# Gay marriage - non-religious objections? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2004, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098 "2004-02-13T20:47:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/61 "2004-02-16T12:16:23Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Yes. That doesn’t mean that it was automatically the correct or easiest way to go. You seem to be implying here that it actually would have been preferable to expand the definition of “man”. Is that what you mean, and if not, what do you think might have _been_ a more correct or easier way to go? > [@Priceguy](#): > > Also, there is a point in maintaining the distinction between man and woman. If nothing else, doctors need to know it. Men don’t get cancer of the ovaries and women don’t get cancer of the testicles. I see no such point in maintaining the distinction between straight marriages and gay marriages. You know, if the only difference between men and women were the fact that they get different kinds of cancer, then I would have to agree with you on the marriage issue. Now, I ask you…and I have some idea of how you are going to respond, but I ask anyway for the benefit of those reading…do you think that’s the _only_ difference? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/62 "2004-02-16T13:01:40Z")
> [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > You seem to be implying here that it actually would have been preferable to expand the definition of “man”. Is that what you mean, and if not, what do you think might have _been_ a more correct or easier way to go? I may seem to be implying that, but I’m not. I’m merely pointing out that the fact that it was done that way doesn’t mean it was right or easy, nor that doing other things that way is right or easy. > [@](#): > > You know, if the only difference between men and women were the fact that they get different kinds of cancer, then I would have to agree with you on the marriage issue. Now, I ask you…and I have some idea of how you are going to respond, but I ask anyway for the benefit of those reading…do you think that’s the _only_ difference? Of course not, as I’m quite sure you understand. My question is: what’s the point of maintaining the distinction between straight and gay marriage? No abstracts, please. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/63 "2004-02-16T15:42:27Z")
[The Witherspoon Institute](http://www.winst.org/index2.html) is a non-religious (so far as I can tell) organization that “works to enhance public understanding of the political, moral, and philosophical principles of free and democratic societies. It also promotes the application of these principles to contemporary problems.” Their website includes information about their “Family, Marriage and Democracy” program: > [@](#): > > The Family, Marriage, and Democracy Program was created in light of contemporary efforts to remove laws and policy matters relating to marriage and the family from public deliberation and into the sphere of the judicial branch. The program supports scholarly research and teaching that enhances the public’s understanding of their role in this matter, and of the crucial function marriage and the family perform in fostering a society capable of democratic self-governance. They also list the [Top 10 Social Scientific Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage](http://www.winst.org/toptenlists.htm) on their site, with citiations to the social studies they used for data. Although they provide cites for all their reasons, I don’t expect their list to convince anyone here. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/64 "2004-02-16T15:50:39Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > [url=http://www.winst.org/index2.html]Although they provide cites for all their reasons, I don’t expect their list to convince anyone here. Indeed, none of their arguments is even remotely convincing. Some of them are quite ludicrous, in fact. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/65 "2004-02-16T16:07:53Z")
> [@KellyM](#): > > Indeed, none of their arguments is even remotely convincing. Some of them are quite ludicrous, in fact. Yes, if you’ve already made up your mind, any argument that disagrees with you is ludicrous. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/66 "2004-02-16T16:31:28Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Yes, if you’ve already made up your mind, any argument that disagrees with you is ludicrous. Not necessarily, but when you have as one of the top ten points: “Women and Marriage domesticates men,” you must recognize that sounds kind of silly. ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/67 "2004-02-16T16:43:22Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Yes, if you’ve already made up your mind, any argument that disagrees with you is ludicrous. Of course, one could also say “If you’ve already made up your mind, any argument that agrees with you, no matter how ludicrous, is sufficient.” ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/68 "2004-02-16T16:47:54Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > Not necessarily, but when you have as one of the top ten points: “Women and Marriage domesticates men,” you must recognize that sounds kind of silly. Ok, it does make it sound like married men get de-clawed and fitted with a leash and collar. But they have a serious point: > [@](#): > > Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home. If the distinctive sexual patterns of “committed” gay couples are any indication (see above), it is unlikely that SSM would domesticate men in the way that heterosexual marriage does. It is also extremely unlikely that the biological effects of heterosexual marriage on men would also be found in SSM. Thus, gay activists like Andrew Sullivan who argue that gay marriage will domesticate gay men are—in all likelihood—clinging to a foolish hope. This foolish hope does not justify yet another effort to meddle with marriage. > > - Steve Nock. 1998. Marriage in Men’s Lives. Oxford. > - Institute for American Values. 2003. Hardwired to Connect. p. 17. Now, I see some things wrong with this right away. First, it assumes that the affects of traditional marriage on men are inherently good or valuable. I agree, but some people might not. It says same-sex marriages are “unlikely” to have these same affects as traditional marriages based on the sexual patterns of “‘committed’ gay couples.” It also says that SSM is unlikely to have the same biological effects on men, but without reading the referenced studies I don’t know if that assertion is supported by them. I’d like a stronger arguement than “unlikely.” However, I wouldn’t call it a ludicrous argument without more examination. ---
