# 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:** 15\ **Page:** 25
**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 30, 2013, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/481 "2013-04-30T04:23:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Not sure what’s so important or non-obvious about what my answer would be: if the couple is constituted of one male and one female, they get the marriage license. If it’s two people of the same sex, they get the civil union license. in a couple weeks (May 17th) it will be 49 years since the Supreme Court unanimously said “separate is inherently unequal”. And still some people don’t get that. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/482 "2013-04-30T04:45:36Z")
For the two kinds of unions to be truly equal, it would require huge amounts of government regulation over private enterprise. Suppose a coffee house offered a weekend discount for “Married Couples (Civil Unions not included.)” Today, that’s legitimate: lots of places give discounts to married couples. It isn’t a civil rights violation. But if they start doing it on the basis of Marriage/CU, then we have public discrimination. The “equal” part of “separate but equal” would be subject to erosion. And once that happens, it ain’t “equal” any more. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/483 "2013-04-30T06:21:26Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Fine. Here we go: > > 1. Post 281. > 2. Post 471. > > If you have something in the law that says, " if the couple is constituted of one male and one female, they get the marriage license. If it’s two people of the same sex, they get the civil union license," then you have two separate sentences that describe separate treatment of couples depending on whether they’re gay or straight. > > Thanks! Nope. And I think this is a childish argument. You’re just desperate to get to “two”. My point in all these discussions (go ahead, check) is that there be one set of laws outlining the privileges and benefits that the two groups can tap into. The fact that there’d be language defining each of those two groups does not refute that. And that even assumes they would even be considered statutes/laws, and not merely definitions. so, nothing you point out refutes any think I’ve said regarding the position I hold. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/484 "2013-04-30T06:22:33Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > in a couple weeks (May 17th) it will be 49 years since the Supreme Court unanimously said “separate is inherently unequal”. And still some people don’t get that. Evidently you don’t. Feel free to read about it. ---
**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 30, 2013, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/485 "2013-04-30T06:38:15Z")
Of course the “separate but equal” of the 1950s has no bearing on gay marriage - magellan has ruled it out. It can’t happen, doesn’t apply, won’t be a factor, is immaterial, thanks to magellen’s bulletproof plan. _Brown v. Board of Education_ was actually 59 years ago, incidentally. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/486 "2013-04-30T09:39:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > As long as I thought that there was a chance to preserve the word and have it be attached to its traditional meaning, yes. The hypothetical was meant to remove that chance. Let’s say that the country has gotten sick of the debate and agreed to put it to a final vote. If 50% plus one person vote against gay marriage then a constitutional amendment will be put in place denying gays the right to marriage or civil union. If 50% plus one vote for gay marriage then it will go into place immediately and gay or straight, you can get married and have access to all of the rights that implies. By a twist of fate the entire country but you has voted and the vote is tied. You are the tie breaker. It is entirely in your hands. Which way do you decide? ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/487 "2013-04-30T09:43:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > there be one set of laws outlining the privileges and benefits that the two groups can tap into.. Is that one set of laws known as marriage law? ---
**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 30, 2013, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/488 "2013-04-30T10:28:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Nope. And I think this is a childish argument. You’re just desperate to get to “two”. My point in all these discussions (go ahead, check) is that there be one set of laws outlining the privileges and benefits that the two groups can tap into. The fact that there’d be language defining each of those two groups does not refute that. And that even assumes they would even be considered statutes/laws, and not merely definitions. so, nothing you point out refutes any think I’ve said regarding the position I hold. Of course it refutes that. Getting called “married” in legal terms is itself a benefit, and according to you, it’s an important one. You give this benefit to straight people but not gay people. And this isn’t a matter of definition: it’s a matter of imperative. Let’s see what you said would be in the law: 1. if the couple is constituted of one male and one female, they get the marriage license. 2. If it’s two people of the same sex, they get the civil union license. That’s clearly statute language. It issues a directive to civil servants. This is why I kept asking you to be specific, because as I thought, you have a separate-but-equal clause. The argument is childish, sure, because you’re doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. ---
**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 30, 2013, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/489 "2013-04-30T10:55:06Z")
A couple of follow-up thoughts: > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > And this isn’t a matter of definition: it’s a matter of imperative. 