Are people under 35 who oppose gay marriage typically unintelligent generally?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Honestly in my social circles, people who oppose gay marriage might as well be LaRouchites. They're just so fringe and unheard of you can simply assume anyone you meet isn't one. They basically don't exist in your general assumption. So I can't make any real generalizations about them.

[TJ in Oregon]

Oh I know plenty of very smart people under 35 who are against gay marriage. Of course there's a lot of selection bias in my socialization.

[Simfan34]

I honestly have never met a well-spoken and well-accomplished person who is 18-34 and who opposes gay marriage.  Maybe the smart ones are just good at hiding their bigotry, but it seems like every Doctor/Lawyer/Engineer is fully on board with gay marriage.  I've definitely met a few people who bag groceries who do not support it though.

Maybe living in NOVA influences this.  Thank God Virginia is now a blue state.

Nothing like some good old fashioned classism from our red avatar'd friends.

Strangely enough, I am agreement with TNF here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There are no intelligent arguments against same-sex marriage.

Not quite, but those arguments are only valid if opposite-sex marriage were legally structured considerably differently from how it currently is structured in the West.  I dare say that most opponents of SSM don't care for how OSM is currently done either.

I'd be curious to know what you mean specifically.

Those who believe that the purpose of marriage should be to beget children and arrange for the transfer of dependent females from fathers to husbands of course. Also those who aren't quite so reactionary in their beliefs yet still believe that the husband should be the head of the household and that divorce should be rare rather than having marriage be so readily dissolved.

With the transformation of marriage into a non-permanent legal relationship between two consenting co-equal adults, there are no gender defined roles in marriage law and thus no reason why legally it needs to be one male and one female.

[bedstuy]

I honestly have never met a well-spoken and well-accomplished person who is 18-34 and who opposes gay marriage.  Maybe the smart ones are just good at hiding their bigotry, but it seems like every Doctor/Lawyer/Engineer is fully on board with gay marriage.  I've definitely met a few people who bag groceries who do not support it though.

Maybe living in NOVA influences this.  Thank God Virginia is now a blue state.

Nothing like some good old fashioned classism from our red avatar'd friends.

Strangely enough, I am agreement with TNF here.

A real classist doesn't even set foot in a grocery store, much less talk to the help.  I'm hoping someday I'll get to George H.W. Bush "Doesn't know what a grocery store scanner is" status.  Who even goes to grocery stores these days anyway?

There are no intelligent arguments against same-sex marriage.

Not quite, but those arguments are only valid if opposite-sex marriage were legally structured considerably differently from how it currently is structured in the West.  I dare say that most opponents of SSM don't care for how OSM is currently done either.

I'd be curious to know what you mean specifically.

Those who believe that the purpose of marriage should be to beget children and arrange for the transfer of dependent females from fathers to husbands of course. Also those who aren't quite so reactionary in their beliefs yet still believe that the husband should be the head of the household and that divorce should be rare rather than having marriage be so readily dissolved.

With the transformation of marriage into a non-permanent legal relationship between two consenting co-equal adults, there are no gender defined roles in marriage law and thus no reason why legally it needs to be one male and one female.

I suppose that would be a common-sense argument if you lived in 1830s America or something, sure.

[DemPGH]

Generally? Probably, yes. Their perspective is closed, I would say that.

You know, I was talking to someone the other day about the benefits of higher education - not only that you learn stuff, since as soon as you have broad basic knowledge you can start to really learn on your own - but that you meet in the course of getting an education an impressive variety of people. As such, you learn that they are all "normal." Well, for the most part. I of course mean that you accept homosexuality because homosexuals are regular people.

There are, though, people whose perspectives are not changed by education. Some preachers' children at right wing law schools, for example. IDK. That is purely perspective, monoculture, etc.  

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, and this absurd obsession about SSM support being the great litmus test of "modern" or "enlightened" political views has passed the annoying level and is now starting to look increasingly sinister.

[Oakvale]

The main problem here is the idea that opposing gay marriage is inherently prejudiced. Again, support of gay marriage has been a mainstream position for a couple of years at best.

