# 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:** 26
**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, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/501 "2008-11-10T03:41:44Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > Of course not. They will say “We’re getting married!” “They’re getting married!” They will have wedding invitations. They will be brides and grooms. The only people who won’t use words that reflect the trappings of “marriage” are the clerks in the registar’s office. The people who know them, love them, and see them every day will call it what it is. The word “marriage” indicates a union; it is used metaphorically to describe any two things joined harmoniously, and to apply it to a same-sex couple is not some unthinkable stretch that will have people correcting themselves when they slip up when talking of their loved ones: “Yeah, they got married - oops I mean civil unioned - two years ago now.” > > Time, and familiarity, will change people’s minds, and eventually change the laws. People will wonder what the fuss was about. If everybody they know calls it a marriage, and it’s legally equal to a marriage, then there won’t be seen a need for a different term. > > You say you are all for full legal rights for gays who want to get “married”, and it’ll be fine as long as it isn’t actually called a “marriage.” > > I say, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, eventually everyone will admit it’s a duck. You must have missed his response to my post that basically said the same thing. > [@magellan01](#): > > And this is probably a good place to end the discussion. It displays that the SSM fans have no respect for the majority, tradition, or marriage itself, as it is generally understood. It shows that they are less concerned about equal rights than they are in trying to legitimize their relationships be hijacking an institution that arose out of a societal recognition of the natural coming together of man and woman. They are merely insisting on grabbing on the coattails and squeeze themselves into suit of respectability rather than creating their own. > > Ironically, this is a course that will guarantee an us versus them mentality, making gay SSM advocates the very thing that gets in the way of the “equality” they claim they want. > > Well done ---
**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, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/502 "2008-11-10T03:47:28Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Your arguments assume that women will not be involved in a child’s life if the child is being raised by a same sex male couple, and vice versa. Your arguments have also ignored the relevant circumstances that heterosexual families that experience where one of the two parents (and ergo the gender of that parent) are more participatory in the daily interactions with the child. Military families during times of war, for example. I’ve not ignored it. There is an ideal: H. Marriage. There will be plenty of marriages which degrade from that ideal, i.e., military service, death, divorce, etc., and remove one of the parents from the situation. In those cases the person left will seek to bring in those elements that are now missing. (My friend asking me to spend time with her son.) Gay couples who adopt would, hopefully, take similar steps. In all cases they are attempting to approximate the natural ideal. That’s good. That does not mean that is is not good to identify the ideal and hold it as such. ---
**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, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/503 "2008-11-10T03:55:03Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Equal rights. Marriage is more than just a personal bond between two people. It entitles them to many rights and privileges under the law. It is unfair to deprive them of that because of semantics. Though the more you say about gays the more I think it’s beyond semantics for you. You think that gays are deviant, not normal, and their lives less fully human. Holding these views would make it easier for you to deny them their civil rights. Consider that. If you’ve read the thread you should know by now that I am fully in favor of gay rights, save marriage. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > I would like to hear what concrete harm you think will be done to society if gay marriage is legalized. Again, abstract discussions of ideals do not qualify. What material harm will come of calling gay people’s unions marriage? And does that harm justify denying law abiding citizens equal rights under the law? I’ve addressed this this evening. More than once. I’ll have to ask you to find it for yourself as repeating myself is getting annoying. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > Also, did you see my cite about gays being part of societies across history and around the world? It seems as if levdrakon was correct and maybe you owe him a little apology for being rude to him about it. I saw it. It does NOT support his position, Read what he claimed and what I pointed to for him that had to be cited. And you ask ME to apologize to HIM? HA! I suggest using the hookah one hose at a time. And I have to sign off soon. Just to let you know. ---
**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, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/504 "2008-11-10T03:55:13Z")
You still haven’t answered the question that I’ve asked you repeatedly: please articulate the material, concrete harm that will be done by gay marriage. ---
