# 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:** 29
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/561 "2014-05-06T20:54:56Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The one you called “bullshit” and “untruth”, without explanation. And, obviously, without comprehension or perhaps even reading. That wasn’t a summary. ---
**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:** [May 6, 2014, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/562 "2014-05-06T20:57:38Z")
By the way, there’s an answer to the question of who SSM will harm. I was thinking about it recently, and it seems that it’s a group with potential standing to sue to stop SSM: Beards. For centuries, there have been straight women who struggle to attract a husband. They want to be married, but they are for whatever reason so unattractive to any suitable mate that no straight man will marry them. Fortunately they’ve always had a solution. Gay men don’t need to be attracted to their wives; they just need a wife, period. They need someone to marry them to confer all the legal and social advantages of marriage. As long as they can’t marry the men they love, many of them have settled for marrying a woman they don’t much care about. SSM removes this option for most such women. This social change harms these potential beards by removing their potential mates. They should sue. I don’t know if there’s such a term for men who previously would have married lesbians, but given that the women are named as if they provide a gay man with a secondary sexual characteristic befitting a man, I suggest that men who marry lesbians be called boobs, and should likewise sue. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/563 "2014-05-06T20:59:25Z")
HAHAHA!! Left Hand, that was beautiful. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/564 "2014-05-06T20:59:26Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > If anything, letting couples get married when they previously couldn’t ought to boost marriage rates a bit. There would be, and probably are already, fewer sham OS marriages entered into by gays who felt a need to pass. It’s hard to call the end of those \*damaging \*to the institution, though; in fact the opposite. And, no doubt, the end of some of those will be followed by 1 or even 2 SS marriages, for a net wash or even gain. ---
**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:** [May 6, 2014, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/565 "2014-05-06T21:07:04Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Completely self-serving reasons? i.e. “I need the votes” Huh, I’ll be honest - I can actually see that as a reason. A spineless self-serving cynical dishonourable reason, but there is an element of actual self-interest to it, which puts it miles above the zero-line “gay marriage makes marriage less spacial” which has no substance at all, let alone a benefit to the person who tries to argue it. ---
**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:** [May 6, 2014, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/566 "2014-05-06T21:11:51Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > There would be, and probably are already, fewer sham OS marriages entered into by gays who felt a need to pass. It’s hard to call the end of those \*damaging \*to the institution, though; in fact the opposite. And, no doubt, the end of some of those will be followed by 1 or even 2 SS marriages, for a net wash or even gain. I dunno - how do the number of self-hating closeted gays (even in this day and age) compare to marriage-minded gays? For that matter, what percentage of homosexuals _are_ casually “out” ? 90%? 80%? Less? Anybody studied this recently, done any latter-days Kinsey reports? ---
**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 6, 2014, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/567 "2014-05-06T21:14:16Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Huh, I’ll be honest - I can actually see that as a reason. A spineless self-serving cynical dishonourable reason, but there is an element of actual self-interest to it, which puts it miles above the zero-line “gay marriage makes marriage less spacial” which has no substance at all, let alone a benefit to the person who tries to argue it. Somehow I don’t think “I’m a hollow, paid-for shell of a human being - but at least I’m not a bigot. I’m just a whore, ridden hard and put away wet by my donors” is actually _above_ bigotry, to be honest. It’s a _sideways_ slide on the slippery shit-slick slope of selfish suckitude, not an ascent… ETA I apologize to any hard-working actual whores for that demeaning comparison - you guys are _so_ much better than politicians… ---
**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:** [May 6, 2014, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/568 "2014-05-06T21:20:21Z")
What about the guy who says he opposes gay marriage and happens to have a profitable business selling “NO SSM” protest signs and bumper stickers? I guess the latter would have a motif that is the opposite of a rainbow… polka dots, I guess. Now that I think about it, the rainbow as a symbol is actually a _bad_ choice for diversity - when images of rainbow are printed, the colours are typically distinct with sharp and clear divisions between them, rather than the gradual change exhibited by the natural phenomenon. Arguably, a printed rainbow with six or seven distinct colour stripes is a symbol for tribalism, not inclusion. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/569 "2014-05-07T03:35:12Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Interesting, by the way, that you didn’t have any trouble with the idea that people who used to be racist would refer to themselves as former bigots, but balked at the idea that people who used to be homophobes would use similar language. I have no trouble with the idea that some people who were either homophobic or bigoted in regards to SSM would reconsider their positions and admit that their previous position could be described as homophobic or bigoted. I simply do not see accusations of bigotry as a primary motivator for the more than 25% (and growing) of the population who have changed their views since 1996. I clearly have failed to persuade you of my position and I do not find your position persuasive, so I do not see the point of continuing to beat this sidebar topic to death. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/570 "2014-05-07T13:32:49Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > But, we have already heard about OS people who were souring on the concept of “marriage” because it excluded our gay brothers and sisters. Much like a tantrum-prone two year old might decided that that the lollipop his mother gave him was devalued by the fact that his sister got one, too and therefore he decides to throw his on the ground and stomp on it instead of enjoying it. But that doesn’t make sense to any clear thinking person over the age of two and shouldn’t be a public policy consideration. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/571 "2014-05-07T13:57:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’d say no. Because while you are broadening it in one respect, you are weakening its meaning on the other. I agree with just about all you wrote. I want SS couples to enter the same type of relationships, and tap into the same package of legal benefits and privileges. But by doing so without the badge “marriage”, we get all the upside without the downside. > . But a large part of what marriage IS is presenting yourself to the world as a married person on a regular basis, telling your friends and co-workers and strangers you just met that “yes, I’m married”. It’s talking about your husband or your wife every day and introducing them to others as your husband or your wife. While these are ordinary things that married couples take for granted they are a very important part of what constitutes a marriage. They serve to strengthen and reinforce the bounds of marriage and keep them strong. It’s a upside that you want to have for yourself but deny to someone else because their marriage looks a little differently than yours. It’s bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/572 "2014-05-07T14:02:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Here’s the game that is being played: > > Some people opposed to SSM are bigots. > Some people opposed to SSM are homophobes. > Therefore, all people opposed to SSM are both bigots and homophobes. > > This Special Strain Of Logic brought to you by The Contortionists. > > :rolleyes: Well, we’re still looking for a non-bigoted reason. Let us know if you find it. > [@magellan01](#): > > I do not believe the last part of that at all. As far as the first part of the statement, you’re using words that go beyond the value I see and the point I’d make. I’d say it water’s down the meaning of the word. It weakens it. The same way that adding water to a glass of orange juice weakens it. That doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with water. So we change “Marriage” from one thing to another, slightly more inclusive thing. And this matters… why? See, you talk about this being a “cornerstone of society”. I agree - but what matters isn’t “a man and a woman get married and have a baby”, but rather “two people join together to form a stable family unit, with or without a child”. The latter is a far more accurate representation of the reality of marriage today. Never mind that the “dilution” through extending the same thing to a group which is logically included within the term is nothing compared to the gigantic body blow it’s suffered through women becoming more independent and divorce becoming more common. You seem to think people get married because marriage is simply an important thing people do. That’s… really bizarre. > [@magellan01](#): > > This is hilarious. There is not one—not one—benefit that OS couples enjoy that I do not want extended to SS couples. I simply want them to do it through a different mechanism than you and others here. Call it a civll union or whatever the hell else you want and we’d be on the same side. Yes, separate but equal has worked so well in the past, hasn’t it? > [@](#): > > But a marriage not comprised of man + woman, husband + wife, is like one hand clapping, it’l like an atom with electrons orbiting a nucleus filled with other electrons. It’s nonsensical. No, it isn’t, and if you don’t get it, _that’s on you_. The meaning of the word has changed, and most people are on board with that. > [@magellan01](#): > > I’m concerned. The fear about SSM is that it will make the term less meaningful for future generations. It will not point to that special relationship between a man and woman that has been a cornerstone of our civilization. SSM weakens the concept. Polygamous marriages weaken the concept. Polygamous SSMs contort it to even more so. > > A future where there are fewer married OS couples having and raising children is not a good thing. Would you at least agree with that? Yes, but it doesn’t follow from marriage being extended to other groups. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/573 "2014-05-07T14:06:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m concerned. The fear about SSM is that it will make the term less meaningful for future generations. It will not point to that special relationship between a man and woman that has been a cornerstone of our civilization. SSM weakens the concept. Polygamous marriages weaken the concept. Polygamous SSMs contort it to even more so. > > A future where there are fewer married OS couples having and raising children is not a good thing. Would you at least agree with that? That future is RIGHT NOW. Single mothers are commonplace now. I guess you believe that a pregnant single woman should be forced into a shotgun wedding or to give her child up for adoption. I think those two options are much worse for a child than gay parenting. ---
**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 7, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/574 "2014-05-07T14:48:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’d say it water’s down the meaning of the word. It weakens it. The same way that adding water to a glass of orange juice weakens it. That doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with water. Of course there’s something wrong with water. In the sense of “watering down”, water is nothing, empty. It is valueless liquid serving only to reduce the intensity of the base liquid, it has no particular potential to improve the base liquid. It is an inherently negative choice. You could have chosen Vodka and made a Screwdriver instead of glass of ruined OJ. You could have chosen Tangerine Juice or Grenadine or any other liquid that works well with OJ, but you didn’t. You chose a liquid that would be perceived negatively when added to OJ. So, it is shown that you devalue SSM, probably without even thinking that the choice of water is inherently bigoted. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with water, you have lots of friends that drink water, I’m sure. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/575 "2014-05-07T15:24:41Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I do not believe the last part of that at all. As far as the first part of the statement, you’re using words that go beyond the value I see and the point I’d make. I’d say it water’s down the meaning of the word. It weakens it. The same way that adding water to a glass of orange juice weakens it. That doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with water. What’s wrong with it is that it weakens the orange juice. That’s the entire point of the metaphor you’re employing. Watered-down is a pejorative. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/576 "2014-05-07T15:29:46Z")
Don’t look at it like orange juice being watered down. It’s more like orange juice with added vitamins and minerals-_fortified_ orange juice. ---
**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:** [May 7, 2014, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/577 "2014-05-07T15:49:20Z")
Doesn’t orange juice NEED water? Ever taken a spoonful of frozen orange juice concentrate? Blech. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/578 "2014-05-07T15:59:24Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Well, we’re still looking for a non-bigoted reason. Let us know if you find it. Already found. Shared. Ignored. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Yes, separate but equal has worked so well in the past, hasn’t it? Your not understanding what separate but equal means is your problem, not mine. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > No, it isn’t, and if you don’t get it, _that’s on you_. The meaning of the word has changed, and most people are on board with that. Maybe. I’d say _some_. Doesn’t mean that I have to agree with the masses, does it. Ten years ago, was it incumbent on you to agree with the masses? No. Now after you read up on Separate but Equal you can look up “Fallacies: Appeal to The Masses”. Fighting ignorance and all that. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Yes, but it doesn’t follow from marriage being extended to other groups. It doesn’t _necessarily_ follow, I’d agree. But you can’t tell me it _won’t._ ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/579 "2014-05-07T16:00:42Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > That future is RIGHT NOW. Single mothers are commonplace now. I guess you believe that a pregnant single woman should be forced into a shotgun wedding or to give her child up for adoption. > > I think those two options are much worse for a child than gay parenting. :rolleyes: Evidently you have zero grasp of my position. But hey, why should that stop you from spouting off nonsense, right? Unbelievable. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/580 "2014-05-07T16:04:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > :rolleyes: Evidently you have zero grasp of my position. But hey, why should that stop you from spouting off nonsense, right? Unbelievable. If you have a reasonable basis to predict bad things will happen because of SSM, you should really let all the lawyer know who have come up empty in all their efforts in court. The “watered down” theory probably won’t cut it though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472.md?page=30)