# Arguments \*\*against\*\* gay marriage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 2, 2013, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663 "2013-04-02T20:42:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**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:** [April 20, 2013, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/261 "2013-04-20T11:01:56Z")
> [@steabo](#): > > That’s not what I’m saying. Principles should not be thrown out because of exceptions. Yes, and we seem to value the principle of equal treatment under the law more than you do. > [@steabo](#): > > I wouldn’t restrict the decline to the 4th and 5th centuries. One could argue indeed that it began with the collapse of the republic. So argue it, with actual facts, if you can. At this point, your position is pure truthiness - it seems to your gut that a premise should be true, so it is, regardless of evidence. > [@](#): > > That would be a game-changer, so come and talk to me in 2040 perhaps or even earlier. Oh, I doubt it’ll move you. Actual scientific facts haven’t (I see you conveniently ignored everything I said about the _current_ state of reproductive technology), so why would hypothetical ones? By 2040, the real game-changer will be that Americans who are anti-SSM will have largely died off, replaced by Americans for whom it’s no big deal. > [@](#): > > That is not the basis for the rule, and you know it. Your rule is an obvious rationalization, and you’re selectively applying it anyway. Straight couples who are sterile? No problem. Gay couples? No, because they’re sterile! It’s a thin attempt at a rational argument, akin to someone in the 1950s claiming to know of scientific evidence that blacks were unsuited for higher education. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/262 "2013-04-20T12:00:10Z")
But don’t you all understand the difference between incidental and absolute!!! IT’S SUCH AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE… WE’RE ALL DOOMED JUST LIKE THE ROMANS!!! ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/263 "2013-04-20T12:09:50Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Only in a universe where 1+ 1 = 1. Which is not this universe. Your proposal plainly and unambiguously calls for two separate laws. The fact that you keep saying its one set of laws is not terribly persuasive whe set against my ability to count to very small sums. You must be thinking about someone else’s proposal. Mine is rooted in the idea that there be one set of laws. Sorry. One set of laws that two groups access equally. In order to get all the privileges contained in Set of Statutes X, a a couple qualifies by being a member of one of two groups: A) couples joined in marriage or B) couples joined in a civil union. One set of laws, accessed by two groups. This is my idea. Please direct any further discussion of two sets of laws to those posters who might have offered up plans based on that. > [@Miller](#): > > No, it’s pretty clearly embedded in the text of what you wrote. I absolutely believe you when you say that you don’t intend it to be there, but it’s an inextricable part of your argument. When you set up two systems, and say that one system has all of these really good features, and that we have to keep the two systems separate so we don’t forget all the good things about that system, you are, perforce, saying that the other system is lacking those qualities. One again, you are not describing my idea. I’m setting up one system—one set of privileges and benefits. To tap into them, you must be a member of one of two groups. This really isn’t difficult to comprehend. > [@Miller](#): > > I mean, “cornerstone of our society” is a good thing, right? And you’ve pretty much explicitly said that gay relationships are lack that “cornerstone” criteria. So, right there, you’ve already said that gay relationships are less than straight ones. Say what?! You’re going parsecs too far now. For that one criteria they are clearly lacking. Regardless of one’s stance on SS marriage, to claim that SSM has been a cornerstone of our society is so factually incorrect as to be incoherent. Nonsensical. It was completely non-existent in the world until a decade or two ago. From that fact alone, it doesn’t qualify for cornerstone status, or even part-of-cornerstone status. This is true even if SSM is the best development in society since indoor plumbing. Good or bad: open to debate. Cornerstone status: HUH? > [@Miller](#): > > On top of that, you’ve argued that letting gays marry would damage that “cornerstone” aspect. So, per your argument, not only do gay relationships not possess this positive aspect that you ascribe to gay marriage, it is actively corrosive to that aspect. That’s pretty definitively negative. It’s _factual_. One, it simply is _not_ a cornerstone of society or even part of a cornerstone. Two, it dilutes the word to have marriage be less synonymous with that cornerstone status. Again, this is true even if SSM is super-duper fantastic. _If_ that is the case and the laws change, _it may come to be seen as_, a couple hundred years from now, being a cornerstone of society. But to say that it is _now_ is absurd. > [@Miller](#): > > I have this dream that someday, we’ll be in an argument, and you’ll come up with an example or a hypothetical that actually illustrates your argument, instead of mine. Sadly, that day is not here. Because, as per your example, being a hero is plainly better than not being a hero, right? The gu who throws himself on a hand grenade is a hero. The guy who, say, manages not to die of cancer is not so much a hero, right? He may be a perfectly good dude, but compared to the grenade guy, what he disks just oti the same league. And I have a dream, too. My dream is that you argue against my actual position. I hold no position that puts forth “two sets of laws”, so maybe you meant to direct this comment to some other poster that has proposed such a system. Because it ain’t me. The idea I have put forth mandates there there be one set of laws. Again, this shouldn’t be that hard to digest. You might as well be arguing that my ides shouldn’t require each married couple to own a polkadot spaceship. > [@Miller](#): > > Which is exactly what your two law system is saying about gay marriage - that it’s just not as good as straight marriage, and needs to be differentiated, just he way we need to differentiate between “real” heroes, and guys who were just lucky, or have moderately difficult jobs. They are factually different. Now you may thing that the difference is unimportant, but I don’t. But to say there is no difference is absurd. Or to say that pointing out the difference is insulting. To say that a Ritz cracker is not a yummy sandwich cookie does not disparage Ritz crackers. ---
