Last month, Family Scholars reader Teresa asked me:
Barry, Anna J, can you help tease this out a bit more, for me, regarding ssm. Is the position opposing ssm, which I profess, existentially a bigoted position?
I answered at the time, but the comment thread ran out almost before anyone responded to me. So I thought I’d reopen the discussion, using the answer I gave Teresa (although I’ve edited somewhat).
So, Teresa, to answer your question: Yes. I think your position unjustly treats the needs and wants of lgbt people as less important than those of others, which is my definition of a bigoted position.
But let me rush to say that’s not to say that you’re a bigot, a hateful person, or acting out of spite or out of “yuk.” From the little I’ve seen of you online, you seem like a lovely person, not at all hateful.
I don’t know if you’re a bigot or not personally, because I don’t know you that well. But if you do have some bigoted attitudes that you need to fight against, that doesn’t make you a bad person. Nor do I think that makes you any different from me. Or from most people. Surely we all have some prejudices and bigotries inside that we have to work on.
History makes it clear that good, sincere people who are not hateful, can nonetheless hold bigoted positions. It’s impossible to look at the history of (for example) anti-semitism without finding plenty of genuinely kind people, people who really did have Jewish friends, nonetheless advocating things like “exclusive” clubs.
I think that one thing we should admit to is that being a nice person, a non-hateful person, a loving person, a genuinely good person, does not make us immune from holding bigoted positions.
When it comes to public policy, bigotry isn’t a personal flaw; it’s a social atmosphere.
In the social atmosphere of the 1950s and 1960s, everyone was so used to believing that Jews didn’t need to be treated equally that even good, kind, loving people had a hard time seeing why it was wrong for places like country clubs to have rules against Jewish members.
In the 1970s, it was a radical position to be opposed to laws that made gay sex illegal. For most of the 20th century, police routinely raided and shut down gay bars and nightclubs, and amazingly few people could see that it was wrong to do that. The reason people had trouble seeing it is not that people in the 20th century were stupid, or mean, or hateful. My grandparents, for example, were not stupid or mean or hateful. But they were raised from birth in an atmosphere gave them little reason to question such practices.
But those practices were, nonetheless, bigoted public policy.
So when I say that being against legal SSM is a bigoted policy, that’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying that those who oppose SSM are bigots (no more so than anyone else, anyhow); I’m not denying that they are frequently smart, loving, and kind people.
I do think, however, that legal inequality for same-sex couples is a policy that only makes sense to so many smart, loving, kind people because we were all raised in a society in which discrimination against lgbt people has been the norm. Being raised in that society has obscured our vision. In a society in which most people are raised from birth to think of lgbt people as equal to everyone else – a society much like the US will be in a quarter-century, I suspect – legal inequality will seem like the strange and unjust policy it is.
I know that by even bringing this up, I will be accused of trying to shut down discussion, of being a bully, of trying to emotionally blackmail people, etc.. I don’t think those are fair accusations. I’m just someone who thinks that bigotry is an important issue that should be discussed, not ignored.
I always find it odd that, in American politics, people who have trouble understanding this viewpoint also label themselves as moral absolutists. If you believe that slavery, for example, was always wrong at all times, then you should have a way of understanding the billions of kind, smart, lovely slave owners throughout history.
Right on. I’ve argued this point to. Today, everyone thinks that slavery was this terrible thing. And everyone’s all, “I never would’ve had slaves, I would’ve helped free them.” YEAH RIGHT! People back then are the same as they are now. Which means, most people would’ve been either pro-slavery or indifferent. Very few would’ve actively helped free the slaves or been outright against it. Like you say here, it’s not that people are all jerks, it’s just that we’re raised in society a certain way and it’s hard to think in other ways or even see the fault in how we are.
(Moving discussion over here from Family Scholars, which has the 50-comment limit)
The reason (or one of the reasons) I drew the interracial marriage parallel was that, in cases where there’s disagreement about whether ‘condition x’ applies, it can be helpful to find a case where there’s mutual agreement.
