# 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:** 9
**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 2, 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/579931/161 "2011-05-02T20:07:34Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > A > Let me bring that back to your attention. There is already a term in the English language for a marriage-like union contracted outside the bounds of religion, and that term is _civil marriage_. When Artie and Annie Agnostic decide to tie the knot, they go to the Justice of the Peace or the Mayor and have a civil wedding. However I got married in a place that kind of seemed like a church hall, by a guy who kind of seemed like a minister, except that it was the Ethical Culture Society, and nothing involved in it had anything to do with religion. It was not civil in the Justice of the Peace sense, but it was definitely a marriage. In Pennsylvania, by the way, thanks to Quaker law, you can marry yourselves with just a witness. I agree that marriage is bio-cultural, but the state has delegated the right of performing marriages to various groups of people, So, there is no real distinction between being married by a priest or a JoP or a bellhop. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2011, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/162 "2011-05-02T20:11:04Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I’m sure that plenty of people on these boards would say they’ve explained how gay marriage is the best way to go more times than that. If simply _explaining_ something was a guarantee that people would agree with you, these threads would be pretty short. I’m not complaining about that at all. Whether something is the _best_ way to do something is subjective. THAT is what is debatable. Telling someone what the idea is that they’re putting on the table is not. It’s as if I say I think it would be wise if we passed a law stating everyone over 75 had to take a driving test every year. And you say, “That’s dumb, why should we make every single driver take a driving test every year.” You’d be changing what my idea actually is. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > That it is a defining condition of your idea no more means that people are more likely to accept it - nor does it mean that to disagree with the idea or the particular form you’ve put it into means that someone can’t look past their personal biases. Of course it does. They have to evaluate\* the actual idea I present\*. Not some _other_ idea _that I don’t advocate_. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Pointing out that **Polycarp** agrees with you does not mean that he does so because he is able to look past his biases in doing so, nor that **Miller** isn’t. All it means is that he’s someone not on your side who accepts that particular point of your argument. That’s reading\* way\* too much into something. No it’s not. He’s doing the normal thing any fair person would do. This is Debate 001. Hell, it’s Life 000.5: \*You: Hey, magellan01. I have an idea about how fix the tax code. Can you tell me what you think? Me: Sure. What is your idea?\* And then I would evaluate what YOU propose. Right? Not some idea that 1) you did not put forth and 2) have stated that you do _not_ advocate. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > That you (or anyone) knows their own ideas better than anyone else is silliness. You can’t measure a tool using a tool (I should point out I don’t mean that as an insult). You’re using your own ideas to measure how accurate and effective your own ideas are; it’s circular reasoning. Put another way, and again by no means an insult; how many idiots do you know that know they’re idiots? I don’t consider myself to be an idiot, but how can I trust my own judgement on that matter when that doesn’t seem to work for so many other people? That you might know what your ideas are better than anyone else is silliness? This has got to be a woosh. Or a late April Fool’s joke. I’m not complaining about not agreeing to the wisdom or “effectiveness” of my ideas. Just to their _definition_. it goes to the “What is your idea?”. You state YOUR idea then people can evaluate IT. I feel like I’m in Bizarro Debate World, where you get to state what my ideas are before you evaluate them. Never mind that I don’t advocate what you came up with. ---
**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 2, 2011, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/163 "2011-05-02T20:12:52Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Because this has been explained more than 27 times. And we’re not talking about a conclusion, we’re talking about a defining condition of my idea. My idea is to have one set of laws. And it’s been explained why your wrong 27 times, and yet here we are. The fact that we can’t reach any sort of consensus on this issue does not mean that one of us is lying. > [@](#): > > If there isn’e one set of laws, that’s not what I advocate. Polycarp, who is pro SSM is able to grant me that teensy-weensy favor: that I be able to say what my idea is or isn’t. I’m not talking about anyone accepting that it is a good idea, just that I think I know what my own ideas are better than anyone else. maybe I’m funny that way. Except that, evidently, you don’t understand your own ideas. I’m not saying this to be a dick - again, I’m not trying to antagonize you here, but on this issue, you genuinely don’t seem to understand what you’re saying. You keep describing a solution that’s clearly a two-law system, then labeling it a one law system. It’s certainly possible that I’m suffering some total lack of comprehension when you describe your idea, but I don’t think that’s what happening. Every time you clarify your