I mean, “bigot” and “prejudiced” have actual, specific, real-world meanings, and when we apply them to people, that’s usually because those people meet those definitions.
If you believe in a Constitutional Amendment permanently denying the right to marry to one group of Americans, you believe in inequality. That’s not some crazy-ass insult I yanked out of my ass. That’s a descriptor.
It’s like: If I argued explicitly for nationalization of all private business, it wouldn’t really be “red-baiting” to call me a communist sympathizer, would it? I wouldn’t get to whine and bitch and moan about how people are calling names, right? Well, the same thing applies here. People who advocate bigotry and prejudice get called prejudiced bigots.
If you don’t like it, don’t argue with me, argue with Mr. Merriam and Mr. Webster.
—JRC
This comment was written by JRC.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2004 at 11:53 am
Very well said. It seems like marriage equality opponents redefine terms like “bigot” in order to suit their policies. How can they sleep at night, I wonder? The concept is so simply, but so many people don’t get it. If your only defense to being a bigot is that you don’t discriminate as much as someone else, you are still a bigot. I think these people have a case of cognitive dissonance, where they change their attitudes to fit their actions.
This comment was written by hailey.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2004 at 12:09 pm
This is an important distinction to make. Way too many people believe that racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are just a matter of having bad feelings, personally, towards members of particular groups; so any attempt to challenge someone on behavior that has the **objective effect** of hurting other people just because they are members of a particular group is stymied with something like the following non-response: “But I’m not a racist! I don’t have any bad feelings about Black people!” (Connected with this is the frequent attack on the Left that, by challenging oppression, and oppressive practices, we are acting as “thought police.”)
On the other hand, there is a point that’s not raised here, which I think is important to raise. We’re not entirely free of blame for this confusion, when it comes to words like “homophobia” and “bigotry” in particular; isn’t it true that the tendency towards the exclusive focus on personal attitudes rather than objective structures is, to some extent, built into the way that these words are constructed? I mean, if a pseudopsychological term like homo**phobia** _isn’t_ supposed to call attention to personal psychological factors, then what in the world __would__ be?
his isn’t to say that we should ditch the words “homophobic” or “bigot”. They’re serviceable words, they work well enough for what they do, and we can make the distinctions we need to make even if it goes against the grain of how the words are constructed. But we should be aware that we are going against the grain, and understand that when discussion is diverted to irrelevant arguments about personal attitudes — the sort of arguments that you rightly complain of — the language that we’re using to describe people who are anti-gay is partly to blame. (Even if we don’t _intend_ for it to be taken that way: objective conditions are as important as subjective conditions in language, no less than in politics!)
This comment was written by Rad Geek.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2004 at 12:15 pm
I once read a book by a guy named Gene Marine that pointed out the distinctioon between racism and bigotry. He said that bigotry was an actual hatred of folks of color/women/GLBTs—but he referred to racism as the unconscious assumption brainwashed into people from the get-go that white is normal. And he referred to sexism (he called it “masculinism” as the same assumption—just sub male for white.
So yeah, you’re right about not all same-sex marriage opponets are outright bigots (although the most vocal ones ARE, IMHO). But I do believe they harbor an unconscious assumption about heterosexual normality—especially het marriage—that they need to own up to. I call this heterosexism.
In my opinion a movement must arise against what I call NORMALISM.
This comment was written by pdm.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2004 at 12:17 pm
I once read a book by a guy named Gene Marine that pointed out the distinctioon between racism and bigotry. He said that bigotry was an actual hatred of folks of color/women/GLBTs—but he referred to racism as the unconscious assumption brainwashed into people from the get-go that white is normal. And he referred to sexism (he called it “masculinism” as the same assumption—just sub male for white.
So yeah, you’re right about not all same-sex marriage opponets are outright bigots (although the most vocal ones ARE, IMHO). But I do believe they harbor an unconscious assumption about heterosexual normality—especially het marriage—that they need to own up to. I call this heterosexism.
In my opinion a movement must arise against what I call NORMALISM.
This comment was written by pdm.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2004 at 12:42 pm
Hmm. The argument sounds good on the surface, but ignores that most marriage opponents view homosexuality as immoral and the result of personal choice, not biology. They see a difference between being black and being gay - in thier perspective, one can’t choose one’s race, but one can choose not to have gay sex. And therefore, for them, laws ought to prohibit homosexual acts, or at least not reward people for them.
Coming from their perspective, your reasoning could be used to say that it’s bigotry to deny convicted felons the right to vote.
I don’t think it’s an issue of bigotry as much as it is an issue of scapegoating.
This comment was written by John.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2004 at 12:49 pm
John,
Okay, let’s scrap the racism is to sexuality comparisons. How about substituting religion for race in the equation? Being a Jew or a Muslim or a Christian or a Buddhist is a matter of personal choice, not biology. Why don’t we prohibit any of those groups from civil marriage?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2004 at 12:56 pm
Being Jewish is both racial and religious; one can be Jewish without practicing Judaism.
But that’s beside the point - I’m not sure how to answer your question because my insight into people with whom I disagree only goes so far. But I suppose that since it isn’t common for conservatives to think that being Muslim or Jewish is immoral, they therefore feel that it’d be bigoted to prohibit them from civil marriage. Then, too, allowing Muslims to marry wouldn’t be seen as a state endorsement of Islam, but allowing gays ot marry will be seen as a state endorsement of what many conservatives feel is immoral.
This comment was written by John.There’s two elements to consider here: the personal decision to engage in a behavior, and the moraility of the behavior itself. That’s why I used my convicted felons example.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2004 at 2:21 pm
John, the supposed immorality of behavior that harms no one should never be used to justify laws. I couldn’t care less if same-sex opponents think homosexuality is a choice; whether it is or not has no bearing on whether banning SSM is discriminatory.
There’s a huge difference between someone who commits a crime against someone else and somebody who loves someone else, so I really don’t think your convicted-felon example applies.
And Rad Geek, would you agree that it makes sense to describe arguments as objectively racist, bigoted, etc.?
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2004 at 3:17 pm
Hestia,
Here’s a stab at answering your question:
“And Rad Geek, would you agree that it makes sense to describe arguments as objectively racist, bigoted, etc.?”
I think it makes sense, but only in the same way that it makes sense to describe a meal as ‘healthy’: not because the meal has the property of health (after all, a meal is *usually* dead at the time we eat it!), but because it contributes to the person who eats it having the property of health. Similarly, what I’d like to say is that arguments don’t in and of themselves have the property of being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., but we might call them that because they either __contribute to__, or __express__ racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.
(Of course, I’d *also* want to stress that just pointing out that an argument is racist or misogynist or homphobia isn’t the same thing as refuting the argument! Those are properties that relate to the person making the argument, or the system supported by the argument; appealing to them is a form of argumentum ad hominem, or special pleading, if it’s taken to be an argument __against__ the argument described as homophobic/bigoted/etc. Arguments have to be criticized on their own grounds — as valid or invalid, sound or unsound, cogent or weak, before diagnostic terms such as these become relevant at all.)
