# 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:** 23
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/441 "2013-04-24T03:44:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Analogy doesn’t work, for lack of SBE problem via one set of statutes. Let’s see. both fountains offer water, but they are seperate to preserve , what exactly. Seems to be seperate but equal to me. The problem I see, with your proposal as well, is that the very nature of seperate but equal , without any compelling demonstratable purpose or benifit, promotes something or someone as less than equal. Was it technically possible to actually create seperate but equal schools , bathjrooms, etc. It’s possible, but it was only a hanging on of old prejudice that even prompted the effort, and when that was evidence, the SC shot it down. > [@](#): > > The real world? Are you kidding me? Until this recent politically correct nonsense sprouted can you point to and western civilization that considered marriage to include SS couples? That’s the “We never did this before” argument and irrelevant to my point, which is, that the idealized version of marriage and family that you and others claim needs defending from SSM, and will someone how, can’t really explain how, and have zero evidence to point to, damage, isn’t reflected in the what real world marriages are. > [@](#): > > Reality here again: were or were not all those examples comprised of opposite sex pairings? Once again, irrelevant. There is absolutely no standard which, says , “we’ve never done it this way before so it must be bad” > [@](#): > > Reality her yet again. Look to history. Look to nature. Look to those nurturing couplings that raise their offspring, do they more resemble traditional married couples or SS couples? Again, we haven’t done that before isn’t a real argument, Looking at those things don’t help you. History shows us the various forms of marriage. Reality demonstrates that love and nurturing does not nessecarily come from the biological parents. And nature really? Most animals don’t have two loving parents right? I had two female cats that had thier litters a couple of weeks apart. The kittens nursed on either female and neither cared. > [@](#): > > This is a defense that misunderstands and misstates the objection. I don’t think anyone is of the mind that SSM will diminish _their current marriage_. It dilutes, and therefore diminishes, the concept of marriage, making it a less attractive thing for OS couples to enter into in the future. okay, that’s fair point and explanation. Problem is there’s NO evidence that’s the case atr all, and it doesn’t seem likely. The principle I presented still applies to the future. People said pretty much the same thing about interracial marraige. Black and white together and a generation of half breeds will ruin marriage as an institution. They were dead wrong, because the desire to procreate, and form a union with someone is pretty dam strong. > [@](#): > > Debatable. While I am in favor of gay couples being able to adopt, all other things remaining equal, the ideal situation is for the child to be raised by his or her parents. Next is a man in a woman in a happy an healthy relationship. Not debateable with evidence. Again, even if we grant that loving natural two gender parents is the absolute ideal that is far removed from the hand reality deals us. What seems pretty consistent is that loving support can be provided by single parents, step parents, adoptive parents, grandparents, concerned teachers and mentors, etc etc. We have solid examples of children of SS couples that are happy and healthy. There is simply nothing to indicate we need to forbid SSM because of some romantisized ideal we don’t live up to now. > [@](#): > > This is truly from Bizarro World. We already have a word that describes the way world has operated for centuries. I suggest that applies to an idealized idea of the word which does not really reflect historical and modern day realities, about the changes the word marriage has gone through or the pracrical variations that fall under that word today. > [@](#): > > Why should that which has already been engrained be destroyed and some other term created. Why not let those who advocate for this new relationship come up with their own term. First, nobody is proposing destroying anything. What’s being proposed is marraige being what’s it’s always been, a word used to describe various types of legal and moral unions , being expanded to include SS couples for equalities sake, the same way it was expanded to include interracial couples for equalities sake. Those like yourself that strongly feel marraige is some crucial ideal that needs protecting get what you want. Something still a marriage in every way, but set apart to be more of the ideal you believe needs to be promoted and protected. It actually serves the purpose a lot better IMO. 1st it’s far less expensive because this special marriage doesn’t require any legislation at all, unless of course you want it to and perhaps restrict the legal justification for divorce. For those with religious objections it allows them to choose something in keeping with thier faith without harming others or trying to impose thier beliefs on society through laws that affect everyone. If you check you’ll find Covenant Marriage already exists , but he title is up to those who feel they need it. Call it Real Marraige if you wish. or More Gooder Marriage , perhaps , God’s holy Marriage for some. Whatever you think indiocates this couple is special and striving for the ideal legal marriage doesn’t protect at all. seems like the best case scenario to me. btw; did you ever answer my questions about how your proposal is enforced? One set of laws but one couple gets a marriage license and the other gets a civil union license. What happens when gay couples refer to themselves as married and there is ZERO legal difference? > [@](#): > > I must say, I find that it reflects badly on those who advocate gay pride that they don’t want a word that might flag that they are a gay couple. WTF? why should they be flagged at all? For crying out loud they’re an obvious gay couple whenever they go out together. The objection is a word that indicates their love and comittment doesn’t measure up. > [@](#): > > Hell, we have the word “gay”. They don’t shrink from it. Why not embrace another, similar, term? Why seek to hide the status by clawing onto the coattails of the already established institution that has been a cornerstone of our society, and diluting the word int he process. Already answered. If under your own scenario there was an effert made to label women’s driver’s licenses something else , Men get driver’s license, woman get a Driver’s privilage, do you expect woman would object. If so why? > [@](#): > > Who here is arguing from a religious standpoint? Or did you just mean generally? it was general, although one poster said his objections were religious in nature. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/442 "2013-04-24T03:59:16Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > . . . did you ever answer my questions about how your proposal is enforced? > One set of laws but one couple gets a marriage license and the other gets a civil union license. What happens when gay couples refer to themselves as married and there is ZERO legal difference? . . . This is the one I keep coming back to. So one guy says, “This guy is my husband.” Are we going to alter the First Amendment to prohibit this? Is “husband” going to become a licensed term? (And even licensed terms can legally be misused in ordinary speech: I can call myself “Doctor Trinopus” all I want, so long as I don’t actually try to practice medicine.) Once we win a couple of free-speech lawsuits, the words “husband” and “wife” and “marriage” will be open to anyone, even under the fantasy separate-but-equal “civil union” proposal that no one has actually formally proposed. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. ---
**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 24, 2013, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/443 "2013-04-24T05:04:47Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Why? > How? If you have to ask, you won’t understand the answers. > [@](#): > > Were you posting to your mirror? What “facts” have the anti-SSM side presented beyond the fact that it is not currently practiced? > (You, of course, have posted nothing but sniping and snide remarks. At least steabo and magellan01 have presented ideas to be discussed.) Nothing, nothing at all, only avocado sandwiches. Not that presenting fact ideas, nuances, reasonings ever helps in thiese threads. 85% of those who participated can event conceive of being convinced that SSM can be wrong in any way. A thread to legalize wife-beating and newborn rape and the return of slavery would get a better ix of people. But sure, delude yourself (and yourselves) with the “I want fact” schtick. I would suggest that if my contributions to this thread (or any others) are so beneath you that you may consider the use of a v-bulletin feature that is very helpful. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/444 "2013-04-24T06:13:39Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > If you have to ask, you won’t understand the answers. Nonsense. If you are unable to explain a proposition, it indicates that you have no actual basis beyond emotion to hold it. You continue to demonstrate that the three reasons I have posted for opposition to SSM remain the only reasons for such opposition, having failed to even attempt to provide any other reason. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Nothing, nothing at all, only avocado sandwiches. > Not that presenting fact ideas, nuances, reasonings ever helps in thiese threads. 85% of those who participated can event conceive of being convinced that SSM can be wrong in any way. > A thread to legalize wife-beating and newborn rape and the return of slavery would get a better ix of people. > But sure, delude yourself (and yourselves) with the “I want fact” schtick. > > I would suggest that if my contributions to this thread (or any others) are so beneath you that you may consider the use of a v-bulletin feature that is very helpful. More snide comments with no relevance except to try to get me to stop pointing out your content free posts. As a Mod, I am not able to use the Ignore function, but I have never felt the need to employ technology to do what I can do on my own, anyway. One-off meaningless posts I do choose to ignore. However, you have persisted in repeatedly posting off-topic snark. I engage you in the hope that, at some point, you will actually participate in this thread before I come to the conclusion that you are simply posting snide remarks for the purpose of getting a rise out of other posters. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/445 "2013-04-24T06:51:31Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Yeah, western countries all of them. Hmm, are you having your own weird debate in here as you had just said (and I quoted it in my reply (bolding mine): > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Sure, but it’s a blip in the history of marriage. **The thread isn’t about the US.** So what is this thread about? Only acts that support your “claims” or ideas of what marriage should be? I have never seen a more obvious moving of the goalposts. ---
**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:** [April 24, 2013, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/446 "2013-04-24T06:53:21Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 85% of those who participated can event conceive of being convinced that SSM can be wrong in any way. Years and years of the anti-SSM crowd failing to come up with any rational reason that SSM is wrong both in and out of court tends to lead to the suspicion that there _is no such reason._ > [@tomndebb](#): > > As a Mod, I am not able to use the Ignore function, \ Now there’s a downside of mod-dom. ---
**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 24, 2013, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/447 "2013-04-24T10:44:24Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The same. Different rights even with equality. How so? ---
**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 24, 2013, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/448 "2013-04-24T10:49:35Z")
A thought occurs - since under magellan’s proposal, “marriage” and “civil union” are distinct legal states, can a person be involved in both, i.e. married to one person, civil unioned to another? I don’t recall him specifying that the two states are legally mutually exclusive, though I gather he assumes heterosexuals and homosexuals are. ---
