# 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:** 39
**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 27, 2008, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/761 "2008-11-27T17:13:30Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Not wrong as in immoral; wrong as in against the rules. God can declare his set of rules; so can I. I see no reason to consider his as any more moral than mine, and plenty of reason to consider them inferior to mine. > > We are speaking of morality, not rules. Would you mind expanding on what “morality” means to you? Is it objective? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2008, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/762 "2008-11-27T23:22:42Z")
Trivia question for everyone: _Which state is farther ahead in granting gay rights:_ A) California B) [Nepal](http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=&id=7c190914-f498-427c-ad0b-97559a3aae71&Headline=Nepal+SC+approves+same-sex+marriage) ---
**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 28, 2008, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/763 "2008-11-28T00:00:29Z")
this year I’m thankful for all the clamoring for freedom and equality I’m seeing, and the feeling of groundswell, let the tide be turned. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2008, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/764 "2008-11-28T17:20:23Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > are you married? That is a great question. Are you married, Magellan? Same question to Aji de Gallina and Heffalump and Roo. I am, FTR. Three and a half years and never been happier, first child due in March. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2008, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/765 "2008-11-28T17:23:37Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > That is a great question. Are you married, Magellan? Same question to Aji de Gallina and Heffalump and Roo. > > I am, FTR. Three and a half years and never been happier, first child due in March. I’m as close as you can get without being able to actually get married. 7 1/2 years. Congrats on the baby! Good timing for it too in this part of the country. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2008, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/766 "2008-11-28T20:34:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Now, let’s look at my idea. With my idea we have only one set of rules, laws, and benefits. We work to pass a law, as I’ve stated a few times now, that ALL the benefits and privileges that one group gets by their being married is extended—each and every one of them—to the group that is joined in a civil union. So while we have two differetn groups, we have them both accessing the same benefit pool in regards to rights and privileges. That pool is equal to itself, so the problems associated with separate but equal in the civil rights struggle do not apply here. Here both groups, gays and straights tap into the same laws. With your example, the two groups, blacks and whites, we’re tapping into two separate and distinct school systems First, my focus is on interracial marriage and the problems it encountered, and its comparison to same-sex marriage (i.e., not on other aspects of the civil rights movement). This is what led me to bring up the “separate but equal” concept, and I think this particular comparison is helpful in identifying the flaws in arguments against SSM. Second, if we applied your above idea to interracial marriage, do you think you encounter some opposition? If so, do you think that opposition would be in error? > [@magellan01](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > Guess who’s coming to dinner? > > This is your same argument that suffers from the fallacy of association. Just because a perception from yesterday was shown to be unnecessary and unhelpful does not mean that all perceptions and beliefs from that time suffer those same failings. I really thought I explained this pretty well. I am not implying that all perceptions from the past are failings. I am showing the similarities between the perceptions of interracial marriage in the past, with the perceptions of SSM in the present. > [@magellan01](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > Why would they stop viewing marriage as a special institution? > > Because it no longer IS as special. Right or wrong, you’re seeking to expand the definition. And by definition, that makes it less special. It makes what it is defining less distinct. Do you think marriage became less special in the aftermath of _Loving v. Virginia_? > [@magellan01](#): > > No. You are wrong. Your argument works equally well and equally poorly for all tradition. But now you want to separate one type of tradition from another. That’s good. But you’re soon left evaluating those things on their merits and ignoring the accident of them all being “traditions”. And THAT is my point. That is a good thing. I’m not following what you mean in these statements. Could you clarify? > [@magellan01](#): > > Huh? Strawman? How in the world is what I wrote a strawman fallacy? Let’s review. I said: > [@me](#): > > Tradition has no qualms with being discriminatory. For centuries, women did not have the right to vote. You responded: > [@magellan01](#): > > This line of argument seeks to abolish all tradition. It attempts to ignore the composite wisdom of centuries of generations. So, anything that we’d like to hold on to can consequently by shown to by ridiculous because it comes from the past. You responded to my post as if I said that “all traditions are discriminatory.” I did not say that. Such an argument would be ludicrous, and anyone arguing against it would win easily. That _is_ the definition of a straw man, right? > [@magellan01](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > No one is saying that all traditions are bad. What we are saying is: some traditions are good, and some traditions are bad. This falls into the latter category. > > Very good. So the fact that they both are traditions can be ignored. You have to look at the merits of each, whether they be rooted in tradition or not. Keen. I’m not the one arguing that marriage should keep its current definition because of “tradition”, so I’m fine with removing that element from the discussion. > [@magellan01](#): > > You’re argument sought to dispense with one because we dispensed with the other. Yes. Because of their similarities (i.e., their merits); not because they were both “traditions”. ---