Does this sound right, or am I just muddifying matters further?
This comment was written by Rad Geek.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2004 at 5:32 pm
“Another meaning, which is how I tend to use those words in the context of the marriage equality debate, is “someone who favors an unequal legal status for lesbians and gays.”
So basically you use the word “bigot” to describe anyone who disagrees with you?
This comment was written by Ben Bateman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2004 at 6:08 pm
No, we use “bigot” to mean “someone who favors unequal legal status for lesbians and gays.” We use “asshole” to mean “someone who ignores the arguments and pretends to take the moral highroad.” For example, there’s this total asshole named Ben Bateman who comments at Alas a Blog from time to time and completely ignores the debate and oversimplifies everything everyone else says so that he can argue them down. Man, that guy is such an asshole.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2004 at 8:18 pm
What about those of us who believe homosexuals should be given equal rights via civil unions?
I have no hate nor animosity toward anyone based on race, religion or sexual orientation. Yet there are those who would call me “Bigot” because I disagree with the need to redefine *anything* simply because someone might be offended, or feel left out.
I like “Alas” because I believe the opinions expressed here, though I disagree with most, are better informed and certainly more eloquent than 95% of the blogs on the net. But I have yet to read any argument that convinces me that an activist homosexual community has the right to redefine the well established societal construct of marriage for the rest of us. If anyone would care to try to convince me, my mind is open.
This comment was written by Quadratic.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2004 at 9:07 pm
I thought I’d stop in and get a dose of that tolerance and respect for diversity the liberals are so famous for. Let’s see:
Anyone who disagrees with SSM is a bigot and will be called nasty names.
Whew! That’s about all the tolerance and respect for diversity I can take for one night. I’ll go back to my conservative blogs, where no one calls anybody a bigot or any other nasty name.
You folks go back to agreeing with each other. I’ll go find a real debate somewhere else.
This comment was written by Ben Bateman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2004 at 10:39 pm
Ben - I don’t see what’s terribly confusing about saying that you’re prejudiced if you do not favor equal rights for others. Go ahead, make bigot an empowering word. Reclaim it: tell the world you’re *proud* to be a bigot, tell them that it’s a good thing, that it’s what keeps the country strong, whatever. But why deny it?
Quadratic: Civil unions, at their best, in the few states where they exist, still do not grant the same rights as marriage does.
In order to give these unions the exact same status and the same rights as marriage, quite a lot of laws would have to be passed in every single state. A lot of things would have to change on the federal level, as well, so that civil unions are recognized across the country and so that they receive the same federal benefits as marriage.
And even if civil unions were so greatly altered that they became exactly the same as marriage on state and federal levels (which would be expensive and very time-consuming at the very least), it’s still a question about whether or not they would be recognized internationally: for example, for the purpose of granting green cards.
And if you think it’s okay for them to be exactly the same, but that they must have different names… well, I’m not sure I can argue that because I don’t understand. Are you open to emotional arguments? Is it pointless to mention the sheer joy and elation of the recently married same-sex couples I’ve interviewed. One couple had a civil union before: it didn’t mean anything to them. All the couples, when they were finally married, were overjoyed: not all of them were religious, but they *felt* it deeply. Felt a deeper connection, felt recognition, felt *real.*
If that doesn’t mean much, I think it’s at least worth to consider how much time and money it’d take to change a zillion laws in order to make civil unions Separate But Equal. Now, I’m tired and it’s late so I can’t say exactly how much effort, but it’s a lot. So sleepy.
This comment was written by tikae.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 2:49 am
There’s a huge difference between someone who commits a crime against someone else and somebody who loves someone else, so I really don’t think your convicted-felon example applies.
Well, I’m not saying I agree with the reasoning behind the conservative position on homosexuality, I’m just saying that in their minds, it’s immoral. And most conservatives have no problem with enacting laws that enofre a partiuclar kind of morilaty, so long as that particular kind is theirs (but try passing a law that, say, feeds the poor…) This affects everything for them- I’d imagine they’d think that if gay sex is immoral, then two people are doing each other mutual harm by participating in it.
The larger point here is that while being able to call someone a bigot has some emotional and rhetorical power, I’m not sure it serves any real purpose. It is not, after all, a useful diagnostic that helps us better deal with our political opposition, and it has the added negative side-effect of flattening and dehumanizing its objects. If we expect Ben Bateman to do work to understand our persepctive in all its subtleties, we ought to do the same, right?
This comment was written by John.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 6:13 am
The larger point here is that while being able to call someone a bigot has some emotional and rhetorical power, I’m not sure it serves any real purpose.
I have to agree with John here. It serves very little useful purpose to call people bigots. Engaging conversation without name calling is more likely to sway people.
Some people will never be swayed to your point of view.
That said, the broader purpose of blogs is to air your view to third parties who may lurk. One might hope to convince those on the fence with examples and counter arguments. In that vein, responding: “Well, you’re just a bigot.” is generally pointless!
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 7:07 am
I absolutely agree that no label is a substitute for a well-reasoned rebuttal–and also the presence of mind to understand that some people will choose to ignore logic and reason in favor of protecting their own worldview at all cost, and you won’t ever change that, so you might as well preserve your own sanity and refuse to discuss anything with them.
That said, I still think it’s valuable to call a spade a spade on occasion. The word “bigot” does indeed have negative connotations. I don’t agree that it “flattens and dehuminizes” anyone. There are charges built into the word that I think SSM opponents should refute, if they can–namely, that they want to encode inequality into law. (And if there’s something I still don’t get about opposition to SSM, then they should be able to refute it well enough so that I’m comfortable rescinding the term as it applies to them. Just because I call someone a “bigot” doesn’t mean I don’t understand where they’re coming from.)
Personally, I try to refrain from using these kind of words, except to describe an argument, which, unlike Rad Geek, I believe can be inherently racist, sexist, etc. But in the case of SSM, I choose to continue using the word “bigot,” in conjunction with actual debate, because of what it does contribute to the discussion. And if anyone has a problem with it, well, that’s kind of the point. I don’t hate anybody. But I’m certainly not afraid to risk offending them when the shoe fits.
And if someone wants to call me, I don’t know, a bleeding-heart liberal or something, I’ll have to decide whether it’s accurate (in the same way as “bigot” is accurate in describing anti-SSM folks), and if it is, either embrace it or change my opinion, and if it isn’t, show how it isn’t. Which SSM opponents haven’t been able to do so far.
Finally, there’s a fine line between turning the other cheek and resorting to your opponents’ tactics. In the case of insults and labels, it’s even finer. I don’t usually include them in my arguments (though I’ve had to make a conscious effort to stop using the word “stupid”), but I won’t eliminate them just because they’re “low-brow” or whatever. If I can defend my use of them, I will; I never promised to be a saint, and besides, sainthood doesn’t guarantee right-ness.
