# Fuck You, Prop 8 Supporters! Also: Fuck You, Dishonest News Media **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 6, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433 "2010-08-06T18:15:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/401 "2010-08-24T20:17:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > We still refer to the people with the tits as women and people with the dicks as men. Yet, amazingly, they both enjoy identical rights and privileges under the law. A pretty recent development, and not yet entirely complete in practice, either. Hell, there are women alive today who remember not being allowed to _vote_, and many more who remember not having equal legal rights in many other regards, and many more than that who still have battles to fight today. > [@](#): > > Similarly, we could have marriages and civil unions (or whatever else) and have them both tap into the same SINGLE set of rights and privileges. And then the obvious thing would be to call that single thing by a single name, which experience elsewhere has shown will happen and without civilization collapsing. It’s sad that you can’t recognize that, but your view is inevitably disappearing into the place it belongs as human society continues to advance despite it. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/402 "2010-08-24T20:18:28Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@BrightNShiny](#): > > > > This is the kind of stupid shit he does that I’m talking about. It hasn’t always been man+woman. Sometimes, it’s been woman+man+man+man… and sometimes it’s been man+woman+woman+woman… > > man, you think you’re really smart, but you’re one dumb bitch. I didn’t say “one man + one woman”. No, I said—more than once— “man + woman”. Go ahead, scroll up and see for yourself. It’s as if you think that polygamous marriages are some near-secret only scholars of the institution are aware of. Like I said, you fashion yourself as being quite smart, but not being able to grasp very basic logic puts you more into the set of “dumb bitches”. Uh, no, you’re the stupid bitch. What do you think happened in a Tibetan polyandrous marriage if the woman died? Do you think it dissolved and everyone split the property and went their separate ways? It was still treated as a communal unit, so you could have a marriage unit with only men in it. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/403 "2010-08-24T20:19:04Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > It’s Community Property in California by Grace Ganz Blumberg. It’s a legal textbook, so it might be difficult for a non-lawyer to read. Much obliged. ---
**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:** [August 24, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/404 "2010-08-24T20:37:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > > > Could you define “collective” common sense? Do you mean a majority? > > I guess it takes into account the majority, but it’s more “majorities”, over the ages. It is my belief that homosexuality has been around for at least those 10,000 years. And during that time their were countless societies and civilizations that figured out how to deal with it. Some thought it evil (and still do) and kill homosexuals. Other societies have been much more accommodating for this other expression of human sexuality. But, even those in which homosexuality was taken as a part of humanity, it was never given equal status to heterosexual marriage-like relationships. So, even when we take Christianity out of it, and look to times when societies were most accepting of it, they gave heterosexual relationships special status. Given the thousands and thousands of little experiments over the ages, it seems logical to conclude that either it was tried and quickly abandoned, or as a society neared equating the two, the y prevented it from happening. One other possibility i see is that there were, indeed, small societies that might have grand SS couples equal status. But, if so, none of them have flourished to a point that history is aware of them. Surely this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, though? I mean, if we say that we should not do something because people have never done it on a widespread and generally accepted scale, doesn’t that mean we won’t ever do it for that reason? I mean, what if that argument was one of the things preventing it from happening - people in the past looked to\* their\* past and said “Well, it hasn’t happened before”. It seems like an argument based on itself. Beyond that, doesn’t the existence of disagreement imply potential fault? I mean, my common sense doesn’t register elevation of male-female relationships or marriages over same-sex ones as being obviously correct. Apparently the same is true for others. And, over the years, common sense for some has meant one thing and others another. I’ll readily admit that appeals to common sense are a bit of an annoyance button for me, but I just don’t see that it’s really worth all that much. It’s essentially saying, “People believe this” - only with the added advantage that someone could accuse another of ignoring or even burying their common sense, allowing them to believe that all, secretly, agree with them. So long as “what I think” differs so radically I can’t understand it being used to support a point, even when pointed at a majority. > [@](#): > > So, we have what we, at the very least, could call a norm, i.e., marriage or marriage-like status being reserved for heterosexual couples. A norm that has zero or near zero deviations. And we now have a group of people who want us as a society to change that en masse. That’s drastic, to say the least. That doesn’t necessarily make it a mistake, but it is a big change. The call for this is, theoretically, the rights that are afforded married couples. But when I’ve proposed numerous times that SS couples be granted those vary same rights and privileges married couples enjoy, the idea is derided. That last part seems unreasonable. Though you may not agree with it, is it unreasonable to think that some may honestly believe that, without the name, there could not be or cannot be those same rights and privileges? For me it’s sort of like saying, “Sure, you can have a motorbike, but it can’t have two wheels”. I think probably we’ve had that argument before, but at the least, though you disagree would you accept that to me wanting the same rights and privileges and yet rejecting all-but-the-name systems is not contradictory or some unexplicable reaction? > [@](#): > > Now, there is an upside to this. I look at what a lot of posters have written this morning and last night and I crack up at some of them. It’s comedy gold. They scream and whine about how times change, stating and implying that I am arguing for restricting SS rights to what they were 50, 150, or 1,500 years ago. The fact that I support gay people being extended