# A question for opponents of gay marriage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 26, 2009, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645 "2009-05-26T03:13:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/221 "2009-05-27T01:09:30Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > This country was founded on philosophical principles, not religious ones. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/222 "2009-05-27T01:12:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The quote did portray us as secular. One explanation though, is that Adams, or whoever put the words in that document (again, there is some confusion) was simply telling them what they wanted to hear. We had no ability to defend ourselves at the time, and our ships kept getting taken, goods stolen, and crew held hostage. > > True or not, who knows? But we were at their mercy, having no recourse. This caused us to get serious about a fleet, which we did. That makes sense, but then again, it was written down on paper. It was agreed to and signed (one version or the other). {quote] That’s true to a point. A lot were Deists. Jefferson is one of the least religious of the founders, and while he didn’t accept the divinity of Jesus or believe in miracles, he did adhere to the Bible. But it goes too far if one were to imply that we were not founded on Judeo-Christian principles. [/QUOTE] I don’t agree. A lot of it came from European philosophers, and some idealized vision of the Ancient Greek democracies. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/223 "2009-05-27T01:17:53Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > If you’ll scroll down the page a bit, you’ll see that Nuer hold positions including Vice-President, Ministers, Governors, and Senators within the Sudanese government. To be fair, [gay sex is a capital crime in Sudan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Sudan): apparently either the Nuer aren’t really all that into SSM, or they haven’t convinced their pals in Sudan to overturn Sharia law. ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/224 "2009-05-27T01:24:40Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > That makes sense, but then again, it was written down on paper. It was agreed to and signed (one version or the other). > {quote] > That’s true to a point. A lot were Deists. Jefferson is one of the least religious of the founders, and while he didn’t accept the divinity of Jesus or believe in miracles, he did adhere to the Bible. But it goes too far if one were to imply that we were not founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I don’t agree. A lot of it came from European philosophers, and some idealized vision of the Ancient Greek democracies. [/QUOTE] True. Jefferson’s major precursor was Locke, whose main use for religion was as a social control. Atheists are problematic to Locke because they have nothing to swear on, but he makes no positive use of demonstrably Christian principles that I am aware of. (I’m SURE someone will have a counter-cite to this. Don’t disappoint me, people.) Truth be told, I really don’t see Christian principles at work in the founders’ thought. I don’t deny that many if not most of them were practicing Christians to one degree or another, but Christian political theory essentially amounted to kings being prudent, not to any form of democracy or even a people’s right to revolt. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/225 "2009-05-27T01:27:19Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > If you’ll scroll down the page a bit, you’ll see that Nuer hold positions including Vice-President, Ministers, Governors, and Senators all within the Sudanese government. This whole thing is a strawman, and it keeps getting erected. **SSM opponent:** …then you’re changing the definition of “marriage” away from “one man and one woman”. Traditionally, it’s always included one man and one woman. _(Naturally, the speaker is talking about western culture, as that is the one that is applicable.)_ **SSM Proponent:** But that’s not true. The word has NOT always meant that. There are plenty of examples in history and elsewhere where the one-man/one-woman part is not part of the definition. _(True as that might be, it has no bearing on the claim made my the first person. The first person was not claiming that the word had always meant that, for all time, in every corner of the globe. So, the straw man gets erected in order that it can be glued to Person One and then torched for the falsity that it is.)_ Now that’s cute. But it’s either outright dishonest or simply faulty logic. The fact of the matter is, even just 40 years ago—in our culture—no one would have questioned that marriage is the province of one man and one woman. Claiming otherwise is just disingenuous. This doesn’t mean that we need to keep that definition, but it is helpful to the debate when facts are accepted as such. I see that **Valteron** makes a similar point in his excellent post regarding ancient Greece. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/226 "2009-05-27T01:38:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This whole thing is a strawman, and it keeps getting erected. > > **SSM opponent:** …then you’re changing the definition of “marriage” away from “one man and one woman”. Traditionally, it’s always included one man and one woman. _(Naturally, the speaker is talking about western culture, as that is the one that is applicable.)_ Emphasis mine. Garbage; to quote you : > [@mswas](#): > > I have yet to see an example of a historical case of legally recognized SSM let alone a society where it was considered perfectly acceptable and a universal right. You, and those like you constantly switch from human society in general, to Western Society, to American society, to right wing Christian society as your definition of “society” as you find useful to argue for your claims. As soon as someone points out your error in that case, you switch your definition again. The one with the strawman is you and yours, and you keep moving it too. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/227 "2009-05-27T01:39:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This whole thing is a strawman, and it keeps getting erected. > > **SSM opponent:** …then you’re changing the definition of “marriage” away from “one man and one woman”. Traditionally, it’s always included one man and one woman. _(Naturally, the speaker is talking about western culture, as that is the one that is applicable.)