**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:** [April 20, 2013, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/264 "2013-04-20T12:37:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You must be thinking about someone else’s proposal. Mine is rooted in the idea that there be one set of laws. Sorry. One set of laws that two groups access equally. In order to get all the privileges contained in Set of Statutes X, a a couple qualifies by being a member of one of two groups: A) couples joined in marriage or B) couples joined in a civil union. > > One set of laws, accessed by two groups. This is my idea. Please direct any further discussion of two sets of laws to those posters who might have offered up plans based on that. Blacks use this fountain. Whites use this one. \*One set of laws. \* :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/265 "2013-04-20T12:38:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > One again, you are not describing my idea. I’m setting up one system—one set of privileges and benefits. To tap into them, you must be a member of one of two groups. This really isn’t difficult to comprehend. Being able to talk to someone and say “I’m married.” is a privilege I have as a heterosexual. How will your proposal extend that privilege to a homosexual? “Separate but equal” is inherently unequal. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/266 "2013-04-20T13:30:23Z")
> [@steabo](#): > > Well, read what I wrote, Miller. I said that the sex reinforces the emotional bond. When something is reinforced, is it not stronger? And I would say that the ultimate material bond to an emotional connection is conceiving a child together, creating a life that was not there before (And please don’t bring up the few exceptions of married couples who for whatever reason don’t conceive). It only works that way some of the time, when the couple desires the bond. Fairly often the sex is just sex and has nothing to do with any emotional bond. Sometimes married couples have children to try and forge and bond and fail. NOTHING occurs in the hearts and minds of OS couples that doesn’t occur in SS couples. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/267 "2013-04-20T13:34:12Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > Being able to talk to someone and say “I’m married.” is a privilege I have as a heterosexual. How will your proposal extend that privilege to a homosexual? > > “Separate but equal” is inherently unequal. Being myself opposed to civil unions or any other SSM, I still don’t get all the flack that \*\*magellan \*\*gets. Civil unions may be separate but equal (and much more equal than SbE education), his proposal is equal except in name and it’s us anti SSM people who are always accused of “fixated on a word”. but certainly they beat separate and unequal. If you get enough Marriage + Civil Union guys on the boat (and many anti SSM have little problem with CU) the road to SSM would be much easier. Purity is more important than results apparently (which is good for me) ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/268 "2013-04-20T14:32:53Z")
…and before anyone starts with “why oppose?”, the answer is “because I was born on a Tuesday”. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/269 "2013-04-20T14:52:01Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Civil unions may be separate but equal (and much more equal than SbE education), his proposal is equal except in name and it’s us anti SSM people who are always accused of “fixated on a word”. When you are defining a status, the name has a meaning, and that meaning is significant. If someone looks at you and you are married, they name conveys a status and that status conveys the concept. If you are not “married” you are not accorded the status of married by society. Frankly, if it were not so, there would not be opposition to sharing the word. The fact that there is opposition to sharing the word is a strong indication that the word does have meaning and importance. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/270 "2013-04-20T15:24:48Z")
How is separate-but-equal, a concept with a history in the US, still considered valid by some? [From a ruling](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/04/national/04CND-MASS.html) by the Massachusetts Supreme Court on a proposed civil-unions bill, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall writing: > [@](#): > > The bill’s absolute prohibition of the word `marriage' by `spouses’ who are the same sex is more than semantic. The dissimilitude between the terms `civil marriage' and `civil union’ is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status. For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/271 "2013-04-20T15:27:43Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > When you are defining a status, the name has a meaning, and that meaning is significant. > > If someone looks at you and you are married, they name conveys a status and that status conveys the concept. If you are not “married” you are not accorded the status of married by society. > > Frankly, if it were not so, there would not be opposition to sharing the word. The fact that there is opposition to sharing the word is a strong indication that the word does have meaning and importance. Sorry, dude. The pro-SSM crowd can’t have it both ways. You (in general) can’t at the same time say “don’t fixate on the meaning of the word marriage” and then say “the meaning is significant”. Also, the whole “not accorded the status of married” sounds 18th century. Don’t you knows scads of people who live together and have kids and everything and are afforded, in all but name, the status of married by society? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/272 "2013-04-20T15:41:35Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Sorry, dude. The pro-SSM crowd can’t have it both ways. You (in general) can’t at the same time say “don’t fixate on the meaning of the word marriage” and then say “the meaning is significant”. > > Also, the whole “not accorded the status of married” sounds 18th century. Don’t you knows scads of people who live together and have kids and everything and are afforded, in all but name, the status of married by society? News to me… actually that is wrong, while living together does give a boyfriend or girlfriend many rights, they do not have “all but in name” the status of married given by society. > **[What Are the Legal Rights of a Live in Girlfriend?](https://legalbeagle.com/8276727-legal-rights-live-girlfriend.html)** > > What rights a live-in girlfriend has to her boyfriend’s property and regarding his care depend on a few factors. These factors include whether their state recognizes common law marriage, how they funded their joint property and whether they have made... > [@](#): > > Medical and End of Life Rights > > ``` > If the couple is living together and the boyfriend is in the hospital or dies, the girlfriend has very few rights. If he is in the hospital, she cannot make decisions regarding treatment or resuscitation unless he has signed a medical power of attorney; she also does not have the right to information about his condition without the notarized power of attorney. If he dies, she has no automatic right to any of his assets. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/273 "2013-04-20T17:02:19Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Blacks use this fountain. Whites use this one. \*One set of laws. \* :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/274 "2013-04-20T17:07:32Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Sorry, dude. The pro-SSM crowd can’t have it both ways. You (in general) can’t at the same time say “don’t fixate on the meaning of the word marriage” and then say “the meaning is significant”. Can you find someone who says “don’t fixate on the meaning of the word marriage”? If you try, I think you’ll find something: nobody says that. You might find someone who says something kind of close, and you might be tempted to say, “That’s clearly what they meant.” But nobody means that. And if, before you say, “That’s what they meant,” you take a moment to reread what they **actually** said, to think that maybe they actually meant what they actually said, you might find a subtle but key difference between what they said and what you thought they said. And that difference might help us move the discussion forward. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/275 "2013-04-20T17:09:26Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > Being able to talk to someone and say “I’m married.” is a privilege I have as a heterosexual. How will your proposal extend that privilege to a homosexual? > > “Separate but equal” is inherently unequal. A person can say anything he wants. I’m assuming your a guy, but you can say you are a girl. You can also say you’re are a four star general, a member of The San Francisco 49ers, Superman, the reincarnation of Moses, or the smartest human to have ever lived. You’re confusing legal benefits and privileges with privileges like Joe handsome being able to claim, “Damn, I’m handsome.” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/276 "2013-04-20T17:11:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You must be thinking about someone else’s proposal. Mine is rooted in the idea that there be one set of laws. Sorry. One set of laws that two groups access equally. In order to get all the privileges contained in Set of Statutes X, a a couple qualifies by being a member of one of two groups: A) couples joined in marriage or B) couples joined in a civil union. Do you agree that this whole system must be enshrined in a set of laws? That is, somewhere in the law books must be sentences along the lines of, “In order to get all the privileges contained in Set of Statutes X, a a couple qualifies by being a member of one of two groups: A) couples joined in marriage or B) couples joined in a civil union”? If so, can we called those sentences Set of Statutes Y? What if a man and a man want to access the privilege contained in Set of Statutes Y, specifically, the privilege of being a couple joined in marriage? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/277 "2013-04-20T17:14:39Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Can you find someone who says “don’t fixate on the meaning of the word marriage”? > > If you try, I think you’ll find something: nobody says that. You might find someone who says something kind of close, and you might be tempted to say, “That’s clearly what they meant.” > > But nobody means that. And if, before you say, “That’s what they meant,” you take a moment to reread what they **actually** said, to think that maybe they actually meant what they actually said, you might find a subtle but key difference between what they said and what you thought they said. And that difference might help us move the discussion forward. Please. I gets tons of flak for placing value on the _word_. I want all the legal benefits and privileges extended to committed gay couples, but have been called a homophobe and bigot just because I want to protect that word. So, **Ají de Gallina’s** criticism is right on and your attempt to handwave it, lacking in the extreme. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/278 "2013-04-20T17:18:56Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Do you agree that this whole system must be enshrined in a set of laws? That is, somewhere in the law books must be sentences along the lines of, “In order to get all the privileges contained in Set of Statutes X, a a couple qualifies by being a member of one of two groups: A) couples joined in marriage or B) couples joined in a civil union”? > > If so, can we called those sentences Set of Statutes Y? I wouldn’t. There are no benefits and privileges being described. You’re merely talking about indicating who qualifies to be covered under the one set of laws that would follow. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/279 "2013-04-20T17:23:02Z")
Out of curiosity, what do \*you \*think is the reason you have not been able to convince a single person of the rightness of your position after all these years? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/280 "2013-04-20T17:22:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I wouldn’t. There are no benefits and privileges being described. You’re merely talking about indicating who qualifies to be covered under the one set of laws that would follow. Do you indicate who qualifies to be covered: a) on a McDonald’s menu? b) through whispered gossip amongst county clerks? c) via a set of laws? d) nanobots? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663.md?page=15)