# Gay marriage opponents grasping at straws. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 16, 2009, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660 "2009-05-16T17:32:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![The\_Weird\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@The\_Weird\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Weird_One)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/121 "2009-05-18T17:59:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I wouldn’t ask them. I certainly wouldn’t ask them if they were “married”. I might as well ask them if they were part Chubacca or if they had dinosaur for breakfast. It’s an impossibility. As far as I’m concerned, marriage must contain one man and one woman. And if they told me they were married. I’d accept that with the same internal roll of the eyes that I have when my good friend’s 14-year-old kid tells me he is a Minister, having received a certificate to prove it. Fair enough, you’ve made it clear that you consider monogamous heterosexual relationships superior to all others, and I don’t think I can change your mind about that. I disagree, and I think your attitude is one reason that it is important to call gay marriage “marriage” –to make it clear that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones. Out of curiosity, though, what term would you use as an alternative to “to marry” in reference to homosexual marriages/civil unions? And if the point is to strictly define “marriage” as one man + one woman, would you also require nonmonogamous heterosexual couples to get civil unioned instead of married? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/122 "2009-05-18T18:02:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Is **elucidator** , of all people, actually chastising me for engaging in hyperbole?.. Well, if that’s all it is, then just say so, no hurt, no foul. I took your words at face value, if thats wrong, well, gee, I’m sure sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/123 "2009-05-18T18:03:47Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Laugh now, but when the Jurassic Farms frozen meals start selling… Hmmm… considering that chicken and turkey are taxonomically in the Dinosauria, you may be onto a major marketing idea here! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/124 "2009-05-18T18:18:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Incorrect. I’m in favor of granting them the full rights of marriage. Incorrect yourself. You’re opposed to granting the right to the terminology, which is one of the rights of marriage. How is it that you can fail to [del]acknowledge[/del] understand this simple fact? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/125 "2009-05-18T18:18:46Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > How much do you want to bet that there’s nothing quick about this? :)It’ll have to be though, I do have to run. > [@Miller](#): > > I don’t believe I’ve ever accused you of lying about that. > [@](#): > > You don’t agree that those arguments are valid, but please stop lying about our position. The point is, I’m not “lying” about anything. I believe what I say. I know you beleive what you say, as well. Even when you have repeatedly and stubbornly mischaracterized my position, whether through genuine misunderstanding on your part or to intentionally, childishly, and uncharacteristically just throw sand in my face, I didn’t attribute what your were doing to “lying”. > [@Miller](#): > > I could be wrong - we’ve spent a lot of words on this issue, and tempers do fray. What I have instead pointed out is that you are apparently unable to count. I do not doubt that you believe you are advocating one set of laws. How you can look at your proposal and come to that conclusion passes all understanding, because it is clearly and unambiguously not the case, but I do accept that _you_ believe you are only proposing one set of laws. I assure you, I am equally baffled that you insist that your math is correct. Two groups, men and women can tap into ONE set of real estate laws; two groups blacks and whites can tap into ONE set of driving rules and regulations; two groups, little people and those of normal stature tap into ONE set of laws having to do with the running of a restaurant. And, here it comes…two groups, couples that are married and couples that are joined in civil unions, tap into ONE set of laws defining the special rights and privileges the state extends to said couples. I’m truly baffled that you don’t get that. > [@Miller](#): > > And because your proposal is not, in fact, one set of laws, it is not an equal set of rights. By maintaining a separation between marriage and civil unions, you make it possible to legislate separately between the two of them. This is simply undeniable. It is, in fact, the first principal of your proposal. You want a law that says, in effect, “All of the rights and privileges of marriage shall be extended to homosexual couples, except that they shall not be allowed to call it marriage.” There is absolutely nothing in your proposal that prevents additional terms being added after that “except.” And as such, what you are proposing is not equality, but a situation in which gay marriage is markedly more vulnerable to antagonistic legislation than it would be if we did not create a distinction between gay and straight marriages. This is a valid point, but I hardly think your claim is “undeniable”. I think its easly addressed with how things are worded. I’ve proposed something like: “From this date forward, all persons joined through marriage or through civil union, will be governed by the following ONE set of laws and privileges. If, at some later date it should be contemplated that a law, right, or privilege be added or subtracted from this ONE set of laws, know that any change will and must pertain equally to both groups: those joined through marriage and those joined through civil unions.” Notice that this doesn’t even get into SSM. Naturally, in my idea they would be included under the civil union group. So, if we go with wording like that which I just supplied, and still don’t allow gays to marry, we have gay couples enjoying the exact same rights and privileges that are granted through “marriage”. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/126 "2009-05-18T18:20:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Funny how quick those goalposts shift. The argument that “marriage has been between one man and one woman throughout history” invariably gets met with citations proving it hasn’t, at which point it becomes “well, in the West it has”. > > So tell me- why is the “western definition” of marriage any more important than any other? Jeeze, let’s see. Maybe because it’s the one that’s the most relevant. And comports with nature? Did I get it right? What do I win? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/127 "2009-05-18T18:26:33Z")
What’s this “comports with nature” stuff? Is it like observing that God put the different races on different continents because \*that \*comported with nature? ---