No, and this absurd obsession about SSM support being the great litmus test of "modern" or "enlightened" political views has passed the annoying level and is now starting to look increasingly sinister.

^ Yes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The main problem here is the idea that opposing gay marriage is inherently prejudiced. Again, support of gay marriage has been a mainstream position for a couple of years at best.

No, and this absurd obsession about SSM support being the great litmus test of "modern" or "enlightened" political views has passed the annoying level and is now starting to look increasingly sinister.

^ Yes.

You guys are starting to sound like Hifly.

[DC Al Fine]

Oh I know plenty of very smart people under 35 who are against gay marriage. Of course there's a lot of selection bias in my socialization.

Honestly in my social circles, people who oppose gay marriage might as well be LaRouchites. They're just so fringe and unheard of you can simply assume anyone you meet isn't one. They basically don't exist in your general assumption. So I can't make any real generalizations about them.

This is an interesting exercise in how social circles change our perceptions of normal.

[IceSpear]

I don't see why the "under 35" is needed in this question.

Obvious yes.

[Oakvale]

The main problem here is the idea that opposing gay marriage is inherently prejudiced. Again, support of gay marriage has been a mainstream position for a couple of years at best.

No, and this absurd obsession about SSM support being the great litmus test of "modern" or "enlightened" political views has passed the annoying level and is now starting to look increasingly sinister.

^ Yes.

You guys are starting to sound like Hifly.

I'll grant that Hifly doesn't seem particularly intelligent from what I can tell from his posts, but that doesn't make the inherent idiocy of this thread's premise any less offensive. Not everyone who has mixed feelings about the bland liberal cause célèbre of the day (and, at least in my case, its conservatism) is dumber than the enlightened lynch mobs who've suddenly decided that anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot and Klansman.

[IceSpear]

The main problem here is the idea that opposing gay marriage is inherently prejudiced. Again, support of gay marriage has been a mainstream position for a couple of years at best.

The main problem here is the idea that opposing interracial marriage is inherently prejudiced. Again, support of interracial marriage has been a mainstream position for a couple of years at best. - Oakvale, 1975

[Oakvale]

^ My point, beautifully proved.

[IceSpear]

^ My point, beautifully proved.

Not really. Your point is that whether or not something is prejudiced depends on how long the opposite view has been a "mainstream position" (however you define that). So what exactly is the cutoff date for how long the opposite view needs to be mainstream before bigotry can be labeled as what it is?

[Oakvale]

My point was more relating to the tone of this thread and the hateful, spiteful lynch mob mentality of a lot of red avatars on here.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Don't confuse intelligence with 'congenial political views' and certainly don't confuse intelligence with education or (!!!!!) occupation.

[IceSpear]

My point was more relating to the tone of this thread and the hateful, spiteful lynch mob mentality of a lot of red avatars on here.

So then you do think that opposition to gay marriage is bigotry, just that gay marriage supporters take it too far with their "lynch mob" mentality?

By the way, I'm just going to give some context here when you use a term like "lynch mob". Gay people to this day are bullied, threatened, and attacked for being gay. Nobody has ever done any of those things to somebody because they oppose gay marriage. Nor is anybody advocating stripping civil rights from people who oppose gay marriage. So let's not lose the context of the bigger picture here. People who oppose gay marriage are in no way victims, and the fact that people suggest they are just because some posters make mean comments on the internet about them is ridiculous.

[Sol]

My point was more relating to the tone of this thread and the hateful, spiteful lynch mob mentality of a lot of red avatars on here.

Hating on bigotry should be the norm, not the exception. Granted, SSM isn't the most important aspect of legal rights for LGBTQQA folks, but it certainly has been the main face of our rights movement- and thus opposition is usually based on some sort of bigotry (obviously the people who want to get rid of marriage are excluded from this, at least in my view).
 
Just because someone's opposition to SSM is religiously based doesn't make it any more excusable. Of course, I'll be a bit friendlier to them, considering that their opposition is based on a little more than the fire of hate, but it is still bigotry. Nonetheless, it's certainly preferable to Hifly's DEFINITIONOFMARRIAGE!!!1!!111 nonsense, but still.

