# Gay marriage opponents, listen up: I've got a secret to tell you **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 6, 2008, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496 "2008-11-06T19:08:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Lightray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightray/32/391_2.png) [@Lightray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightray)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/201 "2008-11-11T22:30:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But I am not that person. According to your argument, or the one you seem to be defending, it does not affect me personally, so I should bow out. And this assumes that one recognizes the fetus as a person, which not all people do. No, you are not that person. Society is speaking for that (hypothetical) person, and as a member of society you may be presumed to have a right to be heard in the abortion debate. Still not analogous to SSM. > [@magellan01](#): > > Additionally, the argument you raise pertaining to abortion is just one argument. There are others. For instance, do we want to make a criminal of a young woman who is already in dire circumstances? Do we really want to arrest her? And to what degree will that actually stop her abortion? Those are not arguments for why other people would be expected to have a voice in the abortion debate. And are also, not analogous to SSM, either. > [@magellan01](#): > > I would also argue that society is an entity. If a military ship is blown up, should I care. Do I have the right to care, even if I will not personally be affected by it in the least. How about the issue of the burning of the flag. No skin off my nose either way of some idiot in Madison wants to burn the flag, right? So, I have no right to opine as to what the law should be? I have no right to help craft society in a way that I think is both beneficial to its furtherance? I say I absolutely have that right. Arguably, even the obligation to do so. Nor are these analogous to SSM. Marriages are contracts between two people. None of these are. You’re foundering here, trying to justify a poorly-supported analogy. Seek another. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/202 "2008-11-11T22:31:36Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Without using polygamy or a goat in your answer, what is the inherent difference between extending the definition of marriage to legalize interracial unions (the illegality of which had not only been widespread but ruled constitutional by the SCotUS under Pace v. Alabama) and extending it to include same sex unions? Because, as mentioned, it involves the recognition of a new right to SSM. New rights are not decided by Supreme Court decisions. This is forbidden by the Tenth Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/203 "2008-11-11T22:42:26Z")
How were interracial unions not seen as a “new right” in the legislative context when the aforementioned precedents were being established? ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/204 "2008-11-11T22:43:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That is a very recent phenomenon, which is actually part of the debate. That has nothing to do with what has constituted a marriage and what the word has stood for. The question that keeps coming up is: is any historical support for SSM being anything but a new idea. Is their any support for marriage standing for anything but a relationship that includes one man and (at least) one woman? See [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) for an overview of marriages around the world in many forms, including one man/one woman, one man/many women, many men/one woman, many men/many women, one man/one man, and one woman/one woman. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/205 "2008-11-11T22:56:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Fine. It has changed over the years. But it has always included at least one man and one woman. Can you point to any time in history that it has not? In [Africa](http://colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=QHistory&x=parallels), male Azande warriors took on boy-wives who were their warrior’s apprentice. They even paid a bride-price for the boys. This practice ceased in the 20th century (wonder why?) Also the Thonga ethnic group practiced homosexual marriage. Native Americans called gays [Two-Spirits](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit) and they generally married people of their same biological gender. There was accepted and open homosexuality among the pre-Colombia Mezoamerican tribes as well. In Fujian, China, [same-sex marriage](http://www.ksontheweb.com/ift/articles/article.ift?artid=8419&cat_id=24&adult=0) between men and boys was legal. I could go on but you get the picture. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/206 "2008-11-11T22:57:14Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > [Boston marriage - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_marriage) > > We don’t necessarily know who invented the wheel, or whether it was invented several times in different places, or what exactly happened to the Aztecs either. But we do know that a wheel is round, or round enough to roll. It was. It is. If you have a thing incapable of rolling, it is not a wheel. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > How many countless social nuances are we still ignorant of when it comes to the history of our species? So, there is nothing you can point to. Okay. Now we can dispense with that particular argument. After all, we are also unaware of the times SSM might have been tried and was deemed to have extremely negative consequences and soon eliminated. As far as “Boston Marriage”, you do realize it was an expression, a term thrown out to describe an unusual arrangement. Do you really think that the couple so labeled would have thought of themselves as “married”? Or that they enjoyed the any rights that would come with actual recognition of them being actually married? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/207 "2008-11-11T23:02:40Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > So you wish to maintain because something is newer in recent history it should not be allowed. > > By your logic people should not be allowed to fly. Flight is a recent phenomenon. It goes against the ‘natural order’ for people to find themselves so high above sea level and historical it was not done therefor we should ban the practice. Nonsense. Flight is what it is. I’m arguing that some idiot can’t strap wings of feathers to his arms, flap them about wherever he goes and claim he is flying. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/208 "2008-11-11T23:05:55Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Of course you have that right, though we may disagree. > > Only a complete asshole— I’m talking base, vile, rotten, irredeemable piece of festering, worthless shit—would try to take a person’s rights away just because they disagreed with them. And you’re free to have that opinion. And I’m free to have the opinion that anyone who demonizes another member of that society for voicing an opinion, especially one held by the majority of the populace is a complete asshole—I’m talking base, vile, rotten, irredeemable piece of festering, worthless shit strain of asshole. Ahh, common ground. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/209 "2008-11-11T23:14:19Z")
> [@Lightray](#): > > No, you are not that person. Society is speaking for that (hypothetical) person, and as a member of society you may be presumed to have a right to be heard in the abortion debate. Still not analogous to SSM. > > Those are not arguments for why other people would be expected to have a voice in the abortion debate. And are also, not analogous to SSM, either. You choose to ignore some of the arguments because it suits you, fine. Knock yourself out. You may want to look up the word “analogous”. It doesn’t mean “exactly the same as”. Any analogy will fall short on some level. > [@Lightray](#): > > Nor are these analogous to SSM. Marriages are contracts between two people. None of these are. You’re foundering here, trying to justify a poorly-supported analogy. Seek another. No, I’m fine with this one. But if you prefer the 8-year-old being tried or the issue of flag burning, or the death sentence, or assisted suicide, you go right ahead. And a marriage is not _just_ a contract. It is a particular type of contract that has particular significance attached to it. If it didn’t, gays wouldn’t be so hell-bent in trying to appropriate it, would they? Surely you realize that much. Gotta go for now. ---
**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:** [November 11, 2008, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/210 "2008-11-11T23:29:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And you’re free to have that opinion. And I’m free to have the opinion that anyone who demonizes another member of that society for voicing an opinion, especially one held by the majority of the populace is a complete asshole—I’m talking base, vile, rotten, irredeemable piece of festering, worthless shit strain of asshole. There is a marked difference between “voicing an opinion,” and “voting to strip rights from a minority,” which is what you did on Election Day this year. While I don’t agree with **Turnip** ’s opinion about your personal worth, this particular debate has gone a long, long way past the area where we can simply agree to disagree. Your actions are having a direct, harmful impact on me, and on thousands of other people like me. You can’t reasonably expect us to be okay with that, or to escape some degree of reproach and recrimination over it. Additionally, I don’t see the relevance of your appeal to popularity. If the majority of the population felt that gays should be stoned to death, I don’t think that excuses any one individual in that society from feeling that gays should be stoned to death. Which is not to say that voting against marriage rights is the equivalent of killing people, I’m merely trying to illustrate that it is, in fact, possible for the majority of a population to be assholes. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/211 "2008-11-11T23:45:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But we do know that a wheel is round, or round enough to roll. It was. It is. If you have a thing incapable of rolling, it is not a wheel. > > So, there is nothing you can point to. Okay. Now we can dispense with that particular argument. After all, we are also unaware of the times SSM might have been tried and was deemed to have extremely negative consequences and soon eliminated. > > As far as “Boston Marriage”, you do realize it was an expression, a term thrown out to describe an unusual arrangement. Do you really think that the couple so labeled would have thought of themselves as “married”? It would not surprise me in the slightest. What makes you so sure the term was used _only_ for platonic domestic partnerships? > [@](#): > > Or that they enjoyed the any rights that would come with actual recognition of them being actually married? Ah. So you want to keep the conversation confined to the portion of history for which we have written laws that can be referenced? Or is there something else by which we establish “actual recognition”? ---
**Author:** ![Lightray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightray/32/391_2.png) [@Lightray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightray)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/212 "2008-11-11T23:58:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You choose to ignore some of the arguments because it suits you, fine. Knock yourself out. You may want to look up the word “analogous”. It doesn’t mean “exactly the same as”. Any analogy will fall short on some level. I did not choose to ignore your “arguments”. I dismissed them. Because they were false analogies. You may want to look that up. But, hey. Entertain us. Demonstrate how society’s role with someone burning a flag is the same as society’s role in SSM. Or how society’s role in someone blowing up a ship is analogous to its role in SSM. > [@magellan01](#): > > No, I’m fine with this one. But if you prefer the 8-year-old being tried or the issue of flag burning, or the death sentence, or assisted suicide, you go right ahead. Hey, _I’m_ not the one disingenously trying to tar SSM with the feathers of a completely unrelated kneejerk political topic. You are. So I don’t prefer any of your poor analogies. I prefer instead to point out your poorly made argument. > [@magellan01](#): > > And a marriage is not _just_ a contract. It is a particular type of contract that has particular significance attached to it. If it didn’t, gays wouldn’t be so hell-bent in trying to appropriate it, would they? Surely you realize that much. Aw, heck. While you’re demonstrating those analogies, you may as well go ahead and show us how gays are trying to “appropriate” marriage. Or, you might want to look up _that_ one, too. It doesn’t mean what you think it means, either. And it’s a pretty weak attempt to demonize what you’re arguing against. ---
**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:** [November 12, 2008, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/213 "2008-11-12T00:01:55Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That mischaracterizes and skirts his point. After all, if you’re not eating at those restaurants, you will not be affected by the smokers at the next table. Exactly! And if you’re not in a same-sex marriage, you won’t be affected by the gay couple at the next table, or next door, or anywhere. Dammit, this analogy has gotten away from me. Let me try again. My argument is that SSM is beneficial to same-sex couples who want to marry, and has no negative effect on anyone else, and therefore should be legally allowed. I still can’t figure out how the smoking analogy fits in, but maybe that’s because I’m a non-smoker who opposes smoking bans and dates a smoker. As long as he doesn’t smoke inside, doesn’t smoke around me if I get pregnant, and doesn’t smoke around our future children, that’s his decision. It’s my decision not to kiss him just after he’s smoked (blech!), just as it’s your decision not to recognize SSM within your religion, regardless of its secular legal status. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/214 "2008-11-12T00:09:34Z")
> [@5-4-Fighting](#): > > **Ají de Gallina** , for the love of all that is holy, moist and oblong, please use the quote function. Those reading along may not always have immediate recall of what exactly you’re responding to. > > In order to do what you just did in Post #169 but with direct references, there is a multi-quote function (the second, “close quote” icon), and then all of those will be included by clicking the “Quote” icon on the last post you wish to quote. > > Thanks muchly. I’ll give it a try. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/215 "2008-11-12T00:10:35Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Neither does it refer to interracial marriage as a basic civil right, or marriage of convicts as a basic civil right. It refers to _ **MARRIAGE** _ as a basic civil right. > Prior to Loving v. Virginia, _interracial_ marriage was illegal in many states; had Barack Obama been born in Virgina or about half the other states of the union rather than in Hawaii he would have been legally illegitimate. What Loving v. Virginia did (and it was not the first case to do so) was state that _marriage_ itself is a fundamental right, and that _interracial marriage_- though > 1- forbidden in many states > 2-only practiced by a minority of people > 3-unarguably a choice as a “lifestyle option” > 4- though offensive to millions due to their religious or personal beliefs > 5- though not the norm in any culture > 6- regardless of whether or not the marriage is for love/procreation/whatever > > is nevertheless a valid form of marriage and deserving of all legal rights that pertain to marriage. And marriage is a fundamental