# Explain to me why marriage is OK for murders and child molesters but not for gay people **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 27, 2011, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931 "2011-04-27T19:09:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**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 1, 2011, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/121 "2011-05-01T09:04:18Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > NO. No, no, no, no, no. Now, ANY law can be amended. ANY. You can write the law the way _you_ want and it could be amended in the future. That is not a problem with my law, that is a problem with ALL laws. True. But the way I want the law to be written would make it significantly harder to do that, because you’d first have to disentangle gay marriages from straight marriages. Your idea would make it significantly easier to do, because (here it comes again) you’re setting up two different bodies of law to govern each relationship. > [@](#): > > You’re talking about one set and another set. Sheeze. I’m advocating ONE set. ONE (1). No, you aren’t. What you are describing is two sets of laws. You want to call it one set of law, but that doesn’t make it so. > [@](#): > > There is no “other set”. “They” start out the same?" There is no “they” it’s just the one set. Your continuing claim that my position is that there are two sets of laws because one day the law that I advocate might be changed is unfair and dishonest. Sorry that you think I’m being dishonest. I’m not. I’m describing precisely what I perceive when I read your descriptions of how you want the law to be written. > [@](#): > > Why not claim that I have five sets of laws? Because that’s not what your doing. You’re describing two laws, no more, and no less. This isn’t a matter of opinion or interpretation. This is cold, hard, objective truth. What you are describing is a system with two different sets of laws. I’m not sure why you’re unable to perceive this, because it’s patently obvious to, I think, just about any one who looks at it. Except yourself, of course. > [@](#): > > I would appreciate you acknowledging that THE IDEA THAT I ADVOCATE requires one set of laws. Once the law is changed to create two sets or five sets, it is no longer an idea I advocate. I really can’t believe you don’t understand this. Sorry, I can’t do that, because that’s not what it is. Your idea, as you describe it, before any third part has an opportunity to change it, is for two sets of laws. That’s a simple fact, and all your protests to the contrary won’t change that. ---
**Author:** ![manila](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@manila](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manila)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/122 "2011-05-01T09:30:48Z")
> [@Cort](#): > > It’s our duty to overturn bad traditions. As we have done under “evolving standards of decency” aspirations. ---
**Author:** ![Cort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/77aa72/32.png) [@Cort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cort)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/123 "2011-05-01T10:45:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > NO. No, no, no, no, no. Now, ANY law can be amended. ANY. You can write the law the way _you_ want and it could be amended in the future. That is not a problem with my law, that is a problem with ALL laws. As **Miller** notes, your frankly weird insistence that only straights be allowed to use the word marriage would perpetuate a societal and conceptual division between gays and straights. This would make exploitation of the gay minority much\* easier\* than it should be. We don’t really need to think too hard to knock up a list of places where that would be a vote winner. > [@manila](#): > > As we have done under “evolving standards of decency” aspirations. I’m sorry, I don’t follow. ---
**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:** [May 1, 2011, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/124 "2011-05-01T12:15:23Z")
> [@](#): > > You’re really disappointing me with this ridiculous line of “reasoning”. First, let’s get this out of the way: your intellectual acumen is not such that I give a shit about whether I disappoint you. If you need to say that in the same way that you need to pop a zit, go for it, but don’t expect me to applaud your intellectual pus. > [@magellan01](#): > > I told you that I was talking about the language. We have a perfectly good term that describes something. If we introduce a new thing, just give it a new term. Why in the world would we give the new thing the old term and try to come up with a new term for the old thing? That makes zero sense, regardless of one’s stance on SSM or anything else. We give things new terms if they are relevantly different from the old things.My laptop is profoundly different from the Vic-20 I had when I was 7, but because they share a lot of characteristics, we call them both “computer.” And same-sex marriage is identical to opposite-sex marriage in all relevant senses. Here are the important things about marriage: -Consenting currently unmarried adults enter into it. -It provides a family structure. -The adults entering into it love one another and expect to be with one another long-term, generally for the rest of their lives. -The adults entering into it expect to have a sexual relationship with one another. -The adults entering into it often, but not always, expect to raise children together. When I think about why my marriage is important to me, it’s because of my abiding love for my spouse, and because it provides a safe and healthy place for my child to grow up. The fact that we look pretty different with our clothes off is not the important thing about our marriage. So on the matter of common definitions, you’re wrong. But of course you’re equivocating there anyway, since the discussion was about legal status and not genearl meaning of words. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/125 "2011-05-01T12:53:32Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > We have different terms for “horse” and “unicorn” because we want to emphasize the difference; the horn. We say that the two animals have a difference that we, as English speakers, feel is worth noting. One has a horn and one doesn’t. Why do you feel that it’s important that we, as English speakers, emphasize the difference between a heterosexual couple that gets legally hitched and a homosexual couple that gets legally hitched? I would rephrase that to say that the difference between a horse and a unicorn are worth noting. The bond formed between a man and a woman and we call marriage, has been a cornerstone of our civilization. I think it also represents that ideal situation in which to raise children. Therefore, I think it behooves society to have a word reserved for representing that institution. The fact is that there is a difference between SS couples and OS couples. The latter is responsible for civilization as we know it. It seems ridiculous that we wouldn’t have a word to describe that special relationship. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/126 "2011-05-01T13:08:41Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > We always had rocks, then we got computers. What we didn’t do was say, “hey let’s call this new thing a rock and come up with a new term for that old stone thing.” > > You’re really disappointing me with this ridiculous line of “reasoning”. Bad example - we always had “computers” - they were humans that did calculations. Then we built machines that did calculations, and we called the new things by the old name, and started calling the humans something else (often “computer programmers” - a new term) ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/127 "2011-05-01T13:12:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It depends. Do you have an “Undo A Few Thousand Years of Tradition” button? We’re talking about gay marriage _in the US_, specifically. How old do you think this country _is_, anyway? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/128 "2011-05-01T13:12:49Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Sorry, I can’t do that, because that’s not what it is. Your idea, as you describe it, before any third part has an opportunity to change it, is for two sets of laws. That’s a simple fact, and all your protests to the contrary won’t change that. 1 billion percent wrong. Please stop repeating this, uh, blatant untruth. If you insist on perpetuating this falsehood, at least explain, based on what I’ve put forth, my one set of laws is actually two sets—before someone might come in and amend it. Now, **Miller** , I don’t deny that there are some advantages to your method. I grant, for instance, that the law, done your way, would be easier to craft and more difficult to disentangle. But those aren’t the only metrics at play. But your refusal to grant that I’m talking about one set of laws is now just rude. Yes, someone may come in later and change things so that there are two sets, or three, or five, but that is not MY idea. My idea that I advocate is having one set of laws tapped into by two groups. And while that idea may suffer from things like being easier to change (change from one set of laws to two sets of laws), that does not mean that what I advocate is two sets of laws. In fact, the fact that there would be a change from one set to two sets proves that we’d be starting with the one set. As things stand now we have two sets of laws. I do not think that is good. I do not think it is fair. It is not what I advocate. I can just ask you to reread my posts. But I will state again, what do I advocate? I advocate having one—1—set of laws. Just one. That’s what I want. If there is more than one set, that is not my idea and is not something I advocate. I don’t know how to be clearer than that. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/129 "2011-05-01T13:14:10Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > We’re talking about gay marriage _in the US_, specifically. How old do you think this country _is_, anyway? 6,000 years, give or take. Just like the rest of the world. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/130 "2011-05-01T13:23:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 6,000 years, give or take. Just like the rest of the world. Then why have other countries not had any problems with gay marriage? ---
**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, 2011, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/131 "2011-05-01T13:35:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But your refusal to grant that I’m talking about one set of laws is now just rude. Perhaps he’s simply as confused as I am about the continuing distinction between “marriage” and “civil union.” These terms will have to be defined somewhere, and if they truly represent distinct cases - at least to the extent that one group of citizens (homosexuals) is limited to the latter, while presumably the majority of citizens (heterosexuals) can choose either - it becomes possible, if not irresistible, to modify one case and not the other to serve a political agenda. As an example, I can picture a county clerk accepting that “marriages” and “civil unions” are both perfect legal and acceptable, but the latter requires more forms to fill out and such forms are to be rejected for trivial errors (all in the claimed interest of quality control), and these forms carry higher filing fees, and civil unions can only be filed on the first Tuesday of the month, and the computer system that registers civil unions is prone to frequent breakdowns and maintenance… there’s nothing in these actions that actually _outlaws_ a civil union, and justifications for all of them can be found and even accepted by a not-too-inquiring majority-straight public. It would take expensive legal action and/or the involvement of the ACLU or similar organizations to claim a fundamental unfairness, in a slow-grinding process that could take years and go through round after round of appeal. The clerk can claim there’s nothing anti-gay in his actions, he’s doing his best to process civil unions, but gosh-darn his conscientious attention to detail that is making the process slow. He’s just trying to be thorough! It’s not simply the ease of modifying laws that start out redundant but gradually diverge, but in selective application of those laws. > [@](#): > > I can just ask you to reread my posts. But I will state again, what do I advocate? I advocate having one—1—set of laws. Just one. That’s what I want. If there is more than one set, that is not my idea and is not something I advocate. I don’t know how to be clearer than that. Say that everyone can get married. That would be clearer. ---
**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:** [May 1, 2011, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/132 "2011-05-01T13:35:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The bond formed between a man and a woman and we call marriage, has been a cornerstone of our civilization. I think it also represents that ideal situation in which to raise children. Therefore, I think it behooves society to have a word reserved for representing that institution. The fact is that there is a difference between SS couples and OS couples. The latter is responsible for civilization as we know it. It seems ridiculous that we wouldn’t have a word to describe that special relationship. Marriage has been a cornerstone of our civilization, sure. The marriages that have been such a cornerstone have been overwhelmingly marriages formed before the age of twenty between a man and woman of the same race and have lasted until the death of one member of the union. Should we have a special word, then, for same-race marriages, or for first marriages? Or is it only the opposite-sex aspect of these civilizational cornerstones that’s relevant? You may think it represents the ideal situation in which to raise children. You may also think that opposite sex couples fart in two-part harmony for all it matters. Without evidence to back up your belief, it’s just a superstition. Indeed, there’s plenty of strong evidence that your particular superstition is wrong. ---
**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, 2011, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/133 "2011-05-01T13:39:11Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > Bad example - we always had “computers” - they were humans that did calculations. Then we built machines that did calculations, and we called the new things by the old name, and started calling the humans something else (often “computer programmers” - a new term) By the way, don’t break open an iPod looking for seeds. I learned that the hard way. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/134 "2011-05-01T13:56:41Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think quite the contrary. The singular difference becomes defining. Like the way a horse is different from a unicorn. But those two things do not have as their only difference a horn. For one thing, one is real and one is fictional. But the singular difference becoming defining\* is\* the problem i’m attempting to point to. That’s the only use people would have for the word “marriage” - to differentiate from civil partnerships. That’s the only value the word would have, because that’s the only unique point, that’s the only point on which you might define the term so as to make it clear what you’re defining. All the value, the worth, you ascribe to the term would be lost, because by providing another term with each and every meaning besides the name, you alter the necessary usage of the term. I mean, let me ask you this; could you define the value you see in the word “marriage” without reference to anything that would be present in your legal definition of a civil partnership? ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/135 "2011-05-01T13:59:20Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > By the way, don’t break open an iPod looking for seeds. I learned that the hard way. Careful - the joke police will report you. ---
**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, 2011, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/136 "2011-05-01T19:11:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > We always had rocks, then we got computers. What we didn’t do was say, “hey let’s call this new thing a rock and come up with a new term for that old stone thing.” Are you under the impression existing (hetero) marriages will no longer be called marriages, but something else? Do you have any precedent to support this, such as a change in terminology in a country that allows gay marriage? As far as I know, no such terminology change occurred in Canada nor is there any serious effort to bring about such a change. Straights who would have been “married” in 2004 still get “married” in 2011. ---
**Author:** ![Rucksinator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/898d66/32.png) [@Rucksinator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rucksinator)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/137 "2011-05-01T19:58:39Z")
**magellan** , lets say that your separate-but-equal proposed law gets passed, and later a gay couple decides to get unionized in their back yard by a friend of theirs who is a pastor. They send out marriage announcements and wedding invitations. They have a ceremony using a lot of the same verbiage as church weddings. Afterwards they tell people that they are married and refer to each other as their husband (or wife if they are females). How would you prevent them from calling themselves “married” when they are in fact only unionized? What could they be charged with? How could they be prevented from making these false claims? ---
**Author:** ![shy\_guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@shy\_guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shy_guy)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/138 "2011-05-01T20:07:22Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The clerk can claim there’s nothing anti-gay in his actions, he’s doing his best to process civil unions, but gosh-darn his conscientious attention to detail that is making the process slow. He’s just trying to be thorough! That’s more optimistic than where my mind went. I imagine we’d wind up with some version of the “My morals won’t allow me to sell you the morning after pill” business, along with states twisting themselves into legal pretzels to justify recognizing “marriages” performed in other states, but not “civil unions.” I would expect opponents of same-sex marriage to suddenly wrap themselves in “You can’t force me to act against my faith” and “States’ rights” arguments the minute this (cumbersome and odd) legislation was passed. I can also already see the opinions written by various state court judges once legislatures tried to cripple civil unions. “While Plaintiff claims that the purpose of the statute in question was to create an institution equal in all respects to marriage, the choice of the legislature to create a separate institution rather than simply broadening the class of couples eligible for marriage indicates that the institutions were never intended to be equal in any particular respect.” It’s true that the first type of problem is something that could happen even if we just allowed same-sex marriages, but creating a separate institution is inviting every opponent of same-sex marriage to chip away at “civil unions” until that institution is effectively meaningless, and then turning around and saying “What more do you want? We gave you civil unions. You’re clearly more hung up on the word than the benefits.” ---
**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, 2011, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/139 "2011-05-01T22:12:08Z")
Well, I just figured work-to-rule was a handy non-protest protest. I see other posters describing its use in states where gun-carry permits must legally be made available, but in practice the application process only occurs once a month, on a random Tuesday morning between 9:00 and 9:15, and only the official form for that month is acceptable, and the office only prints 20 forms at a time, and a form can be rejected for being filled out with the wrong colour ink or if a signature touches the margins, or if a hand-written “A” looks like an “H”… It’s ridiculously easy to throw up barriers in the processing of “civil unions”, but if a clerk is rejecting marriage license applications exclusively for gay couples, it’s much harder to feign innocence, and much easier (though never easy) to file and win a civil-rights lawsuit. So, magellan, is this a valid concern? If “marriage” and “civil union” are defined separately and homosexuals can only access the latter, what keeps local officials from simply making the latter a much more cumbersome and expensive process? ---
**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, 2011, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/140 "2011-05-01T22:45:52Z")
As an afterthought, I can picture a nonviolent protest taking the form of gay couples deliberately going to the marriage license counter while sympathetic straight couples go to the civil union counter. Y’know… freedom briders. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931.md?page=8)