# I TOLD YOU SO ! This is why we shouldn't allow same-sex "marriage" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 22, 2004, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415 "2004-04-22T13:27:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/161 "2004-04-23T20:20:15Z")
> [@IzzyR](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > But if George and Tom are lovers, then their relationship already exists in society. The question is whether the people acting in a government role recognize that bond that exists, not whether they’re creating a previously nonexistent bond. > > That’s overstating it a bit. Obviously _some_ degree of relationship exists. The question is how it is defined, and I think this is more of an attitudinal question than a practical one. And again we come back to that question I asked earlier: in what way are such people _not_ a family? Presuming people who consider themselves a family and do all of the things that are considered part of being a family, in what way do the sexes or numbers of people involved disqualify them from being a family? Marriage is a social (and where possible legal) establishment of a family relationship, like adoption. (I know of some gay couples who have adopted each other so that they at least had _some_ legally recognised family tie.) Forming family ties is one of the things that humans do; I’d tend towards the opinion that it’s one of the basic functions of being a part of a tribal species. I don’t think it’s readily possible to marginalise some people based on their families without producing massive social upheaval. (I am not in favor of massive social upheaval.) ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/162 "2004-04-23T22:08:14Z")
> [@IzzyR](#): > > Well I think I’m 100% right, so I’m going to continue to sum it up that way. Then, since you now know for a fact that you are wrong in your summation, your continuing to say it makes you a liar. > [@](#): > > Not sure if there is any point in your repeating yourself again and again, but feel free to go ahead. It’s very simple, Izzy. All you need to do is answer the actual question. Your failure to do so indicates to me that you can’t, that there is no legitimate basis for your opinion and you’re full of a particularly stinky brand of shit. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/163 "2004-04-23T22:10:31Z")
Jimmy, what **objective** similarities between gays and dog fuckers require us to treat them the same, disregarding your **subjective** discomfort with both groups? ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bb73d2/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Joe_Meager)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/164 "2004-04-24T12:40:08Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Oh fuck off. People might think dogs are like children but this doesn’t render them capable of informed consent, which is the key issue (that you seem to be ignoring. No, I didn’t ignore it, I addressed it. Go back and look. Neither children nor dogs are capable, on their own, of granting consent. However, their guardians ARE capable of granting it for them. Case closed. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bb73d2/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Joe_Meager)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/165 "2004-04-24T13:07:30Z")
**Orbifold** , thank you for replying and not simply attacking and insulting. You’re the kind of person with whom I enjoy debate (as opposed to argument). > [@Orbifold](#): > > \*\*I feel \*\* that the principles of fidelity and commitment are beneficial enough to society that gay and lesbian couples who wish to express their commitment to those principles in front of their loved ones and the law should be allowed to do so. (bolding mine) Forgive me if I’m dumbing this down too much, but isn’t the gist of your argument “SSM should be allowed because \*\*I feel \*\* it should be allowed.” Granted, you have given very convincing reasons for why you feel that way. > [@](#): > > But wait! I’m having a vision! I hereby predict that you will say that the same argument could be applied to polygamous marriage! And guess what: it can! _And that is entirely not the fucking point!_ The point is this: that would _still_ be a valid argument for polygamous marriage even if gay people didn’t exist! Agreed. So do you mean that your argument is equally valid for both homo- and poly- marriages? Even though those decisions are separate and independent of one another, the same argument is equally valid for both. (One argument can be equally valid for two different sets of problems, even though the two different problems are very, well, different.) > [@](#): > > In no case do we deny or approve polygamous marriage _just because_ we denied or approved gay marriage. In each case we deny or approve polygamous marriage based on a reason that actually has something to do with polygamous marriage! Gotcha. We deny or approve poly- marriage based only on reasons applicable to poly- marriage, not homo- marriage. But… you’ve given an argument (above) in favor of allowing homo- marriages. That argument is also valid in favor of poly- marriages (even granting the fact that they are two very different things). It is my position that the same argument is also valid for zoophile- marriages, even though zoos-, homos-, heteros-, and polys- are all quite different. I’m not saying marriage must be granted to one BECAUSE it was granted to another, I’m saying that the arguments IN FAVOR of granting to one are equall valid to granting to the other. > [@](#): > > And there are valid reasons to prohibit hot man-on-dog marriage, based on the merits of that issue alone. What are they? > [@](#): > > In short, there is