# 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:** 39
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/761 "2014-05-08T18:58:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > To All, Dude, I appreciate this post. And I get it. Honestly, I really do. I disagree with it, but I get it. There are two issues, in specific, with which I disagree, and where I believe your argument fails. Firstly, you say: > [@](#): > > I think that not doing so, down the road, will lead to young OS couples (those unions that will always be the primary mechanism in which future generations are raised) not being as eager to getting married. I understand where you’re coming from, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this is true. I literally cannot grok how expanding the definition of marriage to include same sex couples will make straight people less likely to marry. Look, I get that you see “traditional” marriage as a fundamental and essential building block of society. I understand that you are concerned about its continued decline. Fewer people are getting married, especially young people. But that’s been happening for a long time, and began well before the very concept of gay marriage entered the public consciousness. There are a lot of reasons for it, but so far, gay marriage has not been among them. And your fears that legalizing SSM will contribute to this decline, while understandable, are based purely on emotion, with no evidence, or even a viable hypothetical mechanism, to support them. Secondly, you say: > [@](#): > > couples that cannot or chose not to have children do not challenge the notion, the symbolism, of marriage as being the beginning of a relationship that is recognized to be the ideal situation for the raising of children. SSM does challenge and alter that symbolism. The “traditional” marriage arrangement is _not_ recognized to be the ideal child-raising situation. Not by the evidence, at least. You believe it is, and you want it to be, but the facts on the ground do not back it up. But leaving that aside, it’s your latter point that I challenge. I absolutely agree that marriage embodies a commitment to one another, to family, and to society. I agree also that it symbolizes a continuance of family and relationships and societal bond. I fail to see how SSM changes that symbolism. Any couple who chooses to become married, in the eyes of God or the State, is \*embracing \*that symbolism, that continuance. They believe that it is important, for themselves and their family and their society and their posterity. They are _perpetuating_ the symbolism you support, and are doing so when fewer and fewer people choose to. Your argument that societal acceptance of “nontraditional” marriages somehow damages that symbolism is not one based in evidence, but your gut feeling. Again, I understand the idea that “lifetime marriage between mommy and daddy is the ideal way to raise kids” and should therefore be what we, as a society, encourage. I disagree with it strongly, but I understand it. But you want to take it one step further, and say that it should be the model we encourage _to the exclusion of all others_. And your arguments why we should do so are based entirely in emotion, and not fact. You recognize this, and I appreciate that you do. IMO there’s nothing wrong with arguing from opinion, even when it’s contradicted by fact, provided you acknowledge that it _is_ opinion. But I hope that you will come to change your opinion in time. . ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/762 "2014-05-08T19:01:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Currently, when a young couple talks about marriage and they each say “yes” to each other, in essence they are saying that “Yes, I want to live me life with you. I want to devote myself to you. I want the children I have to be half me and half you.” This is an immensely powerful proposition. And I see value in keeping it intact, namely that it make marriage a more attractive option for young people. This is really what your objection to SSM comes down to. The idea that SSM will in some way devalue OSM. This view is inherently bigoted. You are effectively saying that same sex couples don’t really love each other as much as opposite sex couples do, and that it is impossible for them to do so. The act of requiring a different word for marriage is just going to enshrine this bigotry into law. By mandating a different word, you are having the government publicly declare that these two things are not the same, and thus are unequal. If the southern schools agreed to be integrated, but decided that while white students received a diploma upon graduation, black students would receive a “certificate of completion”. I doubt that the supreme court would let it stand, even if the schools made it clear that the two degrees were equivalent. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/763 "2014-05-08T19:05:00Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > For many who endorsed it, it really was. Yes, there were people who felt that way. But as you note, there was also the belief that the races just weren’t supposed to mix and the white race was supposed to be in charge and needed to make sure it stayed in charge. And from what I can see, society at that time reflected that view- not the view that this was best for black people. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/764 "2014-05-08T19:21:56Z")
I don’t have much time, but… > [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > You are effectively saying that same sex couples don’t really love each other as much as opposite sex couples do, and that it is impossible for them to do so. You are 100% wrong about this. I assume and fully believe that the love felt between two SS people is real and profound, the same as the love between OS people. I have no qualms about that. I don’t see their love as lesser. And I’m not trying to hurt them. I’m trying to protect something I view as valuable: the traditional notion that marriage is comprised of man + woman. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/765 "2014-05-08T19:24:34Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > No, the problem is that your PROPOSAL is exactly the same as the PROPOSAL for the separate-but-equal schooling. The folks proposing separate-but-equal schooling also proposed equal schools, just as you propose equal benefits. Only separate. Oh, it’s exactly the same, except for the “separate” part. Newsflash: than it’s not "exactly the same is it? Here let me help you: NO. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/766 "2014-05-08T19:27:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Oh, it’s exactly the same, except for the “separate” part. There are two separate classes: opposite-sex (married) couples, and same-sex (civil unionized) couples. This could not be any simpler, but it’s page 16. ---
