Dear anti-human rights bigots: December 21, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in Blogging, bigotry, wingnuts.trackback
If you’re going to insist on complaining about how unfair it is that I’ve called Rick Warren a bigot for promoting laws that strip human rights from gays and lesbians, make an actual argument.
Furthermore, if you’re going to take time to come by my blog and complain about how I’m whining by disagreeing with Obama’s decision to offer Warran a platform, and by pointing out that Warren’s policies are bigoted, in that they discriminate against people based on which sex they’re attracted to, get a fucking life. If you’ve gone out of your way to comment on my blog saying that I should shut up, you can kiss my free-speech loving, bigotry-hating, poor-argument mocking ass.
Make a real argument, or find somewhere else to slink around. They like such comments at the Free Republic.
I guess the majority of California voters are bigots as well…?
Andy:
Denying others rights one claims for oneself is bigoted.
There have been a lot of comments on this post, and no one has yet even attempted to make an argument that discrimination against gays and lesbians isn’t bigotry.
It’s very disappointing.
Around these parts calling people names and telling them to kiss your ass is not considered an argument. Most think of it as an insult.
Which would explain why you only do it here and not to their faces. Much safer.
Troy:
When others can’t be bothered to make an actual argument, you’re damn straight I’ll mock them.
I’m still waiting for actual arguments. Yawn.
Yes Andy. The people who voted to deny gay people the right to marry voted for a bigoted law. They supported enacting a bigoted law, which makes them bigots.
What’s your point?
Well, you won’t get any arguments from me. I like what you have to say.
Lynden
I think you’ve narrowed the field so much that an argument is impossible:
“no one has yet even attempted to make an argument that discrimination against gays and lesbians isn’t bigotry.” – Evil Bender
Here you seem to be setting up a very difficult course to navigate, with no clear, or even seemingly possible end. I don’t know if your straw man even exists – which may be why you suffer from a lack of sparring partners.
What would be gained or lost by calling discrimination against gays and lesbians “bigotry”? I think the discrimination charge is clear enough to say that it is “bad”. I don’t think Rev. Warren or really anyone else would say that discrimination of any sort is good; but using an additional “bad name” isn’t really accomplshing anything.
I think your desired sparring partners are uncomfortable with the arena you have made. Before you get an argument against your claim above, you will need to establish that disapproval of another person’s sexual activity actually does manifest in discrimination, and the loss of priviledges that the person does indeed have a right to enjoy. You will also need to establish that marriage (for gay or straight persons) is in fact a “right” before saying that the loss of it is discrimination.
Andy,
Thanks for taking the time to write a thoughtful reply.
I’ve argued, quite clearly I think, that pushing for a law that removes one’s right to marry (and that may nullify existing marriages, as its proponents are pushing for), is bigotry. I don’t give a damn whether people think bigotry is too harsh a word. If anything, I hope they do find it harsh: I want people to think what it means to tell gay people “you can no longer get married in California, because we say so.” And I want them to think about what is says about Rick Warren that he actively pushes such an idea.
And I wasn’t the one who asked for a debate the subject in the first place–I asked a very different question to a very different audience. Then new commenters to this blog arrived, making a string of different arguments, from saying I was “whining” to claiming that being gay isn’t natural, to saying I was a Soviet censor for running my own blog. Mostly, though, they accused ME of intolerance for pointing out that what Warren is doing discriminates against same-sex couple and so is bigoted.
I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable for me to ask them to actually defend that position, instead of simply asserting it.
I’m not actively looking for a “sparring partner.” What I’m saying is that if a commenter wants to dispute my assessment of Warren’s position on gay marriage, they need to do so, rather than simply complaining that I’m mean or whining or whatever.
I’m not asking them to rebut a complicated assertion here. My claim is that to remove the right of couples to wed simply because one disapproves of the fact that they’re of the same sex is discrimination based in intolerance, and hence is bigotry.
I don’t think that’s an unfair playing field. And I’m deeply disappointed that I’ve received very little substance in response.
“I’m not asking them to rebut a complicated assertion here. My claim is that to remove the right of couples to wed simply because one disapproves of the fact that they’re of the same sex is discrimination based in intolerance, and hence is bigotry.”
