# 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:** 13
**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, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/241 "2008-11-12T05:27:53Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > 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. That’s fine. As I was not offering the masses to validate my argument, it is but a tangential point. If I was, I agree that an Appeal to the Masses should be discounted. ---
**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, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/242 "2008-11-12T05:30:38Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 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. I was actually talking about cases where illegalization of certain marriage was done on the basis of economic/social/prestige purposes. But even with your rebuttal here the definition of marriage is not solely a legal one. magellan, for example, values the definition as defined by nature and social opinion (at least, such is my understanding), rather than solely the legal or illegal aspects of it. In your example, your definition of marriage and hers would be quite different, despite that both are legal. ---
**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, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/243 "2008-11-12T05:31:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s fine. As I was not offering the masses to validate my argument, it is but a tangential point. If I was, I agree that an Appeal to the Masses should be discounted. I’m confused, then. Why is your long list of insults especially true for those who demonize a popularily held view rather than a minority view? ---
**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, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/244 "2008-11-12T05:33:44Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > So if not religious what is it? What bad affects gay marriage would have on your life, or any other hetro’s? I can’t speak for all instances in history. My guess is that at times is was the “icky” factor. At times, perhaps with the phases of Greek civilization, they saw that it had a negative effect on society on made changes accordingly. I find it interesting that both homosexuality and heterosexuality have been around for eons. Early on, there was probably no bias for either. Eventually, it seems that one became praised, for (they finally realized) it resulted in children. Still we have ages upon ages of both being in existence and no clear examples of homosexual relationships (not just the sex part) being fully accepted. And IF they were, what made them suddenly unacceptable. which brings us back to your question, I guess. ---
**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, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/245 "2008-11-12T05:40:31Z")
> [@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. **Azande guys** : Not being familiar with their culture I’d say that “boy-wife” is a contorted tranlsation. I’d go more for “apprentice-with-benefits”. The other military examples show apprenticeship+buttfucking rather than marriage. I, in my confesssed ignorance of the particualrs of those cultures, would guess that none of those “teachers” would think of themselves as married. **Two-spirit** : The terms is a modern coinage and may be projecting modern ideas into the past. Half of the quotes come from two sources and the article is one-sided. From what I glean these relationships had mystical/religious connotations rather than being marriages. Dd they consider themselves married in the same sense as male-female indians? I’d guess no. \*\*Fujian marriages \*\*show the same pattern of apprenticeship+buttfucking. I would guess they didn’t consider themselves married in the same way as male-female fujian couples. Also your last quote is written with an pseudonym and without further reference. … No one in this thread is arguing the following: 1. Homosexuality isn’t real. 2. Same-sex couple do not care for each other. 3. There have been no instances in societies (mostly non-Western) where same-sex relations have been tolerated/accepted/prefered. 4. Same-sex couples are evil. 5. We don’t want SSM because they are going to hell/gehenna/hades or because a religious book says it. (even if that were my reason, I’m not using the argument) ---
**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, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/246 "2008-11-12T05:45:18Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I’m confused, then. Why is your long list of insults especially true for those who demonize a popularily held view rather than a minority view? [Breathe.]Please track through the entire exchange then. Keeping in mind that I think my “especially” in the post in which I regurgitated some idiot’s string of insults was well placed and makes a valid point. I’ll offer that it is especially true because the demonization is especially undeserving. If you don’t like the general argument, look at this specific instance. Do you really think that my position is as deserving of demonization as say, someone who bashes gays on the weekend? Or Phelps? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say “no”. Yet you have idiots here looking at my disagreement with them on the one issue of SSM and see it as deserving of the same vitriol. It’s beyond asinine. ---
**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, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/247 "2008-11-12T05:46:15Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I was actually talking about cases where illegalization of certain marriage was done on the basis of economic/social/prestige purposes. But even with your rebuttal here the definition of marriage is not solely a legal one. magellan, for example, values the definition as defined by nature and social opinion (at least, such is my understanding), rather than solely the legal or illegal aspects of it. In your example, your definition of marriage and hers would be quite different, despite that both are legal. Marriage-laws exists to codify an institution that exists with or without those laws. Fire exists regardless of fire-codes, the codes just tell us how to biuld our houses. So legal definitions are not the base for marriage. ---
**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, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/248 "2008-11-12T05:53:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > [Breathe.]Please track through the entire exchange then. Keeping in mind that I think my “especially” in the post in which I regurgitated some idiot’s string of insults was well placed and makes a valid point. I’ll offer that it is especially true because the demonization is especially undeserving. If you don’t like the general argument, look at this specific instance. Do you really think that my position is as deserving of demonization as say, someone who bashes gays on the weekend? Or Phelps? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say “no”. Yet you have idiots here looking at my disagreement with them on the one issue of SSM and see it as deserving of the same vitriol. It’s beyond asinine. I’d agree that it’s especially undeserving in your instance, but because of the relative moderation of your views, not that the Phelps or gaybashers are a minority compared to those who’d agree with you. The mass opinion, like the plumage, don’t enter into it. ---
**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, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/249 "2008-11-12T05:55:17Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Marriage-laws exists to codify an institution that exists with or without those laws. Fire exists regardless of fire-codes, the codes just tell us how to biuld our houses. So legal definitions are not the base for marriage. But it’s not only the legal definitions that have changed over the years, but the institution itself. It is not an unchanging monolith of tradition, but a quite significantly varying set of different customs. ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/250 "2008-11-12T06:11:54Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > **Azande guys** : Not being familiar with their culture I’d say that “boy-wife” is a contorted tranlsation. I’d go more for “apprentice-with-benefits”. The other military examples show apprenticeship+buttfucking rather than marriage. I, in my confesssed ignorance of the particualrs of those cultures, would guess that none of those “teachers” would think of themselves as married. > > **Two-spirit** : The terms is a modern coinage and may be projecting modern ideas into the past. Half of the quotes come from two sources and the article is one-sided. From what I glean these relationships had mystical/religious connotations rather than being marriages. Dd they consider themselves married in the same sense as male-female indians? I’d guess no. > > \*\*Fujian marriages \*\*show the same pattern of apprenticeship+buttfucking. I would guess they didn’t consider themselves married in the same way as male-female fujian couples. Also your last quote is written with an pseudonym and without further reference. Sooo, despite the fact that you don’t know anything about any of these cultures involved and the differences between and similarities to male-female relationships in these same cultures, you would “guess” the people involved didn’t consider these “real” marriages in each and every example. How convenient for your arguments. ---
**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, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/251 "2008-11-12T06:31:39Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Marriage-laws exists to codify an institution that exists with or without those laws. Fire exists regardless of fire-codes, the codes just tell us how to biuld our houses. So legal definitions are not the base for marriage. So marriage _is_ like fire, but it’s _not_ like slavery and it’s not a right except for to the Supreme Court, but the 10th Amendment says marriage is to be determined by the states except in cases when the SCotUS invalidates state laws regarding marriage. This is indeed an informative thread. ---
**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 12, 2008, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/252 "2008-11-12T07:01:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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? I have looked at what you’re proposing. I’ve read pages and pages of it, for a couple of years now. It’s as insulting now as it was the first time we debated the issue. It could, certainly, be vastly _more_ insulting, and I give you a certain amount of credit for that. For this particular amount of insult, I’m willing to turn the other cheek, and not treat you on this message board in the manner you’ve treated me at the ballot box. But I don’t have much sympathy for you when you encounter someone less forgiving than me. You’re not nearly the worst enemy we have out there. But you are by no means an ally. Do not be so surprised when you are treated as such. > [@](#): > > 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. I’ve read quite a few of **Vinyl Turnip** ’s posts. I feel confident in saying that he’s got plenty left for the gay bashers and the Phelpses. You got off pretty lightly, relatively speaking. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/253 "2008-11-12T07:26:47Z")
**Magellan01** you and **Aji de Gallina** have continued to misrepresent my position, so let’s try this analogy I like women with long hair. I wouldn’t vote for a law forcing them to keep it long because their right to self-determination trumps whatever little harm comes to me from having short haired women in the world. My question to you was, and remains, because no one as attempted to answer it, is to tell me what harm SSM brings to you _or any other_ 3rd party that is of sufficient gravity to warrant limiting their rights to the pursuit of happiness, or the basic civil right of marriage. Put another way, as a straight man SSM _doesn’t_ effect me directly, but I participate in these discussions because I believe that the harm caused to citizens in the gay community in particular and society in general by discrimination is too great a burden to bear for the sake of the reasons you’ve stated. If you can show that SSM leads to an even greater harm, something that is worth discriminating against gays to prevent, then I’ll join you. but you haven’t, you haven’t even tried. So I’ll say it again, don’t like SSM, don’t have one but before you try to stop anybody else, prove that it causes enough harm to justify it. ---
**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, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/254 "2008-11-12T07:48:27Z")
> [@outlierrn](#): > > **Magellan01** you and **Aji de Gallina** have continued to misrepresent my position, Bullshit. If so, show which specific position you are referring to (cite) and which post of mine misrepresented that position (cite). If you cannot, I ask you to retract that accusation. If you can do so, I will apologize for both the misrepresentation and the claim of “Bullshit”. Until then, that is all. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/255 "2008-11-12T07:56:31Z")
I’ll gather my cites, you answer the fucking question ---