**Author:** ![Somnambulist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed655f/32.png) [@Somnambulist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Somnambulist)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/69 "2004-02-16T16:55:44Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > They also list the [Top 10 Social Scientific Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage](http://www.winst.org/toptenlists.htm) on their site, with citiations to the social studies they used for data. Although they provide cites for all their reasons, I don’t expect their list to convince anyone here. I’m sure you understand that citing a social study (regardless of its credibility) does not automatically validate the argument that uses it as a premise. In order to be sound an argument requires irrefutable logic. In order to be convincing it needs to stand up to critical analysis. Not everyone here will have made up their mind on this subject. The reason that the list in the link you provide is unlikely to sway anyone is because the reasoning that leads to each of the 10 conclusions is utter garbage, not because those of us reading them are intractably close-minded. ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/70 "2004-02-16T17:08:50Z")
> [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > Civil and relious marriage are seperate and distinct, but not completely so. A religious marriage consists of a set of vows made publicly by a man and a woman to each other, enforcable by God in theory, by social pressure form the religious community in practice. A civil marriage consists of essentially the same set of vows, but is enforceable under the law, by the law enforcement authority of the state…a type of contract, in other words. So, how are they interdependent? You describe two very distinctly different marriages, and completely fail to show how they’re not separate and distinct entities. > [@](#): > > This is true so far as it goes, but doesn’t prove anything here one way or another. At one extreme we could be like the Eskimos who purportedly have 33 different words for different kinds of snow. I don’t think we need that myself, but at the other extreme there are the Marklars from South Park, who somehow are able to make themselves understood even though every third word out of their mouths is “marklar”. I don’t want that either. Wow. You have a talent for seeing both the extreme ends of a slippery slope. However, the fact remains that humans often expand the definitions of words. In light of the fact that this is the case, predicating the discrimination against millions of people upon your demand that such activity cease seems a bit silly, doesn’t it? I can just imagine you back in the nineties, protesting outside recording studios trying to preserve the sanctity of “da bomb”. > [@](#): > > Never mind the “however”, _if_ the two contracts were treated equally under the law, on what basis would you object to the differentiation in labelling? Ah, but the ‘however’ was actually pretty important. Let me refresh your memory: > [@MrVisible](#): > > However, all of the civil unions proposed to date have significant differences. The most common one is that, while a state may recognize a civil union, they have no standing under federal law. Seeing as there are 1049 federal benefits, rights, and privileges which are contingent on marital status, that’s a really big deal. In other words, until a solution is proposed where all that differentiates a marriage between a heterosexual couple and a marriage between a homosexual couple is the terminology, you’re not arguing against gay marriage. You’re presenting reasons for us to accept a lousy substitute. > [@](#): > > Well hell, the possibility of lawmakers making mischief of one kind or another will always exist, no matter what. In spite of the existence of diffferent labels for men and women, women did achieve equal rights. The possibility exists, though, that legislatures might pass laws treating them unequally. Do we have to abandon those labels as well, and take to calling everyone a “person”? Well, if the government had only offered women half a vote apiece, then I’d think that the womens’ movement would have been entirely justified in trying to remove all gender distinctions from legislation in order to secure their rights. > [@](#): > > There is no way to guarantee _anything_ in perpetuity, no matter what laws you make, or what labels you change. True, but having a group already singled out by legislation makes it easier to legislate against that group. When the current legal status being offered to gay people is a paltry imitiation of that being offered to straight people, there’s reason to suspect that creating a separate status will endanger what little gains we would make if we accepted civil unions. > [@](#): > > No, but not _because_ the two relationships were treated unequally under the law, if in fact they _were_ treated equally under the law. > … > No, but now you are confusing the issue by assuming they _wouldn’t_ be equal under the law. And the only paragraph from my post that you failed to quote was the one saying that the civil unions being offered don’t even come close to the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that the government gives heterosexual marriages. Civil unions are both separate and unequal. > [@](#): > > I don’t think race and gender are at all analogous when it comes to intimate relationships. Would you like me to explain why? Let’s see… only forty years ago, it was illegal for people in this country to marry certain other people in this country, despite both parties being adult, consenting, and eager to marry. This was based on simple prejudice, and religious objections concerning the damage that would be done to marriages should the definition of marriage be expanded to include them. Through demonstrations and legal challenges, these people managed to get the law to recognize them as equal under the law, and the institution of marriage emerged unharmed. Why would I not look to the brave people who fought so hard and so effectively for their rights in this society for an example? > [@MrVisible](#): > > You don’t deny people rights because of semantics. > > > [@](#): > > > > I agree with that statement completely, though not in the sense that I assume you meant it. Then what do you mean? Still, you’ve presented no argument against gay marriage. You’ve presented arguments in favor of homosexuals accepting a substitute for marriage, one which, as I pointed out and you ignored, doesn’t equal heterosexual marriage on a number of essential issues. Do you have any arguments against gay marriage itself? Or are you just going to continue to quibble semantically? Words don’t suffer. They don’t love. They don’t need your protection. People, on the other hand, do. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/71 "2004-02-16T17:19:37Z")
