# How Does Gay Marriage Harm Traditional Marriage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 30, 2003, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-gay-marriage-harm-traditional-marriage/172157 "2003-04-30T14:33:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Tiram](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Tiram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tiram)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-gay-marriage-harm-traditional-marriage/172157/101 "2003-05-05T22:59:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Marley23 \* > I’m 100% pro-gay marriage and you’ll NEVER convince me lesbian marriage beats the vanilla 😉 kind. For any kids in the family, and in some ways, it can be. A recent study of family units centered on lesbian couples showed that the lesbian parents were generally more involved in their kids’ life (in a positive, not over-protective, way) than was the case in family units centered on straight couples. And the kids weren’t teased any more than kids with straight parents were, lesbian parents would actually often be more popular than average. I could dig out online sources, but they would all be in Norwegian and not much use to most of you… Speak up if you want to see them, though:) ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2003, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-gay-marriage-harm-traditional-marriage/172157/102 "2003-05-05T23:31:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Freyr \* > [B I’d like a show of hands from the married heterosexual out there, how many of them married their partner just for procreative purposes? \*\* _tentatively raises hand_ …uhh does _practicing_ procreation count? I did kinda liked the idea I that had exclusive boinking rights as long as I dont piss her off… ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2003, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-gay-marriage-harm-traditional-marriage/172157/103 "2003-05-05T23:32:55Z")
oooooo that was a Yoda moment ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-gay-marriage-harm-traditional-marriage/172157/104 "2003-05-06T01:34:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*On what constitutional commitments do you found your acceptance of the various degrees of scrutiny, which to me smack of clearly judge-made distinctions not based in any aspect of textual law? \*\* I see those tests as attempts to give meaning to the phrase “equal protection.” “Equal protection” can’t mean equality in all things because the law always discriminates based on categorization. So it has to have a more limited meaning. Strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis are each attempts to define the contours of the phrase “equal protection.” While it isn’t a perfect set of tests (no tests are), it recognizes that some types of equality (race, etc) are more important than others. This is not unusual. Nearly everyone recognizes that “free speech” does not include libel or falsely shouting fire in a theatre. Even the most ardent strict constructionists recognize the need for judicial mapping of the meaning of that phrase. But in both of those cases, the judicially-created tests are tied to the text of the constitution. The equal protection tests are tied to notions of equality before the law. The free speech tests are tied to notions of, well, free speech. A general right to privacy is not tied in the same manner to notions of approrpiate process. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-gay-marriage-harm-traditional-marriage/172157/105 "2003-05-06T02:12:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > But in both of those cases, the judicially-created tests are tied to the text of the constitution. The equal protection tests are tied to notions of equality before the law. The free speech tests are tied to notions of, well, free speech. A general right to privacy is not tied in the same manner to notions of approrpiate process. I do see your point. Nor am I advocating a _carte blanche_ “right to privacy” in the Blackian absolutist sense. But I do see a very strong right to privacy _vis-a-vis the state_ and with explicit exceptions spelled out in the language of the Fourth Amendment (and its presumable extension to the states by the Fourteenth). IMHO, an “illegal search or seizure” cannot be legalized by calling it something else, and an entry by an agent of the state that does not meet the Fourth’s terms and conditions or their due process equivalents is trespass pure and simple. ---
**Author:** ![summerbreeze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3bc359/32.png) [@summerbreeze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/summerbreeze)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-gay-marriage-harm-traditional-marriage/172157/106 "2003-05-07T02:23:33Z")
That’s happened, **Sua Sponte** – a straight couple in NY state, on their first night out after the birth of their child, were attacked by gay bashers who thought the couple, both dressed for winter in pants, boots, heavy jackets & caps, were gay. It wasn’t until the woman’s jacket & shirt were torn off in the fight that they discovered their error. I think it’s time we stopped making any kind of assumptions about strangers. And – Why isn’t the completely acceptable living-together-and-having-children-without benefit-of-marriage more of a threat to traditional marriage than the concept of gay marriage? I live in the Bible Belt, know many couples who live together, attend the Baptist church every Sunday, are totally accepted. Non-marriage is the issue, it seems to me, not those who want to make a public commitment. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-gay-marriage-harm-traditional-marriage/172157/107 "2003-05-07T03:40:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by summerbreeze \* > \*\*Why isn’t the completely acceptable living-together-and-having-children-without benefit-of-marriage more of a threat to traditional marriage than the concept of gay marriage? \*\* In his book _Skipping Towards Gomorrah_ author Dan Savage references a study by Indiana University Southeast sociology professor and researcher Richard Jenks that shows that there are currently 1.1 million straight **couples** involved in the swinging movement. Where’s the outcry to rescind their non-monogamous marriage? Some estimates of the numbers of gay men 18-50 in America put the figure at about 2 million. Assuming that **every single one of us** got married tomorrow, then that would only be about 1 million marriages - fewer than the number of Swingers. ---