**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, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/256 "2008-11-12T08:01:02Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I have looked at what you’re proposing. I’ve read pages and pages of it, for a couple of years now. It’s as insulting now as it was the first time we debated the issue. It could, certainly, be vastly _more_ insulting, and I give you a certain amount of credit for that. For this particular amount of insult, I’m willing to turn the other cheek, and not treat you on this message board in the manner you’ve treated me at the ballot box. But I don’t have much sympathy for you when you encounter someone less forgiving than me. You’re not nearly the worst enemy we have out there. But you are by no means an ally. Do not be so surprised when you are treated as such. This paragraph is not like you, **Miller**. You make no room for someone to disagree with your position. You instead turn the debate into a toggle switch, “you’re either with me and I will call you friend, or you disagree with me and you are the enemy.” I hope if you read this afresh in the morning you’ll feel it doesn’t represent your thinking. I’m a passionate person by nature. I’ve been upset on these boards before, yet have rarely defaulted to the position you have taken—probably with some of the insane barking coming from the rabid **Der Trihs** when it comes to the military and the evil U.S.. But even then, it correlates with the degree of his insanity at the moment. > [@Miller](#): > > I’ve read quite a few of **Vinyl Turnip** ’s posts. I feel confident in saying that he’s got plenty left for the gay bashers and the Phelpses. You got off pretty lightly, relatively speaking. Oh, please. Let him bring is best stupidity. I can dial it up, too, if need be. Fuck him and the cockroach he rode in. ---
**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, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/257 "2008-11-12T08:07:22Z")
> [@outlierrn](#): > > I’ll gather my cites, you answer the fucking question :rolleyes: Make me. I’ll answer your question when I feel like it. If I feel like it. But I will wait for the cites so I can see what the problem was and with whom. Oh, and please provide post numbers so I can go back and read in context. I’m trying to be reasonable here and understand where the problem was so we don’t talk past one another again. Thank you. ---
**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 12, 2008, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/258 "2008-11-12T08:30:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This paragraph is not like you, **Miller**. You make no room for someone to disagree with your position. You instead turn the debate into a toggle switch, “you’re either with me and I will call you friend, or you disagree with me and you are the enemy.” When you’re talking about my civil rights, no, there is no room to disagree with me. How can you possibly expect someone to make a concession on that? You know me well enough to know that I am nothing like an absolutist by nature, so I hope you understand how high the stakes are in this debate when I say that, on this subject, there can be no compromise. Don’t get me wrong. I do like you. I’d like to be able to call you a friend. But I can’t do that when you consistently argue that I don’t deserve full rights and protections as a citizen of this country. > [@](#): > > I hope if you read this afresh in the morning you’ll feel it doesn’t represent your thinking. That’s unlikely, as this has consistently been my position on the subject for as long as I’ve been posting here. > [@](#): > > I’m a passionate person by nature. I’ve been upset on these boards before, yet have rarely defaulted to the position you have taken—probably with some of the insane barking coming from the rabid Der Trihs when it comes to the military and the evil U.S.. But even then, it correlates with the degree of his insanity at the moment. And that’s because you’ve never - in your entire life - been in the position that every gay in California was in on November 4th. And on that score, I’m glad for you. It’s not a position anyone should ever find themselves in. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/259 "2008-11-12T08:31:33Z")
> [@outlierrn](#): > > What I said was that it is a good default position to begin with until some case can be made for the impact on 3rd parties that is strong enough to curtail someones rights. #170 I think your argument (and the basis of much of Olberman’s) is that since it doesn’t directly affect me, that I shouldn’t have a say in it. I don’t think that is right at all. We all have a right, and a vested interest, in carving out a society that we think is best. I am not a woman and will never need an abortion, yet I believe (strongly) that a pro-choice position is best for society. Or should all males be barred from the debate? I am not an eight-year-old who might murder his father (as recently happened), yet I feel obligated to add my voice to the debate that he be tried as a child. We each have the responsibility (or at least, a right) to add our hammer strokes the the chisel that defines our society. However small the impact. 189 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. My question to you was, and remains, because no one as attempted to answer it, is to tell me what harm SSM brings to you or any other 3rd party that is of sufficient gravity to warrant limiting their rights to the pursuit of happiness, or the basic civil right of marriage. Once more for claritys sake, it’s a live and let live idea, if you don’t like SSM don’t participate in it. Issues such as abortion and treatment of 8 y/o murderers have broad social impact to people that cannot choose not to participate so your imput is valid. You have not shown the same for SSM. I never said that it had to affect you directly for you to have a voice, that is a misrepresentation of my position. You would have a voice if it affected other 3rd parties or could resonably be predicted to do so. You have not shown that for SSM. The questions remains: what harm does SSM do to you or any other 3rd party that justifies dicriminating against gays? I’m going to bed ---
**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, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/260 "2008-11-12T09:25:55Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > 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. And? I am merely observing that regardless of theoretical legal arguments, the actual cultural reality is the compared step between overruling bans on interracial marriage - always a minority legal practise - and allowing same sex marriage is deceptive, the second is rather larger - in applied fact. That is not to say it should not be done, but rather one is deceiving oneself if one actually takes those as similar steps in terms of actual cultural change. Court ordered change seems to have often had blow back, perhaps some attention should be paid to that. Certainly the resistance from traditionalists and concerns over their religious practise are an item to address (as I gather there is a concern their churches could find themselves forced into treating with a form of marriage they do not approve of or recognise). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=14)