# Arguments against same sex marriage the same as arguments against interracial marriage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 10, 2012, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485 "2012-05-10T07:21:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/41 "2012-05-10T21:22:12Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > If they aren’t producing children naturally then they aren’t entitled to the benefits of marriage. Accepting this premise hypothetically for purposes of argument, why should opposite-gender couples who aren’t producing children naturally (and there are lots of such couples) get the benefits of marriage when same-gender couples don’t? ISTM that basing arguments against same-sex marriage on marital fecundity is a losing proposition. There’s no logical reason to presume that all heterosexual couples will be fecund, or to grant special “fecundity recognition” to non-fecund heterosexual couples any more than to homosexual couples. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/42 "2012-05-10T21:24:44Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > To my mind there is a huge qualitative difference between those two things. > > One friend of mine puts the argument this way: marriage between a man and a woman is a benefit to society as a whole because it produces and raises the next generation of people. SSM, generally speaking doesn’t. As such, marriage between a man and a woman is entitled to the legal benefits and state support of marriage, while SSM shouldn’t be. Except procreation was never a proscribed mandated reason for marriage. It is never even addressed legally, other than the benefits you get _if_ you have kids, which isn’t a mandate on having them. > [@](#): > > If they aren’t producing children naturally then they aren’t entitled to the benefits of marriage. Well, this would at least be consistant. Idiotic and improbably difficult to enforce. But consistant. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/43 "2012-05-10T21:29:56Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Ya lost me there, **tom**. AFAICT, “proscribing exogamous marriage” **is** “prohibition against members of separate groups marrying”. They’re the same thing. Any society that has historically proscribed exogamous marriage has by definition ruled out inter-group marriage. Nope. From the time of Ezra, (at least), the Jewish people ruled that exogamous marriage, (between one of their people and any other people), was proscribed. They never made any effort to declare that a Nubian, an Egyptian, or a Chaldean living in Jerusalem could not marry a Greek who lived there. There was no general proscription against exogamous marriage, only a particular rule regarding their own tribe. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/44 "2012-05-10T21:31:32Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Except procreation was never a pr **o** scribed mandated reason for marriage. Well, it wouldn’t be, would it? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/45 "2012-05-10T21:36:45Z")
Isn’t the most fundamental argument most people have against gay marriage (in the west at least) that marriage is “supposed” to be between a man and a woman, and that The Bible says so? I’m guessing it doesn’t mention interracial marriage though. Correct me if I’m wrong - I haven’t paid much attention to anti-gay marriage arguments or The Bible. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/46 "2012-05-10T21:53:03Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > Isn’t the most fundamental argument most people have against gay marriage (in the west at least) that marriage is “supposed” to be between a man and a woman, and that The Bible says so? I’m guessing it doesn’t mention interracial marriage though. > > Correct me if I’m wrong - I haven’t paid much attention to anti-gay marriage arguments or The Bible. There are a [number of Biblical passages that have historically been used by people opposed to interracial marriage](http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htm) to argue that it’s wrong. Some of the most relevant: > [@](#): > > Genesis 28:1: “And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.” > > Deuteronomy 7:2-3: “And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.” > > Deuteronomy 22:9: “Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.” Mind you, I’m not arguing for the applicability of these verses to interracial marriage in general, just pointing out that they have been invoked in that context by people opposed to interracial marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/47 "2012-05-10T21:55:11Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > Loving v. Virginia was a case where criminalization of interracial marriage was at issue. The SC decided that the law that criminalized that conduct was a violation of equal protection. As far as I know, there is no statute that criminalizes SSM, instead, it just isn’t recognized as legally valid in the majority of the U.S. That being the case, there is a great difference between the arguments against SSM being the same as against interracial marriage. It is the difference between going to jail and not being able to do what you want to do, ie f\*\*\*\*\*\* someone you love of your own sex and calling yourselves married. To my mind there is a huge qualitative difference between those two things. It does not matter. When the government treats two groups differently one is burdened. It does not matter, for EP analysis, whether that burden is a criminal penalty or something else. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/48 "2012-05-10T22:04:10Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > If they aren’t producing children naturally then they aren’t entitled to the benefits of marriage. There are [a number](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2012/may/08/gay-rights-united-states) of other gay rights issues at stake, two of which would largely be addressed by a federal right to marry. Besides, if the US is rewarding burgeoning population growth, then why not host an illegal immigration amnesty? ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/49 "2012-05-10T23:18:08Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It does not matter. > > When the government treats two groups differently one is burdened. It does not matter, for EP analysis, whether that burden is a criminal penalty or something else. That’s the - to my mind specious - argument the SSM people and to my mind many incorrect courts, rely on. Taking the dicta of _Loving_ that marriage (as it was then understood to be always between a man and a woman) is a fundamental right and spinning it into saying marriage, as same sex couples and others now define it, is a fundamental right. It ain’t the same. Others, the majority of this board, certainly, disagree with me. I can live with that. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/50 "2012-05-10T23:28:09Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > They do not use it because it fails as an argument. > > Did you, or anyone you know, ever sit down at some point in life and ponder whether you wanted to be gay or straight? Make a list of the pros and cons of each? Given the prejudice and intolerance homosexuals face would anyone, given the choice, choose that lifestyle? If you wanted to could you just decide, right now, that you want to be gay with no more fuss than changing your shirt? > > Further, there is evidence that [homosexuality has a genetic basis](http://www.economist.com/node/12465295?story_id=12465295). You can no more choose it than you can choose your skin color. The problem with this argument is that it assumes the choice issue is significant. It is not. I can choose to burn a flag in protest or not; my speech is still protected. I can confess to a crime or not; my right to refuse self-incrimination is still protected. Choice has always been a red herring troll on the issue. The real issue of choice is just: _choosing what person to marry_. This choice—so-called “fundamental” choice by SCOTUS—is what is being denied. Whether someone chooses to be gay or not is of no relevance whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/51 "2012-05-10T23:28:09Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > There are [a number](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2012/may/08/gay-rights-united-states) of other gay rights issues at stake, two of which would largely be addressed by a federal right to marry. Huh? I assume you mean “hospital visitation, adoption” and not “housing, employment and school bullying”. Hospital visitation is a non-issue. Everyone nowadays, gay, straight, bi or undetermined, should have a durable power of attorney for health care. I am not aware of any such properly executed document being invalidated on account of homosexuality. If anyone knows of such a case, please inform. Otherwise, I’ll consider that to be red herring. I have nothing against gays adopting children because children need good parents. If the gays can be good parents, why not allow it? > [@gamerunknown](#): > > Besides, if the US is rewarding burgeoning population growth, then why not host an illegal immigration amnesty? That’s a separate and wholly unrelated issue. One doesn’t automatically lead to the other. ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/52 "2012-05-10T23:28:44Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > One friend of mine puts the argument this way: marriage between a man and a woman is a benefit to society as a whole because it produces and raises the next generation of people. SSM, generally speaking doesn’t. As such, marriage between a man and a woman is entitled to the legal benefits and state support of marriage, while SSM shouldn’t be. > > Of course, we all know that men and women have sex and produce and raise children outside of marriage, and that men and women marry and don’t have children. We also know that while same sex couples can certain raise children, they can only produce children with the aid of modern medical technology. If they aren’t producing children naturally then they aren’t entitled to the benefits of marriage. So says my friend, and I agree with him, and that and a $1 will get me a cup of coffee maybe. > > With that, I take my leave, to threads about baseball and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where I am much more at home. 🙂 No offense but this line of reasoning drives me up the wall. A woman can become pregnant in a number of ways other than by “modern medical technology” (and why is it important even if it does involve modern medicine?) - maybe she had a one-night stand, maybe she had a long-term relationship with a guy which ended and she’s met the woman of her dreams, maybe she got raped and wants to keep the child, maybe her and her partner want kids so they find a surrogate father…regardless, she’s now pregnant and will soon be contributing to that next generation of human beings. Why on earth deny them the right to get married, have societal recognition of their family/relationship (no more and no less than any other couple)? Or what if they decide to adopt? What is the reason for not fully supporting that family? Why do my straight friends who couldn’t conceive get to be married and adopt a child but my gay friends are treated differently? Two guys have similar options - surrogate mom, adoption, child from a previous relationship. A straight couple in the exact same circumstances can be married. If you’re going to say that only couples which produce biological offspring “naturally” can be married then why shouldn’t that rule be applied to straight couples as well? ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/53 "2012-05-10T23:31:33Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Except procreation was never a proscribed mandated reason for marriage. It was never expressly proscribed because, as my high school geometry teacher used to say, it was intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer. IMHO. YMMV. ---
