# 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:** 9
**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, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/161 "2009-05-26T23:01:43Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Sure it is. Say a group of people wanted to make sure that ethnic Hmong couldn’t vote. And their argument was that “Allowing Hmong to vote would ruin the institution of democracy.” > > Their argument would be based on bigotry. Just because you haven’t the self-perception to admit it doesn’t make it not true. Your argument is based on bigotry. Sorry, but if you can’t come up with anything substantive to argue for, a rational person would change their opinion. Yet you stick to your argument even though you have nothing but emotional histrionics about words changing. > > You’re on the irrational side. ☹ No, because marriage as it has existed historically has been defined as being between a man and a woman. You are seeking to change that, so it is not irrational to say, ‘Can’t you come up with a new word?’, because it’s not the same. SSM is not the same as heterosexual marriage for reasons that have been gone over. It is a false equivalency to say they are the same. Sure, I am supportive personally of allowing SSM, but what I don’t like is the intellectually dishonest dismissal of anyone who wants to maintain the culture the way it is a mere ‘bigotry’. Especially to have that same incredibly irrational person argue that they are the rational side while hurling personal attacks and name calling. ‘It’s bigotry’, isn’t an argument, it’s name calling. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/162 "2009-05-26T23:02:04Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > IOW, you know damn well what separate-but-equal means, and therefore why your position is against the law and the principles that underlie the Constitution’s equal protection clause. So why do you continue to peddle it? In what way is any statute which prohibits marriage between two people of the same gender a violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause of th 14th Amendment? In what way is it “against the law?” Do you have decisional law on your side? Some legal principle that I’m unaware of? Or are you simply making an assertion? Or was the discussion about something other than same-gender marriage? ---
**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, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/163 "2009-05-26T23:07:54Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > 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. Personally, I don’t care if they’re bigots. Some here would call _me_ a bigot. What matters is that if you want to deny a person a right, like the right to be married, or the right to \*call \*their hedonistic sham union a “marriage”, then you have to have some kind of compelling _reason_ to deny the right. Especially with that specter “equal protection” looming over us all. And given that, what’s actually happening here is that the anti-SSM people are basically stepping up and _they_ are making arguments that all boil down to “you can’t let them be married because _I’m_ a bigot.” (Not in so many words, of course.) That’s assuming the arguments don’t boil away to fallacy completely. If the anti-SSM people could come up with a more compelling rationale than that, we’d be forced to listen and account for it. But, well…hey, as long as you’re here, 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, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/164 "2009-05-26T23:08:25Z")
> [@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. Well either you think allowing SSM will mean SS couples will move in with hetero couples or you just agreed SSM should be accepted. See, SSM is opening up the same type of club across the street but others including you seem to oppose it. I guess you’ve changed your mind. Good for you. Welcome aboard. Feels good doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![natalie\_kiko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b9e5f3/32.png) [@natalie\_kiko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/natalie_kiko)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/165 "2009-05-26T23:09:23Z")
i believe it’s a moral thing. overall America is considered to be a christian country (in god we trust, god bless america, etc.) In the bible it says man to woman, not man to man or woman to woman. I agree with the statement “they’re gonna live together anyway so whats it hurt to let them marry”… i also think that if it was legal to let them marry we would be contradicting ourselves by forcing God into many parts of america and then going against what He says. letting them be together without letting them marry simply puts the blame on the couple, not on the U.S. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/166 "2009-05-26T23:10:25Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No, because marriage as it has existed historically has been defined as being between a man and a woman. No matter how many times you say that, it’s not going to be true. ---
**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, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/167 "2009-05-26T23:11:44Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > No matter how many times you say that, it’s not going to be true. That’s just retarded. It is true, it remains true and will always be true. Both sides agree it is true, otherwise there would be no fight over it, we’d already have same sex marriage and it wouldn’t be controversial. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/168 "2009-05-26T23:12:25Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > 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. Huh? I did not equate SSM opponents and white supremacists (I think that’s what you’re implying). I did criticize people who spout opinions which are derived from ignorance and/or hate and who then complain when others dismiss them as bigots. > [@mswas](#): > > 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. That’s not what’s going on here. There are lots of reasons that people oppose SSM. I (and many other posters here) simply find their arguments anywhere from not-compelling to ludicrous. Further, in some cases it is entirely correct to identify an the “logic” behind an argument as mere bigotry. > [@mswas](#): > > 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. Simply wrong. The anti-SSM side wants to keep things the way they imagine they have been for centuries. It’s been well argued elsewhere that the “traditional” model beloved of the anti-SSM side is by no means the only model, nor the oldest, nor the most Biblically correct. > [@mswas](#): > > 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. “Bigotry” most certainly has meaning, and it can be a valid explanation for why someone behaves in a particular manner. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/169 "2009-05-26T23:12:45Z")
First of all, welcome to the SDMB! > [@natalie\_kiko](#): > > i believe it’s a moral thing. overall America is considered to be a christian country (in god we trust, god bless america, etc.) Considering something doesn’t make it true, and very early on it was established that the United States is not a Christian nation. > [@natalie\_kiko](#): > > In the bible it says man to woman, not man to man or woman to woman. The Bible is not legal precedent. ---
**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, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/170 "2009-05-26T23:13:43Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Personally, I don’t care if they’re bigots. Some here would call _me_ a bigot. > > What matters is that if you want to deny a person a right, like the right to be married, or the right to \*call \*their hedonistic sham union a “marriage”, then you have to have some kind of compelling _reason_ to deny the right. Especially with that specter “equal protection” looming over us all. And given that, what’s actually happening here is that the anti-SSM people are basically stepping up and _they_ are making arguments that all boil down to “you can’t let them be married because _I’m_ a bigot.” (Not in so many words, of course.) That’s assuming the arguments don’t boil away to fallacy completely. > > If the anti-SSM people could come up with a more compelling rationale than that, we’d be forced to listen and account for it. But, well…hey, as long as you’re here, what, specifically, would be the negative consequences of allowing gays to marry? Well first of all you have to establish that SSM IS actually a right before you can determine whether or not it should be upheld or denied. ---
**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, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/171 "2009-05-26T23:14:15Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It wouldn’t prevent that, but it would change the moral culture in which we live. Schools would teach the children of Christians that what they believe is a sin is something that needs to be tolerated and that their parents Christian beliefs are nothing but, ‘bigotry and hate’. Actually, this is not correct. SSM would be legal, just as abortions are legal, but opponents could easily continue to maintain that the law was wrong. A school that taught that opposition to abortion is bigotry would be out of line, but simply noting the legality of the act does not make that claim ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/172 "2009-05-26T23:14:37Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It is true, it remains true and will always be true. Both sides agree it is true, otherwise there would be no fight over it, we’d already have same sex marriage and it wouldn’t be controversial. Both sides definitely do _not_ agree that is true. Today most people recognize marriage as a contract between a man and a woman, acknowledging their mutual love and commitment, as equal partners in their relationship. Virtually none of this has been the case historically. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/173 "2009-05-26T23:15:40Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Well first of all you have to establish that SSM IS actually a right before you can determine whether or not it should be upheld or denied. Marriage is a right, plain and simple. That was decided more than 40 years ago. ---
**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, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/174 "2009-05-26T23:15:47Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No, because marriage as it has existed historically has been defined as being between a man and a woman. Bullshit. historically it has been a man and his _harem_. Even Abraham had three wives. Tell you what, in your fantasy world where marriage has historically has been defined as being between a man and a woman, you and your imagination can continue to imagine that no gays are getting married. In fact, you may pretend that no gay people even _exist_. But out here in the real world we’ll note that the term “marriage” _demonstrably_ has been applied to unions containing more than one person of the same sex, and _demonstrably_ is an inherently inclusive term that can be correctly applied to pretty much any union that we wish to apply it to. > [@mswas](#): > > That’s just retarded. > > It is true, it remains true and will always be true. Both sides agree it is true, otherwise there would be no fight over it, we’d already have same sex marriage and it wouldn’t be controversial. > > :rolleyes: What’s next, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “la la la I can’t hear you!” :rolleyes: ---
**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, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/175 "2009-05-26T23:18:25Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No, because marriage as it has existed historically has been defined as being between a man and a woman. You are seeking to change that, so it is not irrational to say, ‘Can’t you come up with a new word?’, because it’s not the same. SSM is not the same as heterosexual marriage for reasons that have been gone over. It is a false equivalency to say they are