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

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!)

In my opinion a movement must arise against what I call NORMALISM.

In my opinion a movement must arise against what I call NORMALISM.

I don’t think it’s an issue of bigotry as much as it is an issue of scapegoating.

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?

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.
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.

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.?

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?

So basically you use the word “bigot” to describe anyone who disagrees with you?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

Gosh… that would disenfranchise the entire COUNTY! (Or at least Wheaton, Illinois.)

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.