John, I understand that some people think homosexuality is immoral. That’s fine. But it’s indefensible to use that belief as a reason to ban SSM, so I can’t really approach the issue from the anti-SSM perspective. My relativism doesn’t stretch so far that I can tolerate people trying to force their belief on others. It’d be like saying we should ban Republicans from voting, since a lot of people think Republicanism is immoral.
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 7:18 am
It’d be like saying we should ban Republicans from voting, since a lot of people think Republicanism is immoral.
Gosh… that would disenfranchise the entire COUNTY! (Or at least Wheaton, Illinois.)
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 8:10 am
Merriam Webster online says a bigot is “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”
Umm, doesn’t that term apply equally well to SSM advocates? (see, Andrew Sullivan)
The point is whether you think the other side is being intolerant or irrational. People on both sides think that the other side is being intolerant or irrational. There are plenty of SSM advocates who are bigoted towards conservatives.
This comment was written by Mike.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 9:14 am
Well, is there, then, an alternate suitable term for someone who opposes equal rights for all people? “Wrong” sounds good, but it’s not really a noun, so it’s probably out. And remember as well that no one has made the argument, to my knowledge, that conservatives ought to be put in a separate, lower class of human beings who are entitled to an inferior set of rights. Remember that no one is trying to deny SSM opponents anything by law. So the whole idea that there is some kind of “reverse-bigotry” going on is probably quite mistaken. For my own part, it’s not that I can’t see where opponents of SSM are coming from, it’s just that I don’t find them to be valid in a legal context (or, less importantly for legal matters but more importantly personally, a moral context). I also don’t find them to be compelling to the point that I’d be willing to deny someone equal rights, particularly if they are a minority (which, like it or not, are protected in the US).
Anyway, long post, but in substance I’d be willing to suspend use of the word “bigot” if a more value-neutral alternative were available, and now having read at least one dictionary definition, I may have to find another one anyway.
This comment was written by Dan J.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 9:39 am
“Umm, doesn’t that term apply equally well to SSM advocates?”
I was wondering when somebody would actually look the word up and discover just how far afield Barry’s definition is. He wants to use it as an epithet against anyone who disagrees with him on SSM. The delicious irony is that in doing so he shows just how narrow-minded and intolerant he is towards those who disagree with him. So his idiosyncratic definition of bigotry shows that he fits the actual dictionary definition of the word.
But I must say that many of Barry’s readers are much more reasonable than he is. Kudos to those readers who have noticed that calling the other side names accomplishes nothing.
This comment was written by Ben Bateman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 9:49 am
OK, I’m willing to give up the term “bigot” when referring to anti-SSM folks. However, the word “prejudiced” still applies. And let there be no doubt that Mr. Batemen goes to ridiculous lengths to attempt to legitimize his prejudice (see his colorful and non-sensical essay on how only biological parents can rightfully claim the term “parent”).
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 9:51 am
“Well, is there, then, an alternate suitable term for someone who opposes equal rights for all people?”
This is the point - the use of the term ‘bigot’ presupposses an answer to the point in question. If you think that it is flatly obvious that SSM is a fundamental right and that there is no rational position against it, then of course you are going to say those against SSM are bigots. Likewise, if you think it is ludicrous to call SSM a ‘right’ and that those in favor of it are blatantly ignoring the historical definition of marriage and substituting one of their own choosing purely on selfish grounds (and are calling those against SSM hateful and ignorant without addressing the substance of the claims) then you will tend to think of pro-SSM advocates as bigoted.
“Anyway, long post, but in substance I’d be willing to suspend use of the word “bigot” if a more value-neutral alternative were available, and now having read at least one dictionary definition, I may have to find another one anyway.”
How about not calling those of us against SSM anything? Perhaps you could just address the arguments, and not make assumptions about the people making them, or, if you do make assumptions (which is human nature, of course), don’t call them names? The original post only belies the author’s inablity to see the points that the other side is making, or to treat their arguments with fairness. If they are bigots, then their arguments are by definition irrational, so why should I bother addressing them?
This comment was written by Mike.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 10:27 am
Mike,
It seems to me that the anti-SSM arguments have been addressed. And every week, it also seems to me, SSM opponents come forth with a new and more absurd argument. Which arguments have you not seen addressed? I’ll do a short list w/ short responses here. Please feel free to add to the list or question the short responses - preferably in an existing SSM debate thread on this blog.
1) Argument: Marriage has always been 1man1woman
Response: So what? Does that mean that slavery in the US shouldn’t have been abolished because it was always Europeanmaster/AfricanSlave?
2) Argument: It cheapens the institution
Response: How so? Marriage is not a limited resource. Whether 18 people are married or 18 million people are married does not affect the value of my (or anybody’s) marriage.
3) Argument: It’s for the children (several variations)
Response: Should we deny children who have lost one or more parents the benefits that the stability of marriage provides?
4) Argument: Marriage is for procreation.
Response: Then why allow marriage to anybody who doesn’t already have children? Or why allow marriage for those who can’t procreate (women over 60 for example)?
5) Argument: It will destroy society.
Response: Have you looked at Denmark?
I can go on, but wouldn’t it be better to just re-open any of the existing SSM debate threads?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 10:44 am
Jake,
Maybe you’ve only “addressed” anti-SSM arguments by insulting people who disagree with you and trying to shout them down. Maybe instead you could try to understand some view other than your own.
This comment was written by Ben Bateman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 10:48 am
I’m not convinced. If you want to get technical, anybody who ever disagrees with anyone else is a bigot. In fact, if you want to get technical, you’ll have to agree that nobody is ever absolutely right or wrong and so we shouldn’t have any laws at all. Luckily, language is flexible enough that this isn’t the case. (Actually, this entire discussion is risking a descent into relativism. Can anyone ever be objectively right or wrong, or must we continue to acknowledge that an opposing opinion, no matter how insane or unsupported by reality, might be correct?)
I’m with Dan J entirely. What I’m referring to as bigoted when it comes to SSM is the intolerance in wanting to keep a particular group of people from enjoying the benefits of a public institution for no good reason. (If there’s a better word, I’ll certainly substitute it.) It’s the action of trying to force that opinion on others that I have a problem with. Under this reasoning I would also call anyone who would want to ban Republicans from voting a bigot, even though I personally harbor some, um, unfavorable opinions about Republicanism and its effect on America.
Am I being bigoted, then, towards people who oppose SSM? No, I don’t think so. They’re absolutely welcome to their opinion; I would never call anyone a bigot just because they believe something I don’t believe. But since they’re trying to force their opinion on people who don’t share it–and since I’m still waiting for any real-world, practical (vs. theoretical) evidence that SSM harms anyone at all (”Because I said so!” doesn’t cut it for me)–I don’t have a problem with bringing a little emotionally-charged language into this particular discussion.
Allowing SSM is far more tolerant than banning it. If we don’t ban it, SSM couples will be able to choose to get married, and people who don’t approve of SSM don’t have to engage in it. That’s where my charge of bigotry comes from.
