# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 685
**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 25, 2008, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/685 "2008-11-25T00:36:56Z")
> [@LilShieste](#): > > I’m all for that. > > In the spirit of heading down that road, would you please consider the points raised in posts [#636](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10475781&postcount=636) and [#642](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10475931&postcount=642)? Oh yay! I was just about to challenge **magellan01** myself since no one was trying to set forth those points. Yours are the points I’d try to challenge, but I don’t know how effective I’d be, so I’m glad you came back to reiterate them. Here’s how I’d answer your objections: (these are my own answers; I’m not speaking for **magellan01** who probably has his own ideas) > [@LilShieste](#): > > I think this is what is confusing everyone, **magellan01**. > > You say: > [list=“1”] > [li] opposite-sex marriage is established as “ideal”[/li][li] gay people should have equal rights[/li][li] gay people can never be part of the “ideal”[/li][/list] > > How do you reconcile the discrepancy between points 2 and 3, above? If a union between gay people is not “ideal”, then how can it be said that they’re being treated as equals? In speaking of the ideal, marriage could just be defined as a man, a woman and children (if any)–basically the basis of a nuclear family now. In that way, the definition wouldn’t include two adults of the same gender. As to rights, the meaning would be more consistent with benefits. So any benefit that derives from traditional marriage such as financial incentives or contractual rights could be conferred on gay couples. Under that definition, 2 and 3 are consistent. > [@LilShieste](#): > > So, how does modifying the meaning of marriage - with this simple, straightforward modification - _endanger the foundation_ of our society or our country? If it doesn’t, then why even bring this up? I’m not sure that one needs to endanger the foundation of society to find it undesirable. How would polygamy endanger the foundation of society? > [@LilShieste](#): > > Tradition has no qualms with being discriminatory. _For centuries_, women did not have the right to vote. > > The person who argued to prevent women from voting (or allow them to, but only while calling it “woting”) simply because “that’s the way it’s always been”, had an equally ridiculous point of view. It may look ridiculous now; it probably didn’t then. And I’m certain that some things that people defend automatically without thinking now will seem outrageous in the future. Given that, I thought this post by Miller in a thread in GD was very interesting: > [@Government should recognize ONLY civil unions](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-should-recognize-only-civil-unions/473498/53): > > Not remotely. Not all traditions are equal. I want to change the traditions in marriage that are discriminatory and divisive, and keep the ones that are positive and unifying. - How do we determine which traditions are positive and unifying and which ones are divisive? I’m thinking that I might be seeing those traditions in the opposite ways in which he sees them. \*if you want to see his comments in context, just hit the arrow next to his name and that should take you back to the thread. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496)._