# 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:** 12
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/221 "2008-11-12T03:21:48Z")
I surf conservative blogs on occasion to get a sense on what folks on the other side of the aisle are talking about, and I gotta tell you, I’m scared of reading their entries on Prop 8, especially their reactions to the protests that ensued (yes, people who are denied basic human right should just ‘get over it’ already). Scared in the sense that I don’t want to become depressed and/or enraged at not only what’s said, but what’s said in the commentary. Yet the morbid fascination draws me. I’m resisting so far, fortunately. God, I’ll be glad when such attitudes are relegated to the loony fringe it so deserves. ---
**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, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/222 "2008-11-12T03:22:23Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 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. A question; while illegalization based on economic/social/prestige issues is a different thing, surely it _too_ would be an example of new or expanded definitions of marriage? ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/223 "2008-11-12T03:44:04Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > 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. And isn’t that the _real_ crime here? **magellan** and his ilk—merely trying, in the spirit of openness and candor, to be upfront and honest about their personal bigotries—are being _castigated_ rather than congratulated! Aren’t they, in fact, the _real_ victims of this conflict?\* \*Filed for posterity, along with “you’re so big on tolerance, why can’t you tolerate the fact that I hate niggers?” and “I don’t hate hummaseckshuls, I’m just follerin’ what it says in the Bible!” under _Arguments I Don’t Find Particularly Compelling_. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/224 "2008-11-12T03:56:05Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > 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. I guess. But I think you also need to look at what I’m proposing, not just what I’ve worked against. You might not think it as ideal as I do—I understand that—but is what I prose so horrible as to deserve to be demonized. Imagine a life that you have ALL the rights of married people, you live with the person you love till you grow old and die. The only thing different between what you want and what I want is “marriage”. Not ideal in your book, I know. But I think the anger, hate, demonization should be somewhat commensurate for what I wish for you, no? > [@Miller](#): > > 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. Your right in that it was a flagrant appeal to the masses. I was well aware of that. But I wasn’t attempting to use it to argue the validity of my point, only the degree to which it might not be abhorrent, some extreme and vile view. Technically, yes, the majority could hold a view that would be so classified, but the odds are against it. I was using it not to plead for an exemption from vitriol, just to suggest that the degree be in proportion to my actual views. I mean, if I (someone who wants all rights for gays sans “marriage”) is to be so demonized, what do you have left for the gay bashers and the Phelpses of the world? Again, you, plural. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/225 "2008-11-12T04:00:11Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > It would not surprise me in the slightest. What makes you so sure the term was used _only_ for platonic domestic partnerships? I have no idea why you asked this, as I have made no such claim. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > 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”? I don’t think so. But tell me what you have in mind. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/226 "2008-11-12T04:06:13Z")
> [@The\_Weird\_One](#): > > 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. Yes it has. One can not be at the table. One can go to a different restaurant. One cannot leave the society. (Well, they can, but you get my meaning.) > [@The\_Weird\_One](#): > > 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. And my contention is that it dilutes the meaning of the word and that does our society a disservice over time. (Please scroll back in the thread for particulars.) > [@The\_Weird\_One](#): > > 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. Just the fact that you date a smoker means your opinions on everything should be discounted.😉 ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/227 "2008-11-12T04:24:38Z")
> [@Lightray](#): > > 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. You can’t be serious. You can’t be that clueless. You’re actually asking how the laws that we choose to have in place affect what our society is like? Whether we are permissive as far as burning the flag or outlaw it with draconian penalties, maybe the chopping off of a hand, or 20 years in prison, or a $50 fine. You want to know how those choices we make affect our society. No, I have better things to do with my time. Like scratch my ass. And I’d hate to insult you by actually explaining it to you:rolleyes: > [@Lightray](#): > > 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. Let’s see…Or you felt trapped by the logic and refuse to not play. Yeah, I’ll take that one. > [@Lightray](#): > > 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. Meh. Maybe not the best word. Better than “usurp” or “steal”. But probably not as good as “hijack” or “contort”. So, I’ll give you half a point. Congratulations. At least your post wasn’t a total loss. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/228 "2008-11-12T04:30:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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”? > [@Cookies](#): > > It would not surprise me in the slightest. What makes you so sure the term was used _only_ for platonic domestic partnerships? In other words, I think that many of the so-called Boston Marriages were lesbian relationships to the best of the abilities of the women living them. I think that if given the opportunity, those women would have self-identified as “married” to each other. Legal protection in that era is not the same as legal protection now. Less civil contract rights were involved with legal marriages at the time compared to now. Those women protected eachother by entering into the relationship in the way that they chose to do so. They were excercising a loophole in the social discrimination of the times, and choosing to live their lives as closely as possible to their true homosexual nature, of this I am as certain as I can be about anything. So yes, I do really think that some people in so called Boston Marriages did indeed believe and feel that they were “married” in all but the legal sense of the word. My tagential argument about history will probably get ignored like all of the scientific arguments I’ve been making, so unless you’re willing to take up that line of discussion, I’ll leave my history of the wheel thoughts for some other time. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/229 "2008-11-12T04:30:59Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I would tend to say the amount of people who hold an opinion has no effect whatsoever on the worthiness of that opinion. I think that goes a bit too far. While it has no bearing on the opinion being right, I think it does lessen the degree to which it may be off base. Granted, this would not apply in toggle-like instances: yes/no, true/false, black/white, etc. (See my response to Miller for more.) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/230 "2008-11-12T04:36:45Z")
> [@Bookkeeper](#): > > 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. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > 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. I’d like to know your arguments to these points **magellan01**. ---
**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, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/231 "2008-11-12T04:39:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And my contention is that it dilutes the meaning of the word and that does our society a disservice over time. (Please scroll back in the thread for particulars.) But by saying that same-sex marriage “dilutes the meaning of the word,” your phrasing suggests that you consider same-sex marriage to be somehow lesser than heterosexual marriage. That’s why “seperate but equal” isn’t, and why we don’t want to settle for anything less than same-sex marriage. > [@magellan01](#): > > Just the fact that you date a smoker means your opinions on everything should be discounted.😉 I expect to be pitted at any moment. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/232 "2008-11-12T04:42:10Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > In other words, I think that many of the so-called Boston Marriages were lesbian relationships to the best of the abilities of the women living them. I think that if given the opportunity, those women would have self-identified as “married” to each other. > > Legal protection in that era is not the same as legal protection now. Less civil contract rights were involved with legal marriages at the time compared to now. Those women protected eachother by entering into the relationship in the way that they chose to do so. > > They were excercising a loophole in the social discrimination of the times, and choosing to live their lives as closely as possible to their true homosexual nature, of this I am as certain as I can be about anything. > > So yes, I do really think that some people in so called Boston Marriages did indeed believe and feel that they were “married” in all but the legal sense of the word. > > My tagential argument about history will probably get ignored like all of the scientific arguments I’ve been making, so unless you’re willing to take up that line of discussion, I’ll leave my history of the wheel thoughts for some other time. Fair enough. But I think you’re reading WAY to mush into the cite you provided. I think you’re fixating on it because it is all you have. Seriously. The impression I got from your cite was that there was this term used lightly to refer to two women living together. Period. Might some of them have been in the type of relationship you describe. Possibly. Maybe even probably. But to imply that this was the reason for the term and that “many” of the women were in such relationships seems, at this point, to be just wishful thinking. I’m not saying that might not have been the case. Only that that is not what I get from your cite. What I got is that this term was used to, cutely, to refer to women living together for any reason. The most dominant being, they were widowed, they were simply friends or cousins, spinsters, etc. And I see no evidence that even if the term included the couples you describe, that society had intended the term to have the connotations you describe. But, again, I’m just going from what I got from the cite you provided. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/233 "2008-11-12T04:51:18Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Fair enough. But I think you’re reading WAY to mush into the cite you provided. I think you’re fixating on it because it is all you have. Seriously. The impression I got from your cite was that there was this term used lightly to refer to two women living together. Period. Might some of them have been in the type of relationship you describe. Possibly. Maybe even probably. But to imply that this was the reason for the term and that “many” of the women were in such relationships seems, at this point, to be just wishful thinking. I’m not saying that might not have been the case. Only that that is not what I get from your cite. What I got is that this term was used to, cutely, to refer to women living together for any reason. The most dominant being, they were widowed, they were simply friends or cousins, spinsters, etc. And I see no evidence that even if the term included the couples you describe, that society had intended the term to have the connotations you describe. But, again, I’m just going from what I got from the cite you provided. My apologies for not providing a more thorough citing of the concept of Boston Marriages. Perhaps I assume too much as far as common reference in the same sex marriage arena. I highly recommend doing some Queer Studies and Gender Studies reading on the topic, and can put together some recommendations if you like. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/234 "2008-11-12T04:56:06Z")
> [@The\_Weird\_One](#): > > But by saying that same-sex marriage “dilutes the meaning of the word,” your phrasing suggests that you consider same-sex marriage to be somehow lesser than heterosexual marriage. That’s why “seperate but equal” isn’t, and why we don’t want to settle for anything less than same-sex marriage. But in a way they are, by definition, “less”, in that they cannot offer the range of possibilities that a heterosexual marriage can produce. They may be equallly loving and committed and longlasting, and even be equally, if not better, places to raise a child, but they are NOT the same. So if you choose to apply a less/more distinction (as you have), you have to go with “less”, don’t you. As far as not allowing for “separate but equal”, I think that laws can easily be crafted to do so. Getting them passed might be more problematic, but I honestly think this is the best course. I think see it as gays getting all the rights they are entitled to, while showing respect for an institution that they have not been part of and people would like to keep for heterosexual couples. I think one thing the gay community underplays is the _genuine_ good will that would be gotten if the fight for gay rights was more respectful of tradition. If the goal is true equality and full acceptance, I maintain that going this route will get them there quicker. The more gays insist on ignoring the real and obvious differences between two men (or two women) and one man and one woman, the more animosity and resentment that is created. The greater the obstacles to the ultimate goal. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/235 "2008-11-12T04:58:19Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > My apologies for not providing a more thorough citing of the concept of Boston Marriages. Perhaps I assume too much as far as common reference in the same sex marriage arena. > > I highly recommend doing some Queer Studies and Gender Studies reading on the topic, and can put together some recommendations if you like. No doubt. If you can point me to some links, I’d appreciate it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/236 "2008-11-12T05:00:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But in a way they are, by definition, “less”, in that they cannot offer the range of possibilities that a heterosexual marriage can produce. They may be equallly loving and committed and longlasting, and even be equally, if not better, places to raise a child, but they are NOT the same. So if you choose to apply a less/more distinction (as you have), you have to go with “less”, don’t you. > > As far as not allowing for “separate but equal”, I think that laws can easily be crafted to do so. Getting them passed might be more problematic, but I honestly think this is the best course. I think see it as gays getting all the rights they are entitled to, while showing respect for an institution that they have not been part of and people would like to keep for heterosexual couples. I think one thing the gay community underplays is the _genuine_ good will that would be gotten if the fight for gay rights was more respectful of tradition. If the goal is true equality and full acceptance, I maintain that going this route will get them there quicker. The more gays insist on ignoring the real and obvious differences between two men (or two women) and one man and one woman, the more animosity and resentment that is created. The greater the obstacles to the ultimate goal. The reason they haven’t been “apart of” marriage is because of religious bigots. You would reward those hateful throw backs to the dark ages by forcing their will on other people? Edit: I also await your explanation to he plethora of evidence marriage has historically included same sex couples, and other groupings. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/237 "2008-11-12T05:08:11Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > The reason they haven’t been “apart of” marriage is because of religious bigots. You would reward those hateful throw backs to the dark ages by forcing their will on other people? > > Edit: I also await your explanation to he plethora of evidence marriage has historically included same sex couples, and other groupings. I don’t seek to reward them or punish them. They are not my concern. I would point out though, that even in what we consider the permissive Greek societies that tolerated homosexuality (u=and usually that meant the act of sex, not committed relationships), that tolerance ebbed and flowed over the years. Religious doctrine is not the sole source of societies’ resistance to homosexuality. ---
**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, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/238 "2008-11-12T05:13:05Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > A question; while illegalization based on economic/social/prestige issues is a different thing, surely it _too_ would be an example of new or expanded definitions of marriage? If the reasons are economic/social/prestige there is no “illegality” and therefore no new definition. If my mum doesn’t want me to marry the mestizo crack-whore who works ten blocks away from my house she is in no way making it illegal for me to do it. She’s applying social pressure of the same kind as she would if I’d chosen to study she didn’t like or whatever. The fixtation on interracial mariges being illegal is based on the US, (mostly) state law, not even federal, on a part of the US, on a relatively modern and short period of time. Restricting something cannot be an expansion of its meaning, in the normal sense of the word(i.e. expansion would mean more categories/people, not less) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/239 "2008-11-12T05:15:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t seek to reward them or punish them. They are not my concern. I would point out though, that even in what we consider the permissive Greek societies that tolerated homosexuality (u=and usually that meant the act of sex, not committed relationships), that tolerance ebbed and flowed over the years. Religious doctrine is not the sole source of societies’ resistance to homosexuality. So if not religious what is it? What bad affects gay marriage would have on your life, or any other hetro’s? ---
**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, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/240 "2008-11-12T05:25:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think that goes a bit too far. While it has no bearing on the opinion being right, I think it does lessen the degree to which it may be off base. Granted, this would not apply in toggle-like instances: yes/no, true/false, black/white, etc. (See my response to Miller for more.) No, I still tend to disagree. The history of mankind, not to mention our current situation, shows many examples of a majority of people holding even extremely wrong views. Your argument depends on humans, as a whole, tending towards reasonability, and while I would agree again in general we don’t always find that reasonability solely or even majorly on one side. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=13)