Laura Ingraham is Totally Not a Bigot

It’s always amusing to me when anti-gay bigots pretend not to be bigots. They even feign great outrage at the mere suggestion that just because they want to deny equal rights to gay people, that makes them bigoted against them. How dare you suggest such a thing? Laura Ingraham gives it a shot:

According to Ingraham, being against the right of same-sex couples to marry doesn’t make someone anti-gay. And being against the right of same-sex couples to marry doesn’t mean someone is judging other people.

Having totally not squared that circle, Ingraham then suggests she might open to same-sex marriage as long as it can be proven that “it’s ultimately about what’s best for the children” and has a long history of working.

“What do we know definitively works, and worked, and what is still an unknown, what did [our country] historically believe?”

Oh yes, yes, yes, it’s all about the children, don’t you know. Never mind that no credible study has found any evidence that the children of gay parents are any worse off than the children of straight parents. And never mind that parenting doesn’t require marriage anyway; there are hundreds of thousands of children being raised by gay parents and that will remain true whether they will be allowed to bet married or not.

Most importantly, let’s not talk about all the circumstances in which this argument is never applied. Studies show pretty conclusively that the children of poor parents do worse, statistically, than the children of wealthy parents, yet we don’t have a minimum income requirement to get married. Children of those with criminal records are statistically worse off than those without, but we don’t refuse marriage licenses to those with a criminal record. Children of high school dropouts are statistically worse off than children of college graduates, yet we don’t require a minimum level of education to get married.

So no, it isn’t all about the children. That’s a pretext, not a serious argument. It’s an attempt to put a respectable veneer over the top of the real reason why people oppose same-sex marriage, which is that they’re bigoted against gay people.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    she might [be] open to same-sex marriage as long as it can be proven that “it’s ultimately about what’s best for the children” and has a long history of working

    And of course, if gays can’t get married, you can’t build up that history. Nice Catch 22 you got there.

  • Chiroptera

    …she might open to same-sex marriage as long as it can be proven that “it’s ultimately about what’s best for the children” and has a long history of working.

    lol

    But never mind that you have to allow same sex marriage for it to have a long history of working.

    “What do we know definitively works….”

    If “we” includes people who know families headed by gay couples and professionally trained researchers in the subject, then one thing “we” know is that gay marriage is good for children.

    If “we” just means conservative Christians, then “we” don’t know much at all. About anything, actually.

  • cptdoom

    Not to mention – how exactly do we get the proof the same-sex marriages provide what’s “best for children” without actually having same-sex marriages to analyze? Data, to date, have been drawn from same-sex relationships that lack the stability of an opposite-sex marriage. I believe that’s what’s known as a “Catch-22.”

  • cptdoom

    So @ John Pieret got there first.

  • matty1

    what did [our country] historically believe?”

    “ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

  • scienceavenger

    Ingraham then suggests she might open to same-sex marriage as long as it can be proven that “it’s ultimately about what’s best for the children.”

    What children? The question isn’t whether gay people can adopt, its about whether they can marry. Does Ingraham think when one gets married the stork automatically drops babies at one’s door? Since about 75% of gay couples don’t have/want children, why don’t you explain why they shouldn’t be allowed to get married and stop trying to change the subject.

    Benghazi!

  • D. C. Sessions

    Before anyone tries to point out the history of SSM in other countries, let me remind you:

    1) American Exceptionalism!

    2) That was “long history,” not just “history.” Which, from a Christian perspective, would require at least several milennia.

  • Kevin Kehres

    Whine on, Laura, whine on. The courts have already rejected that argument as being specious. When a federal court judge mocks that argument, you know you’re in trouble.

    (When the government)…thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be pressured (in the form of governmental encouragement of marriage through a combination of sticks and carrots) to marry, but that gay couples, unable as they are to produce children wanted or unwanted, are model parents—model citizens really—so have no need for marriage. Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Never mind that no credible study has found any evidence that the children of gay parents are any worse off than the children of straight parents.

    THEY DO!!! THEYVE DONE A BUNCH OF STUDYS AND NOT A SINGLE ONE SHOWS “THEIR” CHILDREN GROWING UP TO HATE AND FEAR THE GAYHOMOS!!! IF THE GAYS CANT INCULCATE “THEIR” “OWN” CHILDREN TO HATE AND FEAR THEM HOW CAN THEY EVEN CALL THEMSELVES PARENTS?!!!

  • John Pieret

    For those interested, Kevin Kehres’ quote @ 8 came from Judge Richard Posner’s 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision:

    http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/7th-CA-Ind.-and-Wis.-decision-9-4-14.pdf

    Posner, one of the most influential conservative judges not on SCOTUS heaped scorn on the anti-SSM arguments, often in ways that were (at least to lawyers) very funny.

  • busterggi

    Matty1 @ 5. And please note the persons mentioned were male only, females weren’t even worth 3/5 of a male.

  • anbheal

    Why are unwed gay parents better for their children?