**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 8, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/767 "2014-05-08T19:27:40Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t have much time, but… > > You are 100% wrong about this. I assume and fully believe that the love felt between two SS people is real and profound, the same as the love between OS people. I have no qualms about that. I don’t see their love as lesser. And I’m not trying to hurt them. I’m trying to protect something I view as valuable: the traditional notion that marriage is comprised of man + woman. What about my analogy concerning voting? For many years only men could vote. This tradition was written into law. Did this tradition of voting need protection from women wanting the same right. Should women have been given the same rights, but not be allowed to call what they do at the polls “voting”? ---
**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 8, 2014, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/768 "2014-05-08T19:30:38Z")
_tap_ _tap_ Hey, is this mic on? ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/769 "2014-05-08T19:31:11Z")
After 770+ responses, I think we can answer the OP’s question. No. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/770 "2014-05-08T19:35:28Z")
You think what’s still going on here is a _debate_? ---
**Author:** ![thomasalice047](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/96bed5/32.png) [@thomasalice047](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thomasalice047)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/771 "2014-05-08T19:44:06Z")
I really don’t feel so that the discussion is over. People still find it unnatural. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/772 "2014-05-08T19:44:59Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What about my analogy concerning voting? For many years only men could vote. This tradition was written into law. Did this tradition of voting need protection from women wanting the same right. Should women have been given the same rights, but not be allowed to call what they do at the polls “voting”? Arguments for protecting the tradition of male-only voting, from the [National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage](http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/vote-no-on-womens-suffrage-bizarre-reasons-for-not-letting-women-vote/264639/), about 100 years ago: > [@](#): > > BECAUSE 90% of the women either do not want it, or do not care. > > BECAUSE it means competition of women with men instead of co-operation. > > BECAUSE 80% of the women eligible to vote are married and can only double or annul their husband’s votes. > > BECAUSE it can be of no benefit commensurate with the additional expense involved. > > BECAUSE in some States more voting women than voting men will place the Government under petticoat rule. > > BECAUSE it is unwise to risk the good we already have for the evil which may occur. More arguments on the [“Risk of Woman Suffrage”](http://www.library.umass.edu/spcoll/digital/dubois/VoteMiller.pdf): > [@](#): > > Woman’s sphere of activity falls mainly within while man’s field of action lies largely without the domestic circle. This represents the traditional and, presumably, the ideal relation between the sexes. It has the sanction of divine authority and the test of human experience. Woman suffrage could not possibly enhance the harmoniousness of this relationship, but might seriously jeopardize it. […] > > Suffrage is not a natural right, like life and liberty. The cormon sense of mankind has always limited it by age, sex, possession, attainment and moral character. It is merely a convenient agency through which to secure the best result of government, and to make secure life, liberty and happiness to all. It cannot be maintained that woman is deprived of any of these objects under male suffrage. ---
**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 8, 2014, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/773 "2014-05-08T19:50:11Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Arguments for protecting the tradition of male-only voting, from the [National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage](http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/vote-no-on-womens-suffrage-bizarre-reasons-for-not-letting-women-vote/264639/), about 100 years ago: > More arguments on the [“Risk of Woman Suffrage”](http://www.library.umass.edu/spcoll/digital/dubois/VoteMiller.pdf): All that…and yet we survived, despite the right to vote being “weakened”. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/774 "2014-05-08T19:53:19Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > …because you say so? I understand you believe in what you’re saying, but you’ve yet to deploy a valid argument for it. What do you mean? It’s a valid _proposal_. A valid idea. The argument for it is also valid, but one that you find unpersuasive. It would be nice to keep the two straight. Trust me, I have no illusions about persuading anyone here. > [@Marley23](#): > > But they wouldn’t be able to be legally married, which is the entire point of your proposal. You’re confusing the status that qualifies people to be able take advantage of a set of legal benefits and privileges with the set of legal benefits of privileges itself. This mistake is being made rather often in the thread. > [@Marley23](#): > > It is. But it’s also yet another example of trying to redefine marriage so it’s specifically something gays can’t achieve - the ‘a gay