# 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:** 40
**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, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/781 "2008-11-30T20:53:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 1. 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”. Maybe, just maybe, it will be because there are still a lot of homophobes in the world who do not want gays to have equal rights? I wouldn’t lay it all on “militants” like Miller who just want parity. > [@](#): > > 1. 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. > 2. A sense of fairness. And once the threat is removed, people will be able to, or forced to, focus on that aspect more. As for #3, I’m not sure you’re right, but maybe. As for 4, I think the judicial branch is going to have to intercede and people (including you) will have to see that gay marriage is not going to screw up traditional marriage, or harm society, or negatively affect the children. Then we can look back on all this tortured arguing and see it for what it is. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/782 "2008-11-30T21:23:59Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. I don’t trust your tempering of anti-gay sentiments. You can’t be trusted with my right to be married, I certainly don’t trust you with tempering anti-gay sentiments. You’re more than willing to vote against gay rights, but only willing to pay lip service FOR gay rights. Sorry. Don’t trust you. Actions speak louder than words and your method of tempering anti-gay sentiment is to take take rights away and then talk about taking things off the table. > [@](#): > > 1. 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”. Makes no sense. If Miller wants the word “marriage” that’s an entirely different proposition than the one you have no intention of putting forth anyway. You are now saying if gays want the word marriage you’ll resist an attempt at civil unions. This means what? You’re going to punish us by taking away even more rights? **Magellan** : “No marriage for you!” Us: “We’re sorry **Mag**! We promise we don’t want marriage! Can we have civil union? Marriage is totally off the table!” **Mag** : “Sorry, can’t trust you aren’t pretending to be married. I know, I know, I dangled that separate but equal carrot in front of you to get you to shut up about marriage, but I can’t believe you fell for that. I already said you could call it marriage if you want, even though it’s not legal. Were you really stupid enough to think I’d let you have something you could call marriage if you want?” > [@](#): > > 1. 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. Again, makes no sense. If marriage were taken off the table there would be no prop 8! How convenient for you. > [@](#): > > 1. A sense of fairness. And once the threat is removed, people will be able to, or forced to, focus on that aspect more. No. People have already shown they resist civil unions and domestic partnerships precisely because they resemble marriage. Why do you think they haven’t been passed at the federal level? A certain majority of people don’t want gays to have access to anything resembling a legal marriage because it’s a slippery slope to marriage, and we’re never going to be able to “take that off the table.” ---
**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, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/783 "2008-11-30T21:42:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. Links) or restatement, as you prefer, when you return. Despite disagreeing strongly with you on this issue, I’m more than willing to grant your views recognition as adherence to an ideal, not bigotry. But try as I might, I have not comprehended from anything **I’ve** read of yours any coherent definition of what the ideal for marriage you are so avidly defending consists in. Yeah, I may have missed it – there’s been so much written on the general subject. Or you may have thought you made yourself clear when the only person to see it as a clear answer was in fact you. (Not to insult; I’ve seen well-meaning Christian conservatives think they’re spelling things out clearly when they’re bringing in assumptions not shared by their readers. I could easily see you doing something similar.) Thanks. ---
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/784 "2008-11-30T22:01:06Z")
> [@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. Apparently you are using a definition I am not familiar with, where “Domestic Partners” == “Marriage”. If you don’t think there is a difference, why give them different names? > [@](#): > > 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? If one partner in ANY marriage wants to call themself “Big Daddy” or “Mighty Mama,” it’s certainly no concern of mine and no damn business of yours. > [@](#): > > 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. I never said tradition was otherwise, and thanks for making my point for me.[sup]\*[/sup] Tradition sucks. It’s fucked up. Time. To. Change. It. “Throughout the centuries, the institution of marriage has been changing and continues to change.” [http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm](http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm) And it will make many people happy. That’s a bad thing, I’m sure. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > And the reason that separate equal didn’t work was because people realized that they could NOT be both separate and equal. Exactly, and thanks once again for making my point for me. > [@](#): > > 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. Not if they work under a different name and some of them don’t like it. I say if you permit two people who love each other to get married, it will be the biggest non-event in history. And in case you’re wondering, it won’t affect me any way. I’m not aguing from self-interest but an enlightened one. If I can make people happy without sacrificing anything myself, it’s a no-brainer and I can be happy, too. 🙂 * * * [sup]\*[/sup]Marriage as a government-sanctioned institution is a VERY recent concept in human history, so be careful what tradition you want to uphold – recent, less recent, old-recent, old-ancient, or really old? “Tradition” is not perpetual. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/785 "2008-11-30T22:39:02Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > I say if you permit two people who love each other to get married, it will be the biggest non-event in history. What, are you going to ignore all the [horrible effects](http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html) it’s had on Massachusetts? I mean, prospective lawyers have to answer questions about gay marriage on the bar exam. Funding for high school gay-straight alliances has gone up. Children read books that show two men kissing. Fire has rained from the sky, destroying life as we know it. OK, maybe not that last one. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/786 "2008-11-30T22:43:23Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > What, are you going to ignore all the [horrible effects](http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html) it’s had on Massachusetts? I mean, prospective lawyers have to answer questions about gay marriage on the bar exam. Funding for high school gay-straight alliances has gone up. Children read books that show two men kissing. Fire has rained from the sky, destroying life as we know it. > > OK, maybe not that last one. Are straight couples even still bothering to get married now that the definition of marriage has been broadened? ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/787 "2008-11-30T22:48:46Z")
> [@5-4-Fighting](#): > > Are straight couples even still bothering to get married now that the definition of marriage has been broadened? Nope, they gave up on marriage. But that’s not the problem. They’ve also stopped having sex and making children. It truly is the end of the world. ---
**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:** [December 1, 2008, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/788 "2008-12-01T00:44:27Z")
> [@5-4-Fighting](#): > > I just cut to the chase and refused to deal line-by-line with your presumptions and rhetorical gymnastics. Would another word for that be debate? Or do you think that your position doesn’t have presumptions and is unbiased? One of the reasons for this “rhetorical gymnastics” as you call it is that it’s often difficult to understand someone’s position in one post. I certainly don’t understand your point from this one. > [@5-4-Fighting](#): > > 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? What is “marriage itself” mean? It sounds like you’re defining it outside of the construct of the laws that restrict it. If so, how? What is the definition or goals or purpose or whatever other system you’re using to determine what “itself” means in this context? > [@Rubystreak](#): > > 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. Could you point out these precedents? If you use cases, could you quote text please? But before you do that, could you read **Bricker** ’s analysis. He seems to believe that the cases on point don’t support your conclusion. He seems to believe that some case law would have to be overturned. If that’s the case, and the Supreme Court judges decided a case where the vast majority of the country is not in favor and DOMA still applies, that would be quite disconcerting for other rights that might be decided by judicial fiat. You might think it to be OK for this one issue, but you might not be as happy if they get to do the same with issues like abortion, freedom of speech, etc. As to your use of the term “bigoted majority”, you’re calling 52% of the voting population in CA on this issue and the very vast majority of the rest of the people in the US bigots. When you use a term in that way, you’ve rendered it meaningless. It just means that someone disagrees with you on this issue. I agree with **Sampiro** when he says: > [@Foolsguinea: Please to lick my Corpulent White Lily Flour Colored Alabama Ass](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/foolsguinea-please-to-lick-my-corpulent-white-lily-flour-colored-alabama-ass/474502/9): > > Why does this infuriate me so much other than the obvious? It’s because there _ **IS** _ very real, totally legitimate racism out there. The same reason it infuriates me when people are called homophobes (I started a pit thread when GLAAD called Gene Shalit one) or sexist or anti-semitic or other such labels without adequate reason, because it _castrates_ the words and the charges, and when the charge is _valid_ it means next to fucking nothing. > … > Hatred and irrational prejudice is alive and well, you don’t have to make it up, just look a little and you can find the real thing, or wait a while and it’ll probably find you. > But self imposed victimization makes me sick. It’s also a reason I’m against hate crime laws (because I’m gay I’m special? A violent attack on me is intrinsically worse than a violent attack on my straight brother? Or am I so helpless that I need extra terms applied to my assailant?), but that’s another thread. When you don’t differentiate between people who disagree with you on a topic and people who are out in the street beating someone for their sexual orientation, you’ve made that word impotent. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > 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. Since you’ve already stated that the word marriage doesn’t mean anything to you and you’re just talking about the benefits, I disagree. In California, public opinion has supported gay rights in regards to domestic partnership since 1997. > [@](#): > > California public opinion has long supported legal protections for gay and lesbian couples. In early 1997, two and half years before any statewide recognition occurred, polls showed two-thirds of Californians supported the limited provisions in unsuccessful bills debated in the legislature at the time. There was also strong support (59 percent) for broader provisions (pension, health, leave and survivor benefits) that weren’t enacted until more than four years later.[23] > > Polls consistently show a marked contrast between support for domestic partnerships and same-sex marriage. In 1997, roughly 38 percent of Californians supported same-sex marriage. More recent polls show an increase in support for same-sex marriage, but few polls suggest that there is any more support for same-sex marriage than a statistical tie with opponents.[24] On November 4, 2008, Californians voted, 52.2% to 47.8%, to eliminate the right of same sex couples to marry.[25] from this [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California) Prop. 8 has done nothing to change these rights as to domestic partnership. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > 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. I guess this is a religious thing, but since I don’t believe in angels and demons, especially in regards to humans, I don’t generally classify them as such. I generally think of people as trying to do the best they can with what knowledge, ability and information they have available to them. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > 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. In what way does domestic partnership and civil union differ? In California: > [@](#): > > The legislature has since expanded the scope of California domestic partnerships to afford many of the rights and responsibilities common to marriage. As such, it is now difficult to distinguish California domestic partnerships from civil unions offered in a handful of other states. from the Wiki above If I read the article correctly, there are reciprocal rights with some states that have civil unions as well. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > 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. Is the distinction due to the different rights available or something else? > [@Rubystreak](#): > > 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. In this case, you’d first have to prove that the law was discriminatory and not restrictive. > [@LilShieste](#): > > Doesn’t sound very ideal, then, does it? 🙂 Well, there must be something good about it. People seem to want to engage in it for some reason. 😉 > [@LilShieste](#): > > 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. Because watching your child die from malnutrition isn’t ideal in my world. > [@LilShieste](#): > > 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.). Your example of Absolute Zero also exists in the physical world. We can measure what you’re trying to eliminate in Kelvins. That means it has some physical presence. If it didn’t, there wouldn’t be any reason to have a paradigm to model it. > [@LilShieste](#): > > 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. You’ve separated the concept and the physical. They’re inseparable. > [@LilShieste](#): > > 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. Is that how we determine which is preferable–which one would require more drastic changes in the laws? I’m not buying this as a valid argument. If some proponents want to change the laws so that all people have civil unions, that’s much more drastic in changing the laws on the books, but that doesn’t seem to be the major concern. > [@LilShieste](#): > > 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. (in regards to stripping away rights) No, actually I was confused because gay couples have not had the right to marriage before so I was confused as to how something could be stripped away that didn’t exist before. > [@LilShieste](#): > > Opponents of SSM would at least have a leg to stand on, if that were the case. They already have a leg to stand on. It is disallowed in the majority of the country. > [@LilShieste](#): > > 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”. No, I wasn’t talking about unification