# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/141 "2009-05-26T22:08:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Would you prefer that only one side of an argument be aired? That would be an interesting point of view coming from the moderator of a forum called Great Debate. Perhaps you should suggest a new forum entitled The Echo Chamber. This from the guy who has twisted and dodged and snaked down the field for two days refusing to actually participate, while making sure everyone still got to see his username in the left hand column? My entire post was tongue in cheek, as I am sure most posters recognized, tweaking mswas for a typo and then noting that he was prolonging a discussion that he was lamenting. I have no problem with the issue actually being discussed and if you would ever deign to contribute something of substance I will be delighted. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/142 "2009-05-26T22:12:37Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You aren’t making arguments. You’re whining and throwing a tantrum over and over about dictionary definitions and “one set of laws”. You’ve lost this debate because you’re unable to make a substantive argument. > > You just refuse to admit to it, instead you deflect, repost and repeat. In this case, I was referring to **mswas**. Who is making good arguments and more sense than anyone else. And he’s right, “because they are bigots” isn’t an argument, it’s a weapon. A sure sign that someone has either run out of arguments or is on shaky ground. ---
**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 26, 2009, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/143 "2009-05-26T22:12:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let’s say that the club was a men’s only club. Don’t you think that the inclusion of women would make the club less desirable to people who are interested in a men’s only club? > > Also, your desire to used loaded language is an overt appeal to emotion. But you probably knew that. My example is cleaner because it doesn’t suffer the emotion of judgemental terms like “degenerate”. You aren’t seeing this correctly. I’m not the one arguing that marriage is like a social club. I’m arguing that the anti SSM crowd see it as such. Your acceptance of that idea really shows that it’s true. You think that membership will go down because they let those… undesirables onto the roster. The current membership (straight couples) don’t want (gay couples) in the club. First off that isn’t wholly true, many straight people want SS people to be able to wed. Second off, marriage isn’t a social club. It’s an institution that means different things to different people. A man can marry a Russian mail order bride. And that doesn’t denigrate marriage for others. A twenty something Lothario can marry an elderly matron purely for money, and that doesn’t in the slightest impact on your marriage. The social club analogy flawed because it isn’t a club. If you think gays are less than you, you never need to hang out with one. Their marriage doesn’t have one thing to do with your marriage any more than the giggalo marrying for money or the middle-aged poindexter with the Russian teen on his arm. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/144 "2009-05-26T22:16:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s correct. The separate but equal analogy doesn’t hold up. Once the two things are equal, the analogy is inapt. > > But what some referencing a point I’ve made numerous times, and getting it wrong. Blacks and whites now access the same water at the same drinking fountain. Let’s say there is a park with two fountains, one for each race. Blacks drink from the Blacks fountain and whites drink from the Whites fountain. Then, a law gets passed saying that you can’t do that. That everyone has to be able to enjoy the same quality of water. One way to do that is to just have one fountain. Everybody drinks from it, blacks, whites, browns, greens, blues, yellows, what have you. We have equality, yes? Yes. > > Now, in the analogy, the water is our laws. More specifically, our laws outlining the rights and privileges afforded married couples. It used to be, that only married people (who were straight) we’re able to enjoy those laws. But now we pass another law stating that both straight couples (joined through marriage) _and_ SS couples (joined through civil unions) can both drink from that same fountain. They can both enjoy the same cool water. Or set of laws. > > Part of the confusion that some insist upon is in confusing the two _groups_ we seek to treat equally with the two _things_ (water fountains, schools, set of laws) that the two groups are allowed to use. “Separate but equal” talks to the latter. It says that since we cannot make two things equal—schools, for instance—so we won’t have one group going to School A and the other group going to School B. We’ll send both groups to both schools. > > This has been done. Black kids and white kids now attend the same schools. Notice the “and” there? _Two_ groups now both tap into _one_ system. > > Now we go back and substitute Blacks and Whites with Marriage and Civil Union. Theses two groups would both tap into one set of laws. One, not two. There is no question of whether two _things_ are equal because there is only one _thing. One set of laws._ > > Two groups. Tapping into one thing. Blacks and whites enjoy the same water coming out of the same, single fountain. And SS and OS couples enjoying the sam benefits and privileges coming from the same, single set of laws. > > I hope that helps. Now, to prepare fro my conference call. Yeah that sounds real nice until you get down to the details. You’re advocating we keep two fountains tapped into the same water line, {then legal system} and do a shit load of extra work and go to a lot of expense to ensure the quality of water is equal. We’ve already shown that doesn’t work. Then comes the question of why? Why go to all that extra work and expense? Should we cater to those who are used to having the fountain to themselves and don’t want to share with people who are different. {What’s that sounding like now?