# Any atheists against same sex marriage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 7, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757 "2006-06-07T16:38:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/81 "2006-06-13T18:36:50Z")
> [@Meltdown](#): > > The author of the linked blog hasn’t made up her mind about SSM, because she doesn’t feel that she’s thought through all the consequences. I think it’s perfectly rational to admit that, and to refrain from making a decision (as legalizing SSM would be an active decision) until the consequences have been explored. I think that’s healthy, as that it will hopefully push us to explore the consequences so that the fence-sitters and those wary of change will be able to get behind it. Unfortunetly, “not making a decision” is, in this case, identical to “being opposed to.” Maybe it’s my own prejudices talking, but I didn’t buy her claims of neutrality or her worries about unintended consequences. It came across, to me, as a cheap equivocation because she can’t rationalize simple opposition with her stated beliefs. SSM has been debated for years, now, and no one has yet come up with a defensible, wholly secular reason to oppose it. How much more “exploring” do we have to do to get the fence sitters to jump? ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/82 "2006-06-13T18:48:28Z")
> [@Meltdown](#): > > So, what might the unintended consequences of legalizing (and therefore legitimizing) SSM? > > Someone pointed out the possible decline in heterosexual marriage, as bisexual and closeted individuals feel more empowered to choose SSM than to engage in what could be described as their second choice. Now, let’s say this decline is significant. A decline in heterosexual marriage rate by itself doesn’t seem to be either a good or a bad thing. So what might be the unintended consequences of that? How about a decline in birth rate, as same sex couples may be less likely to produce children then heterosexual couples, as the expense required for in-vitro fertilization or surrogates may make adoption more prevalent in SSM than in heterosexual marriages. A decline in birth rate may lead to a decline in young population, leading to more of a burden on social security. Ahh, but it’s also possible that legalized SSM could _raise_ the birth rate. Low birth rates have always been linked to economic uncertainty. Same-sex marriage could mean there will be more weddings, which means more people spending money on wedding-related expenses and wedding gifts. That would increase the financial security of people whose jobs are connected to the wedding industry or to stores that sell things that people give as wedding gifts, which might make them feel confident enough with their financial situation to have more kids. Or there might be lesbian couples who would like to have a child, but don’t want to have one because of the current legal uncertainty of their relationships. Of course, any of those things is a pretty tenuous reason not to allow same-sex marriage… If a declining birth rate were really an issue, you’d see it cited as a reason to ban abortion, or to do something about the costs of health care or college. If a declining rate of marriage were really an issue, you’d see more tax incentives offered to married couples, or perhaps subsidized home loans available only to married couples, that sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![Minotaurus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee59a6/32.png) [@Minotaurus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Minotaurus)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/83 "2006-06-13T19:26:30Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > The only way bigamy is going to get legalized is if we repeal the laws against fraud. I suspect you mean polygamy, and if so, I say again, “I don’t give a shit.” You don’t give a shit about what our societies will look like about 20-30 years? I consider my self to be a moderate liberal my self, but Bill O’Reilly make more sense than you ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/84 "2006-06-13T19:40:41Z")
> [@Minotaurus](#): > > You don’t give a shit about what our societies will look like about 20-30 years? Yes, I do give a shit. In twenty or thirty years, I hope that this society will recognize homosexual relationships as fully equivalent of heterosexual relationships. I do not particularly care how our society views polygamy. If it’s still illegal, fine. If we decide to legalize it, I don’t really see the harm in that, either. It’s not a subject that interests me, largely because it strikes me as trivial and unimportant, with no noticable consequences for society at large. No offence intended to the polygamists out there, of course, and anyone who wants to convince me different (on either side of the issue, fwiw) is free to do so, but seeing as legalizing polygamy has nothing to do with legalizing SSM, perhaps a new thread would be the best place to do so. In this thread, it’s a strawman intended to distract from the actual issue, and this is all the effort I’m willing to spend on it. > [@](#): > > I consider my self to be a moderate liberal my self, but Bill O’Reilly make more sense than you I am unsurprised to learn that the ceiling of your comprehension is defined by the school yard rantings of Bill O’Reilly. ---