**Author:** ![blahedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a4c791/32.png) [@blahedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blahedo)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-gay-marriage-harm-traditional-marriage/172157/108 "2003-05-07T03:49:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by **ElJeffe** \* > Simple. If gays are, as a class, far less monogamous than straights, then this promiscuousness would be incorporated into the “new” definition of marriage. Monogamy would cease to be as vital an element of marriage. For this to be true, of course, the schism between hetero- and homo- monogamy would have to be pretty large, and like I said, I can’t comment on the validity of such claims. An important thing to think about here is that it’s irrelevant whether gays and lesbians are more promiscuous than straights (I’m not convinced); we need to ask whether gays and lesbians _who would be getting married_ are more promiscuous than straights. **ElJeffe** has not done this explicitly, but the usual comparison that pops into people’s minds here is between married straights (who, by and large, even if they had a wild past, have “settled down” into monogamy) and the homosexual population at large, including those who will eventually settle down into monogamy. I’m at a university. I know a few pretty promiscuous gay people. I also know a whole bunch of pretty promiscuous straight people. Most of them—of either (any!) orientation—will settle down, eventually. ---
**Author:** ![blahedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a4c791/32.png) [@blahedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blahedo)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-gay-marriage-harm-traditional-marriage/172157/109 "2003-05-07T03:54:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by **ElJeffe** \* > Simple. If gays are, as a class, far less monogamous than straights, then this promiscuousness would be incorporated into the “new” definition of marriage. Monogamy would cease to be as vital an element of marriage. For this to be true, of course, the schism between hetero- and homo- monogamy would have to be pretty large, and like I said, I can’t comment on the validity of such claims. An important thing to think about here is that it’s irrelevant whether gays and lesbians are more promiscuous than straights (I’m not convinced); we need to ask whether gays and lesbians _who would be getting married_ are more promiscuous than straights. **ElJeffe** has not done this explicitly, but the usual comparison that pops into people’s minds here is between married straights (who, by and large, even if they had a wild past, have “settled down” into monogamy) and the homosexual population at large, including those who will eventually settle down into monogamy. I’m at a university. I know a few pretty promiscuous gay people. I also know a whole bunch of pretty promiscuous straight people. Most of them—of either (any!) orientation—will settle down, eventually. ---
**Author:** ![Freyr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/freyr/32/5763_2.png) [@Freyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freyr)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-gay-marriage-harm-traditional-marriage/172157/110 "2003-05-07T05:37:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) \* > \*\*_tentatively raises hand_ > > …uhh does _practicing_ procreation count? I did kinda liked the idea I that had exclusive boinking rights as long as I dont piss her off… \*\* Okay, but was it the **exclusive** reason you married her? Was there some factor of love or friendship involved? ---
**Author:** ![Freyr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/freyr/32/5763_2.png) [@Freyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freyr)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-gay-marriage-harm-traditional-marriage/172157/111 "2003-05-07T05:42:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\ ***Freyr** : While I have little problem with legislation permitting gays to marry, I think your romantic-love notion as a basis for legal recognition of marriage is a little misplaced. > > Let’s face it: the notion that “falling in love” is a vital prerequisite for marriage is a relatively recent invention in human history. I think historically romantic love has played second fiddle to things like money, prestige, and yes, procreation. I think those practical concerns (“who gets the land?”; “how should children be raised?”) are the central basis for legal recognition of the marital relationship. > > If it was just about falling in love, the law would have nothing to do with it. People would just shack up, possibly after a religious ceremony, and that would be that. There would be no reason for the law to tilt itself so as to encourage that type of arrangement. \*\* **DCU** agreed, I was just pointing out the fallacy that is often brought up about gay marriage; since gay couples cannot procreate (under most circumstances) then they shouldn’t be allowed to marry. If that logic were applied to straight couples, as I was trying to show thru my analogy, its illogic (hopefully) becomes apparent. ---
**Author:** ![ronbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ba9def/32.png) [@ronbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ronbo)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-gay-marriage-harm-traditional-marriage/172157/112 "2003-05-13T01:15:26Z")
Silly me, I thought Family Values were: People that love each other. People that care about each other. People that commit themselves to each other. Numbers and Sexes and Races do not detract from these values. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-gay-marriage-harm-traditional-marriage/172157/113 "2003-05-13T04:06:04Z")
Unfortunately, “Family Values” is a code word for a specific set of prejudices and unreasoned values that were fashionable in the relatively recent past. Language, and politics, are funny that way. ---
**Author:** ![Tiram](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Tiram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tiram)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-gay-marriage-harm-traditional-marriage/172157/114 "2003-05-13T15:42:02Z")
> [@](#): > > “Family Values” is … A Google-search for “family values” turned up some quite interesting results…😉 [Googling for “family values”](http://www.google.com/search?q=family+values&sourceid=opera&num=25&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-gay-marriage-harm-traditional-marriage/172157/115 "2003-05-13T16:27:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by davidm \* > > ## quote: > > Originally posted by SuaSponte > If gay marriages were allowed, people may see a heterosexual married couple and mistakenly assume they were gay. > > ## Sua > > Huh??? I can only see that happening if one or both of the heterosexual couple were sexually ambiguous in their appearance. And if that were the case, then the mistake could be made whether gay marriages were legal or not. I don’t understand your point. It was intended as a joke, to point out the absurdity of the claim that gay marriage will harm traditional marriage. I must get my humour modules checked - I (mistakenly) thought it was hilarious. Sua [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-gay-marriage-harm-traditional-marriage/172157.md?page=5)