couple can’t have biological children together’ claim - and that’s already been discussed at length. “I want to live me life with you. I want to devote myself to you.” is an enormously powerful idea. Omitting children doesn’t make it less powerful. I couldn’t disagree more. The notion of our genes commingling with the person’s we love and creating another person that is both of us, that will look like us, is deeply powerful. While the best adoptive parents might love their children with all their heart and sole, it is not the same feeling that one has for their own offspring. I have friends with both biological and adopted children who they say they love equally. Yet even they admit that there’s additional thing that happens with their own offspring. I don’t see this as denigrating anything or anyone. It’s biology. Similarly, a mother has a bond with a child that I, or any male cannot ever have. Ever. It matters that there was a being growing inside her for 9 months. It doesn’t lessen the love a father might have. It’s just _different_. Again, this is biology, and I do not feel it denigrates me or my love in any way. Additionally, I’m not trying to do redefine marriage, you are. Up until this recent contortionism, marriage has always been compromised of man + woman. That’s not an opinion, that’s a _fact_. The least you could do is acknowledge that. > [@Marley23](#): > > Nobody is going to forego marriage just because a couple that can’t have biological children together can also get married. That’s kind of silly. Neither of us KNOW that. But let’s assume you are correct. But’s not that all by itself. As has been pointed out, fewer couples, even those with children, are choosing to not get married. I do not view that as healthy for society’s longterm welfare. So for me, the more we can reinforce the unique and special nature of the relationship, the better. I really don’t care if large swaths of single people get married or not. I do care if large swaths of couples planning to have children. I think our society would suffer if the institution waned. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/775 "2014-05-08T19:55:52Z")
…16 pages later. I would say the debate is **not** over. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/776 "2014-05-08T19:56:48Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > By “traditional marriage” do you mean Christian “traditional marriage”, or do you support people of other religions being able to follow their own versions of “traditional marriage”? I mean traditional western marriage: which have always been comprised of man + woman. ---
**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 8, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/777 "2014-05-08T20:00:19Z")
> [@](#): > > I couldn’t disagree more. The notion of our genes commingling with the person’s we love and creating another person that is both of us, that will look like us, is deeply powerful. While the best adoptive parents might love their children with all their heart and sole, it is not the same feeling that one has for their own offspring. I have friends with both biological and adopted children who they say they love equally. Yet even they admit that there’s additional thing that happens with their own offspring. I don’t see this as denigrating anything or anyone. It’s biology. This explains a lot. The layers of things you’re wrong about make quite a puzzle. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/778 "2014-05-08T20:01:21Z")
Gotta run. Thanks to all who are at least attempting to understand what MY proposal is and addressing it on those terms. **Andros** , I appreciate you thoughtful post and will respond later. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/779 "2014-05-08T20:09:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t have much time, but… > > You are 100% wrong about this. I assume and fully believe that the love felt between two SS people is real and profound, the same as the love between OS people. I have no qualms about that. I don’t see their love as lesser. And I’m not trying to hurt them. I’m trying to protect something I view as valuable: the traditional notion that marriage is comprised of man + woman. And I will repeat yet again what others have said. **Protect it from what?** The fact that you feel so strongly that allowing Gay relationships to be called marriage will diminish marriage, inferior to (or at the very least fundamentally different) from OS ones. Otherwise there is no way that their inclusion could diminish OS marriages. To quote your words again, you say > [@magellan01](#): > > Currently, when a young couple talks about marriage and they each say “yes” to each other, in essence they are saying that “Yes, I want to live me life with you. I want to devote myself to you. I want the children I have to be half me and half you.” This is an immensely powerful proposition. And I see value in keeping it intact, namely that it make marriage a more attractive option for young people. Everything in that sentence (except possibly that bit about children\*) applies to same sex couples. So how is including them diminishing to traditional marriage, unless you feel that they don’t. - As for this, I suspect that many same sex couples would also have the same wish, but are not able to for biological reasons. The same applies to many infertile couples. But if you are going to tell my wife an me that we’re not as married as other couples because for various reasons having children is not an option for us, then I’ll sic my wife on you and she’ll take you to the cleaners. ---
**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 8, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/780 "2014-05-08T20:13:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Gotta run. Thanks to all who are at least attempting to understand what MY proposal is and addressing it on those terms. > > **Andros** , I appreciate you thoughtful post and will respond later. What Fallacy is it when someone says that the only reason you disagree with them is because you do not understand them? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472.md?page=38) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472.md?page=40)