_ > > **SSM Proponent:** But that’s not true. The word has NOT always meant that. There are plenty of examples in history and elsewhere where the one-man/one-woman part is not part of the definition. _(True as that might be, it has no bearing on the claim made my the first person. The first person was not claiming that the word had always meant that, for all time, in every corner of the globe. So, the straw man gets erected in order that it can be glued to Person One and then torched for the falsity that it is.)_ > > Now that’s cute. But it’s either outright dishonest or simply faulty logic. The fact of the matter is, even just 40 years ago—in our culture—no one would have questioned that marriage is the province of one man and one woman. Claiming otherwise is just disingenuous. This doesn’t mean that we need to keep that definition, but it is helpful to the debate when facts are accepted as such. > > I see that **Valteron** makes a similar point in his excellent post regarding ancient Greece. I don’t know why I keep having to explain this. **mswas** made the statement: > [@mswas](#): > > I have yet to see an example of a historical case of legally recognized SSM let alone a society where it was considered perfectly acceptable and a universal right. Now he, and everyone else that has read this thread, has seen an example. That’s all. The example does exist. It has now been seen. Ignorance fought, and all that. > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > To be fair, gay sex is a capital crime in Sudan: apparently either the Nuer aren’t really all that into SSM, or they haven’t convinced their pals in Sudan to overturn Sharia law. The female-female marriages are not lesbian relationships. They are marriages made to keep property within a family that has no sons. [cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#cite_note-Gough-10). But that hardly matters. We have already established that not every marriage is for sex, or for love, or for procreation. The fact that the married couple may or may not love each other, may not have sex, may not be attracted to each other, may never reproduce nor raise children does not in any way negate the fact that they are married, and recognized as such by their society and culture. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/228 "2009-05-27T01:48:55Z")
Aside from the answer of ‘changing the definition of the word marriage’, are there any other negative consequences those that oppose SSM can think of? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/229 "2009-05-27T01:50:22Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > That makes sense, but then again, it was written down on paper. It was agreed to and signed (one version or the other). It’s very confusing. You can read more about it [here.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp#n6) > [@SteveG1](#): > > I don’t agree. A lot of it came from European philosophers, and some idealized vision of the Ancient Greek democracies. Absolutely. And Rome (but more Greek). But much of the European philosophers’ thinking came from, or was highly influenced by, Christianity. Like [Locke](http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1617_277/ai_67051572/), though Hume was an Atheist. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/230 "2009-05-27T01:53:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Except, they’re calling it a Women’s Club. So, no, it’s not the same. You might as well argue that that both use the letter “e”. They are not changing the meaning of the word “club”. Right Same Sex \*\*Marriage \*\* and hetero **Marriage** Not exactly the same thing but since you support them opening it across the street it seems you support SSM as long as they don’t live in the same house as the hetero families {unless invited of course} That seems a little odd but I think it shows great progress. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/231 "2009-05-27T01:59:38Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Emphasis mine. Garbage; to quote you : > > You, and those like you constantly switch from human society in general, to Western Society, to American society, to right wing Christian society as your definition of “society” as you find useful to argue for your claims. As soon as someone points out your error in that case, you switch your definition again. > > The one with the strawman is you and yours, and you keep moving it too. Huh? First, are you attributing a quote of mine to **mswas**? Or did she say that? As for me, this is the FIRST I have seen of this type of example. It may indicate that it exists in some corner of the world the way it has been portrayed in this thread (though I doubt it), but if it is, that shows simply that it is not 100% absent from history and the globe. The more pertinent point is the relation of that society to our culture. Would you care to draw the lines so I can see why you think this is relevant? P.S. I love the “you and those like you…”. You can’t stop yourself, can you?:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/232 "2009-05-27T02:04:32Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Right Same Sex \*\*Marriage \*\* and hetero **Marriage** Not exactly the same thing but since you support them opening it across the street it seems you support SSM as long as they don’t live in the same house as the hetero families {unless invited of course} That seems a little odd but I think it shows great progress. The cuter you try to get the less you’re helping yourself. It just gets more and more clumsy. The fact is we don’t use modifiers for marriage because the word doesn’t need them. It has been a given that it was constituted of one man and one woman. And, as much as it pains me to have to point this out, in OUR culture. You want to change that. I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/233 "2009-05-27T02:07:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > As for me, this is the FIRST I have seen of this type of example. It may indicate that it exists in some corner of the world the way it has been portrayed in this thread **(though I doubt it)**, but if it is, that shows simply that it is not 100% absent from history and the globe. The more pertinent point is the relation of that society to our culture. Actually, that isn’t relevant at all to the ignorance that was being fought. And I’m interested to know the foundation of your doubt, since a detailed description of the rights, responsibilities and conditions of a Nuer female-female marriage was given. If you have evidence that those things do not include shared property, familial responsibilities (including child-rearing and procreation) and recognition within the culture and society as a married couple, in the same sense that a male-female marriage is recognized, please show it with cites. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/234 "2009-05-27T02:09:45Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Now he, and everyone else that has read this thread, has seen an example. That’s all. The example does exist. It has now been seen. Ignorance fought, and all that. So that’s it? It doesn’t matter that gay sex is a capital crime? Are you fucking kidding?!!! That’s ridiculous. Obviously, something is getting lost in translation. They obviously do NOT view those SS relationships the same way they do two people that are married and raise a family. They can’t even consummate their relationship. Are you really this desperate to put something—anything in the win column of your tally sheet? Unbelievable. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/235 "2009-05-27T02:10:52Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **Snowboarder Bo** You didn’t give any examples regarding SSM just a acceptance of homosexuality except the last one the Nuer culture. Is the Nuer culture similar to our culture in that it has a codified legal system? Did I not give any examples, or did I give an example? Which is it? First you say “you didn’t give any”, then you allow “except the last one”. Even in that tortured grammar, it would seem that the first part of your statement is, at best, misleading. Why not just say “Only 1 of those 4 examples is pertinent?” ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/236 "2009-05-27T02:16:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So that’s it? It doesn’t matter that gay sex is a capital crime? Are you fucking kidding?!!! That’s ridiculous. Obviously, something is getting lost in translation. They obviously do NOT view those SS relationships the same way they do two people that are married and raise a family. They can’t even consummate their relationship. > > Are you really this desperate to put something—anything in the win column of your tally sheet? > > Unbelievable. Again: the ability, desire, need or possibility of sexual relations is not necessary for a marriage. Also, the legality or illegality of an act has little to do with whether or not said acts can and do occur. Please show me your evidence that: > [@magellan01](#): > > They obviously do NOT view those SS relationships the same way they do two people that are married and raise a family. All of the evidence presented is contrary to your assertion. If it is obvious, you must be able to find evidence for it. I have presented research and writing from people who have spent time with the Nuer, specifically studying their society, it’s organization and it’s mores. Please counter with your evidence. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/237 "2009-05-27T02:17:04Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Actually, that isn’t relevant at all to the ignorance that was being fought. Not relevant. It’s the fucking POINT of it. The idea isn’t that someplace on the planet or some ancient culture that the letters m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e existed in that order and applied to something other than a man-woman relationship. The point is did it apply to a SS relationship where the couple was accept as a man-woman couple. And I’m gonna go out on a limb here, but if a culture outlaws gay sex and lesbian sex UNDER PENALTY OF DEATH, I’m gonna guess it’s IMPOSSIBLE to include that those relationships are accepted and embraced the way a man-woman marriage is. I guess the only thing that would show that they are just as accepted is if you can point to one of their laws that says that a man-woman sex is also subject to a death penalty. Please, think about this. Your desperation is getting the better of you. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/238 "2009-05-27T02:19:31Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Again: the ability, desire, need or possibility of sexual relations is not necessary for a marriage. Also, the legality or illegality of an act has little to do with whether or not said acts can and do occur. > > Please show me your evidence that: > > All of the evidence presented is contrary to your assertion. > > If it is obvious, you must be able to find evidence for it. I have presented research and writing from people who have spent time with the Nuer, specifically studying their society, it’s organization and it’s mores. Please counter with your evidence. Here ya go: [Yeesh.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Sudan) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/239 "2009-05-27T02:21:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So that’s it? It doesn’t matter that gay sex is a capital crime? Are you fucking kidding?!!! That’s ridiculous. Obviously, something is getting lost in translation. They obviously do NOT view those SS relationships the same way they do two people that are married and raise a family. They can’t even consummate their relationship. > > Are you really this desperate to put something—anything in the win column of your tally sheet? > > Unbelievable. The Nuer are animists. The anti-homosexual laws are imposed by the Muslim-run government. I think that this whole Nuer situation is mostly a hijack\*, but frothing at the mouth and lashing out at each other instead of doing the tiniest bit of research to discover the situation is no more helpful than some members of the pro-SSM crowd running about crying “Bigotry”! \*(For those anti-SSM folks who have insisted that marriage has always and everywhere been heterosexual, it is a valid refutation, but it fails to address the fact that 99.999% of the population growing up in the U.S. will be unaware of that fact or that that particular argument is not being advanced in this thread.) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/240 "2009-05-27T02:23:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Huh? First, are you attributing a quote of mine to **mswas**? Or did she say that? The link is right there. > [@magellan01](#): > > The more pertinent point is the relation of that society to our culture. Now that someone has pointed out that **mswas** ’s statement was wrong. It’s called “moving the goalposts”. > [@magellan01](#): > > P.S. I love the “you and those like you…”. You can’t stop yourself, can you?:rolleyes: Oh, please. Are you saying that “those who oppose SSM” is not a group ? And that **mswas** does not belong to that group ? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645.md?page=13)