**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 29, 2008, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/767 "2008-11-29T13:07:31Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > That is a great question. Are you married, Magellan? Same question to Aji de Gallina and Heffalump and Roo. > > I am, FTR. Three and a half years and never been happier, first child due in March. ## Yes, boys 8 and 5, girl 6. I still see this whole interracial marriage idea as not really relevant. It encompasses only parts of the US for a relatively short time, it has been far from the norm in Western society to deny interracial marriage. ---
**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 29, 2008, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/768 "2008-11-29T20:25:25Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > You said, why don’t gays in CA just get domestic partnerships and tell everyone they’re married? My response was that they are not married, in some very meaningful ways, and then enumerated some of those ways. The most important way being that this union is not recognized on a federal level, and is not transferable across state lines. This isn’t something that CA can remedy. It calls for change on a national level, which as I said earlier, will probably require action by the judicial branch. Ah OK, I now see where the disconnect is. I had stated earlier in this thread that I was only talking about Prop. 8. Obviously, you’re not. Here’s why I’m talking only about California and not the Federal level. I put this post from **Musicat** : > [@Musicat](#): > > I think some of us are worried that, while a Federal Constitution allowing gay marriage would trump state ones, that the possibility of someone proposing the _opposite_ at the fed level would be the worst case of all. > > I don’t think, given the present makeup of the court and the likely composition in the next 10 years or so, that SCOTUS overturning anti-gay-marriage amendments based on interpretation of the current Fed constitution is a slam dunk, and the worry would be if the decision goes the wrong way, all hope is lost. > > But as you said, as a practical matter, neither kind of Fed amendment is likely, given the extreme measures needed to pass at that level, so maybe it’s better to NOT try to fix things that high up. > > I find it interesting that the gay marriage proponents, knowing that in some states, a 50% vote is sufficient for either a constitutional change or merely a new law on the books, are saying: Why mess with passing a law which could be overturned when, for the same price, you can get an amendment that won’t be? together with this post from **Bricker** : > [@Prop 8 (CA)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/700): > > This is important precisely because of what I said above: the law must yield predictable results. If judges can disregard the printed law in favor of their own sense of compassion, fairness, or social order, then we practically guarantee a _lack_ of predictability, since not all judges will share the same view of what constitutes compassion, fairness, or social order in a given instance. > > And all of this is important because it goes to the heart of what we as Americans profess to believe in: we govern ourselves. WE are sovereign; we do not surrender our sovereignty to unelected judges. But ceding to judges such sweeping power is to do exactly that: surrender, in some small measure each time, our ability to govern ourselves. where he noted that some cases would have to be overturned to change the laws in this regards which could jeopardize all of our rights which could be overturned by judicial fiat. Taken together, I took them to mean that the chances of anything happening on the Federal level in regards to pro-SSM to be very unlikely. Given the unlikelihood of anything happening, I wasn’t pursuing the conversation as to the Federal level of discussion. It seemed to be too far off to have any real meaning at the moment. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > This isn’t the Prop 8 thread. This is the thread about gay marriage, so it doesn’t only pertain to CA. Litigating individual rights for gays to make civil unions, one right at a time, like marriage, seems quixotic to me considering the passage of Prop 8, inefficient, and catering to homophobes and bigots. It would be better than nothing if it worked, but I don’t think it would. And that was my point. If it worked to get equal rights to have domestic partnerships to be equal to marriage in CA, it seemed to be the most expedient thing to do. Why don’t you think it would work? **Miller** seems to think it would and in California, from what he says, there are only 9 issues. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > But what is he actually doing about it? Blathering away on a message board about his theoretical support for equal rights, while actually voting for the elimination of rights. Doesn’t that seem a bit ridiculous to you? And his suggestions are not remotely in the offing, as I’m sure you know, and probably won’t be. This state-level haggling is one step forward two steps back, and doesn’t address the larger problem on the national level. What would you have **magellan01** or anyone for that matter do about equal rights on a Federal level? If someone brings a petition for an amendment, as \*\*Musicat \*\*points out, it could do more damage than good if the entire nation supercedes the states’ rights and doesn’t allow gay marriage for anyone. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > It’s sort of close but no cigar, and if they’re voting yes on Prop 8, then I think you’re kidding yourself if you think they’re just going to give gays marital rights one by one. Why do you say that? According to [this website](http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c.ltJTJ6MQIuE/b.3348081/k.B080/Facts.htm): > [@](#): > > Since 1999, gay and lesbian couples and opposite-sex couples have been able to register as domestic partners, affording them many, but not all of the same responsibilities and benefits of marriage. Almost every year since the domestic partnership registry was established, new legislation has been introduced to close the gaps in rights and benefits between marriage and domestic partnership, which are still two separate and unequal institutions. There’s no reason to think that things would change in this regard. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > That would indeed be better. And then take the word marriage out of the law altogether and have all unions called civil unions. Leave marriage to the religious institutions. I highly doubt that’s in the offing though. That’s exactly the scheme that **Miller** was objecting to in the quote I quoted in my last exchange with you. He didn’t want everyone to change the word to civil union. > [@Miller](#): > > _I_ sure as fuck would know the difference. I realize that. That’s why I quoted your post to **Rubystreak** who feels that changing the system to civil unions for all would be a good scheme. I was pointing out that you objected to this in another thread where this was proposed. > [@Miller](#): > > That is, in fact, precisely what I’ve been talking about for some years now. Sorry, that was unfortunate formatting. I was telling **Rubystreak** that you weren’t talking about rights in your post. In the post I quoted, you were saying that you didn’t want the word changed to civil unions even if everyone else did it. > [@Miller](#): > > The problem with that is that many of the rights associated with marriage were determined via court ruling, and not litigation. I am not assured that a law saying, “X and Y have to be completely equal,” can necessarily be binding on judicial precedent. Particularly if the subject comes up in front of a judge who is prejudicial to gay rights. And, of course, there’s the fact that these cases, already settled under marriage law, _are_ going to come up again if we create a new law and call it “civil union.” Even if we are perfectly lucky, and every judge who reviews a case falling under civil union law is at least neutral on the subject of gay rights, it will take years and years, and millions of dollars, to build up the catalog of case law to support civil unions to the extent that marriage is already supported. The same problem occurs if it’s called civil union for everyone. > [@Miller](#): > > So, basically, my point is that pursuing civil unions in place of marriage will take longer to reach a position of equality, cost more, be less certain of a successful outcome, be less secure in terms of protecting our rights in the future, and are still unacceptable, because regardless of the associated rights, I don’t want a fucking civil union, I want a goddamned _marriage_. Perhaps. But none of what you say is certain here except for your preference. > [@Polycarp](#): > > The reason that “marriage” and “something equivalent to marriage” would be different is that they are not identical – and in the particular case that provoked this thread, Proposition 8 in California, it would be **impossible** for the State of California to construct “another relationship having the exact rights and privileges of marriage but distinct from it”, simply because California, much though it sometimes seems to regret it, does not exist in a vacuum, but as part of an indissoluble union of 50 states with a Federal government of specific but sweeping powers over it. California can mandate how its own courts and instrumentalities will act to treat DP as exactly equivalent to marriage, but it cannot mandate how the Feds. will regard DPs, nor can it mandate how 49 other states will regard DPs. If it licenses a marriage, though, FF&C or comity requires other states to regard it as a marriage – save for that emanative, penumbrous “public policy exception.” Yes, but as **Rubystreak** pointed out, there’s not much anyone in California can do about the fact that at the Federal level, gay marriage is not in place. Even if CA had not passed the amendment and gay marriage was allowed, there’s still the portability issue since many other states don’t allow gay marriage. > [@5-4-Fighting](#): > > Whether or not anyone, gay or straight, has what it takes to get someone to marry them has nothing to do with the discriminatory nature of any laws that apply to them once they do. Wow, that’s some serious taking my words out of context. If not, I’m unsure what your point is here. > [@5-4-Fighting](#): > > Were you actually serious about this argument? Yes, in the context in which it was stated. If you have an issue with my point in context, please reiterate it. Your point is not clear. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2008, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/769 "2008-11-29T21:31:07Z")
I didn’t misconstrue or take anything out of context. I realize you were responding to **Lil Shieste** ’s post about the inherent suggested inferiority of other relationships when someone is proclaiming one-man/one marriage the ideal. I just cut to the chase and refused to deal line-by-line with your presumptions and rhetorical gymnastics. You said the “ideal” that some opponents to SSM here believe in discriminates against certain people. Regardless of the fact that no one has proven one man-one woman marriage (with children and a certain level of financial sustenance) is the ideal, there’s nothing about the institution of marriage _itself_, in whatever form, that discriminates against those individuals you mention. So why should a law be allowed to do so in taking away rights when it’s simply a same-sex couple who falls outside that construct? Those individuals you mentioned who may choose not to marry or may not be able to get someone to marry them because they may not be able to overcome the individual barriers you describe (as set by themselves or those they might pursue) are not being discriminated against because they don’t meet your self-described ideal _by the law_. These barriers are not discriminatory on an institutional level and have nothing to do with how the law is applied once those individuasl do marry. The difference between laws (and rights) as applied to civil unions and marriage are different for the reasons others have stated, including non-transferability, and therefore discriminatory. Individual barriers to marriage as you described them aren’t. Whether you choose to see my point is up to you. It’s been a long thread (of which I’ve read every post) and I’m not as willing to engage in the gymnastics that you put forth. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/770 "2008-11-30T00:20:45Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > Taken together, I took them to mean that the chances of anything happening on the Federal level in regards to pro-SSM to be very unlikely. Given the unlikelihood of anything happening, I wasn’t pursuing the conversation as to the Federal level of discussion. It seemed to be too far off to have any real meaning at the moment. I believe this will be resolved on a federal level, by the courts, because that’s what happened with civil rights for African Americans in America. If we had to wait for it to come through the legislative, it won’t happen. And I don’t share Bricker’s fears about how judges would rule, nor do I feel like having the courts decide this takes governing out of the hands of the people. What it does is applies our Constitution fairly and protects minorities from the tyranny of the bigoted majority. There is lots of precedent for it and, with a new administration, probably a Supreme Court that would give a pro-SSM ruling, if it came to that. > [@](#): > > Why don’t you think it would work? **Miller** seems to think it would and in California, from what he says, there are only 9 issues. I don’t live in CA, but in general, I really don’t think the majority of voters are “ready” to give up their hold on marital rights. Witness Prop 8 and laws passed in other states. There are groups, like the Mormons, who are deeply invested in legislating against gay rights and would work to block such efforts if they are voted on. Hence, my belief that the judicial branch will have to intercede. > [@](#): > > What would you have **magellan01** or anyone for that matter do about equal rights on a Federal level? If someone brings a petition for an amendment, as \*\*Musicat \*\*points out, it could do more damage than good if the entire nation supercedes the states’ rights and doesn’t allow gay marriage for anyone. I don’t think that’s how it would go on a federal level. Perhaps I’m naively hopeful, but I do think this is an issue wherein there is only one correct answer, and that will shine through in the end. However, when you have a chance to vote against a bigoted and evil measure like Prop 8, but you vote FOR it, you cannot be said to be on the side of the angels in this one. > [@](#): > > there’s no reason to think that things would change in this regard. Domestic partnership is not marriage, nor is it a civil union. It’s a half-assed consolation prize and it’s not good enough IMO. > [@](#): > > That’s exactly the scheme that **Miller** was objecting to in the quote I quoted in my last exchange with you. He didn’t want everyone to change the word to civil union. That’s where he and I differ, then. I don’t care what it’s called as long as everyone’s equal. Either we can all be married in the eyes of the law, or we can all be civilly unioned, but it has to be the same. I’ll still call it a marriage and no one can stop me. It’s when straights get to be married legally and gays are only allowed to be civilly unioned that I object. There should be no distinction made. > [@](#): > > The same problem occurs if it’s called civil union for everyone. This is why the decision has to be made that all laws discriminating against gays are unconstitutional and end the bullshit forever, ala civil rights for blacks. Otherwise, we’ll have to endure this Prop 8-type nonsense over and over. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/771 "2008-11-30T01:42:26Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > Why should marriage between a man and a woman be considered the “ideal”, though? If it’s described as such, then it’s implied that marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, are “not ideal”. Marriages that are “not ideal” are, by definition, inferior to marriages that are “ideal”. How can this view be held by someone who thinks gay people should have equal rights? > > But it says quite a bit more than that, doesn’t it? The ideal discriminates against single people, socially inept people, children, mentally incapable people and pretty much everyone else that doesn’t fit the one man/one woman standard. Doesn’t sound very ideal, then, does it? 🙂 > [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > And I’ll go a step farther and say that the ideal is to have a loving family with enough resources to provide for the nuclear family unit. I see no reason why “with enough resources…” should even enter into it. That affects unmarried people just as much as married people, so it’s not something that’s tied to marriage. Love, however, is something that I would agree is considered part of the ideal. > [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > Why does it do that? Because it’s an ideal. It’s something to move toward but not attain. It’s like the ideal physical body. Really, no one has one. . .it’s just a standard that give us an idea of what people consider the goal. That doesn’t mean that people that don’t hit the standard are inferior. . . almost all people don’t match the ideal. In the conceptual world, an ideal is something that can be thought of as a goal. That is, attaining the ideal is _possible_, but perhaps not _probable_. In the physical world, however, it is _impossible_ to attain the ideal. For example: we can _never_ create a situation in which we have attained Absolute Zero. No matter how hard we try, there will always be some miniscule amount of heat that we will not be able to eliminate (e.g., 1 quadrillionth of a