# 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:** 8
**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 17, 2013, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/141 "2013-04-17T16:53:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Then why don’t you actually look at it. The problem with SBE was that there were TWO different sets of schools. One for Blacks and one for Whites. Actually, the problem was that despite the claimed intent to maintain equality between the two sets of schools, the white schools were invariably given better funding, resources and maintenance. Some white proponents of SBE might have honestly believed that the schools would forever be of equal quality, but they were deluding themselves. magellan01 won’t talk to me because I once confused him with another anti-ssm poster whose username also began with “m” and though I recognized my error, I declined to apologize for it. I make the effort to challenge nonsense anyway. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/142 "2013-04-17T17:39:21Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s some funny shit, right there. FromThe Onion? Southpark? It’s sad how some people truly don’t understand the world around them and are stuck in their narrow little viewpoints. Being a bigot\* must be exhausting because you’ve been beating the same tired drum since 'time immorial". \*bigot defined as [“a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot) ---
**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 17, 2013, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/143 "2013-04-17T17:48:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let’s see, two groups, men and women, are subject to the same traffic laws. Is that odious because two groups are being treated as separate but equal? Therefore, “not really equal”? Is a law that says “pregnant people aren’t allowed to drive” not sexist because it applies to both genders? If this was a few decades ago, you’d be arguing that anti-miscegenation laws aren’t racist “because they apply to everyone”. The logic is the same. > [@magellan01](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Civil Unions IMO is a way of pandering to the childish insecurities of bias. It’s a way of saying, “not really as good” > > That’s _possible_. But isn’t a simpler explanation also possible: No. We know why the concept of civil unions exist; they were created as ghetto pseudo-marriages, for the specific purpose of being inferior and insulting. They are the marital equivalent of “Colored Only”. > [@Manlob](#): > > Why are there laws giving an incentive for people to pair up in marriage, even if those people do not plan to raise a family. Why are people who choose to remain single treated differently? Because of millions of years of evolution shaping humanity into a species with a predilection for pair bonding. A marriage is simply a ritual and legal recognition of human nature, we’ve been bonding in couples like that since before we were human. > [@adaher](#): > > True. One compromise that I find attractive is just to label all legal unions “civil unions” and make marriage solely a religious label. That’s an attack, not a compromise. It’s a cave in to religious bigots, something that will make marriage less than it is (as I already said, the word has legal meaning), and create a huge backlash against homosexuals for destroying marriage. And it won’t solve a single thing. > [@tomndebb](#): > > How many posters are actually opposing SSM on religious grounds? > > I rarely see a “religious” argument in these threads. Because such an argument would be a total non-starter. There’s only two reasons for opposing same sex marriage; religion and “homosexuals are icky”. Since neither will do anything but crash and burn as an argument either here or in court, you seldom see those arguments used out loud here or there; instead you see opponents of SSM flailing about trying to find a nonexistent rational argument against SSM, and failing since no such argument exists. But the religious and “icky” arguments are always there unspoken in the background as the driving force. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/144 "2013-04-17T18:05:12Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Two separate sets of statutes, one for marriage and one for civil union, even if they are initially identical, creates a major risk that they will deviate over time, as laws are passed amending or affecting only one set, for various motives, including but not limited to attempts to give more benefits to marriages than civil unions to as to ensure that they are the more favored and blessed-by-the-state type of coupling. That’s why I advocate ONE set of statutes. Equally accessed by two groups. The same way that the group called women drivers and the group called men drivers now access the ONE set of statutes that comprise our driving laws. ---
**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 17, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/145 "2013-04-17T18:09:41Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Then why don’t you actually look at it. The problem with SBE was that there were TWO different sets of schools. One for Blacks and one for Whites. That has zero to do with I and others have proposed. It’s a bumper sticker that makes you feel like you’re making some profound point but, in reality, just advertisers either your ignorance of SBE or detestation of logic. Perhaps both. Congress could make civil unions equivalent to marriage in terms of federal law in an instant. You might ask yourself why they haven’t. ---
**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 17, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/146 "2013-04-17T18:12:45Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > True. One compromise that I find attractive is just to label all legal