iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Gay Marriage Foes Assume Own Marriages Are Stable, Survey Suggests

Posted: 04/16/2012 11:05 am Updated: 04/16/2012 11:05 am

Gay Marriage

By: Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
Published: 04/16/2012 10:10 AM EDT on LiveScience

Opponents of same-sex marriage worry that extending the institution's rights to gay people will harm heterosexual marriages. But a new study suggests that no one really believes their own relationships are at risk — only other people's.

The study is a demonstration of the "third-person perception," a common psychological bias in which people are convinced that others are much more influenced by outside sources such as media and advertising than they themselves are. In the realm of same-sex marriage, people who strongly value authority and tradition were the most likely to demonstrate this third-person effect.

The study idea came about during the height of the public gay marriage debate several years ago, said study researcher Matthew Winslow, a psychologist at Eastern Kentucky University. Opponents of same-sex marriage kept citing the dangers of such unions, Winslow said. Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, for example, said in 2005 that same-sex marriage would "undermine the traditional relationship between men and women." [10 Wedding Traditions from Around the World]

To Winslow, it seemed unlikely that Dobson was including his own marriage in statements like this.

"It just dawned on me, most of the people who were really vehemently against gay marriage were not likely to say they were worried about their own marriages, but they talked about how if we allowed gay marriage it was going to be bad for society in general," Winslow told LiveScience.

Perceiving other people

Suspecting that the third-party perception might be behind this line of argument, Winslow and his colleagues surveyed 120 straight, unmarried undergraduates about their support for same-sex marriage as well as their beliefs about how the legalization of marriage between gay individuals would affect their own relationships and the relationships of others. The students also answered questions about their political persuasion and their attitudes toward authority.

The students were young, putting them in the demographic that is more supportive of same-sex marriage. Indeed, they were generally accepting, with more than half falling on the "supportive" end of the scale measuring attitudes toward gay marriage. (In 2011, a majority of Americans backed same-sex marriage legalization for the first time. These students were questioned several years earlier, however.)

Nevertheless, even in this supportive group, the third-person perception reared its head.

"People were not really worried about it affecting their own marriage at all," Winslow said. "The scores on that measure were really low."

As a relatively accepting group, the students weren't overly concerned that gay marriage would affect straight relationships. But importantly, they did rate the likelihood of those effects significantly higher for other people than they did for themselves.

Personality and perceptions

The group most likely to see itself as impervious and others as vulnerable was composed of people with a personality trait called right-wing authoritarianism. People with this trait strongly value tradition and authority, and dislike people not in their own social group.

Right-wing authoritarians' perceptions of themselves as strong and others as weak might help explain this group's strong opposition to gay marriage, Winslow said. But the study, published April 10 in the journal Social Psychology, also highlights that everybody judges themselves as a little bit better than the next guy.

"If everyone believes that other people are more affected than they are, that's just not logical," said Winslow, who suggested that focusing on putting yourself in others' shoes might help banish this bias. "If you believe you are not going to be affected by [same-sex marriage], just recognize that probably other people believe the same way, so the good news is that probably people aren't going to be affected by it that much."

You can follow LiveScience senior writer Stephanie Pappas on Twitter @sipappas. Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook.

Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW SCIENCE

By: Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer Published: 04/16/2012 10:10 AM EDT on LiveScience Opponents of same-sex marriage worry that extending the institution's rights to gay people will ...
By: Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer Published: 04/16/2012 10:10 AM EDT on LiveScience Opponents of same-sex marriage worry that extending the institution's rights to gay people will ...
Filed by David Freeman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,322
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (17 total)
  1 of 1  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
goodog 11:12 PM on 04/17/2012
helenwheels74 asks...
"...why those people think that marriage equality is a harmful concept toward heterosexual marriage. what specific threat does it present? can anyone tell me?"
It's surprisingly logical answer for such an irrational fear. They logically (however hatefully) fear that the absence of social stigmatization of homosexuality risks more and more people  Read More...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jltjlt9
12:16 AM on 04/27/2012
Thank you Huff Post Moderators. I am impressed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jltjlt9
12:45 AM on 04/26/2012
I am sick of all this nonsense about homophobia and hate and so forth. There are a lot more people out there who have revulsion towards this same sex marriage thing and it has nothing to do with hate. It does have a lot to do with the type of sex two men have because they are not physically designed to be a mated pair. That is not hate. It is biology to think no one else's opinion means anything if it does not come from your own little group. Now disgust and revulsion over this activity should not be viewed as hate. That is my opinion and I feel anyone who flags this opinion is a bigot and is against differing opinions other than their own and those of their group.
06:34 AM on 04/27/2012
Feeling "revulsion" about other human beings based on what you THINK defines them and what you THINK they represent, especially when those premises are factually inaccurate, is pretty much the definition of hate, jltjlt9.

