'Merica: YOU ARE SO GAY!

[Herrick]

I keep seeing people complain that this should have been a decision left to the states.
But they don't seem to go further than that to come up with anything like a justification to continue the discrimination on a state-to-state basis.

What basis would they put forward as a legally binding reason to continue denying SSM?
The ickyness?

Yeah, ickyness (religious beliefs really) and the "It's always been this way" argument. I'm sure there's a fallacy for that but I don't know what it's called.

 

[bilby]

I keep seeing people complain that this should have been a decision left to the states.
But they don't seem to go further than that to come up with anything like a justification to continue the discrimination on a state-to-state basis.

What basis would they put forward as a legally binding reason to continue denying SSM?
The ickyness?

Yeah, ickyness (religious beliefs really) and the "It's always been this way" argument. I'm sure there's a fallacy for that but I don't know what it's called.

It is an appeal to tradition fallacy, coupled with a false premise, aka 'Being stupid AND wrong'.

 

[braces_for_impact]

There is something about fundamentalism that warps and ultimately destroys one's sense of irony. The appeals to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by the right is particularly egregious, as is the comparison of this case to the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision.

 

[Brian63]

Yes, and it is not just their sense or irony that is distorted, but a complete hypocrisy that they develop too. Ed Brayton over at the freethoughtblogs made an important observation and point today:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2015/07/01/bobby-jindals-special-pleading/

Remember a few years ago when a local official in Louisiana refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple? That was the one where the guy said he wasn’t racist because he lets black people use his bathroom. Guess what Bobby Jindal said about that situation?

The actions of a justice of the peace in Louisiana who refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple have prompted some top officials, including Gov. Bobby Jindal, to call for his dismissal.

“This is a clear violation of constitutional rights and federal and state law. … Disciplinary action should be taken immediately — including the revoking of his license,” the Republican governor said.

...but then when the issue was not about interracial couples wanting to get married but rather homosexual couples wanting to, Jindal took a notably different position:

Jindal’s office has said the governor’s religious freedom executive order as well as state and federal law will protect clerks and state employees who have moral objections to gay marriage and don’t feel comfortable handing out licenses to same-sex couples.

It really is their religious worldview they are trying to enforce on everybody, and so many of them are to a large extent entirely oblivious that is what they are doing, while others are even aware and trying to do so.

Brian

 

[TSwizzle]

...but then when the issue was not about interracial couples wanting to get married but rather homosexual couples wanting to, Jindal took a notably different position:

Hardly surprising. It is different after all.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

...but then when the issue was not about interracial couples wanting to get married but rather homosexual couples wanting to, Jindal took a notably different position:

Hardly surprising. It is different after all.

Only in the way that people who hate blacks are different from people who hate Asians. Bigotry is bigotry and it all comes from the same place.

 

[Brian63]

...but then when the issue was not about interracial couples wanting to get married but rather homosexual couples wanting to, Jindal took a notably different position:

Hardly surprising. It is different after all.

It is different, but not different in any relevant way. It would also be different if the scenario was of a left-handed person and a right-handed person wanting to marry each other, and the clerk having a religious objection to it. They are different scenarios from each other, but that in itself is not any kind of justification for allowing this person (as a representative of the government) to impose their own religious views on the couple. So it is not enough to just say they are different (in some unspoken and perhaps irrelevant way), in order to justify it.

Brian

 

[ronburgundy]

Hardly surprising. It is different after all.

Only in the way that people who hate blacks are different from people who hate Asians. Bigotry is bigotry and it all comes from the same place.

Exactly. It is as "different" as whether killing a person because they are black should be legal, versus killing them because they are gay.
IOW, there is zero difference in relation to any legal or moral principle. Different conclusions can only be reached by ignoring any principles and basing each conclusion on personal hatred, which of course can differ toward one group versus the other.

 

[TSwizzle]

Hardly surprising. It is different after all.

Only in the way that people who hate blacks are different from people who hate Asians. Bigotry is bigotry and it all comes from the same place.

Yes, everybody that disagrees with the new orthodoxy is a bigot.

 

[PyramidHead]

Only in the way that people who hate blacks are different from people who hate Asians. Bigotry is bigotry and it all comes from the same place.

Yes, everybody that disagrees with the new orthodoxy is a bigot.