> [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > Anyway…here we go again: Words are _labels_ that we put on things, on phenomena that actually exist in the real world. To have clear communication, different things need different labels. Now, if you accept as an axiom that men and women are different in fundamental ways, then an inescapable corallary is that a relationship between two men is fundamentally _different_ from a relationship between a man and a woman is fundamentally _different_ from a relationship between two women. To follow your “logic”: People are fundamentally different from each other. Every relationship between people is fundamentally different because of these difference. Therefore each relationship requires a different label. Do you see why that’s nonsense? My parent’s marriage is very different from that of my friends Mike and Frieda’s in many ways. But they’re both marriages, right? A marriage, in general, is a relationship between two people who are commited to each other. The specifics of how that relationship works for each couple, however is different. If two men or two women have that commitment to each other, how is that type of relationship, in the general sense, any different? ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/72 "2004-02-16T17:51:36Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Yes, if you’ve already made up your mind, any argument that disagrees with you is ludicrous. No, their arguments are specifically ludicrous. Most of them are of the form “Gay marriage might encourage X. It’s obvious that X is bad. Therefore gay marriage is bad.” The problem with all of them is either that “Gay marriage might encourage X” isn’t proven, or that “X is bad” isn’t proven. Let’s go point by point. _Children hunger for their biological parents_: Typical fallacy of selection. The demographics of children receiving counseling are not appropriate for estimating the effects of something on the general population. The majority of children do not receive counseling. In addition, much of their argument is by analogy to divorced parents, which is not necessarily a valid comparison and needs justification. Finally, it is plausible that a large part of the “hunger” that children of IVF supposedly feel is consequent to a culture that imposes the “traditional family” as an obligatory norm and marginalizes those that deviate from it. Eliminate the cultural expectation and the marginalization may also go away. _Children need fathers_: Studies that show anything about children raised by a single mother with an absent father are not comparable to a two-parent lesbian household. At best, the argument shows that divorce harms children, which is not at issue here. _Children need mothers_: This argument is entirely speculative and grounded in stereotypical beliefs about sex and gender. There is no evidence that two men cannot provide “emotional security” to children, nor that men are more capable to read the “subtle cues” of infants. Most studies that I’ve seen have shown that any differences in this area are minor (that is, there is a small but statistically measureable chance that a random woman will be better at these things than a random man), and probably attributable to culture rather than inherent capability. Also, it is quite likely that same-sex male couples where both partners lack these skills will be less likely to seek to adopt. _Inadequate evidence on SS couple parenting_: This one is really lame. All the evidence we have so far on same-sex parenting is that it’s not harmful to children. Whenever the evidence so far goes against the point you want to make, the only thing left to do is to assert that the evidence is insufficient or that the studies are flawed. You’re better off either acknowledging the point or ignoring it altogether. _Children raised in SS homes experience gender and sexual disorders_: What this is really saying is that children raised in same-sex homes are more likely to express gender-atypical personalities: in short, they don’t follow gender stereotypes as much as this particular thinktank would like. This would be bad if you think gender stereotypes are good. Most people don’t, however. That the authors refer to gender-atypical expression as a “gender disorder” and homoerotic experience as “sexual disorder” belies their prejudices rather clearly. _Vive la difference_: What this really says is “We think gender stereotypes are important, and same-sex marriage breaks those down.” Again, we must preserve the gender stereotypes. _Sexual fidelity_: This one is founded on the perception that gays are more sexually promiscuous. While there are certainly gay men who do flit from partner to partner the way I change my socks, these men are precisely those that are not likely to marry. There is simply no reason to believe that same-sex partners will be more or less faithful than opposite-sex partners, except for stereotype. It’s also not clear that sexual fidelity is as important when sex bears no risk of procreation; trust, not obedience, is the keystone of a good relationship. _Marriage, procreation, and the fertility implosion_: In other words, gay marriage will destroy Social Security. Need I say more? _For the sake of the children_: As best I can figure, this one is arguing that same-sex marriage will encourage men to abandon their children, because his ex-wife can now marry a woman as well as another man. Either that, or they are arguing that all the fatherless children of lesbians will make it more acceptable for a child to go fatherless and thus make it more acceptable for a father to skip out. This is holding same-sex marriage to blame for the failures of opposite-sex marriages. You’re punishing the wrong demographic, folks. _Women & marriage domesticate men_: Ah, yes, all men are brutes and must be forcibly married to women in order to break them. But we’re not proposing mandatory opposite-sex marriage, just sanctioning same-sex marriage. Very few of the men who would marry each other if same-sex marriage were available will marry women in its absence, and virtually all such marriages will be unhappy anyway. So, yes, I consider these arguments ludicrous. The least bad ones are the ones related to children needing gendered archetypes, which, while speculative, are not disproven. There also seems to be an underlying assumption throughout that, somehow, allowing same-sex marriage will reduce the number of opposite-sex marriages or even pull men and women out of opposite-sex marriages to form new same-sex marriages, which is itself quite ludicrous. But I think the most telling part of this is the point at which they describe homoerotic experience as a form of “sexual disorder”. These people are still living in the 60s, when homosexuality was a mental illness. Let’s move on, folks. ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/73 "2004-02-16T18:14:08Z")
> [@KellyM](#): > > So, yes, I consider these arguments ludicrous. The least bad ones are the ones related to children needing gendered archetypes, which, while speculative, are not disproven. I’d also like to point out that most kids don’t choose between heterosexual and homosexual parents. The choice is between having a set of homosexual parents who don’t have all the privileges and legal ties of marriage, and a set of married homosexual parents. The burden is on the opponents of gay marriage to prove that the kids currently being raised by gay parents are better off without those legal protections. ---