the same. Sure, I am supportive personally of allowing SSM, but what I don’t like is the intellectually dishonest dismissal of anyone who wants to maintain the culture the way it is a mere ‘bigotry’. Especially to have that same incredibly irrational person argue that they are the rational side while hurling personal attacks and name calling. > > ‘It’s bigotry’, isn’t an argument, it’s name calling. I think anyone who tries too hard to maintain the culture as it is is in denial of reality and our own history. The same women who oppose SSM would not want to give up their right to vote. Bigotry born from cultural ignorance is still bigotry but I agree it does no good to simply repeat “they’re bigots” over and over. ---
**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, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/176 "2009-05-26T23:23:13Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > 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. No, the people bringing it up are the ones who want to use religion as a moral Get Out Of Jail Free card. It’s bigotry regardless of whether or not religion is involved, just as regarding blacks as inferior is bigotry regardless of whether or not religion was involved. If people hold a bigoted opinion due to religion, it’s still bigoted. > [@mswas](#): > > 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. No, the purpose of saying “It’s just bigotry” is to point out just how baseless the other side’s position is. ---
**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, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/177 "2009-05-26T23:23:55Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > Huh? I did not equate SSM opponents and white supremacists (I think that’s what you’re implying). I did criticize people who spout opinions which are derived from ignorance and/or hate and who then complain when others dismiss them as bigots. So then Christian morality is ignorance and hate is what you are saying? > [@](#): > > That’s not what’s going on here. There are lots of reasons that people oppose SSM. I (and many other posters here) simply find their arguments anywhere from not-compelling to ludicrous. Further, in some cases it is entirely correct to identify an the “logic” behind an argument as mere bigotry. Not it’s not entirely ‘correct’. It’s meaningless name-calling designed to shame people into agreeing with you. It’s meant to stifle debate, not further it. > [@](#): > > Simply wrong. The anti-SSM side wants to keep things the way they imagine they have been for centuries. It’s been well argued elsewhere that the “traditional” model beloved of the anti-SSM side is by no means the only model, nor the oldest, nor the most Biblically correct. Ok then you’ve said, it prove to me that somewhere in Western Society SSM was considered perfectly legitimate anywhere in history. I’m not ‘simply wrong’, I am absolutely 100% correct. SSM was NEVER normative in our culture. Monogamous marriage between a man and a woman HAS been. Even plural marriage between a man and several women, or between a woman and several men has more of a historical precedent than SSM. So SSM is an entirely new thing, and its dishonest to act like the term marriage hasn’t up until now been about inter-gender relationships. > [@](#): > > “Bigotry” most certainly has meaning, and it can be a valid explanation for why someone behaves in a particular manner. No, it doesn’t explain anything, it pigeonholes an opinion and substitutes for an explanation where neither the audience nor the speaker actually cares about understanding their opponents reasoning. ---
**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, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/178 "2009-05-26T23:24:46Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > There’s a declaration more general than “they” ? > > I was simply pointing out the obvious, as impersonally as possible. No. Declaring the “only” answer to be bigotry is a clear claim that everyone in this thread in opposition to you is a bigot. And as I now see that that theme has infected the thread: **TWEEEEEEEEET!!!** The claim that opposition to SSM is and can only be bigotry is now off limits in this thread. It does not resolve the issue, it is simply a form of name calling. Even IF bigotry is at the base of an argument, that argument still must rest on assumptions and logic and those can be discussed without charges of bigotry. Any further claims of bigotry that are not associated with a particular non-board person accompanied by explicit evidence of bigotry will receive a Warning. **[/Moderating]** ---
**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, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/179 "2009-05-26T23:25:11Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > What’s next, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “la la la I can’t hear you!” :rolleyes: I’m not going to even pretend that it’s even a valid argument. I’m not even going to pretend that any of you actually believe it when you say it either. ---
**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, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645/180 "2009-05-26T23:28:38Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > No. Declaring the “only” answer to be bigotry is a clear claim that everyone in this thread in opposition to you is a bigot. > > And as I now see that that theme has infected the thread: > > **TWEEEEEEEEET!!!** > > The claim that opposition to SSM is and can only be bigotry is now off limits in this thread. It does not resolve the issue, it is simply a form of name calling. > > Even IF bigotry is at the base of an argument, that argument still must rest on assumptions and logic and those can be discussed without charges of bigotry. > > Any further claims of bigotry that are not associated with a particular non-board person accompanied by explicit evidence of bigotry will receive a Warning. > > **[/Moderating]** I would like to hear those other arguments against SSM now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-opponents-of-gay-marriage/497645.md?page=10)