# 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:** 15
**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, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/281 "2013-04-20T17:44:15Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 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? Hmmm, as much as I like A, I’ll go with C. Something like this: Article “X” \*\*Benefits and Privileges to be enjoyed by state-recognized committed couples. \*\* The following enumerates the legal privileges and benefits to be enjoyed by 1) married couples, and 2) those couples joined in civil unions. This set of statutes can only be amended in full, affecting both those joined in (1) marriages and (2) civil unions identically. 1. blah, blah, blah 2. blah, blah, blah, blah 3. blah, blah etc. See? One set of statutes describing the legal privileges and benefits to be enjoyed by members of those two groups that qualify. ---
**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, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/282 "2013-04-20T17:46:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Article “X” > \*\*Benefits and Privileges to be enjoyed by state-recognized committed couples. > \*\* > The following enumerates the legal privileges and benefits to be enjoyed by 1) married couples, and 2) those couples joined in civil unions. > > This set of statutes can only be amended in full, affecting both those joined in (1) marriages and (2) civil unions identically. That’s set of laws X. But nowhere in there do you tell who is in a marriage, and who is in a civil union. Where can I find this out? Same options: a) on a McDonald’s menu? b) through whispered gossip amongst county clerks? c) via a set of laws? d) nanobots? ---
**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, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/283 "2013-04-20T17:54:13Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 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: First, I don’t agree that I have not been able to convince a single person. That _may_ be the case, as even among the support I’ve received via Private Messages, I’m not sure if I convinced them or they were already of like mind. I also find it likely that I may have convinced lurkers. That said, the reasons I’d say are: 1. a very left leaning board 2. hive mind, even if a person might think I have a good take on the issue, why open themselves to the the types of attacks I get? 3. an obstinate refusal to debate my actual idea. For instance, anything that says “two sets of statutes” and/or brings up SBE is not debating anything that I have put forth. 4. a deep-seated inability for some posters to entertain that there might be a way to achieve a fair and reasonable solution that does not toe the popular liberal line 5. poor logic on the part of posters who think that anti-miscegenation laws have any bearing on my idea, yet derail the discussion in just about every thread I think that probably covers it. ---
**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, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/284 "2013-04-20T17:58:31Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That’s set of laws X. But nowhere in there do you tell who is in a marriage, and who is in a civil union. Where can I find this out? > > Same options: > a) on a McDonald’s menu? > b) through whispered gossip amongst county clerks? > c) via a set of laws? > d) nanobots? :rolleyes: Under a section, that I understand is very common, called “Definitions”. ---
**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, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/285 "2013-04-20T18:02:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > :rolleyes: Under a section, that I understand is very common, called “Definitions”. A section of what? a) the McDonald’s menu? b) the whispered gossip amongst county clerks? c) a set of laws? d) nanobots? ---
**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, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/286 "2013-04-20T18:34:48Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > A section of what? > > a) the McDonald’s menu? > b) the whispered gossip amongst county clerks? > c) a set of laws? > d) nanobots? Huh? Assuming we’re talking state law, and let’s say it’s NY, you’d find it in a document called [N.Y. State Codes & Statutes.](http://www.nycourts.gov/lawlibraries/nycodesstatutes.shtml) Methinks you are playing some silly game. But unless you dispense with it, we’ll be done. ---
**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, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/287 "2013-04-20T18:46:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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? | Legal Beagle](http://www.ehow.com/info_8276727_legal-rights-live-girlfriend.html) My idea didn’t come across. When I said “society” meant people around, not the laws. However, magellan’s proposal does give all the benefits except that the little paper says another word. > [@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. I’ll concede that maybe the phrase hasn’t been used like that before, but saying that that exact idea hasn’t been said several times, i.e., that the word marriage can change and adapt its meaning to modern times is prepostoreous. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 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: Really? Really? A left-leanig board with a gigantic majority on th pro-SSM side plus the inability of most of them to engage in dialogue even while proclaiming their openness? ---
**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, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/288 "2013-04-20T18:48:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Huh? Assuming we’re talking state law, and let’s say it’s NY, you’d find it in a document called [N.Y. State Codes & Statutes.](http://www.nycourts.gov/lawlibraries/nycodesstatutes.shtml) > > Methinks you are playing some silly game. But unless you dispense with it, we’ll be done. Excellent! So your answer appears to be that we’d find those definitions **as part of the law**. Yes? Section X of the “State Codes & Statutes” is the section that says to treat everyone equally. Section Y (or W, if you prefer, I don’t care) of the “State Codes & Statutes” defines the terms. Am I understanding your proposal correctly? I’m not playing a game. Rather, I’m trying to break your argument down into tiny chunks to figure out exactly where the misunderstanding is. So far I think we’ve established that you do agree that legal definitions are part of the law, which is progress: we can take that off the table now. ---
**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, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/289 "2013-04-20T18:50:59Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I’ll concede that maybe the phrase hasn’t been used like that before, but saying that that exact idea hasn’t been said several times, i.e., that the word marriage can change and adapt its meaning to modern times is prepostoreous. Ah, now, THAT is what we’ve said. Nobody has said the word is meaningless. You earlier said: > [@](#): > > 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”. Swap in your new paraphrase. Do you agree that we CAN at the same time say: 1. the word “marriage” can change and adapt its meaning to modern times and 2. the meaning is significant? If so, then you’ve conceded the point I was arguing. ---
**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, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/290 "2013-04-20T18:52:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. I missed this earlier. You’re called a homophobe for what you want to do with the word. “Homophobe” is not a lexicographer’s term, it’s a term for sociocultural attitudes. Everyone involved in the debate puts value on the word. It’s the particular value you place on it that’s so objectionable. ---
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/291 "2013-04-20T19:11:32Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Ah, now, THAT is what we’ve said. Nobody has said the word is meaningless. > > You earlier said: > > Swap in your new paraphrase. Do you agree that we CAN at the same time say: > > 1. the word “marriage” can change and adapt its meaning to modern times > and > 2. the meaning is significant? > > If so, then you’ve conceded the point I was arguing. 1. Of course the word marriage can change its meaning to “artichoke empanada”. The point is that, after apoint, it loses meaning. Gay no longer has the primary meaning of happy and if you want that meaning you need to qualify it. Marriage can end up meaning “real marriage + SSM”, but then it like the meaing of hot dog changes to “real hot dog + ramen soup”. I didn’t say it was meaningless or that others said it was. 2. Yes. But, it doesn’t change my point. You want to change the definition because it is significant ---
**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, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/292 "2013-04-20T19:16:38Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 1. Of course the word marriage can change its meaning to “artichoke empanada”. The point is that, after apoint, it loses meaning. No it doesn’t. > [@](#): > > But, it doesn’t change my point. You want to change the definition because it is significant Of course that’s why we want to change the definition. Nobody has ever said otherwise. ---
**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, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/293 "2013-04-20T19:40:18Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > No it doesn’t. Of course it does. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Of course that’s why we want to change the definition. Nobody has ever said otherwise. His point is that you and SSM advocates want to have it both ways. A) Of course we want the word. It has real meaning in our society and to deprive certain couples of it is mean and unfair. B) What’s wrong with you, magellan (e.g.), it’s just a word. I can’t believe you are so hung up over just a word! You’re a horrible person. You want A&B to be true. THAT was the point. And now to go have a gay old time on my bike. Later. ---
**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, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/294 "2013-04-20T20:00:43Z")
Has anyone ever heard Magellan address that marriage changed its definition when blacks and whites were allowed to marry? And if changing the definition is a bad thing, by extension legal interracial marriages, according to Magellan, should be a bad thing. Isn’t that a logical extension of his position? ---
**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, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/295 "2013-04-20T20:02:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And now to go have a gay old time on my bike. Later. It’s nice you can be so glib after vociferously arguing to hurt other human beings for no rational reason at all. ---
**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, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/296 "2013-04-20T21:00:00Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Really? Really? A left-leanig board with a gigantic majority on th pro-SSM side Yes, a board devoted to fighting ignorance has a gigantic majority on the pro-SSM side. Remarkable, ain’t it? > [@](#): > > plus the inability of most of them to engage in dialogue even while proclaiming their openness? Your inability to frame an argument that can withstand even the casual scrutiny of a bunch of pseudonyms on some