Is being against gay marriage homophobic?

[Coastal Elitist]

I've been having this debate in another thread because some poster said a politician was a homophobe for having these views and I wanted to ask everyone's opinion.
According to this gay man it isn't and I believe the same. Personally I don't care if gays get married or not, but I understand that religious beliefs are against it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/being-against-gay-marriage-doesnt-make-you-a-homophobe/282333/

Here's an excerpt from that:
If it’s “anti-gay” to question the arguments of marriage-equality advocates, and if the word “homophobic” is exhausted on me or on polite dissenters, then what should we call someone who beats up gay people, or prefers not to hire them? Disagreement is not the same thing as discrimination. Our language ought to reflect that distinction.

While some religious people don’t support gay marriage in a sacramental sense, many of them are in favor of same-sex civil unions and full rights for the parties involved. It’s important to recall that many religious individuals do support strong civil rights for the gay members of their communities.

[wesmoorenerd]

LGBT person here.

Marriage has been a civil, rather than a strictly religious, construct for a long time now. Nowadays, you can get married in an entirely non-religious ceremony at your local courthouse. Religious people do not and should not have a monopoly on marriage. If they don't want to get involved in same-sex marriages, then fine. However, that doesn't mean that their objections should have any effect on whether or not the state, a secular entity, chooses to perform same-sex marriages or not.

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. If you support a racist or homophobic view, then yes, you deserve to be called racist or homophobic. And yes, opposing gay marriage is homophobic. Restricting the civil rights of one group (in this case, gay individuals) while not restricting the civil rights of a comparable group is absolutely discriminatory.

We should call those who beat up gay people violently and dangerously homophobic, but that doesn't excuse other homophobic behavior, such as crusading against gay marriage. Disagreement is absolutely the same as discrimination when that disagreement is over people's basic civil rights. Obviously there are degrees of severity involved here, but it's 2018. We need to stop beating around the bush and take a hardline stance against any discriminatory beliefs. If that means Trump wins because bigots get their feelings hurt, so be it. Progress will win in the end.

[Comrade Luanne Platter]

As a gay Man whose grown very tired of having to fight to defend my basic rights, just leave my weed, husband and kids alone, please. Thanks.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

I’m gonna give the more aggressive (and controversial) answer and say yes. To dissect the parts of your/his argument that I don’t agree with:

1) The fact that there are worse kinds of homophobia that exist does not mean that more mild discriminatory beliefs aren’t still homophobic. That’s like saying that simply speaking hateful things about racial minorities can’t be racist, just because then what do we call committing a violent hate crime against a racial minority? Both of those things, although varying in degrees of sheer awfulness, should be considered racist, and thus both opposing gay marriage and something more extreme (like employment discrimation, as he mentioned) can both be homophobic. That doesn’t make them equal, but they’re both homophobic.

2) The whole “but we support civil unions!” argument does nothing for me. Anyone who advocates for civil unions clearly does not belief in full equality for gay couples, because despite the legal equality of a civil union to a marriage, they obviously are not truly equivalent. If they were truly equivalent, no one would be okay with gay couples being in a civil union but not okay with gay couples being married, right? Undoubtedly there is a distinction in their minds (and everyone’s minds) between marriage and a civil union; so don’t act like allowing gays to obtain civil unions is some entirely equal alternative.

3) Just because this belief is based in religion does not make it any less discriminatory or any more reasomable than if it was based in secular thought. (Just because your homophobia comes from a church doesn’t mean I have to respect it any more than if it came from anywhere else.)

Here’s an easier way to put it: if I said black people should only be allowed to join in civil unions, not marriages, I would be branded a racist by nearly everyone (and rightfully so). If you truly believe that gay people are entirely equivalent to straight people and deserving of equal rights, then the same logic should apply if you replace “black people” with “gay people” and “racist” with “homophobic.”. If you don’t believe in this  altered version of the statement, then I would consider you prejudiced against gay people, which is the textbook definition of homophobia.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

The God that spoke all of Creation into existence ordained marriage, and He ordained it as being a union of a man and a woman.