**Author:** ![randyjet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ccd318/32.png) [@randyjet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randyjet)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/85 "2006-06-14T05:09:23Z")
> [@Anne Neville](#): > > For example, most people in the South in the 1960s were white. The idea of desegregating schools, repealing Jim Crow laws, and allowing blacks to vote was unpopular at the time. Does that mean it was wrong for the Supreme Court and the federal government to force them to do those things, and the Jim Crow laws were right because they were approved by a majority? :dubious: The restrictions on black voting was a VIOLATION of the LAW! The fourteenth Amendment saw to that. All other laws in Jim Crow were also violations of the law as well. As I said, had the amendment said sexual orientation, your argument would have some merit. It has none under our current laws. I see that you also know little about our history. The Constitution only forbid CONGRESS from establishing a Federal church. Most states at the time had official state churches to which ALL citizens paid taxes even if they were not members of that church. The fourteeth amendment extended that prohibition to the states as well, so that state churches were outlawed too. It was a moot point at the time though, since all state churches had been disestablished. ---
**Author:** ![randyjet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ccd318/32.png) [@randyjet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randyjet)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/86 "2006-06-14T05:24:31Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Wrong. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage was a right almost 40 years ago. (They did not say that all forms of marriage or other unions were a right, thus the current discussions, but they clearly stated that all citizens have a right to engage in marriage. Marriage licenses are issued for the purpose of providing documentation in law that the event occurred, not for the purpose of limiting marriage to certain persons.) > > That is funny. Without the marriage license you cannot get married legally, so YES it does limit who may be married. Which is of course why the suit was brought in Mass to force the state to grant the license. I might also add that the Mass decision was by a one vote margin which may well be changed. Warren had the good sense to know that he needed a unanimous court to overturn Plesy vs Ferguson when taking on segregation and the resulting turmoil. The Mass judges did not have such a judicial temperment or good sense. > > You are quite correct in stating that indeed gays DO have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Thus the current laws do not violate any of their rights. > > This comment is irrelevant unless you address the issue of why the government permits the infertile, (whether due to age, trauma, surgery, etc.), to marry. > > You are also wrong, in that it performs the very basic public service of assigning rights and obligations for inheritance, taxes, care, joint ownership, and other legal procedings for committed partners without the additional burden of providing individual contracts for each union. That would seem to be a major public service. While I am in favor of granting some measures in law to help in that regard of property, and wills, I do not see that such is of major benefit to society as a whole. It is of benefit soley to those who are affected. That does not mean that I or the rest of society get any benefit. The increase in divorce and family court cases indicate that it will be a detriment if anything and cost more to the society. ---
**Author:** ![randyjet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ccd318/32.png) [@randyjet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randyjet)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/87 "2006-06-14T05:38:48Z")
> [@Siege](#): > > OK, I’m over 40, straight, and sometime during the next few months I’ll be finding out if I can safely carry a child fathered by a certain gentleman to term (to clarify, I’m not pregnant; I’ll be finding out whether it’s a good idea to try to _get_ pregnant). If it turns out that I can’t, **randyjet** should I still be allowed to marry the gentleman in question? If yes, what’s the difference between me marrying the gentleman of my choice and **Miller** marrying the gentleman of his choice? I would, after all, be entering into a marriage knowing I couldn’t have children. You overlook the rather obvious fact that probably 98% of marriage unions can and often do result in children. It would make no sense to deny marriage rights on the basis of such a small segment of the population to a right enjoyed by all. Gays have the right to marry any person of the opposite sex as well. It is an affirmative privilege that they are seeking which has as far as I can see no benefit to the rest of us. > [@](#): > > As for bigamy and polygamy, as far as I’m concerned, they’re strawmen. Marriage and divorce involve the property of two people. Bigamy and polygamy increase the number of people involved and the complications thereof. If one person decides to leave a polygamous union, the assets of at least three people need to be divided, not to mention the complications which would arise if someone decides to divorce one party in the arrangement but not others, to use an example I’ve seen in this sort of thread before. People involved in such unions are free to make their own arrangements, and I could see something to be said for Heinlein-style line marriages, but the issues concerning arrangements in those unions are not identical to the issues involved in a union between two people. The question of strawmen is not at issue, but is one question of legal rights which is why I raised the issue. If gays may marry, then I can see no reason why polygamy should not be granted the same privilege. If the personal desires of the partners is going to be the factor determining who may marry or not, then there is no reason that polygamy should not be in the same category. AS I said, the fact is that marriage is an affirmative grant from the state for its own ends as well as that of the persons involved. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/88 "2006-06-14T05:40:22Z")
> [@randyjet](#): > > While I am in favor of granting some measures in law to help in that regard of property, and wills, I do not see that such is of major benefit to society as a whole. Do you see a major benefit to society in the passage of the fourteenth ammendment? > [@](#): > > It is of benefit soley to those who are affected. That does not mean that I or the rest of society get any benefit. The increase in divorce and family court cases indicate that it will be a detriment if anything and cost more to the society. And the reason you’ll see those increases is because gays will be able to seek redress for their grievances under the law. Exactly what price tag do you put on justice, **randy**? When does equality become to expensive for you? Is it only when you’re the one suffering the brunt of the inequality? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/89 "2006-06-14T05:44:44Z")
> [@randyjet](#): > > You overlook the rather obvious fact that probably 98% of marriage unions can and often do result in children. It would make no sense to deny marriage rights on the basis of such a small segment of the population to a right enjoyed by all. Gays have the right to marry any person of the opposite sex as well. It is an affirmative privilege that they are seeking which has as far as I can see no benefit to the rest of us. And you overlooked the obvious fact that 98% of the general population is heterosexual to begin with. If you’ll grant an exception to the “rules” for the small number of straight couples that don’t have kids, why not grand the same exception to the equally small number of gay couples that want to get married? > [@](#): > > The question of strawmen is not at issue, but is one question of legal rights which is why I raised the issue. If gays may marry, then I can see no reason why polygamy should not be granted the same privilege. If the personal desires of the partners is going to be the factor determining who may marry or not, then there is no reason that polygamy should not be in the same category. Why do you apply that logic to polygamous marriage arising out of gay marriage, and not gay marriage arising out of straight marriage? All the arguments for straight marriage apply equally well to gay marriage, so what’s the reasoning behind not letting gays marry? > [@](#): > > AS I said, the fact is that marriage is an affirmative grant from the state for its own ends as well as that of the persons involved. What you haven’t said yet is why that grant should not be extended to gay people. Oh, right: no positive effect to society. Except that gays are a part of society, aren’t they? And it would have a positive effect on them. So there’s your positive effect on society. Sure, it’s a very small part of society, but so what? Blacks are a relatively small part of society, too, so once again: why should we have ever passed the 14th ammendment, when it was only to the benefit of a small section of society? ---
**Author:** ![randyjet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ccd318/32.png) [@randyjet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randyjet)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/90 "2006-06-14T06:01:23Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] You keep dodging this question: if marriage is all about children, should infertile couples be forbidden for marrying? Should post-menopausal women be forbidden from marriage? Should couples that have no plan to have children have their marriages dissolved? That would be denying the couples the rights enjoyed by all. Gays have the right to marry any person of the opposite sex as well. Bullshit. I want to get married to another guy. Doing this costs you nothing. You tell me why I shouldn’t be allowed to. It will cost more in family court cases in more divorce cases and other things such as social security and pension payouts. For those costs we get nothing in return and no benefit to our society. I take it simple human decency has no currency with you? Most people in this country do not think that this issue is one of basic decency, and many if not most of those who do, come down on the other side of the question. There are many laws that I dislike in this country and that I think violate basic decency in terms of cost to our society. This is not one of them and of less importance than the lack of health care or many other issues that are of far more importance and consequence to us as a whole. Yeah, no shit, there’s no law requiring gay marriage. That’s why we’re arguing that