I think the assertion is quite a bit more complicated than you give it credit for. You have set up an unfair playing field by portraying gay marriage as a “right” which these “bigot” voters have undone. You have not explained why gay couples, or really any couples at all, have a “right” to marry – why marriage is a “right” at all. Nor have you explained why intolerance is necessarily bigotry, and further why the position held by Rev. Warren must disqualify him from offering an invocation when properly invited to do so.
Also, I think the word “intolerance” must be looked at more closely. It may be that you and Rev. Warren are more closely related than you think. He disapproves of another’s actions/beliefs and makes his stance publicly known. He receives a response (yours) that he should not be allowed to do something (the invocation) that he would otherwise be able to do, if not for his public declaration of his views.
Is this not intolerance, based on the meager criteria you have given thus far? Is it not the same way that homosexual individuals are being treated – you are claiming that their abilities to do something (marry) in the public square are being limited by someone, based on personal beliefs of what is permissible and impermissible. Can you tolerate anything except Rev. Warren’s intolerance? Or, will you continue to hold beliefs that make you a ‘bigot’ – since disapproval of another’s views so easily becomes bigotry?
And John – defining a term with the term is utterly brilliant…
You have set up an unfair playing field by portraying gay marriage as a “right” which these “bigot” voters have undone.
Thousands of gay couples were married in California, a right which is now denied to them. I understand that you don’t like my portrayal of this, but it is precisely what happened. The court ruled, correctly, that the state cannot discriminate against people based on the sex of the person they want to marry. People like Warren pushed to get voters to overturn that, and end the right to marry.
Nor have you explained why intolerance is necessarily bigotry, and further why the position held by Rev. Warren must disqualify him from offering an invocation when properly invited to do so.
Intolerance is part of the definition of bigotry. (i.e. “one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”). And I didn’t say it “disqualifies” him. I believe Obama should never have invited a man who pushed to strip rights from those he doesn’t approve of.
Is this not intolerance, based on the meager criteria you have given thus far? Is it not the same way that homosexual individuals are being treated – you are claiming that their abilities to do something (marry) in the public square are being limited by someone, based on personal beliefs of what is permissible and impermissible
Are you seriously comparing the question of whether Warren is a wise choice to give the invocation at the inauguration with whether consenting adults have the right to marry the person they love? There’s a big difference between saying “you should not give this invocation because your preach discrimination” and saying “you don’t have the right to marry the person you love because you both have penises.”
Or, will you continue to hold beliefs that make you a ‘bigot’ – since disapproval of another’s views so easily becomes bigotry?
I’m sorry, Andy, but that’s just nonsensical. Warren isn’t a bigot because he disapproves of another’s views. He’s a bigot because he acted to enshrine into law rules which treats those who he doesn’t approve of as second class citizens.
Gay people should have the right to marry just as straight people do. No one–NO ONE–has the “right” to participate in public events free of criticism, or to be immune from criticism for their choice of speakers at events.
It really isn’t that hard. Taking away gay people’s right to marry because your religion tells you being gay is wrong = bigotry.
Arguing that Warren is an inappropriate speaker at an inclusive event because he argues for exclusion != bigotry.
And, most of all, arguing that gay and straight people should have the same rights isn’t bigotry, nor is disagreeing with those who deny gays their rights.
Try this on: if Warren advocated the position that interracial couples should not be allowed to wed, would I be a “bigot” for suggesting he was a bad choice for an inaugural, or would he be the bigot?
It looks like you are not going to address the major problem that I raised – establishing the “right” to marry (for anyone) as a necessary right that can be taken away. Please consider it as a foundational weakness in the argument, even if you don’t want to address it.
“It really isn’t that hard. Taking away gay people’s right to marry because your religion tells you being gay is wrong = bigotry.”
Should these people (the majority of CA voters, and the majority of voters in every state where a similar law has come to vote) not be allowed vote based on their religion? What about the non-religious voters who voted for prop. 8? Would it not be permissible to do so?
I realize that you are not claiming that the voters should not be allowed to vote; and that mainly you are claiming that the way they voted in wrong and thus they are all bigots because they disagree with you on this issue. I think your earlier detractors, claiming that you are whining, may be correct. You have done nothing to show why the voters are wrong (which should be the goal if you strongly disagree with public opinion – to show those people their error and advocate that they change) but you have simply called them awful names. To advance your position you must first show that the right to marry is a legitimate right that may not be taken away from anyone.