**Author:** ![TeaElle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8491ac/32.png) [@TeaElle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeaElle)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/74 "2004-02-16T18:29:30Z")
> [@The\_Broken\_Column](#): > > Correct, and there was probably a time in America pre-Civil War when this (by northern judges too), would have been upheld if proposed by the people as widely as “Anti-Gay Marriages” is proposed. Pre-Civil War?!?! You clearly don’t know anything about history. Look up “Loving v. Virginia” and when you’ve read it and the majority opinion attached to it, come back and discuss this topic from a place of knowledge. > [@](#): > > The concept of Minority Rights versus Majority Rule were vastly different then than they are today. Today, you can pretty much get away with most things if you can convince the courts it is your beliefs. Cite? > [@](#): > > Both of you bring up the interesting prospect of “Love”. > > While I agree, love is an important thing, I don’t think it should hold up in the Court of Law. > > Especially considering most of the World does not marry out of Love, and the Western concept of Love is pretty unique compared to the entire rest of the world’s views on it. First, it is incorrect to say that mostof the world does not marry out of love, but you’re right, let’s leave love out of the equation. Beyond the issue of being able to marry whomever you want, there is a question of personal liberty. The heart of personal liberty is the ability to govern the most intimate aspects of one’s own life without outside interference or prohibition. If the state is going to place a restriction on someone’s personal behavior or choices then there needs to be a legitimate reason for that restriction, typically that someone else will be harmed by it. If you can demonstrate actual, documentable harm that can be done to a third party as a result of two people willingly entering into a marriage, then proscribing the ability of people to marry on the basis that that documentable harm must be avoided would be reasonable and acceptable. But no one has been able to demonstrate that harm to this day. > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > Civil and relious marriage are seperate and distinct, but not completely so. A religious marriage consists of a set of vows made publicly by a man and a woman to each other, enforcable by God in theory, by social pressure form the religious community in practice. A civil marriage consists of essentially the same set of vows, but is enforceable under the law, by the law enforcement authority of the state…a type of contract, in other words. Not necessarily. No vows are required for civil marriage in most states, and depending on your religious affiliation, no vows may be required for a religious marriage either. Quakers, for instance, do not take vows, at least not in the “I John take you, Martha” sense of the word. (A Quaker wedding does not even require an officiant.) The nature of the ceremony – if there is one – and the language exchanged between the marrying parties – if there is any – have nothing to do with the end result: the state recognizes that you are married when you submit a valid marriage license which has been duly signed by you, your spouse and your witness(es), nothing more, nothing less. > [@](#): > > The question is, given this particular label, “marriage”, that already exists to describe a committed relationship between a man and a woman, should it’s definition be expanded to include similar kinds of relationships between people of the same sex? That presumes that the relationships are just similar and not the same. You have not demonstrated that there is any particular aspect of a marital relationship that would differ based upon the genders of the parties involved, especially from the perspective of the state, where there is no compelling interest in knowing anything more about the parties to a marriage except that they are competent to give consent and that they aren’t already married. From that standpoint, there is no difference between any of the couples who seek to be married, regardless of age, race, gender, religion or any other particular individual distinctions. > [@](#): > > I don’t think race and gender are at all analogous when it comes to intimate relationships. Would you like me to explain why? It’s not that they’re analogous, it’s that neither presents or represents a sufficient reason for a relationship to be viewed differently _under the law_. The differences which exist are private, they play out in arenas which aren’t open to outside scrutiny, particularly scrutiny from the government. > [@](#): > > _Women_ have been “seen as inferior for much of humanity’s history”. We’ve gotten over that, mostly, in western society at least, and we did it without expanding the definition of the word “man” to include women. This is true, however, in order to wrap our language around equality of women, we have had to “expand the definition” (what a meaningless bit of rhetoric) of “property owner” “voter” “student” “business owner” “soldier” “doctor” “lawyer” “clergy” “juror” “secretary” “mayor” “governor” “congressperson” “senator” “CEO” “boardmember” “principal” and a whole slate of other words, many within the last 100 years. 80, even. > [@Skammer](#): > > I’d like a stronger arguement than “unlikely.” However, I wouldn’t call it a ludicrous argument without more examination. Well, I’d like arguments that are on point. Items 1-5 are not condemnations of same sex **marriage** and 1-3 are about parenting issues which can easily apply to heterosexuals, 4 is little more than scaremongering and 5 is based upon the shaky evidence used to prop up 4. Item 6 uses evidence of problems within heterosexual relationships to decry change which _might_ happen and if it did, might actually help to solve the self-same hetero problems mentioned. Item 7 is on point but doesn’t make sense. 8 and 9 are again off point, back to parenting instead of marriage, 8 using nothing but supposition and 9 based on nothing more than more traditionalist scaremongering and prejudice. 10 is the aforementioned and afore-nitpicked domestication nonsense which presumes a value from a list of traits and presumes that they cannot or do not exist in gay men and ignores lesbians entirely. So um, yeah, 10 points, but no closer to the OP than anything else we’ve seen thus far. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_Serpentine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@Silver\_Serpentine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_Serpentine)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/75 "2004-02-17T01:37:40Z")