Likewise, if you think it is ludicrous to call SSM a ‘right’…then you will tend to think of pro-SSM advocates as bigoted.
No, I don’t think that’s true. No SSM advocate that I know of has ever been charged with bigotry. The cultural definition of the word doesn’t apply to a belief that laws should expand rather than limit tolerance, and I think you’ll agree that the pro-SSM point of view is more tolerant than the anti-SSM one (since, after all, the definition of “tolerant” in www.m-w.com includes “the act of allowing something.”)
I’m sure anti-SSM folks think that pro-SSM folks are stupid and immoral and a whole host of other things, but I don’t think bigotry is among them, nor do I think it even applies. (I have no problem whatsoever with being accused of being immoral, and I won’t refute it. I’d explain why, but this post is already a little long…)
Perhaps you could just address the arguments, and not make assumptions about the people making them, or, if you do make assumptions (which is human nature, of course), don’t call them names?
I always address the arguments (or else I ignore them entirely). I call people names occasionally, and only if I think it’s warranted. I’ve explained why I think it’s warranted in this case. By the way, I say “fuck you” occasionally, too (though you won’t see it in print–except here, of course). (Note: That expletive is NOT pointed at anyone here; it’s just an example.)
If they are bigots, then their arguments are by definition irrational, so why should I bother addressing them?
Hey, I get into conversations, debates, arguments, and discussions with anti-SSM folks all the time. I’m usually hoping that they’ll realize the error of their ways and reject bigotry out-of-hand.
If they are bigots, then their arguments are by definition irrational, so why should I bother addressing them?
Isn’t this the same kind of accusation? “You’re too mean and stupid to really understand me,” right? If not, what’s the difference?
PS. I’m having a great time with this discussion. I’m very interested in language and the way it’s used. Keep me thinking!
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 11:00 am
“It’s the action of trying to force that opinion on others that I have a problem with.”
Isn’t the action here from SSM supporters trying to force their view of marriage on the rest of us without so much as a democractic vote? From the anti-SSM perspective, the goal is simply to protect what always was, not to force anything new on anybody.
This comment was written by Ben Bateman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 11:30 am
Ben Bateman, my God, you are an asshole. Every time I think you’ve topped your previous asshole-ishness, you top it off. Fine, I’ll refrain from calling you a “bigot” but you’re still an asshole. A very big asshole. The entire asshole of assholes.
Anyhoo, as to this:
From the anti-SSM perspective, the goal is simply to protect what always was, not to force anything new on anybody.
Uh, what always was. Are you this much of a contankerous idiot as well as an asshole? Do I really have to go into the details of how marriage has already changed over time, without votes? Like interracial marriage, or even monogamy? These weren’t how things always were.
But since even if I did debate you on your word, without calling you an asshole and bastard and cantankerous idiot, you’d still be saying I’m spewing insults at you. Since that is the case, I’m not going to deny myself the pleasure of calling you an asshole, since you are one. An asshole that is.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 11:40 am
Ben Batemen writes: “Maybe you’ve only “addressed” anti-SSM arguments by insulting people who disagree with you and trying to shout them down. Maybe instead you could try to understand some view other than your own.”
Ben, try looking at my post where I list 5 common arguments against and 5 abbreviated responses to. Did you miss that? Was that insulting? If so, how would you rephrase that to not be insulting? And I am trying to understand views other than my own. Anti-SSM person states their argument against SSM and I question the argument by bringing up facts & studies that seem, on the surface, to contradict the argument. If anti-SSM person has something that refutes what I brought to the discussion I’m very interested in seeing it.
But…… your arguments about marriage being primarily for procreation have fallen flat in the face of both history & the institution as it now exists. Instead of addressing the (seeming) flaws in your argument you descend into some nonsensical essay about how only biological parents are real parents. Thus insulting all parents who have adopted. I’ve read your writings and postings for some time now and your logic for why SSM is bad just gets worse & worse. So, yeah, I guess you could say that I have no respect for your arguments and that would be insulting to you.
But I have, and continue to, address arguments against SSM without insulting my opponents. Search this blog for the discourse between myself & Moebius and see for yourself.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 11:49 am
Mike, I notice that you haven’t argued with the substance of my definition of “homophobia” and “anti-semitism.”
Here’s the substantive question: Is there something wrong with defining a policy that calls for two sets of laws - one set for gays (or Jews, or blacks, etc) and one set for the majority group - as a bigoted policy?
It seems to me that SSM opponants want to call a major argument “out of bounds” by dismissing it as name-calling; as if there were no difference between saying someone’s policy is homophobic, and saying that they’re a big booger-head. However, I disagree that saying “I can’t support Mike’s policy on marriage, because Mike’s policy on marriage in effect creates one law for straights and a different law for gays, and that’s bigotry” is impolite, or even that it’s name-calling in any significant fashion. It’s criticizing your policy, Mike; and dismissing it as “name-calling” doesn’t respond substantially to the critique.
* * *
The dictionary definition Mike brought up doesn’t really refute my argument, by the way. First of all, my original post spoke of both “homophobia” and bigotry - even if you want to argue that bigotry in fact has nothing to do with prejudice in the English language (in which case, why do you object to being called a bigot?), you surely can’t make the same argument about the word “homophobia.”
Secondly, dictionaries are descriptive, not perscriptive; where a dictionary definition doesn’t describe how a word is actually used by typical speakers, the dictionary definition is what’s mistaken, not the speakers. The modern use of the word “bigotry,” especially in a context like this one, frequently implies prejudice against a minority group. If a dictionary doesn’t include a definition which includes that implication, then I’d say the dictionary is incorrect.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 11:53 am
“Ben Bateman, my God, you are an asshole. Every time I think you’ve topped your previous asshole-ishness, you top it off. Fine, I’ll refrain from calling you a “bigot” but you’re still an asshole. A very big asshole. The entire asshole of assholes.”
Raznor, this may seem hypocritical of me - since I myself told Ben to f.o. once - but that was when he wasn’t a participant on this blog.
Now that he is, with all due respect, I want to request that you (and others) refrain from comments like this one. It’s not what I want “Alas” to be like.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 12:01 pm
Jake’s nailed down great counters to the most common arguments of anti-SSM people. The one he didn’t address is Portland-centric - the belief that Diane Linn should have had a public discussion of same-sex marriage before issuing her order to the bureau to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Somehow, I doubt the fundies would be complaining about it if the order was to keep on denying licenses to same-sex couples (as Lane County did) or wait and see (like Washington County did).
Like it or not, the Multnomah County charter grants the County Chair a LOT of authority in running the bureaus under her command. Interpreting an ambiguous law (with reliance on county counsel and outside counsel) regarding who may be issued a marriage license is definitely what she’s authorized to do.
I’m *against* the recall efforts regarding the county council, and will support Diane Linn and Lisa Naito in their re-election campaigns this fall against late-filing conservatives.
