# 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:** 27
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/521 "2009-05-28T21:43:26Z")
Just to string the whole thing together here: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by 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? > [@mswas](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Me > So… The negative consequence of SSM would be that Christianity would lose a battle, which in the long run would be a good thing. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by mswas: > Umm…no. I realize that you like to parse things very carefully… What exactly do you mean by “the battle”, and how will it be lost? Will SSM contribute to losing the “battle”? You are not explaining yourself very well here, and simply moving to your usual “nobody understands me/ you’re all too obtuse” defense, perhaps you could explain more clearly. ---
**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, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/522 "2009-05-28T21:55:03Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > 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. If there were no issues of liberty, rights, and freedoms involved, I would agree with you completely. Or rather I would if it were actually true that the gays were trying to force a moral worldview on the religious types, which they are **not**. They’re trying to change the actual _world_ - but if religions want to keep spouting that gay marriage is bad and no gays can come through _their_ doors, then that ain’t great but that’s the way it is. > [@mswas](#): > > Rights of the individual vs rights of the collective. Respecting individualism _is_ a longstanding and persistent part of american culture. Trying to place the rights of the individual at _odds_ with the american culture is nonsense. Which means that this “rights of the collective” yoiu speak of has squat to do with “protecting the culture”, and everything to do with “tyranny of the majority”. > [@mswas](#): > > 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. Right, right. Grounding myself in paranoia and antagonism… Well, now that I’m grounded in paranoia and antagonism, I totally think that all the books in school will be replaced with gaybooks. However, that’s just my paranoia talking. In practical terms, I don’t exactly think this will dominate the educational spectrum. > [@mswas](#): > > It’s not that something will be taught as being evil, it is that that something ‘evil’ will be taught as being good. Look, let’s be quite explicit. It’s not about the schools, it’s about the world. “My Two Mommies” isn’t _half_ as bad or threatening as Timmy’s friend Jimmy \*having \*two mommies. The problem you are expressing is that the religion will have become at odds, again, with the state of the world around people, which will, indeed, make it increasingly harder for the religion to convince people that it is an accirate reflection of the way things are, and that the way things _actually_ are is not. You are utterly correct that every time a religion is shown to be incorrect this damages the religion’s credibility, and when it is shown to have _evil_ encoded in it (which various ones do - women marginalized, anyone?), that’s even more deterring. I freely acknowledge this. The problems you have in selling this are twofold - the first being that you are trying to argue that the _world_ should bend to the _religion_, which in many respects is downright impossible and from an outside perspective is never desirable. You may try to shrug off the phrase “tyranny of the majority”, but what you are actually arguing is _religious_ tyranny. This will, necessarily, be a tough sell to the people who you are expressing a desire to oppress, which includes _anyone_ not in your religion, even if they are not specific targets of this particular theocratic initiative. The other problem you have is that encoding religion into law is unconstitutional. Bang - your argument is dead, in the US at least. It doesn’t _matter_ if the “culture” is being damaged; it’s illegal to protect it by legal fiat. > [@mswas](#): > > 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. Now you are just being offensive. I have quite explicitly _not_ been blowing off the religious objections because they’re not my problem. If I was religious I would still support SSM. Hell man, **I am a homophobe**. I don’t want to ever have to look at a gay couple kissing or snuggling, ever. You think I don’t know what you’re talking about here? But our collective feelings on the matter are **utterly trumped** by two things: One, I don’t have the right to tell people what to do in their own houses and their own lives. Them being married doesn’t materially effect me, so let them do it. (And it doesn’t do a _damned thing_ to reduce homosexuality anyway, so who cares? Honestly?) And two: the foundation of our frikking country is that people should have equal rights. “All men are created equal.” Yes, we’re not all the way there yet. Initially we were much worse. But that you are ignoring that part of the _culture_ underscores for me that “culture” is just a masking for “my religion forced on everyone.” Calling it “culture” at all is extremely disingenuous. > [@mswas](#): > > 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. “Culture”, my eye. But yes, there can only be one winner. Either the tyrannically-religious get to control and limit the rights and activities of gay people, or they don’t. > [@mswas](#): > > This is silly. You’re the one who wrote “So in public schools we will be teaching that certain religious beliefs are wrong and evil.” If you don’t wish to defend religious beliefs in general from attack, then don’t argue from that position! > [@mswas](#): > > 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. bolding and allcaps mine. **STOP SAYING THAT I DON’T UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT.** Your argument is simple. There are people who like things the way they are. The way things are, some people are denied rights. Were those people to get their rights, then the first people would be unhappy. SIMPLE. Succinct and correct enough for you? > [@mswas](#): > > _shrugs_ All the hysterical adjectives are overwrought in my opinion. “Tyrannical, Evil, Oppressive, Hateful, Bigotted.” Pfft whatever. The use of weasel-words like “culture” to mean “religion” are slimy and dishonest in my opinion. Should I Pfft your entire argument every time you use them? How productive! > [@mswas](#): > > 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. I was wondering when you’d get back to the nonsensical bullshit lie that the word “marriage” can’t be used comprehensibly in the terms “polgamous marriage” or “same-sex marriage”. Just can’t get enough of rewriting history and ignoring how language actually works, can you? I think that for the side who’s claiming not to be _irrational_ you’re engaging in a lot of fallacious and fraudulent argumentive tactics yourself. Motes and means, and all that. > [@mswas](#): > > 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. Constitutionally speaking, America cannot legally be a Traditional Christian culture - at least not at the legal level. One goalpost is planted in the churches, the _real_ Traditional Christian culture - and _nobody_ is trying to force gay marriage into that arena. The other goalpost is planted in the American legal system. Pick one. And the pro-SSM side doesn’t ‘glom onto’ the harm to straights red herring. ---
**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, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/523 "2009-05-28T22:15:12Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > 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. So, five years after SSM becomes legal, say, we’d expect to see the beginning of a major societal shift, right? Church attendance dropping radically and such, perhaps. Birth rates spike downward, maybe. _Something_, to be sure. ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/524 "2009-05-28T22:30:03Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > I realize that you like to parse things very carefully… What exactly do you mean by “the battle”, and how will it be lost? Will SSM contribute to losing the “battle”? You are not explaining yourself very well here, and simply moving to your usual “nobody understands me/ you’re all too obtuse” defense, perhaps you could explain more clearly. I am weary of this. But as I said, I never said, ‘nobody understands me’. Plenty of people understood me just fine. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/525 "2009-05-28T22:43:19Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Yes, we do, it’s just not usually Christian belief, at least in this country. Teaching that Christian belief is wrong and evil would mark a major shift in western society. > Of course we’ll always have Unitarians and Liberal Episcopalians for liberals to invoke as, ‘the good ones’. I’ve read to the end of the thread, and haven’t seem this answered. I’m just an atheist Jew, but my impression that “Christian belief” centered around things like Jesus, the resurrection, and salvation, and that any position on SSM is hardly fundamental to it. Why would bringing up that SSM is happening in the schools, and opposing prejudice against gays, be in any way the same as demonizing Christian belief? Or that Christian belief was wrong. Are you writing those Christians who support SSM out of the religion? Here in California we have this problem already. Some Christians get their panties in a twist about anti-discrimination policies in schools. But they also get upset about teaching tolerance for non-Christian religions. if you think it is reasonable for schools to listen to people who think not condemning SSM is immoral, how do you feel about those who think not condemning Islam, Hinduism or even the LDS is immoral. How about those who think teaching evolution is immoral? From what I see the schools bend over backwards to not condemn anyone - unless you think not agreeing on what is immoral is condemnation. As for the impact of immorality - when I was a kid “living in sin” was definitely considered immoral, if practiced to some extent. Today I suspect very few people have any problem with it, and we’ve managed to stay in good shape, and Christianity hasn’t melted. Why do you think SSM would be any worse? ---
**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, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/526 "2009-05-28T22:44:04Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I am weary of this. But as I said, I never said, ‘nobody understands me’. Plenty of people understood me just fine. Your “Umm… no” suggests you thought Euphonious had said something that was obviously, blatantly wrong. I thought he did a fairly good job finding a contradiction on your statements, myself. On the subject of misunderstanding, your earlier response to me: “Will my stance change on what?” was, I thought, a bit odd since the prompting question wasn’t all that difficult. My question was: > [@me](#): > > Well, [Church Attendance is] 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 [that SSM leads to an erosion of the legitimacy of one’s moral basis] will change if it does. Not a hard question at all, really. In fact, I was glad that you finally proposed a metric, Church attendance, that we could actually analyze. Now it looks like that was just an off-the-cuff tease and we’re back to intangibles again. ---
**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, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/527 "2009-05-28T22:49:41Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’ve read to the end of the thread, and haven’t seem this answered. I’m just an atheist Jew, but my impression that “Christian belief” centered around things like Jesus, the resurrection, and salvation, and that any position on SSM is hardly fundamental to it. Why would bringing up that SSM is happening in the schools, and