I do not oppose SSM because it is a "threat to the sanctity of marriage".  It doesn't affect my marriage at all.  While I do not support it (and never will), I do view it as a fait accompli, and not an issue I would want my elected officials spending endless energy on.  If people think it's OK and wish to partake in such a union (and the activities that go with it), well, that's on them.

I oppose SSM for one reason:  It is an affront to God.  I'm not going to beat people over the head, rhetorically, or harass them in public, but I'm never going to say God's OK with it.  He's not OK with it, at least not according to my Bible.  I'm not going to start threads on this subject, and I'm not going to spend a lot of time speaking about it, but I will stand up and be counted.  Whatever that makes me is up to the reader, I suppose.

[Koharu]

Yes. What reason is there to be against homosexual couples except "it's wroooong because God says so" OR "it makes me feel uncomfortable"?

If religious organizations don't want to perform marriages, that's their choice. There are other religious organizations that will. But same-sex couples should be able to get the same civil benefits that heterosexual couples get via marriage. Being against it as a civil institution is homophobic.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Being a straight white male who doesn’t cuck himself out to liberals makes you inherently every single “-ist” and “-phobic” that the Left labels you.

Don’t worry about it.

[DrScholl]

To want to ban marriage between two adults who want to get married is indeed homophobic. Just like banning interracial was racist.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

To want to ban marriage between two adults who want to get married is indeed homophobic. Just like banning interracial was racist.

These are not equivilencies.  Of course, you are one of the intellectually dishonest posters on Atlas, so I expect this from you.

Marriage has, until the last decade, been defined as the union between a man and a woman.  Interracial marriage did not redefine the definition of the institution of marriage, which was formed as the basis for "family".  Indeed, "marriage" and "family" went hand in hand.

Same-sex couples cannot establish a "family" in and of themselves.  That's just a fact; someone else has to participate in the act somehow.  This redefines marriage, and in ways besides that of the "between a man and a woman" thing.  If the SSM advocates would stop asserting this "discrimination" nonsense, and be honest about SSM being a fundamental, judicially-legislated maneuver to allow same-sex couples the sort of benefits that heterosexual marriage brings, I'd have some respect for them.  People who compare Obergefell to Loving and insist it's the same issue have all the intellectual honesty of Donald Trump.

[RFKFan68]

Yes. And writing paragraphs about an imaginary man in the sky is not going to make it any less homophobic.

[Ohioguy29]

Not inherently. In practice, the majority of who are against gay marriage tend to be at least somewhat homophobic. I know I've always said I'd be fine with a politician who's against gay marriage if they're otherwise supportive of the gay community, but 99% of the time it doesn't end there. There are exceptions though; while he isn't an advocate for the gay community, Joe Manchin hasn't done anything to harm us or spread hateful rhetoric about us, at least not anytime recently (I haven't researched his whole career, and honestly I don't care where he was on the issue 20 years ago.) If all anti-gay marriage politicians were like him, I wouldn't have any issue with them.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Yes. What reason is there to be against homosexual couples except "it's wroooong because God says so" OR "it makes me feel uncomfortable"?

If religious organizations don't want to perform marriages, that's their choice. There are other religious organizations that will. But same-sex couples should be able to get the same civil benefits that heterosexual couples get via marriage. Being against it as a civil institution is homophobic.

Phobic means afraid.  What, exactly, are people who are opposed to SSM afraid of?

As to the highlighted part, only the first part is true.  I'm uncomfortable with a lot of things.  I'm uncomfortable with the massive level of self-righteousness on Atlas, but people get to do that, so I'll grin and bear it.

As to the "civil institution" argument:  I have long advocated single payer healthcare that was not tied to marriage or employment; this would address one of the "civil benefits" of marriage.  I have never opposed a system of "civil unions" to provide same-sex couples with a legal vehicle to resolve civil differences.  I'll state, unequivocally, that I am not in favor of same-sex married couples being on equal footing with heterosexual married couples in the matter of child adoption.  As I believe SSM to be an affront to God, I cannot believe God would sign off on this principle, but, even there, my own personal position is somewhat nuanced.  