This comment was written by Aaron V..Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 12:24 pm
From the anti-SSM perspective, the goal is simply to protect what always was, not to force anything new on anybody.
Like Raznor said, marriage is certainly not what it always was, so this is a moot point. And nobody plans to require that you run out and marry the first guy you meet, nor that you even approve of SSM.
So what the anti-SSM folks really want to do is protect what is currently, and what has been before in different ways, a discriminatory institution, and the pro-SSM folks want to allow people to decide for themselves, not others, whether or not to marry. The former’s bigotry, the latter isn’t.
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 1:15 pm
Jake,
I don’t have the time or energy to go into the details of the pros & cons of SSM - you are right, these arguments are all over the web. I will merely say that if you have read Maggie Gallagher’s and Stanley Kurtz’s pieces (for example, in the Weekly Standard), and don’t think those are valid arguments, or that they have been rebutted effectively, then there’s no chance that anything I say will change your mind. If you haven’t read them, then I refer you to them.
1) Argument: Marriage has always been 1man1woman
Response: So what? Does that mean that slavery in the US shouldn’t have been abolished because it was always Europeanmaster/AfricanSlave?
Slavery wasn’t always European master/African slave. There are all kinds of combinations of races and nationalities that enslaved one another. White Europeans have been enslaved by Africans. (see Robert Davis)
The argument isn’t simply that it marriage has always been between a man and a woman, so we should never change it, it is that it has always been between a man and a woman - why is that? And shouldn’t we proceed very slowly if we are going to propose to change that definition?
2) Argument: It cheapens the institution
Response: How so? Marriage is not a limited resource. Whether 18 people are married or 18 million people are married does not affect the value of my (or anybody’s) marriage.
I don’t think anybody argues that it cheapens the institution. What people argue is that gay marriage is only possible after the institution has been cheapened (by no-fault divorce, less societal pressure to be monagamous, more liberal views on sex, etc.) The point is that marriage is a public institution, and needs a common set of views about what it is in order to be successful. If everybody gets to define for themselves what marriage means, then it will no longer have any common public meaning. Many people don’t have a problem with that, but I think it will have serious long-term consequences.
3) Argument: It’s for the children (several variations)
Response: Should we deny children who have lost one or more parents the benefits that the stability of marriage provides?
4) Argument: Marriage is for procreation.
Response: Then why allow marriage to anybody who doesn’t already have children? Or why allow marriage for those who can’t procreate (women over 60 for example)?
5) Argument: It will destroy society.
Response: Have you looked at Denmark?
Read Kurtz’s article on Marriage in Scandanavia. Part of the point is that even if you don’t think Denmark is so bad off, we cannot transfer the Scandanavian system of government benefits (which are necessary if you weaken the link between marriage and childrearing) from small, ethnically homogenous, wealthy countries like Denmark to America.
This post is too long and is basically off the topic of whether it is appropriate to call opponents of SSM bigots (or homophobes).
All I’m saying is that there are too many people, of a wide variety of ideologies, religious or cultural values, educational status, etc. who are opposed to SSM to simply dismiss as ignorant bigots who are animated by an irrational animus against gays.
This comment was written by Mike.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 1:21 pm
Responding to Hestia:
Marriage has certainly has changed over time and been done differently in different cultures. But to my knowledge it has never been between two people of the same sex, at any time, in any culture. So let’s just be clear on the small point: You said you had no problem until someone forced their opinion on others. Can’t we agree that the forcing is coming from the left, and the right is resisting the change? You can argue that the left ought to force this change, and I’m sure you will. But let’s at least be clear on who’s forcing what on whom.
Now on this bigotry business, the word “bigot” is pretty clearly defined in the language, and it refers to intolerance towards other views rather than holding a specific view. I guess you’re free to redefine words as you please, but it’s unlikely that others will understand you, especially others who don’t already agree with you.
But let’s go ahead and play Barry’s game. He’s so certain that his view of SSM is correct that he wants to call anyone who opposes it a bigot. He uses an example of someone who supported country clubs that excluded Jews. In his mind, discrimination by race or sexual orientation is so obviously wrong that no reasonable person could favor them. It’s a simple, undeniable, clear-cut moral situation. Discrimination is wrong, and if you don’t understand that, then you’re a bigot.
Does that mean that everyone who supports affirmative action–racial discrimination by government–is a bigot?
This comment was written by Ben Bateman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 1:27 pm
Hestia,
Your whole post is still begging the question. When you say “Hey, I get into conversations, debates, arguments, and discussions with anti-SSM folks all the time. I’m usually hoping that they’ll realize the error of their ways and reject bigotry out-of-hand”, that implies that you are engaged in a genuine exchange of ideas, where both sides are in principle open to being persuaded by the others arguments, and where both sides are supposedly using rational arguments. In such a situation, I maintain that it is wrong to call the other side bigoted just because they haven’t come around to your point of view.
“No SSM advocate that I know of has ever been charged with bigotry.”
Maybe that just means that anti-SSM people are more polite ; )
I think this whole word definition question is a result of the fact that liberals have stuck in their head that bigotry = racial bigotry, and then fit every situation into that category. Likewise with homophobe - a homophobe is someone who has an irrational animus against gays. But then pro-SSM people say that *by definition*, someone who is against SSM is a homophobe. This begs the question as to whether their opposition is based in irrational fear or rational principles. I don’t deny that some anti-SSM people are motivated by fear, but it is unfair to simply characterize all such dissent as so motivated. This is why it is wrong to call anti-SSM people bigots and homophobes.
Ampersand, you can rationalize using these terms all you want, but they aren’t going to help you convince anyone that your position is correct - they will just make people angry.
This comment was written by Mike.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 1:28 pm
Mike,
I think that you’re correct when you say that if I think Gallagher & Kurtz have been effectively rebutted (and I do, read Gabriel Rosenburg for example), that nothing you say will change my mind. But that’s not really what we were talking about here. I think that I have responded effectively to your comment of 9:51 this morning in that I have addressed the arguments of the anti-SSM crowd. And effectively too, I think, if you read what I wrote correctly.
For example I wrote that slavery in the UNITED STATES has always been Europeanmaster/AfricanSlave. Not that slavery everywhere has always been yadayadayada.
But when it comes down to it, IMHO, I think that all of these arguments have been addressed and refuted credibly. And that leaves me with only religious faith or prejudice to explain the motivations of the anti-SSM crowd. As I said before, I will forego the word bigot for now, but prejudice accurately describes what I have been seeing.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 1:39 pm
Ben Bateman writes: “Can’t we agree that the forcing is coming from the left, and the right is resisting the change?”
No. I don’t think we can. Maybe I’m not understanding what you are saying. Nobody is forcing you to marry a person of the same sex. Nobody is prohibiting you from marrying a person of the opposite sex. So, what precisely are you being forced to do? Recognize that SS spouses are entitled to the same benefits as OS spouses? To me that seems like somebody else’s civil rights are being forced on you, and last I checked that, in part, is what the USA is all about. Freedom and civil rights.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 1:40 pm
“I think that being a homophobe can be about what’s in one’s heart, but it can also be about what’s in one’s policies.”