Kelvin). Marriage is something that obviously exists in both worlds (physical and conceptual). It exists in the physical world solely because there needs to be some kind of definition with which it can be identified. It exists in the conceptual world for a variety of reasons (religion, personal happiness, etc.). All we are seeking to do is modify the definition of marriage in the _physical_ sense, to stop discriminating against certain couples. We’re not looking to drastically change marriage law (e.g., accommodate more or less than 2 people; accommodate animals; etc.), so we’re genuinely confused as to why it’s such a hard pill to swallow. > [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > We don’t consider that single people should get a marriage certificate because they feel discriminated against and want one. Until they’re with a person of the opposite sex, they don’t qualify. But that’s not because they’re inferior; they just don’t qualify. Changing marriage law to encompass single people would require some pretty drastic modifications. Modifying marriage law to encompass same-sex couples would require modifications no more drastic than what was required to encompass interracial couples. > [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > Are you referring to the 4 months of time in California where gay couples could marry? Is that the rights that are being stripped away? Not specifically, no. With that particular statement, I was speaking more in terms of general rights than legal ones. I can see how that could be confusing, though, since the discussion has also included legal rights. > [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > (about polygamy) > If it was found that it would be a real PITA from a legal standpoint to have gay marriages, would that be reason enough to not have them? Opponents of SSM would at least have a leg to stand on, if that were the case. > [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > That part should be pretty straightforward, actually. The positive and unifying ones are ones that… well… unify (bring people together); and the divisive ones are ones that fragment our society (force people apart). > > Well, people are quite unified at the moment in this country that they’re not interested in SSM. Is that the unification you’re talking about? Because I was talking about the unification of people within a marriage. The latter is an example of “positive and unifying”, while the former is simply an example of “unifying”. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/772 "2008-11-30T09:40:33Z")
> [@LilShieste](#): > > First, my focus is on interracial marriage and the problems it encountered, and its comparison to same-sex marriage (i.e., not on other aspects of the civil rights movement). This is what led me to bring up the “separate but equal” concept, and I think this particular comparison is helpful in identifying the flaws in arguments against SSM. But “separate but equal” MEANS SOMETHING. It’s not just a magic chant you utter and anything you slap with the label automatically suffers as did it’s application to the race issue. You brought this up and I’ve explained in detail why it does NOT apply. If you’d like to argue with the _reasoning_ I’ve provided for that point (Post 708), go ahead. But it really should be clear by now. > [@LilShieste](#): > > Second, if we applied your above idea to interracial marriage, do you think you encounter some opposition? If so, do you think that opposition would be in error? I’m not positive what, specifically, you’re asking, but: we tried “separate but equal” and saw that is was a badly flawed idea—mainly because it was unattainable, as I’ve explained. We then moved to have the two groups (blacks and whites) tap into ONE system. And that is precisely what I’ve argued as far as SSM. > [@LilShieste](#): > > I am not implying that all perceptions from the past are failings. I am showing the similarities between the perceptions of interracial marriage in the past, with the perceptions of SSM in the present. But your just grabbing one and assuming it applies. It doesn’t, as I’ve explained. The idea I’ve proposed does NOT present a separate but equal problem. Can’t you see that very plain fact? There are similarities with struggle for civil rights for blacks, yes. But you strive to draw more of an equivalence than just “a similarity”. For instance, your desire to ascribe “separate but equal” as a fundamental problem for BOTH issues. > [@LilShieste](#): > > Do you think marriage became less special in the aftermath of _Loving v. Virginia_? No, as it was still a union of a man and a woman. That comports perfectly with our understanding of marriage, including the procreative aspect, not to mention the moral underpinnings of the country as laid out in the D of I. > [@LilShieste](#): > > I’m not following what you mean in these statements. Could you clarify? Look, this is getting difficult. Can you please go back and review our exchange the centers around Post #708. It’s really quite clear. Also, you might find this link helpful as far as [the straw man fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). It doesn’t mean what you say it means. More important, as it goes to the heart of our discussion, this [link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy) might be helpful. I’ll try to get back, but my schedule is making difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/773 "2008-11-30T15:14:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No, it’s not. But because this keeps popping up, I’m glad you asked the question. “Separate but equal” in the context you mention, is almost impossible to achieve. The reason is that you are dealing with two separate items—two schools in a particular town, say—and are trying to make them equal. Even if you replaced them with two identical buildings, you’d need to also make them equal in regards to: > > - location, are they both in equally safe neighborhoods, equally far from the unpleasantness of the town dump and other potentially harmful places or businesses > > - financing, which even if you give them the same amount, one might have the benefit