"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[Amarok]

To bad for Steve we have proven his clinging to a regressive definition for regressive reasons is bigoted

[Angrboda]

Arguments opposing same-sex marriage are often made on religious grounds. In five studies conducted in the United States and Canada (combined N = 1,673), we observed that religious opposition to same-sex marriage was explained, at least in part, by conservative ideology and linked to sexual prejudice. In Studies 1 and 2, we discovered that the relationship between religiosity and opposition to same-sex marriage was mediated by explicit sexual prejudice. In Study 3, we saw that the mediating effect of sexual prejudice was linked to political conservatism. Finally, in Studies 4a and 4b we examined the ideological underpinnings of religious opposition to same-sex marriage in more detail by taking into account two distinct aspects of conservative ideology. Results revealed that resistance to change was more important than opposition to equality in explaining religious opposition to same-sex marriage.

. . . . .

Whereas religious opponents may see their objections to same-sex marriage as principled and legitimate, others see it as a human rights issue and may interpret opposition as a form of sexual prejudice and discrimination. Empirically speaking, religious opposition to same-sex marriage could stem from various sources. Given that religion offers believers a well-defined moral framework that entails specific attitudes toward social groups, beliefs, and behaviors, it is possible that attitudes toward same-sex marriage simply reflect religious proscriptions. On the other hand, opposition may also be driven by sexual prejudice, which is defined as antipathy toward individuals and groups based on their sexual orientation (Herek, 2000). An initial aim of this research program was to investigate whether a general aversion to gay men and lesbian women helps explain the relationship between religiosity and opposition to same-sex marriage. Previous research has demonstrated that religiosity is associated with sexual prejudice (Herek & McLemore, 2013) and opposition to same-sex marriage (Herek, 2011). To our knowledge, however, no studies have investigated the hypothesis that religious opposition to same-sex marriage is attributable, at least in part, to sexual prejudice (Hypothesis 1).

. . . . . .

Religiosity was positively correlated with explicit sexual prejudice ... as well as opposition to same-sex marriage ... Sexual prejudice was positively correlated with opposition to same-sex marriage...

In Defense of Tradition: Religiosity, Conservatism, and Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage in North America

[Ravenshire]

To bad for Steve we have proven his clinging to a regressive definition for regressive reasons is bigoted

Well, his "that's the way it's always been done" argument would carry some weight if he could show it's the best way. The problem for him, is that he can't, and he won't recognize that the best way to protect his right is to protect everyone's rights. Even if you don't like "those" people.

[SteveII]

---

Look back all the way through. My point has always been that a preference to the old definition of marriage does not equate to bigotry. People have spent 40 pages unsuccessfully trying to prove that it does. I would have stopped long ago, but you know how this works, a new batch of people take up the cause and rehash everything again.  They can't figure out why they can't prove what they have been told--all who opposed gay marriage are bigots.

Any time you exclude a group of people because they're (insert trait you find undesireable here), it's bigotry you chuckle-fuck.

I agree with you if I were excluding someone from something.  The definition never included them and I have my reasons to preferring the old definition. To make your case, you have to show that...nevermind, it's not possible to show because there is not logical connecting between preferring the old definition and intolerance.

[Crossless2.0]

Fine, Steve. You're not a bigot. You're just irrelevant.

Fuck it. Let's move on.

[SteveII]

Arguments opposing same-sex marriage are often made on religious grounds. In five studies conducted in the United States and Canada (combined N = 1,673), we observed that religious opposition to same-sex marriage was explained, at least in part, by conservative ideology and linked to sexual prejudice. In Studies 1 and 2, we discovered that the relationship between religiosity and opposition to same-sex marriage was mediated by explicit sexual prejudice. In Study 3, we saw that the mediating effect of sexual prejudice was linked to political conservatism. Finally, in Studies 4a and 4b we examined the ideological underpinnings of religious opposition to same-sex marriage in more detail by taking into account two distinct aspects of conservative ideology. Results revealed that resistance to change was more important than opposition to equality in explaining religious opposition to same-sex marriage.