Orientation is not about sexual acts. It's about who we are drawn to when we feel romantic love or sexual attraction. A straight person is straight whether he/she ever has sex or not, just as a gay person is gay whether he/she ever has sex or not.

What gay people want is not complicated or unreasonable. It's quite simple really. They want to be able to live their lives without being villified, demonized or discriminated against. They want to feel as safe as anyone else walking down the street and not have to worry that someone might physically or verbally assault them as a way to demonstrate their moral "superiority."

Bigotry is not the act of demanding respect or to be treated with the same human decency as everyone else. Bigotry is a narrow minded intolerance or bias. Which is precisely what you have shown toward gay people. And feeling that prejudice strongly won't make it any more legitimate and believing in your flawed impressions of homosexuality won't make them true.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jltjlt9
11:20 PM on 04/27/2012
This is not bigotry. I do not know how to make it clearer and more than I have already tried. I do not know if I try to make it clearer that it will be something which can be posted.

OK I will try. If a man uses the bathroom and forgets to wash his hands and you are aware of this and refuse to shake his hand, that is not what I would call a bigot.

If this same man is the cook of a fine restaurant and he uses the potty and upon coming out see's you, strikes up a conversation and then leaves without washing his hands and you refuse to eat what he has made, does that make you a bigot, no.

Homosexuality for many men is a consideration which falls along those lines. It is a matter of appropriate handling of things and those things referring to the sexual nature of man upon man copulation. It is not a matter of hate at all. It is a matter of perception and what straight men think when a man or two married men make themselves present and the straight man knows how these two men may copulate in the only ways possible who are not really designed for same sex copulation.

Now hate is something completely different. Some men and groups may hate the Homosexual man. I do not.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jltjlt9
12:18 AM on 04/26/2012
I do not believe that the reason that so many are against gay marriage is because those protesting have quirks. The ultimate reason is that men are not physically designed to have intercourse. Therefore are not designed to be married. Since men are not designed to have intercourse then alternative types of sexual activity must be employed. Those are deviations from the norm. Now when a society starts to think that deviant behavior is right and there is something inherently wrong with heterosexual marriage, we are heading down the road to destruction and total insanity.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
filmfreak1982
06:59 PM on 06/01/2012
So, if you don't agree with those behaviors, don't freaking engage in them, you fool! And the "norm" you speak of is nothing more than your personal bias.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mario andretti
I can't drive 55.
05:48 PM on 04/19/2012
Never one to make erroneous observations what I gleaned from this is anyone who is secure with their marriage is secretly gay.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jltjlt9
12:20 AM on 04/26/2012
Nice try but it does not fly. However you might consider that Gay people are secretly afraid of the opposite sex and deep down inside they want to be straight.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mario andretti
I can't drive 55.
03:48 PM on 04/26/2012
Speaking of flying you might duck as the snark involved here is passing over your head.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jltjlt9
12:47 AM on 04/26/2012
Have you considered that you are a heterosexual phobic and deep down inside you wish you were straight?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mario andretti
I can't drive 55.
03:48 PM on 04/26/2012
No I let people like you worry about their sexual identity for the rest of us. Glad to see you're hard at work (pun intended)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Debbie338
What we manifest is before us
12:01 PM on 04/19/2012
So, the first question to ask someone who says that gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage is: "Do you feel your own marriage is threatened by gay marriage?" Pretty good retort.
Syllogizer
Barely Left of Pobedonostsev
01:43 PM on 04/19/2012
No, it is a pretty awful retort. For like this article, it fails to notice the distinction between "your own marriage", which is a special sort of contract, and 'marriage' as an institution.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Debbie338
What we manifest is before us
02:19 PM on 04/19/2012
Not at all. If you can say you are not concerned about your own marriage, why do you have the right to stick your nose in someone else's and be paternalistic about theirs?
11:34 AM on 04/20/2012
I disagree, Syllogizer. The person in a heterosexual marriage is participating in that larger institution. So, for example, if that person divorced they would be undermining the institution of marriage by ceasing to participate in it. If no one got married there would be no 'institution of marriage.' That's why there is no substantive distinction between a singular contract of marriage between individuals and the institution as a whole. Once people are married they've automatically begun to help shape what 'marriage' in general means. For example, marriage now a days often means 'short' rather than 'for as long as we both may live.' People get divorced all the time which has changed what marriage means as an institution. Lots of people think that this growing trend of divorce is harming the institution of marriage as a whole, changing its' meaning. However, would you say that since other people get divorced you feel yourself thinking & feeling that way about your marriage? Probably not. That is the point.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
practiceempathy
Tolerance need not yield to willful ignorance.
04:13 PM on 04/24/2012
Some actually DO.