I researched for another thread, but since these threads seems to be popping up everywhere, I’ma gonna copy and paste. Marriage has changed a LOT in recorded history. Read a few history books to figure that out. Howzabout we check out [polygamy[/url real quick-like. “While modern Western societies believe in the sanctity of monogamy and enshrine it in their legal codes, most social traditions, over 80%, accept at least some degree of polygamy, the union between a person and more than one spouse.” [url=http://www.geocities.com/mollyjoyful/marriage.html]Different types of marriage around the world.]([http://www.umanitoba.ca/anthropology/tutor/marriage/polygamy.html](http://www.umanitoba.ca/anthropology/tutor/marriage/polygamy.html)) “The different types of marriages listed above show that marriage is not one set, unchangeable definition. Even in male-female marriage practices, there are many variances in what is acceptable. However, the average American citizen may not have such a global awareness of marriage. This may in part be due to the Christian heritage of the majority of US citizens. This country directs the most marriage exposure to Christian church weddings. It may not occur to many people that there are other traditions of marriage in other countries that are considered equally valid. What this country considers the most natural and normal is not necessarily a universal standard. That the range of acceptable marriage practices may change in the future is not an unprecedented possibility nor is it unrealistic to expect changes. Marriage has never been an immutable and fixed standard.” And how about we examine what the Bible says about marriage and its Laws? From same page. "Historical marriages documented in the Bible were barbarous, in which women were seized during warfare to become wives. Parents viewed their daughters as child-bearing commodities, and just as frequently sold their children into slavery. Polygamy was frequent, especially in early Biblical marriages, such as the stories of Solomon and his “700 wives, princesses and 300 concubines,? as related in 1 Kings 11:3 (Revised Standard Version).” On to Gay marriages: "Research by the Yale historian John Boswell in the book, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, explores the historical context of homosexual marriages. His studies revealed that homosexual marriage rites have been legally sanctioned and religiously upheld for over 3,000 years in ancient African, Asian, Egyptian, Greek, Mesopotamian, Native American and Roman cultures. The social acceptance of same-gender relationships did not gain widespread condemnation until the 13th century, when religious orders stepped in and declared them immoral (Dorrell & Legal Marriage Court Cases, 1994,1996). "Paul Halsall, also a historian, supports the findings of Boswell and unearthed other cultures? acceptance of male-male or female-female relationships. In his essay, Lesbian and Gay Marriage through History and Culture, he documents the recognition of same-gender couples in many cultures. He specifically lists, ?Ancient Greece, Egypt, Crete, Sparta, Thebes, Ancient Rome, China, Japan, Malay, Bali, Australia, India, Native Americas (Chukchi, Koriaks, Kamchadale), New Mexico tribes, Peru, Brazil, Medieval Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism? (Halsall, 1996). While certainly the couplings and the recognitions were not everyday common occurrences, they were recorded as happening. "The role of the church in condoning homosexual marriages is also evident, according to Boswell. The Catholic Church, in particular, legitimized same-gender unions for over 1,500 years. This tradition was halted only in the 1800s. There were over 100 liturgies specifically for same-gender marriages. Since childbearing parts of marriage did not fit the same-gender unions, they were removed. As a replacement, the liturgies praised the companionable parts of marriage. For instance, a gay couple was cited as celebrating "brotherhood.? (Dorrell, 1994) “Other religious denominations accept and support same-gender commitments. Religious ceremonies for gay male couples and lesbian couples have been performed in assorted religious persuasions, including, Buddhist, Episcopalian, Reconstructionist, Jewish, Reform Jewish, Presbyterian, Quaker, Unitarian and others (Where to Get a Religious Blessing, 1995). It is noteworthy that while many of the arguments against same-gender marriage pertain to religion, currently the only instances where Americans can have same-gender marriage rites performed are religious. The law does not recognize same-gender marriages, but many churches do.” "Condemnations of homosexual relationships are rampant, especially the charge that recognizing same-gender couples as legal is promoting immorality. The American Psychological Association (APA) disagrees, in its released statement of its position on homosexuality in July of 1994. According to the APA: “Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.” (What Do Some, 1996). "It further goes on to state that research suggests homosexual orientation is decided early, perhaps before birth. It is found in 10% of the population, constantly across cultures irrespective of values or standards of each culture. Rates of homosexuality do not seem to change with new moral codes or social mores. Efforts to reverse homosexuals are simply social prejudice trying to sound scientific. While some people may label same-gender relationships as depraved based on their own feelings, the American Psychological Association does not view it as a medical or moral problem. This is not a new view, either. The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the 1970s. Even the American Medical Association calls for “nonjudgmental recognition of sexual orientation by physicians? (What Do Some, 1996). Perhaps religious sentiment may inspire views of homosexuality as immoral. Nevertheless, nationally accredited medical, psychiatric and psychological associations do not share the view of homosexuality as immoral.” ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_Serpentine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@Silver\_Serpentine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_Serpentine)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/76 "2004-02-17T02:05:57Z")
Sigh. I busted that one up real good. [Polygamy.](http://www.umanitoba.ca/anthropology/tutor/marriage/polygamy.html) [Marriage.](http://www.geocities.com/mollyjoyful/marriage.html) ---