To continue from your “try this on” example, people who advanced civil rights for racial minorities often appealed to a “higher law” which claimed superiority to the current law and that the current law of racial inequality should align with the “higher law” (not necessarily only a religious appeal). They applied it to individual situations – public transportation, eating establishments, institutions of education, etc. And declared a right to these things exists, and that they were being denied that right. You must establish that there exists a right to be denied before claiming that a group is not receiving those rights.
It looks like you are not going to address the major problem that I raised – establishing the “right” to marry (for anyone) as a necessary right that can be taken away. Please consider it as a foundational weakness in the argument, even if you don’t want to address it.
I’m not interested in addressing the “rights” argument further. If you can’t see why telling to adults “you can’t marry because I disapprove of you being sexually attracted to each other” isn’t just, I can’t make you see it.
I can, however, point out, that in California, pre-Prop 8, gay people had a right to get married. They could go down to the courthouse, fill out the paper work, and marry like straight people. If you want to argue that, in other states, there is no pre-existing civil right to wed, I’ll listen to that argument (though see my point on Loving v Viginia, below). But you’re the one who has repeatedly avoided my point: Warren and those who pushed for prop 8 were actively working to strip from gay people a right they already had.
Should these people (the majority of CA voters, and the majority of voters in every state where a similar law has come to vote) not be allowed vote based on their religion? What about the non-religious voters who voted for prop. 8? Would it not be permissible to do so?
I realize that you are not claiming that the voters should not be allowed to vote; and that mainly you are claiming that the way they voted in wrong and thus they are all bigots because they disagree with you on this issue.
I’m not pleased to see the strawman here. Why spend time suggesting I support a position that I clearly do not, and then admit I don’t support it? People obviously have the right to vote as they chose, and it isn’t whining to suggest that they discriminated in their votes by voting to strip rights from other people (or, if you still won’t admit that’s what happened in California, they at very least voted to say “what’s okay for me isn’t okay for you.”
This, by the way, is why we have courts: because my civil liberties and your civil liberties shouldn’t be able to be stripped away by the majority because they find anyone icky. Your religious views don’t trump mine, and you don’t have the right to deny to others what you would claim for yourself. No one does: that’s a fundamental principle of democracy, after all. Once we codify discrimination into law, we’ve doomed ourselves to a double standard, and put our own beliefs at risk: if the majority can strip rights from a minority, no one is safe in the long run.
To advance your position you must first show that the right to marry is a legitimate right that may not be taken away from anyone.
You’re shifting the burden. I claim there’s no right to discriminate by letting only straight people marry while gay people are denied that same right. I’m arguing that everyone should be treated the same. You’re suggesting that I must demonstrate unequal treatment is unjust. I’d suggest the burden is on you: if you believe that it’s okay for people to deny to others rights they claim for themselves, you’ll need to defend that point. My assumptions here are based on the Golden Rule, and I don’t feel a need to defend it. If you’re not willing to see that point, it’s true we’ll never see eye to eye.
To continue from your “try this on” example, people who advanced civil rights for racial minorities often appealed to a “higher law” which claimed superiority to the current law and that the current law of racial inequality should align with the “higher law” (not necessarily only a religious appeal).
Yes. So what? Those opposed to civil rights also made similar appeals, and arguments against interracial marriage were often based on the idea that such marriages were an insult to decent people.
To continue with my example: if I’m right, and marriage is a right that’s not up for debate, then it’s easy to conclude that Loving v Virginia was rightly decided.
On the other hand, if marriage isn’t a right, then is it your position that Loving was decided incorrectly? Why or why not?
I’d like to butt in here for a moment to bring up the equal protection clause from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution: “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” One of the ideas behind the fight for same-sex marriage rights is that saying “John Doe may engage in civil marriage with his chosen partner because his chosen partner is a woman, but James Doe may not engage in civil marriage with his chosen partner because his chosen partner is a man” denies the latter couple equal protection under the law. The California Supreme Court agreed, and approved same-sex marriage in that state. As Evil Bender pointed out, Prop 8 took that away. Unless one is truly trying to argue that no American citizens should be enter into the legal arrangement we call civil marriage — which I don’t think the majority of people who oppose same-sex marriage genuinely want — then I think the equal protection clause is relevant to this argument, and should hopefully satisfy at least part of Andy’s concern on the matter.
Lizard Queen – you have hit on a very important part of the argument and an underlying assumption Evil Bender has relied upon. I think you are jumping too far though.
