# 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:** 23
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/441 "2008-11-10T00:19:40Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > No, I don’t disagree that it isn’t a compromise with society. I’m just saying that it isn’t technically _your_ compromise; it would be your preferred societal system. It makes considerably more sense for us lot to compromise with society than with just you alone (although the adverts designed towards you, personally, would be interesting ;)) > > Could I prevail upon you to answer my question on page 7? I have a place i’m going with this one. To make this easier, here is what I think you are referring to: [QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] It appears to me that (and not just from this), one of the more important factors you’re against calling gay marriage marriage (if not the most important) is that it erodes the traditional institution of marriage by stretching the definition that’s been known for many years. Would you say it was the case that the value of the institution in this case that you see comes from a mix of the many years it has been around along with the amount of people who have believed in it and supported it? [/QUOTE] If I understand your question correctly, yes. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/442 "2008-11-10T00:23:55Z")
\*\* > [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > (bolding mine)I have to say that I’ve been very much trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in this thread (as I think I demonstrated in my previous post). I want to believe that you are principled and sincere in your sentiments, and I haven’t engaged in any of the name-calling that has been going on thus far re: your seemingly contradictory stance on this topic… **ArchiveGuy,** I think me recent posts may answer your questions. If not, please feel free to ask for clarification on any point. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/443 "2008-11-10T00:24:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Huh? You offer a cite bringing forth a tired, old argument, which I chose to ignore. You asked me to comment on it. I then did so, politely, even though I felt it insulting. And I shared that fact in the process. Yet you say…well, whatever that sentence is supposed to mean.:rolleyes: You find a historical quote insulting. That is simply bizarre. What else is there to say? ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/444 "2008-11-10T00:29:51Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So feel free to provide a cite, particularly for the first part. If you cannot, we’ll just have to ignore it. No, you’re going to have to provide a cite that proves homosexuals have only recently evolved, otherwise they _have_ to have been part of human society and families and tribes. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/445 "2008-11-10T00:32:02Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I asked what detrimental effect SSM might have on regular marriages on the previous page, but I didn’t get an answer. I think that the usage of the word dilutes the special relationship that the word connotes. I am particularly concerned for those growing up years from now. The desire of most on the pro-SSM debate is to enshrine the relationship, if you will, by association with normal marriage. They wish to create a societal construct in which SSM and HM are is equal as two flavors of ice cream. I think that denies the roles of both biology and tradition. In fact, the tradition is due to biology. That cannot, and should not, be hand waved away. ---
**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:** [November 10, 2008, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/446 "2008-11-10T00:33:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If I understand your question correctly, yes. Apologies that I didn’t make it clear enough that that’s the question I meant! But yes, that was the one. Based on your answer, let me pose you a hypothetical. Imagine an alternate universe America, where everything has occurred the same (generally speaking) except for the fact that gay marriage has been part of the country from the beginning; the tradition of marriage in this alternate America has included gay marriage in it from the start. Judging by the factors I think you seem to value in traditions, this alternate marriage tradition has been around the same amount of time, and so would have the same value from that particular point. However, because the tradition is more inclusive and covers a wider range of people, the amount of people supporting it is - if not vastly - bigger, and so I would say provides more value towards the overall tradition. Would you agree that this alternate tradition, lasting for the same amount of time but with wider support, is partially superior in value, and at least not inferior? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/447 "2008-11-10T00:35:32Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > No, you’re going to have to provide a cite that proves homosexuals have only recently evolved, otherwise they _have_ to have been part of human society and families and tribes. No. You made the claim. A rather extraordinary one, in fact. So it falls to you. But I am happy to simply ignore your silly claim. It’s up to you. And since I’ve already asked you to not lie, may I ask you now to go against your nature and try to not mischaracterize what I’ve asked of you. Sheeze, it was your own claim. Just go back and read it. Then provide a cite for the specific portion I requested. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/448 "2008-11-10T00:38:59Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think that children benefit from growing up with clear guidelines in place, guard rails, if you will. I’ve had talks with my liberal friends here in SF, some of them gay. I ask them a question: while you will love your child equally whether they are gay or straight, would you prefer them to be straight or gay? Most agree that they would prefer they be straight. And this is not just because they will have an easier time in life, not being discriminated against, it is because that a straight person is able to enjoy a fuller human experience, maybe the most fundamental one: procreation. There are many fallacies in the above paragraph. First, that gay families having children lack clear guidelines. That gay people would rather have straight children… that hasn’t been my experience. I think they are like any parents-- they just want their kids to be healthy and happy. It’s easier to be straight because of society’s bigotry, but I have never heard a gay person express that they thought that their lives were less than a full human experience. What a terrible sentiment to put in people’s mouths. And lastly, it’s false that reproduction necessarily leads to a fuller human experience. It provides a different human experience, but by no means is that necessary to a full human experience. That is plainly your personal bias but I don’t think it holds up under objective scrutiny. I’m sure there are many childless people who would disagree vehemently with your sentiment. Who are you to say their lives are less a full human experience? > [@](#): > > Given that, it behooves society to have signals up to children, especially as they’re sexuality develops, that here is the usual road over here. There are other roads, as well, and you’re free to take them—and should—if you are so inclined. But understand that it is a deviation for the norm. No, it’s not a deviation from the norm. Being gay IS NORMAL. It occurs in nature, doesn’t it? Yes, fewer people are gay than are straight, and many people have been socially conditioned to think being gay is somehow deviant, but that does not make being gay inherently any less normal. > [@](#): > > I don’t find the accidental alignment you mention personally troubling. If a group I find repulsive also likes The Shield or Entourage or Twizzlers, why should that effect me? Wow, what an utterly ridiculous and specious comparison. Maybe you’re trying to be funny here, but your flippant answer indicates that you lack compassion for the struggles of gay people in America. Liking The Shield or Entourage is a taste issue. Being a bigoted homophobe bent on denying gays their legal rights is repulsive. Why would you want to associate with and further the political agenda of people who are full of hate and fear, and want to deny rights to law-abiding citizens? > [@](#): > > And again, and I think this is fundamental to our disagreement. I have a narrower view of what constitutes a protected “right” than you do. Marriage should be strictly a religious term. All “marriages” should be civil unions and anyone who wants one should be allowed to have it. End of story. ETA: are you seriously arguing that gays haven’t historically been part of human communities? A stunningly ignorant comment. Homosexuality has been much more widely accepted in other cultures, historically… the Greeks. The Romans. Do a little research. levdrakon is NOT making an extraordinary claim. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/449 "2008-11-10T00:43:55Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Apologies that I didn’t make it clear enough that that’s the question I meant! But yes, that was the one. > > Based on your answer, let me pose you a hypothetical. Imagine an alternate universe America, where everything has occurred the same (generally speaking) except for the fact that gay marriage has been part of the country from the beginning; the tradition of marriage in this alternate America has included gay marriage in it from the start. Judging by the factors I think you seem to value in traditions, this alternate marriage tradition has been around the same amount of time, and so would have the same value from that particular point. However, because the tradition is more inclusive and covers a wider range of people, the amount of people supporting it is - if not vastly - bigger, and so I would say provides more value towards the overall tradition. > > Would you agree that this alternate tradition, lasting for the same amount of time but with wider support, is partially superior in value, and at least not inferior? Interesting. I don’t know. But I can see it going either way. (No pun intended.) Obviously, it might be the case that marriage enjoys greater support, inasmuch as greater numbers may translate to “greater support”. I say that because broad appeal doesn’t necessarily equate to depth of appeal. One thing that I would find lacking in your hypothetical scenario is the recognition of the natural relationship between man and woman. If that were the case, I could see young children growing up in a more confusing atmosphere, as far as sexual development. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/450 "2008-11-10T00:44:11Z")
I think I was a little off before in my defense; **magellan01** does seem to hold some odd views about homosexuality. I’m still reluctant to attribute to him any real animus, but, yeah, there is some distasteful element of “Straight \> Gay” there, even if only to a very small degree; his objection to SSM may not have been solely grounded in pure semantic nitpicking as I thought. Oh well. Carry on… ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/451 "2008-11-10T00:45:09Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > You find a historical quote insulting. That is simply bizarre. What else is there to say? You’re kidding, right? Let’s try this: _Why_ did you offer that cite? ---
**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:** [November 10, 2008, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/452 "2008-11-10T00:48:32Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Interesting. I don’t know. But I can see it going either way. (No pun intended.) Obviously, it might be the case that marriage enjoys greater support, inasmuch as greater numbers may translate to “greater support”. I say that because broad appeal doesn’t necessarily equate to depth of appeal. > > One thing that I would find lacking in your hypothetical scenario is the recognition of the natural relationship between man and woman. If that were the case, I could see young children growing up in a more confusing atmosphere, as far as sexual development. Which natural relationship do you mean? The ability to procreate? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/453 "2008-11-10T00:50:36Z")
> [@Pazu](#): > > [snipped the rest of an excellent post] > > Something I’m wondering about: > > In **magellan** ’s apparent ideal future, a “separate-but-equal” status for gay couples exists. All rights, privileges, duties, etc. are exactly the same as for traditional straight marriage. Let’s call it a Civil Union, for the sake of convenience. > > So when such a couple goes off and gets… civilly-united, I suppose, what do you think they tell folks they did that weekend? What gets put on their invitations? How do their friends refer to them? How do they consider themselves? > > No matter how you view the cultural significance of the word, I’d be willing to bet that (at least over time) pretty much everyone will call them “married”. Because everyone knows what it means already, it’s shorter, and easier to say. > > So, **magellan** , are you going to be the one saying, “No, no! You can’t call yourselves married! We didn’t give you permission to use that word! You have to call yourselves ‘Unioned’!” > > How can you legislate the usage of a word? What’s the point? Easy, they won’t be issue a Marriage License. Now, gays can continue to attempt to appropriate the word, and continue to anger the majority. Or they can choose some other term, which would come with all the same rights, and show that they are reasonable and respectful of traditional marriage. I really think this would be the best course of action toward ending bigotry. Evidently, the idea of doing this is beyond the capabilities of more than the militant SSM camp. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/454 "2008-11-10T00:51:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No. You made the claim. A rather extraordinary one, in fact. So it falls to you. But I am happy to simply ignore your silly claim. It’s up to you. > > And since I’ve already asked you to not lie, may I ask you now to go against your nature and try to not mischaracterize what I’ve asked of you. Sheeze, it was your own claim. Just go back and read it. Then provide a cite for the specific portion I requested. Just peruse [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual#History) for a start. You will see that homosexuality has been an accepted part of many cultures historically and around the world. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/455 "2008-11-10T00:53:00Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Which natural relationship do you mean? The ability to procreate? Yes, the coming together of man and woman. The natural desire humans, like all other animals have, to procreate and see that their genes are past on. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/456 "2008-11-10T01:00:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes, the coming together of man and woman. The natural desire humans, like all other animals have, to procreate and see that their genes are past on. Animals also have a [natural inclination towards homosexuality.](http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398) I think animals have a natural inclination to fuck, period. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/457 "2008-11-10T01:00:16Z")
[QUOTE=HoboStew] Exactly! But there’s a difference between “encourage the ideal” and “forbidding the non-ideal.” Your friend is a single mom - not ideal by your own words - and yet her situation is very legal. Why can’t you accept that gay marraiges, while maybe not ideal in your eyes, is also legal? [/QUOTE] The first is created by accident. When it happens we make the best of the situation. The latter would mean that we are recognizing a less ideal situation and equating it with what we recognize as the ideal, this diluting what the word represents. I don’t see why society should knowingly be complicit in that. ---
**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:** [November 10, 2008, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/458 "2008-11-10T01:02:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes, the coming together of man and woman. The natural desire humans, like all other animals have, to procreate and see that their genes are past on. I don’t see why the alternate tradition would be lacking in that recognition. If you’re suggesting that younger kids might be confused as to how exactly babies come about, well, younger kids are generally confused about that one here and now. Besides which, I don’t think a recognition of marriage necessarily implies anything about recognition of procreation ability. Plus not all humans have that particular desire, or have it to a stronger or lesser extent, but that’s picking nits. I would say that no longer is it so much the coming together of man and woman, but of sperm and egg, thanks to recent techology, but that is a recent development. But in essence my general point was that, given certain caveats, it’s quite possible that the alternate America has a more valuable tradition? ---
**Author:** ![CaerieD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@CaerieD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaerieD)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/459 "2008-11-10T01:03:10Z")
Excellent point,\*\* magellan01\*\*. That’s why I don’t think we should let old people get married. They can’t conceive naturally and this less than ideal situation shouldn’t be encouraged. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/460 "2008-11-10T01:07:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Now, gays can continue to attempt to appropriate the word, and continue to anger the majority. Or they can choose some other term, which would come with all the same rights, and show that they are reasonable and respectful of traditional marriage. I really think this would be the best course of action toward ending bigotry. I had no idea that the way to end bigotry was to give in to it. Here’s what will really happen. We’ll call our relationships “marriage”. We’ll say we’re “married”. And within the course of 5 or 10 years, everyone will call it marriage and wonder why people were so damn hateful once. Your kind is going the way of the dodo. You can say you’re not a bigot because you promote gay rights except in the matter of marriage. And I can say you’re still a bigot, just in a lesser degree than someone like Fred Phelps. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250.md?page=24)