# Gay marriage bashers: have you actually MET any gay people? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 18, 2004, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883 "2004-02-18T22:28:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Hamish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a5b964/32.png) [@Hamish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamish)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/61 "2004-02-19T23:13:30Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I am baffled as to why the simple, obvious solution – getting government out of the marriage business entirely – is receiving so little attention. It’s gotten attention. It’s gotten lots of attention. It’s the most-frequently-suggested alternative to either the status quo or full gay marriage. Unfortunately, as I’ve said on this board before, it doesn’t work. It’s not just a semantics game. The word marriage has a legal weight that civil unions and private contracts will not have. For example, marriage is portable across borders. Currently, the Province of Quebec in Canada has civil unions, while Ontario has full gay marriage. If I get married in Ontario, it’s still a full marriage in the Netherlands. If I get civil-unioned in Quebec, my partner and I are strangers in Alberta. As more and more governments recognize gay marriage, and as working abroad becomes more and more common, this distinction becomes more and more crucial. Traditionally, states recognize marriages from other countries. I seriously doubt they’ll recognize a civil union. Of course, this is a best-case scenario, assuming the civil union has all the same rights as marriage. It might not. Will the civil-union-partner still really be first in line for inheritance? Will they be able to sponsor partners for immigration? These are important rights that can’t necessarily be granted by contract. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/62 "2004-02-20T00:02:31Z")
**Otto** : Has the Supreme Court actually ruled on Polygamous marriage-- ie, ruled that there is a rational basis for disallowing it? I agree that it hasn’t ruled on gay marriage, yet. ---
**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:** [February 20, 2004, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/63 "2004-02-20T00:47:43Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I never said “more desirable”. I said “different”. Our society has decided (with hundreds of years of precident) to give some preferential legal status to the union of a man and a woman, clearly with the idea that the family is the locus of child rearing and propogation of the human species. Had we decided, in the past, to formalize “any pairing that people might want to make”, then it’s unclear that that formalization would have included the various “privileges and responisibilities” that we bestow on married couples today. What, exactly, is that even supposed to mean? How would we not have the same rights and priveldges? Would we have more? Less? Which ones? What does this even have to do with arguing that SSM should be legal _now_? It’s not like we’re arguing that someone should build a time machine, go back to the Continental Congress, and try to get gay marriage written into the bill of rights. > [@](#): > > Note that there is nothing about the race of the partners that is inherent in the perferential legal status according to married couples, but there is certainly an assumption that the couple would be of two different genders. No one is arguing that that assumption doesn’t exsist. Clearly it does, hence the debate. The argument is, “Is there any rational basis for that assumption?” So far, no one has been able to present one. > [@](#): > > That is not to say that marriage **requires** procreation in order to be recognized legally. But that we, as a society, have decided it is benficial to the society when procreation takes place within a family unit, and that we will proactively encourage that type of union. Whaddya mean “we,” white man? > [@](#): > > And why should that opinon have any weight? Seriously. Just because you think something is good, does not make it so. Besides, there are plenty of ways for a gay couple to be recogized as a couple without having a special special legal status. That recognition can be within a church which recognizes gay unions, or within the definition of legal civil unions that are specifically designed to recognize couples (or multple parings?) that do not consist of oppsoite sex pairings. Why should _your_ opinion have any weight? Seriously. There is a fair amount of evidence that SSM would make things easier for a large number of gay people in the country. There is _no_ evidence that SSM would make anything worse for anybody, anywhere. So why not legalize it? If you want to prevent someone from doing something, the onus is on _you_ to show why what they are doing is harmful or destructive. ---
**Author:** ![Hamish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a5b964/32.png) [@Hamish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamish)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/64 "2004-02-20T01:24:30Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > That is not to say that