# 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:** 26
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/501 "2009-05-28T21:03:21Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > What’s a “cultural way of life”, again? If it’s a religion, then you’re trying to force a religion on people via government, which is unconstitutional. If it’s simply a description of the current state of the aggregate popular opinion, then it quite literally cannot be “damaged” - it can be _changed_, but absent some sort of objective standard, calling change “damage” is fallacious scaremongering. And the counter argument is that it cuts both ways. Both sides are trying to impose a moral worldview on the other. That’s the essence of the culture war. > [@](#): > > Not to mention that “the culture will be damaged” is a pretty frikking weak level of harm compared to “people will not be granted the right of marriage.” Rights of the individual vs rights of the collective. > [@](#): > > It’s poppycock to say that “SSM will be taught in schools” - being married to a person of the same gender isn’t something you are _taught_. On rare occasions the existence of SSM will be _mentioned_ in schools, usually in passing; to claim or imply that there will be an institutionalized effort to gayify or gaymarriageify children is a strawman and ridiculous besides. So you don’t think books like, “My Two Mommies”, or whatever will be broached in schools like ever? I’m not talking about turning people gay, I am talking about teaching acceptance of gay marriage. Remember try to place yourself into the perspective of thinking that homosexuality is sinful and immoral. > [@](#): > > And what do you suppose will be taught as being evil, by the way? Certainly hetero marriages won’t be demonized. And I’d lay good odds that religions will pretty much a pass on denying religious marriages to gays, the same way they pretty much get a pass when they ban the women from the clergy. It’s not that something will be taught as being evil, it is that that something ‘evil’ will be taught as being good. > [@](#): > > No, the only thing that will be demonized is when people for no _rational_ reason went around trying to tyrannize and deny rights to a separate minority. And whatever bigotry may or may not have inspired this, that’ll be demonized as well. You can use ‘rational’ as a buzzword and ‘irrational’ as an epithet all you want. Yes, religious reasons are irrational, so what? What’s your point? The question was not whether the harm caused would be a justifiable reason to ban gay marriage, the question was whether or not there is harm. If I get a vaccination, I am harmed because some prick Doctor is sticking an inch of steel directly into my veins and injecting harmful virus or bacterial cells that will make me mildly sick for a couple of days. Yes, I should get vaccinated, but it’s still harmful. Just because the benefit outweighs the cost doesn’t make it costless. You just generally aren’t going to be the one paying the cost, and from what I can tell likely won’t be reaping the benefits (could be wrong) so you don’t care about the costs. > [@](#): > > In my opinion, if you want to prevent us from demonizing overt acts of tyrrany, hatred, and evil, then _you_ are damaging the culture. Yes, that’s the essence of the culture war, on some issues there has to be a loser, it can’t go both ways. This is one of those issues where there is no compromise, someone loses. > [@](#): > > And if you don’t also object to the demonization of murder on the grounds that human sacrifice has been part of religions, you’re a hypocrite besides. This is silly. > [@](#): > > I’m not impressed by the bullshit tactic of claiming that nobody understands your case. What case you have _presented_, I, at least, understand just fine. You value your image of america as a religious theocracy above the rights of gay people. Tyranny of the majority. Oppression of the weak to maintain the status quo. This is the case you are making. I didn’t say nobody understands my case. A lot of people understand my case and have stated that they understood quite clearly. It’s just the people who don’t understand it that keep arguing the loudest. I don’t argue with those who just accepted my argument and moved on, why would I? It’s actually only about half a dozen or so people who don’t understand it, and care enough to keep going. The people who have summarized my position succinctly and correctly numbers pretty close to the number who keep at it. > [@](#): > > You are absolutely right that this is not value neutral either - either the tyrannically-inclined religious types will be miffed by having the world slightly less under their thumb, or an entire class of people will be stripped of their rights and treated as second-class citizens. This is _far_ from value neutral. _shrugs_ All the hysterical adjectives are overwrought in my opinion. “Tyrannical, Evil, Oppressive, Hateful, Bigotted.” Pfft whatever. > [@](#): > > And you’ll note that I’m not ignoring the concerns of the tyrannically-inclined religious types - I’m taking them into account. But that doesn’t mean they automatically win. No, they are going to lose this battle, obviously. SSM will occur over the next decade. This battle will be over by the quarter century mark. > [@](#): > > First we’ll note that this isn’t _all_ the pro-SSM side is doing. They’re also backed by constitutional and equal rights arguments. So equating the two sides over the one