position, it jibes perfectly with my previous understanding of what you said… until you get to the part where two mysteriously transmutes into one, and I’m left scratching my head, because up to that point, the system you’re describing is clearly not a one law system. ---
**Author:** ![filling\_pages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9bd4f/32.png) [@filling\_pages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filling_pages)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2011, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/164 "2011-05-02T20:16:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Because this has been explained more than 27 times. And we’re not talking about a conclusion, we’re talking about a defining condition of my idea. My idea is to have one set of laws. If there isn’e one set of laws, that’s not what I advocate. Yes, you are advocating one set of laws. **One set of two laws.** Do you really not understand that? You just said it yourself: not “my idea is to have one law” but “my idea is to have one set of laws”. ---
**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 2, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/165 "2011-05-02T20:17:37Z")
Let’s try it this way: **Miller** , you believe that a system that calls a set of rights by two different names, depending on whom those rights apply to, is by definition a two-law system, right? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/166 "2011-05-02T20:17:59Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Look at the rest of my post, would you, instead of using it as a rhetorichal gotcha on **Miller**! Even if the hypothetical new law gathered together every right and privilege accorded married couples – and it won’t; anyone with experience in codification knows there are always items missed, there are two obstacles to overcome: (1) Many such rights and privileges are in Federal law, and (DOMA being disregarded for the nonce) depend on the Federal government accepting the state’s definition of ‘marriage’. How do you propose, as a state government, to compel the Feds. to grant your civil unions the same perquisites as your marriages? This is not a nitpick but a serious flaw in the two-institutions concept. (2) Even if you grant the two institutions identical rights and privileges in one set of laws, there is absolutely nothing protecting couples from a later legislature amending your laws to provide that only ‘real’ marriages qualify for some things (e.g., child care benefits, surviving spouse provisions) – because you have set them up as two distinct institutions sharing what is initially a single set of laws. **That’s** the problem with your concept that you need to address. We’re not pissing in your cornflakes because we don’t like you or something; we see a flaw in your basic idea (over and above the ‘second-class citizen’ attitude implicit in civil unions). > > In fact, let’s try a thought experriment. It’s 1965, the civil rights movement is in full swing. Several Southern states have anti-miscegenation statutes in place. Interracial couples nonetheless want to marry. You, a Southerner with an understanding of what constitutes traditional marriage to them and a desire to craft a compromise that will satisfy both sides, propose that a man and a woman of the same race may be joined in marriage, as always, while a man and a woman of differing races may enter into an “interracial union” that is not called a marriage but is specifically defined in statute as having all the rights and privileges of marriage except the name. Is this an acceptqable solution? Why or why not? What’s likely to happen? Do you or do you not understand and accept that the idea that I have been putting forth would use one set of laws? Yes or no? That was the only point I was making. Quoting what you wrote. I know you think the idea is a bad one for myriad reason, but I thought I understood what you wrote in that one sentence. ---
**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 2, 2011, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/167 "2011-05-02T20:20:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > People are going to do whatever they’d like. some people on these boards think themselves smart, that doesn’t make it true. I’m talking about what it is called by the government. That the government should acknowledge that there is a distinction—that hetero marriage is a special institution. That it comports with both procreation and the history of Western civilization. Through most of the history of Western civilization, stretching to the present, marriage was between one man and possibly several women. When Christian civilization did away with this, do you think they should have renamed ,marriage? While I appreciate your desire to have equal civil unions, which is way beyond where most on the social right have gone, I think you realize that marriage goes beyond this. In civil union states, heterosexual couples qualify also, and not all who get married despite having a recognized civil union do so for religious reasons. Perhaps we care about marriage because of cultural brainwashing, but we still do. (At least some of us, and I include myself in that category.) Given that we both love the concept of marriage, why not show that love by making it available as widely as we can? How will it hurt? Clearly white people loved the concept of being free men in 1865. Did broadening this concept to include all black people diminish the joys of freedom for them in any way? Except that is, for bigots who felt diminished because of the enhanced rights of others. But I don’t think anyone today would claim they have a valid point, do you? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2011, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/168 "2011-05-02T20:20:35Z")
> [@filling\_pages](#): > > Yes, you are advocating one set of laws. **One set of two laws.** Do you really not understand that? You just said it yourself: not “my idea is to have one law” but “my idea is to have one set of laws”. :rolleyes: Because there would be laws having to do with say, taxes, inheritance, end of life decisions, etc. There would NOT be 2 laws making the same point about end of life decisions, for example. Is that really not obvious? Sheeze. ---