“Unless one is truly trying to argue that no American citizens should be [able to]enter into the legal arrangement we call civil marriage — which I don’t think the majority of people who oppose same-sex marriage genuinely want — then I think the equal protection clause is relevant to this argument…”
There is a middle ground between the equal protection clause and arguing that no one be able to enter into civil marriage. The underlying problem for proponents of a strict marriage definition is that the state has effectively taken something from the church and is now attempting to re-define it. Long before the ‘equal protection clause’, people married. The states decided to make laws around what was already being done. Now, the state and the church have both intertwined civil and church marriage to such a degree that they seem almost inseprable. Now, the CA supreme court (and a couple other states) are defining a what was originally an institution of the church to be what the church does not want it to be – and we all know that the state shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion. I think there may be some middle ground in having a “civil union” or something by any other name which confers tax and estate benefits to anyone who agrees.
Evil Bender –
“Your religious views don’t trump mine, and you don’t have the right to deny to others what you would claim for yourself. No one does: that’s a fundamental principle of democracy, after all.”
The foundational principle of democracy is the rule of the people. The CA supreme court (people vote for representatives, representatives appoint judges, judges decide – the will of the people is filtered through two intermediaries) made a decision, and for a brief time it was the law. As soon as a voting season arrived the people of CA voted for proposition 8…which is direct democracy at work – the people deciding exactly what they want. It was not filtered through representatives, nor judges. Proposition 8 represents democracy at the most basic. You should stick to arguing that the will of the people is wrong – this avenue is very weak.
Now, the state and the church have both intertwined civil and church marriage to such a degree that they seem almost inseprable.
That’s pretty silly. After all, there are obvious differences. No church is under compulsion to marry anyone they don’t want to. Catholic churches only marry Catholics, after all. The role of churches in marriage would be unchanged by Prop 8 or any similar system.
What your position seems to do is intentionally blur what should be a clear line–between marriages a church approves of and those recognized by the state–which has the effect of allowing one to make an otherwise patently ridiculous argument, that religious organizations should be able to dictate public policy in a pluralistic democracy.
Now, the CA supreme court (and a couple other states) are defining a what was originally an institution of the church to be what the church does not want it to be – and we all know that the state shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion.
You’ve got this exactly backwards. Now you’re (apparently) arguing that the first amendment means we can’t allow gay people to get married because churches wouldn’t want it, when in fact it protects against exactly the opposite: that civil policy on marriage should be in the hands of any religious denomination.
I’ll give you this, though: I’ve seen a lot of discussion on this subject, and I’ve never seen anyone try to argue that the first amendment suggests gay people can’t get married because some religious people say so.
There is a middle ground between the equal protection clause and arguing that no one [should] be able to enter into civil marriage.
I really don’t think there is, unless one is trying to claim that churches ought to be able to decide how the government conducts civil marriage.
Of course, it sounds like the latter is indeed what you’re trying to claim. Is it? Do you really not see how that violates the First Amendment? Some churches allow polygamy, or formerly did, but that’s illegal; some churches don’t allow divorce, but that’s legal; some churches bless same-sex unions, but that’s only legal in a select few states. Which model should states be following? Which church is the one that gets to dictate public policy?
Now, the state and the church have both intertwined civil and church marriage to such a degree that they seem almost inseprable.
I disagree completely. I could drag EB or one of my male friends down to the courthouse and get married and never get the church involved. On the other hand, I could drag one of my female friends over to the Unitarian church and get our union blessed without ever getting the state involved. Both scenarios are a bit too pat, since there would be paper- and bloodwork involved for the former, and for the latter I expect that there would be some sort of gesture of good faith needed that would indicate that the woman and I were actually committed to each other, but my point is that while some people might think that civil and religious marriage seem inseparable, that is not, in fact, the case.
If you’d really like to make the semantics argument that civil marriages that churches don’t approve of should be called civil unions, then I think that ought to apply to all civil marriages, for the reasons I mentioned above (i.e. different churches approve of different things).
I see this thread has been quiet for some time, but as this business of calling someone’s religious beliefs “bigotry” is not going away, I wish to add these points.