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/04/dan-quayle-was-right/307015/

I am, indeed, afraid of the long-term results of this social experimentation.  SSM is one more step in the direction of the shaping of marriage and family in America that contributes to the happiness of adults, but at the expense of the interests of children.  Is SSM in the interest of the adults participating in it?  Factoring out the "God" issue, the answer would be "yes, of course", such an institution is beneficial to adults and contributes to the adults' happiness.  Does it contribute to the happiness of children?  This all depends.

From the point of view of a young child being adopted by a gay couple, it would, quite possibly, enhance the happiness of those children, at least in the short run.  There would be an instant increase in financial investment into those children, and that is not an insignificant matter.  How these children would, over the long haul, react to having two (2) moms or two (2) dads is not clear, and people do cherry-pick studies, which are limited at this point.  

From the point of view of a child whose Dad or Mom has divorced the other parent (or just left them, never having been married) and presented this child with a same-sex stepparent, I would suggest that such a transition is far more problematic, and even moreso than in a simple divorce. There will be folks here that blames all of this on "bigotry", but is that really accurate, or is that wishful thinking on people whose moral argument for SSM rests, in part on the unproven assertion that it does not negatively impact children?  I suppose only longitudinal studies will show this.  But Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's principle in her article is very accurate; the paradigm of family has switched over time from emphasis on a child's happiness and well-being to emphasis on the adults' happiness and well-being, and ignores the reality that many things that contribute to the happiness of adults detract from the happiness of children.  

The best interests of adults are, quite often, in conflict with the best interests of children.  SSM, imo, is one more example of this in our society.  If I'm "phobic" about anything, it's about our society taking more and more steps down this road.  The results of our constant societal undermining of the family have not made for better outcomes for children over time, and it astonishes me to the degree that people, in their selfishness, refuse to accept the research that shows this.

[Beet]

You can be against gay marriage and not be homophobic as a matter of personal psychology, yes. But the position you take, if it discriminates against gay people by denying them the right to marriage while granting it to straight people, is homophobic. You may not be, but your position is. It's a different interpretation of that phrase, yes, but appropriate. It's a policy which harms gay people, so even if it doesn't involve physical neurochemicals associated with hate, homophobia is an appropriate term.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Yes. And writing paragraphs about an imaginary man in the sky is not going to make it any less homophobic.

I fear God far more than I fear Godless Atlas posters.  This is America; in this life, you get to take your chances with Eternity.

[Miss J]

I support gay marriage BECAUSE OF my religious views.

I support God, God is the creator of Nature, and homosexuality is a small part of Nature.  Thus, to me it would be going against God and going against Nature to oppose the union of two people who were designed for one another - before they came out of the womb.

I also strongly believe that homosexuality was deliberately put on this Earth for a reason and I've seen enough scientific fact to support that it has a Godly purpose.

For many babies, their basic brain characteristics are determined BEFORE birth.  You cannot and will never be able to eliminate homosexuality out of the human race.  Those are very misguided people that think its something that can be controlled.  The same goes for trans people, as they're called now.  The brain is permanent - the gender of the baby is already inside of them and whatever the sex organs are, or whether there's none at all, do not take precedence over the brain.  In religious context, the brain is the soul or the spirit.

Thus, LGBTQ people are made just as heterosexual people are and that is by birth they are who they are and either the society can accept it or it can choose not to.  You can be uncomfortable with it, you can be angry about it, you can speak out against it, but you cannot change Nature.  This is the irony of what religious conservatives don't understand - they don't want to accept Reality.  They want the reality to adapt to their religion, when it's got to be the other way around.  The religion must adapt to the reality.

[mencken]

To want to ban marriage between two adults who want to get married is indeed homophobic. Just like banning interracial was racist.

These are not equivilencies.  Of course, you are one of the intellectually dishonest posters on Atlas, so I expect this from you.

