# 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:** 27
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/521 "2008-11-19T04:10:04Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > You are admitting that they are being denied a right - by birth - that you and I are granted by birth. And you are mocking them for it. Disgusting. PLEASE explain to me how that is anything short of bigotry and discrimination. Do you support the denial of rights to any other group randomly selected by birth? I think society has the option of extending or withholding rights as it sees fit. For instance, we restrict people under 21 from drinking alcohol. But I think “rights” can be a confusing word. On the one hand it refers to those things constitutional protected. On the other, things we assume we can do because there are no laws specifically prohibiting them. I have a right to walk down the street. I have the right to practice the religion of my choosing. I have the right to drive a car. I have the right to burn the flag. I have the right to marry who I want. I have the right to confront my accuser. IANAL, but I don’t think those “rights” are all equal. I don’t think the right to marry is a legally protected right. And even if it is, society can restrict that right to a group if they so desire. In fact, society has an obligation to restrict those rights to groups if they think that granting them will be detrimental to society. I point to the drinking age, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/522 "2008-11-19T04:16:45Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think society has the option of extending or withholding rights as it sees fit. For instance, we restrict people under 21 from drinking alcohol. But I think “rights” can be a confusing word. On the one hand it refers to those things constitutional protected. On the other, things we assume we can do because there are no laws specifically prohibiting them. I have a right to walk down the street. I have the right to practice the religion of my choosing. I have the right to drive a car. I have the right to burn the flag. I have the right to marry who I want. I have the right to confront my accuser. IANAL, but I don’t think those “rights” are all equal. I don’t think the right to marry is a legally protected right. And even if it is, society can restrict that right to a group if they so desire. In fact, society has an obligation to restrict those rights to groups if they think that granting them will be detrimental to society. I point to the drinking age, for instance. Well, you’re improving your technique. You use to compare gays to pedophiles. Now we’re just comparable to underage drinkers. We’re moving up in your world. Sort of. I think. Tell me though, when will gays hit your level of equal rights? Ever? Not on your things-to-do list? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/523 "2008-11-19T04:17:23Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > Hey, I’m holding up my end of the bargain. Want to try doing your part? Say, by speaking to the topic at hand instead of evading it? Are you kidding me? Have you read this thread? Or the other one? I’ve probably a 50-100 posts speaking to the issue. > [@cwthree](#): > > I’ve been called worse things by better people. If you’re going to engage in name-calling, at least make the effort to support your assertion.\* You accused me of circular reasoning when it should have been very clear that it wasn’t. Not to mention you decided to become one of the crowd. A place where IQ points drop and cowards and the weak turn into Hulks. (As long as the crowd stick around.) > [@cwthree](#): > > \*Hint: “He doesn’t agree with me” is not a proof of “He is an idiot” If only everyone in this thread understood this. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/524 "2008-11-19T04:19:29Z")
> [@](#): > > So you can keep repeating it to make yourself feel good about your position by demonizing me, but you’re building yourself up—through the position you hold—on a foundation of sand. I feel good about my position regardless of yours. And I’m not demonizing you by calling you what you are. In fact, it is you who is demonizing me, and misrepresenting my position as more extreme than it is, so that you can feel good about going off on me. It’s certainly easier than self-reflection. > [@](#): > > Now to the words. Someone how I knew you wouldn’t just choose a dictionary definition and say “when I use the word THIS is what I mean”. Instead you seek to keep it vague so you can craft a definition that weaves in value judgements. Huh? I showed you where you illustrated that you felt that gays were deviant and their relationships inferior. Those are YOUR WORDS. You are the one who is trying to weasel out of the implications of what you’ve said. That’s your problem, not mine. And the value judgments? Also yours. > [@](#): > > That takes care of “homophobia”. “I have gay friends” does not absolve you of homophobia. So no, it’s not “taken care of.” I also find it hard to believe that your gay friends are appreciative of you voting for Prop 8. I’m sure that you will claim that they are fine with it, but I haven’t spoken to one single gay person who is happy about it or happy with those who voted for it, so… yeah. > [@](#): > > As far as “dilute”. It’s simply a fact that the more shapes you give to marriage the less tied to any one shape the word is. That’s inarguable. You can certainly argue that the dilution might be okay, or beneficial, but not that the meaning won’t be diluted. It’s not diluted by the addition of gays. It’s expanded, and I think made stronger by including all people who love each other