This is what I mean - you can thus mark off any policy as being bigoted by using your own definition of what the policy should be, without regard to the actual arguments put forth in favor of or against the policy. The argument that marriage laws apply a distinction between gays and straights irrationally presupposes a particular definition of marriage. But that is the question at issue - what is the definition of marriage? Or more accurately, what has it been, and should we change it? If you declare ahead of time that all those who don’t agree with your particular definition are bigots, then you are not engaging in debate, you are just determining the answer ahead of time and saying to hell with everyone who doesn’t agree with me.
On the question of who is imposing who’s views on each other- marriage is a public institution. There will be a common definition one way or the other. If SSM becomes legal, even if it is only in a handful of states, then the whole country will be forced to recognize that definition in a myriad of ways. This idea that if you don’t like SSM, don’t engage in it is silly. If marriage is just a private enterprise, why is it necessary to have SSM publicly recognized? The whole debate is over what the publicly shared definition of marriage should be. I respect those pro-SSM people who are willing to argue for it in the democratic arena, but most of them don’t. They know that they can’t enact it that way, and that it would take much more hard work. It’s much easier to have the courts simply declare that the common definition of the primary social institution should be changed.
This comment was written by Mike.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 1:53 pm
Re: “Can’t we agree that the forcing is coming from the left, and the right is resisting the change?”
Jake, the change is not being forced on me individually. It’s being forced on the laws and society I live under. I deserve to have a voice in those laws just like everyone else. I will have to live with the consequences of those laws, just like everyone else.
I believe that SSM will have terrible consequences for our society, meaning the one that I and my children have to live in. I’m trying to defend the society I live in against the change that the pro-SSM crowd wants to force on me–without my vote, and without the vote of my elected representatives.
That’s why I say that this change–in the society and laws I live under–is being forced on me, and it’s completely backwards to claim that I’m forcing a change on anyone else.
This comment was written by Ben Bateman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 1:54 pm
A quick last note…..
It doesn’t need to be and shouldn’t be argued in a democratic arena (if you mean majority rule). That is why we have the constitution. To protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. And I think the 1st, 9th & 14th amendments spell that out clearly. All the other refutations of anti-SSM arguments are window dressing. Maybe I should just refer to SSM opponents as anti-American (to borrow a favored political tactic). But seriously, how is being anti-SSM not being anti-constitution & the civil rights it protects?
It’s been fun, Mike, thanks for the dialogue.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 2:17 pm
Wow. What a revelation. Having different sets of standards for different groups actually constitutes bigotry! So does this mean that if a feminist were to hold men to different standards than women that they would be bigots?…
This comment was written by Abe.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 2:21 pm
But that is the question at issue - what is the definition of marriage?
Well.. that is one question.
Another question is: Who should be given the legal and financial benefits the government grants to those who marry?
Some people are more hung up on the word itself than are others. ( And some people want a different word to mask the fact that they intent to confer lesser financial benefits and privileges to civil unions.)
Or more accurately, what has it been,
It has, historically, been many things. It has been a means of forming political alliances. It has been a vehicle for socially accepted sexual relations. It has been a method of extending kinship ties and financial obligations. It has been…. many, many things.
and should we change it?
Marriage has changed and adapted constantly.
Our current marriage customs are quite dissimilar to those in the Patriarch, Abraham’s time. Were I Sarah, I would not supply my husband with my hand maiden, so he could father a child. Were I Leah, I would have had a fit when my father married me to a man who didn’t love me… and I would have been equally displeased if he later married my sister!
I respect those pro-SSM people who are willing to argue for it in the democratic arena, but most of them don’t.
So, what have you to say about the County Officials in Oregon who passed legislation? And the court that did not set grabt a summary injunction setting aside the decision?
They know that they can’t enact it that way, and that it would take much more hard work.
I support SSM, and I do not “know” it can’t be enacted this way. Why would I think it can’t? Vermont passed Civil Unions. A county in Oregon made marriage legal.
So.. why would I “know* it’s impossible? Difficult yes. Impossible, no.
It’s much easier to have the courts simply declare that the common definition of the primary social institution should be changed.
Americans of all political pursuations have a long tradition of pursuing issues in courts. This is hardly first, and it will not be the last.
I was always taught that separation of powers in our government was a good thing. Even when the courts interpretation differs from mine, I still value their function when they interpret laws.
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 2:25 pm
Correction (this blog doesn’t seem to have the option of editing one’s posts) Should have read:
Wow. What a revelation. Having different sets of standards for different groups actually constitutes bigotry! So does this mean that if feminists were to hold men to different standards than women that they would be bigots?…
This comment was written by Abe.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 2:33 pm
I’m sorry, Ben. In light of other posts of yours that I’ve read, here and elsewhere, I’m really not interested in continuing any further discussion with you.
I maintain that it is wrong to call the other side bigoted just because they haven’t come around to your point of view.
Well, I maintain that if the shoe fits, wear it. I don’t think it’s wrong to use the word, I don’t think the word is wrong as applied to SSM opponents. I’m not calling anyone a bigot because they don’t agree with me, but rather because their position falls within the accepted-by-society definition of the word. And frankly, I consider myself pretty well-versed in the anti-SSM argument, having taken part in a number of them, so I don’t think it’s an issue of an unwillingness to listen or discuss or a lack of understanding, either.
As I see it, you have two choices. You can accept that I think you’re a bigot, or you can try to convince me that you’re not, or that the anti-SSM position isn’t. I’m totally open to convincing.
But, for the sake of continuing discussion, let’s just say I agreed to stop using the word. Is “prejudiced” (as Jake suggested) or “supportive of discrimination” OK? Do you mind those labels?
If SSM becomes legal, even if it is only in a handful of states, then the whole country will be forced to recognize that definition in a myriad of ways.
It’s preferable to forcing the country to recognize a definition of marriage that demonstrably harms a group of people–and in more tangible ways than just their fragile belief systems.
Seriously, do you think we should we ban Republicans from voting? I and many others are forced to acknowledge the Republican perspective. Or here’s an easy one: Shouldn’t we ban smoking in public buildings, even if they’re privately owned? I’m forced to inhale smoke whenever I visit my local Applebee’s. (Their non-smoking section is a joke; since when was a table three feet away from the bar considerred nonsmoking?) Sure, I can choose not to go there–but SSM opponents can choose not to marry someone of their gender. So what’s the difference?
I respect those pro-SSM people who are willing to argue for it in the democratic arena, but most of them don’t. They know that they can’t enact it that way, and that it would take much more hard work.
OK, see, it’s difficult to take your position against using the word “bigot” seriously when you yourself attack people rather than their arguments.
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 3:53 pm
Ben: “Marriage has certainly has changed over time and been done differently in different cultures. But to my knowledge it has never been between two people of the same sex, at any time, in any culture.”