So, I mean, if lots of folks opposed to SSM think that it’s out of bounds to refer to that position as bigoted, I want to know whether there are situations in which they would refer to a political position as bigoted. If not, then sure, they just hate the word and can be safely ignored. If so, though, then we can discuss 1) whether there were people holding that position that they would describe as kind, smart, lovely, etc, and 2) what differentiates that position from this one.
—Myca
[Extending the Family Scholars conversation]
Teresa,
“For me, my commenting as anti-ssm, seen as a bigoted position … although that’s not how I understood it at the time … was no longer acceptable at FS.”
What, exactly, are you referencing here? Did a blog moderator specifically request that you not comment here because you hold an anti-SSM position, or ask you to refrain from stating your anti-SSM position? I don’t remember that happening here, so if it did, maybe you can reference that conversation.
“That’s how the common usage today of the word bigot/bigotry seems to work, in my opinion. It closes down discussion. It deliberately wants to do that, in my opinion.”
You have some interesting passivity going on this accusation, Teresa, but you seem to be suggesting that all or most people who use the word “bigotry” are “deliberately” trying to close down discussion about SSM.
And, I’ve been accused of that as well, so I’ll just jump in here to note that, like Barry, I think that’s a really unfair claim. And, I would suggest that as much as you and some folks here claim that the word “bigoted” is a silencing tactic, your accusation itself is silencing, whether you intend it to be or not.
I’ve been commenting at FSB for, I believe, a couple of years now, and I’ve learned to really tip-toe around the word “bigoted” in mixed-company.
Barry, certainly, rendered a tepid statement that opposition to SSM is a bigoted position – while also conceding that that doesn’t make someone a bigot, and that opponents of SSM can also be “smart, loving, and kind people.” To that, I would also add that a person can hold a bigoted position even if they do not intend for their position to be hurtful or bigoted.
And, well, I’m sitting here thinking, what more do you, as opponents of legal equality for same-sex couples want? Like, what more do we have to concede in the arena of us acknowledging that people like you can be good people even if you hold positions that we find bigoted?
You certainly aren’t giving us the same assumption of good faith that both Barry and I give to you. You accuse us of trying to “deliberately” shut down conversation, despite the fact that both of us voluntarily blog here, in what used to be an extremely hostile space for people espousing our views, in order to advance conversation with people like you.
If you feel silenced, I’m really having difficulty understanding why. You seem to be demanding a moral privilege or right to feel 100% comfortable in these conversations at all times – or demanding that your conscience be salved by people who disagree with you. And, that’s not something I’m willing to do. I contend that calling out bigotry when I see it is an important way to acknowledge that systemic oppressions are occurring, even though calling them by that label might hurt the feelings of those who are complicit in those oppressions.
People who do and say the most bigoted things often don’t want to think of themselves as bigots. They usually fail to examine their own positions and attack anyone who describes them as bigots. Often they simply say, “No, I’m not the bigot. You are the bigot.”
This is what even the most extreme hate groups now say about gay people. They believe that they somehow occupy a privileged position in which they have the right to make the most outrageous statements, such as comparing gay men and lesbians to pedophiles or people who engage in bestiality, but that they are exempt from the consequences of their free speech. When they are called out for such nonsense, they attack those who call them out.
But the fact remains that nearly all the opposition to same-sex marriage is based on bigotry, and more specifically on homophobia. Some of these people may in some aspects of their lives be kindly and intelligent and well meaning. A lot–perhaps most–of them are not.
The best analogy is with those who fought so fiercely against racial integration. Many of these people were kindly (at least to people who agreed with them and sometimes even to the people they were intent on oppressing) and resented being called racists. They also used the Bible to justify their position, much as opponents of same-sex marriage base their opposition to marriage equality on the Bible. (The more kindly ones do so based on more benign passages than the less kindly ones.)
You are much too kind to people like Teresa. She may or may not be kind. Her comments, however, reveal her as being not very smart. Her bigotry seems to be self-directed, as well as directed at homosexuals generally, but I don’t think that is a good excuse. It simply makes her a sad case.
Barry,
Some of that conversation at FSB was pretty appalling and frustrating. I would have said so there, but the comments closed at 50 per the site’s policy.
