# A public service: Names of Proposition 8 supporters **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 4, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362 "2009-02-04T03:12:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/401 "2009-02-17T17:30:35Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Yes, to an extent. But we are the \*\*United \*\*States of America, not 50 smaller societies. We are not unified when the law treats a certain segment of the population one way in one part of the country than in different way in a another part. The idea of the US was to allow the states comprising the republic to be, to a degree, self-determining. The proper balance is fodder for another thread . Or ten. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Right. The legal right to marry and have reciprocity in recognition of that marriage between every state in the Union (one set of marriage laws) accessible to both straight and same-sex couples (for two groups). Makes sense to me and precisely what I think should happen. We’re both advocating the same thing then. Except for the word. The difference is how these rights are accessed. You want to expand the definition of marriage and have more couples tap into the rights through that route. I want the same one set of laws, but have them apply to two groups. Think about it as “men” and “women” both being bound by the same traffic laws. We don’t need to dispense with the groups’ labels in order to have equity with the law. As I mentioned in another thread, I would have the provision that any addition, subtraction, or change to that one set would have to apply to the two groups: married people and gays in civil unions (or whatever else they want to call it, except marriage). I see these both as viable options. I like mine better because that the rights are gained, they are equal, yet we maintain the traditional meaning of marriage. which I think is a good thing for all the reasons I’ve mentioned. And one that I haven’t actually, which I think is a bonus: it doesn’t interfere with the religious component which many people feel strongly about. (Please note that I don’t offer this as a reason, but just a bonus. My position has nothing to do with religion.) > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > You say your defense of marriage is not based on a particular couple’s desire to have it mean what they want it to mean. I say it is based on whether that particular couple is opposite sex, which you strongly defend. If the couple is same-sex, you vehemently deny they can have a legally recognized marriage. That’s the only distinction to make, but you make it just the same. You misunderstand the point I was making. My position is not dictated by what a particular couple wants—gay, hetero, or other. I think it’s a bad idea for society regardless of ANY couple’s opinion. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > You don’t have to defend interracial couples because there are no longer laws preventing them from marrying. From colonial times until very recently, though, there were numerous miscegenation laws in many states. The opposition to interracial marriage was widespread and vehement. There were very few people that would defend it. The only reason this changed is because the feds stepped in and declared them it unconstitutional. The only reason it came to this is because society’s attitude slowly changed as it now taking place with regard to same-sex marriage. Not all problems concerning marriage are the same, and should be resolved the same way or for the same reasons. I’ve explained why mixed marriages are different than SSM. More than once. If you’d like to address those particular points, please do. But please don’t act as if I’ve not addressed it. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Would you have defended marriage at that time as between a man and woman of the same race? That is how antiquated I see your position. The very arguments you put forth to deny same-sex marriage are the very same arguments that was used for centuries to deny interracial marriages. No. You’re wrong. Please review my last few posts which address this. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > This isn’t even a reasonable argument. Just because you say this is PC nonsense, doesn’t make it so. Infected? Get real. You’re going to have to try harder than this. I don’t know what stone tablets you’re working with, but whatever they are, the time has come to smash them to a bazillion pieces and join us in the 21st century. Some words to live by: Tradition is a guide and not a jailer. (Maugham) I’m using it as a guide. I simply come to a different conclusion as to which way to head. (Bonus points for the “stone tablets” line though. Credit where credit is due.) > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Yeah. I deny it. Societal recognition does not equal natural recognition. There is no basis in nature because, again, nature doesn’t recognize marriage. An unmarried couple may be just as prolific in family-making as a married couple, obviously. Or quite the opposite. Marital status has absolutely no natural impact whatsoever on family building. Well, I never said they were equal. I said that society recognized what nature did on it’s own and sanctioned it, embraced it, encouraged it and protected it. I also disagree—strongly—that marital status has no impact on family building. I think that people who are married are going to feel a greater responsibility to what that marriage produces. They will be both more careful with the number of children they create and more apt to take their responsibilities to whatever children they create more seriously. I think this is one of the problems plaguing blacks in the inner cities. Women have several children with several different fathers. There is not a strong family unit. This section of society would benefit greatly with a more traditional approach to mating. And marriage, in it’s most traditional sense, would be a great benefit to them. Particularly the women and children. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > So, you’re going to let a little tradition, the way a word is defined to you, and (well, no, not) nature, get in the way of benefit to society? I thought you said SSMs were not beneficial? Now they are? I never said they were completely without benefit. The point is that while gay unions do have benefit, calling them “marriages” is a net negative. I’m willing to let what I perceive to be a greater long-term benefit “get in the way” of of a smaller benefit. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > But you’re in favor of adoption for same-sex couples. Young children of divorced parents very often lack any kind of bonding with their non-custodial parent. Do you think we should prohibit divorce between couples with young children, so we can ensure an environment in which children can keep that connection with both parents? Though this is the first time I think you’ve done it, I really get tired of this disingenuous argument and attempt at gotcha. Just because one might argue against SSM because it falls short of the ideal, it doesn’t follow that one must take draconian steps to erase every little thing that taints marriage. People are fallible. People change. Marriages will fail. The argument that people should be kept in a marriage that is unhealthy is not realistic. More important to my point, it is not what any proponent of SSM would sincerely argue for. I think I’ll do myself a favor and ignore this nonsense from now on. Again, I recognize that you haven’t been doing this in our discussion until now. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Do you think that gay couples lack family, friends and acquaintances of the opposite sex that can impact their children’s life positively? You don’t feel that gay couples can provide just as loving and in some cases even more loving home than a heterosexual couple? Do you think that children raised to accept homosexuality as normal and insignificant to daily life, can’t feel loved and nurtured? What if the child is a product of the relationship and not an external adoption from a less-than-ideal environment? Women do have children within committed, loving same-sex relationships. Men, to a lesser extent, can as well with the assistance of a surrogate, in the same way couples with fertility issues do. There is no legal basis for treating these families different, and doing so, is a detriment to these families. Yes, I DO feel gay couples can provide just as loving and in some cases even more loving home than a heterosexual couple. I’ve said that repeatedly. Which is why I _advocate_ gays being able to adopt. The point is that they can’t provide the “ideal”. And it benefits us to have a word that refers to that ideal situation. To be able to hold it up for younger generations and point to it. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Not only is he a shameless adulterer, he had homosexual relations with a paid escort. It’s a triple header of iniquity! I won’t even mention the drugs. But don’t you think his wife had to be apoplectic by the time the dust settled on his public humiliation? I would have been. And yet, I still feel secure in my own marriage. Imagine that. Even the most heinous of marital baseness that I could possibly imagine doesn’t phase my own marriage. Newsflash: there will always be bad marriages, sham marriages, etc. Just because those will exist I see no reason to further dilute the institution. If anything, it says they we should be even more protective of it in the ways that we can. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Nope, what’s absurd is that you think the more you shout “MAN AND WOMAN,” the more sense you make. Get your dictionary back out again. Your new word of the day is **exclusivity**. I advocate laws that do not exclude on the basis of sexual orientation because they are not discriminatory for arbitrary reasons like definitions \*\*magellan \*\*prefers, traditions that have outlived their applicability to modern life, and nature. Oh wait, not nature. It doesn’t care. Definitions aren’t arbitrary. They’re not made up out of thin air. And they’re very important as far as our laws go. I know you know this. And nature cares quite a lot actually. While it made possible both hetero couples and gay ones, it gave only one set the ability to procreate. You think that’s incidental. I think it is of great importance. I think nature knows what it was doing. The proof of that is that you and I are here. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Society always reacts with respect to the natural tendency of humans. And over time societal acceptance changes. The natural tendency of some humans is attraction to their own gender (humans aren’t even the only species this occurs in). As this becomes more prevalent in our modern life, society is adapting to it. It’s the normal progression of society. You seem to think that were heading inevitably and irretrievably toward a society where SS couples are as accepted as hetero ones. That may or may bot be the case. You’ll recall that at different times during Greek times (which is often pointed to as a more progressive society), homosexuality was alternatively widely accepted and rejected. So the world has headed in that direction before, and pulled back. Homosexuality, over the centuries has gained acceptance. And lost it. Why do you think that is. That _after_ it had become accepted, it then lost favor? Do you not think that might happen again? This assumption on your part, and others, that the current trend toward being more accepting of homosexual relationships is a movement toward some objective “good”, some white light is one of the things that makes discussion difficult. You, to take liberty with a phrase, presume to have “God” on your side. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Some societies happen to be ahead of ours in this respect and others are far behind. Not so ironically, it’s the more religious societies that are a bit more reluctant to evolve. I am not alone in seeing value in this progression. This “objective” progress you see is your wishful thinking. It may or may not come to pass. Homosexuality has been around a long, long time. But it has never gained sustained acceptance. Even during Greek times it was not viewed as equal to heterosexuality. I think it undeniable that we are on a curve where it is gaining acceptance. But it can just as easily lose it. This is another reason I advocate that the RIGHTS be the issue. It is harder to take away something that has such a strong moral and logical component. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Nope, I’m arguing that tradition for tradition’s sake is stupid and sets us back lightyears. And you’re ignoring that I’ve explained that’s not what I was doing. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/402 "2009-02-17T18:30:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > We’re both advocating the same thing then. Except for the word. The difference is how these rights are accessed. You want to expand the definition of marriage and have more couples tap into the rights through that route. I want the same one set of laws, but have them apply to two groups. No, that’s precisely the opposite of what you’ve been arguing for all along. You don’t want one set of laws accessed by two groups, you want two sets of laws, one for each group. It’s everyone _else_ in the thread who wants one set of laws accessed by two groups. > [@](#): > > Think about it as “men” and “women” both being bound by the same traffic laws. We don’t need to dispense with the groups’ labels in order to have equity with the law. Again, this is what _everyone else_ is arguing. There’s one set of laws for driving, and they apply equally to everyone, regardless of race, creed, or gender. What you want is a law that discriminates between people based on their gender - men can only marry women, and women can only marry men. This is exactly how every other law in this country _doesn’t_ work, because we’ve learned, time and time again, that when there’s separate laws for different groups of people, it always, always, _always_ leads to abuse. > [@](#): > > As I mentioned in another thread, I would have the provision that any addition, subtraction, or change to that one