# "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:** 6
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/101 "2008-09-12T22:27:32Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Yeah, well, how do you think _we_ feel about it? How is the response to a religious argument of “I don’t believe, so don’t impose your beliefs on me” invalid? That can go for theists who don’t happen to believe that god is against SSM just as well. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/102 "2008-09-12T22:33:57Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Yeah, well, how do you think _we_ feel about it? Then stop it. There was this clarion call for gay rights. Good. Excellent, in fact. You can have them. Embrace them. I’m with you 100%. But that’s not good enough any more, now you (pl) insist on being able to contort language and strip society of a word that describes one of the foundational institutions to modern society and this country. To have the word, when it is used, not describe that institution (which was and is primarily one built around the begetting of children), but some broader, more amorphous arrangement that is not part of our history. How can you not see how fucking annoying that is? Seriously, Miller, how is that not just fucking pushy, harmful in that it makes words more ambiguous, and unnecessary, as the rights can be had without the word. It’s NOT the same thing. I’m not saying it’s better or worse, it’s just different. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/103 "2008-09-12T22:34:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s not the only reason it fails. See Millers post. The last third of it, which he actually got right. : ) > > Why not just give them the same rights? Why MUST it be under the same system? Why MUST it ask of society to change the idea of marriage that’s been around for hundreds of years. > > You know, it’s become increasingly clear to me that it is not about rights. That’s just a Trojan Horse. That want to contort society to fit the view of a minority. Fuck that. The call was for—rightfully—equal RIGHTS. But now that’s not enough. Well, fuck that, too. I’m becoming increasingly annoyed at this pushy insistence. I find myself, for the first time, starting to not like gay people. I find myself broadbrushing almost the whole community (except for my gay friends and other reasonable people that actually don’t even want SSM), as well as their non-gay cheerleaders. I’m not gay (I’m actually mildly homophobic), so don’t hold me against them. I just don’t like blazing inaccuracy and fraudulent logic. For example, the idea is to expand the inclusivity of a system, not change the system itself - **exactly** like when we expanded the vote to include women. For persons who already ‘qualify’ for the system, nothing changes at all - except that their ability to be dicks towards the formerly non-included people is reduced. (Poor them.) There is no “contortion” of society looming; that’s just hysterical hyperbole. This change would actually only effect a tiny portion of humanity and the largest effect it would have on other people is that the gay people would SHUT UP about it. From a legal, semantic, and societal point of view the effect would be less than raising the drinking age a year. Unless somebody can point out something I’ve missed the only only point of view to which this is relevent are the oppressive religious conformity view, and the homophobic bigot view. And neither of those views has any arguments they can put forth that have any legal or logical relevence. ---
**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, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/104 "2008-09-12T22:35:28Z")
As the OP, I must say that I have not seen a single poster even attempt to answer my original question with anything other than a repetition of the title of this thread. The most I have read is that “because that’s the way it’s been for hundreds of years, and if we change it bad things will happen.” Explain why and what. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/105 "2008-09-12T22:39:06Z")
By the way, **magellan01** , how crazy does it make you that the legal definition of the word “assault” is not synonymous with every vernacular definition of the term? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/106 "2008-09-12T22:40:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Then stop it. There was this clarion call for gay rights. Good. Excellent, in fact. You can have them. Embrace them. I’m with you 100%. But that’s not good enough any more, now you (pl) insist on being able to contort language and strip society of a word that describes one of the foundational institutions to modern society and this country. To have the word, when it is used, not describe that institution (which was and is primarily one built around the begetting of children), but some broader, more amorphous arrangement that is not part of our history. How can you not see how fucking annoying that is? Seriously, Miller, how is that not just fucking pushy, harmful in that it makes words more ambiguous, and unnecessary, as the rights can be had without the word. It’s NOT the same thing. I’m not saying it’s better or worse, it’s just different. Harmful in that it makes words more ambiguous? It makes one word more ambiguous. And seriously, I don’t consider that harm. What harm does changing a definition do, exactly? What painful torment does etymology wreak? What horrifying things are the result of contorting language? What tragedy will ensue if the meaning of one word is altered? Seriously, though I don’t agree with it, I can understand being annoyed that the definition of a word with much history to it has changed. But not to this extent. I cannot honestly see myself ranting, even when provoked, about the _definition of a word_. What exactly is so valuable? What is being lost? And I disagree that the rights can be had without the word, but that’s an argument i’m reasonably sure i’ve put to you before. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/107 "2008-09-12T22:43:20Z")
