# How to decide which instances of opposition to gay marriage are hateful and bigoted. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 6, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653 "2012-08-06T20:14:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 36
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/701 "2012-09-07T18:21:11Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Someone can believe that marriage is about providing the best environment for children though. Or that it should be. > > Again, I don’t agree. But it’s not relevant unless that makes the argument bigoted. Is believing that marriage is about children bigotry? Please provide a cite that children do better in hetro marriages. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/702 "2012-09-07T18:24:35Z")
"In 2003, a U.S. Census study found that a record 19% of U.S. women age 40–44 did not have children (compared with 10% in 1976). " - from [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childfree), for what it’s worth. So assuming (generously) that lesbians are disproportionately (even uniformly) childless and they make up, say, 10% of the overall female population, their numbers are still equaled by straight women who are childless. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/703 "2012-09-07T18:30:12Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Please provide a cite that children do better in hetro marriages. They don’t. Please don’t swoop into debates. I said clearly that I disagree with this argument. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/704 "2012-09-07T18:31:12Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > "In 2003, a U.S. Census study found that a record 19% of U.S. women age 40–44 did not have children (compared with 10% in 1976). " > > - from [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childfree), for what it’s worth. > > So assuming (generously) that lesbians are disproportionately (even uniformly) childless and they make up, say, 10% of the overall female population, their numbers are still equaled by straight women who are childless. Interesting. I wonder how many of those childless women are married? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/705 "2012-09-07T18:31:23Z")
Well, feel free to tell anyone you know who _agrees_ with that argument that we called them bigots. And they smell bad. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/706 "2012-09-07T18:34:27Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Since that’s just an invitation to a dead end, no. I’m actually attempting to _avoid_ a dead end by encouraging you to offer some kind of argument. > [@](#): > > Someone can believe that marriage is about providing the best environment for children though. Or that it should be. Yes, they can believe that. That’s a different statement from the one you asked me about. > [@](#): > > Is believing that marriage is about children bigotry? You’re not defining the belief specifically enough for me to give you a real answer. > [@](#): > > Oh come on. Clearly a “with children or fertile couples only” policy would mostly exclude gays. I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. But there are more childless or infertile straight couples than gay couples because gays are a pretty small percentage of the population. (Thank you, **Bryan Ekers**.) If you try to restrict marriage only to straight couples using the reasoning that any couple that could theoretically have children “on their own” should be allowed to get married, that’s deliberately defining marriage in a way that excludes gays and only gays, so that’s bigoted. If you’re saying only people who are fertile and intend to have children should get married, that’s stupid and pointless discrimination, but it’s not only discrimination against gays. It’s discriminatino against anyone who doesn’t want children or is unable to have children in a specific way. It’s anti-gay, but not only anti-gay. So I’m not sure the disproportionate impact concept applies there and my inclination would be to call it stupid rather than saying it’s bigoted against gays. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/707 "2012-09-07T18:41:51Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m actually attempting to _avoid_ a dead end by encouraging you to offer some kind of argument. Which I’ve done too, like you just said you’ve already done. > [@](#): > > If you’re saying only people who are fertile and intend to have children should get married, that’s stupid and pointless discrimination, but it’s not only discrimination against gays. It’s discriminatino against anyone who doesn’t want children or is unable to have children in a specific way. It’s anti-gay, but not only anti-gay. So I’m not sure the disproportionate impact concept applies there and my inclination would be to call it stupid rather than saying it’s bigoted against gays. We have lots of policies that favor only those with children. Start with the tax code. It’s a perfectly legitimate state interest. Nobody calls it bigoted. I don’t support it. I think it’s dumb too. It’s just not “bigoted.” Let’s end this. Have a nice weekend. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/708 "2012-09-07T18:43:18Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > They don’t. > > Please don’t swoop into debates. I said clearly that I disagree with this argument. So you are conceding that the claim that it is “better for children” is based on an intolerance for another lifestyle and not based on fact? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/709 "2012-09-07T18:47:13Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > So you are conceding that the claim that it is “better for children” is based on an intolerance for another lifestyle and not based on fact? No, I’m saying that it’s not true. I did not say why it’s not true. Do you really want to start this thread all over again? I’m done here. Have a nice weekend. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/710 "2012-09-07T18:49:36Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > We have lots of policies that favor only those with children. Start with the tax code. It’s a perfectly legitimate state interest. Nobody calls it bigoted. I agree it’s about time to quit this. If you shift the goalposts any further or faster, I will need global positioning satellites to keep track of them. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/711 "2012-09-08T22:44:35Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Wow, you completely got that burden of proof thingie wrong. When the question is about the existence of some thing, the default position is nonexistence and the burden of proof is on those who assert its existence. In this case the thing in question is a non-bigoted argument against SSM. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > It’s not reasonable to assume anything. That’s pre-judging an argument. You know, prejudice. It’s not pre-judging. It’s judging based on past experience and evidence. I’ve never said I’m not willing to change my mind if they come up with the elusive non-bigoted argument. (Actually, it’s extremely annoying to be told that I’m somehow obliged to listen to every person who has some bullshit explanation for why I’m an evil subhuman whose relationship is destroying society, in the vain hope that one of them has come across the mythical rational argument.) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/712 "2012-09-09T02:09:18Z")
Once again, I will point out that such an argument has been presented, by me, in this very thread. ::shrug:: ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/713 "2012-09-09T02:19:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Once again, I will point out that such an argument has been presented, by me, in this very thread. . . . Could you give the post number, so I can go back and look? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/714 "2012-09-09T04:20:17Z")
Actually, just contemplation the ratios, if homosexuals really are 7-8% of the population, you’d have to get fairly specific to find something they do that is not being done by an equal or larger number of straight people. Heck, even if the question was “Have you had at least one homosexual experience in your lifetime?”, I bet the total number of people who identify as straight _and_ say “yes” is larger than the entire homosexual population, especially after you drop teenagers who realize they are gay but have not yet had a sexual encounter. Further, it’s hard to find a classification for men that doesn’t exclude some men and include some women (and one for women without the same problem). You’d have to get down to very blunt terms, like “no marriages involving two penises” and “no marriages involving two vaginas”, which kinda runs counter to the notion that we should treat people as more than just life-support systems for their genitalia. Just musing. I don’t get why anyone care who kinds of genital collisions occur in the marital bed. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/715 "2012-09-09T04:36:00Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Could you give the post number, so I can go back and look? Perhaps he means this one, from post 151: > [@panache45](#): > > Red heads are different than blondes . . . but have exactly the same rights. > Short people are different than tall people . . . but have exactly the same rights. > Asians are different than black people . . . but have exactly the same rights. > Gay people are different than straight people . . . . > [@magellan01](#): > > …but have exactly the same rights. > > Gay _couples_ may not, but gay _people_ have the same rights guaranteed in the Constitution. This is not a non-bigoted argument against gay marriage. It’s not really an argument at all. It’s handwaving. He claims marriage isn’t a right, and I think practically nobody agrees with that. Further, quibbling about whether marriage is or is not a right fails to address the question of why society should recognize marriages of straight couples and not gay couples. That’s where bigotry becomes an issue in the first place: these groups are being treated differently on the basis of their identities. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/716 "2012-09-09T04:40:33Z")
Darn, the last sentence of my previous post should read: Just musing. I don’t get why anyone cares what kinds of genital collisions occur in the marital bed. It’s late, I’m sleepy. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/717 "2012-09-09T05:37:31Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Perhaps he means this one, from post 151: Actually, this post: > [@](#): > > I’ve seen this sentiment expressed in quite a few of the SSM threads. It’s always phrased as if it’s the most ridiculous position in the world to want to preserve the meaning of a word. Of course, it’s not just a word. The word expresses an idea. One, in this case, that some people, myself included, is worth protecting. To pooh=pooh this as just protecting a word misses the point. Words matter, to the extent that they communicate concepts. Are there any words you might think worthy of preserving? How about if we didn’t have a word for love, or hate, or rape, or gluttony, kindness, snow, chair, skateboard, avocado…? Words help us communicate certain concepts. One concept that has been fundamental to our society id the notion that a man and woman come together and form a union, and that that union is the ideal place in which to raise children. The word for that has been “marriage”. It works. It’s useful. And until recently, it was crystal clear what the word meant. Now, people want to change the definition to include concepts that the original concept disallows as a possibility. Those of us who think that a concept that has been so intrinsic, so fundamental, to our society deserves to have a word