Your post was tepid. You conceded that people can be “kind, smart, lovely people” while acknowledging that reality is nuanced and therefore these same people can still hold bigoted views. You didn’t call people bigots, you said that they could hold bigoted opinions. You also acknowledged that we all, including yourself, likely hold bigoted views.
That all seems kind of…. obvious to state. And, well, it was pretty conciliatory, in my opinion. I just found myself shaking my head after reading comment after comment, like, what more do people want? Assurances that all peopl everywhere think they are 100% nice?
So, it’s unfortunate that people were so threatened by your post – going off onto pedantic tangents and, frankly, self-centered requests that require oppressed people and allies to salve the consciences of those who promote, dare I even say it?, bigoted, oppressive, unjust views.
It’s likewise unfortunate and unfair that you (and me) are accused of “deliberately” trying to shut down debate and silence people by issuing tepid statements that we think certain views are bigoted, even if the people who hold those views are otherwise nice.
The whole fixation on the word “bigot” is, itself, a silencing tactic, as multiple people suggested that the word ought not to be uttered at all, because it makes people too uncomfortable – and so we lose a powerful descriptor of oppression for the purpose of not causing people who are complicit in oppression to feel too much discomfort about it.
Good post.
Bigotry is unjustified prejudice towards a group. People who deny being bigots generally believe that their prejudice is justified. Therefore it’s not bigotry in their minds–the accusation is entirely wrong.
After all, some prejudices ARE justified. The simplest examples are extreme minority/oppressed views of the majority/oppressors. We wouldn’t call it bigotry if a south african black person in 1990 generally distrusted and disliked white south africans, right? It’s prejudice; it’s group based; but most normal people wouldn’t call it unjustified.
That’s why the “this argument is wrong because it’s bigoted” line is sort of pointless. It’s like saying “this position is wrong because it’s wrong.”
Similarly, saying “this differential treatment of Group A is unjustified because ___” is functionally the same thing as saying “this differential treatment is bigoted” or “the way you treat Group A is bigoted.”
That’s why the “this argument is wrong because it’s bigoted” line is sort of pointless.
Exactly. Which is why I have nothing but disdain for those who come up with “I will not even discuss this, because it’s/you’re bigoted”. ‘Bigoted’ has become a synonym for ‘something with which I disagree’, and I even know people who try to reclaim the word as ‘staying true to one’s strong opinions’.
The analysis of — well, nobody,really:
On substance.
When Theresa asks whether opposition to same-sex marriage is “existentially a bigoted position,” I sense that she’s asking about the degree of opprobrium that Amp feels justified attaching to this position. I sense Theresa appeals to conventional wisdom: how can Amp justify attaching opprobrium to conventional views? And more generally, I sense Theresa wants to know whether Amp believes that a person who opposes same-sex marriage has transgressed to such an extent as to warrant expulsion from a sense of fellowship with Amp – and, by extension, with society. In short, “Given my opposition to same-sex marriage, are we friends or enemies?”
Amp makes the following substantive arguments in reply:
1. Amp values equality – and in particular, avoiding patterns that needlessly result in disparate impacts among groups of people.
2. Social conventions may cause needless disparate impacts. While people may find it difficult to recognize this dynamic arising from contemporary social conventions, they can readily recognize how past social conventions caused this result.
3. People may not recognize when their behavior needlessly results in disparate impacts.
A. The pervasiveness of social conventions makes them difficult for people to recognize and analyze. People tend to accept them as given without employing much critical thought.
B. We like to think well of ourselves. Because we have negative associations with people who promote disparate impacts, we resist recognizing when we do it ourselves. And the fact that most of us grow up conforming to social conventions means that most of us have participated in producing whatever harm arises from those conventions. This makes us resist acknowledging those harms.
4. Everyone is prone to engage in behaviors that needlessly impair equality. Thus, while we may feel defensive about acknowledging the harm we have done, we can take some measure of comfort in the idea that our peers share our guilt.
5. Amp does not automatically regard everyone who opposes same-sex marriage as an enemy. Amp does not ask people who oppose same-sex marriage to regard themselves badly. Doing so would provoke defensive reactions, impeding people’s openness to consider the rest of what Amp has to say.
6. Ideally, people who recognize that their behavior needlessly promotes disparate impacts would alter their behavior to minimize this outcome – even if this requires deviating from social convention.