It doesn’t make the word more ambiguous anyway - just alters the definition from “1 man and 1 woman” to “2 consenting adults”. Nothing ambiguous about it. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/108 "2008-09-12T22:45:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s not the only reason it fails. See Millers post. The last third of it, which he actually got right. : ) Sorry, I’m in the office and didn’t get to hit all the points. > [@](#): > > Why not just give them the same rights? Why MUST it be under the same system? Why MUST it ask of society to change the idea of marriage that’s been around for hundreds of years. Why must it be different? Why can’t the concept of marriage evolve again? It has evolved and changed numerous times. > [@](#): > > You know, it’s become increasingly clear to me that it is not about rights. That’s just a Trojan Horse. That want to contort society to fit the view of a minority. Fuck that. The call was for—rightfully—equal RIGHTS. But now that’s not enough. Well, fuck that, too. I’m becoming increasingly annoyed at this pushy insistence. I find myself, for the first time, starting to not like gay people. I find myself broadbrushing almost the whole community (except for my gay friends and other reasonable people that actually don’t even want SSM), as well as their non-gay cheerleaders. Then show me how we have equal rights. I already stated that I don’t care about the name, I care about the rights and responsiblities under both state and federal law. If it can be demonstrated that I and my SO would have a legal relationship viewed in exactly the same way by all levels of government in the US as the one my brother and his wife have, then call it anything you like. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/109 "2008-09-12T22:46:21Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > This isn’t a good response, since a god-based reason for or against something is not based on value or harm to society - it just is. An anti-SSM person can easily admit that there is no harm, but be against it because God is. At that point we’re just arguing how to read the Bible, and I think the anti-SSM people would have the best of that argument. You’re probably right. I’m not as good at arguing that point since I don’t think the Bible should have any relevence to the subject or civil marriage. ---
**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:** [September 12, 2008, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/110 "2008-09-12T22:59:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You know, it’s become increasingly clear to me that it is not about rights. That’s just a Trojan Horse. That want to contort society to fit the view of a minority. How is legalizing gay marriage more of a contortion of society than creating civil unions for gays? > [@](#): > > Fuck that. The call was for—rightfully—equal RIGHTS. But now that’s not enough. No, that would be enough. What you’re failing to grasp is that a lot of us on this side of the debate do not believe that it’s possible to have two seperate institutions that are truly, in all ways but name, equal. I do not think that it is possible for civil unions to ever be the equal of marriage. There will always been some discrepency, some right that’s being denied, or challenged, or chiseled away at. The only way to have equal rights is to have equal access, not to similar institutions, but to the same institutions. So long as gays aren’t allowed to be married, they will never have the same rights as straight couples. Not just in terms of semantics, but in terms of practical, real-world rights and priviledges. > [@](#): > > Well, fuck that, too. I’m becoming increasingly annoyed at this pushy insistence. I find myself, for the first time, starting to not like gay people. I find myself broadbrushing almost the whole community (except for my gay friends and other reasonable people that actually don’t even want SSM), as well as their non-gay cheerleaders. Why does the desire for gay marriage make _you_ angry? Particularly as you’re not yourself a homophobe? Where does your emotional involvement in the issue come from? Why do you _care_ if gays are allowed to marry? That’s what I’ve never been able to understand about your position in this debate. Why does it _matter_ to you if the definition of the word “marriage” is expanded to include same sex couples? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/111 "2008-09-12T23:05:39Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > Why must it be different? Why can’t the concept of marriage evolve again? It has evolved and changed numerous times. I’ll tell you what, I’ll answer your question if you answer mine. I’ll go first. It SHOULD be different because of what you want: equal rights. That would be much easier to get—fewer people would object—if it was not called “marriage”. You are part of a society. You want something that cause that society to shift some. Okay. It seems like the reasonable thing to do is to ask it to shift as little as it has to (since their is resistance) while you get what you want. > [@Antinor01](#): > > Then show me how we have equal rights. I already stated that I don’t care about the name, I care about the rights and responsiblities under both state and federal law. If it can be demonstrated that I and my SO would have a legal relationship viewed in exactly the same way by all levels of government in the US as the one my brother and his wife have, then call it anything you like. Then we’re on