# 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:** 8\ **Page:** 22
**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, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/421 "2009-02-18T01:35:11Z")
> [@ntucker](#): > > And in your ideal world: > > Laws for those who get married apply to: > > 1. hetero couples > 2. but not gay couples. > > Right? Wrong. The laws that would apply to married couples (straight) would also apply to those who have been joined in a civil union (gay). There is just the one set of laws. They would apply to all people in a committed relationship recognized by the state. ---
**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, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/422 "2009-02-18T02:23:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Wrong. The laws that would apply to married couples (straight) would also apply to those who have been joined in a civil union (gay). I gotta hand it to you. You have an uncanny ability to play semantics to ridiculous lengths for no apparent benefit. Have fun fighting the world. Fact is, once gay civil unions are allowed, whether they’re legally called marriages or civil unions or homoarriage or whatever you want, you’ve lost. People will start thinking of them as marriages and referring to them as marriages, and archaic attitudes like yours will wither and die. Do you really expect everyone to go to the trouble of using a seperate term when the institution is legally identical in every other way (“Filing status: single married civilly unionized”)? It’s not going to happen. The net effect of what you’re proposing is to simply have some inane bigotry codified into law, ignored for all practical purposes almost immediately, and then completely forgotten in 20 years. There will be no practical impact on life for you or anyone else. Just fucking call it a marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/423 "2009-02-18T03:30:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. If you are sincere, you will now demand the complete separation of marriage and state, and the confinement of the state to the recognition of civil unions independent of participants’ gender. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/424 "2009-02-18T03:33:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > - Is there one set of laws for driving? Yes or no? Yes. This is an example of the stupidity of your position, which requires two sets of laws where one would do perfectly well. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/425 "2009-02-18T03:41:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The problems with your position are numerous. Firstly, you have produced absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever to substantiate your repeated contention > > 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. No; it is a problem with the position itself, not with its adherent’s ability to sway people to it. It is obvious on its face that lack of logical support is a failing of the former, not of the latter. (Example: The fact that the position “the Jews are responsible for Germany’s post-Great-War woes” lacked logical support made the proposition **unsound** , but did not prevent the Nazis from effectively **selling** the notion.) ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/426 "2009-02-18T03:45:51Z")
> [@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. For the time being, I am going to assume that **magellan01** actually has a consistent position behind his bloviations, and will be along to clarify that he supports the repeal of all marriage laws and the use of a single set of civil-union laws. Of course, it’s possible that my assumption is overcharitable, but we shall see. ---
**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, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/427 "2009-02-18T22:05:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. No, I’m not willing to allow your scenario to play out. For a couple of reasons. First, I’m almost entirely certain it won’t work. There have been far too many examples where we’ve tried similar schemes in this country to redress civil rights grievances, and they have never worked before. There’s absolutely no reason to think that this instance will be any different. Second, I’m not willing to try it out, just to see if I might be wrong, because it will take decades to get your plan implemented, and at least another ten years after that to demonstrate that it’s failed, and then we have to start all over on getting gay marriage. I’d rather just focus on marriage right now, and not waste time on your failed diversions. Third, granting gays marriage rights would be an infinitly easier and simpler way of achieving equality, and I am generally opposed to unnecessary complexity in the legal code. As I continue to be utterly baffled your insistence that you can have separate institutions for gays and straights, and still insist that this constitutes “one” law - a proposition that flies in the face of logic, common sense, and normal usage of the English language - I have to consider this an unnecessary redundancy in the legal code, as you would have two separate sets of statutes to cover identical legal situations. A simplified legal code, where possible and practicable, is always preferrable to pointless redundency. Fourth, the reasoning behind your stance is absurd, and I am similarly opposed to enshrining absurdity in our legal code. Or at least, any _more_ absurdity. And lastly, there remains the simple fact that I do not want a civil union. I want a marriage. And that’s what I think of your scenario: it’s unworkable, unnecessary, unintelligent, and unwanted. So you tell me, given what I think of your reasoning, why on Earth should I give it a chance to play out? ---
**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 18, 2009, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/428 "2009-02-18T23:14:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Problem is that gender difference is one of the necessary components as I see it. I think this is the point where we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. I can’t see that there’s any innate property in mixed relationships which elevates them above same sex relationships, and with all due respect you’ve failed to clearly identify this property. > [@magellan01](#): > > 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 believe it _is_ a problem with your position because, as you’ve admitted, one plank of it is this notion that an ideal heterosexual relationship is innately superior to even an ideal homosexual relationship. This is an objective claim which demands empirical support. It’s a conclusion, not a premise, and you can’t make the argument soundly without corroborative data. > [@](#): > > I’ll just add, that there is an equal paucity of empirical evidence on the other side, as well. All my side is required to prove is that there exists a codified prejudice against homosexual relationships. The passage of Prop. 8 is proof enough of that. I do not need to prove that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships because, living in an egalitarian society and absent hard evidence to the contrary, this _should_ be the default assumption. Again, it is your side’s job to provide this evidence. You may argue that I’m also required to prove that homosexual marriage _won’t_ somehow sully the fabric of our society, but again this should be the default assumption. Only once the harmful consequences of a practise have been recognised can one successfully argue it be banned. As you have tacitly acknowledged, those societies which have legalised gay marriage have not yet suffered tangibly as a result. I know you believe the negative effects of gay marriage won’t manifest for some time but until they _do_ we have no coherent basis on which to enact any sort of prohibitive legislation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362.md?page=21)