# Is The Gay Marriage Debate Over? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2014, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472 "2014-05-02T00:00:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/361 "2014-05-05T16:12:08Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > “I have no problem with a man who is effeminate…” > Would you be o.k. if two big manly lumberjack-type whisky-swigging, cigar-smoking dudes wanted to get married? :dubious: Hey! I know them! About 1000x over. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/362 "2014-05-05T16:12:10Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > You have already stated your disagreement to this proposition. But your disagreement doesn’t transform the argument into bigotry. No, it’s the inherent bigotry in your position that makes it bigoted. You are starting from a precept (marriage is about biological children) that is never enforced in this society in any way, except as an excuse to exclude homosexuals. Absolutely no effort is made at all to ensure that heterosexual married couples can, or want to, procreate. We do not penalize, in any way, married couples that have failed to procreate. Nor do we favor families with biological children over families with adopted or step children. We do offer various tax breaks and other aid to people who have children, but to my knowledge, these are not predicated on marriage - single or unwed parents are just as eligible. We do not even block marriages between individuals who cannot pass an obvious visual fertility check - [this couple](http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1423919.ece/alternates/s615/Wu%20Conghan,%20101,%20and%20his%20103-year-old%20wife%20pose%20for%20photos%20while%20wearing%20wedding%20clothes) is just as obviously incapable of producing a biological child as [this couple,](http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/uploads/images/article-images/VandiverandValendiaGay_Marriage.png) but it’s only the later that you’d bar from getting a marriage license. The inequality in this situation is further heightened by the fact that the number infertile straight married couples currently existing vastly outnumbers the potential number of gay married couples should SSM be legalized nationwide. If allowing infertile couples to marry is somehow injurious to the tradition of matrimony, then by opposing gay marriage you are effectively keeping the foxes out of the henhouse, while allowing the wolves to run rampant. Further, there is [absolutely no evidence](http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf) that having a mother and a father leads to better child rearing results than having two parents of the same gender. But even if your postulate is true (again:[it is not](http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20%281%29.pdf)) and same gender parents are worse than opposite gender parents, we are talking about marriage, and not parental rights. Outlawing gay marriage will not prevent gay parenting. If the children of gay parents are at a disadvantage (which, again,[they are not](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf)) and the institution of marriage provides a benefit to children, doesn’t that make gay marriage all the more necessary? Aren’t those the kids who need marriage the most? Of course, if gay parents are just as capable as straight parents ([they are](http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/AP_06_pre.PDF)), their kids could _still_ use the leg up provided by marriage. If marriage is all about the children, why do you advocate making things harder for the kids on the basis of who their _parents_ are? Also, your concept of gender roles is _hilariously_ antiquated. Just sayin’. So, having shown that your reasoning for opposing gay marriage is, by turns, inconsistent, inaccurate, injurious, and just incorrect in general, how do you react? Do you reverse yourself, and agree that there is no good reason to oppose SSM, or do you hold to your position? And if a person holds to his opinion in the face of facts, logic, and common decency, would it not be fair to characterize that person as, at the very least… obstinate? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/363 "2014-05-05T16:26:59Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Again, we start with the first precept that marriage is not an institution to simply make adults happy, but as one to bring biological children into the world. Implicit in that belief is that biological children are best served by a strong male role model who will paddle some ass when needed, and a strong female role model who will comfort, care, and kiss scratches when needed. Introducing textbook examples of sexist stereotypes in an attempt to refute the charge of bigotry is a textbook example of FAIL. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/364 "2014-05-05T17:02:11Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Introducing textbook examples of sexist stereotypes in an attempt to refute the charge of bigotry is a textbook example of FAIL. Yeah. The more people “explain” their oh-so-unbigoted reasons for opposing SSM, the more the bigotry is apparent. And he thinks he’s making a case. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/365 "2014-05-05T17:06:14Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Implicit in that belief is that biological children are best served by a strong male role model who will paddle some ass when needed, and a strong female role model who will comfort, care, and kiss scratches when needed. So no SSM because of _sexism_? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/366 "2014-05-05T17:09:44Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why we should do that other than the happiness of some people. It’s rare to see a conservative take issue with [the Founding Fathers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness). ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/367 "2014-05-05T17:10:59Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > So no SSM because of _sexism_? Off-Topic: I think a lot of opposition to SSM and gayness in general is fundamentally sexism. Those “effeminate” men and those “women with careers.” Don’t they know their place? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/368 "2014-05-05T17:13:49Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Gay couples can never have biological children, with or without assistance. They may have a child that is 1/2 a biological part of one member of the union. And the point of this quibble is… ? > [@](#): > > “Ensuring paternity” is the same as child-rearing. No, it has nothing to do with child-rearing. It’s about making sure your kids are biologically yours; in an age before DNA testing that was a big deal, so marriage was important. > [@](#): > > Division of property is also a legal construct that can be dealt with outside of marriage. Yes, it is and can be. But we are talking about the origins of marriage here. Division of property was one of its important uses. Your claim that that child-rearing was _the_ reason for marriage is just garbage. As far as I can tell, this is something NOM types simply made up so they could find a justification for opposing the recognition of same-sex marriages. > [@](#): > > The argument is that marriage is a vessel to bring the next generation into this world with a male and female role model. More nonsense; role models come from outside families as well as inside it. > [@](#): > > But we can reserve marriage to those couples who are capable of having biological children. But we don’t. > [@](#): > > Marriage ain’t about me, you or our happiness and sense of fulfillment in life. It’s about children. And that’s why gay couples should be allowed to marry, adopt, and raised children. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/369 "2014-05-05T17:14:23Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Off-Topic: I think a lot of opposition to SSM and gayness in general is fundamentally sexism. Those “effeminate” men and those “women with careers.” Don’t they know their place? I agree wholeheartedly. It’s not the only reason (deep psychological fears and sublimated latency also play roles) but it’s up there, especially for conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/370 "2014-05-05T17:31:00Z")
I also think it’s funny that the side that claims that gay marriage “devalues” marriage is constantly attacking my marriage. I don’t have kids. I don’t want kids and my husband has had a vasectomy. According to the “marriage is for children” playbook, that makes my marriage a sham and a lie that goes against the purpose of marriage. Kinda makes me wonder why we have all these myriad other default rules about marriage when it’s only about having biological offspring within the marriage. I’m sure I would understand if only I had a baby and learned my place. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/371 "2014-05-05T17:35:17Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Of course it works. Such a charged word couldn’t help but work in today’s society. The question is whether it is a fair debating strategy. Why should anyone care? It’s not like the opposition cares in the slightest about fairness. > [@jtgain](#): > > Many non-bigoted reasons have been presented in this thread for opposing SSM. No, none have. Because they don’t exist. > [@jtgain](#): > > I have no problem with a man who is effeminate or a woman who wants a career. I certainly don’t wish to scorn illegitimate children. But these steps have been argued at every point by those who have seemingly correctly stated that they will destroy the family foundation. Since we have permitted no-fault divorce and accepted single motherhood as a virtue, should we just do the rest and throw in the towel on the whole tradition of what constitutes a family? The traditional family is a male master and a female slave. Those words weren’t used, but that is what they were. So yes, we should be happy to see the destruction of the traditional family. > [@MrDibble](#): > > So no SSM because of _sexism_? Actually it _was_ a contributing problem; I still recall how I used to hear homosexual relationships being considered bizarre and unworkable because of the problem of “who’s the husband and who’s the wife?”. A question that had actual meaning when those two roles were drastically different from each other. Homosexual relationships married or otherwise just don’t fit the traditional male master/female slave model of marriage; they work fine with the more modern marriage of equal partners version of marriage. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/372 "2014-05-05T17:37:05Z")