set would have to apply to the two groups: married people and gays in civil unions (or whatever else they want to call it, except marriage). And that’s never going to work. You know how I know? Because it never has before, and there’s absolutely no reason to think that human nature has undergone a vast sea-change between now, and when we had these exact same arguments before over race, and gender, and religion. Every time, someone like you pops up and says, “I’ve got absolutely nothing against those chaps, really, but wouldn’t it be better if we had a separate system for dealing with them than the one people like us use?” And every single time, it turns out all fucked up, and we have to do what we should have done in the first place, which is to keep the law blind to the differences between citizens. ---
**Author:** ![George\_Kaplin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3e96dc/32.png) [@George\_Kaplin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/George_Kaplin)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/403 "2009-02-17T19:06:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I do recognize that it doesn’t help the institution when people marry for the wrong reasons. Some of the intentional abuse is legal, which we can’t do much about (gold-digging). Some of it is illegal (Visa), which we should attempt to reduce as much as we can. I’m not understanding how you jump from these problems to expanding the definition of the word, thereby diluting the meaning from another direction. If you believed, as I do, that the desire to see a loving consensual relationship legally recognised is the foundational principle of marriage, regardless of gender, you would not consider expanding the legal definition to include homosexuals to be a dilution of the term. By contrast, you claim to detect an inherent qualitative distinction between ideal heterosexual and ideal homosexual unions. Furthermore, you believe the word “Marriage” should remain the province of heterosexual couples in recognition of the potential inherent in each straight marriage to exemplify this mysterious quality. You consider expanding the definition to include homosexual marriages to be a “dilution” because same sex couples simply cannot hope to epitomise said quality. The problems with your position are numerous. Firstly, you have produced absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever to substantiate your repeated contention that there even _exists_ a qualitative difference between heterosexual and homosexual unions. You haven’t even been able to give _name_ to it. When pressed, you’ve offered nothing but vague sociological posturing unsubstantiated by cites. For instance, you’ve suggested that only a husband and wife could provide an ideal environment for raising children, but you neglect the fact that only recently have gay couples been afforded even the _opportunity_ to raise chidren, so you really have no way of knowing this. In the end, it’s just intuition on your part leading you to make this claim. This just isn’t good enough, and unless you can actually give clear anthropological account of precisely _how_ and _why_ heterosexual marriages benefit society in a way homosexual marriages simply _cannot_ do, you will never win any converts in this thread. Secondly, you neglect the fact that numerous societies are now “experimenting”, for want of a better word, with homosexual marriage and have not tanginly suffered as a result. On a different note, you also have to accept the fact that homosexuals will _never_ enjoy the same legal rights as heterosexuals until they are allowed to marry. For instance, a gay couple married in Massachusetts are unable to move to a different state without having their marriage legally invalidated. As much as you may want gay couples to share the same legal rights as straight couples, by arguing in support for Prop. 8 you _are_ arguing for inequality. There’s no two ways about it. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/404 "2009-02-17T20:56:21Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > No, that’s precisely the opposite of what you’ve been arguing for all along. You don’t want one set of laws accessed by two groups, you want two sets of laws, one for each group. It’s everyone _else_ in the thread who wants one set of laws accessed by two groups. Completely incorrect. **Miller,** I advise you to reread what I’ve written. If that is unclear, I advise you to refer to the other recent threads where we’ve discussed this. I even addressed your concern about having this “one set” of laws being altered. You’re stating that I have mot been arguing for one set of laws is completely incorrect. somewhere between a simple mistake and an outright lie. I’ll leave it to you to clarify which. > [@Miller](#): > > Again, this is what _everyone else_ is arguing. There’s one set of laws for driving, and they apply equally to everyone, regardless of race, creed, or gender. What you want is a law that discriminates between people based on their gender - men can only marry women, and women can only marry men. This is exactly how every other law in this country _doesn’t_ work, because we’ve learned, time and time again, that when there’s separate laws for different groups of people, it always, always, _always_ leads to abuse. The “discrimination” is already there. You seem to grant that there are, in fact, two genders. You even use their labels: men and women. I simply acknowledge this fact of nature. And every single law in this country applies to those two distinct groups. Now, in the eyes of the law, they are equal. Same with my scenario. Two groups, gay couples and hetero couples, and they both tap into the same one set of laws. seems to work perfectly fine for other laws, doesn’t it? > [@Miller](#): > > And that’s never going to work. You know how I know? Because it never has before, and there’s absolutely no reason to think that human nature has undergone a vast sea-change between now, and when we had these exact same arguments before over race, and gender, and religion. Every time, someone like you pops up and says, “I’ve got absolutely nothing against those chaps, really, but wouldn’t it be better if we had a separate system for dealing with them than the one people like us use?” And every single time, it turns out all fucked up, and we have to do what we should have done in the first place, which is to keep the law blind to the differences between citizens. You know no such thing. You’re making this up. You imagine this. You are wrong. Here’s one simple example proving you are wrong: - Is there one set of laws for driving? Yes or no? - Are there not two groups, one called men and one called women, to whom these laws apply? Yes or no? - Can you point to one group ever having some driving privileges stripped away after they’ve been granted? Yes or no? I’ll wait. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/405 "2009-02-17T21:04:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > We’re both advocating the same thing then. Except for the word. The difference is how these rights are accessed. You want to expand the definition of marriage and have more couples tap into the rights through that route. I want the same one set of laws, but have them apply to two groups. Think about it as “men” and “women” both being bound by the same traffic laws. We don’t need to dispense with the groups’ labels in order to have equity with the law. As I mentioned in another thread, I would have the provision that any addition, subtraction, or change to that one set would have to apply to the two groups: married people and gays in civil unions (or whatever else they want to call it, except marriage). \*\*People \*\*are bound by laws. “Men” and “Women” don’t respectively follow “Rules” and “Codes”. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/406 "2009-02-17T21:14:37Z")
You suck at analogies. A man goes to the DMV and passes the test. He’s now subject to the set of laws that govern drivers. A woman goes to the DMV and passes the test. She’s now subject to the set of laws that govern drivers. Any laws that deal with drivers apply to all men and women. A man and a woman go to the state clerk and apply for a legal joining. They’re now subject to the set of laws that govern marriages. A man and a man go to the state clerk and apply for a legal joining. They’re now subject to the set of laws that govern civil unions. Any laws that deal with marriages apply only to heterosexuals. Any laws that deal with civil unions apply only to homosexuals. The analogy to drivers does not work. But you insist those laws are the same laws, not just two identical sets. Fine. That means every single law written must necessarily apply to “marriages and civil unions”. The two terms become inextricably linked, because after all, we don’t want to make two sets of laws that can then be different. At that point, what, exactly, is the logic in insisting on “marriages and civil unions” in laws when it can just be “marriages”? ---
**Author:** ![Claptree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/58f4c7/32.png) [@Claptree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claptree)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/407 "2009-02-17T21:27:24Z")
It’s kind of embarrassing to admit, but Sweden is only now getting around to a law for allowing SSM. The part I like best is what they’re calling it: gender-neutral marriage. Sounds so accurate - they’re not making special provisions for some people, they’re simply removing discriminatory chaff. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/408 "2009-02-17T21:54:37Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > A man goes to the DMV and passes the test. He’s now subject to the set of laws that govern drivers. > A woman goes to the DMV and passes the test. She’s now subject to the set of laws that govern drivers. > > Any laws that deal with drivers apply to all men and women. > > A man and a woman go to the state clerk and apply for a legal joining. They’re now subject to the set of laws that govern marriages. > A man and a man go to the state clerk and apply for a legal joining. They’re now subject to the set of laws that govern civil unions. But I’m saying they’re is only one set of laws. The two sets you mention are one and the same. Perhaps slightly altering you’re set-up would help: A hetero couple go to the state clerk and apply for a legal joining. They’re now subject to the set of laws called X. A gay couple go to the state clerk and apply for a legal joining. They’re now subject to the set of laws called X. And X is the set of laws and privileges afforded couples whose joining has been sanctioned by the state. Both married couples (hetero) and “unioned” couples (gay) are treated identically under the law. They simply are referred to by two different terms. To put it in your language: Any laws that deal with state-recognized couples apply to all state-recognized couples, both straight and gay. > [@Bosstone](#): > > But you insist those laws are the same laws, not just two identical sets. Fine. That means every single law written must necessarily apply to “marriages and civil unions”. The two terms become inextricably linked, because after all, we don’t want to make two sets of laws that can then be different. Correct. > [@Bosstone](#): > > At that point, what, exactly, is the logic in insisting on “marriages and civil unions” in laws when it can just be “marriages”? Because it grants gay couples all the rights, while preserving the word marriage. I think that is a great benefit, for all the reasons I’ve mentioned. I know you do NOT see value in that. And that’s fine. But there are two routes to equal rights. That is my point. I, obviously, favor the one you don’t. But either way, we both would be granting gay couples the same rights as hetero couples. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/409 "2009-02-17T21:59:31Z")
You know what? I was wrong before when I said you aren’t stupid. I apologize. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/410 "2009-02-17T22:02:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But I’m saying they’re is only one set of laws. The two sets you mention are one and the same. Perhaps slightly altering you’re set-up would help: > > A hetero couple go to the state clerk and apply for a legal joining. They’re now subject to the set of laws called X. > A gay couple go to the state clerk and apply for a legal joining. They’re now subject to the set of laws called X. > > And X is the set of laws and privileges afforded couples whose joining has been sanctioned by the state. Both married couples (hetero) and “unioned” couples (gay) are treated identically under the law. Until they cross the state line, then one of the couples is married and the other couple are “friends”. Until one of the couples files their federal taxes as "married, and the other has to use “single”. Do you even care that these couples you claim to want equal treatment for are treated like non-couples everywhere but in CA? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/411 "2009-02-17T22:05:22Z")
It’s an awful lot of dancing around just to avoid giving gays marriage, and as a linguist I think it would do more harm to the English language than the opposite ever could. I expect mainstream citizens and legislators will give up long before you’re willing to, simply to make the language easier, even if things do go that route. To be honest, I doubt they will. Even if we take you at your word, and you truly are interested in equal rights but not using the same term, you’re in a vast, vast minority, even smaller than gay Jewish black men with three testicles. The folks you keep company with, that don’t want to give gays the word marriage, really do want separate but not truly equal. They are the homophobes, the people who do want to keep gays second-class citizens. If they were all like you, maybe the gay community might be cautiously amenable. But you weren’t the sort of person who blacks had to fight against when interracial marriages were banned; the bigots were. If gays gave in and went for civil unions, they would be taken advantage of. The situations are nearly identical, even if the players aren’t. The laws would not be the same. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/412 "2009-02-17T22:21:40Z")