Marriage has, until the last decade, been defined as the union between a man and a woman.  Interracial marriage did not redefine the definition of the institution of marriage, which was formed as the basis for "family".  Indeed, "marriage" and "family" went hand in hand.

Same-sex couples cannot establish a "family" in and of themselves.  That's just a fact; someone else has to participate in the act somehow.  This redefines marriage, and in ways besides that of the "between a man and a woman" thing.  If the SSM advocates would stop asserting this "discrimination" nonsense, and be honest about SSM being a fundamental, judicially-legislated maneuver to allow same-sex couples the sort of benefits that heterosexual marriage brings, I'd have some respect for them.  People who compare Obergefell to Loving and insist it's the same issue have all the intellectual honesty of Donald Trump.

This is refreshing; could not have said it better myself.

[Miss J]

Gays don't need to procreate - the straight people do it for them.

If straight people stopped having sex all your problems would be solved.

It's absurd how it's never occurred to some of you people that the baby that is made from that cherished union of man and woman can be gay.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

To want to ban marriage between two adults who want to get married is indeed homophobic. Just like banning interracial was racist.

These are not equivilencies.  Of course, you are one of the intellectually dishonest posters on Atlas, so I expect this from you.

Marriage has, until the last decade, been defined as the union between a man and a woman.  Interracial marriage did not redefine the definition of the institution of marriage, which was formed as the basis for "family".  Indeed, "marriage" and "family" went hand in hand.

Same-sex couples cannot establish a "family" in and of themselves.  That's just a fact; someone else has to participate in the act somehow.  This redefines marriage, and in ways besides that of the "between a man and a woman" thing.  If the SSM advocates would stop asserting this "discrimination" nonsense, and be honest about SSM being a fundamental, judicially-legislated maneuver to allow same-sex couples the sort of benefits that heterosexual marriage brings, I'd have some respect for them.  People who compare Obergefell to Loving and insist it's the same issue have all the intellectual honesty of Donald Trump.

Gay people not being able to get the same "benefits" as straight people is objectively discrimination.  I fail to see how needing to adopt or use surrogacy if a gay couple wants a child(which not all married couples want in general irl) delegitimizes them. One would hope you'd understand that, considering that IIRC you adopted your son.

[CookieDamage]

It's inherently homophobic and discriminatory. LGBTQ, and in this case gay people, are human beings and deserve the same rights to marriage as everyone else. Every argument against marriage equality rests on their implicit basis that LGBTQ for some reason don't deserve the basic human and civil rights of everyone else in this country and frankly it's dehumanizing. We're not a "different" kind of human, so can it with these religious and social conservative arguments.

And if believing this makes me some sort of leftist liberal bubble coastal elitist then fine, I'm not going to assuage the feelings of some throwback gay basher who thinks his fake "I just don't support gay marriage but I'm not homophobic" line.

[TDAS04]

“Gay couples can’t procreate” is a dumb argument against SSM.  If marriage is only moral if the couple can produce children by themselves, then a 70-year-old single woman shouldn’t get married.  She can’t get pregnant, it’s an affront to God!

To answer the OP’s question, I tend to say it is homophobic.  However, I don’t think every person who opposes gay marriage is a bigot or a hateful person overall.  There is a big difference between simply being uncomfortable with gay marriage and doing what was done to Matthew Shepard.  An old person who grew up with their image of a married couple may have a hard time accepting that same-sex couples can now get married, that doesn’t make them a bad person.  However, this is a simple matter of equal protection under the law.  Since there is no hard evidence that gay marriage is “wrong” or threatens society, and that it appears that homosexuality is an instrinsic part of who certain people are (you can’t just turn your gayness on and off)—and desire for same-sex love is what homosexuality is about—there is no secular, reasonable justification for the government to deny same-sex couples the exact same rights to civil marriage as opposite-sex couples.  Otherwise you are denying gays and lesbians civil rights, and imo, that is like telling people to go to the back of the bus for an instrisic aspect of themselves that they can’t control.  Arguing about gay marriage is not like arguing about tax policy.  Either you support civil rights or you don’t.