**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 24, 2013, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/449 "2013-04-24T14:21:13Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Nonsense. If you are unable to explain a proposition, it indicates that you have no actual basis beyond emotion to hold it. > You continue to demonstrate that the three reasons I have posted for opposition to SSM remain the only reasons for such opposition, having failed to even attempt to provide any other reason. > > More snide comments with no relevance except to try to get me to stop pointing out your content free posts. > As a Mod, I am not able to use the Ignore function, but I have never felt the need to employ technology to do what I can do on my own, anyway. One-off meaningless posts I do choose to ignore. However, you have persisted in repeatedly posting off-topic snark. > I engage you in the hope that, at some point, you will actually participate in this thread before I come to the conclusion that you are simply posting snide remarks for the purpose of getting a rise out of other posters. And yet you continue to answer my, apparently, contentless posts. Please, the “I engage you…” thingy is getting old. There’s never been an engaging in the last 1576433 threads about SSM, the lines are drawn and any deviation from SSM purity is tantamount to making homosexuals wear pink triangles and tatooing “sodomite” on their foreheads. > [@stpauler](#): > > Hmm, are you having your own weird debate in here as you had just said (and I quoted it in my reply (bolding mine): I’ll accpet that I wan’st clear when I said it this time. I recall using the concept of “western civilization” earlier in the thread. It is eveident that polygamy is legal in many countries (albeit a reality for a very small number of people there). My fail. > [@](#): > > So what is this thread about? Only acts that support your “claims” or ideas of what marriage should be? I have never seen a more obvious moving of the goalposts. The thread is called “arguments against gay marriage”, not “arguments against gay marriage in the US”. As a general argument against gay marriage, interracial marriage bans are a blip. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > How so? Two US citizens. One born in the US, one born in Germany. One can run for president, one can’t thorugh no fault of their own. Equality, different rights. Women can access maternity leave in a way men can’t. Equality, different rights. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/450 "2013-04-24T15:12:06Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Women can access maternity leave in a way men can’t. Equality, different rights. I suspect that Thomas Beatie\* could have accessed maternity leave. (Except for the technicality that he seems to have been self-employed from what I can gather from the slim parts of the descriptions of him that focus on anything other than his “pregnant man” status.) \*Thomas Beatie, another transgender man, has borne three children. He chose to become pregnant because his wife Nancy was infertile, doing so with cryogenic donated sperm and a syringe, at home. Thomas wrote an article about the experience in The Advocate.[16] The Washington Post further broadened the story on March 25 when blogger Emil Steiner called Beatie the first “legally” pregnant man on record,[19] in reference to certain states’ and federal legal recognition of Beatie as a man.[15][16] In 2010, Guinness World Records recognized Beatie as the world’s “First Married Man to Give Birth.” ([Male pregnancy - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_pregnancy)) ---
**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 24, 2013, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/451 "2013-04-24T16:00:48Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > I suspect that Thomas Beatie\* could have accessed maternity leave. (Except for the technicality that he seems to have been self-employed from what I can gather from the slim parts of the descriptions of him that focus on anything other than his “pregnant man” status.) > \*Thomas Beatie, another transgender man, has borne three children. He chose to become pregnant because his wife Nancy was infertile, doing so with cryogenic donated sperm and a syringe, at home. Thomas wrote an article about the experience in The Advocate.[16] The Washington Post further broadened the story on March 25 when blogger Emil Steiner called Beatie the first “legally” pregnant man on record,[19] in reference to certain states’ and federal legal recognition of Beatie as a man.[15][16] In 2010, Guinness World Records recognized Beatie as the world’s “First Married Man to Give Birth.” > ([Male pregnancy - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_pregnancy)) If you have a uterus and foetus inside it, you’re a woman. Your ID can say you’re a platypus, but you’re a woman. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/452 "2013-04-24T17:38:17Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > If you have a uterus and foetus inside it, you’re a woman. > Your ID can say you’re a platypus, but you’re a woman. I wasn’t expecting you to have an enlightened attitude towards the transgendered. Thank you for not disappointing. However, the point – that there are people legally recognized as male who can get pregnant and therefore potentially benefit from maternity leave laws – remains. ---
**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 24, 2013, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/453 "2013-04-24T18:41:39Z")
Can we lay off the illogic or unlikelihood of what **magellan** is calling for to concentrate on the overcomplexity? I can actually see how it would work: take the section (or chapter, or whatever) describing what constitutes a marriage, and what is required for people to become married or prove that they’re married, as the case may be. Add “or civil union” after every place it says “marriage,” then