to describe it, find the expansion of the meaning of the word as unhelpful, nonsensical, even dangerous. > > This, to any fair opponent of the position, does NOT equate to hate or even to wanting to deny SS couples of those same legal protections and benefits that OS couples enjoy. Speaking for myself, I actively desire that SS couples enjoy all those benefits and privileges. (I think that everyone should be spending all their energies seeking full and equal benefits via civil unions.) At the same time, I firmly believe that it benefits our society to not muddle the definition of “marriage”. That it serves a valuable function, particularly for laying the world out for children. I think it behooves us to communicate to future generations that there is a, if you will, a default course for their lives. There is a period in child development that involves sexual development. If I recall correctly from one of my college Psych course, something like 7 out of 10 children engage in sexual playing with those of the same sex. This doesn’t necessarily mean orgasm-oriented sexual play, some kids would be too young for that even. It’s a fairly normal thing. But it helps kids to look at the world and see their are guardrails of sorts. Taking that away does not serve them well. > > So, yes, if you would like look at my position askew and phrase it it in as demeaning way as you can, i.e., “That’s what you want to cling to, a word?”, then yes. Of course, that doesn’t capture the position fully—kinda like referring to Superman as some guy in blue tights—but I understand that you want to present the position in as disparagingly a light as possible. It’s not helpful, but I doubt anyone really cares about that. Not a bigoted point in it. take, traditional marriage is the ideal situation in which to raise a child, laying out clear norms to guide sexual development, pick whatever you’d like. None of them bigoted. So, perhaps, we can finally move away from the flagrantly incorrect claims that 1) there are no-non bigoted reasons to be opposed to SSM and 2) that none have been presented in tho thread. At least we cleared that up! ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/718 "2012-09-09T06:06:51Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Actually, this post: > > Not a bigoted point in it. take, traditional marriage is the ideal situation in which to raise a child, laying out clear norms to guide sexual development, pick whatever you’d like. None of them bigoted. > > So, perhaps, we can finally move away from the flagrantly incorrect claims that 1) there are no-non bigoted reasons to be opposed to SSM and 2) that none have been presented in tho thread. > > At least we cleared that up! This argument breaks down when you are asked to provide evidence that secular marrige was instituted to assist with the raising of children. It totally falls apart when you fail to provide evidence that hetero parents can raise children better. This leaves us with the argument that children should not be exposed to homosexual parents which without the first two is “protection” of a word because of intolerance, or as some call it bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/719 "2012-09-09T06:08:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > take, traditional marriage is the ideal situation in which to raise a child, laying out clear norms to guide sexual development, pick whatever you’d like. None of them bigoted. Yes, bigoted. Traditional marriage was a pretty much a master/slave arrangement where a man owned a woman in all but name, and where interracial marriages were banned. But let me guess - you are using a custom definition of “traditional” where the only traditions that are so vital to protect _just happen_ to be the ones that persecute homosexuals. Claiming that same sex couples raise children worse is false, and claiming they do despite the facts _is_ bigoted. Claiming that children need so-called “clear norms to guide sexual development” to avoid them turning out _(shudders)_ homosexual is again false, and bigoted. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/720 "2012-09-09T06:20:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > . . . Not a bigoted point in it. take, traditional marriage is the ideal situation in which to raise a child, laying out clear norms to guide sexual development, pick whatever you’d like. None of them bigoted. Thanks! I heartily disagree with the reasoning, but I did ask to see it. In my opinion, it comes uncomfortably close to bigotry, by claiming that a gay couple cannot raise a child as well as a straight couple. But, even if I were to grant that it is entirely free of bigotry, I think the facts have, by this time, wholly belied the idea. There have been enough children raised by enough couples for statistical significance, and, as I understand it, no studies have shown any deficiencies in the sexual development of children raised by gay couples, as contrasted with children raised by straight couples. (We also have a much longer history of children raised by single parents, and they seem to turn out about the same as other kids, too.) As I understand it, a loving family is the ideal situation for child-raising, and that the sexual make-up of the marriage has been shown to be irrelevant. You didn’t state it explicitly, but you did use the word “tradition,” and that, too, is not intrinsically bigoted. But this isn’t a complete defense, as, if there are no other arguments that are not bigoted, then simply defending the status quo on the basis of tradition is adhering to a bigoted situation. A defense of a ban on interracial marriages, solely on the basis of tradition, is in aid of racism, even if it is not, itself, intrinsically racist. FWIW, I’ll back off to say that I have not heard any good reasons to ban SSM, and that most of the reasons presented by opponents have been bigoted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653.md?page=37)