Back to the OP, I’d say there are other hints that the primary debate about gay marriage is over: [Growing Pains actor turned born-again Christian Kirk Cameron says combating fornication and adultery should be bigger priorities for Christians than fighting gay marriage](http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/kirk-cameron-says-christians-should-clean-their-own-house-condemning-gay-marriage050514) > [@](#): > > ‘If the people sitting in the pews are fornicators and adulterers, the church will destroy marriages much more quickly than those outside the church. When God’s people mock marriage, God doesn’t take that lightly.’ > > Cameron as recently as January described same-sex marriage as ‘an all out assault on the traditional family,’ but seems to have moderated those views in the months since then. > > ‘I think the greatest threat to marriage is not other people’s definition of marriage,’ Cameron told [AL.com](http://AL.com). > > ‘The church isn’t taking God’s definition of marriage seriously. It’s not other people sabotaging marriage that’s the problem.’ This is essentially a pro-SSM talking point that he is now adopting as his own. I call that a win for our side. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/373 "2014-05-05T18:26:11Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Keep in mind that conservatives have disagreed with these shifts and have actually argued at times that such shifts could lead to the recognition of SSM which the opponents summarily dismissed Is there a point to this that does not inherently presume that SSM is a bad thing? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/374 "2014-05-05T18:34:39Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Is there a point to this that does not inherently presume that SSM is a bad thing? To be fair, it _is_ axiomatic for political conservatives that change is a bad thing. It’s in the name and all… ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/375 "2014-05-05T19:02:54Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > To be fair, it _is_ axiomatic for political conservatives that change is a bad thing. It’s in the name and all… Honestly though that doesn’t mean anything; “conservatives” aren’t necessarily anti-change any more than a “People’s Republic” cares about the people. _American_ conservatives want _lots_ of change; it’s just all _bad_ change. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/376 "2014-05-05T19:08:22Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > To be fair, it _is_ axiomatic for political conservatives that change is a bad thing. It’s in the name and all… He didn’t say they disagreed with the shift just because it was change, but that they argued it could lead to SSM. I suppose that could be comparable to the more recent arguments that SSM could lead to men having sex with turtles, as though there’s something inherently bad about that, too. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/377 "2014-05-05T20:07:32Z")
I was being facetious, people. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/378 "2014-05-05T20:23:57Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > No, it’s the inherent bigotry in your position that makes it bigoted. A _tad_ tautological, don’t you think? I see that none of what **Tom** said, has sunk in. Can you at least pretty it up some so your ploy isn’t so jarring. > [@Miller](#): > > You are starting from a precept (marriage is about biological children) that is never enforced in this society in any way, To be fair, there was never really any reason to have to protect it by enforcing anything. Society simply accepted that marriage was made up of one man and one woman. Nothing to protect really. When Mormonism entered its era of polygamy, it was viewed as outright weird, and was frowned upon and eventually done away with. Still, even with that you had man + woman in the relationship. And if there were people who were elderly or infertile, there was no threat to the concept because…why? Simple: because the notion of marriage being comprised of one man and one woman was not in any way being threatened. So, since they’re was nothing being threatened , there was noting to really enforce. But now it’s different. Now we’ve crashed through the looking glass and we found ourselves in a place words mean just what you want them to mean as you use them, no more more less. Humpty Dumpty would no doubt approve. Come to think of it, if Civil Union is too, inspired, perhaps SSM couples could enter into a Carrollian Union. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/379 "2014-05-05T20:29:51Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But now it’s different. Now we’ve crashed through the looking glass and we found ourselves in a place words mean just what you want them to mean as you use them, no more more less. Bigotry, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/380 "2014-05-05T20:30:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Society simply accepted that marriage was made up of one man and one woman. Exactly! That’s why you won’t find any references to polygamy in the Bible. The point had never been disputed before. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472.md?page=20)