# 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:** 788
**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. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496)._