**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 2, 2011, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/169 "2011-05-02T20:21:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m not complaining about that at all. Whether something is the _best_ way to do something is subjective. THAT is what is debatable. Telling someone what the idea is that they’re putting on the table is not. It’s as if I say I think it would be wise if we passed a law stating everyone over 75 had to take a driving test every year. And you say, “That’s dumb, why should we make every single driver take a driving test every year.” You’d be changing what my idea actually is. Here’s the situation as I see it: You: “We should have a law where people over 75 have to take the driver’s license test every year. The way the law would work is, every year on January 1st, the DMV would send letters to everyone who has a driver’s license, telling them what date they have to come in to take their driver’s license test.” I: “That seems silly. Why would you want everyone to retake their driver’s test every year?” You: “I don’t! Only people over 75 have to take their test every year!” I: “But you said you want the DMV to send letters to everyone.” You: "Right! The DMV sends letters to everyone telling them to retake the test every year, and that’s how only people over 75 have to retake the test. I: 😕 > [@](#): > > Of course it does. They have to evaluate\* the actual idea I present\*. Not some _other_ idea _that I don’t advocate_. I _am_! And when I evaluate it, I see that it doesn’t actually do what you say it does. ---
**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 2, 2011, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/170 "2011-05-02T20:23:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Do you or do you not understand and accept that the idea that I have been putting forth would use one set of laws? Yes or no? Everyone understands that you say that–and also that you say it would use two different labels for the rights under this set of laws. Most folks seem to think that the labels are **themselves** part of the law, and that if you have two different labels, that by itself is sufficient to constitute a difference between the set of laws. Do you or do you not understand and accept that? ---
**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 2, 2011, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/171 "2011-05-02T20:23:31Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Let’s try it this way: **Miller** , you believe that a system that calls a set of rights by two different names, depending on whom those rights apply to, is by definition a two-law system, right? Yes, that’s correct. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/172 "2011-05-02T20:25:09Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Through most of the history of Western civilization, stretching to the present, marriage was between one man and possibly several women. When Christian civilization did away with this, do you think they should have renamed ,marriage? > > While I appreciate your desire to have equal civil unions, which is way beyond where most on the social right have gone, I think you realize that marriage goes beyond this. In civil union states, heterosexual couples qualify also, and not all who get married despite having a recognized civil union do so for religious reasons. Perhaps we care about marriage because of cultural brainwashing, but we still do. (At least some of us, and I include myself in that category.) Given that we both love the concept of marriage, why not show that love by making it available as widely as we can? How will it hurt? > Clearly white people loved the concept of being free men in 1865. Did broadening this concept to include all black people diminish the joys of freedom for them in any way? Except that is, for bigots who felt diminished because of the enhanced rights of others. But I don’t think anyone today would claim they have a valid point, do you? As you may recall, I went in to depth about how SSM is not like marriage between different races. As I did with the “how will it hurt”. I’ve neither the time or inclination to get into a 20-page debate about the merits right now. For the purposes of THIS discussion, it doesn’t matter if my idea is a good one or a bad one. I’m just arguing that I be allowed to state what my position is. Doesn’t seem to be asking a too much. ---
**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 2, 2011, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/173 "2011-05-02T20:31:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m not complaining about that at all. Whether something is the _best_ way to do something is subjective. THAT is what is debatable. Telling someone what the idea is that they’re putting on the table is not. It’s as if I say I think it would be wise if we passed a law stating everyone over 75 had to take a driving test every year. And you say, “That’s dumb, why should we make every single driver take a driving test every year.” You’d be changing what my idea actually is. That’s correct. But if you say you think it would be wise if we passed a law stating everyone