They somehow feel as if it is an affront to THEIR personal relationship status. Kind of like blacks "contaminating" a white swimming pool. There's really very little difference.
photo
Ossit
Ossit
09:06 AM on 04/19/2012
What nonsense. People who mind everyone else's business are the ones who try to dictate what one should and shouldn't do.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:51 PM on 04/18/2012
"Opponents of same-sex marriage worry that extending the institution's rights to gay people will harm heterosexual marriages."

They must be BSing, have they looked at the divorce rates and extramarital affairs here and around the world, while repeating "the definition" of marriage is as divorce always continue to happen? Oh right they are wearing the oblivious hats while screaming the sky is falling.
04:45 PM on 04/18/2012
This started with religious zealots and right-wing republicans telling their congregations and constituents that the LGBT community is evil and will corrupt their children and society as a whole. These are fear-mongering tactics that prey on ignorance and blind faith. Then when the LGBT community and it's supporters come out against the misinformation and lies being spread about them, the right-wing machine cries "religious persecution!" The idea that Christians of any walk of life are oppressed or even publicly persecuted in the USA is absolutely ridiculous. The right-wing believes that if their religion is not written into law and the entire government and laws bend to there religious beliefs then they are being publicly persecuted, under the notion that they are being "forced" to accept something that goes against their beliefs. When marriage equality is the law of the land these right-wingers will still be allowed to believe whatever they want but what they truly fear is that society won't accept their bigotry openly.
photo
TXanimal
Somewhere between Occam's Razor & Murphy's Law
02:54 PM on 04/18/2012
Also, if you recognize that gay people are capable of loving and creating the same kinds of relationships that straight people do, then they become human beings. When you look past specific sex acts and admit that gay people are just people who live rich, full, moral, decent lives, you're admitting that people are capable of being good outside of your own narrow religious beliefs. And that is terrifying to certain people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
talkstocoyotes
02:30 PM on 04/21/2012
**Also, if you recognize that gay people are capable of loving and creating the same kinds of relationships that straight people do, then they become human beings.**

But that's when the game starts to unravel, so viewing gay people in that way is precisely what the civil rights opponents posting here and elsewhere don't want. It's an old routine; the white settlers in the American continents could hardly justify what they did to the native populations if they didn't see them as dirty [i.e., not white] heathens [i.e., not Christian]. And unfortunately, that mentality isn't limited to any one race or religion.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jltjlt9
12:23 AM on 04/26/2012
Even the indians mated with the opposite sex. Go ahead and love someone of the same sex. You do not need a paper to say you are married to do that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
observer42
01:09 PM on 04/18/2012
I sat in a church three times a week all through my formative years and beyond, hearing that our country was becoming a Soddam and Gomorrah due to homosexuality, and therefore the end of times were upon us. I learned, before I knew what the term meant, to fear those "sins" because they were going to cause me and mine to be destroyed.

I can remember my first doubts about the vileness of homosexuality, and people of other colors, and my curiosity about ideas my church preached against. I was terrified. I thought god would strike me dead for entertaining the idea that my preacher might be WRONG. God did not strike me dead.

Children are still being indoctrinated in churches, the very place where love should be the first memory instilled in their pliant minds. Most of the anti gay people I know still claim God is the reason for their hatred. Still.

When I first heard my 8 year old grandson yelling, "you're so gay," to a friend, he didn't know what the word meant. Now he is 9, and knows his favorite aunt is gay, and when someone makes an anti gay comment, he says, "That's so dumb!"

Growth is slow, but there is growth.
02:22 PM on 04/18/2012
I'm so proud of your grandson. That's how it needs to start - one child at a time.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
filmfreak1982
10:50 AM on 04/20/2012
That's wonderful! Change can happen. We may not move mountains, but we can do it one grain of sand at a time. Your grandson seems like a truly special child.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
observer42
12:53 PM on 04/18/2012
I sat in a church three times a week for all my formative years and beyond, and heard regularily that our country was turning into Soddom and Gomorrah due to adultry and homosexuality. I learned this years before I knew what either term meant.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
cinemaven
Follow me on Twitter :)
10:39 AM on 04/18/2012
I was married 32 years ago to my high school sweetheart. It was easy, we got a license, a church and a hall and invited our friends and family who came from far and wide. We were quite young (20 & 21) but no one judged us, there was a world of support, advice and love.
For 32 years, I've been blissfully happy with my soul mate. We hold hands when we walk, we sometimes stop and kiss and we're obviously partners to anyone who sees us.