at all. I was just pointing out that what one side would consider unifying, the other side would consider divisive. But you’ve made my point for me by claiming that the tradition must be “positive and unifying”. Positive and negative differs depending on what side you’re standing. > [@Polycarp](#): > > 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. Are you saying that no one understands the concept? Because if they don’t, what are they arguing against? I understand **magellan01** ’s arguments without them having to be reiterated. That said, it sounds like you’re asking for a simplistic one-post answer to a fairly complex topic. If you don’t think so, then you can show us how it’s done by laying out a one-post argument for the existence of God that is comprehensive, logical, rational, irrefutable and understandable. Until such time, I’ll take a pass on your offer, thankyouverymuch. > [@Polycarp](#): > > Links) or restatement, as you prefer, when you return. Interestingly, I asked for exactly this on the other side of the argument when I first entered this thread. I haven’t seen it either. If you have it available, could you post it please. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/789 "2008-12-01T01:57:12Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > Could you point out these precedents? If you use cases, could you quote text please? But before you do that, could you read **Bricker** ’s analysis. Could you link to it? You seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands and energy for this debate, so I imagine it won’t be a problem for you. > [@](#): > > As to your use of the term “bigoted majority”, you’re calling 52% of the voting population in CA on this issue and the very vast majority of the rest of the people in the US bigots. Very vast? I don’t know about that. But yes, if you hold bigoted views, like people don’t deserve equal rights because they’re gay, then you’re bigoted. Doesn’t matter if you’re in the majority and you hold those views. The majority of Americans held bigoted views about blacks 100 years ago. Does that mean the bigotry did not exist? You have some very weird ideas about how words should be used. Don’t like being called a bigot? Too bad. > [@](#): > > When you use a term in that way, you’ve rendered it meaningless. You might like to think so, but I disagree. The vehemence of your reaction to it shows that it does have meaning, and you don’t like what it means. > [@](#): > > It just means that someone disagrees with you on this issue. No, really, it doesn’t. We might disagree on whether or not NASCAR is a sport. We might disagree about whether to wear white after Labor Day. No one on either side of that disagreement is a bigot. That’s just a difference of opinion. If we disagree about giving people equal rights, and you’re in favor of taking them away because you’re intolerant of gays, then it’s a question of bigotry. > [@](#): > > I agree with **Sampiro** when he says: I wonder if Sampiro would agree with you using his words this way. > [@](#): > > When you don’t differentiate between people who disagree with you on a topic and people who are out in the street beating someone for their sexual orientation, you’ve made that word impotent. It’s a matter of degree. Taking away people’s rights from them and beating them up in the street are both bigoted actions. > [@](#): > > Since you’ve already stated that the word marriage doesn’t mean anything to you and you’re just talking about the benefits, I disagree. In California, public opinion has supported gay rights in regards to domestic partnership since 1997. I never said the word doesn’t mean anything to me. I’d use it whether the government called it that or not. I want it to be applied equally, or not at all. That’s called being fair, and it’s very different from not caring. Domestic partnership is not the same as a civil union is not the same as marriage. You know this but yet continue to belabor the point. I have to wonder why. And really, even in states where gay marriage is allowed, it is still not recognized on a federal level, so it’s not really equal rights. The states can only do so much. > [@](#): > > I guess this is a religious thing, but since I don’t believe in angels and demons, especially in regards to humans, I don’t generally classify them as such. I generally think of people as trying to do the best they can with what knowledge, ability and information they have available to them. Doing the best you can to take away law-abiding citizens’ rights because of your own bigotry is a form of evil. It has nothing to do with religion, and those terms do exist outside the context of religion. > [@](#): > > In what way does domestic partnership and civil union differ? Google it, since it’s already been enumerated in this thread and is well covered out there on the internet. They are not the same. I’m not sure why you want me to repeat what’s been said here several times yet again. You want to believe they are the same. They are not. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/790 "2008-12-01T04:16:55Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > What is “marriage itself” mean? It sounds like you’re defining it outside of the construct of the laws that restrict it. If so, how? What is the definition or goals or purpose or whatever other system you’re using to determine what “itself” means in this context? I won’t speak for another, but what I took “marriage itself” to mean is, “what the term as used in the broadest sense has meant in discourses regarding marriage concepts, customs, etc., anywhere in human experience, to wit, the more-or-less willing consent of two or more people to live together as spouses for an indeterminate period of time, lifelong if not otherwise specified, whether created by mutual consent, sale of the woman, agreements between parents, guardians, chiefs, or monarchs of the couple-to-be-wed, etc. It includes common-law marriage, legal marriage, religious covenanted or sacramental marriage, Oriental potentates’ harems, Tibetan polyandry, Mormon polygamy, Islamic polygamy, open marriages, gay marriages, arranged child marriages, diplomatic-alliance unions, Pharaonic and Polynesian brother-sister marriages, whatever the term has been held to encompass at some known time and place.” From this we can extract the more common union of one male and one female of child-bearing years, whether as part of an extended family or as the nucleus of a nuclear one. The issue, then, would be, what elements from among this morass of varying customs will we hold as worthy of legal recognition, and why those specific elements? > [@](#): > > Could you point out these precedents? If you use cases, could you quote text please? But before you do that, could you read **Bricker** ’s analysis. He seems to believe that the cases on point don’t support your conclusion. He seems to believe that some case law would have to be overturned. If that’s the case, and the Supreme Court judges decided a case where the vast majority of the country is not in favor and DOMA still applies, that would be quite disconcerting for other rights that might be decided by judicial fiat. You might think it to be OK for this one issue, but you might not be as happy if they get to do the same with issues like abortion, freedom of speech, etc. For what it is worth, I agreed with the headnote summary decision that **Bricker** rendered in response to my hypothetical question, though not, obviously, with his dicta appended in his own persona (as opposed to the SCOTUS justice persona he adopted for writing the decision proper). I even understand why he rejected the due process argument – sort of, and I was not prepared to quibble given the main purport of what he wrote, which is exactly how I’d see it in the same hypothetical shoes. > [@](#): > > As to your use of the term “bigoted majority”, you’re calling 52% of the voting population in CA on this issue and the very vast majority of the rest of the people in the US bigots. When you use a term in that way, you’ve rendered it meaningless. It just means that someone disagrees with you on this issue. I agree with **Sampiro** when he says: > > When you don’t differentiate between people who disagree with you on a topic and people who are out in the street beating someone for their sexual orientation, you’ve made that word impotent. From my own discussions with conservative Christians on another board, I’m prepared to call some but not all Proposition 8 proponents (hence gay marriage opponents) bigots, in the strict sense of the word. There are many ways to bully; the tyranny of the majority exercised against a minority through discriminatory laws is just as potent a weapon, if not more so, than the fear of violence. > [@](#): > > I guess this is a religious thing, but since I don’t believe in angels and demons, especially in regards to humans, I don’t generally classify them as such. I generally think of people as trying to do the best they can with what knowledge, ability and information they have available to them. I’ve often suspected that invoking Satan is a convenient excuse for some religious people to take the blame for their own inhumanity against others. IMO, the point there is, some people in California had a right before November 4, 2008, which was taken from them against their will by the votes of others, aided and abetted by lying campaigns. That was not a just or moral act. > [@](#): > > In what way does domestic partnership and civil union differ? In California: > from the Wiki above > If I read the article correctly, there are reciprocal rights with some states that have civil unions as well. Oh, really? Some states? If you were married, and desired to move, would you be happy if only **some** states would be willing to recognize your marriage? Would you be willing to entrust your future affairs to the decision of bureaucrats and lower-court judges as to whether your California marriage is equivalent to what Delaware, where the stocks you hold and are leaving your widow, considers a valid marriage? Do you have any clue why the Full Faith and Credit Clause was originally written? > [@](#): > > (in regards to stripping away rights) > No, actually I was confused because gay couples have not had the right to marriage before so I was confused as to how something could be stripped away that didn’t exist before. Well, I was nearly 20 before interracial couples could marry in much of the U.S. as a matter of settled law. When the 20th Century began, married women could not own property, or could only with their husbands’ consent, in many states. Are you prepared to strip away those