Well, you are incorrect. Would you like me to reference my anthropology textbook? I can think of several cultures offhand that have allowed for marriages between same sex individuals, for different reasons.
Conservatives keep invoking anthropology on this subject without seeming to actually ask any anthropologists about this.
Mike: “it is that it has always been between a man and a woman”
What’s up with your use of singular indefinite articles in there? Or are plural marriages, which have been common throughout history in very disparate cultures, not marriage?
Also, see above response to Ben.
This comment was written by Erika.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 4:56 pm
Well, you are incorrect. Would you like me to reference my anthropology textbook? I can think of several cultures offhand that have allowed for marriages between same sex individuals, for different reasons.
Conservatives keep invoking anthropology on this subject without seeming to actually ask any anthropologists about this.
Well, Erika beat me to it. But here’s just one source that looks at this subject (same-sex marriages that have existed in various cultures throughout time). A look at an Anthro 101 textbook could provide dozens more.
This comment was written by bean.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 5:00 pm
“As I see it, you have two choices. You can accept that I think you’re a bigot, or you can try to convince me that you’re not, or that the anti-SSM position isn’t. I’m totally open to convincing.”
So, when did you stop beating your wife? Like I said, you’re already presupposing a particular answer to the question when you frame the question that way.
I suppose I could just accept the fact that you think I’m a bigot, but that isn’t going to resolve the question, now is it?
“But, for the sake of continuing discussion, let’s just say I agreed to stop using the word. Is “prejudiced” (as Jake suggested) or “supportive of discrimination” OK? Do you mind those labels?”
You’re so magnanimous. Those words don’t have a negative connotation, either, and they shed so much more light on the problem…
This comment was written by Mike.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 5:29 pm
Amp, I’m sorry for being a bit over-the-top. I was attempting to combine my anger with Ben’s more arrogant post with embittered comedy. But without the benefit of spoken-word and hence comedic timing, it’s hard to tell the difference between that and attempting to start a pissing contest. So I’ll try to say what I was trying to say without an “asshole” saturation rate of onsiderably less than 1 per three words.
Ben, let’s be honest here. Homosexuals are not allowed spousal benefits. These include right to custody of children should one die, rights to conjugal visits in a hospital, and rights to Social Security benefits that all apply to heterosexual married couples. So denying same-sex couples marriage is a clear, demonstrable harm to these couples. However you’re arguing here that this harm is justifiable so that heterosexual couples need not be inconvenienced with having to comprehend a new social definition of marriage. And that isn’t a bigoted position because . . .?
Bigot
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Sounds to me you’re partial to heterosexual couples, that being your own group, and don’t really seem to care about any pains suffered to homosexual couples, those that differ. I’m just saying that’s a clear textbook case of bigotry. The fact that you don’t like it doesn’t make it untrue. Or as Hestia put it, hey, if the shoe fits . . .
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 6:06 pm
rights to conjugal visits in a hospital
Actually, I don’t think anyone actually has this “right.” I’m sure most doctors, in fact, seriously frown on that sort of thing — depending, of course, on why the patient is in the hospital. ;)
I’m guessing that you either meant conjugal visits while one partner is in prison, or simply visitation rights in hospitals, or both.
This comment was written by bean.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 8:14 pm
“One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”
I think this is a euphemistic and diluted definition of Bigot.
The definition Raz posted describes almost everyone in this thread, and I’m certain this is not accurate..
Bigot, to me, conjures imagery of morons in white hoods, gay bashing meatheads, and goose-stepping jackbooted fascists. It’s an offensive word. Would you call a black man a nigger? Or a homosexual a faggot? Certainly not! So stop using demeaning labels for people who are not as enlightened or progressive as you.
This comment was written by Quadratic.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 8:20 pm
Quad -
What if someone seriously argued that Christians are morally inferior and should not be permitted to teach in school? Would it be okay to call such a person a bigot?
I think the distinction is that there is never an appropriate time for a white person to call a black person a nigger, or a straight person to call a gay person a faggot. These things are always inappropriate.
On the other hand, I think that any honest person has to be willing to admit the possibility that they might be prejudiced in some way; that their own views may be colored by racism, sexism, homophobia, or some other form of bigotry. (I’m not saying that I’m any exception to this rule!)
It’s certainly happened to me that people have said to me “don’t you think that’s sexist?” or the like in response to one of my opinions. I don’t think the correct reaction would be for me to say “that’s just name-calling”; I think the right reaction is for me to seriously consider the question, and to either produce an argument for why what I’ve just said is not sexist, or admit that it was sexist and either argue that sexism is justified or change my views.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 8:41 pm
Hestia’s post starts with:
“I’m sorry, Ben. In light of other posts of yours that I’ve read, here and elsewhere, I’m really not interested in continuing any further discussion with you.”
and then:
” I consider myself pretty well-versed in the anti-SSM argument, having taken part in a number of them, so I don’t think it’s an issue of an unwillingness to listen or discuss or a lack of understanding, either.”
followed by:
“I’m totally open to convincing.”
So which is it? You’re totally willing to listen and open to convincing, except when somebody disagrees with you?
And then this one really takes the cake:
Mike: “I respect those pro-SSM people who are willing to argue for it in the democratic arena, but most of them don’t. They know that they can’t enact it that way, and that it would take much more hard work.”
Hestia: “OK, see, it’s difficult to take your position against using the word “bigot” seriously when you yourself attack people rather than their arguments.”
Mike’s statement wasn’t an insult; it was an assertion of fact. Either they know they can’t get SSM enacted democratically, or they don’t. It’s a vote-counting exercise. Given that they’re going to the courts instead of the legislatures, it isn’t an outrageous conclusion to say that they aren’t spending their resources at the legislatures because they suspect they’d lose there.
But I really like the logic in your last statement: It’s difficult to take people seriously when they attack people rather than arguments. I totally agree. And based on the many personal attacks laced with profanity I’ve received on this site, I find it very difficult to take the pro-SSM position seriously. I’ve written hundreds of words here with zero profanity and a minimum of personal attacks. (Twice I’ve implied that Barry is a bigot on SSM, which I stand by.) I can cobble together a little montage for you, if you want, of responses I’ve received from SSM supporters on this site.
Use your own logic Hestia. If the side using the personal attacks can’t be taken seriously, which side should you be on?
This comment was written by Ben Bateman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 9:15 pm
Ben, Fuck you, okay. The reason I say this is I’m the only fucking person whose profanely insulted you. And I apologized for going over the top, but you use that as a way of saying “Oh, look, poor me, I’m being unfairly attacked for my arguments.”
And your assumption that the people who disagree with you form a monolithic body of opinion that is apparently not nearly as well-informed as your arrogant self.
And you haven’t given me one reason, one reason, to not consider your stance on same-sex marriage bigoted. All you say is it’s not nice. As Roy Cohn* said, “Fuck nice!”
Oh and if you fucking can’t stand the fucking profanity, then I’m so fucking sorry. I’ll see what I can do about cleaning my filthy fucking mouth.