I remember that at some point someone (I think maybe Averroes Nix) compared you to Armond White. Now, Armond White is extremely bright and a great reviewer, but he can be sometimes vehemently contrary for no reason other than to buck the crowd. Which is a long way of saying that your view on this is a bit like Armond White loving Transformers, despite obvious flaws.

[bedstuy]

The main problem here is the idea that opposing gay marriage is inherently prejudiced. Again, support of gay marriage has been a mainstream position for a couple of years at best.

No, and this absurd obsession about SSM support being the great litmus test of "modern" or "enlightened" political views has passed the annoying level and is now starting to look increasingly sinister.

^ Yes.

I'm normally someone who is open to different political views.  And, I admit gay marriage is not as important as war, peace, healthcare or the economy.  But, if someone expresses a racist or homophobic point of view, even on a relatively minor issue, it does mark who they are and impact people around them.  If your friend said, "I don't want my gym to allow black members" or "I don't want my apartment building to allow Jews," they wouldn't be your friend, I hope.  This is the same.  If you normalize bigotry, you create hostile environment for the victims of bigotry and frankly, homophobia ought to be a litmus test issue for society in 2014.

[afleitch]

No. But there is a certain lack of empathy. In order to exclude same sex couples from marriage, those who 'define' marriage tend to do it in such a way (i.e, throwing the idea of commitment under a bus and focusing heavily on procreation and people's 'plumbing') it ends up dismissing a significant number of opposite sex marriages too. That demonstrates it's less about 'defending' marriage and more about excluding same sex couples from it.

[DemPGH]

Again, support of gay marriage has been a mainstream position for a couple of years at best.

I have to disagree with that. It's been in the mainstream since the MA Supreme Court ruling, probably. It's been a slim majority position for a couple years at best.

It's, to me, the equivalent now of the civil rights legislation of the mid 1960s, although not as far reaching since SSM concerns a smaller number of people. People are ready for it. Opposing it now in the USA is very backward politically, especially for someone who is still in the formative years (30 or so and under).

No, and this absurd obsession about SSM support being the great litmus test of "modern" or "enlightened" political views has passed the annoying level and is now starting to look increasingly sinister.

Haha, radical gay agenda!

Your cultural perspective is clearly quite different and seen through some other lens.

[afleitch]

My point was more relating to the tone of this thread and the hateful, spiteful lynch mob mentality of a lot of red avatars on here.

Funnily enough you never did answer this

I am mildly disappointed that gays want to sell out by endorsing a concept like marriage

I know right? Marriage is just so not the gay thing to do. Let's just join a f-ck circle. Me and Michael would be much better off separated by the Atlantic. I feel like such a f-cking sell out everytime I wake up next to him and realise he's not in Pennsylvania.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Jesus ing Christ, this thread is depressing.

Guys, we obviously all support SSM here and there's no need for everyone to restate their passionate defense of it. But no, not everyone who opposes it is a bigot/homophobe, and I've actually met several decent people (including - shocker!!! - some gay people) who oppose it. Sure, you can make the interracial marriage analogy or whatever, it looks great at first glance but it doesn't say anything about why some people might not be comfortable with SSM, where the reasons are obviously infinitely more vast.

The real problem I have with shaming anti-SSM advocates is not really the shaming itself, but the fact that the same people who speak so passionately about the rightfulness of SSM support and the evil of SSM opponents would never even think about doing the same for other issues (such as economic redistribution), which, let's face it, are infinitely more important.

[ingemann]

No, and this absurd obsession about SSM support being the great litmus test of "modern" or "enlightened" political views has passed the annoying level and is now starting to look increasingly sinister.

The real problem I have with shaming anti-SSM advocates is not really the shaming itself, but the fact that the same people who speak so passionately about the rightfulness of SSM support and the evil of SSM opponents would never even think about doing the same for other issues (such as economic redistribution), which, let's face it, are infinitely more important.

Completely agree (especially with the bolded part), I have never really gotten the opposition to SSM, mostly because I don't give a f**k about how other people choose to live their lives as long as it don't effect me, but I think the obsession  among some librals to make SSM support the "the great litmus" are disgusting, especially as they mix it (as the person starting this thread) with classism.