had to take a driving test every year, and I say that’s dumb, and ask why everyone should have to take that test, and you respond that that’s not what you mean, “Everyone should take a driving test” means “Everyone over 75 should take a driving test”, then \*you \*are a wrong about your idea. Obviously that’s a foolish situation. But in a situation where the stated point is less obvious, it’s a perfectly possible situation. It is possible to misunderstand the very point you’re making. > [@](#): > > Of course it does. They have to evaluate\* the actual idea I present\*. Not some _other_ idea _that I don’t advocate_. But this presumes you’re correctly advocating the idea you think you’re advocating. > [@](#): > > No it’s not. He’s doing the normal thing any fair person would do. This is Debate 001. Hell, it’s Life 000.5: > > \*You: Hey, magellan01. I have an idea about how fix the tax code. Can you tell me what you think? > > Me: Sure. What is your idea?\* > > And then I would evaluate what YOU propose. Right? Not some idea that 1) you did not put forth and 2) have stated that you do _not_ advocate. Only if my idea was actually what I stated it to be. If I come up to you with a big handful of red balloons, and declare my method for fixing the tax code is to give everyone one of the shiny blue balloons i’ve got here, you would be entirely correct to evaluate my inaccurate idea. Because, mistakenly, i’m advocating giving everyone red balloons. > [@](#): > > That you might know what your ideas are better than anyone else is silliness? This has got to be a woosh. Or a late April Fool’s joke. I’m not complaining about not agreeing to the wisdom or “effectiveness” of my ideas. Just to their _definition_. it goes to the “What is your idea?”. You state YOUR idea then people can evaluate IT. It’s silliness. You can’t measure a tool by using the tool. If your idea-evaluation process is flawed, then you cannot use your idea-evaluation process to evaluate your idea. I’m not talking about how wise or effective an idea is either; i’m talking about the basic nature of the idea itself, which, if flawed, cannot be judged or categorised or understood by the owner of the idea because the flaw in the idea betrays a flaw in judgement. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2011, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/174 "2011-05-02T20:38:41Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Here’s the situation as I see it: > > You: “We should have a law where people over 75 have to take the driver’s license test every year. The way the law would work is, every year on January 1st, the DMV would send letters to everyone who has a driver’s license, telling them what date they have to come in to take their driver’s license test.” > > I: “That seems silly. Why would you want everyone to retake their driver’s test every year?” > > You: “I don’t! Only people over 75 have to take their test every year!” > > I: “But you said you want the DMV to send letters to everyone.” > > You: "Right! The DMV sends letters to everyone telling them to retake the test every year, and that’s how only people over 75 have to retake the test. > > I: 😕 But in this example you’re putting words into my mouth. I understand you did it for illustrative purposes, but YOU are putting things into my idea that I didn’t have there. You added something. One thing you did not do was to say, “Oh why do you want to test people 28 years old?” And that IS what you’re doing by insisting that my idea—which uses one set of laws—uses two. :mad: What the fuck kind of debating tactic is that? > [@Miller](#): > > I _am_! And when I evaluate it, I see that it doesn’t actually do what you say it does. I don’t care where you come out after you _evaluate_ the idea. I’m sure we’ll disagree on that. But, sheeze, you should be evaluating what my idea actually IS. You keep telling me what my own idea is. Good or bad, I pretty fucking sure I know what it is better than you. Positive, in fact. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2011, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/175 "2011-05-02T20:51:09Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > That’s correct. But if you say you think it would be wise if we passed a law stating everyone had to take a driving test every year, and I say that’s dumb, and ask why everyone should have to take that test, and you respond that that’s not what you mean, “Everyone should take a driving test” means “Everyone over 75 should take a driving test”, then \*you \*are a wrong about your idea. This is not relevant. It is not what happened. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Obviously that’s a foolish situation. But in a situation where the stated point is less obvious, it’s a perfectly possible situation. It is possible to misunderstand the very point you’re making. > > But this presumes you’re correctly advocating the idea you think you’re advocating. What the hell is that supposed to mean? I mean, I’ve certainly explained it enough to erase any confusion that might have legitimately arisen from a badly worded post. So, again: not relevant. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > If your idea-evaluation process is flawed, then you cannot use your idea-evaluation process to evaluate your idea. For the final time, I’m not talking about the evaluation process. I’m talking about accepting what someone’s idea is before you evaluate it. “I have an idea to increase the IQ of posters. They should always type wearing a hat, because it improves blood flow to the brain.” The part of that you _must_ accept is that _my idea_ is that posters can increase their IQs by wearing hats while they post. ---
**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 2, 2011, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/176 "2011-05-02T21:01:21Z")
> [@](#): > > That you might know what your ideas are better than anyone else is silliness? Whatever else is going on in this debate, this is simply incorrect. It is more frequent than not that people do not grasp the implications, effects, and even the nature of their own ideas. That’s basically what’s going on here. You insist that you are creating a single system of laws, and everybody else is saying “You do realize by proposing X, you’re actually creating Y.” Simply claiming that this isn’t true because you’re proposing X and not Y isn’t answering the criticism. ---