damn message board is hardly \*their \*fault. ---
**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, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/297 "2013-04-20T21:04:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > B) What’s wrong with you, magellan (e.g.), it’s just a word. I can’t believe you are so hung up over just a word! You’re a horrible person. > > You want A&B to be true. THAT was the point. Nobody has ever said B. They’ve said something slightly similar to B, but the difference between what you’re hearing, and what they’re saying, is central to the disagreement. Meanwhile, let me reiterate: > [@me](#): > > Section X of the “State Codes & Statutes” is the section that says to treat everyone equally. Section Y (or W, if you prefer, I don’t care) of the “State Codes & Statutes” defines the terms. > > Am I understanding your proposal correctly? I’d like to see if I’m understanding your proposal correctly before I continue. ---
**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, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/298 "2013-04-20T21:04:57Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > First, I don’t agree that I have not been able to convince a single person. Your inability to name any should be sufficient. The board’s “hive mind”, though? Really? 😛 Refusal to debate your actual “idea”? 😛 No, PRATT. And no, your refusal to accept that antimiscegenation laws can be relevant at all, and even to address the point being shoved in your face, is not a show of bad faith _on the part of those bringing them up_. Maybe someday reality will sink in. Maybe someday you’ll realize the laughter is entirely justified. Odds are against it, though. ---
**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:** [April 20, 2013, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/299 "2013-04-20T22:01:28Z")
> [@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. No, it’s not one law. If it were one law, there wouldn’t be an A and a B. A + B = 2. Two laws. That is what you are proposing. > [@](#): > > 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. I didn’t say its been a _historical_ cornerstone. I’m talking about the role of SSM in our society going forward. > [@](#): > > 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” Yes, you do. > [@](#): > > 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. That depends on what the differences you assign to the two relationships. The differences you assign to gay relationships are pretty insulting. You can tell by he way that virtually every single gay person who hears your ideas about gay relationships and SSM ends up being insulting. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/300 "2013-04-20T22:20:50Z")
> [@steabo](#): > > _Non-same-sex couples_, really? Yes, really. If I believed that men and women were **opposite** , I probably would oppose SSM. I find it a little odd that you’re not making that argument, in fact. > [@steabo](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > “I get the fact that gay couples are in love, but they don’t actually love each other.” > > This is not what I wrote. > [@steabo](#): > > You could have a baby together by having sex (I’m assuming you’re a dude). And if you weren’t married, you could more easily become a deadbeat. So you believe across the board that romance=friendship+sex. Are you missing something sublime in your relationships or am I missing something sublime in my friendships? If neither, why is it that the only sex that reinforces the emotional bond the kind that involves a man’s penis and a woman’s vagina? > [@steabo](#): > > I have been quite clear about my position that marriage should be **reserved for straight couples** because of its \*\*universality \*\*in human society You cannot use these things together. > [@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. Granting arguendo that this is _no worse than_ letting same-sex couples get married (and it can be done in such a way that this is true, legally speaking, though I’m not confident it would be), why is it better? It seems to me that you’re switching – without acknowledging or necessarily realizing it – between two positions: [ol] [li]Marriage and civil unions are the same thing, which need two different names because something.[/li][li]Marriage is actually better than civil unions, which is why we reserve it for the preffered kind of couple.[/li][/ol] At best, you’re proposing a needlessly complicated way for all relationships registered with the state to be covered by the same set of laws. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 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) Again, what is the benefit of “equal except in name” over “equal”? As a straight person, how am I harmed more if Adam and Steve marry than if John and Jane marry, and why does this differential in harm not apply if what Adam and Steve do isn’t called “marriage”? I propose that only couples whose last initials are from different halves of the alphabet can get married. If the initials are from the same half, they have to get narried instead, and be zpouses (fusband and pife, or fusband and fusband, or pife and pife, as the case may be). But don’t worry, my proposal calls for a law saying that any current or future law that mentions “marriage” or “spouse” or “husband” or “wife” should be read as though it says “or narriage”/“or zpouse”/“or fusband”/“or pife” respectively. You okay with that? If not, why not? If you think it’s a flawed analogy, what flaw(s) do you see? But it’s a little unfair to direct this particular criticism to **Ají de Gallina** , since he actually acknowledges that he doesn’t consider same-sex marriages to be “real,” so it’s perfectly consistent of him to not want the same word used for it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663.md?page=16)