marriage **requires** procreation in order to be recognized legally. But that we, as a society, have decided it is benficial to the society when procreation takes place within a family unit, and that we will proactively encourage that type of union. This is the strawman that will not die. It is the Freddy Krueger of strawmen. Look, **to anyone who feels that marriage is about reproduction** , go find some elderly couple who’ve found love in old age and have decided to marry – and go picket their wedding! Lobby your frickin’ member of congress for fertility tests for young heterosexual couples. If you think that marriage is really about reproduction – and that that aspect of it is so important as to deny loving couples the right to marry – then why don’t you go all the way out and deny it to heterosexual couples who can’t have children. I never know whether this argument offends me more as a gay man, or as an envioronmentalist. **Look, last time I checked, the world’s problem was not exactly underpopulation**. We have 6 billion people on this planet and growing at an exponential rate. Our forests are vanishing, our cities are sprawling, we are pumping industrial and human waste into our water, polluting our air. We do not need more people. We have enough. People are not on back-order. Supply exceeds demand. The world can take any more people. You want to use marriage to regulate population for the greater good? Fine. Have it come with lots of benefits – far more than it has now – and offer it only to the infertile. Encourage vasectomies. Or we could admit that marriage is not about reproduction, and that this is a silly sophistic argument meant to disguise one’s personal disgust towards the relationships of others. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/65 "2004-02-20T01:54:16Z")
> [@Hamish](#): > > This is the strawman that will not die. It is the Freddy Krueger of strawmen. What makes it a straman? All I said was that the historical context for why we have built the legal definition of marriage to what it is today has a lot to do with the idea of family and child rearing. I think that is pertinent to the discussion. > [@](#): > > I never know whether this argument offends me more as a gay man, or as an envioronmentalist. **Look, last time I checked, the world’s problem was not exactly underpopulation**. We have 6 billion people on this planet and growing at an exponential rate. Our forests are vanishing, our cities are sprawling, we are pumping industrial and human waste into our water, polluting our air. > > We do not need more people. We have enough. People are not on back-order. Supply exceeds demand. The world can take any more people. > > You want to use marriage to regulate population for the greater good? Fine. Have it come with lots of benefits – far more than it has now – and offer it only to the infertile. Encourage vasectomies. Now **that** is a strawman. No one (that I know of) is arguing that marriage should be used to regulatie population growth. > [@](#): > > Or we could admit that marriage is not about reproduction, and that this is a silly sophistic argument meant to disguise one’s personal disgust towards the relationships of others. Or we could argue that when marriage now doesn’t mean what it has historically meant, and that we should stip it of all legal trappings for **everyone** , opposite sex pairings included. That would be my preference. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/66 "2004-02-20T02:17:24Z")
Oh. my. Now, I am not easily shocked. I’ve always loved john Waters so its hard to shock me. But this did. I just read a “posting” by a “christian” who says that Matthew Shepherd went into that bar “acting swishy” so naturally he got beaten. “If he had kept his mouth shut, he’d still be alive.” :eek: No more comments from me are necessary. There are no words. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Belrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e56c9b/32.png) [@Belrick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belrick)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/67 "2004-02-20T02:19:14Z")
I dont have to be intimately familiar with necrophiliacs, pedaphiles and other non-hetreosexual acts to know ill be grossed out. So therefor i have no desire to meet with gay couples. Sorry but im programmed to be repulsed by it. Yuk. In regards to marriages. To me the sole true purpose of marriage was to create a family name for all its members. Since gay couples cant have children my question is why get married? In NZ defacto laws offer the same legal protection as marriage. Good enough surely? ---