**magellen** , if you understand what **George Kaplan** is saying in post #403, then I challenge you to respond to it. If not, please ask for clarification. I would also like to point out that suggesting that people are liars does not help your argument. You owe \*\*Miller \*\*an apology. In any case, he read our discussion the same way I did apparently. Does that suggest I’m a liar as well? What is the legal significance of a law that applies to "married and…I can’t even determine a decent adjective…um, unionized (?) couples? Why not rewrite all our laws mention men and women specifically? Can’t it just say ‘persons’ and ‘married’ to cover all the bases succinctly? If we implemented your semantical idea, what would you do about the thousands of hetero couples that would choose union over marriage? Wouldn’t that dilute the word if heteros decided that unions were preferable to marriages? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/413 "2009-02-17T22:41:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Completely incorrect. **Miller,** I advise you to reread what I’ve written. If that is unclear, I advise you to refer to the other recent threads where we’ve discussed this. I even addressed your concern about having this “one set” of laws being altered. You’re stating that I have mot been arguing for one set of laws is completely incorrect. somewhere between a simple mistake and an outright lie. I’ll leave it to you to clarify which. No, that’s not what you’ve been arguing for. You’ve been arguing for two separate laws: one called marriage, for heterosexuals, and one called something else, for homosexuals. You can’t have two separate institutions and say you’re arguing for one law. If there were only one law, they wouldn’t be separate institutions. They’d be the same thing: marriage for everyone. You have argued that the two laws should be mostly identical to each other, but you’ve very clearly and unambiguously been arguing for a separate law for each group. > [@](#): > > The “discrimination” is already there. You seem to grant that there are, in fact, two genders. You even use their labels: men and women. I simply acknowledge this fact of nature. And every single law in this country applies to those two distinct groups. Now, in the eyes of the law, they are equal. Same with my scenario. Two groups, gay couples and hetero couples, and they both tap into the same one set of laws. seems to work perfectly fine for other laws, doesn’t it? But that’s not how any other law in this country works! There is no law in this country that first checks the person’s gender, and then proceeds with applying itself. We don’t have “speeding” for men, and “going too fast” for women. The law does not discriminate: it is (in theory, at least) completely blind to the differences between men and women. What you’re talking about is completely different: the first thing your proposed system does is check the gender of the people it applies to. No other law in our country works this way, although we certainly \*used \*to have quite a few that did. And it’s memory of how these laws used to work that should be the first, gigantic clue that what you’re proposing is a **bad idea.** > [@](#): > > You know no such thing. You’re making this up. You imagine this. You are wrong. Here’s one simple example proving you are wrong: > > - Is there one set of laws for driving? Yes or no? > - Are there not two groups, one called men and one called women, to whom these laws apply? Yes or no? > - Can you point to one group ever having some driving privileges stripped away after they’ve been granted? Yes or no? > > I’ll wait. Yes, yes, and no. And that’s why we should have marriage follow the same model. And not the one you’re proposing, because it in no way resembles the way driving laws function. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/414 "2009-02-17T23:29:22Z")
> [@George\_Kaplin](#): > > If you believed, as I do, that the desire to see a loving consensual relationship legally recognised is the foundational principle of marriage, regardless of gender, you would not consider expanding the legal definition to include homosexuals to be a dilution of the term. In other words, I would agree with you if I agreed with you. Not to be snarky, but that’s what this says. Problem is that gender difference is one of the necessary components as I see it. In fact, many arguing your side have pointed out that there have been many marriages in which love was not a component. But in all of them, two people of opposite sex was. (Ignoring the recent developments ion MA and temporary ones in CA.) > [@George\_Kaplin](#): > > By contrast, you claim to detect an inherent qualitative distinction between ideal heterosexual and ideal homosexual unions. Furthermore, you believe the word “Marriage” should remain the province of heterosexual couples in recognition of the potential inherent in each straight marriage to exemplify this mysterious quality. You consider expanding the definition to include homosexual marriages to be a “dilution” because same sex couples simply cannot hope to epitomise said quality. That and I see a marriage of being comprised of a husband and a wife, a man and a woman. One reason is somewhat complicated. The other, very simple. > [@George\_Kaplin](#): > > The problems with your position are numerous. Firstly, you have produced absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever to substantiate your repeated contention that there even _exists_ a qualitative difference between heterosexual and homosexual unions. That is not a problem with my _position_. It may be a problem for me in swaying others _to_ my position. But not my position itself. I’ll just add, that there is an equal paucity of empirical evidence on the other side, as well. > [@George\_Kaplin](#): > > You haven’t even been able to give _name_ to it. I don’t know what you’re referring to here. > [@George\_Kaplin](#): > > When pressed, you’ve offered nothing but vague sociological posturing unsubstantiated by cites. For instance, you’ve suggested that only a husband and wife could provide an ideal environment for raising children, but you neglect the fact that only recently have gay couples been afforded even the _opportunity_ to raise chidren, so you really have no way of knowing this. In the end, it’s just intuition on your part leading you to make this claim. But as you point out, it is too early for there to be evidence. Right? I’m not sure it’s my “intuition”, but it is my belief, yes. But I do seem to recall that when looking at the problem of blacks in the inner cities, one thing continuously pointed to is the absence of the father. Both from an economic standpoint, and more important to this discussion, in the raising of children. They lack male role models. And the father is the primary role model in our society. > [@George\_Kaplin](#): > > This just isn’t good enough, and unless you can actually give clear anthropological account of precisely _how_ and _why_ heterosexual marriages benefit society in a way homosexual marriages simply _cannot_ do, you will never win any converts in this thread. I think that’s about right. Now it may not be good enough to convince you and