**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 2, 2011, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/177 "2011-05-02T21:07:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This is not relevant. It is not what happened. But from my reading, that is what happened. I’m not asking to accept my word for what your idea is over yours; that’d be even sillier. I’m simply asking you to accept that it is possible for a person to misunderstand even their own idea. > [@](#): > > What the hell is that supposed to mean? I mean, I’ve certainly explained it enough to erase any confusion that might have legitimately arisen from a badly worded post. So, again: not relevant. Is your implication by using the word “legitimate” there that my confusion arises illegitimately from a badly worded post? Simply put - people can misunderstand their own ideas. That’s it, really. > [@](#): > > For the final time, I’m not talking about the evaluation process. I’m talking about accepting what someone’s idea is before you evaluate it. “I have an idea to increase the IQ of posters. They should always type wearing a hat, because it improves blood flow to the brain.” The part of that you _must_ accept is that _my idea_ is that posters can increase their IQs by wearing hats while they post. No, I don’t. I’m not talking about evaluation in terms of accepting the idea, and then evaluating what that idea might mean, what the results are, and so on. I’m talking about the basic knowledge of what that idea is. The basic evaluation that allows you to look at something and see what it is; the evaluation that enables you to identify an idea. I’m sure most of us are sick of faux-conversations to make the point, but here’s how I see it; “I have an idea, this is the idea, and the results of it are X.” “I disagree that the results are X - but I also disagree that your idea is actually as you’ve described it.” “I disagree with your disagreement about X, but you can’t argue at all that my idea is not my idea. That’s not even in question.” My point essentially is that it _is_ in question. That you can misunderstand your own idea. ---
**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 2, 2011, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/178 "2011-05-02T21:10:06Z")
I was really hoping \*\*Puddleglum \*\*would return and tell me why my marriage to my wife shouldn’t have been legal. ---
**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 2, 2011, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/179 "2011-05-02T23:11:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > For the final time, I’m not talking about the evaluation process. I’m talking about accepting what someone’s idea is before you evaluate it. “I have an idea to increase the IQ of posters. They should always type wearing a hat, because it improves blood flow to the brain.” The part of that you _must_ accept is that _my idea_ is that posters can increase their IQs by wearing hats while they post. So I’m thinking he has me on ignore, but whatever. Listen: “I have an idea to improve the IQ of posters. Everyone should do exactly the same thing: they should wear hats. Gay posters should wear purple hats, and straight posters should wear gray hats. It’s exactly the same thing, I only have one proposal, that everyone wears hats. There’s no way to legitimately be confused about my proposal. Argue it’s a bad one, but everyone would wear hats under it, at least accept that it’s my idea that everyone is treated exactly the same under it.” Actually, they’re not. If they were, you wouldn’t be bothering to specify a distinction between the two groups. ---
**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 3, 2011, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/180 "2011-05-03T00:35:57Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > As you may recall, I went in to depth about how SSM is not like marriage between different races. As I did with the “how will it hurt”. I’ve neither the time or inclination to get into a 20-page debate about the merits right now. For the purposes of THIS discussion, it doesn’t matter if my idea is a good one or a bad one. I’m just arguing that I be allowed to state what my position is. > > Doesn’t seem to be asking a too much. Nothing I said has anything to do with marriage between different races. If you’ll try reading it again, my point was that giving voting rights and freedom to blacks after the war in no way diminished the rights of whites, just as giving marriage rights to gays in no way diminishes marriage rights for straights. In fact, giving voting rights to a new group dilutes the effect of the vote of someone who already had the right, while extending marriage rights in no way dilutes anything. And, just to be clear, I am not saying you are against any rights. Of course you can state your position, but the devalues marriage argument is made often, and I’ve never seen any reason for it beyond that it makes people uncomfortable. [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=8) [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=10)