Yes, people have their religious beliefs and have the right to them.  I don’t think any church or religious organizations should be forced to recognize a marriage they don’t want to, but not all churches hold the same view.  Why shouldn’t liberal churches be allowed to bless gay marriages?  The government, for its part, shouldn’t decide this issue based what a certain religious group thinks.  Instead, it should decide based on the (supposedly) American ideals of liberty and equality, and grant civil marriages to any couple unless there is a secular reason not to (such as marriage involving a child, since that would involve a victim).  Then all the religious groups can be free to recognize or not recognize any marriage.

[CookieDamage]

“Gay couples can’t procreate” is a dumb argument against SSM.  If marriage is only moral if the couple can produce children by themselves, then a 70-year-old single woman shouldn’t get married.  She can’t get pregnant, it’s an affront to God!

To answer the OP’s question, I tend to say it is homophobic.  However, I don’t think every person who opposes gay marriage is a bigot or a hateful person overall.  There is a big difference between simply being uncomfortable with gay marriage and doing what was done to Matthew Shepard.  An old person who grew up with their image of a married couple may have a hard time accepting that same-sex couples can now get married, that doesn’t make them a bad person.  However, this is a simple matter of equal protection under the law.  Since there is no hard evidence that gay marriage is “wrong” or threatens society, and that it appears that homosexuality is an instrinsic part of who certain people are (you can’t just turn your gayness on and off)—and desire for same-sex love is what homosexuality is about—there is no secular, reasonable justification for the government to deny same-sex couples the exact same rights to civil marriage as opposite-sex couples.  Otherwise you are denying gays and lesbians civil rights, and imo, that is like telling people to go to the back of the bus for an instrisic aspect of themselves that they can’t control.  Arguing about gay marriage is not like arguing about tax policy.  Either you support civil rights or you don’t.

Yes, people have their religious beliefs and have the right to them.  I don’t think any church or religious organizations should be forced to recognize a marriage they don’t want to, but not all churches hold the same view.  Why shouldn’t liberal churches be allowed to bless gay marriages?  The government, for its part, shouldn’t decide this issue based what a certain religious group thinks.  Instead, it should decide based on the (supposedly) American ideals of liberty and equality, and grant civil marriages to any couple unless there is a secular reason not to (such as marriage involving a child, since that would involve a victim).  Then all the religious groups can be free to recognize or not recognize any marriage.

"I don't think you should have the same rights as me but I'm not a bad person your marriage just makes me uncomfy "

Also from personal experience the people who are allegedly not bigoted but still "uncomfortable" with gay marriage are the ones who happily turned a blind eye to gay bashing, bullying, and bigoted murderers. They're just as homophobic except they have a smile and bible in their hands.

[TDAS04]

“Gay couples can’t procreate” is a dumb argument against SSM.  If marriage is only moral if the couple can produce children by themselves, then a 70-year-old single woman shouldn’t get married.  She can’t get pregnant, it’s an affront to God!

To answer the OP’s question, I tend to say it is homophobic.  However, I don’t think every person who opposes gay marriage is a bigot or a hateful person overall.  There is a big difference between simply being uncomfortable with gay marriage and doing what was done to Matthew Shepard.  An old person who grew up with their image of a married couple may have a hard time accepting that same-sex couples can now get married, that doesn’t make them a bad person.  However, this is a simple matter of equal protection under the law.  Since there is no hard evidence that gay marriage is “wrong” or threatens society, and that it appears that homosexuality is an instrinsic part of who certain people are (you can’t just turn your gayness on and off)—and desire for same-sex love is what homosexuality is about—there is no secular, reasonable justification for the government to deny same-sex couples the exact same rights to civil marriage as opposite-sex couples.  Otherwise you are denying gays and lesbians civil rights, and imo, that is like telling people to go to the back of the bus for an instrisic aspect of themselves that they can’t control.  Arguing about gay marriage is not like arguing about tax policy.  Either you support civil rights or you don’t.

