# "Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2008, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188 "2008-09-12T00:12:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/21 "2008-09-12T02:48:44Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > I don’t know if you noticed but… he’s trying to get elected. So I can project all my warm fuzzies on John McCain, too, and anything he says that I don’t like I can attribute to him trying to get elected? ---
**Author:** ![Kolga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e56c9b/32.png) [@Kolga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolga)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/22 "2008-09-12T02:52:44Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > So I can project all my warm fuzzies on John McCain, too, and anything he says that I don’t like I can attribute to him trying to get elected? Please, and this is to **sailor** as well, can we not hijack this into an election debate? I really do want someone who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman to explain to me their thought process. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/23 "2008-09-12T03:01:38Z")
> [@Kolga](#): > > Please, and this is to **sailor** as well, can we not hijack this into an election debate? I really do want someone who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman to explain to me their thought process. I can’t see it as anything but hate. When someone else wants to do something that would have great benefit to them and not have any effect on you whatsoever, and you want to stop them, it’s called hate. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/24 "2008-09-12T03:10:00Z")
> [@Kolga](#): > > Please, and this is to **sailor** as well, can we not hijack this into an election debate? Sorry, I was just pointing out that politicians often say thing which they believe will get them elected , not necessarily because they believe them. > [@Kolga](#): > > I really do want someone who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman to explain to me their thought process. Um, I think the whole point is that there is no “thought process”, rather more like “that’s the way it’s always been” or “the Bible says it”. As has been said many times, you cannot reason a person out of a position at which they did not arrive by reason. You see it all the time. The mother who says her son was a good kid after she is told he murdered someone. Americans defending things which if done by other people would be considered awful crimes. People mostly arrive at positions by feeling, perception and other human emotions and then find “reasons” to support their positions. I think asking someone to explain with reasons why he opposes gay marriage is like asking someone why he doesn’t like chocolate: all “reasons” are cooked after the fact to yield the right result. Maybe I am mistaken and someone will come in now and give a detailed reasoning of why he feels that way but I doubt it. And even if it were to happen the entire SDMB would descend upon those “reasons” and savagely destroy them so in the end they would be considered utterly invalid anyway. I am not sure this thread has an answer you will find acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/25 "2008-09-12T03:11:34Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > The usual explanation is that it would create problems with dividing the estate or something of that sort which I find incredibly dense and ridiculous. We manage to have rules for dividing estates among several heirs, we have multi-partner corporations, etc. with rules on how to manage them. Saying poligamy would create insolvable problems is ludicrous. So, as I say, it is just a matter of personal preference and opinion. How do you prove your taste being better than someone else’s taste? How do you prove chocolate tastes better than tofu? huh? It’s not so much that they’re insoluble, but that they haven’t been solved. Any legal issues concerning same-sex marriage have pretty much already been settled, since you can just import the rules, regulations, and precedents for mixed-sex marriage. (In the 19th Century, saying “Two men or two women married? But which one will be the husband and which one will be the wife?” would have actually been a sensible question; but nowadays mixed-sex marriages are legally speaking pretty egalitarian, so that’s no longer a meaningful question, at least not in terms of family law or taxation.) We have no such system of precedents for marriages with more than two partners. Furthermore, the existing systems of rules and precedents for polygamous relationships, such as Islamic law, wouldn’t really be acceptable in a sexually egalitarian society like ours (“A man can have four wives, but that doesn’t mean a woman can have four husbands”), so we would have to pretty much start from scratch. Which is not to say it would be impossible to do that, but I think the issues may be more complex than they seem at first: If Pat is married to Chris and Chris is married to Tracy, are Pat and Tracy necessarily married to each other? What if Chris wants to divorce Pat, but not Tracy, but Pat and Tracy want to stay married to each other? Is there a limit to how many different people can be married to each other: Three? Five? (As in Islamic law–although I don’t really know what the relationship of the multiple wives of a single husband is to _each other_ in Islamic family law–more like “co-wives” than “wives”, I suspect.) A dozen? No limit? You could conceivably wind up with marriages with dozens or even hundreds of partners, a la Heinlein’s Lunar society in _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_–and again, does every spouse have the same standing towards every other spouse in the marriage? What if some of the spouses are bisexual, but others are not? (Pat may not be wild about the idea of sleeping with Chris every other Tuesday if Pat is a heterosexual male but Chris is a bisexual male.) By contrast, implementing SSM is dead-easy: Just pass a law that says “Wherever it says ‘a man and a woman’, substitute ‘two consenting adults’” and _boom!_, you’re done. ---