. . . . .

Whereas religious opponents may see their objections to same-sex marriage as principled and legitimate, others see it as a human rights issue and may interpret opposition as a form of sexual prejudice and discrimination. Empirically speaking, religious opposition to same-sex marriage could stem from various sources. Given that religion offers believers a well-defined moral framework that entails specific attitudes toward social groups, beliefs, and behaviors, it is possible that attitudes toward same-sex marriage simply reflect religious proscriptions. On the other hand, opposition may also be driven by sexual prejudice, which is defined as antipathy toward individuals and groups based on their sexual orientation (Herek, 2000). An initial aim of this research program was to investigate whether a general aversion to gay men and lesbian women helps explain the relationship between religiosity and opposition to same-sex marriage. Previous research has demonstrated that religiosity is associated with sexual prejudice (Herek & McLemore, 2013) and opposition to same-sex marriage (Herek, 2011). To our knowledge, however, no studies have investigated the hypothesis that religious opposition to same-sex marriage is attributable, at least in part, to sexual prejudice (Hypothesis 1).

. . . . . .

Religiosity was positively correlated with explicit sexual prejudice ... as well as opposition to same-sex marriage ... Sexual prejudice was positively correlated with opposition to same-sex marriage...

In Defense of Tradition: Religiosity, Conservatism, and Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage in North America

See bold. Do you think this alone constitutes bigotry?

---

Look back all the way through. My point has always been that a preference to the old definition of marriage does not equate to bigotry. People have spent 40 pages unsuccessfully trying to prove that it does. I would have stopped long ago, but you know how this works, a new batch of people take up the cause and rehash everything again.  They can't figure out why they can't prove what they have been told--all who opposed gay marriage are bigots.

I think that's an open question, the resolution to which you've done little to further.  It seems your complaint is more that people are being people in this thread rather than that atheists are being atheists.  If that's your problem, by all means, keep pissing into the wind if it makes you happy.

You don't think it should be pointed out that opposition to same sex marriage does not necessarily entail bigotry? That that untrue conclusion does not create further division? 

Listen, I knew gay marriage would eventually happen. I don't think I actually personally care very much other than to recognize that God is intolerant of it. Just trying to correct idiotic assumptions, misperceptions, demonization, etc.

[Angrboda]

See bold. Do you think this alone constitutes bigotry?

The point of the study was that it wasn't that alone which typically motivated the opposition.  As already noted, I don't have an answer to your specific question, aside from that it appears to be nothing more than an ideologically motivated excuse used to provide cover for bigotry and prejudice.  If you have any actual facts aside from fact-free and ideologically motivated drivel to contribute, then I'm all ears.

The following is a comment on the same study quoted above, and so does not imply independent corroboration, but rather fills in the rather stark explanation given by the study's authors.

Is opposition to same-sex marriage driven by anti-gay attitudes?

O’Connor’s research shows that contemporary opponents of same-sex marriage rarely use overt sexual prejudice to justify their position. This was not always the case.

A 2001 study of attitudes to same-sex parenting found many critics argued homosexuality was sinful. Now, instead of expressing explicitly anti-gay attitudes, many same-sex marriage opponents appeal to their beliefs about factors other than sexuality.

In contrast, proponents of marriage equality sometimes accuse opponents of being motivated by homophobia. They may view opposition to same-sex marriage as intrinsically homophobic. Alternatively, they may see opponents as insincere for failing to declare the real, prejudiced basis for their attitudes.

Who is right? Is opposition to same-sex marriage primarily a matter of religious or political principle as opponents suggest? Or does it largely reflect antipathy to gay and lesbian people, as their critics maintain?