no slippery slope except in your head. Your only stated reason to deny same-sex marriage is because you think it will force society to accept polygamous marriage. No, I don’t think it will FORCE society to accept human-dog marriages. I think it will remove some very valid and strong arguments AGAINST human-dog marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/166 "2004-04-24T13:15:37Z")
> [@Jimmy Joe Meager](#): > > Neither children nor dogs are capable, on their own, of granting consent. However, their guardians ARE capable of granting it for them. > > Case closed. No, neither children nor dogs are capable, on their own, of having their consent legally recognised. However in the former case, guardians may agree for the _child’s_ consent to have legal standing. Dogs still can not give consent. This is because they can not talk. Could it be any simpler? This has been explained at least twice that I’ve seen. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bb73d2/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Joe_Meager)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/167 "2004-04-24T13:19:05Z")
> [@SPOOFE](#): > > Jimmy Joe, this is a very, very, incredibly and painfully simple situation: You have committed the fallacy of the excluded middle, by claiming that if you change ONE thing of a law, you must change ALL things. Wow, **SPOOFE** , that was a good one. All I can say in reply is that … … … If we allow RED cars and BLUE cars, why shouldn’t we allow GREEN, PURPLE and ORANGE? I’m not saying they must be allowed, I just don’t see why they shouldn’t be. But… I’m afraid that when people start listing reasons why we shouldn’t allow green, et al, they’re going to be the same reasons for disallowing anything but blue to begin with. So I’m back to my starting point - if those reasons aren’t valid against red cars, why are they valid against any other colors? ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bb73d2/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Joe_Meager)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/168 "2004-04-24T13:22:20Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > disregarding your **subjective** discomfort with both groups? You have it wrong. I have no subjective discomfort with any group. I have an equal comfort level with both, and in fact all, groups. Including you (whatever you happen to be). I love all individuals, no matter what sexual orientation they are. Do you? > [@](#): > > Jimmy, what **objective** similarities between gays and dog fuckers require us to treat them the same They are both human beings, just like you and I. Do you deny that? (Um… you ARE human, right?) ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bb73d2/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Joe_Meager)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/169 "2004-04-24T13:29:08Z")
> [@Jeff Olsen](#): > > Figures, the OP ignored my question. Good luck with debating that brick wall, folks. Ease up there, **Jeffy**. That question had been asked and answered earlier. Go back and look for it. (Hint, it’s somewhere between posts 77 and 79.) ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bb73d2/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Joe_Meager)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/170 "2004-04-24T13:36:35Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > No, neither children nor dogs are capable, on their own, of having their consent legally recognised. Agreed, that’s why we’d need to change the law. > [@](#): > > Dogs still can not give consent. This is because they can not talk. Could it be any simpler? Are \*people \* who can not talk unable to give consent? Of course not, they communicate in some fashion other than talking. Perfectly valid communication (without talking). My dog and I communicate all the time. So do me and my cats. The iguanas are stupid as paint but we do share a good laugh now and then. Ever see _The Horse Whisperer_? Do you deny there is communication going on between humans and non-humans? According to you a guardian gives consent when the individual unable to legally give consent communicates to the guardian that they do indeed wish to consent to the situation at hand and the guardian does it for them. Just because you don’t understand how that form of communication works between humans and non-humans isn’t a good enough reason to deny it exists. You’re right, it couldn’t be any simpler. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/171 "2004-04-24T13:53:07Z")
> [@Jimmy Joe Meager](#): > > My dog and I communicate all the time. So do me and my cats. No, you do not. “Duzzoowannabikkit?” followed by frenetic wagging does not explicit consent make. If you believe that your interaction with your dogs is directly comparable to explicit human communication, then you are quite frankly a bid odd. If you ask a child “do you consent to this”, then it will be able to reply “yes” or “no”. Your dog will reply “woof” or maybe “grnf”. Your cats will scratch the floor, play with some fluff and go sit on the begonias. _Please_ tell me you can see the difference. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/172 "2004-04-24T14:08:01Z")
> [@Jimmy Joe Meager](#): > > According to you a guardian gives consent when the individual unable to legally give consent communicates to the guardian that they do indeed wish to consent to the situation at hand and the guardian does it for them. > > Just because you don’t understand how that form of communication works between humans and non-humans isn’t a good enough reason to deny it exists. You’re right, it couldn’t be any simpler. Wrong. When a parent gives consent, they’re then allowing their child to give consent. The parent doesn’t sign the marriage certificate; the child does. And I guarandamntee you that if the justice of the court thought the child didn’t fully understand the marriage certificate, she wouldn’t allow the child to sign. You’re desperately trying to twist facts to support your assertion that dogs and children are equally capable of giving consent, but that is both obviously and truly absurd. Think about it. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/173 "2004-04-24T14:11:44Z")