Yes, people have their religious beliefs and have the right to them.  I don’t think any church or religious organizations should be forced to recognize a marriage they don’t want to, but not all churches hold the same view.  Why shouldn’t liberal churches be allowed to bless gay marriages?  The government, for its part, shouldn’t decide this issue based what a certain religious group thinks.  Instead, it should decide based on the (supposedly) American ideals of liberty and equality, and grant civil marriages to any couple unless there is a secular reason not to (such as marriage involving a child, since that would involve a victim).  Then all the religious groups can be free to recognize or not recognize any marriage.

"I don't think you should have the same rights as me but I'm not a bad person your marriage just makes me uncomfy "

Also from personal experience the people who are allegedly not bigoted but still "uncomfortable" with gay marriage are the ones who happily turned a blind eye to gay bashing, bullying, and bigoted murderers. They're just as homophobic except they have a smile and bible in their hands.

Abraham Lincoln would have been uncomfortable with both gay marriage and interracial marriage.  Was he a nasty, hateful person?  The era someone is from has to be taken into account.

[CookieDamage]

“Gay couples can’t procreate” is a dumb argument against SSM.  If marriage is only moral if the couple can produce children by themselves, then a 70-year-old single woman shouldn’t get married.  She can’t get pregnant, it’s an affront to God!

To answer the OP’s question, I tend to say it is homophobic.  However, I don’t think every person who opposes gay marriage is a bigot or a hateful person overall.  There is a big difference between simply being uncomfortable with gay marriage and doing what was done to Matthew Shepard.  An old person who grew up with their image of a married couple may have a hard time accepting that same-sex couples can now get married, that doesn’t make them a bad person.  However, this is a simple matter of equal protection under the law.  Since there is no hard evidence that gay marriage is “wrong” or threatens society, and that it appears that homosexuality is an instrinsic part of who certain people are (you can’t just turn your gayness on and off)—and desire for same-sex love is what homosexuality is about—there is no secular, reasonable justification for the government to deny same-sex couples the exact same rights to civil marriage as opposite-sex couples.  Otherwise you are denying gays and lesbians civil rights, and imo, that is like telling people to go to the back of the bus for an instrisic aspect of themselves that they can’t control.  Arguing about gay marriage is not like arguing about tax policy.  Either you support civil rights or you don’t.

Yes, people have their religious beliefs and have the right to them.  I don’t think any church or religious organizations should be forced to recognize a marriage they don’t want to, but not all churches hold the same view.  Why shouldn’t liberal churches be allowed to bless gay marriages?  The government, for its part, shouldn’t decide this issue based what a certain religious group thinks.  Instead, it should decide based on the (supposedly) American ideals of liberty and equality, and grant civil marriages to any couple unless there is a secular reason not to (such as marriage involving a child, since that would involve a victim).  Then all the religious groups can be free to recognize or not recognize any marriage.

"I don't think you should have the same rights as me but I'm not a bad person your marriage just makes me uncomfy "

Also from personal experience the people who are allegedly not bigoted but still "uncomfortable" with gay marriage are the ones who happily turned a blind eye to gay bashing, bullying, and bigoted murderers. They're just as homophobic except they have a smile and bible in their hands.

Abraham Lincoln would have been uncomfortable with both gay marriage and interracial marriage.  Was he a nasty, hateful person?  The era someone is from has to be taken into account.

... How am I supposed to respond this... We aren't talking about long dead people. We're talking about people now.

[BlueSwan]

I’m gonna give the more aggressive (and controversial) answer and say yes. To dissect the parts of your/his argument that I don’t agree with:

1) The fact that there are worse kinds of homophobia that exist does not mean that more mild discriminatory beliefs aren’t still homophobic. That’s like saying that simply speaking hateful things about racial minorities can’t be racist, just because then what do we call committing a violent hate crime against a racial minority? Both of those things, although varying in degrees of sheer awfulness, should be considered racist, and thus both opposing gay marriage and something more extreme (like employment discrimation, as he mentioned) can both be homophobic. That doesn’t make them equal, but they’re both homophobic.