Research by Dutch social psychologist Jojanneke van der Toorn and colleagues suggests there may be some truth to both points of view. They conducted a series of studies in the US and Canada in which they assessed people’s levels of religiosity and conservatism and their degree of support for “gay marriage”. They also assessed anti-gay attitudes, such as endorsement of statements like “homosexual behaviour between two men is just plain wrong”.

The studies yielded very consistent findings. Religiosity and conservatism were both associated with opposition to same-sex marriage and also with anti-gay attitudes. Roughly two thirds of the association between religiosity and opposition to same-sex marriage was explained by those attitudes.

More religious people were more opposed to same-sex marriage primarily because they had more negative attitudes to homosexuality. Similarly, conservatism was primarily associated with opposition to same-sex marriage because conservatives held more anti-gay attitudes.

This research indicates that much of the opposition to same-sex marriage is grounded in sexual prejudice, despite that opposition often being publicly justified on different grounds. But, a modest proportion of conservatives’ opposition was not explained by prejudice. This fraction may reflect principled objections based on conservative political or religious beliefs.

Attitudes to same-sex marriage have many psychological roots, and they can change

---

I think that's an open question, the resolution to which you've done little to further.  It seems your complaint is more that people are being people in this thread rather than that atheists are being atheists.  If that's your problem, by all means, keep pissing into the wind if it makes you happy.

You don't think it should be pointed out that opposition to same sex marriage does not necessarily entail bigotry? That that untrue conclusion does not create further division? 

Listen, I knew gay marriage would eventually happen. I don't think I actually personally care very much other than to recognize that God is intolerant of it. Just trying to correct idiotic assumptions, misperceptions, demonization, etc.

I think there is an astoundingly wide gap between your stated goals and your actual accomplishments here. Take that for what it's worth. Void where prohibited by law.

[KevinM1]

No, marriage in the US is not ultimately a secular arrangement between couples and the government. That's ridiculous for several reasons--the main one being that most jurisdictions did not require marriage licenses until the late 19th century. Were those millions of married couple mistaken? Secondly, a marriage license is the government only intrusion into the institution of marriage. How does a marriage license do any more than keep a record and make sure you are not marrying a minor?

Steve, this is simple:

1. There's no mandatory religious aspect to marriage.
2. There is a mandatory secular/governmental aspect to marriage.

Why is #2 a thing? It's more than just about not marrying a minor. Again: taxes, next of kin, asset handling, etc. If there's money and/or property involved, then there needs to be a way to track ownership claims. This was especially true at a time when family assets/businesses were more prevalent.

Keep in mind, you're not even correct about your assertion that marriage licenses weren't required until the late 19th century. Massachusetts has required them since 1639, with the idea/requirement spreading across the nation over the course of time until widespread adoption in the mid-19th century. Moreover, marriage licenses had existed in Britain since the 14th century, so, it's not as though it was a new idea to the US.

Also, as time has gone on, any religious requirement for marriage has vanished.

[Angrboda]

More from the article just quoted:

"van der Toorn’s work indicated that opposition to same-sex marriage mainly reflects resistance to change rather than opposition to equality. Proponents of same-sex marriage often criticise opponents for their lack of concern for equality. However, opponents’ attitudes may spring from objections to change rather than from a desire for inequality per se."

[Ravenshire]

---

Any time you exclude a group of people because they're (insert trait you find undesireable here), it's bigotry you chuckle-fuck.

I agree with you if I were excluding someone from something.  The definition never included them and I have my reasons to preferring the old definition. To make your case, you have to show that...nevermind, it's not possible to show because there is not logical connecting between preferring the old definition and intolerance.

But they were excluded from marriage, by definition, Steve, until recently. No thanks to knuckle dragging bigots like yourself, that has changed.

Unless you're going to argue that they could always get married to any woman they choose. In that case, I'll sell you any shirt in the store. Except that one. Yeah, that one you actually like and would actually wear. Yeah that one. You can't buy that one. But, you can buy any one of the shirts for sale that you have no interest in buying.

Yeah, it really is like that.