Oh, and: > [@Jimmy Joe Meager](#): > > According to you a guardian gives consent when the individual unable to legally give consent communicates to the guardian that they do indeed wish to consent to the situation at hand and the guardian does it for them. This is not what I said, and is demonstrably untrue. The test of whether the ward gives consent is not solely up to the guardian, or else it would be legally possible for any parent to force their child to marry. This is clearly not the case. Try again. On review, I see that this asinine scenario is the result of an earlier hypothetical posted by you. Would you please give an example in the _real world_ (the one where cats and dogs can’t talk, remember) where parents forced their children to get married in the full and obvious face of their children’s opposition? I hope you will understand if I am reluctant to accept at face value the imaginary world of someone who converses with his pets. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/174 "2004-04-24T16:55:15Z")
> [@Jimmy Joe Meager](#): > > **Orbifold** , thank you for replying and not simply attacking and insulting. You’re the kind of person with whom I enjoy debate (as opposed to argument). I wish I could return that respect, but quite frankly I think you’re being unbelievably obtuse. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying marriage must be granted to one BECAUSE it was granted to another, I’m saying that the arguments IN FAVOR of granting to one are equall valid to granting to the other If that is the case, then _what the hell is the damned problem_? If you think the arguments in favour of gay marriage are invalid, then say so and explain why. If you think the arguments in favour of gay marriage are valid, but are not valid for polygamous marriage, then say so and explain why. If you think the arguments in favour of gay marraige are valid, and are equally valid for polygamous marriage, then either quit your bitching or come up with an argument that says why polygamous marriage is bad. But if you don’t have any argument as to why polygamous marriage is bad, then maybe you should take a good long hard look at yourself and ask yourself why it gets your knickers into such a damned twist. That goes for gay marriage, too…and yes, for hot man-on-dog action. My own arguments against that have already been adequately made by other posters; I’m not going to “do your homework” for you either. Nor am I going to continue to feed what I think is one of the most ridiculous attempts to shift the burden of proof that I’ve ever seen. It’s irrelevant; I’m not the one with the issues here. _You_ are the one who clearly thinks that polygamous marriage and/or zoophilia is horrific enough that it should be forbidden. _You_ are the one who clearly thinks the horror of those things is so great that gay marriage must be stopped too, just in case. And _you_ are the one who has failed to articulate why _any_ of those things are actually bad. But until you can state a reason why one of those things are bad, what reason do you have to rant or rail against any of them? And why should we take any heed of you when you do? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/175 "2004-04-24T20:41:35Z")
> [@Jimmy Joe Meager](#): > > Agreed, that’s why we’d need to change the law. > > Are \*people \* who can not talk unable to give consent? Of course not, they communicate in some fashion other than talking. Perfectly valid communication (without talking). An otherwise competant person who is unable to vocalize words can still use sign language or write “I do” on a piece of paper. Your comparison involving children and dogs is absurd. Minors who get married with their parents permision stilll have to give their own consent to marry. A dog has no meaningful grasp on language, nor does it understand what “marriage” is. A dog wagging it’s tail does not mean “I want to marry you” no matter how much you may fantasize to the contrary. :rolleyes: A human being who has the intelligence level of a dog would be deemed incapable of entering into any contract such as marriage, even if they did have their parents permission. My dog and I communicate all the time. So do me and my cats. The iguanas are stupid as paint but we do share a good laugh now and then. Ever see _The Horse Whisperer_? Do you deny there is communication going on between humans and non-humans? According to you a guardian gives consent when the individual unable to legally give consent communicates to the guardian that they do indeed wish to consent to the situation at hand and the guardian does it for them. Just because you don’t understand how that form of communication works between humans and non-humans isn’t a good enough reason to deny it exists. You’re right, it couldn’t be any simpler. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/176 "2004-04-24T20:52:11Z")