rights, seeing as they haven’t always been a part of the law. Fact of the matter is, for six months, following on a constitutional decision by California’s Supreme Court, gay couples had the right to marry. They no longer do. That is “stripping away a right” in the mind of any reasonable person. > [@](#): > > Are you saying that no one understands the concept? Because if they don’t, what are they arguing against? I understand **magellan01** ’s arguments without them having to be reiterated. > That said, it sounds like you’re asking for a simplistic one-post answer to a fairly complex topic. If you don’t think so, then you can show us how it’s done by laying out a one-post argument for the existence of God that is comprehensive, logical, rational, irrefutable and understandable. > Until such time, I’ll take a pass on your offer, thankyouverymuch. No, _as explained in my request_, I was asking **Magellan** (or another person who understood and agreed with him) for (1) a clear explanation of what **he** mans by the “ideal of marriage” as he’s used the term – simply because _I_ was not clear on what he in particular meant by it in using it. I know what **my** ideal of marriage is; clearly, since we’re in disagreement, mine is not the same as his. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he take the stance he does out of principle – while I consider many of his views on various subjects to be in error, he’s always seemed to me to be someone who thinks things through and acts from clearly articulated (at least to himself) principles, as opposed to some of the more bigoted people who believe their religious beliefs give them special rights to force their standards on others. Since I didn’t grasp what he viewed the ideal of marriage as, I wanted to try and get him to express it with enough clarity that I could grasp it. I’m fairly confident that he believes he has in earlier posts alluding to it, but hasn’t done it to my satisfaction (meaning I can understand what he meant, even if I disagree with him). And of course (2) why his ideal would in some way be sullied, cheapened, diluted, or vitiated by the existence of legally recognized gay marriage – especially since he is on record as favoring essentially equal marital rights as between straight married and gay DP’ed couples. > [@](#): > > Interestingly, I asked for exactly this on the other side of the argument when I first entered this thread. I haven’t seen it either. If you have it available, could you post it please. Please clarify this question. I’d certainly be willing to try to do a similar definition of a position, once I understand what you’re asking here. Definition of marriage? Reasons for seeking equal rights? Reasons for seeking gay marriage? What? ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/791 "2008-12-02T00:33:01Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > What is “marriage itself” mean? It sounds like you’re defining it outside of the construct of the laws that restrict it. If so, how? What is the definition or goals or purpose or whatever other system you’re using to determine what “itself” means in this context? > [@](#): > > Main Entry: mar·riage > Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij\ > Function: noun > Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry > Date: 14th century > **1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law** (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage \ b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage > 2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities > 3: an intimate or close union \ The above bolded definition is from _Merriam-Webster_’s which, by the way, seems to have been trusted as a source of definitions in this very thread. Also note especially #2. By the phrase in my post you’re responding to,“marriage itself,” – in which I was specifically referred to OSM – I meant the state of being joined in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law, but including for a time, SSM in California. Nothing about that state in and of itself discriminates against the group of people you mentioned, as I’ve said. The passage of Prop 8 does. > **[Definition of MARRIAGE](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage)** > > the state of being united as spouses in a contractual relationship recognized by law; the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock; the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage… See the full definition ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/792 "2008-12-02T00:41:33Z")
Merriam-Webster is a dictionary. It’s descriptive, not proscriptive. If everyone starts using the word marriage to mean “cheeseburger” then Merriam-Webster will have no choice but to accept that. ---
