# 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:** 42
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/821 "2008-12-02T20:22:50Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Selfishness. He’s made it quite clear that he is selfish in this regard. Which is so incomprehensible, because at least if you’re selfish with your money or your time, it’s because you get to keep it. Whereas he’ll be as married as he ever was. ---
**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:** [December 2, 2008, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/822 "2008-12-02T23:32:11Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > 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. So, someones else’s traditions are OK and some not? Good, you finally understand. You would still, I imagine (correct me if I’m wrong), defend SSM even if it was not accepted in one single place in the universe. Well, **Magellan** can answer for himself, but I think we’ve covered this serveral times. The fact that, by law, people of the same sex can have a legal mariage doesn’t mean they are married in the sense we mean of the word. That the law in South Africa treated black as inferior human beings didn’t mean they were actually inferior, simply that the rules worked as if they were. (can I say polysemy wihtout people going crazy?) You mean I can’t form a SSM with a woman? WHy? It’s the universe! > [@jayjay](#): > > You’re describing people who do not physically fit the actual physical qualifications for a sport or job. This is not germane to the discussion of same-sex marriage. Jockeys are short because they’re lighter and put less of a burden on the horse. That’s a result of physics. As is your hill climber. The fighter pilot and the runway model are the result of human design. They could be changed. If being a fighter pilot or a runway model were subject to civil rights issues, they would be changed. But they’re not. Marriage is. > > What you’re basically arguing here is that the universe is somehow arranged in a some ideal way to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry their same-sex partner. And I cry bullshit to that. ## But, that’s exactly the point. SS couples, by definition, have a physycal reality that inherently (and not as an execption, c.f. infertile or old couples) prevents them form procreation which is one of the “ideals” of marriage. It doesn’t mean it’s a defect, insofar as my being unable to be TE for the Chargers is a defect. ## (couldn’t quote) Levdrakon: Man, really? molested? You mean like many gay people? So many of you constantly say “you’re so dumb, we’ve beaten you, accept it, you’re frustrating, you’re a selfinsh tool”, but keep coming back. Why is that? You’re way past the point were polite presentation of ideas my disuade anyone ---
**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, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/823 "2008-12-02T23:39:14Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > * * * > > (couldn’t quote) > Levdrakon: Man, really? molested? You mean like many gay people? **Mag** suggested we don’t know what he’s all about but if we did we might cry and this would explain why he takes civil rights away. We need to know what makes **Mag** tick. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/824 "2008-12-02T23:40:12Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > So many of you constantly say “you’re so dumb, we’ve beaten you, accept it, you’re frustrating, you’re a selfinsh tool”, but keep coming back. Why is that? > You’re way past the point were polite presentation of ideas my disuade anyone Because you cannot be allowed to have the last word on this. There are still convinceable people possibly reading this. You and magellan are irrelevant (and I mean that in the least inoffensive way possible). You’re just the rag dummies we’re tilting with to demonstrate how wrong you are to people other than you. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/825 "2008-12-02T23:43:28Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > We need to know what makes **Mag** tick. Cock, obviously. **Mags** loves the cock but he can’t admit it to himself or anyone else. If he’d just get himself a big mouthful of cock he’d be okay. ---
**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:** [December 3, 2008, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/826 "2008-12-03T00:07:32Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Because you cannot be allowed to have the last word on this. There are still convinceable people possibly reading this. You and magellan are irrelevant (and I mean that in the least inoffensive way possible). You’re just the rag dummies we’re tilting with to demonstrate how wrong you are to people other than you. So, it’s\*\* “infinity +1”.\*\* Are you so full of yourself that “people may still be convinced”? But our arguments are so patently wrong. Unless you’re looking for the “dumbass” vote that can be convinced but opur resentment and linguistic gymnastics . > [@Cervaise](#): > > Cock, obviously. **Mags** loves the cock but he can’t admit it to himself or anyone else. If he’d just get himself a big mouthful of cock he’d be okay. A beauty, “only self-closeted gay can be against SSM”? What gay men need to stop this SSM crap is to get the right pussy and they’ll forgo others guys cocks and asses. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/827 "2008-12-03T00:11:25Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Selfishness. He’s made it quite clear that he is selfish in this regard. I think it’s fear. He’s terrified. And it’s that textbook homophobia, isn’t it? But he freaks out and gets angry when that’s pointed out, which is odd since he’s so attached to the meanings of words. ---
**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 3, 2008, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/828 "2008-12-03T00:23:31Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > So, it’s\*\* “infinity +1”.