**Author:** ![racinchikki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eada6e/32.png) [@racinchikki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racinchikki)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/68 "2004-02-20T03:14:29Z")
> [@Belrick](#): > > I dont have to be intimately familiar with necrophiliacs, pedaphiles and other non-hetreosexual acts to know ill be grossed out. So therefor i have no desire to meet with gay couples. > > Sorry but im programmed to be repulsed by it. Yuk. > > In regards to marriages. To me the sole true purpose of marriage was to create a family name for all its members. Since gay couples cant have children my question is why get married? > In NZ defacto laws offer the same legal protection as marriage. > > Good enough surely? I know people who are repulsed by oral sex, yet they don’t decide never to talk to any heterosexuals who have mouths and genitals ever in their entire lives because it’s icky. Fuck you. The sole purpose of marriage is to give people the same last name? What are you smoking? I don’t intend to have kids with Gunslinger. Should we not get married, then? ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/69 "2004-02-20T03:16:44Z")
ignore, please. ---
**Author:** ![schplebordnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@schplebordnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/schplebordnik)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/70 "2004-02-20T03:28:23Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **Otto** : > > Has the Supreme Court actually ruled on Polygamous marriage. Yes it has, in Reynolds v. US: > **[FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/98/145.html)** > > FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since But that was based on 1st amendment free exercise of religion challenge, and Utah’s anti-polygamy law was found not to violate the 1st Amendment. Note the discussion of historical practices as to marriage in England and the US vs. in other countries. Interesting contrast to the way Lawrence came down (of course, Reynolds is an old case) > [@John Mace](#): > > **Otto** : > > ie, ruled that there is a rational basis for disallowing it? Marital rights require strict scrutiny, as marriage is considered a fundamental right. Given the anti-polygamy arguments articulated so far, seems unlikely anti-polygamy laws should survive strict scrutiny: don’t think “well the math of dividing up the property in divorce, and it might be hard to require an individual to designate a ‘decisionmaking spouse’ among multiple spouses” hurdle that standard. ---
**Author:** ![jweb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@jweb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jweb)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/71 "2004-02-20T03:33:17Z")
> [@Belrick](#): > > In regards to marriages. To me the sole true purpose of marriage was to create a family name for all its members. So, a hetrosexual marriage isn’t vaild if the wife chooses to keep her maiden name? Or if the husband decides not to take his wife’s last name? Or what about those _radical_ types that choose to hyphenate their last name? Conversely, if a one member of a gay couple took his/her partner’s last name, it would be ok in your book? > [@](#): > > Since gay couples cant have children my question is why get married? Why not? My great-uncle remarried, at the age of 81, 5 or 6 years after his wife died. And he remained married until his death at age 87. Obviously he wasn’t going to be fathering any children, so why get married? Ummm… maybe because he loved her? ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/72 "2004-02-20T03:54:47Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Wow, I didn’t realize that the radical right [made up 60% of the US populatoin (and 50% of Democrats, to boot).](http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm) Damn, those guys are everywhere!! Sure, and at one time I am sure that 60% of the population believed that the earth was flat and riding through the cosmos on the back of a giant turtle, that epilepsy was caused by demonic possession and that it was appropriate to burn off the female clitoris to prevent the evils of masturbation. Just because the majority holds an opinion doesn’t mean that it is not ignorant and stupid. > [@Belrick](#): > > I don’t have to be intimately familiar with necrophiliacs, pedophiles and other non-heterosexual acts to know ill be grossed out. So therefore I have no desire to meet with gay couples. > > Sorry but I’m programmed to be repulsed by it. Yuk…\* Also, as tempted and I am to drop the DNFTT bomb, I will actually point out something useful here. You are not programmed (as in via some inherited biological instinct) to feel these things; rather you have been conditioned to feel them. In regards to your attitudes towards homosexuality, it is clear that you have been conditioned by bigoted fucks. I am so bone fucking weary of narrow-minded bigoted pieces of crap trying to debate homosexuality on the same plane as things like pedophilia, bestiality or necrophilia. Can’t you fuckers all just go away? The rest of the civilized world it tired of you. \*Spelling corrected in this loathsome quote because it made Word light up like a Christmas tree when I was composing my post. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/73 "2004-02-20T04:22:51Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > Just because the majority holds an opinion doesn’t mean that it is not ignorant and stupid. **John Mace** didn’t say anything to the contrary. All he said was that the viewpoint in question is not particular to the “radical right,” and in fact is quite commonplace, _contra_ to the claims of the prior poster. In short, he just said the viewpoint was mainstream, not that it was correct. ---