there _should_ be one. Let me ask you this: if you were around before the 14th ammendment was adopted, would you have supported it? Do you think there is any sort of ethical reason, beyond what’s been enshrined in law, to not discriminate against blacks? This isn’t a question of law, it’s a question of wrong or right. You’re saying it’s okay to discriminate against gays, and your only defence is that there’s no law against it. But that’s not the issue: we’re not arguing legal or illegal, we’re arguing right or wrong. How do you defend opposition to SSM on a moral basis? Gays are not discriminated against in the laws on marriage, They may marry any person they wish of the opposite sex as can all citizens of majority age. You are asking for special treatment, not equal treatment and a redefining of the laws on marriage that overturn all the history of civilizations. I think that such a change should be demonstrated to be of such overwhelming importance that this history should be disregarded. I can see no justification for it. Maybe you can show me the reason that catastophe will engulf us if this gay marriage is not allowed. ---
**Author:** ![randyjet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ccd318/32.png) [@randyjet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randyjet)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/91 "2006-06-14T06:12:37Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Do you see a major benefit to society in the passage of the fourteenth ammendment? > > The benefits in the fourteeth amendment are too numerous to go into here. They encompass not only blacks, but all of us too. It extended the rights in the Federal Constitution to the states where those rights had been abridged. > And the reason you’ll see those increases is because gays will be able to seek redress for their grievances under the law. Exactly what price tag do you put on justice, **randy**? When does equality become to expensive for you? Is it only when you’re the one suffering the brunt of the inequality? As I have pointed out, gays have the same rights to marry a person of the opposite sex as all of us. What you are asking for is not equality of treatment, but an affirmative, and preferential treatment of one segment, and a rather small one at that, in the law. The state has decided that it is in our interest to promote marriage for a number of reasons. I can see no reason that gay marriage is of such overwhelming importance to society that all history should be ignored and this privilege be granted. Just as with other state sponsored preferences such as subsidies and the like, there should be a gain for the public good. So far all I can see is increased public cost with no benefit to the greater public. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/92 "2006-06-14T06:18:29Z")
> [@randyjet](#): > > I can see no justification for it. Maybe you can show me the reason that catastophe will engulf us if this gay marriage is not allowed. As long as Same Sex Marriage is prohibited, the terrorists have won. (Osama bin Laden opposes Same Sex Marriage.) ---
**Author:** ![randyjet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ccd318/32.png) [@randyjet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randyjet)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/93 "2006-06-14T06:27:00Z")
What you haven’t said yet is why that grant should not be extended to gay people. Oh, right: no positive effect to society. Except that gays are a part of society, aren’t they? And it would have a positive effect on them. So there’s your positive effect on society. Sure, it’s a very small part of society, but so what? Blacks are a relatively small part of society, too, so once again: why should we have ever passed the 14th ammendment, when it was only to the benefit of a small section of society? [/QUOTE] You forget that we have passed laws that have a detrimental effect on large segments of our society in the interest of the good of society. It is called the military draft which took away my life for a number of years. It also permanently took away many of my friends lives. If we can do that, I think that such a piddling thing such as gay marriage is a slight issue. Just making one part of the population happy isn’t a reason to pass such a law with no defined benefit to us and an increased cost. The fourtheenth amendment benefited ALL of us as well as blacks in that it extended the rights in the Federal Constitution to the states. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/94 "2006-06-14T06:28:05Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I do not particularly care how our society views polygamy. If it’s still illegal, fine. Why should people care how our societies views homosexuality, then? Why should we care about SSM being illegal? If you couldn’t care less about other people’s aspirations, why should anybody cares about yours? It’s not the the first time I read such comments (or even worse) from people advocating SSM and it irritates me to no end. “I want equal rights, support my just cause!!! Just don’t expect I will care about you wanting the same rights too!!” Polygamy has been discussed in many a thread. There’s no need to open a ne one. And contrarily to what you said, it’s not a completely different issue. It’s the same. You need to be _convinced_ about this issue? You need to be convinced that people asking for the same thing