# Maybe Chik-Fil-A and Dan Cathy aren't bigots? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 5, 2013, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361 "2013-02-05T04:12:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/221 "2013-02-07T22:00:30Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > . . . There are no good arguments for the anti-SSM side. When “It’s traditional” is the best they can do – and, okay, tradition is of non-zero weight in a discussion of social ethics – you know they’re flat bankrupt for an argument. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/222 "2013-02-07T22:11:22Z")
I think the “definition of marriage” argument is incoherent, but I also think that a stronger argument can be made based on the concerns that drive the definitional argument. (Note by calling the argument “stronger” I don’t mean to endorse its conclusion.) I think what’s going on is that some people see the institution of marriage as a tool that solves particular problems–and that they think same sex unions don’t solve those problems. Hence to assimilate same sex union to the institution of marriage is an unfortunate attempt to use the wrong tool for the wrong job. To people seeing it like this, _we_ look like we’re saying people should start using saws to drive nails into boards instead of hammers–and we’re insisting on calling saws “hammers.” They might, in a pinch, reply by saying that saws don’t fit the “definition” of hammers, and we’d be right in that case to point out that definitions change and do not constrain anything. But in the hammer/saw scenario, the concern is valid that we’re using the wrong tool for the job. Even if arguing in terms of definitions is a non-starter, nevertheless, the concern that drives that argument isn’t complete nonsense. But of course this invites some questions. What’s the job different-sex-marriage does that same-sex-union doesn’t do? And more importantly, what’s the evidence that calling same-sex-union “marriage” will result in that job not getting done? If there’s no evidence for this, then there should not be a problem with calling same sex unions “marriages.” ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/223 "2013-02-07T22:22:06Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Wow, now there’s a circular argument. > > So it’s not “anybody can marry anybody” or “marriage equality” after all - it’s “marriage is defined as between one man and one woman (or one man and one man or one woman and one woman).” Indeed. For so long as a person in the U.S. has the legal privilege of a two-person marriage, all people must have that privilege. That is what equal justice under the law is. Right now, heterosexuals have that privilege, but homosexuals do not, which is a Constitutional violation. No one has the right to a polygamous marriage, so there is no equality issue. > [@](#): > > Of course it’s historical. The vast majority of humans throughout history have been involved in forced and/or polygamous marriage. Two-person romantic love is not the historical norm. I’ll keep saying this until you stop ignoring it. > [@](#): > > Stop speaking for other people and telling them how they think. I’m the only one being honest about what the Christians think, I’m providing a service. > [@](#): > > But I’ll ask you why YOU oppose polygamy. You’re asking two questions: “why is there no right to polygamous marriage under the U.S. Constitution” and “why should there not be a statute authorizing polygamy even if it is not Constitutionally required.” The answer to question 1 is that there is no equality issue when polygamy is prohibited to all, just like there would be no gay equality issue if monogamous marriage were (for some reason) prohibited to all. But given that the government has chosen to be in the monogamous marriage business, it cannot discriminate. The answer to question 2 neither depends on nor causes the answer to question 1, but in my opinion the reason there should not be a polygamous marriage statute is because most “polygamous” relationships are in fact abusive relationships. The chief practitioners of “polygamy” in the U.S. today are fringe religious cults where underage girls are married to a man who is often their blood relative. That’s not something to encourage as it is harmful to the girls involved. Looking at the minority of “polygamous” situations that are not crimes: If three consenting adults in a “polyamorous” relationship (:rolleyes:) want to create a marriage-like status, they should be free to do so by civil contract, but there is no reason to make an automatic statute for it, and in fact a lot of reasons not to. For example, all of the tax, inheritance, medical decision-making, and so on that is incumbent on heterosexual marriage can be mapped onto homosexual marriage with no effort whatseover; it’s very obvious how it would work. For groups of 3 or more, the entire legal structure needs to be rewritten, and it’s fair enough to put the burden on the people who want to do it to spell out how they wish to arrange matters in their own contracts rather than erecting statutes for an infinite possible number of combinations. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/224 "2013-02-07T23:05:31Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > I’m the only one being honest about what the Christians think, I’m providing a service. You’re killing me with this, this is NOT a Christian/non-Christian issue. [53% of Americans are in favor of same-sex marriage](http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx), and [73% of Americans](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Statistics) are Christian. Per the [Public Religion Research Institute](http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/08/generations-at-odds/): > [@](#): > > Majorities of non-Christian religiously affiliated Americans (67%), Catholics (52%), and white mainline Protestants (51%) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. More than anything else, this is a generational issue. Same source: > [@](#): > > ``` > More than 6-in-10 (62%) Millennials favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, 69% favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children, 71% favor civil unions, and 79% favor employment discrimination protections for gay and lesbian people. > > Among seniors, only about 1-in-3 favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry (31%) or favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children (36%). A majority of seniors favor civil unions (51%) and employment discrimination protections for gay and lesbian people (58%), but support lags significantly behind Millennials and the general population. > > ``` Your opponents may be Christians, but that doesn’t make Christians your opponents. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/225 "2013-02-07T23:09:05Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Is it poisoning the well to warn someone about debating a poster who’s proven his unwillingness to consider any aspect of this subject from the viewpoint of the marriage equality supporters? I don’t believe I’ve seen you, **Human Action** , debate **magellan** about this before. I can tell you from experience that going out into the hallway and debating the cinder blocks in the walls would probably produce more movement of their mental viewpoint than debating **magellan** will move his. There is no explicit rule against pointing out to Poster A that Poster B holds a particular position or holds it strongly. However, this constitutes nothing more than a personal attack. Do not do this again. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Weeping\_Wyvern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@Weeping\_Wyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weeping_Wyvern)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/226 "2013-02-07T23:38:01Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > If the law recognized only spousecontracts, or only civil unions, and it was the same for everyone, then the people on our side would not have a problem with it. > > Several years ago, this was my preferred solution - that the government should get out of the business of calling _anything_ a marriage, since what we think of as the legal rights are really a contract of how two people are in a relationship with each other. > > What changed my mind about this is realizing that legal marriage is more than just the relationship of two people to each other, it’s also how society interacts with that couple. And those interactions have deep tentacles - laws that deal with how a married couple are to be treated are everywhere. These laws refer to marriage and married people. But people with deep moral opposition to homosexuality are not going to treat same-sex couples the same as opposite sex couples simply because the law books use the eight-letter combination “m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e” to describe same-sex union unions. Their social interactions with homosexuals will not be altered one bit. A “spousecontracted” same-sex couple gains absolutely nothing by receiving the title of “marriage”, either legally or socially, unless you count the ego boost. > [@CurtC](#): > > I also realized (duh!) that marriage is not a religious institution, it’s a human institution which the various religions tried to rein in for their own purposes. I agree, to an extent. As a Christian I believe it was originally created by God, of course, but it’s still a lot older than any organized religion, and I think Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists all have equal rights to its riches, if they can find a willing partner of the opposite sex. > [@CurtC](#): > > I have yet to hear of an argument against same-sex-marriage that couldn’t be used against interracial marriage (and the same arguments were used!). I’ve yet to hear of a white Southern segregationist who claimed that the definition of marriage was “A man and a woman of the same race”. There were certainly opposed to interracial marriage, but they acknowledged its existence. > [@CurtC](#): > > 20 or 30 years from now, you won’t even be able to find anyone who will admit to ever opposing SSM, just like now you can’t find anyone who admits to being opposed to interracial marriage. Even today there’s plenty of people who are opposed to interracial marriage… I think you’re going a bit too fast. ---
**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:** [February 7, 2013, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/227 "2013-02-07T23:43:07Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Ok, what is the other side, then? What’s the rational argument for prohibiting same-sex marriage? I don’t think I can speak for the other side either. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/228 "2013-02-07T23:47:40Z")
> [@Weeping\_Wyvern](#): > > I agree, to an extent. As a Christian I believe it was originally created by God, of course, but it’s still a lot older than any organized religion, and I think Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists all have equal rights to its riches, if they can find a willing partner of the opposite sex. And many Christians, including my friend the [Reverend Jasmine Beach-Ferrara](http://www.southernequality.org/about/about-us/), think that everyone has equal rights to its riches, if they can find a willing adult partner. Why do you limit it to the opposite sex? What non-bigoted reason do you offer for this limitation? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/229 "2013-02-07T23:50:23Z")