opposing prejudice against gays, be in any way the same as demonizing Christian belief? Or that Christian belief was wrong. Are you writing those Christians who support SSM out of the religion? > > Here in California we have this problem already. Some Christians get their panties in a twist about anti-discrimination policies in schools. But they also get upset about teaching tolerance for non-Christian religions. if you think it is reasonable for schools to listen to people who think not condemning SSM is immoral, how do you feel about those who think not condemning Islam, Hinduism or even the LDS is immoral. How about those who think teaching evolution is immoral? > > From what I see the schools bend over backwards to not condemn anyone - unless you think not agreeing on what is immoral is condemnation. I personally don’t care. > [@](#): > > As for the impact of immorality - when I was a kid “living in sin” was definitely considered immoral, if practiced to some extent. Today I suspect very few people have any problem with it, and we’ve managed to stay in good shape, and Christianity hasn’t melted. Why do you think SSM would be any worse? The same people who think SSM is wrong still think “living in sin” is wrong. ---
**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, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/528 "2009-05-28T22:51:24Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Your “Umm… no” suggests you thought Euphonious had said something that was obviously, blatantly wrong. I thought he did a fairly good job finding a contradiction on your statements, myself. > On the subject of misunderstanding, your earlier response to me: “Will my stance change on what?” was, I thought, a bit odd since the prompting question wasn’t all that difficult. My question was: > [@](#): > > Not a hard question at all, really. In fact, I was glad that you finally proposed a metric, Church attendance, that we could actually analyze. Now it looks like that was just an off-the-cuff tease and we’re back to intangibles again. Because you are just being silly in how you address it. It’s a disingenuous aspect. “So mswas you’ve mentioned a possible metric, now create a scientific survey that we can use over the next ‘X’ years.”, it’s ridiculous. It’s a possible way to measure it. You’re just trying to get a gotcha moment in. “Oh you can’t predict the future, therefore you are wrong…hahahaha pwn noob!” ---
**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, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/529 "2009-05-28T22:53:56Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Now it looks like that was just an off-the-cuff tease and we’re back to intangibles again. I’m developing the belief that the answer that the people who predict an ‘undefinable negative effect’ _want_ to say is “No effect? Just wait five years for when God comes down and burns all the SSM-allowing countries into crispy critters, and put _that_ in your ‘intangibles’ pipe and smoke it!” Or possibly, “Wait until you’re dead and standing before God and he looks down and says ‘hmm, contributed to charities, saved widows, adopted orphans, -but you failed to prevent SSM from being legalized in your country?! Off to hell with you, sinner!’ - that’s your ‘tangible effect’!” I could be wrong, of course. But at least it makes more sense than “I have a strong certainty that something really bad will happen but haven’t the faintest beginning of a hint of a speculation as to what it could possibly be.” ---
**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, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/530 "2009-05-28T22:56:44Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I’m developing the belief that the answer that the people who predict an ‘undefinable negative effect’ _want_ to say is “No effect? Just wait five years for when God comes down and burns all the SSM-allowing countries into crispy critters, and put _that_ in your ‘intangibles’ pipe and smoke it!” > > Or possibly, “Wait until you’re dead and standing before God and he looks down and says ‘hmm, contributed to charities, saved widows, adopted orphans, -but you failed to prevent SSM from being legalized in your country?! Off to hell with you, sinner!’ - that’s your ‘tangible effect’!” > > I could be wrong, of course. But at least it makes more sense than “I have a strong certainty that something really bad will happen but haven’t the faintest beginning of a hint of a speculation as to what it could possibly be.” And \*\*begbert2 \*\*comes in clearly elucidating why I didn’t think your lines of inquiry were actually serious. Thank you **begbert2** , you do that quite a lot. I knew that it was all about, “Because ‘wild stereotype’ the lulz it hurts, but we all hurt from the lulz together!” ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/531 "2009-05-28T22:59:59Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The same people who think SSM is wrong still think “living in sin” is wrong. Sure. And they are entitled to their opinion. But happily they haven’t tried to make it illegal, and that most of the country is ok with this hasn’t caused either the death of Christianity or a moral cataclysm. Which would seem to argue that America handles immorality fairly well. ---
**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, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/532 "2009-05-28T23:00:46Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Because you are just being silly in how you address it. It’s a disingenuous aspect. Is it disingenuous when someone says “if this goes through, bad stuff will happen” to ask “what bad stuff is that?” How seriously must I phrase the question? > [@](#): > > You’re just trying to get a gotcha moment in. No, I’m trying to find an element, _any_ element, in your argument that has some actual substance to it. > [@](#): > > “Oh you can’t predict the future, therefore you are wrong…hahahaha pwn noob!” I assure you, if I ever say “pwn noob!” it will be