**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, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/505 "2008-11-10T03:58:15Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > This is the crux of it, right, the word “marriage.” > > All right. Against my better judgement Let’s assume we have it your way; civil unions will be legalized in all states of the country. Gays will have all rights fully equal to their straight brethren; the right to adopt, joint tax returns, health insurance, the works, except for the word “marriage” on their legal documents. > > When they get engaged, will they call up their family and friends and shriek over the phone “Guess what! She popped the question! We’re getting civil unioned!”? > > Will they have “Civil Union Invitations” that bid everyone help Jane Doe and Jenny Smith celebrate their journey into Holy Civil Unionry? > > Will their brothers and sisters go to work and say to their boss “I need the weekend of June 10th off, my sister’s getting civil unioned”? > > At the ceremony, will the organist play “Here Comes Participant #2”? > > Of course not. They will say “We’re getting married!” “They’re getting married!” They will have wedding invitations. They will be brides and grooms. The only people who won’t use words that reflect the trappings of “marriage” are the clerks in the registar’s office. The people who know them, love them, and see them every day will call it what it is. The word “marriage” indicates a union; it is used metaphorically to describe any two things joined harmoniously, and to apply it to a same-sex couple is not some unthinkable stretch that will have people correcting themselves when they slip up when talking of their loved ones: “Yeah, they got married - oops I mean civil unioned - two years ago now.” > > Time, and familiarity, will change people’s minds, and eventually change the laws. People will wonder what the fuss was about. If everybody they know calls it a marriage, and it’s legally equal to a marriage, then there won’t be seen a need for a different term. > > You say you are all for full legal rights for gays who want to get “married”, and it’ll be fine as long as it isn’t actually called a “marriage.” > > I say, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, eventually everyone will admit it’s a duck. They can call it whatever they want. There’s only one word they can’t call it. Given the creative talent present ion the gay community, I’m sure they could come up with something. ---
**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, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/506 "2008-11-10T04:00:32Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > You still haven’t answered the question that I’ve asked you repeatedly: please articulate the material, concrete harm that will be done by gay marriage. I’ve done so. Scroll back if you’d like. Or not. If my answer is not “concrete” enough, I’ll have to ask you what type of thing you’re looking for. I took it to mean “real”. And I never claimed the harm would have to be “material”. I don’t accept that as a criterion. ---
**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, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/507 "2008-11-10T04:01:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > They can call it whatever they want. There’s only one word they can’t call it. Given the creative talent present ion the gay community, I’m sure they could come up with something. You’re having delusions of grandeur. Just to break in with some reality…you cannot dictate what we call it. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/508 "2008-11-10T04:07:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’ve not ignored it. There is an ideal: H. Marriage. There will be plenty of marriages which degrade from that ideal, i.e., military service, death, divorce, etc., and remove one of the parents from the situation. In those cases the person left will seek to bring in those elements that are now missing. (My friend asking me to spend time with her son.) Gay couples who adopt would, hopefully, take similar steps. In all cases they are attempting to approximate the natural ideal. That’s good. That does not mean that is is not good to identify the ideal and hold it as such. Right. We’ve been at this intersection about 3 times now. Again (acknowledging that I do not agree with your principles of what is “ideal”, but I’m going along because I can logically disprove your arguments without having that debate) my response to this has been that “equal rights” include the same benefit of the doubt that is inherently built into the combination of cultural/moral/legal sytems for the “less-than-idea” heterosexual situations, are applied equally to same sex couples/individuals. Further, until such time that heterosexual single parents have a constitutional amendment dictating that the cannot do something because 52% of the registered voters turned up and voted it into place, I want you to acknowledge the double standard that further supports this movement as a civil rights movement. ---
**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, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/509 "2008-11-10T04:12:19Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Right. We’ve been at this intersection about 3 times now. > > Again (acknowledging that I do not agree with your principles of what is “ideal”, but I’m going along because I can logically disprove your arguments without having that debate) my response to this has been that “equal rights” include the same benefit of the doubt that is inherently built into the combination of cultural/moral/legal sytems for the “less-than-idea” heterosexual situations, are applied equally to same sex couples/individuals. > > Further, until such time that heterosexual single