**Author:** ![hildea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ebca7d/32.png) [@hildea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hildea)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/77 "2004-02-17T11:09:07Z")
> [@MrVisible](#): > > So, in one regard, your argument is pretty silly; yes, it’d be nice to have different labels for every variation on every person, place and thing in the world, but in reality, different things are often referred to by the same word. Right is not only a direction, but a legal entitlement, correct, and a political inclination. > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > This is true so far as it goes, but doesn’t prove anything here one way or another. At one extreme we could be like the Eskimos who purportedly have 33 different words for different kinds of snow. I don’t think we need that myself, but at the other extreme there are the Marklars from South Park, who somehow are able to make themselves understood even though every third word out of their mouths is “marklar”. I don’t want that either. A couple of examples which are less extreme than Eskimo snow and South Park marklar: My native language has one word which covers both “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” (“kjæreste”). It has different words for male and female lover (“elsker” and “elskerinne”). This illustrates pretty well the lack of consistent rules regarding the number of words in languages. Sometimes similar things have different names. Sometimes different things have the same name. Whether two things are different or similar isn’t much of an argument either way. Language is about communication. For that purpose, either solution is OK. If we use one word for both same-sex and opposite-sex unions, we will need to add a couple of extra words when we want to refer to only one of those. If we use separate words, we might have to add a few words of explanation until the new word for same-sex union is widely known. None of those are big hardships. Language conveys feelings. A couple saying their wows in a city hall or a church feels _married_ to me, regardless of the genders involved. Others feel differently. I can’t - of course - argue that my feelings are more valid than yours, so as a discussion point, this doesn’t add anything. But it’s useful to remind ourselves now and then that behind our reasoned arguments and careful dissection of our opponents’ statements there’s that gut feeling which simply says: “I’m _right_, dammit!” 🙂 And thirdly, language is power. Language shapes reality. And here is where I find my main argument for calling both kinds of union “marriage”. Because there **is** one big, obvious difference between same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions: Opposite-sex unions are usual and uncontroversial. Same-sex unions are controversial, and in most of the world gives few or no legal rights. I’d like that to change. Extending the word “marriage” - with all it’s assosiations of respectability, family and tradition - to same-sex unions is one (small) contribution to the fight against discrimination. A single word isn’t, of course, a magic wand to do away with all problems. But using the same word emphasises the similarities - that “their” marriage isn’t much different from “ours”, that “they” aren’t all that different from “us”, and that it makes a lot more sense to think of “them” as simply a part of “us”. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/78 "2004-02-17T16:40:36Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > My question is: what’s the point of maintaining the distinction between straight and gay marriage? No abstracts, please. I am not advocating “maintaining” the distinction between gay and straight marriage. I am saying that there _is_ a distinction, this distinction being that they have different gender makeups, and that this distiction is important and relevent enough such that we ought to maintain seperate labels for them, as we have seperate labels for men and women. > [@MrVisible](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > Civil and relious marriage are seperate and distinct, but not completely so. A religious marriage consists of a set of vows made publicly by a man and a woman to each other, enforcable by God in theory, by social pressure form the religious community in practice. A civil marriage consists of essentially the same set of vows, but is enforceable under the law, by the law enforcement authority of the state…a type of contract, in other words. > > So, how are they interdependent? You describe two very distinctly different marriages, and completely fail to show how they’re not separate and distinct entities. I’m not sure what we are arguing about here, or why. The two are different but not “very distinctly” different because they have, as I said, essentially the same set of vows…sexual fidelity, “in sickness and in health, 'till death do us part” etc etc. Those exact words may not get said at every wedding, but any marriage, religous or civil, is understood to include those promises. > [@MrVisible](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > This is true so far as it goes, but doesn’t prove anything here one way or another. At one extreme we could be like the Eskimos who purportedly have 33 different words for different kinds of snow. I don’t think we need that myself, but at the other extreme there are the Marklars from South Park, who somehow are able to make themselves understood even though every third word out of their mouths is “marklar”. I don’t want that either. > > Wow. You have a talent for seeing both the extreme ends of a slippery slope. However, the fact remains that humans often expand the definitions of words. In light of the fact that this is the case, predicating the discrimination against millions of people upon your demand that such activity cease seems a bit silly, doesn’t it? 1-I am not demanding that it cease, only arguing that it is not appropriate in this particular case. 2-“predicating the discrimination against millions of people” begs the question of whether or not it is, in fact, discriminatory in and of itself to give different relationships different labels based on their gender makeup, and in fact I see no reason to think that it is. > [@MrVisible](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > Never mind the “however”, if the two contracts were treated equally under the law, on what basis would you object to the differentiation in labelling? > > Ah, but the ‘however’ was actually pretty important. Let me refresh your memory: > > > [@MrVisible](#): > > > > However, all of the civil unions proposed to date have significant differences. The most common one is that, while a state may recognize a civil union, they have no standing under federal law. Seeing as there are 1049 federal benefits, rights, and privileges which are contingent on marital status, that’s a really big deal. > > In other words, until a solution is proposed where all that differentiates a marriage between a heterosexual couple and a marriage between a homosexual couple is the terminology, you’re not arguing against gay marriage. You’re presenting reasons for us to accept a lousy substitute. I am doing no such thing, and I challenge you to point out to me where I have advocated that gay people ought to settle for civil unions that do not have the same privileges and benefits of marriage. Of course, from a pragmatic standpoint it may be desirable to do that, for the near term, but that is another discussion. Now, once again I ask you, if the two contracts were treated equally under the law, on what basis would you object to the differentiation in labelling? > [@MrVisible](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > Well hell, the possibility of lawmakers making mischief of one kind or another will always exist, no matter what. In spite of the existence of diffferent labels for men and women, women did achieve equal rights. The possibility exists, though, that legislatures might pass laws treating them unequally. Do we have to abandon those labels as well, and take to calling everyone a “person”? > > Well, if the government had only offered women half a vote apiece, then I’d think that the womens’ movement would have been entirely justified in trying to remove all gender distinctions from legislation in order to secure their rights. I think that they would have been entirely justified in continuing to demand a full vote, which is in fact what they did, and what they got. > [@MrVisible](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > There is no way to guarantee anything in perpetuity, no matter what laws you make, or what labels you change. > > True, but having a group already singled out by legislation makes it easier to legislate against that group. This strikes me as a terribly weak argument. It only makes it easier by the amount of effort it takes to write the words “homosexual” or “persons engaged in legally sanctioned same-sex relationships”, in a piece of legislation, which is to say, not much effort at all. > [@MrVisible](#): > > And the only paragraph from my post that you failed to quote was the one saying that the civil unions being offered don’t even come close to the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that the government gives heterosexual marriages. Civil unions are both separate and unequal. I addressed this issue above. > [@MrVisible](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > I don’t think race and gender are at all analogous when it comes to intimate relationships. Would you like me to explain why? > > Let’s see… only forty years ago, it was illegal for people in this country to marry certain other people in this country, despite both parties being adult, consenting, and eager to marry. This was based on simple prejudice, and religious objections concerning the damage that would be done to marriages should the definition of marriage be expanded to include them. Through demonstrations and legal challenges, these people managed to get the law to recognize them as equal under the law, and the institution of marriage emerged unharmed. > > Why would I not look to the brave people who fought so hard and so effectively for their rights in this society for an example? Because race and gender are two different things. And striking down laws against “miscegenation” did not involve expanding the definition of marriage. Rather, such laws were remnants of the notion that black people were not fully human, that they weren’t really _people_, and of course a fundamental tenet of marriage as long as it has existed has been that both participants must be _people_. Thus, once black people were recognized as being as fully human as white people, they could of course marry across the color line. > [@MrVisible](#): > > You don’t deny people rights because of semantics. > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > I agree with that statement completely, though not in the sense that I assume you meant it. > > Then what do you mean? That if the only discrimination being made between two groups of people is a semantic one, ie that they are given different labels, then no one is in fact being denied any rights. > [@MrVisible](#): > > Still, you’ve presented no argument against gay marriage. I presented such an argument in my first post in this thread. > [@MrVisible](#): > > You’ve presented arguments in favor of homosexuals accepting a substitute for marriage, one which, as I pointed out and you ignored, doesn’t equal heterosexual marriage on a number of essential issues. Once again, I addressed this above. > [@MrVisible](#): > > Do you have any arguments against gay marriage itself? Or are you just going to continue to quibble semantically? Now this is an odd thing for you to say. If the question of whether or not the marriage label should be applied to a particular group of people is merely a semantic quibble, why are _you_ so concerned about it? Or rather, as I’ve asked you twice before, _if_ marriage and civil unions were treated equally under the law, on what basis would you object to the differentiation in labelling? > [@Homebrew](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > Anyway…here we go again: Words are labels that we put on things, on phenomena that actually exist in the real world. To have clear communication, different things need different labels. Now, if you accept as an axiom that men and women are different in fundamental ways, then an inescapable corallary is that a relationship between two men is fundamentally different from a relationship between a man and a woman is fundamentally different from a relationship between two women. > > To follow your “logic”: > > People are fundamentally different from each other. Every relationship between people is fundamentally different because of these difference. Therefore each relationship requires a different label. No. Of course all people are fundamentally different from each other. However when it comes to intimate relationships, the two _genders_ are fundamentaly diffferent from each other, in a way that is uniquely relevent to intimate relationships, and which cannot be said to apply to “all people”. Consider this: We will assume you are single (perhaps you are, I don’t know, but just for the sake of this example let’s assume). Assume further that you have decided you want to settle down in a civil union, or marriage as it may be. You look for someone to settle down with. Likely you will have certain qualities in mind that you will be looking for in a prospective mate. If you were so inclined you could make a list of them. If you thought it over for a while, you could probably make quite a long list, ranked and sorted in order of importance. Let us further imagine that you happened to find someone with all the qualities on your list, fitting it to a T. Just one little problem. She’s a woman. Would you want to settle down with her? No, you would not, because you are gay man, and thus only want to have that kind of relationship with another man. No matter how good the relationship looks on paper, it’s just not going to happen. The same is true of me in mirror image. I would not want to marry, or civilly unite with, a man, no matter how many qualities he had that I might be looking for in a mate. To take it further, if I _were_ married to a woman, and that marriage ended through death or divorce, I most likely would feel that no one could ever “take her place”, that she held a unique place in my life, but there would nonetheless be at least a possibility that I would remarry. But only to a woman. Because, except for people who are bisexual, _gender trumps everything else_ in terms of the qualities we look for in prospective mates. And gender makes no difference whatsoever only to that very small minority who are perfectly balanced bisexuals. > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > The question is, given this particular label, “marriage”, that already exists to describe a committed relationship between a man and a woman, should it’s definition be expanded to include similar kinds of relationships between people of the same sex? > > That presumes that the relationships are just similar and not the same. You have not demonstrated that there is any particular aspect of a marital relationship that would differ based upon the genders of the parties involved, The difference _is_ the gender makeup of the parties involved. No more or less than that, fundamentally. > [@TeaElle](#): > > especially from the perspective of the state, where there is no compelling interest in knowing anything more about the parties to a marriage except that they are competent to give consent and that they aren’t already married. 