# 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:** 35
**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 7, 2014, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/681 "2014-05-07T22:16:28Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 1. The degree to which they symbolize the necessary ingredients for procreation. But you have no problem letting straight people who can’t reproduce marry. Which leads us back to the double standard that reveals the bigotry at the heart of your position. “Marriage is about procreation,” is an argument you use only when the couple in question is gay. If they’re straight, procreation suddenly becomes a none issue. > [@](#): > > 1. They are the components present in the ideal environment to raise children. And this is, quite simply, objectively false, as has been demonstrated by multiple studies, as already cited in this thread. So, you’re trying to restrict the rights of homosexuals on bases that are either unequally applied, or outright lies. How does this make you not a bigot again? ---
**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, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/682 "2014-05-07T22:16:29Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > For you, it doesn’t work at all. For one thing the DMV doesn’t divide them up into different classes. The fact remains that two different groups get to tap into the same single set of laws. That is the point of the analogy. And it stands. > [@Marley23](#): > > Again, “sets of laws” are not relevant to discrimination and as far as I can tell they’re not even really a thing. You’re separating marriages into two different groups. The number of laws required to achieve your purpose is irrelevant. “White children go to one school and nonwhite children go to another school” could be written as a single law. No, I’m saying to different groups: those joined in Marriages and those joined in, e.g., Civil Unions tap into one (1) set of laws. You’re conflating the laws that the groups tap into—hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.—with the laws that define what constitutes a Marriage or Civil Union. They are two different issues: one is what the benefits are (laws), the other is which groups can tap into them. > [@Marley23](#): > > Why does this symbolism matter? Because symbolism is important. Have you heard of flags, insignias, logos? Do you think that the backdrop when a President speaks is just accidental? Do you think the military decorations on a uniform are meaningless strips of colored ribbon? Do you think the the Silver Star and Super Bowl Rings mean nothing? Do you think referring to someone as a Congressional Medal of Honor recipient is meaningless? Do you think verbal badges like “Your honor”, “Sir”, “Mrs.”, “Ms.” “Mr. President”, serve no purpose? How about the word “hero”? Although it’s meaning is being degraded weekly by the media as they use it to describe anyone who wears a uniform, do you find it to mean the same as any other assembly of four letters? Do you really thing symbolism is not important? If so, unsurprisingly, we are starting from way different premises. Think about it, if symbolism was not important, we wouldn’t even need the word to describe it. Hell, if the symbolism was unimportant, as I think it was Miller who once explained, no one would care if they had the word attached to their relationship or not. > [@Marley23](#): > > I’m sure you’ve already seen the studies that debunk this. Yes. And they are both biased and unconvincing. On the other hand, science shows that mothering and fathering are different. That a child gets different things from the female parent and the male parent. Even putting genitalia aside, the to genders are not interchangeable. > [@Marley23](#): > > Which means you don’t care about this ideal environment thing anyway. How in the world do you conclude that? Bizarre, to say the least. ---
**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, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/683 "2014-05-07T22:17:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 1. The degree to which they symbolize the necessary ingredients for procreation. Which has not had any significant bearing on marriage for quite a while (and ignores the fact that any homosexual couple already has a member who is a “necessary ingredient” for procreation). > [@magellan01](#): > > 1. They are the components present in the ideal environment to raise children. So are you proposing that any non-ideal couple should be denied the right to marry? If not, why are you picking on homosexual couples? ---
**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 7, 2014, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/684 "2014-05-07T22:17:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Wrench ottoman sunset effort spoon nickel calico. Uvula! Makes about as much sense as anything else you’ve ever said on the subject. ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/685 "2014-05-07T22:22:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Because symbolism is important. Exactly. Society should promote stable relationships and stable families and using a single word to identify such relationships is a better symbol than creating a second class of symbols to identify the same relationship, based on genitalia. ---
**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, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/686 "2014-05-07T22:28:22Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Makes about as much sense as anything else you’ve ever said on the subject. More so, I daresay. At least “Wrench ottoman sunset effort spoon nickel calico. Uvula!” doesn’t contain any obvious self-contradictions requiring increasingly desperate apologia. ---
**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, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/687 "2014-05-07T22:29:36Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > For the purpose of licensing, they are each identified as “licensed driver,” so that odd attempt fails. Nope. One set of laws that two different groups tap into. Now you