2) The whole “but we support civil unions!” argument does nothing for me. Anyone who advocates for civil unions clearly does not belief in full equality for gay couples, because despite the legal equality of a civil union to a marriage, they obviously are not truly equivalent. If they were truly equivalent, no one would be okay with gay couples being in a civil union but not okay with gay couples being married, right? Undoubtedly there is a distinction in their minds (and everyone’s minds) between marriage and a civil union; so don’t act like allowing gays to obtain civil unions is some entirely equal alternative.

3) Just because this belief is based in religion does not make it any less discriminatory or any more reasomable than if it was based in secular thought. (Just because your homophobia comes from a church doesn’t mean I have to respect it any more than if it came from anywhere else.)

Here’s an easier way to put it: if I said black people should only be allowed to join in civil unions, not marriages, I would be branded a racist by nearly everyone (and rightfully so). If you truly believe that gay people are entirely equivalent to straight people and deserving of equal rights, then the same logic should apply if you replace “black people” with “gay people” and “racist” with “homophobic.”. If you don’t believe in this  altered version of the statement, then I would consider you prejudiced against gay people, which is the textbook definition of homophobia.

I have to agree with this.

[TDAS04]

“Gay couples can’t procreate” is a dumb argument against SSM.  If marriage is only moral if the couple can produce children by themselves, then a 70-year-old single woman shouldn’t get married.  She can’t get pregnant, it’s an affront to God!

To answer the OP’s question, I tend to say it is homophobic.  However, I don’t think every person who opposes gay marriage is a bigot or a hateful person overall.  There is a big difference between simply being uncomfortable with gay marriage and doing what was done to Matthew Shepard.  An old person who grew up with their image of a married couple may have a hard time accepting that same-sex couples can now get married, that doesn’t make them a bad person.  However, this is a simple matter of equal protection under the law.  Since there is no hard evidence that gay marriage is “wrong” or threatens society, and that it appears that homosexuality is an instrinsic part of who certain people are (you can’t just turn your gayness on and off)—and desire for same-sex love is what homosexuality is about—there is no secular, reasonable justification for the government to deny same-sex couples the exact same rights to civil marriage as opposite-sex couples.  Otherwise you are denying gays and lesbians civil rights, and imo, that is like telling people to go to the back of the bus for an instrisic aspect of themselves that they can’t control.  Arguing about gay marriage is not like arguing about tax policy.  Either you support civil rights or you don’t.

Yes, people have their religious beliefs and have the right to them.  I don’t think any church or religious organizations should be forced to recognize a marriage they don’t want to, but not all churches hold the same view.  Why shouldn’t liberal churches be allowed to bless gay marriages?  The government, for its part, shouldn’t decide this issue based what a certain religious group thinks.  Instead, it should decide based on the (supposedly) American ideals of liberty and equality, and grant civil marriages to any couple unless there is a secular reason not to (such as marriage involving a child, since that would involve a victim).  Then all the religious groups can be free to recognize or not recognize any marriage.

"I don't think you should have the same rights as me but I'm not a bad person your marriage just makes me uncomfy "

Also from personal experience the people who are allegedly not bigoted but still "uncomfortable" with gay marriage are the ones who happily turned a blind eye to gay bashing, bullying, and bigoted murderers. They're just as homophobic except they have a smile and bible in their hands.

Abraham Lincoln would have been uncomfortable with both gay marriage and interracial marriage.  Was he a nasty, hateful person?  The era someone is from has to be taken into account.

... How am I supposed to respond this... We aren't talking about long dead people. We're talking about people now.

Some older people grew up at a time when homosexuality was very taboo.  Their mindsets aren’t completely changing.  Some may even hold some racial biases, but that doesn’t mean they support lynchings.

I think opposing gay marriage is a bigoted view.  I just don’t think we can neatly define who is a bigoted person and who is not.