> [@Weeping Wyvern](#): > > But people with deep moral opposition to homosexuality are not going to treat same-sex couples the same as opposite sex couples simply because the law books use the eight-letter combination “m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e” to describe same-sex union unions. Their social interactions with homosexuals will not be altered one bit. A “spousecontracted” same-sex couple gains absolutely nothing by receiving the title of “marriage”, either legally or socially, unless you count the ego boost. I have to ask…“So?” I don’t particularly care if the morally snooty want to call my husband my husband. All I care about is that the government do so, and treat us as a married couple. I’m unlikely to willingly socialize with people who hate me for whom I love anyway. Every marriage equality opponent in the country can childishly refuse to acknowledge our marriage, and I won’t shed a tear. I’ll definitely look on THEM with contempt for being such children, but their approval doesn’t mean as much to me as people like **magellan** think it does. ---
**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:** [February 7, 2013, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/230 "2013-02-07T23:53:10Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Indeed. For so long as a person in the U.S. has the legal privilege of a two-person marriage, all people must have that privilege. But all people already have that privilege. Anyone can get married in America to one other person. > [@](#): > > That is what equal justice under the law is. Right now, heterosexuals have that privilege, but homosexuals do not, which is a Constitutional violation. You’re being legalistic. You may win this in court soon, but we’re not a courtroom. > [@](#): > > No one has the right to a polygamous marriage, so there is no equality issue. So marriage isn’t a right, huh? > [@](#): > > The vast majority of humans throughout history have been involved in forced and/or polygamous marriage. Two-person romantic love is not the historical norm. I’ll keep saying this until you stop ignoring it. How does that help your argument? > [@](#): > > I’m the only one being honest about what the Christians think, I’m providing a service. Sorry, no, you can’t do that. Any more than I can sit here and post what I say you think. You can generalize, perhaps, but you can’t represent yourself as the best possible argument Christians could make. > [@](#): > > You’re asking two questions: “why is there no right to polygamous marriage under the U.S. Constitution” and “why should there not be a statute authorizing polygamy even if it is not Constitutionally required.” The answer to question 1 is that there is no equality issue when polygamy is prohibited to all, just like there would be no gay equality issue if monogamous marriage were (for some reason) prohibited to all. But given that the government has chosen to be in the monogamous marriage business, it cannot discriminate. The government has chosen to be in the heterosexual marriage business. As the righties like to say, anyone can get married. > [@](#): > > The answer to question 2 neither depends on nor causes the answer to question 1, but in my opinion the reason there should not be a polygamous marriage statute is because most “polygamous” relationships are in fact abusive relationships. What a ridiculous copout. [QUOTE] The chief practitioners of “polygamy” in the U.S. today are fringe religious cults where underage girls are married to a man who is often their blood relative. Um, maybe if they could be legal they wouldn’t be just the fringe cults. > [@](#): > > That’s not something to encourage as it is harmful to the girls involved. You sound just like the gay-haters who say gays are all violent child-abusers. > [@](#): > > Looking at the minority of “polygamous” situations that are not crimes: If three consenting adults in a “polyamorous” relationship (:rolleyes:) I like how you roll your eyes as someone else’s sexual lifestyle choice while you argue for gay marriage. Well done. > [@](#): > > want to create a marriage-like status, they should be free to do so by civil contract, but there is no reason to make an automatic statute for it, and in fact a lot of reasons not to. For example, all of the tax, inheritance, medical decision-making, and so on that is incumbent on heterosexual marriage can be mapped onto homosexual marriage with no effort whatseover; it’s very obvious how it would work. For groups of 3 or more, the entire legal structure needs to be rewritten, and it’s fair enough to put the burden on the people who want to do it to spell out how they wish to arrange matters in their own contracts rather than erecting statutes for an infinite possible number of combinations. Oh well. Get to work rewriting. In the meantime, homosexual marriage doesn’t exactly map to our social norms, yet we’re willing to try, so saying “it would be hard to rewrite some laws” is another copout. If that were try for gay marriage too, I doubt you’d feel the same way. ---
**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:** [February 7, 2013, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/231 "2013-02-07T23:54:13Z")
> [@Weeping\_Wyvern](#): > > But people with deep moral opposition to homosexuality are not going to treat same-sex couples the same as opposite sex couples simply because the law books use the eight-letter combination “m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e” to describe same-sex union unions. Their social interactions with homosexuals will not be altered one bit. A “spousecontracted” same-sex couple gains absolutely nothing by receiving the title of “marriage”, either legally or socially, unless you count the ego boost. Nonsense. The word “marriage” has legal significance; as has been repeatedly pointed out it’s deeply integrated into the law. And the bigots will treat same sex couples better under the threat of lawsuits. > [@Weeping\_Wyvern](#): > > I agree, to an extent. As a Christian I believe it was originally created by God, of course, but it’s still a lot older than any organized religion, and I think Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists all have equal rights to its riches, if they can find a willing partner of the opposite sex. Yeah, yeah, your god hates homosexuals so we should all punish them forever for their “sinful” ways. Standard Christian hate. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I don’t think I can speak for the other side either. You are doing just that when you try to claim they are more reasonable than they are. You’re trying to have it both ways; to claim that the anti-SSM side has other reasons than bigotry & irrationality, and then claim you have no obligation to explain what those (imaginary) reasons are. ---