can take the analogy further if _you’d_ like. But I choose not to. I’m not offering it as _proof_ of anything, just for illustrative purposes…to help people understand the way I view it. > [@tomndebb](#): > > FActually, what _Brown_ did was point out that any effort to promote “separate but equal” inevitably led to inequality. No evidence has been presented that that conclusion has ever been successfully challenged. And this you added for what reason…? On a related note, Roger Bannister broke the 4-minute mile. > [@tomndebb](#): > > FAnd under _Brown_, there was one set of laws, so your claim does not even address your own point. First, you might want to remember that I am not the one who brings up “Separate but Equal” in these discussions. Second, on the Brown side of the analogy, a set of laws or sets of laws was not the issue. It was schools. I know you know how an analogy works. Try applying that knowledge to what I’ve written. Now, if you don’t like the analogy, perhaps you should suggest that people not bring it up by incorrectly stating that my proposition fails because, “How dare you do that, Magellan. Haven’t you heard about Separate but Equal?!” Don’t you know it’s wrong?!!!" ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/688 "2014-05-07T22:30:38Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Makes about as much sense as anything else you’ve ever said on the subject. Oh, snap! Devastating… ---
**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, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/689 "2014-05-07T22:35:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The fact remains that two different groups get to tap into the same single set of laws. That is the point of the analogy. But the laws treat them as one group: licensed drivers. That’s not what you’re proposing. You’re proposing is two groups, not one. This isn’t exactly a complicated objection. > [@](#): > > No, I’m saying to different groups: those joined in Marriages and those joined in, e.g., Civil Unions tap into one (1) set of laws. You’re proposing the creation of two - separate, allegedly equal - groups. You’ve yet to explain why the number of laws being “tapped into” is relevant anyone else. > [@](#): > > Because symbolism is important. This long ramble doesn’t even attempt to address my question. The question was “Why does _this_ symbolism matter?” > [@](#): > > Yes. And they are both biased and unconvincing. On the other hand, science shows that mothering and fathering are different. Different is not the same thing as ideal. Perhaps you could bring this science? > [@](#): > > How in the world do you conclude that? Because right after you said opposite sex-couples provide the ideal environment for children, you said you’re 100% fine children being raised in a non-ideal environment. If you’re OK with children being raised in an environment that doesn’t meet your ideal, you can’t say gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry because that’s not ideal for children. For that matter, the word “marriage” all by its lonesome doesn’t have any impact on whether or not a relationship is ideal. ---
**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 7, 2014, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/690 "2014-05-07T22:36:00Z")
\*Brown \*and the associated cases were challenges to laws allowing the schools to segregate their students into black schools and white schools. That’s how segregation of the schools occurred. Some districts believed that, because of _Plessy_, if they provided abstractly equal facilities to blacks – if they had one set of laws that applied to everyone, just with a black school and a white school rather than an integrated school – they wouldn’t run afoul of the law, because in formal terms they’d be providing equal protection. What the Supreme Court said, if you like, was that it wasn’t good enough to have one set of laws that applies to both, because the act of distinguishing one from the other stamps the minority group as necessarily inferior. ---
**Author:** ![standingwave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@standingwave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/standingwave)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/691 "2014-05-07T22:45:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes. And they are both biased and unconvincing. On the other hand, science shows that mothering and fathering are different. That a child gets different things from the female parent and the male parent. Even putting genitalia aside, the to genders are not interchangeable. Then logically you would you be on board with outlawing single parenthood as Republicans in Wisconsin tried to do a few years ago. They wanted to label it child abuse and get CPS involved. ---
**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, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/692 "2014-05-07T22:46:28Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Nope. One set of laws that two different groups tap into. Now you can take the analogy further if _you’d_ like. But I choose not to. I’m not offering it as _proof_ of anything, just for illustrative purposes…to help people understand the way I view it. The way that you view it is in error. Under _Plessy v Ferguson_, there was one set of laws for both whites and blacks. > [@magellan01](#): > > And this you added for what reason…? On a related note, Roger Bannister broke the 4-minute mile. You had an error in your claim regarding _Brown_ that I corrected. Under _Plessy v Ferguson_, there was only one set of laws–just as you propose for marriage–but the very identification of “separate” inevitably led to unequal impact. If one ignores that point, one can pretend a lot of things about _Brown_, but it does not realistically change the fact that you propose a new “separate but equal” law, (with its attendant problems). > [@magellan01](#): > > First, you might want to remember that I am not the one who brings up “Separate but Equal” in these discussions. Second, on the Brown side of the analogy, a set of laws or sets of laws was not the issue. It was schools. I know