\*\* > Are you so full of yourself that “people may still be convinced”? But our arguments are so patently wrong. Unless you’re looking for the “dumbass” vote that can be convinced but opur resentment and linguistic gymnastics . > > A beauty, “only self-closeted gay can be against SSM”? > What gay men need to stop this SSM crap is to get the right pussy and they’ll forgo others guys cocks and asses. Good lord. Did you really describe yourself as a “linguistic junkie” earlier in this thread? ---
**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:** [December 3, 2008, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/829 "2008-12-03T00:51:06Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Good lord. Did you really describe yourself as a “linguistic junkie” earlier in this thread? Your point? (aside from grammar or spelling mistakes) ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/830 "2008-12-03T00:52:54Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > What gay men need to stop this SSM crap is to get the right pussy and they’ll forgo others guys cocks and asses. You’re kidding right? Women are complex. Trust me, they are. They’re also the easiest lay you ever had if they want. Guys are the easiest lay you ever had too. Let people get laid! ---
**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 3, 2008, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/831 "2008-12-03T01:38:58Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > As for changing history, no. I’m not arguing to make the change retroactive. Alter reality? Marriage is a human social construct, not an immutable law of physics. **It means what we, as a society, want it to mean.** There is no good reason not to ammend the meaning to include same sex couples. As proof that there’s no good reason not to, I point you to every post you’ve made on this subject, which constitute as good a farce as any I’ve ever seen, except that the consequences are so tragic. bold added. Exactly. Marriage means what we as a society decide it means. Last month, several large segments of society (I’ll call them states) took a poll and asked several people to voluntarily choose what they thought the word marriage meant and what they wanted it to mean. People in those states loudly, clearly and unequivocally chose the definition of marriage to include one man and one woman. So for 96% of the states, we all know what it means. If people wanted to know if they fit within the definition of marriage as society has defined it, we can look to the state where they’re located and ask the question. And that would be the end of the inquiry. But for many people in this thread, that’s not the end of the inquiry. They’re saying that the people who make up society can’t decide the definition of the word because they’re too bigoted, homophobic and ignorant to choose for themselves. They feel that some governmental body has to mandate what marriage is to embody some principle of equality. But much of life is unfair and there’s lots of inequality to go around. My question is when should the principle of equality override the choice of the people in deciding what an institution stands for? I’ll give an analogy (because ya’ll seem to love those). There has not been an atheist President in the US, mostly because an atheist President couldn’t get the widespread support of the people to get elected. But every atheist has the right to try to become President. It’s just that society would very likely not choose that option. The harm from religious Presidents can be cited by those faith-based initiatives that people of no faith can be harmed by their inability to get the help they need by people of faith who won’t help them. Should there be a governmental body mandate that the next President be an atheist President to avoid that harm and to make sure that the civil rights of people to have an atheist President be protected? ---
**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:** [December 3, 2008, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/832 "2008-12-03T01:55:56Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > Should there be a governmental body mandate that the next President be an atheist President to avoid that harm and to make sure that the civil rights of people to have an atheist President be protected? Good idea. Where can I sign your petition? And I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/833 "2008-12-03T02:05:22Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > Exactly. Marriage means what we as a society decide it means. Last month, several large segments of society (I’ll call them states) took a poll and asked several people to voluntarily choose what they thought the word marriage meant and what they wanted it to mean. People in those states loudly, clearly and unequivocally chose the definition of marriage to include one man and one woman. In other words, they are bigots. > [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > But for many people in this thread, that’s not the end of the inquiry. They’re saying that the people who make up society can’t decide the definition of the word because they’re too bigoted, homophobic and ignorant to choose for themselves. They feel that some governmental body has to mandate what marriage is to embody some principle of equality. But much of life is unfair and there’s lots of inequality to go around. My question is when should the principle of equality override the choice of the people in deciding what an institution stands for? Instantly, at least with any public institution. The majority should not be allowed to oppress the minority. Just as segregation was ended, regardless of the wishes of the bigoted majority. If that means same gender people getting married when the majority don’t like it, so be it. If that means that the path to the marriage officials/ceremony has to be guarded by the National Guard ( to continue the segregation analogy ), then that’s what should be done. > [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > I’ll give an analogy (because ya’ll seem to love those). There has not been an atheist President in the US, mostly because an atheist President couldn’t get the widespread support of the people to get elected. But every atheist has the right to try to become President. It’s just that society would very likely not choose that option. A badly flawed analogy. First; there’s only one President, so “equal time” isn’t really an option. If one person is President, someone else is not; but if Bob marries Charlie, that doesn’t mean George can’t marry Alexandra. And second, the fact that atheists ARE allowed to run destroys your analogy. A better analogy would be a system where it was illegal for atheists to run for Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/834 "2008-12-03T02:09:54Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > I’ll give an analogy (because ya’ll seem to love those). Where your analogy falls down is that there’s only one President to the entire population of the US. You want a Christian President, I want an atheist President, but there can only be one President, and so the majority must rule. However, the only two people who have any say in a marriage are the ones getting married. My marriage doesn’t affect yours in any way, and vice versa. You gain a Christian President by voting against the atheist President; what do you gain by voting against SSM? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/835 "2008-12-03T02:11:11Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > bold added. > > Exactly. Marriage means what we as a society decide it means. Last month, several large segments of society (I’ll call them states) took a poll and asked several people to voluntarily choose what they thought the word marriage meant and what they wanted it to mean. People in those states loudly, clearly and unequivocally chose the definition of marriage to include one man and one woman. If you are including California in those large segments of society, that isn’t quite true. Here, the (barely) majority stated that they believed the lies that SSM must equal teaching pwecious about gays in school. It wasn’t until the ads started running about how everyone must Think Of The Children and vote yes on Prop 8 that the polls started swinging that way. Great example of why most folks shouldn’t be allowed to vote. > [@](#): > > My question is when should the principle of equality override the choice of the people in deciding what an institution stands for? When it steps all over the rights of a group. Why should OSM be the only ones that get the legal protections just because religion tells too many voters that SSM marriage is a sin they must prevent? What ever happened to separation of church and state anyway? ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/836 "2008-12-03T02:14:03Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > But for many people in this thread, that’s not the end of the inquiry. They’re saying that the people who make up society can’t decide the definition of the word because they’re too bigoted, homophobic and ignorant to choose for themselves. No we’re saying that society doesn’t get to just vote in the use of the word “marriage” as a special right heterosexuals get to call their unions. Personally, I don’t give too much of a shit about the word marriage in and of itself. But I don’t believe that a majority of society can just vote that straight people use that word, and we’ll make up a new term for gays. That’s simply not equality in the eyes of the law. A college couldn’t, for example, use the word “diploma” for one group of graduates, while making others describe their degree as a “credential of successful completion of a baccalaureate program” even if they always maintained that the two were equivalent in every way other than name. Sure, society _can_ be discriminatory, in the sense that it’s possible. Pretty much the entirety of human history attests that much. But if we accept that society ought not discriminate against homosexuals, then it follows that society therefore must also use the same word for homosexual unions as it does for heterosexual ones. And if we don’t accept that society ought not discriminate against homosexuals, well, then, I guess we are bigoted, homophobic and ignorant. ---
**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:** [December 3, 2008, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/837 "2008-12-03T03:30:11Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > (…) Great example of why most folks shouldn’t be allowed to vote. (…) Great example of what many of you think tolerance really means, i.e. “I tolerate waht I like and the rest is shit”. Of course many of those guys also elected Mr. Obama so maybe they should only be allowed to vote so long as they agree with you? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/838 "2008-12-03T04:31:10Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Great example of what many of you think tolerance really means, i.e. “I tolerate waht I like and the rest is shit”. Tolerance of intolerance is not a virtue and never has been. ---
**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 3, 2008, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/839 "2008-12-03T05:21:45Z")
Look, maybe this got discussed upthread, and it’s certainly not a new argument, but perhaps it needs restating. Assuming that the opponents of SSM aren’t simply bigots (and that’s a big assumption), there’s the argument to be made for religious tradition. Gays shouldn’t get married because (most) religions don’t think they should. And you know what? They’re right. Religion should get to decide what happens within religion. There are so many things wrong with religion that it would be ludicrous for people outside those religions to argue for changing it. Except for the fact that marriage isn’t just religious, it’s also secular. Once the state starts providing benefits to religious institutions, religions no longer get to dictate all the parameters of those institutions. In fact, as **curlcoat** pointed out, there isn’t a separation of church and state here. We’re asking society to change traditions for something (always a difficult proposition). **Heffalump and Roo** seems to think that the majority of people want no SSM and therefore it shouldn’t happen. But you’re starting from a place where no one wanted SSM (ie religious tradition), so it’s not really a fair vote (also unfair for the majority oppressing the minority, as **Der Trihs** mentioned). To have a truly fair vote, marriage should have no secular benefits, and only civil unions should be recognized by the state. Then we can let the people vote on something that didn’t start from a tradition of having 100% of the people voting one way. With a new tradition, we can have 0% of the people who have made up their minds (not that civil unions are new at this point, but you get the idea). Then anyone who wants a SSM **marriage** can argue directly with the religious institutions (good luck), but we wouldn’t have anyone’s secular rights being denied. How anyone can look at the current institution of marriage and not think that it’s completely unconstitutional (simply by virtue of the fact that it exists within secular laws) is beyond me. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/840 "2008-12-03T06:20:35Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Great example of what many of you think tolerance really means, i.e. “I tolerate waht I like and the rest is shit”. What in my post indicated intolerance? > [@](#): > > Of course many of those guys also elected Mr. Obama so maybe they should only be allowed to vote so long as they agree with you? You think because I suppost SSM I must also have voted for Obama? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=41) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=43)