# My mom, divorced 3 times, thinks gay marriage will "ruin" marriage. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 30, 2011, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381 "2011-06-30T13:59:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 26
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/501 "2011-07-03T21:50:44Z")
> [@David42](#): > > link 4 is ludicrous to prove I am wrong. This is a news article about studies showing that intact families are better than broken ones. What the article actually says: > [@](#): > > For the most part, the organizations are relying on a relatively small but conclusive body of research – approximately 67 studies – looking at children of gay parents and compiled by the American Psychological Association. In study after study, children in same-sex parent families turned out the same, for better or for worse, as children in heterosexual families. > > Moreover, a 2001 meta-analysis of those studies found that the sexual orientation of a parent is irrelevant to the development of a child’s mental health and social development and to the quality of a parent-child relationship. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/502 "2011-07-03T22:02:24Z")
> [@David42](#): > > It makes the concept, what we think of marriage, weaker through loss of potency and authority, when we talk of diluted concepts of marriage. HOW? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/503 "2011-07-03T22:10:45Z")
The answer only makes sense if someone is prejudiced. When you dilute beer you do it by adding something less valuable. The whole argument is predicated on the idea that SSM is disgusting, and therefore less valuable than a traditional marriage. Was marriage diluted when interracial couples were allowed to marry? Only someone who thought that blacks were inferior would think so. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/504 "2011-07-03T22:23:15Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > HOW? Magic, apparently. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/505 "2011-07-03T22:27:20Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > They argue that they should be struck down under equal protection because they believe that sexual orientation should be held to a higher standard than rational basis. > [@David42](#): > > Maybe you are missing the point that it fails under strict scrutiny as well. I’m sorry – did you just claim that forbidding same-sex marriage can survive a strict scrutiny analysis? ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/506 "2011-07-03T22:36:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Here is what is unique: only one flavor of couple can have a baby and raise a child that shares their genes, giving the child the benefit of having the two people closest to him receive what a woman can give and what a man can give. Guess which couple that is? OK so you _are_ saying that mrAru and I should not be married at all … I got my tubes tied 7 years before we got married so we never had kids, so our marriage was all a lie. No kids, no ability to have kids naturally, so we can not have that woo woo special bonding experience, so obviously the kid will turn out all wrong if we opted to adopt … ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/507 "2011-07-03T22:54:25Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > No, that’s because it makes it easier for people to get divorced. Whenever you make it easier to do something, more people are going to do it. What happened was, before no-fault divorce, you had a bunch of people who didn’t much like each other and would have gotten divorced if they could have, but didn’t want to have to jump through all the legal hoops and spend all the time and money in long, drawnout divorce cases. Then, no-fault divorce laws passed, getting a divorce made things easier, and all of a sudden, those people were able to follow through on their divorce. You mean people are more irresponsible? You describe marriage situations where its really not that bad, if they can’t be bothered to say a reason for it. if you can’t be bothered to have a reason you have no responsibility for it. When marriage was weakened in potency, the frivilous became the rule. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/508 "2011-07-03T22:55:53Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > OK so you _are_ saying that mrAru and I should not be married at all … I got my tubes tied 7 years before we got married so we never had kids, so our marriage was all a lie. No kids, no ability to have kids naturally, so we can not have that woo woo special bonding experience, so obviously the kid will turn out all wrong if we opted to adopt … he didn’t say that at all, if you’d take all of his statements as a whole instead of cherry picking. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/509 "2011-07-03T22:59:44Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The answer only makes sense if someone is prejudiced. When you dilute beer you do it by adding something less valuable. > > The whole argument is predicated on the idea that SSM is disgusting, and therefore less valuable than a traditional marriage. > > Was marriage diluted when interracial couples were allowed to marry? Only someone who thought that blacks were inferior would think so. That’s strange that you said its because SSM is disgusting. By your reasoning, we’d that outlaw anything disgusting. Its based on the fact that society has no interest in protecting couples that are childless. The fact that outlying cases do not fit the rule do not change that fact. Non traditional couples should settle for fairness in other ways than forcing a change in the concept of marriage. Once again, a strawman. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/510 "2011-07-03T23:01:07Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > HOW? because it cannot be enforced. The Supreme Court has mentioned many times that laws that cannot be enforced are entirely meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/511 "2011-07-03T23:04:50Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > What the article actually says: and it doesn’t identify the studies. And the article primarily is about two religious leaders who mistakenly claimed that intact vs. broken families proves a point about straight vs. gay families. When a news source is about science its only real value in debate is to point to the sources. I admit to skimming for sources after getting the main idea. I missed any sources if there were any. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/512 "2011-07-03T23:06:52Z")