the same page. I’ll tell you what I would do if I was a gay activist-type: I’d find a new word, a new term. I’d make it a national cause to find that term. Then I would embrace it. At the same time I would be respectful of the society at large who object to the word "marriage when it comes to same-sex couples and NOT use it. I’d then push to have laws passed that give your new “thing” the exact same rights as marriage. But that’s just me. It seem like it would be win-win-win. I get the thing I want: rights. The larger society gets what it wants: protection of “marriage”. And I think it would help more people be accepting of homosexuality because they 1) respected traditional marriage and 2) expressed a desire to accommodate different beliefs. The same way they want other to accommodate them. ---
**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:** [September 12, 2008, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/112 "2008-09-12T23:15:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Then stop it. I’d love nothing more than to never have to have this argument again. Unfortunetly, as long as there are people like you around, that’s not really an option for me. > [@](#): > > There was this clarion call for gay rights. Good. Excellent, in fact. You can have them. Embrace them. I’m with you 100%. But that’s not good enough any more, now you (pl) insist on being able to contort language and strip society of a word that describes one of the foundational institutions to modern society and this country. To have the word, when it is used, not describe that institution (which was and is primarily one built around the begetting of children), but some broader, more amorphous arrangement that is not part of our history. Why is this a bad thing? That’s what I don’t get. The change harms nothing, and no one. It doesn’t alter one thing about marriages that already exist. It takes nothing at all away from anyone, and gives something of tremendous value to a large number of people. How can you oppose that? How can _anyone_ of good faith oppose that? > [@](#): > > How can you not see how fucking annoying that is? No, I really, honestly, in absolute and solemn truthfulness, cannot conceive of any reason why that should annoy anyone.\* I’m entirely baffled by that reaction, almost to the same extent as I would be by a conversation with a paranoid schizophrenic. The logic behind it is so alien to my way of thinking that it’s impossible for me to encompass it. > [@](#): > > Seriously, Miller, how is that not just fucking pushy, harmful in that it makes words more ambiguous, and unnecessary, as the rights can be had without the word. As I pointed out in my previous post, I do not believe this to be true. If everyone has access to the same institution, gay relationships cannot be attacked without straight relationships falling under the same attack. If the relationships are seperate, people can try to limit the range of gay marriage without having to deal with the repurcussions to their own relationships. The safest, stablest way to ensure equality between gays and straights is to wed the two institutions together. Put everyone in the same boat, so that any bastards who come along and try to torpedo one will torpedo themselves as well. > [@](#): > > It’s NOT the same thing. I’m not saying it’s better or worse, it’s just different. Sure, it’s different. If I married a guy, it’s going to be different from your marriage to a woman. But if I married a woman, it would also be different from your marriage to a different woman. Or to the same woman, for that matter. No two marriages are alike, but we still call them marriages. And the differences between a gay marriage and a striaght marriage are no greater than the differences between two straight marriages, or two gay marriages. There’s no reason to exclude gays from marriage. It does not enhance the meaning of the term, it does not reduce confusion, and it does not properly reflect the nature of either kind of relationship. Insisting on a dichotomy between gay and straight marriage does not make the language clearer. It is, by its nature, simply obfuscatory, and that alone is reason enough to change it. \*Anyone who doesn’t simply hate gays, I mean. I understand homophobia. In the absence of homophobia, this position makes no sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/113 "2008-09-12T23:33:05Z")
Preach it, brother Miller! I’m sure this has already been asked and flamed elsewhere already, probably many times, but I am curious if the sanctity-of-marriage-protectors (and magellan01 in particular) feel at all threatened by other uses of the word. > [@dictionary.com](#): > > 1. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. > 2. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger. > 3. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture. > 4. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage. > 5. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/114 "2008-09-12T23:34:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’ll tell you what, I’ll answer your question if you answer mine. I’ll go first. It SHOULD be different because of what you want: equal rights. That would be much easier to get—fewer people would object—if it was not called “marriage”. You are part of a society. You want something that cause that society to shift some. Okay. It seems like the reasonable thing to do is to ask it to shift as little as it has to (since their is resistance) while you get what you want. As has been stated, nobody else would be shifted by the gays being able to be married, and to call it being married. All those hetero couples? They’d still be married. This is not a _replacement_ of the existing system; it’s an expansion. Now if you want to talk about a _shift_, talk about jamming