**Author:** ![Blonde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@Blonde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blonde)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/74 "2004-02-20T04:23:49Z")
> [@Belrick](#): > > I dont have to be intimately familiar with necrophiliacs, pedaphiles and other non-hetreosexual acts to know ill be grossed out. So therefor i have no desire to meet with gay couples. All right then - I’m going to have to echo **Binarydrone** on this one. **Belrick** , if you’re going to post your 5th comment in 9 months on this board, you might want to consider not making a fucking fool of yourself. Lumping homosexuals with criminals and perverts is beyond idiotic. Do us all a favor, and contemplate your 6th post for the following 9 months. We’ll be waiting with bated breath. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/75 "2004-02-20T04:26:56Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > **John Mace** didn’t say anything to the contrary. All he said was that the viewpoint in question is not particular to the “radical right,” and in fact is quite commonplace, _contra_ to the claims of the prior poster. > > In short, he just said the viewpoint was mainstream, not that it was correct. Do you ever get tiered of being an apologist for regressive and despicable points of view? ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/76 "2004-02-20T04:34:52Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > Do you ever get tiered\* of being an apologist for regressive and despicable points of view? - Total aside, but I will point out and admit that this typo is particularly hilarious (in a Karma biting my ass sort of way) in light of the way that I was mocking another posters spelling in my earlier post. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/77 "2004-02-20T04:53:03Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > Do you ever get tiered of being an apologist for regressive and despicable points of view? What. The. Fuck? I just pointed out that your reply to **John Mace** wasn’t responsive to the actual point he was making. **JM** was countering the claim that the mixed-sex view of marriage was peculiar to the “radical right” by showing that the viewpoint is commonplace. Unless you believe that 60% or so of the population is part of the “radical right,” it is a bit silly to treat opponents of gay marriage as endimic to that group. You replied that just because a lot of people buy into something doesn’t make it right. Well, I agree, and I gather **JM** does, too. But that isn’t what **JM** was saying – he wasn’t claiming that popularity is the same as moral rectitude. Your reply therefore missed **JM** ’s point entirely. If you can explain how the above somehow equates to my “being an apologist for regressive and despicable points of view,” I’d love to hear it. ---
**Author:** ![schplebordnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@schplebordnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/schplebordnik)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/78 "2004-02-20T04:55:43Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > Do you ever get tiered of being an apologist for regressive and despicable points of view? Yeah, how dare you intimate that the majority of Americans have the right to make decisions about the way we govern ourselves as a people! With that sort of thinking, we might have Al Gore as President! ---
**Author:** ![schplebordnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@schplebordnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/schplebordnik)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/79 "2004-02-20T04:57:23Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > Do you ever get tiered of being an apologist for regressive and despicable points of view? Yeah, how dare you intimate that the majority of Americans have the right to make decisions about the way we govern ourselves as a people! With that sort of thinking, we might have had Al Gore as President! ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883/80 "2004-02-20T05:00:27Z")
Hate to break it to you, **Belrick** , but almost all pedophiles self-identify as hetero, even the men who molest little boys. Dunno about necrophiliacs, but I’ve yet to see anything to indicate that they’re all homosexual. In short, the stuff you’ve mentioned is most certainly NOT non-heterosexual, and it’s certainly nothing like a homosexual relationship between two consenting adults. Please, if you’re going to draw comparisons, draw them between things that are at least remotely comparable. As for your views on marriage, well, let’s just say my husband will be greatly interested to learn that our little sham we call a marriage is doubly false. Dammit, I _told_ him he needed to change his name so we’d really be married. Oh, well, the no-kids thing would have doomed us anyway, I guess. I suppose I’ll be the one who gets stuck telling my folks they shelled out for a wedding that was completely pointless, since shacking up was surely good enough for us. Unless maybe _you_ want to tell them? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-bashers-have-you-actually-met-any-gay-people/229883.md?page=5)