Well, if you believe that marriage is a legal contract, then it’s tough to be against the State getting involved since legal contracts are typically enforced by the State,
It depends on why you want to abolish marriage. There are some people who only want to abolish marriage to spite gay people, but still claim to be acting on some libertarian principle of removing state “involvement” in marriage. The legislator who recently proposed abolishing marriage in Oklahoma, for example, was clearly moved by bigotry.
Yes, it’s bigoted; religious beliefs make a bigoted belief no less bigoted.
And if the Christian god opposes SSM, that just makes him a bigot too. “God says so” isn’t a valid moral argument.
Religion and hatred are hardly mutually exclusive.
No, it all is. Which is why anti-SSM people have totally failed to come up with an argument that doesn’t boil down to either hatred, or something silly and obviously desperate (your changing the definition of marriage!). They’ve repeatedly been given the chance to come up with a reason to oppose SSM that passes the laugh test, and failed utterly.
But 85% of people didn’t say something is bigoted. 85% of the people who selected themselves to respond, drawn from a pool of Straight Dope members, who read the IMHO forum, and who happened to read this thread, responded to a survey said something is bigoted. That was what is called an “unscientific survey.” Means nothing about the general population.
Even if it were a scientific survey, the majority is not always morally right.
The state is inevitably involved in marriage. Tax laws, as one example. That was the source of the DOMA suit in fact. Who can make medical decisions or even visit in an ICU. And hundreds of other places that treat marrieds different from singles. That’s what was wrong with domestic partnerships. They left all those issues unaddressed. Had they passed a law saying that every statue that referred to marriage must be interpreted to include domestic partnerships that would help–but for that state or jurisdiction only.
Tell me enough about yourself and I can likely find groups who have a sincere religious belief which instructs them to kill you. Does it really matter if their desire to see you dead is not based on ‘animus’ as you define it? Even if we take you at your word that ‘animus’ can never arise from a sincere religious belief, does it really matter?
You seem to be under the impression that a person’s views cannot be bigoted if they’re rooted in religious beliefs. In fact the word “bigot” has been used for centuries to refer to people who are excessive in their religious beliefs or practices.
According to the OED the term originally (earliest cite from 1598) referred to religious hypocrites who pretended to be more pious than they really were, but it wasn’t long before “bigot” was being used to mean “A person considered to adhere unreasonably or obstinately to a particular religious belief, practice, etc.” (OED definition 2a, earliest cite 1661, most recent cite 2007). A bigot is not necessarily someone whose views are rooted in religion (OED definition 2b: “In extended use: a fanatical adherent or believer; a person characterized by obstinate, intolerant, or strongly partisan beliefs”), but you have badly misunderstood the meaning of the word if you think religious belief is some sort of “Get Out of Jail Free” card when it comes to accusations of bigotry.
I don’t think anyone opposes same sex marriage for any reason other than disliking homosexuals. Religion and tradition are just a coverup for their bigotry. This wouldn’t be the first time religion and tradition were used to justify bigoted ideas.
In the law too. “Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional.”. This is why the issue of gay marriage will probably never appear before the Supreme Court. There again …
I’ve talked to a few anti-SSM people and read Peter Spring’s book Outrage on the subject. It boils down to:
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. WRONG: In the USA, marriage was between a man and a woman of the same “color” until 1960. So our definition of marriage has changed.
Marriahe is for the creation of children. So why are infertile and post-menopausal woman allowed to get married.
Marriage is to insure fidelity, and gay people can’t be faithful.
Marriage is about love. Gay relationships are not about love, but about lust.
The last guy also told me “gay parenting is child abuse.”
Agreed. Back when slavery was popular and widely considered acceptable (if even only tacitly), people were still doing a morally wrong thing in enslaving others - they just didn’t think they were.
So this thread might be some kind of measure of what people think, but it’s not a measure of what bigotry actually is or is not.
I suppose someone could be against gay marriage along with being against hetero marriage as a consequence of being opposed to the institution of marriage. Even that is not a sufficiently good reason to oppose laws extending the right to marry to gay folks, though.
That’s rather like saying one must be in favor of legalizing all drugs if he or she believes marijuana should be legalized. Nuance is fair domain when it comes to personal opinions.
If you do believe pot should be legal though, it is kinda important to understand the reasons why and if those reasons apply to drugs other than pot. Otherwise it just sounds like, “I’m comfortable with pot, therefore it should be legal”, and the same argument applies to gay marriage vs. expanding the definition of marriage even more to include even more novel arrangements.
The arguments for gay marriage do in fact apply to multiple marriages. So to favor one while opposing the other just comes down to “I’m comfortable with gay marriage now, but I still think multiple marriage is icky.”
No. Gay marriage changes nothing about how marriage works, except for a rather inconsequential detail about plumbing. Multiple marriage would require crafting a whole different set of laws.
I’m not disputing that the requirements would be different, only that the arguments in support of gay marriage apply to virtually any union between consenting adults.
If we describe marriage as the right of all consenting adults who are in love, then we can work out the legal details. Legal complications have never stood in the way of enforcing basic human rights before, they won’t now.
I don’t think we want to put “love” in the requirements.
But it is the basis of the argument in support of gay marriage: that adults who love each other have an inalienable right to form legal unions, even if they don’t conform to the traditional mold.
That one is very common among the far right set. They reduce our relationships down to nothing but sex.
Yea, I’ve heard that one a lot too. Usually it’s one of two specific arguments - 1. Children have the absolute right to be raised by their mother and father. (Never mind how many types of families already don’t fit that model!) and 2. That’s how they recruit! Since of course kids raised by gay parents will always turn out gay just like how kids of straight parents always turn out to be straight.
I don’t think that’s true. We all know that public opinion in the US of late has been steadily swinging towards support for legal SSM. Some of that is old bigots dying off. But a fair bit of it is people changing their minds.
So as of right now in the USA there are, say, 10,000 people who currently oppose SSM who, a week or a month from now, will support SSM. (Number pulled out of my ass).
Do those 10,000 people currently hate gays, but will stop hating gays in the next week? That seems pretty unlikely. (Although some of the 50 million people who oppose SSM and will still oppose it in a week and in a month and in a year certainly do.) Instead, I think those 10,000 people are vaguely squicked out by gays, and oppose SSM, well, just because. They oppose it out of some combination of subbornness and it’s-always-been-that-way and ignorance and never-really-thought-about-it, etc. Those are the changeable people, the ones who, if they were to discover that their son or daughter was gay would be initially a bit put out, but then would potentially come around and think about things in a new light, etc.
If there weren’t a large population of such people somewhat ready to have their minds changed, then we wouldn’t have seen the popular shift in support that we have seen recently. And I think claiming that people with that mindset “hate” gays devalues the word “hate”.