of a wealthier community to “pick up the slack”, thus changing the experience > > - teachers, given that these schools will likely already exist before you endeavor to make them equal, you will have to reallocate them so each school has the same proportion of good teachers and not so good teachers > > - parental involvement, this is one of the strongest indicators of how a school will do, so you will have to apportion involved parents to each school. But if the involved parents are not equally dispersed between the two schools geographically, then some may not want to have their kids sent to the less convenient school, and pull them out and send them to private school > > - diversity, neighborhoods tend to not models of diversity. Some lack it almost completely. You need to decide how important diversity—racial, performance, income—is to an equal experience and then send some kids to a less convenient school. And those kids who may have to commute an half-an-hour or an hour then don’t have the same “equal” school day as the kids who are a few minutes from their school > > So, “separate but equal” as far as a solution to racial disparity in society is near an impossibility. Especially on a large scale. so, it was rightly abandoned as an option. I’m calling you out on this one, since you keep saying you have settled the issue in post #708. You have not. Pre-_Brown_, the courts made little or no effort to enforce such an exact, one-to-one equality for facilities, neighborhoods, etc. as you propose, and of course there’s too much subjectivity involved for that to be possible or at least, practical. The courts said “separate but equal is fair,” and _left it up to society or governments to implemement that policy._ Then, ca. 1954, they realized not only the absurdity of legalized racial divides, but the fact that implementation was haphazard and ridiculous – what defines black and white and why should it matter? – so they discarded the entire concept and it was about time. Later, in _Loving,_ they removed one more divide between personal choice when bans on interracial marriage were thrown out. You say it was still a man and woman-type marriage, right? Not to those who were horrified by it and wrote it into law. They didn’t care what sex the couples were, they didn’t want this kind of marriage. Sounds familiar, eh? Now we have people who _don’t care what sex the couples are, they don’t want this kind of marriage?_ Analogous? Damn right it is! Now, you are saying that one kind of marriage is different from another kind of marriage in name, but they are equal in rights. _The very fact that you claim a difference, which to you is important, means they are not equal in rights._ This parallels very well with the racial miscegenation and separate but equal argument. A second-class citizen is still a citizen, right? Then the only reason to prefix “citizen” with “second-class” is to make a distinction. So marriage has traditionally been one man, one woman? Blacks and whites had to drink out of separate fountains and use separate bathrooms, but they were equal, right? Nonsense to both. If that’s what tradition means, it’s time to make some new ones and do what’s right. It was time in _Brown._ It was time in _Loving._ Tradition sucks. > [@magellan01](#): > > We then moved to have the two groups (blacks and whites) tap into ONE system. And that is precisely what I’ve argued as far as SSM. It’s not ONE system if you have TWO names for it and a couple doesn’t have a choice. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/774 "2008-11-30T18:45:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But “separate but equal” MEANS SOMETHING. It’s not just a magic chant you utter and anything you slap with the label automatically suffers as did it’s application to the race issue. You brought this up and I’ve explained in detail why it does NOT apply. If you’d like to argue with the _reasoning_ I’ve provided for that point (Post 708), go ahead. But it really should be clear by now. The underlying concept of “separate but equal” is applicable to things other than water fountains. We’re talking about splitting a single institution into two separate institutions (marriage and civil unions), but treating those two institutions in exactly the same way. If you can’t see how “separate but equal” can apply to this situation, then I’ll just use the phrase “different but the same”; it’s just as ridiculous. > [@magellan01](#): > > We then moved to have the two groups (blacks and whites) tap into ONE system. And that is precisely what I’ve argued as far as SSM. The ONE system we’re talking about here is _marriage_, and you most certainly have _not_ been arguing for same-sex-inclusion into that system. > [@magellan01](#): > > No, as it was still a union of a man and a woman. That comports perfectly with our understanding of marriage, including the procreative aspect, not to mention the moral underpinnings of the country as laid out in the D of I. It was the union of a man and a woman of the same race. Our “understanding of marriage” (_especially_ during the time in which the Declaration of Independence was written) certainly did not include interracial marriages. We had to _modify_ our understanding of marriage, just as we have to do right now. > [@magellan01](#): > > Look, this is getting difficult. Can you please go back and review our exchange the centers around Post #708. It’s really quite clear. Also, you might find this link helpful as far as [the straw man fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). It doesn’t mean what you say it means. You fabricated a ridiculous argument and presented it as mine (“_This line of argument seeks to abolish all tradition._”), and then argued against it (“_So, anything that we’d like to hold on to can consequently by shown to by ridiculous because it comes from the past._”). Since I was not making this argument, the only conclusions I could come to were: [list=“1”] [li] You constructed a strawman, OR[/li][li] … ? (Fill in the blank)[/li][/list] ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/775 "2008-11-30T19:55:56Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Then, ca. 1954, they realized not only the absurdity of legalized racial divides, but the fact that implementation was haphazard and ridiculous – what defines black and white and why should it matter? – so they discarded the entire concept and it was about time. And if we were talking about eliminating racial divides, we’d be in agreement. But we’re not talking about that, are we? > [@Musicat](#): > > Later, in _Loving,_ they removed one more divide between personal choice when bans on interracial marriage were thrown out. You say it was still a man and woman-type marriage, right? Not to those who were horrified by it and wrote it into law. They didn’t care what sex the couples were, they didn’t want this kind of marriage. > > Sounds familiar, eh? Now we have people who _don’t care what sex the couples are, they don’t want this kind of marriage?