First, I cannot imagine people saying “bigot” without some anger and judgment (oneupsmanship) in their voice. Whether or not someone is good at describing these emotions in words, either their own emotions or how they perceive the emotions in others, such emotions are an essential component of speech to all human beings. In fact, while words vary among different people around the world, how those emotions are expressed in faces and voices are universal. To jump past those emotions to purely intellectual arguments is to lose track of some of what’s real here. Whether it’s outrage at inequality or outrage at any public expression of religion, both or something else, what’s actually being expressed by “bigot” may be much more about the speaker than the object of that word. Why not be upfront about that?
My American Heritage Dictionary defines “bigot” as “A person of strong conviction or prejudice, especially in matters of religion, race, or politics, who is intolerant of those who differ with him.” “Bigotry” and “bigoted” just refer back to this definition. “Intolerant” is defined as “Not tolerant, especially: a. Bigoted. b. Irritable. c. Unable to endure.” Note that this is about a person, not a belief system or other process that has something of a life of its own.
So this is about a defect in character, something that makes a human being unable to endure the beliefs of others or the existence of others, and “irritable” connects with images I have of how bigots don’t suffer through their lack of endurance quietly. To call someone a bigot puts the focus on that person, taking away the focus from what might be wrong with that person’s beliefs or the biological and cultural processes that are responsible for those beliefs. It makes this a matter of good people or bad people, Us or Them, instead of how we are all fallible. That’s a very natural thing for human beings to do, to say “We’re good” and “They’re bad,” even more so to scapegoat a single individual as being the bad one. I don’t believe that’s the best way.
It doesn’t work to equate bigotry with denying some people rights. I’m not a bigot because I support denying voting rights to 10 year-olds. If I needed to put reasons to that position, they would have nothing to do with my not being able to endure 10 year-olds. Perhaps what you mean is that it’s bigotry to deny some people rights without a good reason. Why not just say it’s wrong to do that? Isn’t the amount of intolerance involved in such a denial a separate issue?
Consider studies about how people support the death penalty. Researchers in these studies put together information packets to refute any rationale for such support, such as that the death penalty is a good deterrent or reasonably seen as justice. These packets were good enough that most death penalty supporters would back down from whatever rationale they gave initially to justify their support. Yet this didn’t change their support. They just switched to a different rationale, then to another. If every objective rationale was defeated, most people switched to something too subjective to be defeated, some vague conviction that only the death penalty could be an appropriate punishment for certain crimes.
Is this bigotry? It is an intolerance for letting some class of crimes be punished short of the death penalty, but is this really the sort of intolerance that is rightfully called bigotry, something that results from a character defect shared by all these people?
Some argue that entire classes of people are defective. I remember a book being promoted on World Net Daily that claimed liberalism is a mental illness. Some claim all theists have a mental illness. As a physician, I think using “illness” this way is a load of crap. It’s namecalling that only partisans or weak-minded fools will confuse with something that has intellectual value. Yet it is very human to use words in ways that are intellectually indefensible and then more words to pretend to defend that. You don’t have to argue evolution to creationists long to experience that.
It’s not about bigotry. It’s about biological and cultural influences that cause any of us to have a certain amount of ignorance and arrogance. Some have worked harder to get past such influences than others. Some were born into subcultures that are better at this than others.
Is it really homophobic bigotry to support civil unions over same-sex marriage? For some reason I have a vivid memory of doing my taxes about 25 years ago. I came to some calculation where being married saved me money. There must have been some discussion of similar tax breaks for gays and lesbians then, though I don’t remember it. I do remember that I felt justified to receive that benefit. At the time I had more children than most gays and lesbians do. Good for the state that they would help me in this way. It was a good enough rationale for me at the time.
My view of that changed at some point. I listen to the emotion in the LGBT community about how differently they see civil unions vs. one kind of marriage for all. Between that and perhaps some intellectual arguments, I now vote for same-sex marriage. Does that mean I was a homophobic bigot, but now I’m not? Or maybe I’m still a homophobic bigot who is hiding behind my discovery of how to be tolerant of same-sex marriage. I wouldn’t put it that way myself.
The problem with “bigot” is that it takes the focus off any detached analysis of what reasonable rights are for anyone and puts the focus on those bad people over there. You want bad people? How about these: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/1/21/164654/567
I wouldn’t even call them bigots. It’s not a word I use. “Ignorant and arrogant” is as far as I go, though maybe that sounds about the same as “bigot” to some people. When I calm down I’ll be sure to mention that we all have those traits.