It really is that simple, and history will treat those people with the same embarrassment it now treats people who thought letting black people vote was a "new orthodoxy." Excellent choice of words, by the way.

 

[Sarpedon]

So, they (the ??10%) are normal and 'accepted' and can marry, if they want to, in every State of the Union. Now can we please have an end to 'Gay Pride' parades? Just start living normally for Chrissakes, like the rest of us.

a-fucking-men, brother. Enough of all the damn gay already!

Yeah, and enough with those fucking obnoxious St. Patrick's day parades! YOU AREN'T AN OPPRESSED MINORITY ANYMORE! KNOCK OFF THOSE LOUSY PARADES! Stop oppressing us!

 

[ronburgundy]

Only in the way that people who hate blacks are different from people who hate Asians. Bigotry is bigotry and it all comes from the same place.

Yes, everybody that disagrees with the new orthodoxy is a bigot.

No, by definition, people that agree with old policies supported by nothing but bigoted feelings against people due to the group they belong to are bigots.
And people that disagree with undoing those bigoted policies are bigots.

 

[TSwizzle]

Yes, everybody that disagrees with the new orthodoxy is a bigot.

It really is that simple,

I'm sure it must be for you.

 

[Jokodo]

Only in the way that people who hate blacks are different from people who hate Asians. Bigotry is bigotry and it all comes from the same place.

Yes, everybody that disagrees with the new orthodoxy is a bigot.

Folks who disagree with treating people as people because they're different have always been bigots, whether or not they were called out for it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It really is that simple,

I'm sure it must be for you.

It is, really. So many people who object to the 'new orthodoxy' offer nothing rational in the way of support for their stance, much like no one offered a rational objection to racial equality, people tend to conclude that there are no rational reasons to object. Thus, bigotry.

But go ahead, tell us what your non-bigotry-based objection to 'the new orthodoxy' might be, please?
For that matter, i am curious what you consider 'the new orthodoxy' to entail.

 

[PyramidHead]

It really is that simple,

I'm sure it must be for you.

No, it actually is. There will be one of those sidebars in the electronic history textbooks of 2075 that says "Isn't it weird that some people in 2015 didn't think homosexuals should be able to marry the persons they love? For a list of the shitty arguments they would make to defend their bigotry, see footnotes 337-349 because none of them deserve to be mentioned in the main text. This will not be on the exam because it's better if everybody just forgets about such people."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm sure it must be for you.

No, it actually is. There will be one of those sidebars in the electronic history textbooks of 2075 that says "Isn't it weird that some people in 2015 didn't think homosexuals should be able to marry the persons they love? For a list of the shitty arguments they would make to defend their bigotry, see footnotes 337-349 because none of them deserve to be mentioned in the main text. This will not be on the exam because it's better if everybody just forgets about such people."

I'm confused... the "New Orthodoxy" essentially decides "This type of bigotry is no longer acceptable." So you are pointing out that people who DISAGREE with this declaration are themselves bigots.

Are you complaining that this is a bad thing? Or are you complaining that people now have to accept the New Orthodoxy in order to remain relevant? Or are you not complaining at all and just making a prediction for the future which is probably pretty close to the truth?

 

[RavenSky]

Only in the way that people who hate blacks are different from people who hate Asians. Bigotry is bigotry and it all comes from the same place.

Yes, everybody that disagrees with the new orthodoxy is a bigot.

If one is a bigot, they are a bigot

 

[RavenSky]

Casey Davis is a hypocritical jackass

Casey Davis, the Casey County Clerk, says his conscience will not allow him to issue a same-sex marriage license. Because of that, he has stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether...

Davis says he will not resign and, in fact, he'd rather go to jail.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29444961/...nce-wont-allow-him-to-issue-marriage-licenses

There is another clerk that chose to retire rather than issue marriage licenses to gay couples. I think she is a bigoted hiding behind her religion, but at least she chose to quit which only affects herself. This jackass, Casey Davis, otoh, has quit issuing any marriage licenses at all, thereby adversely affecting everyone in his county. He refuses to quit because apparently his conscience says he shouldn't. He insists he isn't pushing his beliefs on others, and is too stupid to see the hypocrisy of his position.

People like this just boggle my mind. And he has the right to vote!

 

[bilby]

In protest against his protest, I have decided to continue to draw my pay-check, while refusing to do my actual job.

If you need me, I'll be in the pub.