_ Analogous? Damn right it is! Nope. Similar? Yes. Just because laws were corrected to comport with the founding principles of the country and a distinction that was drawn in people’s minds was erased in the law, does NOT mean that ALL distinctions are deserving of being erased. Surely you realize this. Not even all distinctions having to do with marriage. > [@Musicat](#): > > Now, you are saying that one kind of marriage is different from another kind of marriage in name, but they are equal in rights. _The very fact that you claim a difference, which to you is important, means they are not equal in rights._ This parallels very well with the racial miscegenation and separate but equal argument. I’m saying that they’d be equal _because they would be_. That would (as per my plan) simply be a matter of fact: All legal privileges and benefits afforded one group would be afforded the other. If one was taken away from one, it would be taken away from the other. Perhaps you’re using a definition of “equal” I’m unfamiliar with. > [@Musicat](#): > > A second-class citizen is still a citizen, right? Then the only reason to prefix “citizen” with “second-class” is to make a distinction. Yes. And if you were trying to make a point about “second-class citizens” you’d need to use that phrase. Simply using citizen would communicate something different. Thus a book entitled “Does Poverty Mean Second-Class Citizenship” could not be shortened to “Does Poverty Mean Citizenship?”. As far as qualifiers, yes, words matter. They are helpful. There’s a difference between a “baseball player” and a “Major League baseball player”; between “worker” and “undocumented worker”; between “college graduate” and “Harvard graduate”. Additionally, if you feel that the sex of individuals involved in a marriage is so meaningless, please answer this: why doesn’t one of the male partners in a SSM call himself a “wife”? Could it be because they DO find their gender to, in fact, be important? > [@Musicat](#): > > So marriage has traditionally been one man, one woman? Blacks and whites had to drink out of separate fountains and use separate bathrooms, but they were equal, right? Nonsense to both. If that’s what tradition means, it’s time to make some new ones and do what’s right. It was time in _Brown._ It was time in _Loving._ Sorry, but what you write here is just ridiculous. Really. If you’re really trying to argue that “marriage” has NOT traditionally been one man and one woman, I don’t know what planet you’re talking about. And the reason that separate equal didn’t work was because people realized that they could NOT be both separate and equal. This prong of your argument suffers from the same association fallacy as **LilShieste’s.** > [@Musicat](#): > > Tradition sucks. Sorry. That might qualify as an opinion, but not an argument. And that IS your argument. > [@Musicat](#): > > It’s not ONE system if you have TWO names for it and a couple doesn’t have a choice. But I’ve shown you, more than once, that it IS one system—one set of laws, privileges and benefits. The same system afforded to two groups. Y ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/776 "2008-11-30T20:10:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m saying that they’d be equal _because they would be_. That would (as per my plan) simply be a matter of fact: All legal privileges and benefits afforded one group would be afforded the other. If one was taken away from one, it would be taken away from the other. Perhaps you’re using a definition of “equal” I’m unfamiliar with. Questions: 1. What are you doing to make this plan happen, besides voting against SSM when you have the chance and talking about your theoretical plan on the SDMB? 2. Do you really think your plan will ever be offered as a ballot proposition? 3. Do you think it has an ice cube’s chance in hell of passing? 4. What makes you think that the rights of same sex partnerships will ever be linked to the fate of OSM as you suggest? There is no basis for that except in this plan you’ve invented. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/777 "2008-11-30T20:12:01Z")
If, as **Magellan** suggests, there is an _ideal_ to which the legal concept of marriage aspires, however much any particular example may fall short of that ideal (the couple who fell in love at age 13, married straight out of high school, and have never seriously looked at anyone else in the 50+ years since coming pretty darn close; the Hollywood couple whose marriage lasted 2 1/2 months, not so much), and which would in some way be injured by attaching the name “marriage” to the legally equivalent contracted monogamous union of a gay couple, well then… It should be pretty easy to articulate, in a simple definition, what that ideal actually **is** , and equally easy to explain why it is in some way injured by the application of the term to gay couples’ unions. Though **Magellan** and his colleagues in that view have understandably been diverted from their course by defending themselves against charges of bigotry by holding to this premise, I have seen from none of them any clearly articulated definition and explanation that meets the standards of the previous paragraph in this post. Granting him (and the others) the right to hold his position unharassed by seemingly unjust accusations, I’d then expect him to come across with that definition and that explanation – or consider his position to be on unsound ground, for lack of any clarity as to what he claims to be defending so avidly. Consider that a challenge, sirs: If you have a clear and sound position that can ethically be defended against allegations of bigotry, explain it in clear, simple terms. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/778 "2008-11-30T20:17:10Z")