On form.
I sense Theresa regards the words “bigot” and “bigoted” as terms that a person uses solely to describe enemies. Amp must take pains to clarify that he does not use the term “bigoted” in this manner – although it remains unclear whether he uses the term “bigot” in this manner.
We’ve previously discussed the merits of using these terms here and here.
First, Barry, let me say that you are certainly and very clearly right when you said if I chose not to comment at Family Scholars, that decision was mine and not in anyway something that you did or said. If that was unclear or seemed to put the onus on you, I was wrong. I apologize for that. You have been nothing but considerate to me in your comments, and I want to acknowledge that, openly.
Unfortunately, your Post garnered so much attention that the 50-comment level was reached in very short order. I would really like this to continue at FS, but that is your decision … and, clearly I can understand how that thread got derailed and caused considerable angst.
Barry, are you up to adding a subsequent Post on this issue at FS? I would understand if that’s not a doable.
Nobody, really … states … “In short, “Given my opposition to same-sex marriage, are we friends or enemies?” meaning, me.
Nobody really … I’m not sure I would put it at that level. What I’m asking is has the conversation, between pro and con on ssm, ceased. Is the anti-ssm position so wrong that it is considered ‘uncivil’?
When I’m discussing this issue, I’m not trying to convert someone, necessarily. I’m trying to meet people in a public square, albeit virtual, to learn, to understand and meet others where they’re at … and, hope that others hear me and think about what’s being said.
I struggle with this.
I do think that defining a statement of position as uncivil obviously has a bad effect on ongoing conversation, and I want to avoid that. It’s just that I have a lot of trouble, conceptually, with the idea that nasty names are out of bounds, but nasty ideas which have an actual, measurable, and discriminatory impact are fine.
It’s like saying that using the N-word is out of bounds, but advocating for a return to state-enforced segregation is just fine. Like … one of these is worse than the other.
Maybe there’s not really a solution, and that’s fine. I understand that we have to be able to discuss these issues, and I don’t want to rule them out of bounds, but I’ll admit that the difference in life impact between, “people think I’m a bigot for opposing SSM,” and, “thanks to your political advocacy, I am prohibited from marrying my partner of many decades,” does not make me take complaints about the word bigot very seriously.
—Myca
Teresa, thanks for your comment, and thanks as well for your very gracious opening paragraph. I appreciate it.
I am up for another post on FSB about this (and this post was itself a sequel to an earlier post), but I planned to wait a while (perhaps a month), because I don’t want to seem to be over-doing this one topic. :-p Is that acceptable to you? If you feel that it’s essential that a sequel post happen soon, I could do that.
Not by me.
At this point, I think SSM – at least as a mainstream, well-known idea – is incredibly new. Furthermore, it’s something that Americans are obviously still split about.
I mean, obviously speaking out against SSM is uncivil in some contexts (like at a gay wedding). But in the context of a forum intended to foster debate, I don’t think it’s uncivil.
However, I think it’s plausible that it will become uncivil. I think in 20 or 30 years time, there will be a widespread cultural consensus that opposing legal recognition of SSM is something beyond the pale, like opposing legal recognition of interracial marriage. In that future context, it might be the case that being anti-SSM will be taken as uncivil, even in the context of a debate blog like FSB.
I don’t think “fine” and “civil” are the same thing.
I don’t think banning SSM is “fine,” and I’ll happily explain why to any opponent of SSM who is willing to talk civilly with me about it.
But something can be simultaneously wrong and civil, in my view. Civility is a bunch of rules for how people who disagree can nonetheless have a respectful conversation.
Look, if you and I have a debate over what 20 times 20 is – you say it’s 400, I say it’s doghouse – you are right and I am wrong. It’s enough to say I am wrong. It’s a category error to say that because I am wrong, I am uncivil.
There is an exception, and that’s ideas that have been so widely debated and discredited that there is a social consensus that to advocate for them at all is offensive. For instance, slavery. You can’t advocate for a return of pre-civil-war slavery in a civil discussion, because the issue has been thoroughly debated and decided already.
But looking at the polls, it’s impossible to claim that there is a consensus for SSM in our society. The issue is still being debated.