> [@David42](#): > > That’s strange that you said its because SSM is disgusting. By your reasoning, we’d that outlaw anything disgusting. Oh, please. :rolleyes: **Lobohan** was pointing that you are (again!) implying that SSM is disgusting. Not that he thinks it is. > [@David42](#): > > Its based on the fact that society has no interest in protecting couples that are childless. Like it or not, society itself disagrees with you. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/513 "2011-07-03T23:16:27Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > To be fair, the hair thing wasn’t really on point. It was the question of whether preemptory dismissals due to hair styling or dying were just rationalizations to avoid a _Batson_ violation. I just was amused by the hypothetical and tried to find any equal protection cases I could that dealt with dying one’s hair. > > But on the quoted point, you’re wrong. If the courts applied strict scrutiny to laws banning gay marriage, they would be struck down faster than an oak tree in Paul Bunyan’s way. I see now way in hell that there would be any other alternative. Lets say some state passed a law saying, “Black people can’t marry each other.”, or “People who weren’t born in this country can’t marry each other.” Do you really think any court would hesitate in finding those laws blatantly unconstitutional? If sexual orientation were put under strict scrutiny, the same thing would happen to laws saying gay people can’t marry each other. OK I see the _BAtson_ point. Iw ouldn’t have questioned you if you’d have said so. Can we agree this is an adequate definition of strict scrutiny? "Strict scrutiny arises in two basic contexts: when a “fundamental” constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those listed in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the “liberty” or “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment; or when the government action involves the use of a “suspect classification” such as race or, sometimes, national origin that may render it void under the Equal Protection Clause. These are the two applications that were anticipated in footnote 4 to United States v. Carolene Products. To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs: First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections. Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored. Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this ‘least restrictive means’ requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong. Legal scholars, including judges and professors, often say that strict scrutiny is “strict in theory, fatal in fact,” because popular perception is that most laws subject to this standard are struck down. However, an empirical study of strict scrutiny decisions in the federal courts, by Adam Winkler, found that laws survive strict scrutiny over thirty percent of the time. In one area of law, religious liberty, laws that burden religious liberty survived strict scrutiny review in nearly sixty percent of applications.[2]" Wikipedia ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/514 "2011-07-03T23:20:40Z")
> [@David42](#): > > because it cannot be enforced. I’m not sure that “enforced” is the term I would use for marriage, but regardless, same-sex marriages work exactly the same way as heterosexual marriages. It does not make anything difficult to enforce or change the way any present or future heterosexual marriage is handled. > [@David42](#): > > and it doesn’t identify the studies. It doesn’t, no. But it refers to meta-analysis of more than 60 studies that found the opposite of what you’re saying. So it appears you were wrong that this hasn’t been studied in depth, and the data says you’re also wrong about heterosexual marriage being superior. The facts don’t support that. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/515 "2011-07-03T23:23:18Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Oh, please. :rolleyes: **Lobohan** was pointing that you are (again!) implying that SSM is disgusting. Not that he thinks it is. > > Like it or not, society itself disagrees with you. Lobohan said that the reason we want gay marriage illegal is that we say it is disgusting. And you’re twisting my metaphor into something it wasn’t. You don’t take enough time to think. 44 states, the federal government and most of the world say you are wrong. Its you society does not agree with. Every time it has been voted on a majority has sided with my view, or the result my view brings. Your view is supported by a very small minority that is also very very vocal and sounds like a lot. You have been deceived. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/516 "2011-07-03T23:27:58Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m not sure that “enforced” is the term I would use for marriage, but regardless, same-sex marriages work exactly the same way as heterosexual marriages. It does not make anything difficult to enforce or change the way any present or future heterosexual marriage is handled. > It doesn’t, no. But it refers to meta-analysis of more than 60 studies that found the opposite of what you’re saying. So it appears you were wrong that this hasn’t been studied in depth, and the data says you’re also wrong about heterosexual marriage being superior. The facts don’t support that. get the meta-study and if it passes muster I would concede the issue. Journalists far too often are over eager to report something and get it wrong when it comes to science. Missing one crucial word can change entire meanings. Mainstream news is not authoritative in science. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/517 "2011-07-03T23:29:51Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Lobohan said that the reason we want gay marriage illegal is that we say it is disgusting. No, that you find it disgusting. > [@David42](#): > > 44 states, the federal government and most of the world say you are wrong. Its you society does not agree with. Nonsense, you are just deliberately misinterpreting what I’m saying. I was - obviously - talking about marriage being about other things than children. “Couples that are childless” isn’t even close to being a synonym of “same sex couples”. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/518 "2011-07-03T23:32:58Z")
> [@David42](#): > > 44 states, the federal government and most of the world say you are wrong. Not that this is relevant, but the trend is clearly moving in favor of same-sex marriage. That’s what was bothering you several pages ago. The federal government has stopped supporting DOMA and soon same-sex marriage will be legal in more than 44 states. European countries are considering it, too. The signs are all pointing one way. > [@David42](#): > > Missing one crucial word can change entire meanings. Suuure it can. They meant to say that 67 studies show gay relationships are NOT as good as heterosexual relationships, but they forgot one word. What luck! I’m not sure where to find the meta analysis, but [here’s the American Psychological Association’s view on same sex couples](http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/parenting.aspx): > [@](#): > > There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. […] Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents. Note the plethora of studies they cite. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2011, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/519 "2011-07-04T00:02:10Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Not that this is relevant, but the trend is clearly moving in favor of same-sex marriage. That’s what was bothering you several pages ago. The federal government has stopped supporting DOMA and soon same-sex marriage will be legal in more than 44 states. European countries are considering it, too. The signs are all pointing one way. Marley, it is legal in six states. 29 have already forbidden it. its 29 to 6 against gay marriage. even if the remaining fifteen all wind up legalizing, that still leaves you 29-21 against gay marriage. its a done deal in 29 states, Marley. I was never upset about DOMA, I am against DOMA just as I am against the federal government taking any prerogative of the states or of the people under the ninth or tenth amendments. As a matter of law the will of a majority of the people may indeed be relevant. The supreme court has held marriage to be a right under the ninth amendment, and the ninth, without a clear mechanism, leaves it to the people. It could also be held to be a right under the tenth amendment as well, or both. This may mean that voter referendums will set the law. Every single time it has been voted on, gay marriage has been defeated or prohibiting it approved. I don’t see your cause for optimism and your claim that forty four states soon will have gay marriage is ridiculous when it can’t happen in 29. > [@Marley23](#): > > Suuure it can. They meant to say that 67 studies show gay relationships are NOT as good as heterosexual relationships, but they forgot one word. What luck! I’m not sure where to find the meta analysis, but [here’s the American Psychological Association’s view on same sex couples](http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/parenting.aspx): > Note the plethora of studies they cite. I didn’t say it happened in that article anywhere. I offered it as part of the reasoning for a rule about mainstream news. And you darn well know that there ARE instances of a one word mistake changing everything. Did you ever hear of the “adultery bible?” It said thou shall commit adultery. Was that (the cites) in that fifth link article? (When someone offers more trash than legit evidence, I don’t look very hard) ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2011, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/520 "2011-07-04T00:03:06Z")
> [@David42](#): > > The rest of your post was a frivolous exercise in removing the context to play games about burden of proof. So I take it you are unable to provide evidence of your specious claim that gays advocate adoption by gay couples for the purpose of making themselves look just as good at parenting as opposite sex couples? If that is case, as it is apparently so, you should retract your bogus assertion. That is, if you were debating honestly. > [@](#): > > But I will bite for the last bit. > > I think gay couples should be eligible for all those things as married couples are. That does not mean I will accept a dilution of marriage in order to achieve it. Great! How do you propose same sex couple secure these rights that require marriage without actually having legally recognized marriages? You still haven’t answered my questions. Shall I just assume that you actually have no answers? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381.md?page=27)