shared aspect that they each demonize the other is disingenous at best. Well, the issue with equal rights hinges around how you define marriage of course, but in this case the redefining marriage to include homosexuals faction is going to win. I’m not equating them, I am just trying to point out the proportion of hateful ranting vs substantive criticism. As you know, I agree with you, I just think that for the ‘rational’ side there’s a lot of spittle flying in my face from the frothing hysterically. > [@](#): > > And secondly, the Pro-SSM side is not saying that straight marriage is evil. They’re saying that _oppressing other people_ are evil. Were the gays actually trying to do something that _would_ cause material harm to straights, such as banning straight marriage or forcing straight people into gay marriages, then everyone would switch sides in a heartbeat. It’s not harm to straights we are talking about but harm to Traditional Christian culture in America. The harm to straights thing is a red herring that both sides have chosen to glom onto. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/502 "2009-05-28T21:05:32Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Uh, okay. :rolleyes: You know that traditional culture has always changed, right? Change isn’t new. Actually, I change my mind. He’s right. The world has completely gone to hell once we foolishly abandoned the divine right of kings. Until we re-institute that, nothing else matters. I mean, look at how people are demonizing kings in schools, with all their talk of “presidents” and “elections” and all that crap - it’s shameful! Immoral! Why, the children are completely disrespectful and rebellious now, after all that institutionalized corruption - it’s hard as heck to get them to submit themselves utterly to a lord anymore! The culture has been _completely destroyed_! Oh, hey, **mswas**? Explain to me why the minor cultural change of a small fraction of the population being able to get recognition of their union is a worthy benchmark of cultural damage? There have been other changes that were a _mite_ more sweeping. Or are we supposed to get ourselves into a panicked tizzy every time the paperboy changes their route? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/503 "2009-05-28T21:06:07Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Church attendance? Number of people who identify as Christian? Well, that’s something we can measure. If the numbers stay the same or go up over the next five years, would this prove SSM was good? What if the already ongoing decline slows down? I’m not saying it _will_, just asking if your stance will change if it does. For a real kick in the pants - what if the reason gay marriage has become feasible in the U.S. is due to the ongoing decline of Christianity? So rather than being a _cause_ of the decline of Christianity, SSM is a _symptom_? Maybe this really is the end for Christianity, replaced by a secular ethics where individual freedom and determination over-rides any particular religious fealty. Gay marriage is just the latest sign. I daresay Christianity isn’t being actively destroyed, it’s just slowly fading away… away…away…[sub]away…[/sub] Compared to other radical shifts throughout history, this one is pretty minor. It didn’t even involve invading armies and putting whole cities to the sword or anything. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/504 "2009-05-28T21:06:26Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Good luck making a causal link independent of other factors. It’s not independent of other factors and suggesting that it must be so is just a silly way to again try to diminish the other side of the debate rather than facing the actual debate. It’s a cheap tactic. The point is that at least one side is fighting an overall culture war, this is just one front in what they see as a major battle. It’s an important one because it says a lot about whether America is a ‘Christian’ nation or not. **Lobohan** Do you post what you post seriously? Like really? I can’t tell. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/505 "2009-05-28T21:10:03Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Rights of the individual vs rights of the collective. Which is which, in this case? I lost track. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/506 "2009-05-28T21:11:17Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It’s not independent of other factors and suggesting that it must be so is just a silly way to again try to diminish the other side of the debate rather than facing the actual debate. It’s a cheap tactic. The point is that at least one side is fighting an overall culture war, this is just one front in what they see as a major battle. It’s an important one because it says a lot about whether America is a ‘Christian’ nation or not. > > **Lobohan** Do you post what you post seriously? Like really? I can’t tell. Mostly. How about answering what I said instead of whipping out an incredulous handwave? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/507 "2009-05-28T21:15:09Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, that’s something we can measure. If the numbers stay the same or go up over the next five years, would this prove SSM was good? What if the already ongoing decline slows down? I’m not saying it _will_, just asking if your stance will change if it does. Will my stance change on what? That I think using all sorts of loaded words and name-calling against the opposition is inane and stupid? Doubtful. > [@](#): > > For a real kick in the pants - what if the reason gay marriage has become feasible in the U.S. is due to the ongoing decline of Christianity? So rather than being a _cause_ of the decline of Christianity, SSM is a _symptom_? I think that’s the case. People are always gleefully posting statistics reflecting a decline in religiousity or an uptick in people willing to declare themselves as atheists. And yes, I think I’d agree that it’s symptomatic as opposed to causal, but of course the acceptance of one symptom leads to the acceptance of the next. Kind of like how you guys keep pointing out no-fault divorce as a reason why there is nothing special about straight marriage. > [@](#): > > Maybe this really is the end for Christianity, replaced by a secular ethics where individual freedom and determination over-rides any particular religious fealty. Gay marriage is just the latest sign. I daresay Christianity isn’t being actively destroyed, it’s just slowly fading away… away…away…[sub]away…[/sub] It’s certainly an ongoing process that’s been going on for centuries. And yes, I agree with you, but Christians are going to fight tooth and nail against this slow decline. It’s only natural. > [@](#): > > Compared to other radical shifts throughout history, this one is pretty minor. It didn’t even involve invading armies and putting whole cities to the sword or anything. I disagree that it’s pretty minor actually. I think it’s one of the most significant events in all of history really. The fact that it doesn’t involve invading armies makes it MORE not less significant. It recognizes a few things: 1. It again puts the rights of the individual to govern his/her personal life as a paramount ideal. 2. It enshrines Romantic marriage as the main form of marriage releasing kinship bonding as the purpose of marriage. 3. For the first time in Western history marriage can be between a man and a man. All of those things are incredibly significant. To me it symbolizes the end of the modern experiment, it’s completion, it’s fulfillment. The propulsion of man into a fully globalized, atomized culture, freed from the bonds of his traditional heritage. It states unequivocally that gender roles are mutable and that the state should not put a curb on that mutability. I’d say it’s pretty damned significant, and I say that devoid of positive/negative judgment. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/508 "2009-05-28T21:15:45Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > How about answering what I said instead of whipping out an incredulous handwave? Don’t get your hopes up. It’s what he does every time he realizes he’s spouting bullshit but can’t make himself admit it. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/509 "2009-05-28T21:17:04Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It’s an important one because it says a lot about whether America is a ‘Christian’ nation or not. What happens if, after the dust settles, it looks firmly like the U.S. is _not_ a Christian nation? Assume this battle over SSM is eventually decided in favour of the proponents, those who used religion as their weapon are soundly defeated, and most of the population just quietly gets on with their lives? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/510 "2009-05-28T21:17:17Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Mostly. > > How about answering what I said instead of whipping out an incredulous handwave? > 😃 Answering what? Has abortion reduced the number of Christians? I guess we could see how many Christians have had abortions to get a hard number on that one couldn’t we? But also, am I really supposed to take seriously a post where you call people, ‘fucking shitbags’? That kind of language tells me you aren’t really interested in hearing any kind of debate that disagrees with you, so why should I go there? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/511 "2009-05-28T21:17:30Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It’s not independent of other factors and suggesting that it must be so is just a silly way to again try to diminish the other side of the debate rather than facing the actual debate. It’s a cheap tactic. The point is that at least one side is fighting an overall culture war, this is just one front in what they see as a major battle. It’s an important one because it says a lot about whether America is a ‘Christian’ nation or not. What?? I must not be understanding you again… are you saying that SSM will cause measureable harm to Traditional Christian culture in America, and furthermore, the harm that SSM marriage ALONE causes is **not** independent of other factors that are currently causing cultural change to Traditional Christian culture??? Seriously? You can parse out the harm that SSM causes **independently** of any other ongoing cultural shifts? Wow. ETA - I guess you figure you can - and that you also figure that the damage of SSM is huge. Each to his own, I guess. It’s just that your opinion does not really add up to an answer to the OP. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/512 "2009-05-28T21:19:09Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > What happens if, after the dust settles, it looks firmly like the U.S. is _not_ a Christian nation? Assume this battle over SSM is eventually decided in favour of the proponents, those who used religion as their weapon are soundly defeated, and most of the population just quietly gets on with their lives? I’m not sure. Christianity is receding into the ‘religion of personal conscience’ territory, which I think is a good thing. If more Christians were out doing straight up good deeds for people and not expending so much effort trying to control other people’s lives we might see a resurgence in Christianity. Who knows? Personally I think losing this battle will be a good thing for Christianity even though it’ll be a bad thing for more traditionalist forms. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/513 "2009-05-28T21:22:48Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > What?? > > I must not be understanding you again… are you saying that SSM will cause measureable harm to Traditional Christian culture in America, and furthermore, the harm that SSM marriage ALONE causes is **not** independent of other factors that are currently causing cultural change to Traditional Christian culture??? Welcome to the debate. > [@](#): > > Seriously? You can parse out the harm that SSM causes **independently** of any other ongoing cultural shifts? No, I never even implied that. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/514 "2009-05-28T21:24:04Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Don’t get your hopes up. It’s what he does every time he realizes he’s spouting bullshit but can’t make himself admit it. Others have no problem understanding me. So if you do, is it me talking bullshit or is it you? I think it’s you, you think it’s me. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/515 "2009-05-28T21:24:37Z")
To recap: The OP asked: > [@](#): > > What, specifically, would be the negative consequences of allowing gays to marry? Your answer in a nutshell was that to do so would be to cause a great deal of harm to traditional Christian culture in America. You now say that losing this battle will be a good thing for Christianity. So… The negative consequence of SSM would be that Christianity would lose a battle, which in the long run would be a good thing. Got it. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/516 "2009-05-28T21:29:13Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > To recap: > > The OP asked: > > Your answer in a nutshell was that to do so would be to cause a great deal of harm to traditional Christian culture in America. I said harm, I didn’t qualify it proportionally. > [@](#): > > You now say that losing this battle will be a good thing for Christianity. In my personal opinion yes. > [@](#): > > So… The negative consequence of SSM would be that Christianity would lose a battle, which in the long run would be a good thing. Umm…no. > [@](#): > > Got it. Umm…no. To you, \*\*ElvisL1ves \*\*and **Lobohan**. I’ll hereafter put my answers to you, in one succinct answer in your native tongue. **0** ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/517 "2009-05-28T21:29:50Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Answering what? Has abortion reduced the number of Christians? I guess we could see how many Christians have had abortions to get a hard number on that one couldn’t we? > > But also, am I really supposed to take seriously a post where you call people, ‘fucking shitbags’? That kind of language tells me you aren’t really interested in hearing any kind of debate that disagrees with you, so why should I go there? I’m more than interested in hearing the supposed rational argument against SSM. I submit that a bunch of prejudiced people feeling angry isn’t a rational argument against SSM. A lot of prejudiced people were pissed when they integrated the army. A lot of prejudiced people were pissed when they outlawed slavery. Or allowed women to vote. Or when we got a Catholic president. And so on. I’m sorry prejudiced people have to go through pain. But as a reason to deny rights it’s outright laughable. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/518 "2009-05-28T21:31:55Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’m more than interested in hearing the supposed rational argument against SSM. I submit that a bunch of prejudiced people feeling angry isn’t a rational argument against SSM. > > A lot of prejudiced people were pissed when they integrated the army. A lot of prejudiced people were pissed when they outlawed slavery. Or allowed women to vote. Or when we got a Catholic president. And so on. > > I’m sorry prejudiced people have to go through pain. But as a reason to deny rights it’s outright laughable. **0.** ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/519 "2009-05-28T21:32:19Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > To you, \*\*ElvisL1ves \*\*and **Lobohan**. I’ll hereafter put my answers to you, in one succinct answer in your native tongue. > > **0** Off? How did you know I’m a native binary speaker? If it helps you to run away without questioning your beliefs then go right ahead. 😃 EDIT: I just saw the previous answer. Lol. I’m sorry if I made you cry. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/520 "2009-05-28T21:34:40Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Off? How did you know I’m a native binary speaker? > > If it helps you to run away without questioning your beliefs then go right ahead. 😃 Which is better, running away without questioning your beliefs or running head on without doing it? And if you notice, I am still responding to those asking more interesting questions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645.md?page=27)