# Prop 8 (CA) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 5, 2008, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250 "2008-11-05T09:48:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/281 "2008-11-07T01:08:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Marriage IS important as a concept. It is important because a represents an institution that has been beneficial to society for hundreds if not thousands of years. It reflects the monogamous nature of man. This did not change with gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/282 "2008-11-07T01:08:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I support the ability to two gay people to live as a couple just the way married couples do, with ALL the legal benefits. I feel strongly that it should not be called marriage. But what if the only way the gay couple can have ALL the legal benefits is for it to be called marriage? Which is more important to you, Equal Legal Benefits for all, or the “sanctity” of a sheer semantic (if heavily symbolic) concept? Note that this is not a false dichotomy. Civil Unions that in theory should be equivalent to Marriages in rights and benefits are questioned all the time–issues of inheritance, custody, hospital visitation, etc. And legally, they are still not treated equally in any consistent fashion. Yes, in a perfect world, there should be no difference between the two, but your hang-up over the protection of a word (and the dubious assertion that protecting the word by extension protects some larger societal tradition) has some real-life repercussions to those who don’t have the priviledge of having their union protected in the same way, despite your best intentions. ---
**Author:** ![Mahna\_Mahna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47c2d/32.png) [@Mahna\_Mahna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahna_Mahna)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/283 "2008-11-07T01:09:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The relationship is not one of cause and effect, but one of association. And most of society would agree that the more closely linked the two, the better. To see what can happen when that link is broken, look at the plight of kids living in the inner cities. No, the plight of kids living in the inner cities is crushing poverty, lack of opportunity, a popular culture that glamourizes guns and crime, and lack of good role models. The fact that Daddy isn’t always in the picture is the LEAST of their worries. If your argument is that marriage is a symbolic commitment to heterosexual monogamy, you’re essentially saying that childless marriages, open marriages and adultery are as threatening to the institution as gay marriage - ultimately, any of these arrangements challenges the principal concepts of monogamy and procreation that you’ve determined are the pillars of that institution. Besides, I’ve seen many same-sex marriages that are monogamous and intended for the purpose of raising children together in a loving, supportive environment - but I don’t suppose those fit in such a narrow world-view. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/284 "2008-11-07T01:10:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The relationship is not one of cause and effect, but one of association. And most of society would agree that the more closely linked the two, the better. To see what can happen when that link is broken, look at the plight of kids living in the inner cities. This is really more of a function of poverty than marital status. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/285 "2008-11-07T01:12:07Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Ah, I knew we’d get to the root of the matter. You don’t care about gay marriage. Gays are sick. > > You know, if you truly didn’t think gays were sick, the better analogy would be left-handedness. Ban them from marriage too? > > But, you’ve outed yourself, and your true feelings. Look, my little marionette, if believing this helps you to keep things ordered in your nice little head, you go right ahead. (But the predictability is painful.) But ask yourself this, if what you believe were true, why would I support gay rights? Or, specifically, adoption by gays. The answer must be that I hat children and want to send them to go live with sick monsters. Right, Oh Limited One? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/286 "2008-11-07T01:13:15Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > This is really more of a function of poverty than marital status. That’s arguable. But at the very least the two are strongly linked. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/287 "2008-11-07T01:14:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > In that it is innate, yes. But not everything that is natural is something we single out as deserving of special status. People are born as albinos, yet we don’t mandate that national parks be domed. Yeah, bad analogy. As far as sexual preference, evidently there are people that are born hardwired to be attracted to 13-year-old girls. Just because that is “natural” doesn’t mean society should reconform itself for them, does it? In addition to **levdrakon** ’s comments, one more thing about this: Our society and its laws have, for better or worse, decided that there is a particular age below which people cannot give consent to certain things, such as sexual relations. That’s why sex with a 13-year-old is considered wrong. It is defined as coercion. If there were coercion involved in the relationship between two men, or two women, then your analogy