1. Please don’t take this as any sort of indication that your argument “It’s not a statute, it’s a definition!” has the slightest validity to it. When you say that definitions aren’t statutes, you’re 100% incorrect. The nice thing about your summary of the law that I quoted is that it allows us to bypass one of your incorrect arguments entirely; but if you find a way to remove the imperative, it’s not going to help your case at all, it’s just going to make us bicker about the factual statute-quality of definitions. 2. You’re hoist by your own petard here, but the change it requires to your argument is very minor. YOu cannot reasonably continue denying the separate-but-equal charge, since it’s right there in your own words. But you can reasonably say something like, “Look, there’s one way in which I think gay people should be treated unequally under the law to straight people. But in every other way I think they should be treated equally. And here are my reasons for advocating that one inequality.” If that were your argument, you’d remove the blatant untruth in your argument, the one that astonishes people with its brazenness and falsity. You might get a more productive argument that way. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/490 "2013-04-30T16:05:53Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > A couple of follow-up thoughts: > > 1. Please don’t take this as any sort of indication that your argument “It’s not a statute, it’s a definition!” has the slightest validity to it. When you say that definitions aren’t statutes, you’re 100% incorrect. The nice thing about your summary of the law that I quoted is that it allows us to bypass one of your incorrect arguments entirely; but if you find a way to remove the imperative, it’s not going to help your case at all, it’s just going to make us bicker about the factual statute-quality of definitions. > 2. You’re hoist by your own petard here, but the change it requires to your argument is very minor. YOu cannot reasonably continue denying the separate-but-equal charge, since it’s right there in your own words. But you can reasonably say something like, “Look, there’s one way in which I think gay people should be treated unequally under the law to straight people. But in every other way I think they should be treated equally. And here are my reasons for advocating that one inequality.” > > If that were your argument, you’d remove the blatant untruth in your argument, the one that astonishes people with its brazenness and falsity. You might get a more productive argument that way. I’m glad you’re seeing at least _some_ of what I’m saying. But this really is a silly argument you’re bringing up. I’ve been saying all along that there are two distinct groups, gay couples and straight couples. I also have been saying all along that they should each use their own term. That’s the _premise_ of the debate. I’ve also been saying all along that each of these two distinct groups should access a single set of laws that outline the _legal_ privileges and benefits available to them. You’ve been arguing that my proposal mandates two different sets of laws (which would, in fact, put in in SBE territory). I have shown that to not be the case. Some people have begrudgingly accepted that my idea—having the one set of laws—does, or could, avoid that problem. But now you are trying to say that because I see two groups (those defined as gay couples and straight couples) and want them to each use their own term (Civil Unions (or other) and Marriage) that therefore I’m suggesting an idea that runs afoul of SBE. Sorry, you’re 100% wrong on that. You’re looking at labels of the two groups and not the single set of legal benefits and privileges they tap into. Then claiming, “Look, look, he said TWO”. Sigh. Going back to SBE. The problem was that the schools the kids were accessing (two flavors—one for Black kids and one for White kids) were not and could not be “separate but equal”. So, the court instituted integration, which meant that each of the two groups would now be accessing the exact same schools. Once that was done, the SBE problem was eliminated. With my proposal we again have two different groups having access to a single set of legal benefits and privileges. Hope that helps. KNow what they say…the 489th time is a charm. ---
**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 30, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/491 "2013-04-30T16:18:09Z")
I’m surely not the only one to wonder why governments should be grouping people by sexual orientation, am I? Nor the only one who looks askance at the idea that the causes of the problems behind the original separate-but-equal were neatly and permanently “solved” by school integration. ---
**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 30, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/492 "2013-04-30T16:49:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m glad you’re seeing at least _some_ of what I’m saying. But this really is a silly argument you’re bringing up. I’ve been saying all along that there are two distinct groups, gay couples and straight couples. I also have been saying all along that they should each use their own term. That’s the _premise_ of the debate. I’ve also been saying all along that each of these two distinct groups should access a single set of laws that outline the _legal_ privileges and benefits available to them. You’ve been arguing that my proposal mandates two different sets of laws (which would, in fact, put in in SBE territory). I have shown that to not be the case. Some people have begrudgingly accepted that my idea—having the one set of laws—does, or could, avoid that problem. But now you are trying to say that because I see two groups (those defined as gay couples and straight couples) and want them to each use their own term (Civil Unions (or other) and Marriage) that therefore I’m suggesting an idea that runs afoul of SBE. Sorry, you’re 100% wrong on that. You’re looking at labels of the two groups and not the single set of legal benefits and privileges they tap into. Then claiming, “Look, look, he said TWO”. Sigh. The problem is that you have two contradictory ideas and are unable or unwilling to see that they contradict each other. 