1-I have to nitpick this, as there is also the matter of blood relation 2-Given that, I actually agree with this in principle, insofar that I don’t think it is necessary for the state apply the label “marriage” to any of the contracts it enforces. I would be perfectly happy for the state to sanction nothing but “civil unions”, and let social convention dictate what is and is not called a marriage. And if social convention drifts to the point that they are called by the same label, then so be it. > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > I don’t think race and gender are at all analogous when it comes to intimate relationships. Would you like me to explain why? > > It’s not that they’re analogous, it’s that neither presents or represents a sufficient reason for a relationship to be viewed differently under the law. I am not arguing that they should be viewed differently under the law, only that, if the state is going to apply _labels_, it keep the label “marriage” to opposite-sex relationships. > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > Women have been “seen as inferior for much of humanity’s history”. We’ve gotten over that, mostly, in western society at least, and we did it without expanding the definition of the word “man” to include women. > > This is true, however, in order to wrap our language around equality of women, we have had to “expand the definition” (what a meaningless bit of rhetoric) of “property owner” “voter” “student” “business owner” “soldier” “doctor” “lawyer” “clergy” “juror” “secretary” “mayor” “governor” “congressperson” “senator” “CEO” “boardmember” “principal” and a whole slate of other words, many within the last 100 years. 80, even. 1-If you consider expanding a definition to be a “meaningless bit of rhetoric”, then why are you so intent on expabding the definition of marriage? Assuming, as I keep saying, that you have the option of civil union that is equal to it under the law. 2-A lot of the examples you provide here are stretches. Secretary? Congress_person_? Soldier…was Joan of Arc not a soldier? What about the mythical Amazons? Shall we dig into Google for other examples? 3-Disregarding the other two points, these “redefinitions” came about as a corrective to the notion that women were inherently _inferior_…remember that key word, _inferior_…to men in the qualities needed to do the things they describe. I have not put forth any argument that same sex relationships are _inferior_ to opposite sex ones, only that they are _different_, jsut as the two sexes themselves are _different_, and thus have different labels. 4-FInally, I think we can agree that the notion I just mentioned was not true. A man and a woman _can_ both, potentially, be qualified to be, say, an airline pilot. But a man and a woman cannot be equally qualified to be married to, or civilly united with, me, or with **Homebrew**. > [@hildea](#): > > And thirdly, language is power. Language shapes reality. And here is where I find my main argument for calling both kinds of union “marriage”. Because there **is** one big, obvious difference between same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions: Opposite-sex unions are usual and uncontroversial. Same-sex unions are controversial, and in most of the world gives few or no legal rights. I’d like that to change. Extending the word “marriage” - with all it’s assosiations of respectability, family and tradition - to same-sex unions is one (small) contribution to the fight against discrimination. A single word isn’t, of course, a magic wand to do away with all problems. But using the same word emphasises the similarities - that “their” marriage isn’t much different from “ours”, that “they” aren’t all that different from “us”, and that it makes a lot more sense to think of “them” as simply a part of “us”. Here I think we just have a fundamental, unbridgeable disagreement. I feel very strongly that language should _not_ be tinkered with just to make people feel better. I don’t want my language flattened down, neutered, rendered unisex. If you are interested in seeing where this kind of thinking can lead, check out [this link](http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110004691). ---
**Author:** ![Wrenchslinger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/94ad74/32.png) [@Wrenchslinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenchslinger)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/79 "2004-02-17T16:57:09Z")
The only thing I got out of all of **TBC** ’s posts is that while (s)he never actually said (s)he opposed homosexuality per se, (s)he did make a lot of statements implying that (s)he felt legal recognition of same-sex marriages is the beginning of a slippery decent into cultural depravity and the eventual dissolution of the current social system into immorality, chaos, and a new dark age (and who knows maybe even cats shacking up with dogs.) To any and all who hold that assumption I post this question. Isn’t it possible that by extending the “legitmacy” of state recognized marriages to all consenting adults who seek it out you in fact strengthen the social facbric? By encouraging more people to enter into longer term, monogamous, dedicated relationships aren’t you in fact encouraing ALL people to eschew unhealthy behavior? If anything were an attack on marriage and “traditional values,” it would seem to me to be to spreading chache of “marriage alternatives.” (See [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/international/europe/15MARR.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/international/europe/15MARR.html)) I still for the life of me can’t understand why so many people want to attack consenting adults for seeking to enter into healthy monogamous realtionships. And I really don’t understand why people are so scared of getting married period. If you’re not ready to get married, why should you be granted the legal/tax/social benefits of being married if you’re not willing to take the risk of making a lifelong committment to another person? ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/80 "2004-02-17T17:00:16Z")
It’s interesting to note that you ignored the larger point of my post, **Weird\_Al**. The nature of the relationship called marriage is the same despite the genders of the participants: love, mutual respect, commitment, sharing of resources. If you disagree with that, then explain to me what you consider the essential aspects of a marriage that aren’t the same. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098.md?page=5)