Fuck.
[*Okay, not Roy Cohn the man, Roy Cohn the character from Angels in America. It’s one of my favorite lines]
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 9:20 pm
It’s alright for us to have differing viewpoints on this issue. Mine happens to lie on the conservative side and for religious and constitutional reasons. This happens to be my barrier to accepting ssm. If you don’t like it, please feel free to lobby your state rep to change it. I am a conservative who still believes that the tenth amendment means something. Until an amendment passes settling this issue passes, we’re stuck with the good ‘ol rules of the constitution on this one.
This comment was written by Bart.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 9:32 pm
Bart, do you believe the 14th amendment means something? Or is it only the 10th. There’s 25 other amendments out there and only one of them has been rescinded.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 9:33 pm
Oh and bean, uh yeah. I was a bit angry while writing that post. Something about people asserting that their intellectual convenience overrides other people’s civil liberties puts me off just a tad.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 9:53 pm
Raznor, your hate and profanity is pathetic.
You owe Ben a REAL apology. Not “Sorry, but without the benefit of spoken-word and hence comedic timing” excuses.
“And your assumption that the people who disagree with you form a monolithic body of opinion that is apparently not nearly as well-informed as your arrogant self.”
Projection anyone?
This comment was written by Quadratic.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 10:31 pm
Quad, fine I’m going too far. I’ll apologize to the room. I won’t apologize to BB. He set the tone for me with this:
“Another meaning, which is how I tend to use those words in the context of the marriage equality debate, is “someone who favors an unequal legal status for lesbians and gays.”
So basically you use the word “bigot” to describe anyone who disagrees with you?
Ben comes into a discussion, takes an entire well-written post, give it an unfair, one sentence misinterpretation and then argue with it from there. This reeks of arrogance. Then there was Jake Squid’s comment regarding quick summaries of anti-SSM arguments with quick responses to each, to which BB responds:
Maybe you’ve only “addressed” anti-SSM arguments by insulting people who disagree with you and trying to shout them down. Maybe instead you could try to understand some view other than your own.
If Jake’s response was crude, it comes out of summary. The idea that it’s just shouting people down is ridiculous, and shows a ubiquitous lack of intellectual honesty in Ben Bateman’s rhetoric style. Which led me in my overthetop “asshole” saturated post to respond:
But since even if I did debate you on your word, without calling you an asshole and bastard and cantankerous idiot, you’d still be saying I’m spewing insults at you. Since that is the case, I’m not going to deny myself the pleasure of calling you an asshole, since you are one. An asshole that is.
Besides the grammatic flaws, and overuse of the word “asshole”, this was the crux of my post. I suppose I could have been more civil and mentioned my displeasure with BB’s intellectual dishonesty without being, well, an asshole about it, and I apologize for that as well.
And when I mention monolithic stuff, I’m mostly responding to this:
Use your own logic Hestia. If the side using the personal attacks can’t be taken seriously, which side should you be on?
Hestia says she won’t bother arguing with Ben Bateman. Ben Bateman takes that to mean she won’t argue with any anti-SSM person. If that ain’t arrogance defined, I don’t know what is. And besides desiring that a group of people be oppressed for one’s own intellectual convenience, my other pet peeve is arrogance.
So I was over the top and unfair. For this I apologize to Ampersand, for bringing incivility to this discussion, I apologize to all the commenters as a group, of which Ben Bateman is one, but I do not apologize to Ben Bateman as a person. That I was an asshole doesn’t change the fact that Ben Bateman is being arrogant and unfair to everyone else on this board.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 10:44 pm
Raznor, what does the 14th amendment have to do with this?
This comment was written by Bart.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 10:47 pm
I am also a conservative and agree with what Bart has to say. I also feel that this is not a civil rights issue. Gay people have just as much right to marry as I, a heterosexual, do. They just can’t marry someone of the same sex. Further, I think it is foolish for the gay community to equate their situation to that of blacks in the 50’s and 60’s. There is an enormous difference between a once enslaved people and a man or woman who is upset because they can’t legally wed their gay partner.
This comment was written by Jeremy.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2004 at 11:06 pm
Hey, Amp, my spider sense is tingling. Out of curiosity, would Bart and Jeremy perchance have the same IP address?
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
April 1st, 2004 at 3:09 am
Amp,
I don’t know if you want to gain support the meaning of the word bigotry with the word anti-semitism, as it doesn’t seem to mean anything anymore, since, like bigotry/homophobia, people don’t really believe it exists at all, at least not anymore. That of course, is Israel’s (Jews’) fault anyway though, right? Argh.
This comment was written by Tara.Report this comment to the moderators
April 1st, 2004 at 4:35 am
Uhmm… Ben seems to be gone…..
I’m confused by Tara’s post. Tara, are you saying anti-semitism no longer exists?
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
April 1st, 2004 at 4:49 am
From Jeremy:
“Gay people have just as much right to marry as I, a heterosexual, do. They just can’t marry someone of the same sex.”
So then they don’t have as much right to marry that you as a heterosexual does. After all, you are free to marry anyone you wish to marry. That surely doesn’t sound like the same right to me.
Besides that, I don’t know if this kind of argument serves the whole ssm is bad for society meme that’s floating around.
From Jeremy:
“Further, I think it is foolish for the gay community to equate their situation to that of blacks in the 50’s and 60’s. There is an enormous difference between a once enslaved people and a man or woman who is upset because they can’t legally wed their gay partner.”
Nice way to reduce legitimate concerns to a mere emotive response.
This comment was written by Floyd Flanders.Report this comment to the moderators
April 1st, 2004 at 4:57 am
Actually Bart, could you clarify your interpetation of the X amendment?
“Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. ”
The two possible ways I see it:
1) The federal governemnt has not been delegated powers to regulate marraige. So, laws defining “what marraige is” cannot be made at the federal level.
So, the right to define marriage is reserved either to
2a) the individual states may make these laws
or ,
2b) individual people.
If it is 2a) then the process is on going in the various 50 states. If, for some reason, 2b) applies, SSM would already be legal where ever 2b) applies because individual people already get to decide the meaning of marriage?
So… are you saying, you are philosophically opposed to SSM, but, based on the 10th ammendment, you don’t think the Feds can block it– unless there is a constitutional amendment? That’s why you suggest lobbying your state rep?
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
April 1st, 2004 at 5:44 am
Nice way to reduce legitimate concerns to a mere emotive response.
I was wondering.. is there anything wrong with recognizing that marriage is mostly about emotive response.
My husband and I married because we felt a strong emotive response for each other. We did not feel this emotive response for anyone else. We felt this emotive response would continue, but required each felt the emotive response would be fostered by knowing the other felt sufficiently committed to link themselves in marriage.
So.. we married.
The “emotive response” is usually called love, and most people who marry, marry because they love one another. Some believe marriage fosters love and provides stability to life. (I do.)
This stability is beneficial to children. To provide this stability, we, as a so