**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:** [May 10, 2012, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/54 "2012-05-10T23:32:55Z")
[QUOTE=zamboniracer] One friend of mine puts the argument this way: marriage between a man and a woman is a benefit to society as a whole because it produces and raises the next generation of people. SSM, generally speaking doesn’t. As such, marriage between a man and a woman is entitled to the legal benefits and state support of marriage, while SSM shouldn’t be [/quote] > [@](#): > > I have nothing against gays adopting children because children need good parents. If the gays can be good parents, why not allow it? Okay, I’m confused. Gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, because they won’t be raising kids. But they should be allowed to adopt. Which means they would be raising kids. So… why can’t gays get married, again? ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/55 "2012-05-10T23:42:32Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > No offense but this line of reasoning drives me up the wall. A woman can become pregnant in a number of ways other than by “modern medical technology” (and why is it important even if it does involve modern medicine?) - maybe she had a one-night stand, maybe she had a long-term relationship with a guy which ended and she’s met the woman of her dreams, maybe she got raped and wants to keep the child, maybe her and her partner want kids so they find a surrogate father…regardless, she’s now pregnant and will soon be contributing to that next generation of human beings. Why on earth deny them the right to get married, have societal recognition of their family/relationship (no more and no less than any other couple)? > > Or what if they decide to adopt? What is the reason for not fully supporting that family? Why do my straight friends who couldn’t conceive get to be married and adopt a child but my gay friends are treated differently? > > Two guys have similar options - surrogate mom, adoption, child from a previous relationship. A straight couple in the exact same circumstances can be married. > > If you’re going to say that only couples which produce biological offspring “naturally” can be married then why shouldn’t that rule be applied to straight couples as well? No offense taken, of course. Of course marriages between straights didn’t have to produce offspring in order to be called valid marriages. Bob & Emily Hartley of the old Bob Newhart Show are an example of such a couple. It would be absurd, IMHO, for the government to police a requirement that a couple have children in order to be considered married. I also find it absurd that two guys who live together and love each other want me, as society, to recognize their relationship as a marriage. Me, as society, isn’t getting anything out of this deal. Bob & Emily at least had the potential of producing and raising the next generation. Two gay guys don’t. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/56 "2012-05-10T23:48:36Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Okay, I’m confused. Gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, because they won’t be raising kids. But they should be allowed to adopt. Which means they would be raising kids. So… why can’t gays get married, again? Because one doesn’t have anything to do with the other, silly. Gays can raise kids, they just can’t produce any themselves. They don’t have to be married to raise kids, obviously. It is more important that kids be raised in a loving environment by people that care about them. Certainly gays can do that, so why not allow them to adopt, because we have children, and therefore society as a whole, that would benefit. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/57 "2012-05-10T23:51:44Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Accepting this premise hypothetically for purposes of argument, why should opposite-gender couples who aren’t producing children naturally (and there are lots of such couples) get the benefits of marriage when same-gender couples don’t? > > ISTM that basing arguments against same-sex marriage on marital fecundity is a losing proposition. There’s no logical reason to presume that all heterosexual couples will be fecund, or to grant special “fecundity recognition” to non-fecund heterosexual couples any more than to homosexual couples. See above in my Bob & Emily Hartley post. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/58 "2012-05-11T00:05:42Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > From your link:So, “historically” we have a phenomenon that arose in one country fewer than 350 years ago. Nope. There are clear denunciations of “foreign wives” (the closest thing to interracial marriage that was possible given the populations of men and women who were within accessible range of each other) in the Old Testament. That’s about as “traditional” as it gets. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/59 "2012-05-11T00:09:41Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > It was never expressly proscribed because, as my high school geometry teacher used to say, it was intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer. A _geometry teacher_ used that argument? This makes the Baby Euclid cry… ---
**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:** [May 11, 2012, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/60 "2012-05-11T00:42:53Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Nope. > From the time of Ezra, (at least), the Jewish people ruled that exogamous marriage, (between one of their people and any other people), was proscribed. They never made any effort to declare that a Nubian, an Egyptian, or a Chaldean living in Jerusalem could not marry a Greek who lived there. There was no general proscription against exogamous marriage, only a particular rule regarding their own tribe. On the other hand, the book of Ruth specifically supports such a marriage, given conversion. Not only is it allowed, Ruth was a direct ancestor of King David, so it was blessed. Many of the prohibitions that did exist involved not marrying enemies, which is a different story. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485.md?page=4)