For 32 years, my favorite cousin has had a partner. He brought him to our wedding and some of the family was scandalized. If they walk down the wrong street holding hands, they could have a problem. His love is no less than ours and the only thing that ever threatened the sanctity of my marriage was the fact that my cousin and our friends couldn't marry.

I doubt the third man argument... It's an excuse made by people who wouldn't know love if it bit their cheek. It's an excuse of couples who are desperately trying to give their unhappy marriages meaning by excluding others from their sad little club. Everyone I know who is blessed with real love is a bit evangelical about wanting ALL of our friends and family to be happy and in love too.
02:24 PM on 04/18/2012
Beautifully said, Cinemaven. Congratulations on your long and happy marriage.
11:40 AM on 04/20/2012
Cinemaven, that is such an excellent point that I hadn't really considered before: people who are happily in love are kinda evangelical about it and hope everybody around them can be as happy as they are. Clearly, those that espouse marriage exclusion based on sexual orientation are feeling less love and more exclusionary club membership. Lame.

Congrats to you and your loving marriage!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
practiceempathy
Tolerance need not yield to willful ignorance.
04:18 PM on 04/24/2012
It seems the most rabidly anti-gay are miserable, or that they are desperate to redeem themselves somehow. Take Maggie Gallagher of NOM. I think she can't forgive herself for having a child out of wedlock, so she's targeted the gays and made "protecting" so-called traditional marriage her life's mission. It's very sad.
photo
goodog
Honk if you believe in a public editor.
11:12 PM on 04/17/2012
helenwheels74 asks...
"...why those people think that marriage equality is a harmful concept toward heterosexual marriage. what specific threat does it present? can anyone tell me?"
It's surprisingly logical answer for such an irrational fear. They logically (however hatefully) fear that the absence of social stigmatization of homosexuality risks more and more people being a) comfortable expressing their sexual orientation, thus b) avoiding the closet, and, finally c) not participating in the sham "heterosexual" marriages that serve as the closet door.

From an objectively sociological perspective, the sham marriages of the closet actually are a traditional institution, albeit one not openly discussed by the people unwilling to acknowledge that traditional sham marriage is actually what they're fighting for.

Homophobes value traditional sham marriage as a legitimate option for frightened closet cases cowering in social rebuke so strong that they're willing to lie to their fiancé(e) about their suitability as a romantic mate. They do not, however, feel so strongly about it that they specifically indoctrinate their (presumably) straight sons and daughters as fully informed prospective mates for closet cases seeking traditional sham marriage.