might have some merit. But i’m willing to bet that there is barely\* a single supporter of same-sex marriage who wants to make non-consensual unions legal. This is an issue of whether two adults should be able to engage in a mutually consensual contract to marry one another. That you would equate it to pedophilia is depressing, but not too surprising. - I say “barely” only because there could be one or two nutjobs out there who do want such unions. ---
**Author:** ![groman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/73ab20/32.png) [@groman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/groman)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/288 "2008-11-07T01:18:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Look, my little marionette, if believing this helps you to keep things ordered in your nice little head, you go right ahead. (But the predictability is painful.) But ask yourself this, if what you believe were true, why would I support gay rights? Or, specifically, adoption by gays. The answer must be that I hat children and want to send them to go live with sick monsters. Right, Oh Limited One? I can’t speak for “your little marionette”, but using your own logic, you would support adoption by gays and gay rights for the same reason you would support adoption by albinos and albino rights. That doesn’t mean you don’t think of homosexuality as a pathology. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/289 "2008-11-07T01:23:51Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Look, my little marionette, if believing this helps you to keep things ordered in your nice little head, you go right ahead. (But the predictability is painful.) But ask yourself this, if what you believe were true, why would I support gay rights? Or, specifically, adoption by gays. The answer must be that I hat children and want to send them to go live with sick monsters. Right, Oh Limited One? The answer would be that you’re lying. I don’t believe you support gay rights or adoption by gays. You lost those battles where you live I’d guess. But, that last battle against gays you haven’t lost is marriage. Once gays do win the equal right to be married, you’ll probably be back here saying “I was for it all along.” ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/290 "2008-11-07T01:37:52Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > This is an issue of whether two adults should be able to engage in a mutually consensual contract to marry one another. That you would equate it to pedophilia is depressing, but not too surprising. To claim that I did so is either astoundingly stupid or astoundingly dishonest. Hey, maybe both. You have the power. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/291 "2008-11-07T01:41:46Z")
Come, now. I see no reason to believe that **magellan01** is lying about his support for gay rights in other venues. I think he’s bullishly wrong-headed about the need to rigidly preserve the mere legal term “marriage” with its old meaning, but I take him at his face when he says he supports adoption by gay parents and so forth. (Unless you have some good evidence otherwise?) ---
**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:** [November 7, 2008, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/292 "2008-11-07T01:45:54Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Come, now. I see no reason to believe that **magellan01** is lying about his support for gay rights in other venues. Because it’s implausible. It reeks of “some of my best friends are black people” being spouted by an admitted racist. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/293 "2008-11-07T01:56:03Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > The answer would be that you’re lying. I don’t believe you support gay rights or adoption by gays. You lost those battles where you live I’d guess. But, that last battle against gays you haven’t lost is marriage. Once gays do win the equal right to be married, you’ll probably be back here saying “I was for it all along.” This really makes me laugh. Really. I’m on an anonymous message board staking out and defending a position that is extremely unpopular, yet I’m supposedly lying about what are more minor details. Question for you, Kreskin: if I was lying, why wouldn’t I just lie and say “Yeah, the stupid fucks who voted for Prop 8 and just ignorant, close-minded troglodytes. I’m so incensed about those assholes blah blah blah” and then go right another check to a Defense of Marriage organization? What would be the possible upside for lying? And why would you claim that someone is lying. Especially someone who has defended the same position again and again. I guess like that other boy genius, **Der Trihs** , you need formal forum rules in place to dictate that you behave civilly. Gotcha. But let’s assume you’re right, and I am lying, not to mention bigoted, ignorant, etc., Why in the world would you then take time out of your day to argue with someone like me? I mean, if I’m a liar, everything I say could be a lie and I could be sitting here laughing my ass off while you get all riled up. Think, man, THINK! ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/294 "2008-11-07T02:01:06Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Come, now. I see no reason to believe that **magellan01** is lying about his support for gay rights in other venues. I think he’s bullishly wrong-headed about the need to rigidly preserve the mere legal term “marriage” with its old meaning, but I take him at his face when he says he supports adoption by gay parents and so forth. (Unless you have some good evidence otherwise?) I know you disagree with my position, but thanks for making what should be an obvious point. As far as evidence, of course he has none. Unless he can talk his best friend, the invisible rabid dog Manson, into materializing and explaining where he got his information from. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/295 "2008-11-07T02:03:22Z")
Why would **magellan01** admit to being against gay marriage but at the same time pretend to be for adoption by gay parents, etc.? If his opposition to gay marriage was really pure unsuppressable homophobic malice coming out (and not, as I instead perceive it to be, an extraordinarily silly yet frustratingly stubborn hang-up over some semantic butterfly-flap bugaboo), why would not that malice make itself just as overt in regards to other issues as well? I feel like **magellan01** is largely at the same position **Bricker** was at, lo those many years ago (though I may misremember the exact nature of **Bricker** ’s position history [I cannot recall whether he felt or continues to feel, for religious reasons, that homosexual acts are in some way immoral, even though he clearly is against legislating opposition to such behavior]. At any rate, as I remember it, **Bricker** also previously supported civil unions with all the benefits of marriage, just not classified under the same term). I doubt **magellan01** ’ll ever change, and I’ll continue to disagree with him on not only this but a ton of other things, but I see no reason to tar him with further accusations beyond those actually grounded in evidence. ETA: The above was in response to **Der Trihs** ---
**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:** [November 7, 2008, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/296 "2008-11-07T02:09:06Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Why would **magellan01** admit to being against gay marriage but at the same time pretend to be for adoption by gay parents, etc.? Because as **levdrakon** said, the anti-marriage fight is the one he’s won, at least for now. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/297 "2008-11-07T02:10:06Z")
> [@Mahna\_Mahna](#): > > No, the plight of kids living in the inner cities is crushing poverty, lack of opportunity, a popular culture that glamourizes guns and crime, and lack of good role models. The fact that Daddy isn’t always in the picture is the LEAST of their worries. I see your point, but I think that goes too far. When trying to break a continuing cycle of poverty, having two adults to share the responsibilities of earning money, taking care of the home and raising children is a big help. > [@Mahna\_Mahna](#): > > If your argument is that marriage is a symbolic commitment to heterosexual monogamy, you’re essentially saying that childless marriages, open marriages and adultery are as threatening to the institution as gay marriage - ultimately, any of these arrangements challenges the principal concepts of monogamy and procreation that you’ve determined are the pillars of that institution. I’d say that an openly open marriage would erode the concept of marriage. childless marriages really don’t, IMO, because people accept that not everyone can have children. > [@Mahna\_Mahna](#): > > Besides, I’ve seen many same-sex marriages that are monogamous and intended for the purpose of raising children together in a loving, supportive environment - but I don’t suppose those fit in such a narrow world-view. I have no problem with gay couples adopting. I think—actually, I _know_ they can provide a loving home in which to raise a child. Not to pass up the opportunity to be further insulted by some, that I think the IDEAL environment would include a married man and woman. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/298 "2008-11-07T02:15:16Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because as **levdrakon** said, the anti-marriage fight is the one he’s won, at least for now. Problem: I voiced these exact same sentiments before the vote and before the measure was even on the ballot. You know, when SSM was legal… Just out of curiosity, do you ever have little bouts of reality wash over you and realize what a stupid, hateful little man you are? If so, how do you not just jump off the nearest bridge? Really, your insights in this regard could be a boon to depression and suicide research. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/299 "2008-11-07T02:22:38Z")
> [@groman](#): > > I can’t speak for “your little marionette”, but using your own logic, you would support adoption by gays and gay rights for the same reason you would support adoption by albinos and albino rights. That doesn’t mean you don’t think of homosexuality as a pathology. the word “pathology” is bound to be problematic: 1. the science or the study of the origin, nature, and course of diseases. 2. the conditions and processes of a disease. 3. any deviation from a healthy, normal, or efficient condition. The first two do not fit my thinking at all. The third, if it were modified might apply, but it would depend on what, specifically, is being discussed and meant by “efficient condition”. If we were talking about the furtherance of a species, then in that context specifically “pathology” would apply. Otherwise, no. I did want to attempt to answer you, but what, specifically, did you mean? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/300 "2008-11-07T02:24:22Z")
> [@garygnu](#): > > BTW, marriage, to the law, has nothing whatsoever to do with procreation. Agreed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250.md?page=16)