**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:** [December 2, 2008, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/793 "2008-12-02T00:46:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think you jump to a hasty conclusion here; that I would have argued against those things. Possibly, I really don’t know. But even if I did, I think that the subsequent discussion would have swayed me. Of course you realize that this is just the same fallacy I mentioned before, prettified in velvet. What fallacy? You’re arguing that, because we’ve never had gay marriage before, there must be a good reason not to have gay marriage now. I’m pointing out that every good idea had to have a point where it was first tried, and before it was tried, your exact argument could have been used against it. We’ve proposed an idea. We’ve listed reasons why it would be a good idea. We’ve listed reasons why it would be the best means of reaching goals that we both agree are desirable. Your only argument for not doing it is that we haven’t ever done it before. I only see one fallacy there, and brother, I’m not the one who posted it. > [@](#): > > But the fact is that a vote is a vote. (Particularly if you have a secret ballot!) The vote itself doesn’t live on from the day that is cast with any hint of sex or color attached to it. A marriage does. And that has consequences for society. I have no fucking idea what this means. A vote doesn’t live on from the day it’s cast? Two months ago, I could be legally married in my home state. Because of the vote you cast last month, I can no longer do that. How can you argue with a straight face that your vote doesn’t have consequences? > [@](#): > > That’s the beauty of the word, isn’t it?! You can use it to cover a pretty wide swath of territory. SO we now have a built in litmus test for homophobia regardless if the person fears, dislikes, or finds gays icky. I gotta get myself one of those words. The problem here is that your repeated claims of not having any dislike or fear towards homosexuals is belied by the actual arguments you have made against gay marriage. You have said - explicitly - that gay marriage could _destroy our society_. That’s a pretty powerful negative attribute you’ve attached to gay relationships. And it’s a negative attribute that you’ve attached _only_ to gay relationships. You are placing a strong negative value judgement exclusively against gay relationships. There’s really no way to argue around the fact that that is an explicitly and obviously homophobic opinion. It’s not nearly as homophobic as, say, Jerry Falwell, or Rick Santorum. Homophobia, like all bigotries, is a spectrum, and you’re pretty far down that spectrum. But don’t let us pretend you aren’t homophobic _at all_. You can’t say on one hand that you think gay marriage is a threat to the nation, and on the other that you’re not at all homophobic. You are - just not as much as a lot of other people. > [@](#): > > The studies mean squat if you ask me, as SSM hasn’t been around long enough for us to see the effects of it. Try reading a little more carefully, **mags**. The studies I’m talking about have nothing to do with SSM. They’re about the impact of gay parents on the well-being of their children. And gay parents have been around for a lot longer than gay spouses. All of which is germane to this discussion because you’ve been banging on the “Think about the children!” drum all through this debate. You’ve said that opposite gendered couples are the “ideal” for raising children, and that society should foster the ideal for their benefit. Except that all the studies on the subject - you know, the actual _science_, as opposed to your desperate justifications and random, half-assed conjectures - indicate that there’s no particular advantage to having opposite-gendered parents as opposed to same-gendered parents. Opposite-gendered parents are not ideal: they do not provide any measurable advantage to the emotional, intellectual, or sexual development of a child that is not granted by a same-gendered couple, all else being equal. From the perspective of the well-being of children, the state has just as much interest in recognizing gay marriage as it does in recognizing straight marriage. Not that I expect this to have any impact on your position: much like every other aspect of your argument here, I suspect this will be dismissed with the cool assurance that the harm, while immeasurable and undefinable, is still real and immediate enough to justify your vote against gay rights. And may I just add that this: > [@](#): > > All these things, like a gay person’s inability to be “married” is simply a function of the cards we were dealt. …is a particularly facile piece of bullshit to spew out when you’re the one holding all the cards. A gay person’s inability to get married is not an accident of fate, it’s a direct result of your refusal to allow him to do so. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/794 "2008-12-02T01:15:42Z")
> [@5-4-Fighting](#): > > The above bolded definition is from _Merriam-Webster_’s which, by the way, seems to have been trusted as a source of definitions in this very thread. Also note especially #2. Look, everyone, I have a dictionary too! **mar-riage** _noun_ **1** the legal or religious union of two people. **2** an act or ceremony establishing this union. **3** one particular union of this kind _(by a previous marriage)_. - _Canadian Oxford Dictionary_, 2nd Ed. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/795 "2008-12-02T02:40:57Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Merriam-Webster is a dictionary. It’s descriptive, not proscriptive. If everyone starts using the word marriage to mean “cheeseburger” then Merriam-Webster will have no choice but to accept that. > [@matt\_mcl](#): > > Look, everyone, I have a dictionary too! > > **mar-riage** _noun_ **1** the legal or religious union of two people. **2** an act or ceremony establishing this union. **3** one particular union of this kind _(by a previous marriage)_. > > - _Canadian Oxford Dictionary_, 2nd Ed. While my initial inclusion and bolding of the man/woman definition of marriage was a direct response to something **H&R** had averred in regards to marriage as he has known it and discrimination and his subsequent question to me, I also took the time to point out the definition outlined in entry # 1 a (2). A dictionary’s descriptive character\* and **matt\_mcl** ’s posted definition simply further support something I’m already behind 100%. I also hoping I haven’t simply misunderstood something here. - If at some point marriage comes to mean cheeseburger – or a contractual relationship between two people of the same sex – and people generally agree with and know what is meant by that, I’m all for _M-W_ including that definition in its newer additions. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/796 "2008-12-02T02:49:55Z")
Sorry, I read too fast. I’ve been distracted today. Anyway, I’m glad what I posted ended up supporting your point, at least. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/797 "2008-12-02T05:00:11Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > …is a particularly facile piece of bullshit to spew out when you’re the one holding all the cards. A gay person’s inability to get married is not an accident of fate, it’s a direct result of your refusal to allow him to do so. Oh, really? I’d call it a healthy dose of reality. How about the fact that you canNOT fall in love with someone and decide to have a child that is the merging of your two’s genes? Did some VOTE by some mean, hateful, homophobes make that happen, too? Is that _someone’s faul_t? Whose? I want names. Or is it a direct accident of fate? But Heaven forbid anyone acknowledge that plain, if unfortunate, FACT. Is it all the meanies’ fault that marriage has for so long been associated with procreation? Or does it just make sense that the two would be so equated over time and there would be a word to describe that normal and common occurrence? But, WAIT! **Miller** feels bad. Change history! Change the language. Alter reality! Ignore our history. Look at a spade and call it tulip. No, **Miller** , I suggest you buck up. I can’t be the thing called a professional basketball player and you can’t be what we call a married person. You think that’s cruel? Maybe it is. But those are the cards we’ve been dealt. Then again, if I recall correctly, you’re actually bisexual. So, there’s a good chance you’ll fall in love with a woman and be able to participate in the institution you seem to find so important. I hope that happens for you. In fact, I wish you great luck in that regard. Good night. Off to the gym. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/798 "2008-12-02T05:05:20Z")
Oh, for the love of Mike. How can it possibly be any clearer that Californians’ inability to marry their same-sex spouses is not some sort of accident, twist of fate, or unalterable reality when same-sex spouses _are already married - thousands of them_ - in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Massachusetts, and Connecticut? And, for that matter, when thousands of same-sex spouses _already have married_ in California? I wouldn’t be so offended by the sophistry if it weren’t our lives he was so facilely dismissing. You’re begging the question, Magellan, you’re saying same-sex couples can never get married because marriage isn’t between people of the same sex, because same-sex couples can’t get married. Well, obviously, they can, and have. Find another argument or shut your cake hole. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/799 "2008-12-02T05:15:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Is it all the meanies’ fault that marriage has for so long been associated with procreation? That is one thing it meant. It also very usually meant a transfer of property between two men via the transfer of a woman. It doesn’t mean that anymore for most people in the US. See how the meanings of words change? And traditions change too? It’s a living language in a living culture. WE as a culture choose what marriage means, and if we collectively choose to include gay people in it, then guess what? That’s what it means now. Just like that. Because marriage = procreation is not an immutable law of nature. It’s a cultural construct and as such is subject to change as the culture changes. It’s certainly not comparable to your inability to be a professional basketball player, and you sound much less intelligent than I know you are when you make such completely idiotic analogies. ---
**Author:** ![BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/800 "2008-12-02T05:28:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Is it all the meanies’ fault that marriage has for so long been associated with procreation? While I hesitate to wade into this shitstorm, this was just too idiotic for me. When was the last marriage between a man and a woman that was frowned upon by the majority of society when said marriage didn’t produce a child? Was it back when DINK was coined? That’s at least 40 years old. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=39) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=41)