> [@LilShieste](#): > > The underlying concept of “separate but equal” is applicable to things other than water fountains. We’re talking about splitting a single institution into two separate institutions (marriage and civil unions), but treating those two institutions in exactly the same way. If you can’t see how “separate but equal” can apply to this situation, then I’ll just use the phrase “different but the same”; it’s just as ridiculous. Like school systems, as I mentioned.:rolleyes: > [@LilShieste](#): > > The ONE system we’re talking about here is _marriage_, and you most certainly have _not_ been arguing for same-sex-inclusion into that system. Thanks for noticing. I hope you’ve also noticed that I’d like gays to have all the privileges and benefits as those in marriage do. > [@LilShieste](#): > > It was the union of a man and a woman of the same race. > > Our “understanding of marriage” (_especially_ during the time in which the Declaration of Independence was written) certainly did not include interracial marriages. We had to _modify_ our understanding of marriage, just as we have to do right now. My mention of the D of I had to do with the phrase “…all men are created equal.” And why “must” we modify it. We don’t have to. It’s on the table. It is an option. Nothing more, nothing less. You confuse feeling strongly about an issue translating to a moral imperative for all mankind. I respect your passion, but sorry. > [@LilShieste](#): > > You fabricated a ridiculous argument and presented it as mine (“_This line of argument seeks to abolish all tradition._”), and then argued against it (“_So, anything that we’d like to hold on to can consequently by shown to by ridiculous because it comes from the past._”). Since I was not making this argument, the only conclusions I could come to were: > [list=“1”] > [li] You constructed a strawman, OR[/li][li] … ? (Fill in the blank)[/li][/list] You still don’t know what a straw man is. Fine. Try reviewing our exchanges and searching Google for “straw man fallacy”. Maybe one of the other links will make it clearer for you. And you’ll no doubt take this as a mean comment, but I sincerely do not intend it as such. But a course in logic would be very helpful. But the answer to #2 is: I was showing that your “argument” suffered from the Fallacy of Association and took it to it’s logical conclusion. Gotta run. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/779 "2008-11-30T20:32:33Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Questions: > > 1. What are you doing to make this plan happen, besides voting against SSM when you have the chance and talking about your theoretical plan on the SDMB? > 2. Do you really think your plan will ever be offered as a ballot proposition? > 3. Do you think it has an ice cube’s chance in hell of passing? > 4. What makes you think that the rights of same sex partnerships will ever be linked to the fate of OSM as you suggest? There is no basis for that except in this plan you’ve invented. I do have to run but, a few quick answers: 1. Nothing. Except trying to temper the anti-gay sentiments of those I encounter in life. 2. If not, it will be because of the position of the more militant on the gay side. Some who, like **Miller** , insist on the word “Marriage”. 3. Absolutely. Just look how close Prop 8 came to failing. I’d bet that if the word “marriage” had been taken off the table it would have failed. 4. A sense of fairness. And once the threat is removed, people will be able to, or forced to, focus on that aspect more. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/780 "2008-11-30T20:38:25Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > If, as **Magellan** suggests, there is an _ideal_ to which the legal concept of marriage aspires, however much any particular example may fall short of that ideal (the couple who fell in love at age 13, married straight out of high school, and have never seriously looked at anyone else in the 50+ years since coming pretty darn close; the Hollywood couple whose marriage lasted 2 1/2 months, not so much), and which would in some way be injured by attaching the name “marriage” to the legally equivalent contracted monogamous union of a gay couple, well then… > > It should be pretty easy to articulate, in a simple definition, what that ideal actually **is** , and equally easy to explain why it is in some way injured by the application of the term to gay couples’ unions. > > Though **Magellan** and his colleagues in that view have understandably been diverted from their course by defending themselves against charges of bigotry by holding to this premise, I have seen from none of them any clearly articulated definition and explanation that meets the standards of the previous paragraph in this post. > > Granting him (and the others) the right to hold his position unharassed by seemingly unjust accusations, I’d then expect him to come across with that definition and that explanation – or consider his position to be on unsound ground, for lack of any clarity as to what he claims to be defending so avidly. > > Consider that a challenge, sirs: If you have a clear and sound position that can ethically be defended against allegations of bigotry, explain it in clear, simple terms. Despite the Velvet Glove of Fairness and Understanding, I have no reason to believe that any explanation will suffice. I say this because I have explained it more than a few times, both in this thread and the two others. (one in GD). And I really don’t have the time or desire to push through that gauntlet again. So you, and others, may believe whatever you’d like. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=38) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=40)