Civility is like Due Process: It has both a procedural and a substantive side. For pretty much all people, civility refers to the manner in which people express themselves. But in addition, some people regard certain substantive ideas as so distasteful as to render the advocacy of those ideas uncivil per se, regardless of how artfully expressed. Thus, I suspect some people will regard any expression of opposition to same-sex marriage as uncivil, and some people will regard any support as uncivil, regardless of the form of expression.
Fair enough.
As a point of curiosity, are you open to hearing and thinking about what others say? Specifically, are you open to changing your mind on this issue? As Alasdair MacIntyre remarked, “It is only insofar as someone satisfies the conditions for rendering him or herself vulnerable to dialectical refutation that that person can come to know whether and what he or she knows….”
I don’t know if I’m helping or hurting, but I’d like to introduce the notion that the incivility of opposition to same-sex marriage arises from wanting the government to validate one’s position, no matter the harm to gay people. It’s that part of the equation that I find offensive and uncivil. The civil position is to be categorically opposed to same-sex marriage, yet insist it be legal (or at least be neutral on legality) as a recognition of the impact on others. But to insist that one is not only right in one’s opinion, but to insist that the government take your side, to the detriment of others, is offensive and uncivil. We should not be using the government as a bully, and expect it to make “statement” laws that harm people.
Sure, fair enough.
But what about when I say it’s 400, and you say it’s, “you and people like you should be taken out back and horsewhipped.” I’d say that that’s both wrong and uncivil.
I think that opposing SSM is more like that than it’s like ‘doghouse.’
I do take your point about this not being a settled matter yet, and that in time it may come to be viewed as uncivil, and I don’t think you’re wrong, exactly.
—Myca
Ampersand, I will patiently await when you decide to Post again on this topic at FS.
Nobody really said: “As a point of curiosity, are you open to hearing and thinking about what others say? Specifically, are you open to changing your mind on this issue?”
Yes, I am open to hearing and thinking about what others say. Specifically … I have yet to hear something that has changed my mind. But, I’m willing to listen and reflect.
Teresa, as a hypothetical, what would change your mind about legalizing marriage rights for same-sex couples, if the following haven’t done so?
1. Constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process
2. Reducing the marginalization of gay and lesbian people that has lead to discrimination and even violence against them
3. Providing a more stable family environment for children being raised by same-sex couples
4. Greater wealth and better health for gay people (unintended consequences of marriage, according to research)
Oh, Teresa, I also meant to ask, is your objection to same-sex marriage based on an evaluation of the pros and cons, and the cons outweigh the pros? Or is it based on a principle or reason against SSM that no amount of counter argument can offset? I’ve wondered this about opponents of marriage equality for some time now. Maybe you have an insight into how the thinking goes.
I hope you’ll agree it’s an interesting distinction. When I hear officials of the Catholic church pronounce that the church will never change its stance on same-sex marriage, I wonder what their reaction is when presented with research showing that married couples are wealthier, live longer and are generally happier than unmarried couples. It would appear that they are willing to let gay people live shorter, less healthy, less happy lives. Is that a “pro-life” stance? I don’t think so. But if one has a dogmatic position, then that’s where you end up.
The question of whether opposition to same sex marriage is “existentially bigoted” feels like a self-indulgent red herring. If you even suspect that it might be, probably you should be seriously examining whether it is a good position to hold, not repeating how unconvinced you have thus far been with arguments for same sex marriage.
The fact that this question even arises seems to me to point pretty clearly to the answer: if you care more about whether your position is perceived to be bigoted than whether your position actually harms marginalized people, then yes, in your case, that’s bigotry.
I am always suspicion of arguments about policy positions that redirect our attention to what is or is not in the hearts of the people who hold them, rather than directing our attention to the effects of said policy positions on the actual lives of marginalized people.
Teresa,
I’d be very interested in your response to Kevin.
FYI – I continued the conversation here. Unfortunately, the comments at Family Scholars Blog quickly reached the 50-comment limit.
Thanks, Fannie! I did see your post (which I thought was really good), but not until after the fifty comment limit had passed.
Pingback: Refusing to have the “What You Did” conversation. | Alas, a Blog