ALL the rights on privileges as heteros (sans “marriage”) is lost in their toggled view of the world. So they spout and scream and whine losing sight of what their spouting, screaming and whining about. Like I said, comedy gold. Honestly, I can’t find anything very funny about it. It’s an important subject. Perhaps i’m just humourless, but were I in your shoes, the idea of a determined group campaigning to change something so important would cause me fear more than anything. If they’re stupid, too, greater fear yet. And if they have a chance to succeed - i’m not certain I could look at that kind of situation and laugh. Humour is subjective, and all that, I guess. ---
**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:** [August 24, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/405 "2010-08-24T20:40:28Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The fact that I support gay people being extended ALL the rights on privileges as heteros (sans “marriage”) Yeah, about that “sans” part… why? ---
**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:** [August 24, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/406 "2010-08-24T20:41:19Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > > [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > > > I just don’t understand why someone would be so deadset against a loving couple being allowed to say “We’re married”. > > Because they not only want to pretend that their abnormality is somehow not really an abnormality, they want to make everybody else pretend along with them. > > Very few societies have ever given homosexuality full acceptance. The reasonable assumption is that they must have had compelling reasons for denying it. Hey, some people blow themselves up in the street to kill innocents. The reasonable assumption is that they must have had compelling reasons for doing so. But compelling is not the same as true; nor do those reasons necessarily stick around. After all, very few societies have ever used computers. Not having the technology is a pretty compelling reason. But sometimes reasons change. ---
**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:** [August 24, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/407 "2010-08-24T20:44:41Z")
Heck, there was a time within living memory when left-handedness was viewed as a correction-needing abnormality. Why was it so important to “fix” left-handed people? Ignorance, superstition…? ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/408 "2010-08-24T20:47:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > [@magellan01](#): > > > > The fact that I support gay people being extended ALL the rights on privileges as heteros (sans “marriage”) > > Yeah, about that “sans” part… why? Because he’s fixated on the word “marriage” as a word in and of itself. That allows him to extrapolate from his Leave it to Beaver vision of the world through every period of history. His arbitrary definition of the word “marriage” allows him to shoehorn everything he likes into the word and exclude things he doesn’t like from the word. But we’re not talking about the general usages of words. We’re talking about legal rights and responsibilities within a legal institution. And if you look at this debate through that lens, what you find is that there has been a wide variation in what the legal family unit has been throughout world history–sometimes it has revolved around a one man/one woman marriage, sometimes it has revolved around polyandrous unions, sometimes it has revolved around extended family units (some countries still do this today), and yes, sometimes it has even included homosexual unions. At the end of the day, this is an issue of how we define the legal rights and responsibilities around same-sex relationships today in the US. It’s not about whether he can shoehorn family relationships he likes into a certain specific word. ---
**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:** [August 24, 2010, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/409 "2010-08-24T20:55:07Z")
Heck, I’ll cheerfully concede that 90+ % of the time throughout history, “marriage” has meant one man + one woman, and this rate will likely hold steady though the next century at least. Why that 90+ % apparently needs protection escapes me. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/410 "2010-08-24T21:01:35Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > [@magellan01](#): > > > > The fact that I support gay people being extended ALL the rights on privileges as heteros (sans “marriage”) > > Yeah, about that “sans” part… why? Because he’s a bigoted jerk? ---
**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:** [August 24, 2010, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/411 "2010-08-24T21:03:32Z")
Well, I’m trying to generously give him the benefit of the doubt and extend full opportunity to explain himself in a nonbigoted light. I can wait. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/412 "2010-08-24T21:12:14Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > [@magellan01](#): > > > > The fact that I support gay people being extended ALL the rights on privileges as heteros (sans “marriage”) > > Yeah, about that “sans” part… why? Have to remind them that they’re second class citizens, one way or another. -Joe ---
**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:** [August 24, 2010, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/413 "2010-08-24T21:23:16Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, I’m trying to generously give him the benefit of the doubt and extend full opportunity to explain himself in a nonbigoted light. > > I can wait. I hope you’re not holding your breath. You’ll do yourself damage. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/414 "2010-08-24T21:28:38Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > [@magellan01](#): > > > > The fact that I support gay people being extended ALL the rights on privileges as heteros (sans “marriage”) > > Yeah, about that “sans” part… why? This is what gets me about the opponents of SSM marriage. They seem to have two lines of argument, and those two lines run in almost directly opposite directions. On the one hand, marriage is a HUGE deal, and the fact that societies from time immemorial haven’t allowed gays to marry shows that marriage is a central and crucial institution that should not be messed around with, for fear of dire consequences to society. On the other hand, why do those gays care about marriage so much? After all, people like **magellan01** support extending to homosexuals ALL the rights and privileges of heteros, except marriage. On the one hand, marriage is so huge and important that we shouldn’t mess with it; on the other, it’s just a little thing that shouldn’t detract from all the real equality that gays have. And of course this make their whole argument problematic. If their first argument