# Gays can't get "Knocked Up," so they shouldn't be allowed to marry. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2013, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723 "2013-01-29T17:44:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/21 "2013-01-29T20:10:05Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > [The latest defense of Prop. 8.](http://www.salon.com/2013/01/28/gay_marriage_opponents_use_knocked_up_defense_in_supreme_court_case/) > > Short version: the argument by opponents to gay marriage is that gays can’t get accidentally pregnant, therefore they don’t need access to the rights of marriage. > \* > In his brief for the defense on why the law should only recognize marriages between opposite-sex couples, Paul D. Clement, a solicitor general under George W. Bush, wrote that traditional marriage laws “reflect a unique social difficulty with opposite-sex couples that is not present with same-sex couples — namely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies … Unintended children produced by opposite-sex relationships and raised out-of-wedlock would pose a burden on society.”\* > > The mind boggles. That’s not new. ---
**Author:** ![Antigen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/848f3c/32.png) [@Antigen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antigen)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/22 "2013-01-29T20:16:23Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > In fact, fully half the people in Straight Marriages can’t get Knocked Up. Plenty of people in the female half of Straight Marriages can’t, either. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/23 "2013-01-29T22:02:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I know people think they are being ever so clever when they post stuff like this, but it’s actually just stupid and shows a considerable lack of understanding about how the legal system works. . . . It was a parody… Far as that goes, it was a pretty clever parody. ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/24 "2013-01-29T22:14:37Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Has there ever been a case where one lesbian was accused of artificially inseminating another lesbian against her will? I don’t know of a successful incident, but it was attempted. [Asbury Park - Home](http://blogs.app.com/saywhat/2009/03/18/lesbian-threatens-to-inseminate-wife-with-brothers-sperm-faces-charges/) ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/25 "2013-01-29T23:51:31Z")
Somebody should point out to this guy that unintentionally-pregnant couples still have the option of a civil union. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/26 "2013-01-30T00:00:49Z")
This thread is, in almost complete part, a set of strawman arguments that ignore the rational basis test and demonstrate no understanding of how it workd. (John mace’s post being the notable exception). > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Is he therefore proposing a law that forces couples into marriage if they have an unintended pregnancy? Otherwise, what difference does it make? Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. > [@phouka](#): > > It also brings us back to the question that if marriage is solely or even primarily for the creation and raising of children, then hetero couples who are unfortunately sterile, who choose to be childless, and who are just past the age where it’s possible should not be allowed to marry. Every time I’ve pointed this out, the response I get is “that’s not the point!”. Um, excuse me, but it is. Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. > [@Anne\_Neville](#): > > Or are we going to require a pregnancy test for any woman applying for a marriage license, since there’s no benefit to society if a woman who is not pregnant gets married? Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. > [@njtt](#): > > So men shouldn’t be allowed to marry either I guess. > > Lesbian marriages only? Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. > [@Anne\_Neville](#): > > What are we going to do about those moochers who stay married, even though their children are grown up and they can’t or won’t have any more? It pains me to admit, my parents fall into this category. They will have been married 50 years this summer. Their children are both grown up and don’t need a two-parent family any more. My mom will be 74 this year, so any more children are very unlikely. Why should we let them continue to enjoy the benefits of marriage when they’re not providing any benefit to society? Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. > [@Chimera](#): > > One More Time! > > Chimera’s Defense of Marriage Act; > > Since Conservatives defend marriage as being about the birth and raising of children, let’s make it so. In order to defend this position, we will require the following changes to the Institution of Marriage; > > 1. Any marriage not resulting in children within 2-3 years of the wedding shall be declared null and void. > 2. Admissions of or determination that there never was any intent to have children in the marriage shall be prosecuted as Felony Fraud. > 3. While there are children of the marriage in the household, both parents must remain within the same household for a minimum of 183 days per year (allowing for work related travel up to 50%) > 4. Sorry, no such thing as Divorce. You are in for the duration of raising your children. > 5. All marriages shall be disolved within 6 months of the last child leaving the home. > > If you want to put something like that into law, then I might listen to the idea that gays should not be married (although since lesbians can still give birth, I would still say they can be married under such laws). Otherwise, shut the fuck up about marriage being about procreation, because it is not. Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/27 "2013-01-30T00:26:19Z")
To be fair, when you’re dealing with irrationality coming from people who used to serve the highest office in the land, a little irrationality in return isn’t unwarranted. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/28 "2013-01-30T00:58:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This thread is, in almost complete part, a set of strawman arguments that ignore the rational basis test and demonstrate no understanding of how it workd. I think there’s a natural tendency to confuse “rational basis”, which seems to be a technical term simply meaning “a reason that bears some plausible semantic relationship to the position in question rather than being a totally unrelated _non sequitur_”, with “rational” in the ordinary-language sense of “reasonable, sensible, consistent in its implications”. Or alternatively, people just enjoy mocking legal technicalities when they stray too far from common sense. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/29 "2013-01-30T01:32:13Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I think there’s a natural tendency to confuse “rational basis”, which seems to be a technical term simply meaning “a reason that bears some plausible semantic relationship to the position in question rather than being a totally unrelated _non sequitur_”, with “rational” in the ordinary-language sense of “reasonable, sensible, consistent in its implications”. I’m sure you’re right. On a board with membership supposedly united by a desire to eradicate ignorance, however, the reaction that involves championing such confusion instead of pillorying it is still not clear to me. ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/30 "2013-01-30T01:50:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m sure you’re right. > > On a board with membership supposedly united by a desire to eradicate ignorance, however, the reaction that involves championing such confusion instead of pillorying it is still not clear to me. I think everyone but you understood that these suggestions are tongue in cheek. Satire is a common means of pillorying an irrational position. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/31 "2013-01-30T01:57:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m sure you’re right. > > On a board with membership supposedly united by a desire to eradicate ignorance, however, the reaction that involves championing such confusion instead of pillorying it is still not clear to me. Well, if this were a GQ or GD thread, I think your dismay at the idea of posters being somewhat careless about the precise meaning of a legal technical term in order to jeer at the position it’s being used to support would have more weight. This being the Pit, however, and the argument in question being very fair game for jeers as inadequately “rational” in the ordinary-language sense of the term, I would rule that the Pitizens of this thread have a compelling interest in the mockery of stupid and unfair homophobic discrimination that outweighs the interest of persnickety nitpicking lawyers in upholding the purity of legal terminology. 😉 ---
**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:** [January 30, 2013, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/32 "2013-01-30T02:00:00Z")
Incidentally, I’ve been in relationships with men whom I could have accidentally gotten pregnant. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/33 "2013-01-30T02:02:06Z")
> [@TroutMan](#): > > I think everyone but you understood that these suggestions are tongue in cheek. Satire is a common means of pillorying an irrational position. It’s more important for Bricker to display his awesome intelligence than to notice when he’s being a fool. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/34 "2013-01-30T02:03:25Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > Incidentally, I’ve been in relationships with men whom I could have accidentally gotten pregnant. Nah, conservative legal theory holds that if you can get it pregnant, it’s a woman. Do not bewilder the legal mind with the complexities of actual human biology, please. ---
**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:** [January 30, 2013, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/35 "2013-01-30T02:11:07Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Nah, conservative legal theory holds that if you can get it pregnant, it’s a woman. Do not bewilder the legal mind with the complexities of actual human biology, please. But it’s so difficult to avoid! ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/36 "2013-01-30T02:20:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This thread is, in almost complete part, a set of strawman arguments that ignore the rational basis test and demonstrate no understanding of how it workd. (John mace’s post being the notable exception). > > Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. > > Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. > Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. > > Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. > > Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. > Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. Do you ever have any fun? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/37 "2013-01-30T02:30:28Z")
> [@digs](#): > > Do you ever have any fun? I think he is. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/38 "2013-01-30T02:41:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > On a board with membership supposedly united by a desire to eradicate ignorance, however, the reaction that involves championing such confusion instead of pillorying it is still not clear to me. I gather you’re not deigning to address the larger point. The ignorance being challenged here is that of the homophobic impulse to pass a law like this in the first place. That the law could be passed as written and even survive legal challenge is obvious and I submit that your eight or nine repetitions thus far need not be followed by more of the same. Fine, the legal concept of “rational basis” need not involve rationality in the common use of the word. I propose the common application be called “reasonable basis”, hopefully sparing us further prevarication and tangents. This proposed law has no reasonable basis. It _may_ have a rational basis, if a court says it does. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/39 "2013-01-30T02:48:06Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, if this were a GQ or GD thread, I think your dismay at the idea of posters being somewhat careless about the precise meaning of a legal technical term in order to jeer at the position it’s being used to support would have more weight. > > This being the Pit, however, and the argument in question being very fair game for jeers as inadequately “rational” in the ordinary-language sense of the term, I would rule that the Pitizens of this thread have a compelling interest in the mockery of stupid and unfair homophobic discrimination that outweighs the interest of persnickety nitpicking lawyers in upholding the purity of legal terminology. 😉 I don’t agree that people understand the term and are simply issuing witty, urbane commentary on how irrational the rational basis test is. The complaints in this thread mirror almost every thread that raises these complains. “Is he therefore proposing a law that forces couples into marriage if they have an unintended pregnancy?” This is not a wry comment on the rational basis test – this is a rebuttal that shows a complete lack of understanding of how the test works. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/40 "2013-01-30T02:50:35Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > This proposed law has no reasonable basis. It _may_ have a rational basis, if a court says it does. I agree. And there’s plenty of commentary that could make that point. Indignantly asking why the proponents don’t pass other, more restrictive laws isn’t that commentary. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723.md?page=3)