and want to make a lifetime commitment. So yes, it is “arguable” that it’s a dilution. It’s only a dilution if you choose to see it that way. Yes, it is a choice on your part to see it that way, it’s not a fact. It is, in fact, a rationalization on your part to describe it that way, as a justification for treating gays differently. The fact that you say it is inarguable, while participating in two 10+ page threads arguing about it, shows that you are the one who lacks a firm grasp on the meanings of the words you use. > [@](#): > > On to “deviant”. Since you were incapable of providing a definition, here: WTF? Incapable of providing a definition? I can cut and paste a dictionary definition off a website juuuuust fine, but that’s hardly probative of YOUR attitude, which is at issue here. No, YOUR WORDS are required to prove that you feel that gays are deviant. > [@](#): > > Now while homosexuality IS natural, it is deviant. So you admit it. You think gays are deviant. Thank you. > [@](#): > > Homosexuality, deviates from the norm. Do you disagree with that? In the name of Darwin, how can you disagree with that? Because it deviates from WHAT? Answer me that. Your own definition backs up my stance that what it deviates from is… the norm. What’s normal? No surprise that I disagree with that word being applied to gays. Darwin would likely agree with me, since homosexuality is entirely natural and normal, happens in the animal kingdom all the time… and as I said before, the other animals accept it and don’t give a crap because it doesn’t affect them. In that sense, they are superior to you. You, with your fears for the preservation of your social constructs and your contorted value judgments, have decided to privilege the way YOU are as “normal” and people who are different from you as “deviant,” no matter how normal and healthy and natural the other folks are. You think this is fine behavior. I think it’s homophobic. > [@](#): > > This is funny, again in a sad kinda way as it is so dishonest. Oh, I feel I’ve amply demonstrated that it’s you who’s dishonest. For someone who admits that he feels that gay unions are inferior to straight ones, and that gays are deviant, and that he’s afraid of what gay marriage will do to society and the children, you sure are flailing around a lot not to see what that means. You scream, you shriek, you contort yourself, you call me and others names, rather than admit what it adds up to: you’re homophobic. I’m sorry this causes you to question your ideas about yourself, that you’re such a nice guy, so magnanimous towards the gays. But the truth is here, in your own words. Don’t get mad at me for pointing it out. > [@](#): > > And, as I’ve explained, I do think the union falls short of the ideal. And I think that is because you are limited and close-minded. > [@](#): > > You’ve put yourself in a place where you all those who oppose SSM MUST be bigots/homophobes/stupid/evil or you have to rethink your position. I never said you were stupid, or evil. You can put words in my mouth, demonize me, if that makes you feel better about your behavior. You are lashing out at me, calling me names and implying that I am stupid, because you don’t want to question yourself, to examine the possibility that your position is not as noble and righteous as you think it is. And that is too bad. I think that you are afraid, and I think you have some wrong ideas about gays. I wish that you could let go of your fears and realize that society will not be harmed by expanding marriage to include gays, and neither will children. Life will go on as it was, for you. For gays, it will be greatly improved. You have very little to lose and they have so much to gain. Think about it. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/525 "2008-11-19T04:20:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think society has the option of extending or withholding rights as it sees fit. For instance, we restrict people under 21 from drinking alcohol. But I think “rights” can be a confusing word. On the one hand it refers to those things constitutional protected. On the other, things we assume we can do because there are no laws specifically prohibiting them. I have a right to walk down the street. I have the right to practice the religion of my choosing. I have the right to drive a car. I have the right to burn the flag. I have the right to marry who I want. I have the right to confront my accuser. IANAL, but I don’t think those “rights” are all equal. I don’t think the right to marry is a legally protected right. And even if it is, society can restrict that right to a group if they so desire. In fact, society has an obligation to restrict those rights to groups if they think that granting them will be detrimental to society. I point to the drinking age, for instance. While you wax philosophical on the topic, someone is crying themself to sleep because our legal system, and the votes that empowered parts of it two weeks ago, is making them feel no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. Does your chest swell with pride at the thought of that? Would you gleefully tell your grandchildren what you’ve supported? Taking our thumb off of them, and allowing them what is rightfully theirs - to ascend to our level - is detrimental to society how? What do you mean when you point to the drinking age? Are you afraid homosexuals are going to drive into you on the interstate if they are allowed to marry? ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/526 "2008-11-19T04:25:11Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Are you kidding me? Have you read this thread? Or the other one? I’ve probably a 50-100 posts speaking to the issue. No, you’ve got 50-100 posts of evasion, name calling, and _ad hominem_ attacks. > [@magellan01](#): > > You accused me of circular reasoning when it should have been very clear that it wasn’t. Be glad that I dignified it by referring to it as “reasoning.” > [@magellan01](#): > > Not to mention you decided to become one of the crowd. A place where IQ points drop and cowards and the weak turn into Hulks. (As long as the crowd stick around.) Being the lone dissenter doesn’t always mean something positive. Just sayin’ > [@magellan01](#): > > If only everyone in this thread understood this. With a single, outstanding exception, they do. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/527 "2008-11-19T04:25:51Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Well, you’re improving your technique. You used to compare gays to pedophiles. Even one of the smarter posters on your side of the debate explained this to you. So you choose to be, persist to be, insist on being, ignorant and wrong. Congratulations. Your effort is paying off in spades. > [@levdrakon](#): > > Tell me though, when will gays hit your level of equal rights? Ever? Not on your things-to-do list? As soon as the law grants them. Today, if I had my way. As far as marriage, though, sorry. Marriage equals and should equal one man and one woman. Not one man and a lawn mower, not one man and a fish, not one man and a rose bush, not one man and an easel, not one man and a man—one man and one woman. Is it really that difficult to **grasp** this position? Well over half the population seems to be able to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/528 "2008-11-19T04:31:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Is it really that difficult to **grasp** this position? Well over half the population seems to be able to do so. Many of them, unlike you, are honest enough to admit that they hate or fear gays and don’t want them to be equal. Why you would choose to lump yourself in with them is something for you to puzzle out. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/529 "2008-11-19T04:32:02Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > No, you’ve got 50-100 posts of evasion, name calling, and _ad hominem_ attacks. Wrong. A simple review should reveal the truth of that. Granted, some of them include the diversions you refer to (however well-deserved they be), but there are plenty that are purely substantive. So you are either wrong or lying. Your response to this will show which. > [@cwthree](#): > > Be glad that I dignified it by referring to it as “reasoning.” :rolleyes: Talk about evasion. > [@cwthree](#): > > With a single, outstanding exception, they do. Now you’re just holding up a neon sign saying “IDIOT”. Why would you do that. I mean that’s ju—never mind. i see that I answered my own question. If you decide to reply, bring answers and substance or better insults. You’re boring me. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/530 "2008-11-19T04:33:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Congratulations. Your effort is paying off in spades. Really? My efforts to make you a hateful civil rights taking away mother fucker paid off? Gosh, I’m good. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/531 "2008-11-19T04:34:20Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Many of them, unlike you, are honest enough to admit that they hate gays and don’t want them to be equal. Why you would choose to lump yourself in with them is something for you to puzzle out. You simply MUST believe that I must hate gays. You may choose to believe that. If facts don’t stop you I don’t know, or care, what will. Have a safe, nice, neat, close-minded little life. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/532 "2008-11-19T04:40:26Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Really? My efforts to make you a hateful civil rights taking away mother fucker paid off? Gosh, I’m good. You know who was really good at the stinging one-liner? Wilde, Twain, Mencken, Churchill, Rogers. You remind me of them. You remind me of the portion of the humor spectrum their skill occupies be occupying the opposite end yourself. Man, you’re pathetic. You make me want to hold a telethon for you. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/533 "2008-11-19T04:43:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You make me want to hold a telethon for you. That would be progress. Just leave me alone and give me the same rights you have, and we’ll call it even. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/534 "2008-11-19T04:43:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You simply MUST believe that I must hate gays. You may choose to believe that. If facts don’t stop you I don’t know, or care, what will. > > Have a safe, nice, neat, close-minded little life. Try some reading comprehension, please. I don’t believe you hate gays. I think you fear them, though, and you’ve admitted as much. I think a large portion of the majority who voted for Prop 8 DO hate gays and would admit it. You are pointing to them and saying, “THEY grasp my ideas about marriage, why don’t you people?” I’m saying-- do you really want to point to them to support your point? They hate gays. You don’t. But you and they have the same goal here, and you are aligning yourself with them and maligning us. If that’s the company you want to keep, don’t be shocked and appalled when you are judged by it. ---
