# Five Down, Forty-Five To Go **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 6, 2009, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563 "2009-05-06T17:53:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/81 "2009-05-09T22:24:15Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Then you’ll of course excuse me for not humoring people I feel to be bigots. Naturally. And you’re free to alter the meaning of the word bigot to mean whatever you’d like it to. Oh boy! > [@Cisco](#): > > I have no idea what thread you’re talking about. Ah, complete agreement. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/82 "2009-05-09T22:31:16Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Well, I guess the question would be if marriage and civil unions were written so as to deliver couples the same set of rights, then why distinguish? It would be more parsimonious to just combine the two under one term, and I don’t see what advantage there is to distinguish civil unions from marriages if the two are functionally identical. It’s win-win. SS couples get all the rights and privileges, and the meaning of the word “marriage” is not tampered with. Additionally, aside from the practical benefits of the rights being extended, there’s the lack of the religious (which I am not) getting a thumb jabbed in their eye when it’s not necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/83 "2009-05-09T22:39:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Naturally. And you’re free to alter the meaning of the word bigot to mean whatever you’d like it to. Oh boy! Opposing SSM is treating same-sex couples with intolerance. It’s saying _you can’t have what I have because you weren’t born like me._ That is the very definition of bigotry. > [@magellan01](#): > > Ah, complete agreement. Ok, then let me rephrase myself: What are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/84 "2009-05-09T22:48:05Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Opposing SSM is treating same-sex couples with intolerance. It’s saying _you can’t have what I have because you weren’t born like me._ That is the very definition of bigotry. > [@Cisco](#): > > I want to play against Yao Ming in the NBA. I want you to extend affirmative action benefits to me, though I do not qualify based on the criteria. If you don’t allow these things, you’re a bigot!!! And I am not treating them with intolerance, genius. I advocate them enjoying all the rights and privileges that married couples enjoy. But you know that from the other thread, don’t you? > [@Cisco](#): > > Ok, then let me rephrase myself: What are you talking about? I’m going to let you figure this out on your own. Just track back through our discussion here. Shouldn’t be too difficult. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/85 "2009-05-09T22:49:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It’s win-win. SS couples get all the rights and privileges. All the rights and privileges except being recognized as married, that is. Why do you insist on denying that to them? It is not, as has been explained to you repeatedly, win-win. SS couples, under your proposal, would be locked into a second-class status. You can only defend your proposal by either denying, dismissing, or ignoring something that bleeding obvious. At some point, yes, your motivations do have to come into question. You are defending your own right to indulge in hatred (and a simultaneous right to deny that that’s what it is), over others’ right to equal protection and simple human decency. > [@](#): > > Additionally, aside from the practical benefits of the rights being extended, there’s the lack of the religious (which I am not) getting a thumb jabbed in their eye when it’s not necessary. Where the fucking hell do you get the idea that the legal rights under discussion entail \*anything \*religious _whatsoever_? And, _again_:dubious: what is this “Trojan Horse” stuff you were trying to peddle earlier? ---
**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 9, 2009, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/86 "2009-05-09T23:07:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I came across an essay by a libertarian that does a good job of explaining some of the concerns of the opponents of SSM. I thought it was very good. [You can judge for yourself here.](http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html) When someone trots out an obvious absurdity (“people who don’t see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it” – as if one cannot be an abolitionist unless one sees a good reason to enslave people), I’m not inclined to bother any further with them. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/87 "2009-05-09T23:10:29Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And, _again_:dubious: what is this “Trojan Horse” stuff you were trying to peddle earlier? He’s under the mistaken impression that all the talk of rights isn’t really what the marriage equality movement is about, but rather that we’re all grasping with our semen-covered hands for the societal imprimatur that the word “marriage” implies or confers or whichever way around it happens. ---
**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 9, 2009, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/88 "2009-05-09T23:13:11Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > :rolleyes:You’ll have to excuse me for acknowledging that we each feel very strongly about this issue and that we both think we are correct. Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism – Teach The Controversy. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/89 "2009-05-09T23:14:15Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > When someone trots out an obvious absurdity (“people who don’t see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it”), I’m not inclined to bother any further with them. That actually made some sense to me in a way. The author was just saying, use caution before destroying something if you don’t understand it. I agree with that. I don’t like mosquitos, but I would think _real_ hard about wiping them all off the face of the planet with a stroke of my pen, if I had the power. What the author failed to do was explain how the legalization of SSM would hurt (much less “destroy”) marriage. Sounds to me like the only _possible_ outcome is more net marriages. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/90 "2009-05-09T23:22:43Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > That actually made some sense to me in a way. The author was just saying, use caution before destroying something if you don’t understand it. I agree with that. I don’t like mosquitos, but I would think _real_ hard about wiping them all off the face of the planet with a stroke of my pen, if I had the power. What the author failed to do was explain how the legalization of SSM would hurt (much less “destroy”) marriage. Sounds to me like the only _possible_ outcome is more net marriages. You make a good point–another, similar criticism of Magellan’s argument is that many same-sex couples do see the social and legal value of marriage (the “use” of the institution, according to the article)– **that’s exactly why they want to be married.** Because marriage brings with it the automatic grant of a bunch of legal rights, which they are entitled to, and is a social and cultural shorthand for a certain form of committed, loving, long-term family relationship- and many of the same-sex couples I know who want marriage are in exactly that kind of relationship, want to do what married couples do-raise families, live together, be happy. So in short–same sex couples aren’t ignoring what marriage means-they’re embracing marriage, which is why they want to get married. (marriage as it exists today, that is–a close, loving, family relationship–something that is factually detached from its original purpose of religious endorsement of a sexual relationship). ---
**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 9, 2009, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/91 "2009-05-09T23:33:52Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > So in short–same sex couples aren’t ignoring what marriage means-they’re embracing marriage, which is why they want to get married. (marriage as it exists today, that is–a close, loving, family relationship–something that is factually detached from its original purpose of religious endorsement of a sexual relationship). Well, actually, they can do that already. The point is to get access to the various legal advantages hetero couples casually get and which no good reason to block homosexual couples exists that I’m aware of. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/92 "2009-05-09T23:34:02Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > All the rights and privileges except being recognized as married, that is. Why do you insist on denying that to them? As had been asked of you, I think, by mswas in that other thread, no such right exists. I’ll ask you to respond in the other thread (and I will join you) as to not amplify what is turning into a hijack. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It is not, as has been explained to you repeatedly, win-win. SS couples, under your proposal, would be locked into a second-class status. If you believe this, you believe that there is something about SS relationships that is inferior. I don’t believe that. I believe that once established, that CUs will prove to be as every bit as wonderful (and as fucked up) as hetero relationships. Maybe you know more than I about this. Maybe you’re of the belief that the relationships will, in general, be awful. Or laughable. Or whatever. and you want to make sure they get some good cover via the time honored and respected institution. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You can only defend your proposal by either denying, dismissing, or ignoring something that bleeding obvious. At some point, yes, your motivations do have to come into question. You are defending your own right to indulge in hatred (and a simultaneous right to deny that that’s what it is), over others’ right to equal protection and simple human decency. You can question my motivations all you want. But when my I share that, for instance, I am for extending all the rights and privileges to gays, and you are faced with the fact that your preconceptions and stereotypes don’t mesh reality—me, one would think you’d have the honesty and decency to not apply labels that don’t apply. Of course, you’re free to continue to do so. But that’s testament to your own thought process, not mine. I think it’s great you don’t realize that, as it displays just how much rigor you’ve applied to your thinking. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Where the fucking hell do you get the idea that the legal rights under discussion entail \*anything \*religious _whatsoever_? Oh, I guess you’re unaware that for a large segment of the population the objection to SSM is largely a religious one. My mistake. And here I’ve been surprised that you were unable to appreciate the nuances of the debate. Whoa. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And, _again_:dubious: what is this “Trojan Horse” stuff you were trying to peddle earlier? Their has been a cry for equal rights for gays. But when faced with largely having those rights (in CA, for instance), and with an argument for granting and ensuring that ALL the rights are extended, and that be the end of it. That’s no longer good enough. Now, it MUST be marriage. They must have use of the word, regardless of sense or tradition. it’s all this is what I want—me, me, me, me, me. Fuck society’s wishes. And fuck common sense. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/93 "2009-05-09T23:37:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > As had been asked of you, I think, by mswas in that other thread, no such right exists. I’ll ask you to respond in the other thread (and I will join you) as to not amplify what is turning into a hijack. Or, in other words, separate IS TOO equal. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/94 "2009-05-09T23:40:03Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > When someone trots out an obvious absurdity (“people who don’t see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it” – as if one cannot be an abolitionist unless one sees a good reason to enslave people), I’m not inclined to bother any further with them. Wow. I find it amazing that object to that. It couldn’t be more sensible. You’re arguing for acting without a full appreciation of the facts. I hope you’re not an engineer. And her point was not that one would have to characterize the reason for X as being good, only that one understand what the reason for it’s existence is. As for you slavery example, only after looking at the reasons why and how slavery came to be in the U.S., can one fully appreciate how horrible it was and how weak it’s continued justification. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/95 "2009-05-09T23:43:01Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > Or, in other words, separate IS TOO equal. And this is why I stopped responding to you earlier. I’ve explained numerous times in that thread in which you participated how this has nothing to do with what I advocate, as I advocate ONE set of laws. Either you have a hard time reading or your idea of a debate is “IS TOO”. Either way I’ll terminate our discussion with something you might be able to comprehend: IS NOT!!! :rolleyes: ---
**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 9, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/96 "2009-05-09T23:52:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Their has been a cry for equal rights for gays. But when faced with largely having those rights (in CA, for instance), and with an argument for granting and ensuring that ALL the rights are extended, and that be the end of it. That’s no longer good enough. Now, it MUST be marriage. They must have use of the word, regardless of sense or tradition. it’s all this is what I want—me, me, me, me, me. Fuck society’s wishes. And fuck common sense. Well, first you’re going to have to establish how common sense is being fucked at _all_, and in Constitutional arguments, as I understand them, the key issue is most definitely _not_ “society’s wishes” in the sense that the issue should be decided by a simple majority vote. In any case, if they have a legal equivalent of marriage (and there are numerous valid arguments that “Civil Unions” are _not_), why not just call it a marriage? You’re free to call it whatever you want, assuming you’re not a government employee. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/97 "2009-05-09T23:56:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > As had been asked of you, I think, by mswas in that other thread, no such right exists. Justices Earl Warren, Hugo Black, William Douglas, Tom Clark, John Harlan, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, and Abe Fortas beg to disagree. > [@magellan01](#): > > If you believe this, you believe that there is something about SS relationships that is inferior. By reserving the term ‘marriage’ for straight couples, you inescapably imply that gay couples don’t deserve it. > [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t believe that. Right. :rolleyes: > [@magellan01](#): > > Oh, I guess you’re unaware that for a large segment of the population the objection to SSM is largely a religious one. My mistake. And here I’ve been surprised that you were unable to appreciate the nuances of the debate. Whoa. People arguing against equal marriage rights consistently claim that their religious freedoms are infringed upon, which claim is ridiculous. Churches can marry or refuse to marry anyone they like; this is not affected by the law at all. > [@magellan01](#): > > Their has been a cry for equal rights for gays. But when faced with largely having those rights (in CA, for instance), and with an argument for granting and ensuring that ALL the rights are extended, and that be the end of it. That’s no longer good enough. Now, it MUST be marriage. They must have use of the word, regardless of sense or tradition. it’s all this is what I want—me, me, me, me, me. Yes, curse those people demanding equal rights and equal treatment. > [@magellan01](#): > > Fuck society’s wishes. When society’s wishes are wrong – though in this area, they are steadily becoming less so – , yes. > [@magellan01](#): > > And fuck common sense. You seem to be confusing ‘common sense’ with ‘my prejudices’. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/98 "2009-05-10T00:02:53Z")
For the 3rd time, magellan, what the _fuck_ other thread are you talking about? It’s customary to provide a link. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/99 "2009-05-10T00:17:38Z")
**magellan01** , **Cisco** , and **ElvisL1ves** , we have now seen the last personal insult in this thread before it is closed and Warnings handed out. **Captain Carrot** , **Bryan Ekers** , and others can all stop toeing the fight line, as well. Knock it off, all of you. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563/100 "2009-05-10T00:20:52Z")
Can you point out where I insulted anyone? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-down-forty-five-to-go/495563.md?page=6)