**Author:** ![TheFaerie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TheFaerie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheFaerie)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/128 "2009-05-18T18:28:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And if they told me they were married. I’d accept that with the same internal roll of the eyes that I have when my good friend’s 14-year-old kid tells me he is a Minister, having received a certificate to prove it. And this is precicely why you are a being called a bigot, whether the words are actually typed or implied. You do not think that homosexuals are equal to straights. Period. You may as well be writing ‘blacks’ or ‘Mexicans’ or ‘women’ in place of ‘gays’ and your logic would fit in perfectly with other generations of bigots in history. And I can’t believe I am even admonishing you, but it is a logical fallicy I don’t tolerate in my own family much less on an anonymous message board and I feel very strongly about bigotry in any of it’s forms. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/129 "2009-05-18T18:29:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Jeeze, let’s see. Maybe because it’s the one that’s the most relevant. And **comports with nature**? > > Did I get it right? What do I win? :dubious: 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/130 "2009-05-18T18:32:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I assure you, I am equally baffled that you insist that your math is correct. Two groups, men and women can tap into ONE set of real estate laws; two groups blacks and whites can tap into ONE set of driving rules and regulations; two groups, little people and those of normal stature tap into ONE set of laws having to do with the running of a restaurant. And, here it comes…two groups, couples that are married and couples that are joined in civil unions, tap into ONE set of laws defining the special rights and privileges the state extends to said couples. > > I’m truly baffled that you don’t get that. How can you not see that your first three examples are entirely unlike your fourth? When men and women go to buy land, we call it the same things. When blacks and whites go to get driver’s licenses, we call it the same thing. When tall and short people want to open a restaurant, we call it the same thing. When gays and straights want to have the government recognize their marriage… we call it two different things. We don’t have property deeds for men and land ownership certificates for women. We don’t have driver’s licenses for whites, and vehicle operator licenses for blacks. We don’t have restaurants for tall people and food-getting-places for short people. And we should not have marriages for straights, and civil unions for gays. > [@](#): > > This is a valid point, but I hardly think your claim is “undeniable”. I think its easly addressed with how things are worded. I’ve proposed something like: > > “From this date forward, all persons joined through marriage or through civil union, will be governed by the following ONE set of laws and privileges. If, at some later date it should be contemplated that a law, right, or privilege be added or subtracted from this ONE set of laws, know that any change will and must pertain equally to both groups: those joined through marriage and those joined through civil unions.” “…except for the right to X, which shall accrue solely to married couples.” As long as the government recognizes a difference between gay and straight marriage, even if only in nomenclature, it will be possible to legislate selectively against one or the other. Only by making the nature of the relationship invisible to the government can this be prevented. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/131 "2009-05-18T18:32:08Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] two groups, couples that are married and couples that are joined in civil unions, tap into ONE set of laws defining the special rights and privileges the state extends to said couples. [/quote] Including the one permitting the use of all relevant terminology? They both can? No? How is that “one set of laws” for everyone, then? > [@](#): > > I’m truly baffled that you don’t get that. I’m considerably less baffled why you refuse to address that point except to dismiss it as “emotionalism” - as if your own position were based on anything \*other \*than emotionalism, invocations of Nature’s Way of some kind, and simple homophobia. > [@](#): > > I’ve proposed something like: > > “From this date forward, all persons joined through marriage or through civil union, will be governed by the following ONE set of laws and privileges. If, at some later date it should be contemplated that a law, right, or privilege be added or subtracted from this ONE set of laws, know that any change will and must pertain equally to **both groups** : those joined through marriage and those joined through civil unions.” Bolding added. Two groups. Separate by your own damn definition. Equal, you insist (even though they’re not), but separate-but-equal nonetheless. When will you call for resegregating the schools and buses, too? ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/132 "2009-05-18T18:32:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Some are. Though I prefer to say they’re “mischaracterizing” my position. They’re also guilty of a logical fallacy. They’re begging the question. The ONLY way that their statement that my way doesn’t give them ALL the rights is to presuppose that their already exists a right that gives a man the right to marry a man. No such right exists. It certainly is not one of Jefferson’s inalienable rights, which means that it must be one that has been specifically added. If so, where is it? it doesn’t exist. :rolleyes: First of all, it’s already been pointed out to you in this thread, as well as another thread very recently, that it’s the pursuit of happiness. How can you even pretend you haven’t read that twice in the last couple days? Secondly, what fucking _planet_ are you from? Really? Are you really making the claim, in earnest, that every right not specifically defined in the constitution (I assume you’re talking about the constitution, even though TJ spoke of unalienable rights in the DoI) is non-existant? You _really_ think that, or you’re being spurious? Which? How can you even _pretend_ not to be a queer-hater at this point? You practically wear the bumper sticker on your ass in every thread I run across you in. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/133 "2009-05-18T18:33:18Z")
It “comports with nature” for a female to devour the male consorts head, crunch, munch, crunch. This might result in considerable hesitation on our parts. Well, some, maybe. Depends on how hot she is. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/134 "2009-05-18T18:35:45Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > As long as the government recognizes a difference between gay and straight marriage, even if only in nomenclature, it will be possible to legislate selectively against one or the other. Recognizing a difference in the law is already “legislating selectively”. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/135 "2009-05-18T18:41:49Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > It “comports with nature” for a female to devour the male consorts head, crunch, munch, crunch. Before or after you married her? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/136 "2009-05-18T19:06:41Z")
_in response about my query about doing away with the word “marriage” altogether_ … > [@magellan01](#): > > I take it that you think this is a really smart little thought experiment, so I’ll play along. No. Then your argument about it just being about rights is full of shit. You just don’t want the gays to be able to use “your” word. Tough titties. > [@](#): > > Since nature has seen fit to have children by the product of a man and a woman, and that the raising of that child is best done by those two people—one male, one female—as they each give to the child different things during its upbringing, it behooves society to be able to discriminate between the ideal situation and other ones. Whether it’s called “Marriage”, “Civil Unions” or “Seymore Lipstshitz” children will still be born to men and women. As to what the ideal situation for their rearing is, if you think just because a couple consists of a man and a woman that that’s the ideal, then you’re lost in some pie in the sky Leave It To Beaver world. Children are best brought by caring adults … genders don’t enter into it. There are millions of children of men/women couples who have been raised up into total assholes. > [@](#): > > This does not meant that single family or SS couple households cannot do a stellar job of raising a child, often better than the original situation he or she might have been born into. This is one of the reasons that I think gays should be able to adopt. But the first preference is the ideal and deserves it’s own label. Then I don’t see how that doesn’t invalidate your “ideal situation” concept. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/137 "2009-05-18T19:15:10Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > So what I’m asking is 1) why would being an arbitrary man made construct indicate that something isn`t a cherished civil right, and B) what’s the alternative? If it’s not a right identified by people, what is it? The alternative, I suppose, would be the claim that marriage is a _divine_ right, as is often done. Say what you will about freedom of speech, women’s suffrage and calculus homework, but I don’t think anybody claims that all of that makes God happy. As I replied to **magellan01** … people will commit to each other and the opposite sex ones will generally have children, whether or not we ever decided to codify it into something called “marriage.” But by the same turn, people wouldn’t just naturally allow for freedom of speech, \*until \*it was codified. The ‘natural’ alternative to that being, “I don’t like what you said, I’m going to hit you with a rock now.” ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/138 "2009-05-18T19:22:29Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > It “comports with nature” for a female to devour the male consorts head, crunch, munch, crunch. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Before or after you married her? After the divorce. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/139 "2009-05-18T19:25:31Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > All this “abolish legal marriage” bull is precisely that – bull. The point of my snark to Steve was that, yeah, people’s marriages are significant to society – the Federal Employees Retirement Service and the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement Program are prepared to pay out benefits to Barb and me as surviving spouses of the other as and when one of us kicks the bucket. My words were snark too. That was the whole point. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/140 "2009-05-18T20:29:51Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Since nature has seen fit to have children by the product of a man and a woman, and that the raising of that child is best done by those two people—one male, one female—as they each give to the child different things during its upbringing, it behooves society to be able to discriminate between the ideal situation and other ones. Which is why society doesn’t allow the use of the word marriage for opposite sex couples where the woman is post-menopsausal, or the man is impotent, or where he had a vasectomey and she had her tubes tied. Oh wait, we do use ‘marriage’ to describe all these ‘non-ideal’ situations. Yet, somehow, if we expand the term to cover one more non-ideal case, we’ll have human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660.md?page=8)