Therein lies the paradoxically logical absurdity of what these people fear: the end of traditional sham marriage that they wouldn't wish on their own straight children but insist is a linchpin of all that's right and good about society.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ZoeyMO
07:50 AM on 04/18/2012
Excellent analysis! That is the ONLY logical effect that gay marriage could have on straight marriage. Of course, there is also the underlying fear that some "straight" people will be "led astray" by the oh-so-attractive life of the homosexual.
02:26 PM on 04/18/2012
So right. I've posted elsewhere on this site my striking memory of an anti-gay pastor/activist who wrote that children must be protected from "the gay agenda" becuse homosexuality is "such a seductive lifestyle" that if children were exposed to it they'd choose that over heterosexuality. Apparently this pastor has unwittingly been "outing" himself for years and is totally unaware of it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
filmfreak1982
10:52 AM on 04/20/2012
No one can be led astray. Sexual orientation is not something you choose. We are, in the words of Lady GaGa: "Born This Way!"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
talkstocoyotes
10:19 AM on 04/18/2012
That's the best explanation I've heard so far of the odd argument that "gays are already free to marry -- as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex" -- which is arguably even more restrictive than the similar racist defense of anti-miscegenation laws.
Syllogizer
Barely Left of Pobedonostsev
01:47 PM on 04/19/2012
Stop talking to coyotes and you might hear a better explanation. For the one you praise to the skies is actually pretty poor.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carla van der Meer
in scientia opportunatis
10:25 PM on 04/17/2012
While this sheds a little more light on the subject, it doesn't come as any surprise that right wing people feel this way. The question remains: what, if anything, can be done about this? These people are by nature inflexible and are rarely open to persuasion. Trust me, I've tried and I'd sooner convince my dog to fly than I could convince this person that my two if my two gay friends got married, the world would not end, the sky would not fall and marriages everywhere would be safe, or at least as safe as they were before. None of this effects them, but for right wingers, logic and insight are often as foreign as a trip to Mars. Somehow they must be made to see reason.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pauliji
Don't crush that dwarf, hand me the pliers
12:50 AM on 04/18/2012
I have tried too. And while nobody has ever changed their opinion right in front of my face, I attribute that to the universal desire to maintain "face". Nobody likes to be wrong. If you can get an opponent to admit that their own marriage is unaffected by marriage equality, you have won half the battle. They will not publicly admit that nobody's marriage has been damaged, and will often make vague claims about the future, or society that are purposely nebulous and impossible to disprove, but this is just cover to avoid appearing wrong-headed. The message still gets through. There certainly are people who are so dim, so entrenched that they will continue to push an agenda which has been personally and publicly discredited numerous times. But most people will just stop pushing so hard, and maybe even altogether, if they are publicly confronted with reality in a personal way. It's hard not to be blaming in this situation, but we must at least try to maintain a little compassion for those who are trapped in an authoritarian mindset. It's not easy. I do not, however have any compassion for those who go out and loudly profess these lies and slanders about marriage equality. If someone takes on that kind of public role, they deserve to be stuck with a pin quite publicly. I enjoy the sound that air makes when it escapes.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
cinemaven
Follow me on Twitter :)
10:53 AM on 04/18/2012
When marriage equality was passed in Canada, only 50% of Canadians wanted it.
In 8 years, I've watched people who thought it was the end of the world do a complete turn around because their friends and family members began to come out. We all love someone who's gay but we don't all know it.

The Anglican church my best friend attends was against allowing weddings for same sex couples and the argument went on for about a year. One of the women who was the cornerstone of the church fell ill and she went to the minister and let him know that, at 71 years old, she was going to marry her partner so they could move into the same room in a full care nursing home. The two women had lived together for over 50 years and the people in the church thought they were spinsters. Lol
These two women were friends to every family. If you were sick, they were the ones who cooked for you. The church threw them an amazing wedding and is now one of the most gay friendly churches in our city.

Those who oppose marriage equality will either learn and grow when equality is passed or they won't but no one should have to wait for them to catch up. U.S. Wide marriage equality as soon as possible is the best teaching tool
02:32 PM on 04/18/2012
What a wonderful and touching story! Thanks for sharing it. I do think you're right about how people's minds are changed when it turns out someone they know or love is gay. Without those personal relationships with gays, it's easy to paint them as so "other" that it becomes a fearsome thing.

On the other hand, there are those who are so brainwashed by their rightwing churches that they'll discard family members like so much garbage if they learn thyey're gay.

My sister and her husband are members of a rightwing extremist church. When his daughter announced she was a lesbian, he and his parents told her to get out, to never darken their door again, and from henceforth she no longer existed for them.

Such hatred, ignorance, and bigotry, it breaks my heart. This poor girl's mother had died years before, she had no aunts and uncles, so being thrown away by her father and grandparents meant she had to go through life with no family left. The deliberate cruelty in the name of religion upsets me beyond my ability to express it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:35 AM on 04/22/2012
What a beautiful story. It shows that people can change their minds and moreover, celebrate that change of mind in such a public way.

Thank you for sharing the story with us.
09:39 PM on 04/17/2012
So I guess being right-winged is officially a sort of personality or character flaw now. It's official grandpa, get over yourself.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
talkstocoyotes
02:34 PM on 04/21/2012
Your grandpa isn't the only right-winger out there, so bigotry against seniors isn't exactly the answer.
09:36 PM on 04/21/2012
You're right. I should never make jokes about my grandpa.

I know that he isn't the only right-winger and I know people of any age can be conservative.
But bigotry? If you took me literally (the tone of my post was obviously intensely serious?), than I don't see it much. I just said "get over yourself." - not "get on that iceberg and float off to sea." And if taken in jest, than I guess what I meant was views held by my grandpa and other conservatives- the ones that are intolerant and bigoted- are the views that I guess I could be considered "bigoted" towards. If being hateful at hateful thoughts is to be called bigoted- though usually not the context that word is used in.

Beyond all of this, I do think people get more conservative relative to the general population as they age. People's personalities become less and less open according to the five dimension personality psychology suggests, and people become more introverted and more concerned with practical issues and specific people rather than any humanist issues. So it isn't really horrible to make a statement that suggests older people tend to be conservative.