add in bits saying “a spouse is any person in a marriage or civil union, a husband is any man in a marriage or civil union, a wife is any woman in a marriage or civil union” and “outside of this section, the word ‘marriage’ is to be understood to include civil unions” and “marriage is between a man and a woman, any two single people may be joined in a civil union.” Again, I don’t think this would get through, precisely because so many people who favor civil unions actually do want to create second-class citizenship for people in same-sex relationships, but what he seems to be advocating is not logically impossible. I still don’t like it, though I think it would be an improvement on the current law in jurisdictions that don’t have SSM currently, but I understand it. My primary objection is that it’s pointless; it involves more effort than simply including registered same-sex relationships under the term “marriage” and nothing is gained by this effort (except in the posts where he admits he thinks of same-sex relationships as lesser, in which nothing desirable is gained by this effort). ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/454 "2013-04-24T18:48:42Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > Again, I don’t think this would get through, precisely because so many people who favor civil unions actually do want to create second-class citizenship for people in same-sex relationships, but what he seems to be advocating is not logically impossible. The problem is that while it’s not “logically impossible” it’s practically impossible. Think of all the federal laws which refer to marriage which would need to be amended. Then all of the US Supreme Courts which have stare decisis points about rights and priveleges that marriage entails. Then do that for each state and each state’s laws and courts. Now do that for each county. And city. And we are looking at thousands if not millions of little asterisks everywhere. This is just one of the most exhausting faux-comprimises ever which isn’t needed to begin with. ---
**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 24, 2013, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/455 "2013-04-24T19:11:44Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > but what he seems to be advocating is not logically impossible. As near as I can tell, he appears to be advocating: 1. Two separate institutions, civil unions and marriage, available to two different classes of people; 2. Setting up these institutions so that they are in every way equal; and 3. Doing so in a way that leads to these separate institutions that are equal not being separate-but-equal. I agree that he could in theory accomplish #1 and #2, and he’s showed us how he’d do #2 (but not #1). I disagree that he can accomplish #3. This is why I keep harping on him to show how he’d do #1. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something about how he’s going to set up these two institutions such that your county clerk can distinguish between them. But if I understand steps 1 and 2, step 3 is logically impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/456 "2013-04-24T19:33:19Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > There are many rules that don’t apply equally for everyone, e.g. maternity leave. Ever heard of paternity leave? The woman has to have time off to stay in the hospital and recover, but so does anyone with a condition requiring recovery time. After that the child has two parents. So, if maternity leave is considered a right, paternity leave should be also. Assume as you may please. > [@](#): > > I agree, marriage now is a shambles. Far, freaking far from its ideal. SSM would be its death. My marriage is pretty good. Please explain how SSM would make it worse. I didn’t notice any difference at all during the time it was legal in California. > [@](#): > > Yes it does. If my neighborhood start having lots of nudie bars, their actions affect the value of my house. It doesn’t per se make my house worse. The value of your house, as opposed to the livability of your house, is determined by market forces. Is the value of your marriage? Now, the livability of your house might be affected if people from the nudie bars started walking past your door shouting at 2 am. Your marriage might be affected if you don’t make enough money to live comfortably, are forced to work 12 hours a day, or perhaps forced to have unwanted children. Please explain how SSM has anywhere near the impact of these particular things. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Ograbme](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Ograbme](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ograbme)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/457 "2013-04-24T21:07:40Z")
The presence of African Americans in my neighborhood lowers the value of my house. I’m totally not racist but maybe black people shouldn’t be allowed to own homes, or they should call it something else like ‘Long Term Residential Occupancy’. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/458 "2013-04-24T21:49:05Z")
These arguments didn’t work in Rhode Island, which just passed a marriage equality bill. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/459 "2013-04-24T22:00:17Z")
> [@Ograbme](#): > > The presence of African Americans in my neighborhood lowers the value of my house. I’m totally not racist but maybe black people shouldn’t be allowed to own homes, or they should call it something else like ‘Long Term Residential Occupancy’. Good one! And at one time there was a lot more evidence for African Americans lowering property values (due to white racism, of course) than there is for SSM lowering the value of anything. ---
**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 24, 2013, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/460 "2013-04-24T22:04:26Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Two US citizens. > One born in the US, one born in Germany. One can run for president, one can’t thorugh no fault of their own. > Equality, different rights. > > Women can access maternity leave in a way men can’t. Equality, different rights. Can you further clarify the issue? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663.md?page=24)