**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 19, 2008, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/535 "2008-11-19T04:54:10Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Oh good lord, that’s not a physical threat. I hate to speak for **jayjay** , but being trampled by the crowd has been a metaphor for inexorable societal change ( in the U.S. at least ) forever. Or at least a good long time. > > If anyone was _actually_ physically threatening you, I suspect it would be far more “scary” to menace you with something meaningful as opposed to trying to physically run over you. Which is a rather hard thing to do. > > Lordy. So I’ll metaphorically wait when “his” metaphorical crowd tries to metaphorically trample me. I metaphorically want them to try. ..and please tell your friends not to start again with geometry…I’ll de-rail this thread so fast we’ll be discussing pre-Roman carpentry in Andorra before you know it ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/536 "2008-11-19T04:55:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think society has the option of extending or withholding rights as it sees fit. For instance, we restrict people under 21 from drinking alcohol. But I think “rights” can be a confusing word. On the one hand it refers to those things constitutional protected. On the other, things we assume we can do because there are no laws specifically prohibiting them. I have a right to walk down the street. I have the right to practice the religion of my choosing. I have the right to drive a car. I have the right to burn the flag. I have the right to marry who I want. I have the right to confront my accuser. IANAL, but I don’t think those “rights” are all equal. I don’t think the right to marry is a legally protected right. And even if it is, society can restrict that right to a group if they so desire. In fact, society has an obligation to restrict those rights to groups if they think that granting them will be detrimental to society. I point to the drinking age, for instance. I disagree. And not for the reason you probably think. All rights **exist** , and all rights may be **regulated**. But not “as [society] sees fit.” Rather than writing a long essay on subjects I’m not completely competent to explain, I’ll ask you to look up “strict scrutiny”, “intermediate scrutiny”, and “time, place, and manner” on something dedicated to explaining legal concepts. Bottom line is: government may regulate rights, including depriving some of rights enjoyed by others, when and only when it meets certain specific conditions. Such restrictions are specifically barred from being “arbitrary or capricious.” Now, if you are willing to continue the discussion after that, I’d like to have a clear understanding of this “ideal” of marriage you’ve mentioned, including exactly how permitting gay or same-sex marriage harms or dilutes it. (I’m not sure of your exact reason for objecting, so substitute the proper verb in that last clause, please.) ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/537 "2008-11-19T04:59:15Z")
Personally, I’d like to hear magellan01 describe and defend his ideal, but don’t necessarily want to hijack an already shark-jumped thread that should probably be taken out back and shot. Shall we discuss it here or open a new thread? ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/538 "2008-11-19T05:00:20Z")
Get out of my head, Polycarp! It is dangerous in there… ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/539 "2008-11-19T05:20:05Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > ..and please tell your friends not to start again with geometry…I’ll de-rail this thread so fast we’ll be discussing pre-Roman carpentry in Andorra before you know it Please, be our guest. You already tried once and looked quite the fool. If everybody else enjoyed that half as much as me then we’ll all welcome a second attempt. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/540 "2008-11-19T05:39:06Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > No this thread is about gay people continuing to exist have sex and want equal rights. The recent prop 8 is just another road bump that spurred the post > > There is another thread specific to prop 8. Ah yes, you’re right. Point taken. I pulled most of the points from that thread and got these two confused. Given that, I asked **Revenant Threshold** who instigated this discussion if we could narrow it down to Prop. 8 for the purposes of this discussion. My posts will be addressing that topic. > [@Miller](#): > > No, they aren’t the same. None of the federal benefits of marriage apply to civil unions. Even on the state level, in California, there are nine different benefits that apply only to marriages, and not civil unions. These nine issues were why the California supreme court originally ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. Ah, OK. So there are 9 benefits that are different. Could these 9 benefits be litigated to match marriages? > [@Miller](#): > > Yes. And so do I. And so does everyone else. See, no one’s complaining about that law, because that law _treats everyone the same._ However, if you move to another state, you don’t have to get married again. Homosexual couples do not have that luxury. Unequal treatment is discrimination. So if a gay couple got married in Massachusetts, would they enjoy the benefits of marriage in California? > [@Miller](#): > > No, it is not a huge change. It’s an exceedingly minor change, by any reasonable definition. Reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder. It is generally agreed upon by the community. > [@Miller](#): > > No, there isn’t. They wanted to use the old forms, so they brought back the old forms. No one was deprived of anything. Did you even read that article? Yes, I read the article. > [@Miller](#): > > If the law says, “Married