is true, and marriage is a huge deal with great significance to society, then surely they should appreciate why the privileges of marriage should be extended to everyone, in the interests of justice and equity. And if their second argument is true, and marriage is just a minor issue compared to all the really substantive rights, then why the fuck do they care if gays can get married? ---
**Author:** ![Balance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@Balance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balance)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/415 "2010-08-24T21:56:32Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > And if their second argument is true, and marriage is just a minor issue compared to all the really substantive rights, then why the fuck do they care if gays can get married? “…a little ring, the least of rings…It is but a trifle that Sauron fancies…” ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/416 "2010-08-24T22:16:01Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Because he’s fixated on the word “marriage” as a word in and of itself. Desecration of the dictionary is an unforgivable sin. Sometimes. And just parts of it. Well, just one word, really. The crusading Knights of the Immutable Lexicon flung a holy dart one day, and guess which word got pierced? Just dumb luck, really… might just as easily have been “maroon” or “marshmallow” or “Marmota Flaviventris.” ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/417 "2010-08-24T22:36:28Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Heck, I’ll cheerfully concede that 90+ % of the time throughout history, “marriage” has meant one man + one woman, and this rate will likely hold steady though the next century at least. > > Why that 90+ % apparently needs protection escapes me. Don’t have much time, but this and another post caught my eye. You grant that 90+% of the time marriage has been understood to be comprised of 1 one and 1 man. My question is: what % of the time through out history, say up until 1990, has the definition of marriage included relationships in which there was not at least one woman and one man? If your answer is not zero, can point to the society(ies) in which this was the case? ---
**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:** [August 24, 2010, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/418 "2010-08-24T22:41:45Z")
I don’t have to, my argument is that history is irrelevant. My point is that I’m unclear what threat SSM poses to one-on-one hetero marriage, which has survived the existence of other permutations and will survive this one. Unless you want to argue that it won’t, in which case I’ll need some evidence. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/419 "2010-08-24T22:51:04Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > > Yeah, about that “sans” part… why? > > This is what gets me about the opponents of SSM marriage. They seem to have two lines of argument, and those two lines run in almost directly opposite directions. > > On the one hand, marriage is a HUGE deal, and the fact that societies from time immemorial haven’t allowed gays to marry shows that marriage is a central and crucial institution that should not be messed around with, for fear of dire consequences to society. > > On the other hand, why do those gays care about marriage so much? After all, people like **magellan01** support extending to homosexuals ALL the rights and privileges of heteros, except marriage. > > On the one hand, marriage is so huge and important that we shouldn’t mess with it; on the other, it’s just a little thing that shouldn’t detract from all the real equality that gays have. > > And of course this make their whole argument problematic. If their first argument is true, and marriage is a huge deal with great significance to society, then surely they should appreciate why the privileges of marriage should be extended to everyone, in the interests of justice and equity. > > And if their second argument is true, and marriage is just a minor issue compared to all the really substantive rights, then why the fuck do they care if gays can get married? This is a helpful post. Here’s how I see it. the word marriage is a big deal in that it describes the man/woman institution, some form of which can be found in virtually all societies for thousands of years. And institution that most believe is the best is the best construct in which to raise children. I think it important that we have some acknowledgement of that fact. The word marriage is a small deal when a group of people complain (rightfully) that the loving relationships they are in have obstacles that prevent their relationships—from a practical standpoint—from being as consummate (e.g., inheritance, hospital visits, etc.), and a method is found to give them that, without the label. So, it is a small deal in that can ostensibly have all the rights and privileges afforded OS couples, just not the label. From a “rights” standpoint, they still get all the good stuff, while society is allowed to have a word to represent an institution that’s been so fundamental to its furtherance. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/420 "2010-08-24T23:04:34Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I don’t have to, my argument is that history is irrelevant. My point is that I’m unclear what threat SSM poses to one-on-one hetero marriage, which has survived the existence of other permutations and will survive this one. > > Unless you want to argue that it won’t, in which case I’ll need some evidence. And since it is my contention that we won’t see the decline of OS marriage for 30, 40 years or more, I don’t have that evidence. Which brings us to a point we’ve been to numerous times. But I see no reason to gamble. The downside is to scary for me. We look to the sad state of the blacks in the inner cities and believe that a great contributing factor to the generation after generation after generation of poverty and dependence is the break up of the black family. As we’ve also discussed before, when you expand a definition to include more, the definition becomes less special. This is just basic set theory, as seen in Linnaeus classifications. An analogy I’ve used before is how we describe a laugh. Is it a guffaw or a giggle. It’s as if people want to have giggle mean giggle, as we know it, _and_ guffaw. They want to do the same thing to the word “marriage”. Broaden its definition to the point where we no longer have a word that represents the institution that has been so fundamental to virtually every society. Certainly to your own and those to which we are most closely related. I find that quite remarkable, unhelpful, and potentially dangerous. Yes, you disagree. And at this point we can just read each other’s exchanges in older threads. Gotta run. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433.md?page=22)