**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:** [February 8, 2013, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/232 "2013-02-08T00:10:01Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > You are doing just that when you try to claim they are more reasonable than they are. You’re trying to have it both ways; to claim that the anti-SSM side has other reasons than bigotry & irrationality, and then claim you have no obligation to explain what those (imaginary) reasons are. False. I’m saying we can’t judge them to be bigoted or irrational without hearing them here, one way or the other. ---
**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:** [February 8, 2013, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/233 "2013-02-08T00:18:26Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > False. I’m saying we can’t judge them to be bigoted or irrational without hearing them here, one way or the other. :rolleyes: We have heard them, for years and years. They’ve been given opportunity after opportunity to produce such a reason, here on the SDMB, in court, and all over the world. They’ve failed utterly to come up with such a rational, non-bigoted reason for their position. I see no reason to pretend that any such reason exists. And if I’m wrong, they could instantly prove it simply by posting their rational, non-bigoted reason right here and now instead of whining about how “unfair” I am. But they won’t, because no such reason exists. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2013, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/234 "2013-02-08T00:34:50Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > False. I’m saying we can’t judge them to be bigoted or irrational without hearing them here, one way or the other. In the same way that you can’t claim that dogs are unable to speak English until you’ve asked every dog to recite Shakespeare. Powerful point, dude. ---
**Author:** ![HoboStew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@HoboStew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoboStew)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2013, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/235 "2013-02-08T01:11:17Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > False. I’m saying we can’t judge them to be bigoted or irrational without hearing them here, one way or the other. I’ve been patiently waiting for one of them to answer my simple question (What changes for straight unions when gay unions are called marriage?), and thus far they have steadfastly avoided doing so. Maybe you can prod them along, so we can find out how unbigoted and rational their reasoning is? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2013, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/236 "2013-02-08T02:00:20Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > The vast majority of humans throughout history have been involved in forced and/or polygamous marriage. Two-person romantic love is not the historical norm. I’ll keep saying this until you stop ignoring it. Repeating it forever, of course, does not make your claim true. Among societies that practiced polygyny–a widespread but never universal practice, it was, typically, only the wealthy who were able to pull it off. It is probable that more marriages through history have been monogamous than polygamous. Similarly, while it is currently a popular notion that romantic love is a modern concept, it is recorded in pretty much all societies for which we have records and even among societies where arranged marriages are the norm, the attraction of the participants has typically been factored into the arrangement. > [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > I’m the only one being honest about what the Christians think, I’m providing a service. Piffle. You are ascribing the views of one group of Christians–a group not even demonstrated to be a majority among Christians–to the whole of Christianity. That hardly makes you “the only one being honest.” ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2013, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/237 "2013-02-08T02:40:16Z")
> [@Weeping\_Wyvern](#): > > I’ve yet to hear of a white Southern segregationist who claimed that the definition of marriage was “A man and a woman of the same race”. There were certainly opposed to interracial marriage, but they acknowledged its existence. This doesn’t really make sense. If it is not legally permitted for a man and a woman of different races to marry, then interracial marriage **doesn’t** exist, and marriage **is** legally defined as being between two persons of the same race. Similarly, one could just as well argue that today’s same-sex-marriage opponents are opposed to same-sex marriage but they acknowledge its existence. They’re trying to define it **out** of existence, of course, but so did the mixed-race-marriage opponents of earlier eras. Anyway, plenty of segregationists invoked in their arguments against interracial marriage just the same kind of concepts of natural and divine law that you refer to. E.g., the Virginia trial judge who originally sentenced the interracial couple who appealed their case in what became _Loving v. Virginia_: > [@](#): > > “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” I.e., the natural and God-given definition of marriage, according to this argument, does indeed require two persons of the same race. Any mixed-race union is just a perversion of marriage due to human “interference” with God’s “arrangement”. Sounds pretty darn similar to anti-SSM arguments to me. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2013, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/238 "2013-02-08T02:53:19Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But all people already have that privilege. Anyone can get married in America to one other person. “…of the same race, so what’s the problem?” > [@](#): > > You’re being legalistic. You may win this in court soon, but we’re not a courtroom. This is the dumbest fucking thing yet. “Stop making sound, careful arguments about this legal question. That’s…that’s being LEGALISTIC! ::drops monocle::” > [@](#): > > So marriage isn’t a right, huh? Marriage to any and all combinations of persons and things is not a right, and no one claims it is except you and Rick Santorum and your other buddies who are bringing in this bullshit about polygamy and marrying turtles and shit. _Equal treatment under the law_ is a right. Denying a gay person the right to marry (or, if you want to be super-retarded about it, denying a man the right that a woman has to marry a man on the basis of his gender) violates equal protection. > [@](#): > > How does that help your argument? Because it shows that appealing to “tradition” and “the definition of marriage” is just as dishonest as it is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > The government has chosen to be in the heterosexual marriage business. As the righties like to say, anyone can get married. The government does not get to make that choice because it violates equal protection. Denying polygamy does no such thing. > [@](#): > > What a ridiculous copout. It’s the reality. Homosexual couples can be and usually are stable, consenting adults who will make at least as good a use of marriage as heterosexuals have. Polygamy is no such thing; it’s usually just a cover for child abuse, and even when it’s not, it’s a simple sexual fetish that does not rise to the level of a protected class. > [@](#): > > Um, maybe if they could be legal they wouldn’t be just the fringe cults. I don’t think it’s the purpose of the law to promote adult men raping their adolescent nieces. Do you? > [@](#): > > You sound just like the gay-haters who say gays are all violent child-abusers. > I like how you roll your eyes as someone else’s sexual lifestyle choice while you argue for gay marriage. Well done. And here we see the insidious damage done by liberal “tolerance” to the cause of gay rights…it gives Christian knuckledraggers and excuse to say things like the above. Homosexuality is a biological fact about a person’s very being. It is not equivalent to polygamy, or liking getting pissed on, or enjoying dressing up as a fox and “yiffing” other idiots in costumes. This is a point on which, of course, both mainstream schools will disagree with me–to the liberal, everything sexual is awesome and equally deserving of enshrinement as an “identity,” to the conservative, every deviance from white heterosexual Christians having reproductive missionary sex is equally sinful and deserving of punishment. Both of them see no difference between homosexuality and sexual fetishes, and that’s why both of them struggle with this part of the logic. > [@](#): > > Oh well. Get to work rewriting. In the meantime, homosexual marriage doesn’t exactly map to our social norms, yet we’re willing to try, so saying “it would be hard to rewrite some laws” is another copout. If that were try for gay marriage too, I doubt you’d feel the same way. Laws and social norms are not the same thing and do not depend on one another. You have completely failed to grasp the argument. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2013, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/239 "2013-02-08T03:04:21Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Your opponents may be Christians, but that doesn’t make Christians your opponents. Any survey that finds a majority of Catholics or Protestants supports gay marriage is obviously flawed. There’s research providing valuable contraindications to intuition and then there’s ludicrous results produce by obviously flawed methodologies. I wish your arguing that a majority of Americans supported gay marriage could actually make it true as you apparently think it does, but the results of actual elections and the behavior of actual Christians makes it obvious that this is not the case. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2013, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/240 "2013-02-08T03:05:41Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > This doesn’t really make sense. If it is not legally permitted for a man and a woman of different races to marry, then interracial marriage **doesn’t** exist, and marriage **is** legally defined as being between two persons of the same race. The problem with the comparison to anti-miscegenation laws is that they were never universal. Mr. and Mrs. Loving were married in Washington, D.C. where their marriage was recognized as legal–as it was recognized in 34 other states\* in this country and would have been recognized in most other nations in the world. One may, of course, argue that the attitudes of people who oppose same sex marriage echo the attitudes of those who opposed inter-racial marriage, but the reality is that there has never been a time when inter-racial marriage was simply not recognized as “real.” - Seven states have never enacted laws against inter-racial marriage and another ten abolished such laws between 1780 and 1887. Between 1888 and 1967, a further seventeen states repealed such laws. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361.md?page=13)