others here. But it is good enough for me to comfortably hold the position I do. Your last line is accurate. I don’t really expect to. And based on all the reasons I’ve heard from the other side, there is no reason to abandon my position. > [@George\_Kaplin](#): > > Secondly, you neglect the fact that numerous societies are now “experimenting”, for want of a better word, with homosexual marriage and have not tanginly suffered as a result. It is VERY early. My point is that the negative effects would be long-term. And remember, we’re talking about SSm here, not civil unions. But even that is in it’s early stages. > [@George\_Kaplin](#): > > On a different note, you also have to accept the fact that homosexuals will _never_ enjoy the same legal rights as heterosexuals until they are allowed to marry. For instance, a gay couple married in Massachusetts are unable to move to a different state without having their marriage legally invalidated. As much as you may want gay couples to share the same legal rights as straight couples, by arguing in support for Prop. 8 you _are_ arguing for inequality. There’s no two ways about it. I do not accept that AT ALL. My last few posts should shed light as to why. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/415 "2009-02-17T23:56:54Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > No, that’s not what you’ve been arguing for. You’ve been arguing for two separate laws: one called marriage, for heterosexuals, and one called something else, for homosexuals. You can’t have two separate institutions and say you’re arguing for one law. If there were only one law, they wouldn’t be separate institutions. They’d be the same thing: marriage for everyone. > > You have argued that the two laws should be mostly identical to each other, but you’ve very clearly and unambiguously been arguing for a separate law for each group. 100% incorrect. I ask you to consult both this thread and the others in hopes that it will encourage you to stop posting what is incorrect. You should no what my position is, as we’ve discussed it in other threads, as well. I pointed this out to you. So whether we are talking about each state having their own laws, or having just federal law, I’ve consistently said that the laws should be identical—that there should be ONE set that applies to the two groups. Look it up. If you still think you’re right, I’ll have to ask for a cite. > [@Miller](#): > > But that’s not how any other law in this country works! There is no law in this country that first checks the person’s gender, and then proceeds with applying itself. It’s how every law works, save those having to do with rape and reproduction/abortion. On every driver’s license application and on every driver’s license there is a designation for gender. Right? Right. > [@Miller](#): > > We don’t have “speeding” for men, and “going too fast” for women. The law does not discriminate: it is (in theory, at least) completely blind to the differences between men and women. Exactly. The two distinct groups, men and women, are treated IDENTICALLY by one set of laws. That’s exactly what I’ve been advocating, the two groups being gay couples and straight couples. > [@Miller](#): > > What you’re talking about is completely different: the first thing your proposed system does is check the gender of the people it applies to. No other law in our country works this way, although we certainly \*used \*to have quite a few that did. And it’s memory of how these laws used to work that should be the first, gigantic clue that what you’re proposing is a **bad idea.** No. I already pointed out that the system asks one to identify their sex. And I then pointed out how the system works perfectly. > [@Miller](#): > > Yes, yes, and no. And that’s why we should have marriage follow the same model. And not the one you’re proposing, because it in no way resembles the way driving laws function. Let’s recap. You claimed that my idea could never work because it never has worked. That rights will be stripped from on of the groups. But you just admitted that 1) YES, there is one set of driving laws; 2) YES, there are two groups, one called men and one called women, to whom these laws apply; and 3) NO, you cannot point to one instance of either group having their driving privileges diminished. **Miller** , you seem to be contradicting yourself. No? Maybe this will help: Laws for those who drive on public roads apply to: 1. males 2. females Laws for those who enter into a committed, society-recognized relationship apply to: 1. gay couples 2. hetero couples ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/416 "2009-02-17T23:58:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Not all problems concerning marriage are the same, and should be resolved the same way or for the same reasons. I’ve explained why mixed marriages are different than SSM. More than once. If you’d like to address those particular points, please do. But please don’t act as if I’ve not addressed it. I don’t see where you’ve addressed it beyond, to paraphrase, mixed marriage is about race and SSM is about gender. I think we got that. You also noted that discrimination on the basis of race was found to be unconstitutional. Yes. Now, the time has come to make it clear that gender discrimination is also unconstitutional. The fact that it hasn’t happened doesn’t actually illustrate a difference between your positions and that of your pro-miscegenation forefathers. > [@](#): > > No. You’re wrong. Please review my last few posts which address this. I haven’t seen you address the justifications for miscegenation laws and how your justifications are all that different. But, hey, go for it. > [@](#): > > Well, I never said they were equal. I said that society recognized what nature did on it’s own and sanctioned it, embraced it, encouraged it and protected it. Ok, well recognize that nature has made homosexuality a reality. If the next step is sanctioning, embracing, encouraging, and protecting it, you sure seem to be a little weasly about it. > [@](#): > > I also disagree—strongly—that marital status has no impact on family building. I think that people who are married are going to feel a greater responsibility to what that marriage produces. They will be both more careful with the number of children they create and more apt to take their responsibilities to whatever children they create more seriously. Ya think? So married same-sex couples will feel a greater responsibility to what their marriage produces? That’s good, especially if there are children involved, wouldn’t you say? On the other hand, marriage has only recently been “challenged” by the gay contingent. Before that, divorce, adultery, domestic abuse, desertion, you name it has been chugging right along long just fine without the help of same-sex couples who want to be married. Apparently, some people just don’t take their marriage vows seriously. The fact is, when it comes to relationships, some survive and some fail. Marriage, nor gender, are the sole arbiters of health and success of every relationship. > [@](#): > > I think this is one of the problems plaguing blacks in the inner cities. Women have several children with several