**Author:** ![lobotomyboy63](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobotomyboy63/32/2900_2.png) [@lobotomyboy63](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lobotomyboy63)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/26 "2008-09-12T03:15:44Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > Um, that’s the definition of democracy: whatever the majority says, goes (within the confines of the Constitution). Democracy is “using the government to enforce the beliefs of the majority”. > > Now you and I might agree that a majority of the American people are a bunch of ignorant, fundamentalist bigots when it comes to certain things but what are you going to do about it? > > Your view is that you are suspicious and do not trust poligamy. I find that view totally unreasonable. Now what? Since the majority, being totally unreasonable, agrees with you it seems I’ll just have to wait. Or would you rather we do pistols at dawn? There was also a time when slavery was acceptable, legally. The government representatives permitted it to continue and some must have rationalized it to themselves with some quantum nonsense (e.g. “Negros are inferior; we have a right to subordinate them. In a way, we’re doing them a favor”) :dubious::smack::mad:. When enough people were no longer convinced of that, things like the underground railroad started, yadda. So to quote the above, what are you going to do about it? Laws tend to remain laws unless people contest them and if it isn’t happening on Capitol Hill, it will take more grassroots movements to bring about change. IANA homosexual, but I think that group would be wise to steer away from the term “marriage” because it just invites bigots to claim the Bible as their rationale for vetoing the idea. IMO their argument should be, “OK, your God won’t recognize our union; the church isn’t democratic about some things and that’s an issue for me to take up with them. However, this country is supposed to respect the separation of church and state, so we don’t need your god’s approval on this because in this government, your god has no vote. We are willing to enter into a legally binding relationship, and since, like straights, that in no way requires us to have children, then we should be afforded the same rights, privileges, protections, responsibilities and everything else afforded to them.” I think we’ll see these arguments fulfilled in the next twenty years or so. For one thing, people eventually did come to their senses about slavery. For another, we have had homosexuals in leadership positions ([Category:Gay politicians - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_politicians)) and other celebrities who are openly gay. But mostly, enough people will realize that they have a loved one or friend who is gay. The internet ought to speed things up. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/27 "2008-09-12T03:35:11Z")
Why? Because words mean things. A marriage is a relationship between 1 man and 1 woman. Anything else negates the original meaning of the word. Polygamy, gay unions and any other combination or relationship is not a marriage. There is no constitutional law that requires a codification of every relationship that people wish to engage in. To the extent that people want to group themselves together on a personal level is infinite and varied. There are few boundaries preventing such unions. It used to be illegal to have sex with an unmarried person, a person of the same sex, multiple people, sheep, or any combination thereof. Those laws have been struck down. To each his own. You can now legally bind almost any relationship on a level that approximates marriage. To the extent we need to close the gap between married and legally bonded persons is worth discussing but it doesn’t require changing the definition of marriage. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/28 "2008-09-12T03:35:33Z")
**MEBuckner** , I find that reason less than convincing. Since when is easiness a reason to pass a law? Most laws are quite complex, more than most people would like, but they were passed because the legislature felt they were necessary. Laws are and should be enacted when necessary, not just because it’s easy to do so. The fact is that in American society there is some demand for gay marriage and almost no demand for poligamous marriage. That is a fact. Which I find unreasonable. But it is that way. On the other hand, I, analyzing the issue with the sole light of reason, come to the conclusion poligamous marriage is more logical than gay marriage. But, where does that get me? Nowhere. That’s where. People are not logical about this. I think it is impossible for anyone to come in here and give any kind of reasoning which anyone here would find acceptable. So, in trying to play the Devil’s advocate i can say that such a person might say “because God said so” or “because that’s the way it’s always been”, and then you can respond “I don’t accept those reasons” and then they can say “as long as my position has more votes than yours my position wins”. And, then what? Let’s go to the pit and I’ll tell you what I really think of you? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/29 "2008-09-12T03:43:44Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Why? Because words mean things. A marriage is a relationship between 1 man and 1 woman. Anything else negates the original meaning of the word. Polygamy, gay unions and any other combination or relationship is not a marriage. People have been referring to polygamous unions as marriages for thousands of years: > [@](#): > > Abigail quickly got on a donkey and, attended by her five maids, went with David’s messengers and became his wife. David had also married Ahinoam of Jezreel, and they both were his wives. – [1 Samuel 25:42-43](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2025:42-43;&version=31;) ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/30 "2008-09-12T03:50:30Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Why? Because words mean things. A marriage is a relationship between 1 man and 1 woman. Anything else negates the original meaning of the word. Polygamy, gay unions and any other combination or relationship is not a marriage. There is no constitutional law that requires a codification of every relationship that people wish to engage in. Oh please do tell, captain etymology, what the original meaning of the word was. And supposing the word _marriage_ really did originally mean “a relationship between 1 man and 1 woman” (it didn’t), you must have some sort of consistency in your noble defense of words and their meaning, right? Because this is just about preservation of our beautiful language, not hating queers, right? Why, I cannot imagine the list of words you don’t use. Chill, no that original connotated low temperature, now it means relax. Can’t use it. Gay, wait, that meant happy, didn’t it? (why’d you use that? words mean something!) You must not be able to talk about the internet at all. Scroll, mouse, spam, wallpaper, page, stream, boot, crash, firewall, surf, thread, address, flash - these words have MEANINGS! _WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE MEANINGS??!_ ---
**Author:** ![light\_sweet\_crude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/aca169/32.png) [@light\_sweet\_crude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/light_sweet_crude)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/31 "2008-09-12T04:08:06Z")
> [@lobotomyboy63](#): > > IMO their argument should be, “OK, your God won’t recognize our union; the church isn’t democratic about some things and that’s an issue for me to take up with them. However, this country is supposed to respect the separation of church and state, so we don’t need your god’s approval on this because in this government, your god has no vote. We are willing to enter into a legally binding relationship, and since, like straights, that in no way requires us to have children, then we should be afforded the same rights, privileges, protections, responsibilities and everything else afforded to them.” Well stated. I think people keep forgetting that there is marriage under God and marriage under the government, and that the latter should not be defined by the rules of the former. That being said, I don’t think they should steer away from the term ‘marriage’, and I don’t think they should be content with the label ‘civil union’, even if that gives the same legal protections. This would smack of ‘separate but equal’. We are all humans, and should be given the same freedoms, and to name things differently implies that gays/lesbians are less than (which, of course, is the point, and it should not be allowed). Does anyone else feel that this is basically the same scenario as when interracial marriage was illegal? I think (hope) that years from now people will look back on this in disbelief. Anyway, to answer the OP, I can’t answer why, but I would say the root of the matter is fear, and of course, fear slips very easily into hate. Though many seem to be fans of woman on woman, the thought of man on man makes lots of people seriously uncomfortable, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/32 "2008-09-12T04:08:53Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Why? Because words mean things. A marriage is a relationship between 1 man and 1 woman. Anything else negates the original meaning of the word. Polygamy, gay unions and any other combination or relationship is not a marriage. This has already been proven to be false but, furthermore, how is it that the main object of America as a nation is the preservation of the original meaning of words? Is it in the Constitution somewhere and I missed it? Laws are newly made and adapted all the time to conform with new needs and customs. The preservation of the original meaning of words is not a high priority of government. (But it would make a nice Monty Python sketch to go with the Ministry of Silly Walks.) On the other hand, I will make the observation that those who insist that is _has_ to be called “marriage” might be shooting themselves in the foot because many people who are opposed to calling it marriage would be content if the same thing were termed “civil union”. Sometimes the best is the enemy of the good and all that. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/33 "2008-09-12T04:14:42Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > On the other hand, I will make the observation that those who insist that is _has_ to be called “marriage” might be shooting themselves in the foot because many people who are opposed to calling it marriage would be content if the same thing were termed “civil union”. Sometimes the best is the enemy of the good and all that. That just reeks of separate but equal to me. The people who have been backed into a position of claiming their only beef is with word choice are just being petty and masking their hate. My god, a few years ago when I was a mortgage account manager we switched over to a new piece of software and we had to take all the old files and _ **marry** _ them to the new ones. Had **Magiver** been working in my office at the time would he have opposed it? I strongly suspect not (but feel free to answer, Magiver.) ---