1. [T]here are two distinct groups, gay couples and straight couples. . . . [T]hey should each use their own term. 2. Each of these two distinct groups should access a single set of laws that outline the _legal_ privileges and benefits available to them. The label, the legal use of the term, IS one of the privileges and benefits available to them. My wife and I could access the “marriage license” benefit when we were an engaged couple. My friends Leigh and Crystal could not access that benefit under your scheme (or in the real world). Either you can maintain idea 1 or idea 2. But they contradict each other. > [@](#): > > The problem was that the schools the kids were accessing (two flavors—one for Black kids and one for White kids) were not and could not be “separate but equal”. So, the court instituted integration, which meant that each of the two groups would now be accessing the exact same schools. Once that was done, the SBE problem was eliminated. With my proposal we again have two different groups having access to a single set of legal benefits and privileges. Hope that helps. KNow what they say…the 489th time is a charm. Indeed. Did they demand that black kids who accessed all the benefits be called “trainees”, reserving the traditional term “students” for white kids? Did they say that when black kids completed twelfth grade they received a “certificate of completion,” as opposed to the “diploma” received by white kids? Did they do anything analogous to the part of your proposal that people object to? Let’s stipulate that there are about 1,050 or so benefits of getting married. Let’s stipulate the 1,049 you’re willing to grant to SSC. Kudos for that! But there’s the last one that you’re not willing to grant. You’re not willing to grant them the benefit of a marriage license itself. They can’t get that, whereas straight couples can. That last difference is what the argument is about. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/493 "2013-04-30T16:58:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’ve also been saying all along that each of these two distinct groups should access a single set of laws that outline the _legal_ privileges and benefits available to them. Except for the law that would allow only intergender couples to be called “married”. You create a difference there, _under the law_, while insisting you’re not. > [@](#): > > So, the court instituted integration, which meant that each of the two groups would now be accessing the exact same schools. Once that was done, the SBE problem was eliminated. There are only one set of schools with one name. Both white and black students are entitled to use it with no distinction between them. Blacks are not required to use the back door while whites can use either one. But your version of “marriage” \*would \*require that exact manner of separate-but-equal status. > [@](#): > > With my proposal we again have two different groups having access to a single set of legal benefits and privileges. \*Except for \*the one that legally imposes a second-class status on one of those groups. How and why you fail to see that, or can answer only with invective, is the subject of all those Pit threads about you. ---
**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:** [May 1, 2013, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/494 "2013-05-01T04:27:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Going back to SBE. The problem was that the schools the kids were accessing (two flavors—one for Black kids and one for White kids) were not and could not be “separate but equal”. So, the court instituted integration, which meant that each of the two groups would now be accessing the exact same schools. Once that was done, the SBE problem was eliminated. With my proposal we again have two different groups having access to a single set of legal benefits and privileges. Hope that helps. KNow what they say…the 489th time is a charm. Well, **Trinopus** pointed out why the two groups really would not have access to the same benefits societally. So there’s an argument against “the same thing with two different names.” But even accepting that this isn’t the same as SBE, I don’t recall seeing an explanation of why this is better than the two being considered one thing with one name that doesn’t boil down to “well … because you just can’t!” ---
**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:** [May 1, 2013, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/495 "2013-05-01T14:29:38Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > Well, **Trinopus** pointed out why the two groups really would not have access to the same benefits societally. So there’s an argument against “the same thing with two different names.” But even accepting that this isn’t the same as SBE, I don’t recall seeing an explanation of why this is better than the two being considered one thing with one name that doesn’t boil down to “well … because you just can’t!” I asked him something along those lines once, something like “what’s the difference between two penises or two vaginas and a penis/vagina combination?” As I recall, he expressed that this was a preposterously obvious question unworthy of a serious attempt at an answer (he wasn’t ignoring me then - he _did_ respond with something like “what a silly question”). It is indeed, as phrased, a silly question - the physical differences are obvious - but the larger question of why he or anyone (including government) should _care_ about the differences is something he’s never addressed, that I know of. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663.md?page=24)