} Will their own drinks somehow be less thirst quenching because those other people are drinking from the same fountain? To justify all that extra work and expense we need a valid reason or two. So far we’ve been offered none. What we do have is a clear history of this kind of proposal not working because in the end, no matter how you slice it, dice it, and coat it in semantics, it’s catering to ignorance and bigotry. Given our history that’s pretty hard to justify. {see impossible} ---
**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 26, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/145 "2009-05-26T22:17:38Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > [QUOTE=Der Trihs] > It’s the pro-SSM marriage side that’s arguing for the equivalent of men’s clubs being allowed, and the anti-SSM one that’s insisting that they not be allowed. 😕 [/QUOTE] 2 men want to get married; the equivalent of a men’s club. Or 2 women, the equivalent of a woman’s only club. Clubs and marriage are still not a good analogy, since there aren’t the same arguments for why some third party should be allowed to join a marriage as there are for a club. And the level of commitment is a lot different too. [QUOTE=magellan01] And he’s right, “because they are bigots” isn’t an argument, it’s a weapon. [/QUOTE] No, it’s an explanation. “Why do some people oppose single sex marriage ?” “Because they are bigots.” There is no other reason. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/146 "2009-05-26T22:19:52Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You aren’t making arguments. You’re whining and throwing a tantrum over and over about dictionary definitions and “one set of laws”. You’ve lost this debate because you’re unable to make a substantive argument. > > You just refuse to admit to it, instead you deflect, repost and repeat. yes but at least it keeps him dandruff free. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/147 "2009-05-26T22:20:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s correct. The separate but equal analogy doesn’t hold up. Once the two things are equal, the analogy is inapt. You like to make this claim, a lot, but historically, you are in error. When Plessy v. Ferguson was decided, most of the Southern states implemented laws that very carefully dilineated white from colored in equal ways. (One reason that Southern school funding was so impovershed for much of the 20th century was that many states set aside proportionately equal budgets for white and colored schools, then slashed the budgets to prevent the colored schools from getting “too much.”) The inequality only slipped in over time, as town councils, county governments, and then state legislatures discovered that they could get away with more and more inequality. So we have historical precedent that establishing “equivalence” actually has the appearance of establishing equality while the reality is that it will never survive as equal. Can you provide a counter example in which two groups were allowed to engage in identical behavior, separated by language, in which the minority culture was not ultimately oppressed? Until you do so, your persistent claim that your odd, “let’s call this thing by two names” approach has no basis on which any of us should pretend that it will work. ---
**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 26, 2009, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/148 "2009-05-26T22:21:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > In this case, I was referring to **mswas**. Who is making good arguments and more sense than anyone else. > > And he’s right, “because they are bigots” isn’t an argument, it’s a weapon. A sure sign that someone has either run out of arguments or is on shaky ground. Except that, as I noted [previously](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11180444&postcount=121), that’s not the argument the pro-SSM side is making. It’s just a stupid strawman. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/149 "2009-05-26T22:22:29Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, it’s an explanation. “Why do some people oppose single sex marriage ?” “Because they are bigots.” > > There is no other reason. Your personal prejudices aside, this is far too close to a personal attack. Keep your declarations much more general or keep them to yourself. [/Modding] ---
**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 26, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/150 "2009-05-26T22:26:39Z")
**magellan01** , a question for you: What, specifically, would be the negative consequences of allowing gays to marry? \ ---
**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 26, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/151 "2009-05-26T22:26:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Your personal prejudices aside, this is far too close to a personal attack. Keep your declarations much more general or keep them to yourself. > > [/Modding] There’s a declaration more general than “they” ? I was simply pointing out the obvious, as impersonally as possible. ---
**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 26, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/152 "2009-05-26T22:28:17Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > yes but at least it keeps him dandruff free. If he has any hair left after Iowa turned swishy-lover and unleashed a fusillade of degeneracy against his marriage’s shields. On topic: Yeah, Magellan, what, specifically, would be the negative consequences of allowing gays to marry? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/153 "2009-05-26T22:28:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let’s say that the club was a men’s only club. Don’t you think that the inclusion of women would make the club less desirable to people who are interested in a men’s only club? Let’s say the men at the men’s club were telling women they couldn’t have a club but they could have some sort of group. You can’t call it a club because if you do it will hurt our club. Still sound good? Reasonable? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/154 "2009-05-26T22:40:40Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The social club analogy flawed because it isn’t a club. If you think gays are less than you, you never need to hang out with one. Their marriage doesn’t have one thing to do with your marriage any more than the giggalo marrying for money or the middle-aged poindexter with the Russian teen on his arm. Now less flawed than your country club analogy. But it is useful for the specific, limited point I was usiing it to make. I think you just don’t like it because it works in that regard. Now, while I agree that the institution is in need of repair, I disagree with the language you use here. Speaking for myself, I don’t think gays or “less” in some moral sense. The way I look at it they’re pursuing what is inside their body just like I am. We’re just wired differently, attracted to different people. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/155 "2009-05-26T22:43:17Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Let’s say the men at the men’s club were telling women they couldn’t have a club but they could have some sort of group. You can’t call it a club because if you do it will hurt our club. Still sound good? Reasonable? Within that club, sure. But women are free to open an all-women’s club across the street. I don’t see a problem. Unless you don’t think single-sex clubs she be permitted in general. Me, I have no problem with them. ---
**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 26, 2009, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/156 "2009-05-26T22:43:45Z")
**magellan01** , since I see you’re online now, and responding to this thread as of 3 minutes ago, a question for you: What, specifically, would be the negative consequences of allowing gays to marry? ---
**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 26, 2009, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/157 "2009-05-26T22:47:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Within that club, sure. But women are free to open an all-women’s club across the street. I don’t see a problem. Unless you don’t think single-sex clubs she be permitted in general. Me, I have no problem with them. Dude, you called it a club. You can’t _do_ that - it’ll devalue the men’s club! All the men will quit the club, because they care about the club so much! (Oh, and now that we have the women all in their own ‘non-club clublike-building’, the next step is to burn it down, right?) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/158 "2009-05-26T22:50:46Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I think it can hold some water. > > IIRC in Brown v. Board of Education the school for the minorities was fine and pretty much the equal (in terms of funding and curriculum and facilities and so on) of the white-only school that was the alternative. > > The SCOTUS held that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” > > I think a similar argument can be made here as well. You may want to reread my post. I’m NOT disagreeing with the SCOTUS decision you cite. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/159 "2009-05-26T22:53:51Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I have friends and family members who are conservative Christians and believe homosexuality is a sin. I don’t think of them as hateful bigots. People are multifaceted and their bias and possible bigotry on a certain subject isn’t a reflection of everything they are. That doesn’t make it something to be accepted and catered to though. > > I see many people’s bias against gays and SSM as ignorance and a self imposed group delusion too often supported by religious crap. I don’t think that makes them worthy of scorn and self righteous ridicule but concerning this issue they’re wrong and IMO hurting others by insisting others accept their ignorance as valid. This is the closest to agreement I have come with someone in this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/160 "2009-05-26T22:58:53Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > I’ve heard a white supremacist arguing this very thing. He objected to being dismissed as a bigot just because he sincerely believed that racial segregation was a good thing, and that one race was inherently superior to all others. He seemed truly unable to understand why people weren’t interested in listening to his ideas about politics and so forth. See another appeal to emotion. You take ‘they are bigots’ as a given, so you can draw a false equivalence between them and every other half-assed bigot analogy you can think of. The problem here is that people are equating a whole subset of religious morality as being ‘bigotry’ as though it’s synonymous. That’s a dangerous one. The fact of the matter is that the Pro-SSM side wants to change the way things are, and the anti-SSM side wants to keep them the way they have been for centuries. Bigotry isn’t an answer, it is devoid of meaning. ‘Because they are bigots’, gives us no clue as to the mindset, and then if you suggest anything else you get shouted down in favor of the vague, ‘bigotry’, explanation which doesn’t really explain anything. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645.md?page=9)