right. > > So, how much farther is it to say “a bond between two consensual members of the same gender wishing to legitimize their union in the eyes of the law is a valid form of marriage” and thus deserving of legality? Well, given the different histories of the two issues, possibly a bit farther. After all, interracial marriage was practised in the Colonies Northern and Southern before your independence - at least until race began to become too poisonous an issue - and unlike same sex marriages, generally has no fundamental problems in the Abrahamic religions. Finding for same sex marriage as a right is somewhat different from taking a marginal legal ban - that is in the minority of states - on marriages that other than skin colours matched classic Judeo-Christian practise (yes yes, the US is not formally a Christian country, but certainly the character of the culture is effectively so). It strikes me as a bit of self deception not to recognise the rather larger step. Of course the obvious line of attack for convincing is to draw the analogy you have drawn, but to be honest, it is in fact a rather bit further in cultural terms. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/216 "2008-11-12T00:12:45Z")
Many, when discussing SSM, bring interracial marriage as a new or expanded definition of marriage. Interracial marrage is incredibly common around the world and few societies have illegalized on purely racial terms. Usually there were economic/social/prestige issues. The US example is tied with slavery too heavily. \*On edit: also what \*\*wmfellows \*_has just said_ ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/217 "2008-11-12T02:18:23Z")
The U.S. Government is by constitutional definition and repeated proclamation secular. The SCotUS has stated that discriminatory laws serving only a religious purpose are unconstitutional. The SCotUS has stated repeatedly that marriage is a fundamental right. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of property” are “unalienable rights” as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and for gay couples all three are aided and abetted by legalized gay marriage. There is no demonstrable social harm that comes of gay marriage. There is no demonstrable social harm that comes of gay marriage. (It bears repeating.) These being the case, why- other than socioreligious prejudice- should marriage not extend to same sex couples? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/218 "2008-11-12T02:58:13Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because, as mentioned, it involves the recognition of a new right to SSM. New rights are not decided by Supreme Court decisions. This is forbidden by the Tenth Amendment. I remain curious about your 10th Amendment argument. First, the 10th Amendment is about federalism, not about separation of powers, so right off the bat, you’re off. Second, the 10th Amendment only deals with not delegated, the Supreme Court has been delegated the judicial power (which includes judicial review). Third, what is wrong with State Supreme Courts deciding for SSM? There is no 10th Amendment problem there. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/219 "2008-11-12T03:07:06Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > It strikes me as a bit of self deception not to recognise the rather larger step. Of course the obvious line of attack for convincing is to draw the analogy you have drawn, but to be honest, it is in fact a rather bit further in cultural terms. It comes down to how you define the right of marriage. To me, the only interest the State has in marriage is in the civil aspects of marriage (property rights without contracts, taxes, inheritance and the hundreds of other aspects of law). None, and I mean none, of those aspects of civil marriage have anything to do with the gender of the people in the relationship. Just as the civil marriage in Loving, etc., had nothing to do with the race of the people in the relationship. The only aspects the State should be concerned with in marriage are the aspects that deal with the law. Let the churches decide the religious, relational, and gender issues of marriage. So, when we talk about the right to marriage, it is the right to join into that civil marriage. And that civil right, although traditionally only granted to one man and one woman, has nothing to do, and should have nothing to do, with the gender of the people involved. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/220 "2008-11-12T03:20:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And you’re free to have that opinion. And I’m free to have the opinion that anyone who demonizes another member of that society for voicing an opinion, especially one held by the majority of the populace is a complete asshole—I’m talking base, vile, rotten, irredeemable piece of festering, worthless shit strain of asshole. > > Ahh, common ground. I would tend to say the amount of people who hold an opinion has no effect whatsoever on the worthiness of that opinion. Out of interest, would this particular view mean that a person who demonizes the voiced opinion that gay marriage is a good plan is less of a base, vile, rotten, irredeemable piece of festering, worthles shit strain of asshole than a person who demonizes the voiced opinion that gay marriage is a bad plan? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=12)