> [@Jeff Olsen](#): > > Perhaps my question got lost in the shuffle. I’ll ask again. > > Are we or are we not on a “slippery slope” already by the virtues of one man / one woman marriages? Jeff makes a point. If you’re saying that Same Sex Marriage logically compells us to open up the floodgates to dog fuckers and necrophiliacs, **why doesn’t the existence of opposite sex marriage open up these same floodgates?** I suppose your thesis is that if we change one thing, we have to change everything. Let’s take an example of marriage changing in modern times. Interracial marriage used to be illegal in many places. A 1967 Supreme Court decision overturned that law. Blacks and whites could now marry. Strangely enough, this drastic change in who could marry whom did not open the door to any marriages between humans and dogs, or living humans and dead humans, or humans and aliens, or polygamy for that matter. Why is that? Was the Supreme Court hypocritical in that case for allowing interracial marriages but not your laundry list of other types of marriages? ---
**Author:** ![SCSimmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e495f1/32.png) [@SCSimmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCSimmons)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/177 "2004-04-24T23:01:57Z")
> [@Jimmy Joe Meager](#): > > Neither children nor dogs are capable, on their own, of granting consent. However, their guardians ARE capable of granting it for them. Why (under existing law) can a parent or guardian consent (in the states where this is the law) for their fourteen-year-old child to get married, but not for their ten-year-old child to get married? Or their two-year-old child to get married? When you understand this, and how it can be justified, you’ll have a chance at understanding why human/animal marriages cannot and will never be allowed. But I’m not holding my breath … ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/178 "2004-04-25T14:14:15Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Jeff makes a point. If you’re saying that Same Sex Marriage logically compells us to open up the floodgates to dog fuckers and necrophiliacs, why doesn’t the existence of opposite sex marriage open up these same floodgates? > > Interracial marriage used to be illegal in many places. A 1967 Supreme Court decision overturned that law. Blacks and whites could now marry. Strangely enough, this drastic change in who could marry whom did not open the door to any marriages between humans and dogs, or living humans and dead humans, or humans and aliens, or polygamy for that matter. Why is that? Was the Supreme Court hypocritical in that case for allowing interracial marriages but not your laundry list of other types of marriages? Playing devil’s advocate here. Do NOT take this as opposition to gay marriage on my part, just presenting what I’ve heard of the other side’s argument. (not my argument) “There is no fundimental difference between what a black opposite sex couple does in bed from what a white (or Asian or mixed or whatever) opposite sex couple does in bed. Thus, allowing marriage between any opposite sex couple is required under the “equal protection” clause. What two men do in bed is _not_ the same, and thus is not covered”–Michael Medved; once sane talk-show host, paraphrased, but pretty darn close (among others) (Of course, the obvious response is to ask “Why are you defining marriage as nothing more than fucking? Isn’t there more to your marriage with your wife than what you do in the sack?” but somehow that doesn’t seem to get asked) > [@SCSimmons](#): > > Why (under existing law) can a parent or guardian consent (in the states where this is the law) for their fourteen-year-old child to get married, but not for their ten-year-old child to get married? Or their two-year-old child to get married? > > When you understand this, and how it can be justified, you’ll have a chance at understanding why human/animal marriages cannot and will never be allowed. But I’m not holding my breath … We do not allow “consent by proxy” in marriage. A 2 year old or a dog or a corpse cannot give consent and no one is allowed to give consent for them. There’s a blurry period where a teen is able to vocalize consent but the _additional_ consent of a guardian is needed (and _not_ so much to give consent for marriage as to give consent for the law to waive the age requirement.) Fenris ---
**Author:** ![SCSimmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e495f1/32.png) [@SCSimmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCSimmons)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/179 "2004-04-25T20:37:19Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > \ **Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415/180 "2004-04-25T21:04:05Z") > [@Fenris](#): > > Playing devil’s advocate here. Do NOT take this as opposition to gay marriage on my part, just presenting what I’ve heard of the other side’s argument. > > (not my argument) “There is no fundimental difference between what a black opposite sex couple does in bed from what a white (or Asian or mixed or whatever) opposite sex couple does in bed. Thus, allowing marriage between any opposite sex couple is required under the “equal protection” clause. What two men do in bed is _not_ the same, and thus is not covered”–Michael Medved; once sane talk-show host, paraphrased, but pretty darn close (among others) > Fenris The problem with that is the reality is that the bigots of that day, and even those today, **do** see a fundamental difference between blacks and whites that is every bit as extreme as that between gay and straight. I don’t know if you’ve known any seriously racist people. But I can assure you they do see non-whites as less than human. They see interracial marriages as wrong as “dog fuckers” as Jimmy Joe so eloquently states. It is that fucked up stupidity that allows them to believe that particular slippery slope. For them _Loving_ was the first step on that slope and same-sex marriage would be only another step. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-so-this-is-why-we-shouldnt-allow-same-sex-marriage/241415.md?page=10)