# Arguments against SSM not in any way based on faith or tradition? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 2, 2013, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488 "2013-07-02T22:29:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/41 "2013-07-03T17:07:03Z")
> [@davidw](#): > > Back in the 90s, I used to see arguments from more radical gay groups that marriage was an outmoded social construct, and that gay people shouldn’t be looking to integrate into that construct, but should develop other, better ones. Like, bathhouses? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/42 "2013-07-03T17:07:49Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Of course the law does not require children, just like getting a drivers license does not require you to buy a car and drive it everyday. Childless couples can enter into marriage, without affecting its definition. This is not true for gay couples. Why would you make such an absurd claim? Gay couples can have children. Children from previous relationships, IVF, and adoption are all ways in which gay couples may have children and many of them already do. Claiming that gay couples cannot raise children has no basis in fact. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/43 "2013-07-03T17:08:43Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Hang on - are you arguing about the _purpose_ of marriage or the _definition_ of marriage? I’d like to nail down these goalposts before this goes any further. An important distinction. “Purpose” is ontological, but any argument from “definition” is simply another form of argument from tradition. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/44 "2013-07-03T17:14:26Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Then what is the purpose of marriage? To make the \*other \*poor dumb bastard die for \*his \*spouse! > [@puddleglum](#): > > Gay marriage has never been illegal. If you want to rent a hall, dress up and make unrealistic promises to anyone you choose, you are free to do so and no one will come and arrest you. Unfortunately for your position, that is not what the argument is about. It’s about eliminating unfair, discriminatory restrictions against participating in all the various \*legal \*rights and responsibilities that go along with the \*legal \*institution. > [@](#): > > However, changing the definition of marriage My marriage is still defined the same way it’s always been. So are all the other straight marriages out there. What definition do you think is changed? > [@](#): > > for everyone to make the instituion less stable How so? In what way are existing marriages going to become less stable? That only makes sense if you’re referring to gays no longer feeling as much pressure to enter or stay in loveless shams of marriages in order to gain acceptance by those who hate who they are. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/45 "2013-07-03T17:18:27Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment to raise children. The purpose of gay marriage is to express love to the partner. What? Both gay and straight people get married to express their love, and both gay and straight couples can have children or can decide not to have children. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/46 "2013-07-03T17:25:45Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > _However, changing the definition of marriage for everyone to make the instituion less stable_ **because gay couples need government approval of their emotional lives** is what is going on. 1. You’re still essentially arguing from tradition. 2. The bolded part is bullshit. It’s about legal privileges. Gays certainly are concerned with “approval” of SSM – **society’s** approval, not government’s. 3. Wait, how does the italicized part follow from the bolded part anyway?! How does this “make the institution less stable”? ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/47 "2013-07-03T17:27:35Z")
“Because the government has to draw the line somewhere.” Yes, this was said by an otherwise intelligent and rational human being. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/48 "2013-07-03T17:29:16Z")
That is very odd. All the gay couples we socialize with have kids. That is mostly how we met - through our children (all of whom are in college or the service now). Many of them have been together as long as my Wife and I, although it has only been in the past few years that they were able to get married. For the record, the sex of your spouse seems to make little to no difference on how middle-aged, middle-class couples act at picnics or movie nights. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/49 "2013-07-03T17:29:22Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > “Because the government has to draw the line somewhere.” > > Yes, this was said by an otherwise intelligent and rational human being. Well, of course, that’s pretty much what government does. But that argument offers no grounds to decide where that line should be drawn – at men, or at dogs, etc.? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/50 "2013-07-03T17:36:19Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > “Because the government has to draw the line somewhere.” > > Yes, this was said by an otherwise intelligent and rational human being. Well, yes - the government does have to draw the line - in this case, where the 14th Amendment \*says \*to draw it. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/51 "2013-07-03T18:15:47Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Hang on - are you arguing about the _purpose_ of marriage or the _definition_ of marriage? I’d like to nail down these goalposts before this goes any further. The purpose and definition of marriage are inseperable. The reason marriage is defined as it is, is so that it can achieve its purpose. Any change in the definition of marriage affects its purpose. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/52 "2013-07-03T18:25:02Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You don’t, but some people get married anyway and as a result they get certain legal privileges. Some other people want to also get married and access said priviliges, but are being denied on grounds that are now seen as bigoted. > > I make no statement about love or emotion, just equal treatment under the law. The treatment, as it stands, is somewhat more extensive than a certificate and a pat on the head. Showing your ignorance of this does not advance your argument. > Now if you want to argue that all existing legal privileges linked to be marriage should be _abolished_ so treatment would be equal… well, you might get some traction there. So are you prepared to give up access to joint tax filings, spousal privilege in court proceedings, favourable inheritance laws, government spousal benefits…? > > Assuming you are married or one day plan to be, of course. Why do certain relationships get benefits that others do not. I do not get governmental benefits for the relationship with my brother. That is because of the nature of the relationship which goes back to purpose. The purpose of marriage is to provide a stable basis for raising children. Joint tax filings, etc help that purpose. Besides there are places that have passed domestic partnership laws and yet people still want marriage to be changed in those places. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/53 "2013-07-03T18:26:11Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The purpose and definition of marriage are inseperable. The reason marriage is defined as it is, is so that it can achieve its purpose. Any change in the definition of marriage affects its purpose. This makes no sense whatsoever. The definition of marriage says nothing about its purpose, assuming that it even has “a” purpose. And both the definition and purpose(s) can change independently of each other. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/54 "2013-07-03T18:26:48Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The purpose of marriage is to provide a stable basis for raising children. Even if this were true, which is flatly is not, gay and straight couples can both raise children. Gay couples can adopt or conceive with an outside partner. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/55 "2013-07-03T18:33:13Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Are there any? I have yet to encounter one here or anywhere. It will increase the burden on social security and medicare. It is the first step on a slippery slope towards polygamy. You will no longer simply see foreign women showing up at city hall trying to marry homeless men; you will also see foreign men lining up at city hall to marry homeless men. You will depopulate the trendier parts of large cities as gay couples move to the suburbs to raise their kids. Culture and the arts will wither on the vine. Just spitballing ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/56 "2013-07-03T18:36:33Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > That is very odd. > All the gay couples we socialize with have kids. That is mostly how we met - through our children (all of whom are in college or the service now). Many of them have been together as long as my Wife and I, although it has only been in the past few years that they were able to get married. > > For the record, the sex of your spouse seems to make little to no difference on how middle-aged, middle-class couples act at picnics or movie nights. [Only](http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/press-releases/as-overall-percentage-of-same-sex-couples-raising-children-declines-those-adopting-almost-doubles-significant-diversity-among-lesbian-and-gay-families/) 16% of gay couples raise children and that percentage is decreasing. [On](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/25/childlessness-up-among-all-women-down-among-women-with-advanced-degrees/)the other hand only 13% of married women never have kids and half that is due to infertility. I don’t think you are showing the right films at your movie nights. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/57 "2013-07-03T18:39:18Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > [Only](http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/press-releases/as-overall-percentage-of-same-sex-couples-raising-children-declines-those-adopting-almost-doubles-significant-diversity-among-lesbian-and-gay-families/) 16% of gay couples raise children and that percentage is decreasing. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that gay couples can’t get married in most states and can’t adopt in some. Nah, it’s probably a coincidence… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/58 "2013-07-03T18:44:15Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The purpose and definition of marriage are inseperable. The reason marriage is defined as it is, is so that it can achieve its purpose. Any change in the definition of marriage affects its purpose. You have already stated a **purpose,** “to provide a stable environment to raise children,”\* while allowing for a **definition** that encompasses childless marriages. But you have offered no grounds from which to infer that, let alone why, a childless/aged couple falls within that “definition” and a same-sex couple does not. - The actual purpose of marriage, BTW, is license-to-fuck. Which doesn’t matter like it used to. ---
**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:** [July 3, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/59 "2013-07-03T18:49:47Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Why do certain relationships get benefits that others do not. I do not get governmental benefits for the relationship with my brother. If you want to argue that you _should_, that there should be some kind of sibling benefit, then I’ll be happy to argue that it should not be granted to people with brothers who are straight while denied to people with brothers who are gay. That’s the kind of distinction you’re arguing for in marriage - legal recognition for some, no legal recognition for others, and on the basis of sexual orientiation. Why are you doing so? > [@](#): > > That is because of the nature of the relationship which goes back to purpose. The purpose of marriage is to provide a stable basis for raising children. Joint tax filings, etc help that purpose. Then create priviliges which only apply to married couples who have children, regardless of the orientation of the parents. You acknowledge that gay couples can have children, right? It may require adoption or artificial insemination or surrogacy, but once done, they are as much “parents” (for legal purposes, certainly) as any hetero couple nine months after sexual intercourse. > [@](#): > > Besides there are places that have passed domestic partnership laws and yet people still want marriage to be changed in those places. So? ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488/60 "2013-07-03T18:52:30Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > This makes no sense whatsoever. The definition of marriage says nothing about its purpose, assuming that it even has “a” purpose. And both the definition and purpose(s) can change independently of each other. All human behavior and all human institutions have a purpose. When an institution or law is created it does not happen randomly but to accomplish a purpose. Speeding laws were created to achieve a purpose, slowing cars to create a safer environment to drive in. If we changed speeding laws so that everyone could go 100 mph on residential streets than they would not be achieving their purpose. Marriage laws do not exist to supply certain groups with income tax breaks. Marriage existed before the income tax, and exists in socieities without governments. Therefore it is obvious that the purpose of marriage is not to achieve tax breaks or governmental benefits. Think of Marcus Aurelius " This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what its causal nature [or form]? And what is it doing in the world? And how long does it subsist?" [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-ssm-not-in-any-way-based-on-faith-or-tradition/662488.md?page=4)