couples are entitled to this set of benefits,” then no, a private company cannot create an exception for gay couples and not extend them the same benefits allowed straight couples. Why? What would happen if they did? > [@Miller](#): > > Try reading the thread title again. There’s no mention of Prop. 8 in it. You’re right. Someone else pointed it out. > [@Miller](#): > > I know! It turns out, gays aren’t a hive mind who share exactly the same opinions on every subject, and react to everything exactly the same way? Isn’t that crazy? It’s almost like we’re real people! But more than that, they don’t seem to share the same ideas about how to go about attaining their goals. I would think that would lead to fragmentation of effort. > [@Miller](#): > > Jesus, what the fuck is this? You dismiss what I’ve been writing as “exasperating, frustrating and annoying,” and I say the same thing about you, and all of a sudden you’re flouncing off in a huff and refusing to talk to me? So, only you get to be dismissive of other posters in this thread? Screw that. Suck it up and debate, or get the fuck out of the thread. I’m not flouncing off in a huff. I just don’t consider much of what you’re doing to be debate. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > There’s likely quite a few more than just one heterosexual couple that have this preference for what appears on their marriage license, but that’s beside the point. That’s one gigantic hand wave there. If a heterosexual couple prefers something to be on their marriage license and they don’t get it because of the impact from same-sex marriage, you surely can’t say that there’s no impact to the heterosexual community. That was my point. And more than a few people have said that there would be no impact. . .none at all. Do you feel badly for the person that didn’t get to have bride/groom on their marriage license? > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > My point being, is that not all change is bad. And the changes that this movement are trying to make is an inclusive change. We are not taking away any significance from any other concepts of marriage. But it just took away at least one couple’s desire to have the certificate read as it did traditionally. You mean, nothing is being taken away of significance besides this? That was only one example. > [@cwthree](#): > > Your analogy fails on several levels. I wasn’t trying to make an analogy. I was just pointing out that the impact of the legal detriment wasn’t very big. It was just to say that obtaining a license in another state is an inconvenience, not a huge legal burden. > [@cwthree](#): > > I’m not impressed by that CA couple’s claim. And I’m guessing they’re not impressed with your claim that gay couples should be married. > [@cwthree](#): > > Unless a couple is planning to display their marriage license after the wedding, this change causes no harm to heterosexual couples. It may be minor harm in your mind, but it’s not no harm. > [@cwthree](#): > > As we’ve seen, some people claim ownership of the word “marriage.” If it isn’t called “marriage,” many people WILL claim that the legal benefits of marriage don’t accrue to couples. Why? Has this already happened in areas where domestic partnership laws have been applied? > [@cwthree](#): > > As we’ve seen as well, the concept of “domestic partnership” is not portable in the way that the concept of “marriage” is. Yes, that seems to be your main argument–portability. But it seems to me that the portability issue has more to do with other states and the federal government than it has to do with Prop. 8. > [@cwthree](#): > > Then you haven’t been paying attention. Thanks for pointing that out, but since I’ve paying attention to the best of my ability, I’m finding it superfluous. > [@cwthree](#): > > 1. Are John and Melissa harmed by New Jersey’s new law? No. Those are enforcement issues, not law-related ones. I’d sue the police and store owner if I were a Christian, which I’m personally not, btw. > [@cwthree](#): > > 1. John and Melissa could convert to a different religion, or they could claim to have no religion, and thus obtain driver’s licenses. Give three arguments for and against this. Gads! Is this an endurance test? 3 arguments for and against? Does it have a purpose? Are you analogizing to gay marriage? Are you saying that gays can choose to have a straight marriage or a gay one? I don’t see the significance to the topic at hand. > [@cwthree](#): > > 1. Another couple, Fred and Minoo, were born into Zoroastrian families in Iran. The immigrated to the United States and started going to church. Fred would like to formally convert to Christianity. Minoo does, too, but she’s concerned about the inconveniences that might result after exchanging her driver’s license for a car operator’s permit. What do you think Fred and Minoo should do? They should weigh the pros and cons of their decision and choose accordingly, like every other life decision that everyone else makes. > [@cwthree](#): > > And _that’s_ why people want to get married, not civilly unionized or domestically partnered. 😕 Because there may be some people who don’t enforce the laws as they should? > [@Antinor01](#): > > No, he and I are not in agreement. > > His stated position is that if the options are, > > 1. No recognition of SS couples. > 2. Recognition, but not the word marriage. > 3. Full recognition, including the word marriage. > > He would accept either 1 or 2. I would accept either 2 or 3. You both intersect at 2. California closest fits with scenario 2. If you’re implying that California is closer to 3 or 1, please clarify. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=28)