# 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:** 21
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/401 "2014-05-05T22:01:37Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m saying you made an incorrect claim about the history of marriage. You’re in good company. Not as it applies to our society, I didn’t. Then you tried to turn it into marriage for the history of western civilization. Which is where my last question to you comes in. But let’s make this easy. Go back and look at the beginning of the exchange, which is my post to Miller that you tried to jump on. Look at the point being made, as opposed to, say, trying to play a little game “gotcha”. My post went to the lack of a need to “protect” the concept of marriage. If you have something you think illuminating, please, by all means, share it. ---
**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, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/402 "2014-05-05T22:03:59Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Nonsense. One could simply believe that SSM threatens the concept of marriage over the long haul One could simply believe that Neil Armstrong took one small step on an Arizona soundstage or that a court’s decisions do not apply to you because there was a gold-fringed flag in the room, but those beliefs won’t impress anyone, either. ---
**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, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/403 "2014-05-05T22:06:01Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > One could simply believe that Neil Armstrong took one small step on an Arizona soundstage or that a court’s decisions do not apply to you because there was a gold-fringed flag in the room, but those beliefs won’t impress anyone, either. If you’e honest about it, I could say the exact same thing of your position. ---
**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, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/404 "2014-05-05T22:18:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Not as it applies to our society, I didn’t. Then you tried to turn it into marriage for the history of western civilization. I see nothing that limits the discussion to the United States until post #396. Insisting this is only about the U.S. that actually undercuts the point because it makes this purported value less universal. ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/405 "2014-05-05T22:30:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > A _tad_ tautological, don’t you think? Eh, it’s a fair cop. The opening sentence was a cheap rhetorical shot, and the post would have been better without it. But speaking of tautologies, let’s take a look at the rest of your post: > [@](#): > > 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. Summary: marriage is between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. I think my tautology was pithier, but whatever. I’m just glad to see you admit that biological reproduction actually has nothing to do with marriage at all, and was just used as an excuse to discriminate against queers. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/406 "2014-05-05T22:36:06Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > You know, I have more respect for the person who says he hates gays than for the person who just can’t seem to understand what gay marriage could possibly mean. How long are we supposed to sit around patiently while someone says, “Gosh, this whole ‘horseless carriage’ thing is just baffling. WHAT CAN IT MEAN?'” > > Again, the only defense against bigotry being offered is this sort of ignorance or willful stupidity. Once people are on notice that something exists, having them act like it’s just _unfathomable_ is no defense. At a certain point, someone has to figure out what the fuck is going on. Failing to grasp it doesn’t make the position neutral o tolerable. If you’re going to have an opinion, you’d better figure out the basis for it, not say “Oh, I have an opinion, but you can’t blame me for my opinion because I am just too slow to understand what it all means. But I’ll support my side.” Nice straw man. I have never said that such people should not be challenged. I simply find it silly to go all “fundy” on them, hurling epithets. Obviously, my view is the minority one in this thread. ---
**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, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/407 "2014-05-05T22:36:11Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I see nothing that limits the discussion to the United States until post #396. Insisting this is only about the U.S. that actually undercuts the point because it makes this purported value less universal. I guessed you were so eager to respond that you didn’t bother to grasp my original post to Miller. And his post, which I was directly responding to and quoted. (bolding mine) [QUOTE=magellan01] [QUOTE=Miller] You are starting from a precept (marriage is about biological children) that is never enforced\*\* in this society \*\*in any way, [/QUOTE] 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. [/QUOTE] ---
**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, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/408 "2014-05-05T22:40:50Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Summary: marriage is between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. I think my tautology was pithier, but whatever. I’m just glad to see you admit that biological reproduction actually has nothing to do with marriage at all, and was just used as an excuse to discriminate against queers. Let me help you out: In western society, marriage is between a man and a woman because that’s all it’s ever been. I think you’re comment about biological production goes too far. While it has not been a litmus test, it was understood that there was a very tight correlation between having children and marriage. And anything that weakened the correlation did NOT weaken the correlation between “marriage” and “one man and one woman”. Do you deny those two facts? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/409 "2014-05-05T22:45:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let me help you out: In western society, marriage is between a man and a woman because that’s all it’s ever been. So the last few decades don’t count? I would think they’d be far more relevant to present policy than ancient history. ---
**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, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/410 "2014-05-05T22:48:09Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I suspect that you dismiss anything that does not make sense to you so that you never will see such an argument. I think I’m probably just less vested than you are in inventing excuses for the intolerable opinions of other people. > [@](#): > > I worked with such a person. He was an IT manager, (and no dummy), who had a couple of gay employees. He never gave them any hassle about their sexual orientation. He never made them the butt of jokes. They were given plum assignments according to their skills, and promoted at a pace that matched the rest of the department. He had no problems with their having partners and chimed in for a gift when one of the couples adopted a child. > When the topic of SSM came up, he simply went cold. He could not envision the word marriage being employed for anything other than a heterosexual relationship. To him it simply did not make sense. > He and I went round and round on the topic a few times, but he simply could not conceive of how a Same Sex union could be a marriage. So, despite the flaws in his opinion being pointed out many times, and despite having the damage caused by banning SSM explained to him, and despite being shown the many advantages of legalizing SSM, he was steadfast in opposing SSM? Would you say he was obstinate in opinion? Hey! Maybe if you’d called him a bigot, it would have changed his mind! ---
**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, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/411 "2014-05-05T22:52:34Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Hey! Maybe if you’d called him a bigot, it would have changed his mind! Quick aside: Curious about your take on an unrelated topic. On the Donald Sterling incident. Leaving the content of his ugly remarks aside, how do you feel about what’s happened to him due to a private conversation held in his own home? ---
**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, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/412 "2014-05-05T22:58:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let me help you out: In western society, marriage is between a man and a woman because that’s all it’s ever been. I think you’re comment about biological production goes too far. While it has not been a litmus test, it was understood that there was a very tight correlation between having children and marriage. And anything that weakened the correlation did NOT weaken the correlation between “marriage” and “one man and one woman”. > > Do you deny those two facts? I don’t deny that, up until the last few decades, marriage in the west had always been between a man and a woman. And before the first women’s suffrage bill was passed, men has always run everything because men had always run everything. And before the American revolution, kings were in charge of everything because kings had always been in charge of everything. “Because it’s always been that way,” is, in general, a shitty argument. If that’s all you got, you lose by default. Which is why, of course, your people invented this whole, “But gays can’t have kids!” rationale, despite the fact that never, in the history of matrimony, has anyone ever worried that letting infertile people marry was a problem. And now you’ve admitted (twice, even!) that it is, in fact, not a problem at all. It’s just a convenient handle to keep the gays out. I confess, I’m not entirely sure what your second fact is, so I can’t say if I deny it or not. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/413 "2014-05-05T23:07:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. Your Humpty Dumpty analogy is nonsense. There is not a case where someone came along, one afternoon, and simply declared “I think same sex couple should get married, too.” Rather, a number of different things occurred throughout Western society over the course of fifty or sixty years that led to a convergence of ideas Chemical contraception, (“the Pill”), removed the direct connection between sex and inevitable procreation. Recognition that homosexuality was not a deviant behavior, (neither criminal nor an illness), opened the possibility of open discussion of homosexual relationships. The development of IVF and similar therapies broke the last bond that limited procreation to actual sex. Sufficient numbers of homosexuals came out into the open that most of society could see and recognize that their lives were pretty much the same, on a day-to-day basis, as those of heterosexuals. Single parent adoptions were tried in some locations and found to be successful, (breaking the unexamined belief that an adoption could only be successful in a home with a mother and a father). With all these changes in society, the notion arose that homosexuals in permanent relationships should be recognized in the same way that heterosexuals in permanent relationships were recognized. They lived together, (generally on a presumption of shared love). They raised children together. They shared expenses, houses, children, vacations, health and illness, and, eventually, death. They engaged in every activity in which “married” couples engaged, so it made sense to use the same word to identify their relationship. A Humpty Dumpty scenario would be for none of the previously mentioned events to have occurred and for someone to announce, last Thursday, that homosexuals (who were all still closeted) living in committed relationships would henceforth be known as Stalactites, with worldwide acclamation for that announcement by Saturday. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/414 "2014-05-05T23:16:28Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Would you say he was obstinate in opinion? No. I would say that he had a world view that did not allow for one specific change of meaning. I would also note that nothing he said or did was disparaging of the people whom he failed to understand might marry. > [@Miller](#): > > Hey! Maybe if you’d called him a bigot, it would have changed his mind! And how many peoples’ opinions have you changed by calling them names? If someone called you a bigot toward people who do not support SSM, would it change your mind? Would you even consider changing your views on that basis? ---
**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, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/415 "2014-05-05T23:16:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Quick aside: Curious about your take on an unrelated topic. On the Donald Sterling incident. Leaving the content of his ugly remarks aside, how do you feel about what’s happened to him due to a private conversation held in his own home? I’d rather not risk a potential hijack by introducing another controversial subject. If you’re really interested in my perspective, I can PM you an answer. ---
**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, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/416 "2014-05-05T23:19:12Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Nice straw man. > > I have never said that such people should not be challenged. I simply find it silly to go all “fundy” on them, hurling epithets. > > Obviously, my view is the minority one in this thread. How is it a straw man? You are saying that he can’t be called a bigot because, essentially, he is ignorant and his world view is outdated. You already had numerous conversations about this and his world view remained outdated. But he still can’t be called a bigot because… what? How long can someone persist in ignorance before we say that they really have had plenty of time to come to grips with things and that if they still claim ignorance it’s not a reasonable excuse? To use the interracial marriage analogy yet again, if someone came up to me and said that my interracial marriage wasn’t a real marriage because she just couldn’t conceive of a marriage between people of different races despite however many decades of such marriages, and despite her hearing arguments for it, am I supposed to say, “Oh, I don’t want to shut down the discussion by saying she’s a bigot”? What possible discussion is left? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/417 "2014-05-05T23:23:22Z")
**magellan01** , your “one man and one woman” mantra is inaccurate. Following Roman Law, Western society has gravitated toward monogamy. However, there are multiple instances of polygyny even within Western history, (and even after the general “christening” of Europe). And even when it was the norm in western Europe, Europeans were well aware that polygyny was a possibility. (Their bibles told them so.) If you wish to push “man and woman” you have history supporting you. Once you throw in the number one, you simply demonstrate a lack of understanding of history. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/418 "2014-05-05T23:26:29Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > But he still can’t be called a bigot because… what? Because he bore no antagonism toward homosexuals. He did not disparage them. He did not treat them differently, much less more poorly than he treated heterosexuals. He differed in opinion on one particular topic. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/419 "2014-05-05T23:33:44Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > And how many peoples’ opinions have you changed by calling them names? I think if someone called me a bigot 15 years ago for opposing SSM, I might have come to the accept it sooner. I’m pretty sure I had no idea, at the time, that my view could be seen as bigoted – even though it seems obvious to me now. ---
**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, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/420 "2014-05-05T23:36:43Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > He did not treat them differently, much less more poorly than he treated heterosexuals. He differed in opinion on one particular topic. He treated them differently by saying it was inconceivable they would marry and, I’m assuming, being against legal recognition of their marrying. Saying his treatment was borne of a sense of confusion and wonder and utter inability to grasp it does not actually make that treatment equal. Saying his “difference of opinion” was not from animus does not make his opinion neutral. And, really, what possible reason is there for this utter inability to get it other than that he judged gay relationships and straight relationships, and therefore gay and straight people, as somehow unequal, somehow unexplainably apart? You’re not saying what he said when he said that it just did not compute, but even pretty damned stupid people get analogies, so this steadfast inability to get it seems to be more than some slight initial confusion at the use of a word. “Gay marriage is like straight marriage only both people are the same sex.” “Oh, okay. I don’t approve of that/I’ve got no issue with that/I’ve never heard of that before and it sounds weird.” You only get to use that last one once. Once you’ve heard of it, claiming that it’s just beyond imagining is really silly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472.md?page=22)