different fathers. There is not a strong family unit. This section of society would benefit greatly with a more traditional approach to mating. And marriage, in it’s most traditional sense, would be a great benefit to them. Particularly the women and children. I’m trying very hard to figure out how encouraging inner city black folks to marry justifies not only not encouraging, but actively denying marriage of same-sex couples. There’s a disconnect here. On the one hand, encouraging marriage of folks that \*don’t \*seem to want to married is a good thing. On the other, discouraging marriage of folks who \*do \*want to be married is also a good thing. Sounds kind of, well, illogical. > [@](#): > > I never said they were completely without benefit. The point is that while gay unions do have benefit, calling them “marriages” is a net negative. I’m willing to let what I perceive to be a greater long-term benefit “get in the way” of of a smaller benefit. Well, it would make it ever so much easier for then, if you would make a list of the ‘Pros’ and ‘Cons’ on same-sex marriage with regard to its impact on society. I haven’t yet seen you post a specific cost-to-benefit analysis yet. I’m not sure, given the fact that you have no factual data to support your hypothesis since SSM has never actually been legally recognized, will hold up. But I’m willing to take a look at the specifics if you care to share. > [@](#): > > Though this is the first time I think you’ve done it, I really get tired of this disingenuous argument and attempt at gotcha. Just because one might argue against SSM because it falls short of the ideal, it doesn’t follow that one must take draconian steps to erase every little thing that taints marriage. People are fallible. People change. Marriages will fail. The argument that people should be kept in a marriage that is unhealthy is not realistic. More important to my point, it is not what any proponent of SSM would sincerely argue for. I think I’ll do myself a favor and ignore this nonsense from now on. Again, I recognize that you haven’t been doing this in our discussion until now. But your position is that SSM is detrimental to the “institution of marriage” and that in order to preserve it, you must keep it out of the realm of same-sex couples. But you have no basis to suggest that same-sex couples will do anything worse to marriage than what opposite-sex couples have already accomplished. What taints marriage are the very things that don’t rely on a specific gender make-up of the couple: adultery, disloyalty, irresponsibility, lack of love, irreconcilable differences, ad infinitum. “People are fallible. People change. Marriages will fail.” This statement applies to every couple, same-sex and opposite-sex. There’s really nothing particularly special about either. But you seem to think that just because a man and a woman decide to sign a piece of paper, that’s sacred, despite the fact that it doesn’t make a whit of difference as to the success or quality of that marriage. > [@](#): > > Yes, I DO feel gay couples can provide just as loving and in some cases even more loving home than a heterosexual couple. I’ve said that repeatedly. Which is why I _advocate_ gays being able to adopt. The point is that they can’t provide the “ideal”. And it benefits us to have a word that refers to that ideal situation. To be able to hold it up for younger generations and point to it. What’s the benefit of having a word that says “I am better than you?” I can make gourmet food, all you’ll ever be able to make is diner slop. Don’t get me wrong, it’s pretty tasty diner slop and it’s not that I don’t like diner slop once in a while, but you’ll never be allowed to call your restaurant “\*Chez \*Good Eats.” By the way, if you ever relocated your dinner across the highway, they wouldn’t even call it a restaurant! :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Newsflash: there will always be bad marriages, sham marriages, etc. Just because those will exist I see no reason to further dilute the institution. If anything, it says they we should be even more protective of it in the ways that we can. What are you protecting it from exactly? Are teh gayz gonna get something icky on your word? Don’t say diluting it, either. You still haven’t explained what same-sex couples are going to do exactly with your sacred cow? > [@](#): > > Definitions aren’t arbitrary. They’re not made up out of thin air. Go forth and hie thee to a [dictionary](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary), dear. Which definition did you use? Personally, I was going for 3a, maybe even 3b and to a lesser extent 2b. I didn’t see the the thin air reference…huh. > [@](#): > > And they’re very important as far as our laws go. I know you know this. And nature cares quite a lot actually. While it made possible both hetero couples and gay ones, it gave only one set the ability to procreate. You think that’s incidental. I think it is of great importance. I think nature knows what it was doing. The proof of that is that you and I are here. Theoretically, of course, maybe homosexuality is nature’s way of saying, “Enough already! Can’t you see, homo sapien?! You’ve got more than enough!” Seriously, though, I’m not here by the grace of marriage. I’m here because my parents were bumping uglies (and now I must kill you for that mental image). Procreation has been around a lot longer than marriage and keeps on chooglin’ with or without it. Not just for homo sapiens, but for Oryctolagus cuniculus as well. If you think nature decided that marriage was an imperative, then you’re not making full use of your squishy thing in your skull…or, you’re seven years old. It’s okay, though. A lot of kids think their bunnies are married. > [@](#): > > You seem to think that were heading inevitably and irretrievably toward a society where SS couples are as accepted as hetero ones. That may or may bot be the case. You’ll recall that at different times during Greek times (which is often pointed to as a more progressive society), homosexuality was alternatively widely accepted and rejected. So the world has headed in that direction before, and pulled back. Homosexuality, over the centuries has gained acceptance. And lost it. Why do you think that is. In a word, religion. I don’t have any expertise in this, though. Call it an educated guess. > [@](#): > > That _after_ it had become accepted, it then lost favor? Do you not think that might happen again? Perhaps, but I like to think that mankind is socially evolving as well and we won’t necessarily have to revisit \*all \*the atrocities of our past. Then again, mankind may be around awhile. In this current society, however, I think it will work out just fine. I’m very optimistic about it. > [@](#): > > This assumption on your part, and others, that the current trend toward being more accepting of homosexual relationships is a movement toward some objective “good”, some white light is one of the things that makes discussion difficult. You, to take liberty with a phrase, presume to have “God” on your side. Ok. I’m not really sure what God has to do with it, since neither of us are particularly religious. Why is it difficult to discuss social evolution? > [@](#): > > And you’re ignoring that I’ve explained that’s not what I was doing. Cite? Specifically, that you argued that tradition… fill in the blank. Everyone else read that you used tradition to defend your definition of marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/417 "2009-02-18T00:27:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > On every driver’s license application and on every driver’s license there is a designation for gender. Right? Right. This killed me. You can’t be serious, can you? It’s a joke right? Sweet jesus, man, if it’s not, this goes way beyond mere ignorance. I’m beginning to see with a bit more clarity now. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/418 "2009-02-18T00:41:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 100% incorrect. I ask you to consult both this thread and the others in hopes that it will encourage you to stop posting what is incorrect. You should no what my position is, as we’ve discussed it in other threads, as well. I pointed this out to you. So whether we are talking about each state having their own laws, or having just federal law, I’ve consistently said that the laws should be identical—that there should be ONE set that applies to the two groups. But that’s NOT what you’re arguing! If gays can’t get married, and straights can, then they are _not covered by one law!_ You’re talking about two different laws: marriage laws, and civil union laws. It doesn’t matter how much effort you put into making them resemble each other, they’re never going to be the same law as long as there’s a legal discrimination between who gets to apply for what. If gays can’t get married, then they are not covered by marriage law. They covered by whatever laws pertain to their relationship. Even if those laws are, in ever other respect, identical to marriage laws, they’re still _not_ marriage laws. You know how you can tell? _Because they’ve got a different goddamned name!_ > [@](#): > > It’s how every law works, save those having to do with rape and reproduction/abortion. On every driver’s license application and on every driver’s license there is a designation for gender. Right? Right. Right. Because the law says that everyone applying for a driver’s license has to state their gender. The law does not say that people of one gender get a driver’s license, and people of another gender get a vehicle operator’s license. > [@](#): > > Exactly. The two distinct groups, men and women, are treated IDENTICALLY by one set of laws. That’s exactly what I’ve been advocating, the two groups being gay couples and straight couples. Yes, you’ve been advocating mostly equal treatment, but you HAVE NOT been advocating one law. One law means that everyone applies for the same institution. You want one group of people to have one institution, and another group of people to have a different institution. Two different institutions = two different laws. > [@](#): > > No. I already pointed out that the system asks one to identify their sex. Yes, for purposes of identification. Not for determining what sort of license the applicant may receive. > [@](#): > > And I then pointed out how the system works perfectly. And you know why it works so well? Because everyone gets the same license, and there’s no bullshit distinctions between men’s licenses and women’s licenses. If there were, even if it started out as a semantic distinction, it wouldn’t remain so. Once you say, “These two groups are so different that they need to have different institutions to deal with the same situation,” people are going to use that as an excuse to create _unequal_ institutions. Which is precisely what your proposal does with gay marriage. Even though that’s not what you want, even if that’s not how it starts out, that’s what it’s going to turn into. Abso-fucking-lutely guaranteed. > [@](#): > > Let’s recap. You claimed that my idea could never work because it never has worked. That rights will be stripped from on of the groups. But you just admitted that 1) YES, there is one set of driving laws; 2) YES, there are two groups, one called men and one called women, to whom these laws apply; and 3) NO, you cannot point to one instance of either group having their driving privileges diminished. Right. And that’s what I want to see done with marriage. One institution, one law, for everyone, equally. > [@](#): > > **Miller** , you seem to be contradicting yourself. No? No, I’m not. Not even remotely. > [@](#): > > Maybe this will help: > > Laws for those who drive on public roads apply to: > > 1. males > 2. females > > Laws for those who enter into a committed, society-recognized relationship apply to: > > 1. gay couples > 2. hetero couples You’d think it’d be a big help. But somehow, you still can’t see how this is devastating to your own argument. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/419 "2009-02-18T01:15:42Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > But that’s NOT what you’re arguing! If gays can’t get married, and straights can, then they are _not covered by one law!_ You’re talking about two different laws: marriage laws, and civil union laws. > > … > > Right. And that’s what I want to see done with marriage. One institution, one law, for everyone, equally. The question isn’t whether what you propose would work. It would. The question is if there is another way for both sets of couples to enjoy equal rights once they join together. To evaluate that, you have to accept certain conditions to the hypothetical. Now if you don’t want to fairly evaluate my idea, I have to say, **Miller** , I think you’re being disingenuous in this debate. You are including in the ONE SET of laws the rules as to who may apply to benefit from them. I know this is not the way YOU would do it, but you are not allowing MY scenario to even play out—and then claiming it doesn’t work!😕 In evaluating my scenario, you need to allow for the two groups—gay unioned couples and married couples to exist. It is a hypothetical for goodness sakes. If you do not do that, you cannot evaluate what I propose. So, you cannot say it doesn’t work. I actually think you’re smart enough to see that, and that is precisely why you will not do it. You see that what I propose does, in fact, work. Two distinct groups—gay couples and straight couples—would tap into the ONE set of laws. As I’ve argued here. And elsewhere with you, in depth. Even providing the language that would ensure that rights and privileges could not be stripped from one group, nor burdens added. ---
**Author:** ![spinky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@spinky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spinky)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/420 "2009-02-18T01:18:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Laws for those who drive on public roads apply to: > > 1. males > 2. females > > Laws for those who enter into a committed, society-recognized relationship apply to: > > 1. gay couples > 2. hetero couples And in your ideal world: Laws for those who get married apply to: 1. hetero couples 2. but not gay couples. Right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362.md?page=22)