you’re asking for (namely the recognition of their union with people they love) deserve to get it? Or should I suspect, like you do so often with people arguing against you about SSM, an ulterior motive? Are you affraid that associating your cause with an even more unpopular one will harm your chances of getting what you want, and since you don’t give a fuck about the future of these other people, you see no need to take any risk? Or maybe you have a moral issue with polyamorous people? A hidden agenda? What else could make you able to perfectly understand the problem homosexual people face, and disregard, ignore, or fail to be convinced when another category faces the same issue? You don’t give a fuck about it… I hope some other people will give a fuck about your own peculiar problem though you don’t seem to personnally deserve it. ---
**Author:** ![randyjet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ccd318/32.png) [@randyjet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randyjet)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/95 "2006-06-14T06:30:35Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > As long as Same Sex Marriage is prohibited, the terrorists have won. (Osama bin Laden opposes Same Sex Marriage.) You must be a Republican since they say the same thing about being opposed to the war in Iraq. You are on Bin Laden’s side if you oppose it since he opposes it too. I think you are kidding of course. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/96 "2006-06-14T06:36:19Z")
> [@randyjet](#): > > I think you are kidding of course. Now how likely is that? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Clam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3bc359/32.png) [@Happy\_Clam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Clam)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/97 "2006-06-14T10:48:51Z")
> [@](#): > > You don’t give a fuck about it… I hope some other people will give a fuck about your own peculiar problem though you don’t seem to personnally deserve it. Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that those who have said they “Don’t care” about polygamy in this thread have been speaking in the sense that they don’t care if gay marriage legitimises polygamy (some have presented that idea as though it were an argument against gay marriage). In any case, tha argument for polygamy is not quite so cut-and-dried as that for gay marriage. No mistake, I’m still in favour of it’s legalisation for those who want it, but it does present worries about exploitation of some groups by others that are not present in the issue of gay marriage. For example, I think that, given the history of polygamy being applied almost exclusively towards multiples wives, many women’s groups might oppose it as being intrinsically mysogynistic. In addition, the somewhat ignominious history of polygamy in the US, for example among the Mormons (I realise the the modern Church of Latter-Day Saints does not practise nor condone polygamy, I am speaking of the historical situation, which I think most would agree was not without coercive or exploitative elements) would work against its legalisation in the US. In the news, polygamy is a fun word to type. ---
**Author:** ![randyjet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ccd318/32.png) [@randyjet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randyjet)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/98 "2006-06-14T13:06:26Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Now how likely is that? If your tongue were any farther in your cheek you would be eating sideways by now. ---
**Author:** ![randyjet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ccd318/32.png) [@randyjet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randyjet)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/99 "2006-06-14T13:22:23Z")
In the news, polygamy is a fun word to type. [/QUOTE] I imagine it is even more fun to practice since most of the new wives are young sweet things who the guy can order about too. The point about polygamy is that society has the right to determine what marriage is and it is a legislated thing, NOT a right as many have stated. As with gay marriage, if it can be shown that polygamy is a good thing for society, I would be in favor of it. I can think of a case where it could have been practised as a benefit to soceity and that was in many countries after WWII when there was a shortage of young men and a surplus of young women because of the war. The European countries got around that problem in other ways without making polygamy legal. Absent any such pressing social concerns as too many dead young men and a surfeit of women, gay marriage has no social benefit that I can see. We have gone all of human history without it and have survived just fine, so unless there is some other factor I have not been made aware of, it makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/100 "2006-06-14T13:25:58Z")
> [@randyjet](#): > > You forget that we have passed laws that have a detrimental effect on large segments of our society in the interest of the good of society…I think that such a piddling thing such as gay marriage is a slight issue. You were going to expand upon that and explain \*how \* barring gays from marrying is “in the interest of the good of society”, right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757.md?page=6)