**Author:** ![Kolga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e56c9b/32.png) [@Kolga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolga)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/34 "2008-09-12T04:37:26Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Why? Because words mean things. A marriage is a relationship between 1 man and 1 woman. So, the entire thought process boils down to “marriage is between a man and a woman, period, because a marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman?” Forgive me if I misinterpret your statement, but that seems to me to be somewhat of a circular argument. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/35 "2008-09-12T05:17:29Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > That just reeks of separate but equal to me. Separate but equal is better than slavery. The slaves did not say “it’s all or nothing; either we get full civil rights or we continue being slaves”. No, the took what they could get and waited some decades until they could get the rest. > [@Kolga](#): > > So, the entire thought process boils down to “marriage is between a man and a woman, period, because a marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman?” > > Forgive me if I misinterpret your statement, but that seems to me to be somewhat of a circular argument. And yet, that circular reasoning which you find so faulty is what most Americans apply to “illegal immigration”. They are against “illegal immigration” because it is “illegal”. But the fact is they are just anti-immigration. Period. They want to keep it being illegal. They want to shut the door. But they do not say so openly, rather they are against “illegal immigration” because it is, well “illegal”. To be honest about this, one has to pick his battles and his causes and for me this one is way down there in the scale of things. There are millions of people starving in the world. Tens of thousands risk their lives to try to make it to developed countries and thousands lose their lives in the intent. In the meanwhile us, in those rich countries, spend millions in our efforts to keep them out. In my view this is as immoral as one can get. We are defending a position of privilege against all morality. Compared to this gay marriage seems to me a very small thing. There are many wars going on in the world. At least one of them directly being conducted by America and the rest are all done with the aid and arms supplied by developed countries in their strategic games. To me this is huge and I am outraged. Compared to that the fact that two gay people want to say they are “married” so they can bitch at each other and be miserable together just like any normal couple, well, it just doesn’t rank quite up there for me. But that is just a personal matter. I think when future generations judge us they will be much harsher on us for these things than for not allowing gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Cider\_Depot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Cider\_Depot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cider_Depot)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/36 "2008-09-12T05:24:39Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Why? Because words mean things. A marriage is a relationship between 1 man and 1 woman. Anything else negates the original meaning of the word. Polygamy, gay unions and any other combination or relationship is not a marriage. Not that I’ve got anything to defend about polygamy, but polygamy does not violate your “1 man 1 woman” premise, because polygamy describes a situation where one person engages in multiple “1 man 1 woman” marital unions. That is, unless you want to add the word “monogamy” to your definition. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/37 "2008-09-12T05:34:47Z")
> [@Cider\_Depot](#): > > Not that I’ve got anything to defend about polygamy, but polygamy does not violate your “1 man 1 woman” premise, because polygamy describes a situation where one person engages in multiple “1 man 1 woman” marital unions. > > That is, unless you want to add the word “monogamy” to your definition. Not that it matters, but I think you’re thinking of bigamy. Polygamy is 1 man, multiple women (generally), or I guess it could technically be 1 woman, multiple women. Maybe even multiple men, multiple women. You get th point. ---
**Author:** ![Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hilarity_n.suze/32/6223_2.png) [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hilarity_N.Suze)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/38 "2008-09-12T05:59:48Z")
> [@Yumblie](#): > > It’s impossible to define marriage to include all hetero couples while also leaving out all same-sex couples, unless you say that the only thing that defines marriage is man + woman. The thing is, for the lifetime of most of the people on the planet, that is, in fact, how it’s been defined. > [@](#): > > Leaving aside tradition and religion, it’s a rather arbitrary and unfair definition. Sure, but tradition and religion are pretty strong factors in society, even separately. Together, much more so. > [@](#): > > Human relationships are a complex entity and it’s outrageous that people think it’s up to the government to decide which ones are genuine. Hardly anyone is saying it’s not a genuine relationship. They are just saying, to them, it isn’t a marriage.\* I am strongly in favor of civil unions and not so much in favor of marriage, but I’m enough of a traditionalist to assign a certain emotional heft to certain relationships, and not to others. I have different feelings about the wedding of two youngish people of the opposite sex who have never been married before, in terms of the solemnity and emotion of the experience, than I will about older, previously married people going through the same ceremony. Or even older people who have not been previously married. It’s just not the same. It’s a lesser commitment. I can certainly see how people feel that same way about same-sex marriage. \*Okay, some of them are saying it’s not a genuine relationship, but those people are just unreasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/39 "2008-09-12T06:13:12Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > People have been referring to polygamous unions as marriages for thousands of years: Not in the United States. Are we discussing the world at large or is this directed toward same sex unions in the US? ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/40 "2008-09-12T06:14:42Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Not in the United States. Are we discussing the world at large or is this directed toward same sex unions in the US? All the talking points directed at you and this is what you decide to respond to? You’ve got to be kidding me . . . [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188.md?page=3)