you know how an analogy works. Try applying that knowledge to what I’ve written. As long as you propose that we have separate types of unions that are supposed to be “equal,” people will correctly point to _Plessy_ and the reality of “separate but equal.” You can claim analogy all you want, but the reality is that you do propose “separate but equal” law, then deny that you are doing so. (_Brown_ was about schools, but _Plessy_ was about streetcars and in both cases we were talking about single laws applied to all of society that resulted in unequal treatment, regardless of the language of the laws. > [@magellan01](#): > > Now, if you don’t like the analogy, perhaps you should suggest that people not bring it up by incorrectly stating that my proposition fails because, “How dare you do that, Magellan. Haven’t you heard about Separate but Equal?!” Don’t you know it’s wrong?!!!" Look at my actual post. You want one law that treats people separately but equal. It is not my fault that you have kidded yourself into believing that you are not proposing new “separate but equal” law. In your proposal, SSM and OSM are separate but they are equal. As long as you pretend that you are proposing something else, you are going to be frustrated that those who can read will recognize that making OSM and SSM separate, (but equal!), is the same as proposing a separate but equal law. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/693 "2014-05-07T23:22:48Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Instead of “gay” marriage, why not start working for more “gender-neutral” marriages. Because we are really just saying that the genders of the persons entering into a marriage contract should be irrelevant to the validity of that contract. That is basically what the laws are, gender neutral. [Here](http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/files/2013/05/marriagelicense.pdf) is a PDF of the Hawaii marriage license form. It is filled out as applicant 1 and applicant 2. Each person selects Bride, Groom or simply Spouse and that is the only place on the form that would indicate the gender of the people involved. If each person selects Spouse as the option, the state wouldn’t even know what gender each person is. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/694 "2014-05-07T23:36:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > On the other hand, science shows that mothering and fathering are different. That a child gets different things from the female parent and the male parent. Even putting genitalia aside, the to genders are not interchangeable. Stipulating that for the sake of an argument, you seem to be arguing that because there is a difference in parenting styles\*, both typically male and typically female parent roles are required for the best parenting. I’m fine with the idea that there are differences, but you’ll need to bring along some actual evidence that both are necessary to raise healthy kids. \*Which I believe you’ll find, when you examine the research, are almost entirely culturally driven. ---
**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 7, 2014, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/695 "2014-05-07T23:50:43Z")
Law 1: Straights get a thing called marriage while gays get a thing called civil unions. Law 2: Blacks get the school on the north bank of the river while whites get the school on the south bank of the river. Law 3: Magellan will not see the point while the rest of us will see the point. ---
**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 8, 2014, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/696 "2014-05-08T00:14:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes. And they are both biased and unconvincing. On the other hand, science shows that mothering and fathering are different. That a child gets different things from the female parent and the male parent. Even putting genitalia aside, the to genders are not interchangeable. Whether this is true or not does nothing to support the argument that opposite-sex parents provide a superior child-rearing environment to same-sex parents. There’s no data that supports this argument, and there’s much data that supports the argument that same-sex parents are just as good, on average, at parenting as opposite-sex parents. ---
**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 8, 2014, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/697 "2014-05-08T00:18:56Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Law 1: Straights get a thing called marriage while gays get a thing called civil unions. > > Law 2: Blacks get the school on the north bank of the river while whites get the school on the south bank of the river. > > Law 3: Magellan will not see the point while the rest of us will see the point. Well, it’s one _set_ of laws, which we’re told is perfectly fair and equitable. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/698 "2014-05-08T00:19:06Z")
From what I can tell from this thread, the remaining items of debate are; 1. Religion and whether or not religious rules should affect civil marriage law. 2. Tradition in the US and should it control future law. 3. The name of said legal union. Did I miss anything? ---
**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 8, 2014, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/699 "2014-05-08T00:21:10Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > From what I can tell from this thread, the remaining items of debate are; > > 1. Religion and whether or not religious rules should affect civil marriage law. > 2. Tradition in the US and should it control future law. > 3. The name of said legal union. > > Did I miss anything? Where the hell is the juice, dude? ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/700 "2014-05-08T00:22:45Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Where the hell is the juice, dude? One possible answer to item 3 would appear to be pineapple juice. But that part was getting convoluted. Or if you prefer, I can add item 4. Is marriage orange juice or pineapple juice. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472.md?page=36)