an entire new form of magical special different legal contract into the legal system, with _any_ pretense it will be treated similarly to marriage. You’re talking a huge undertaking. Except for the people who don’t bother to give that label legal rights, of course… And of course, then there’s all those bits of society that _aren’t_ part of the government. “I’m sorry, our extended insurance coverage is only available to married couples.” It would take precisely no time whatsoever for stuff like this to happen - it is literally the _default_. > [@magellan01](#): > > Then we’re on the same page. I’ll tell you what I would do if I was a gay activist-type: I’d find a new word, a new term. I’d make it a national cause to find that term. Then I would embrace it. At the same time I would be respectful of the society at large who object to the word "marriage when it comes to same-sex couples and NOT use it. I’d then push to have laws passed that give your new “thing” the exact same rights as marriage. But that’s just me. It seem like it would be win-win-win. I get the thing I want: rights. The larger society gets what it wants: protection of “marriage”. And I think it would help more people be accepting of homosexuality because they 1) respected traditional marriage and 2) expressed a desire to accommodate different beliefs. The same way they want other to accommodate them. It’s not accomodation to ask the other group to accomodate you by stopping asking for rights and equality. And the different belief you speak of is “you should not exist”. It’s hard to want to accomodate _that_. And that would be “protection” :dubious: of marriage - because there’s nothing under attack except bigotry and exclusionism. Marriage will carry along just fine whether or not gay people can do it - as you well know. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/115 "2008-09-12T23:37:21Z")
OK, I have a question. I have a cousin (a white woman) who, a few years ago, went through a ceremony with a fellow (a black man) where they both exchanged vows, and since then, has lived with him, paid the bills and managed the household together, and had a few children. What should we call their relationship? Obviously, we can’t call it “marriage”, since for most of the history of that word, it’s referred only to relationships between two people of the same race. Do they only have a “civil union”? ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/116 "2008-09-12T23:40:02Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > But I can understand that there are more than 20 centuries of pretty much all cultures behind the idea that marriage is between opposite sexes and that many people feel it ought to stay that way. 20 centuries, what a coincidence. That’s pretty much how long Christianity has been in existence. I guess Chinese, Jewish, Native American, African and other cultures don’t count in “pretty much all cultures”. Personally, I think marriage is between a white woman and a white man. Or a colored man and woman if their owners give permission. That’s what our country was based on and I’m stickin’ to it. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/117 "2008-09-12T23:46:07Z")
Not to answer any specific post or poster on this thread, but I do not give a fuck about “marriage in the eyes of God.” That is, and should be, only between you, your partner, and your God. No one else has any business butting in between you and the Deity. All I believe is that “marriage in the eyes of the government” should be open to any two consenting adults who want to pay the registration fees. It is not in the legitimate interest of the state to ask what my wife and I do in the bedroom; I wish every other adult couple the same respect for their privacy. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/118 "2008-09-12T23:46:37Z")
Well, technically your country was based on taxation with representation. But hey, i’m sure we were probably shoving gay rights down your throat at some point. ---
**Author:** ![Illuminatiprimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/illuminatiprimus/32/11520_2.png) [@Illuminatiprimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Illuminatiprimus)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/119 "2008-09-12T23:51:31Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > But hey, i’m sure we were probably shoving gay rights down your throat at some point. :eek: Land of hope and glory indeed… ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/120 "2008-09-12T23:54:58Z")
> [@Kolga](#): > > My interpretation of your last statement is that you feel the label “civil unions” is the same as the label “marriage” and both are not necessary - we should pick one and stick to it regardless of the plumbing of the partners? If I’m correct in my interpretation, I agree with you. If I’m mistaken, please correct me and I apologize for the misunderstanding. But your (quite excellent) post still doesn’t enlighten me as to the rationale behind the “one man one woman” philosophy regarding marriage. The first sentence of my post was the answer. There is no rationale. The rest of my post was explaining how there could never be such a rationale so long as you’re going to allow same sex people to date, have sex, and live together. From the time that buggery stopped being a law in most states, there’s no foundation on which to refuse marriage, because once they’re allowed to publicly live and love, to write wills to one another, share their income, and (moreso in the case of gay women) have and raise children–you’ve got married gay people. There have been millions of married gay people for the last fifty years in the United States, regardless of whether the government felt like acknowledging it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188.md?page=7)