ironical. And if a major plank in the anti-SSM argument is that something bad will happen 40 years from now, it is not unreasonable to ask what that something might be, and what the early warning signs would be. ---
**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, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/533 "2009-05-28T23:02:12Z")
**Bryan Ekers** The question is asked and answered. It is harmful to the way of life of people whom you deem as irrelevant and socially deviant. Nothing more needs to be said. ---
**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, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/534 "2009-05-28T23:02:44Z")
And I grow weary of your avoidance, and poor use of language. But you did say: “Personally I think losing this battle will be a good thing for Christianity” By “this battle”, did you mean legalization of SSM or not? If so, then you are arguing that SSM will be good for Christianity in the end. If not, you have not been clear on what “this battle” means. You are a poor communicator. ---
**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, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/535 "2009-05-28T23:04:40Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > And \*\*begbert2 \*\*comes in clearly elucidating why I didn’t think your lines of inquiry were actually serious. Thank you **begbert2** , you do that quite a lot. > > I knew that it was all about, “Because ‘wild stereotype’ the lulz it hurts, but we all hurt from the lulz together!” Despite your desire to play the chronically misunderstood martyr, I was completely serious. That is the only explanation I can think of that makes “It’s going to be totally bad - but I can’t say why” not be **utterly and overtly irrational**. It’s not a conclusion I quickly leapt to, and it’s not something I post in jest - I seriously see it as a much more plausible explanation, that actually presents those who makes such statements as rational human beings, as opposed to complete nutcases. Now, I am open to alternative explanations for this mysterious “ominious premonition of inexplicable doom” that has been mentioned several times here. If you have a better one, please, share it. But please stop blaming the anti-SSM side’s faults on us. Just because their arguments are in all seriousness usually ridiculous does **not** mean that the only reason to engage them in debate is to point and laugh. Personally I can find better ways to entertain myself - the only reason I continue to ask for rationales is in the hope that perhaps, maybe, somebody will be able to come up with something I am capable of respecting. ---
**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, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/536 "2009-05-28T23:05:13Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > And I grow weary of your avoidance, and poor use of language. > > But you did say: > > “Personally I think losing this battle will be a good thing for Christianity” > > By “this battle”, did you mean legalization of SSM or not? > > If so, then you are arguing that SSM will be good for Christianity in the end. > If not, you have not been clear on what “this battle” means. > > You are a poor communicator. Only to the morons. More people stated clear understanding of my point than continue to have trouble understanding me. As this is the case, I am going to assume that you are just a poor listener. Since I am about to bow out of this thread. It’s not my fault you are a fucking moron. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/537 "2009-05-28T23:06:05Z")
[Wizard of Oz] SSM is wrong because, Because, because, because Because of the terrible things it does [/Wiz] Pay no attention to the handwaving behind the curtain. I lived through the sexual revolution. I even fought in it, though not as much as I’d have liked to. The Christians upset about that had a lot better reasons than people upset by SSM. Some of them have even come true. But I think we’re freer in general than we were in 1965. ---
**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, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/538 "2009-05-28T23:11:12Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Only to the morons. More people stated clear understanding of my point than continue to have trouble understanding me. As this is the case, I am going to assume that you are just a poor listener. > > Since I am about to bow out of this thread. > > It’s not my fault you are a fucking moron. It is your fault you turn tail and run instead of defending your beliefs using intellect and logic. Don’t bother the reply, I don’t think a 0 is as funny as you think it is. 😃 ---
**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, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/539 "2009-05-28T23:11:37Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I lived through the sexual revolution. I even fought in it, though not as much as I’d have liked to. The Christians upset about that had a lot better reasons than people upset by SSM. Some of them have even come true. But I think we’re freer in general than we were in 1965. They are upset about SSM for the same reasons they were upset about anything in the sexual revolution. They are still fighting the sexual revolution, you think it’s over, that’s the rift between the two sides. ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/540 "2009-05-28T23:15:21Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **Bryan Ekers** The question is asked and answered. It is harmful to the way of life of people whom you deem as irrelevant and socially deviant. Nothing more needs to be said. I disagree. Legalizing SSM may make these people _uncomfortable_, outraged even, but it in no way _prevents_ these people from living their own lives in according to their own beliefs. As we’ve discussed before, no one is in danger of being forced into a same-sex marriage against his or her will. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645.md?page=28)