unions “civil unions” and make marriage solely a religious label. Why do you want to discriminate against heterosexual atheists? According to my daughter, in Germany you can get married in a church, or you can get married by the equivalent of a Justice of the Peace, but in that case you are severely restricted in the number of attendees - to like four, IIRC. No thanks. ---
**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 17, 2013, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/147 "2013-04-17T18:14:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s why I advocate ONE set of statutes. Equally accessed by two groups. The same way that the group called women drivers and the group called men drivers now access the ONE set of statutes that comprise our driving laws. Didn’t see this. Why not try to make this proposal to the GOP platform committee and see how far you get. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/148 "2013-04-17T18:14:50Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > It’s sad how some people truly don’t understand the world around them and are stuck in their narrow little viewpoints. Being a bigot\* must be exhausting because you’ve been beating the same tired drum since 'time immorial". > > \*bigot defined as [“a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot) You seem to know that this is not allowed in these discussions outside the pit, but evidently think you can flout the rules by being something that you think passes for clever. Iso, do you think a poster calling another a faggot lover would pass muster, because one definition is: [Faggot (food), British meatball commonly made of pork offal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot) :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: ---
**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 17, 2013, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/149 "2013-04-17T18:15:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s why I advocate ONE set of statutes. Equally accessed by two groups. The same way that the group called women drivers and the group called men drivers now access the ONE set of statutes that comprise our driving laws. The way driving laws work is, in fact, completely the opposite of the way you describe marriage laws working. ---
**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 17, 2013, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/150 "2013-04-17T18:16:59Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s some funny shit, right there. FromThe Onion? Southpark? In the US religion is defined very loosely, so that even Scientology qualifies. I can imagine a religion which specially sanctifies same sex unions - no funnier than one which sanctifies abstinence. However this would fall into the “all religions are equal but mine is more equal than yours” category - just like polygamy being forbidden for US resident Muslims. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/151 "2013-04-17T18:19:22Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Congress could make civil unions equivalent to marriage in terms of federal law in an instant. You might ask yourself why they haven’t. Why don’t you tell me? And can you point to congressperson who is a proponent of gay rights who has suggested this? Or even a prominent gay spokesperson. The push needs to come from someone on the left. I’ve been arguing for this for years on the Dope, and those on the left want no part of it. Thus, revealing that they’re call for\* equal rights\* and _equal protection under the law_ is a lie. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/152 "2013-04-17T18:22:04Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > In the US religion is defined very loosely, so that even Scientology qualifies. I can imagine a religion which specially sanctifies same sex unions - no funnier than one which sanctifies abstinence. > However this would fall into the “all religions are equal but mine is more equal than yours” category - just like polygamy being forbidden for US resident Muslims. So, you want both SSM and polygamy? Well, at least you’re being logically consistent. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/153 "2013-04-17T18:29:28Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s why I advocate ONE set of statutes. Equally accessed by two groups. The same way that the group called women drivers and the group called men drivers now access the ONE set of statutes that comprise our driving laws. But the driving statutes don’t define or include reference to women and men, they refer to motorists. The equivalent would be laws that referred to marriages, and didn’t subdivide them into types based on gender, as driving laws do not. What you’re proposing would necessarily have to define and include references to marriages and civil unions, and the benefits and such of each. While they might start out the same, it’d be very easy (and legal) for a state legislature or Congress to pass a law giving some new tax break or perk to those who are in a marriage, and not include “…or a civil union”; or to remove a tax break or perk from those who are in a civil union, and not include “…or a marriage”. And for what? What is gained that makes this a risk worth taking? ---
**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 17, 2013, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/154 "2013-04-17T18:32:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Why don’t you tell me? And can you point to congressperson who is a proponent of gay rights who has suggested this? Or even a prominent gay spokesperson. The push needs to come from someone on the left. I’ve been arguing for this for years on the Dope, and those on the left want no part of it. Thus, revealing that they’re call for\* equal rights\* and _equal protection under the law_ is a lie. No, it just means that they recognize that it won’t work, and that they are winning. Why settle for a segregation-based ghetto version of marriage when they can have the real thing? ---
**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 17, 2013, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/155 "2013-04-17T18:34:33Z")
As long as driver’s licenses specify gender, we cannot extend the definition of marriage. Or something. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/156 "2013-04-17T18:37:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You seem to know that this is not allowed in these discussions outside the pit, but evidently think you can flout the rules by being something that you think passes for clever. Iso, do you think a poster calling another a faggot lover would pass muster, because one definition is: > > [Faggot (food), British meatball commonly made of pork offal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot) > > :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Oddly enough, now you see the point that ONE word can mean two different things. It wasn’t my intention at all, but glad to see that you’re finally on board and are starting to make sense. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/157 "2013-04-17T18:38:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Someone always brings that up, and it’s a pretty silly idea, really. We’ve been calling it “marriage” pretty much forever, and you’re only going to find a tiny minority that is interested in changing that. It’s a complete non-starter. > > Those who don’t wan to “pollute” marriage by having it apply to same sex unions would go ape-shit ballistic if we decided to take the term “marriage” away from them in terms of what the government uses. > > It’s not a compromise, it’s a Newspeak sort of charade that changes nothing. I guess you’re right. And in any case, the cultural difference between legal marriage and religious marriage is still present whether you call them the same things or not. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/158 "2013-04-17T18:44:33Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > It wasn’t my intention at all, In a word: bullshit. First you insult, and then don’t have the backbone to stand by it. Noted. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/159 "2013-04-17T18:49:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > In a word: bullshit. First you insult, and then don’t have the backbone to stand by it. > > Noted. No, I still think you’re a bigot. You’ve been beating the same tired [drum since 2005.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6730587&highlight=marriage#post6730587) [QUOTE=magellan01] No doubt I’ll get slammed for this as it is not the majority opinion here, but doesn’t it makes sense that we would have a word to describe one of the institutions that has been fundemental to our society: the one that is defined by the union of a man and a woman which has acted and acts as an anchor for the family unit. I do not mean to imply that this is the only construct, only that it has been, and is, the definitive norm. I do not object to gay marriage on religious grounds, and I am for civil unions with all the rights that come with it. But this desire/need to erase the concept of marriage as it has come to be understood irks me to the extreme. I understand why it might be desireable for those working for complete equality, but words are helpful to us when they have specific meanings. We all agree that (I assume) that men are equal to women. Yet, it serves us well to have words that allow us to speak of each independently: man, woman; boy, girl. To attempt to erase all differences withiin the realm of unions is political correctness run amok. We need to afford gay couples who choose to formally commit to each other the same the same advantages that heterosexual couples enjoy. But we need a different word. I offer this only to give a gauge of how strongly I (and many others) feel about this. If I had to choose between the state recognizing civil uniuons, as I have described and I advocate, and having the meaning of “marriage” obfuscated, I’d vote to not recognize civil unions. So in the desire that I see in some to contort reality, they lose an advocate of equal “rights”. You may think this position is harsh. And it may be. But I convey my honest feelings in order to be helpful in the discussion. I think the quicker that the insistence on the term “marriage” is abandoned, the quicker society at large will embrace the concept of equal rights for gay couples. [/QUOTE] So yes, you’re “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices” as you’ve been sticking to the same stupid “argument” for 8 years. Need me to show how you’ve been inserting this into a bunch more threads saying the same asinine opinion? ---
**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 17, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/160 "2013-04-17T18:52:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Why don’t you tell me? And can you point to congressperson who is a proponent of gay rights who has suggested this? Or even a prominent gay spokesperson. The push needs to come from someone on the left. I’ve been arguing for this for years on the Dope, and those on the left want no part of it. Thus, revealing that they’re call for\* equal rights\* and _equal protection under the law_ is a lie. At the moment those on the left want marriage equality, not SBE. And I admit that some people on the left were scared and/or bigoted also. But they never introduced constitutional amendments banning SSM. If those on the left had done this, don’t you think the right wing attack machine would have worked with full force? And if those on the right did instead, don’t you think it would have passed in quick measure? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663.md?page=9)