parents have a constitutional amendment dictating that the cannot do something because 52% of the registered voters turned up and voted it into place, I want you to acknowledge the double standard that further supports this movement as a civil rights movement. I think there’s some interesting stuff in here, but I’m not quite clear as to what specific position(s) you hold that you want me to respond to. Can you please rephrase. Thanks. ---
**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, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/510 "2008-11-10T04:14:14Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > You’re having delusions of grandeur. Just to break in with some reality…you cannot dictate what we call it. :rolleyes:Forgive me for omitting the words “for purposes of this discussion” that the intelligent would find unnecessary. ---
**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, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/511 "2008-11-10T04:19:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > :rolleyes:Forgive me for omitting the words “for purposes of this discussion” that the intelligent would find unnecessary. So are you arguing for your view of reality or are you arguing for purposes of this particular discussion? There’s nothing you’ve posted so far that suggested that your argument only holds for this thread. In fact, you’ve proclaimed your argument to be the real-world ideal. Both myself and **Jenaroph** were very much posting about real-world conditions. No matter what the law itself calls the eventually recognized same-sex relationships, we (and almost everyone else) are going to be calling it marriage within a decade. Since we’re talking about reality, we simply assumed that your response was also about reality, rather than some Platonic ideal. ---
**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, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/512 "2008-11-10T04:21:56Z")
If you really thought that I really think that people can be stopped from using a word in common parlance, we have deeper problems than I feared. I’ve been arguing what I think should be that case, and given real world reason. You know, kinda like in a debate. ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/513 "2008-11-10T04:28:22Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > You must have missed his response to my post that basically said the same thing. I saw it. Forgive me for restating your point; sometimes saying the same thing in different terms can get through to a person. Sometimes not. It’s perplexing that he has convinced himself that gay people wanting to use the same term for the same legal status is an attempt to create an “us vs. them” mentality. If anything, I would think it would help foster acceptance of the equality of gay couples. Isn’t that supposed to be the goal? The language in that response is very, very telling as people have pointed out. ---
**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, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/514 "2008-11-10T04:29:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’ve done so. Scroll back if you’d like. Or not. If my answer is not “concrete” enough, I’ll have to ask you what type of thing you’re looking for. I took it to mean “real”. And I never claimed the harm would have to be “material”. I don’t accept that as a criterion. I found whatever answers you gave to be rather abstract, theoretical, and not based on anything you are able to prove. No one is harmed by gays using the term “marriage” to describe their unions. But gays ARE harmed by the denial of this right. I wish you could see that. ---
**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, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/515 "2008-11-10T04:33:00Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > I saw it. Forgive me for restating your point; sometimes saying the same thing in different terms can get through to a person. Sometimes not. > > It’s perplexing that he has convinced himself that gay people wanting to use the same term for the same legal status is an attempt to create an “us vs. them” mentality. If anything, I would think it would help foster acceptance of the equality of gay couples. Isn’t that supposed to be the goal? Feel free to contort my position to serve any purpose you desire. A fair reading, even of the angry response you chose, would not be what you have here. But it gets old, so, knock yourself out. ---
**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, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/516 "2008-11-10T04:36:29Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > I found whatever answers you gave to be rather abstract, theoretical, and not based on anything you are able to prove. No one is harmed by gays using the term “marriage” to describe their unions. But gays ARE harmed by the denial of this right. I wish you could see that. How? Keep in mind my position is that they have all the rights, sans “marriage”. They can then love who they want, live with who they want, grow old with who they want, and enjoy all the legal/financial benefits that married couples do. So how are they “materially” or “concretely” harmed. Or harmed in any way? ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/517 "2008-11-10T04:41:28Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > How? Keep in mind my position is that they have all the rights, sans “marriage”. They can then love who they want, live with who they want, grow old with who they want, and enjoy all the legal/financial benefits that married couples do. So how are they “materially” or “concretely” harmed. Or harmed in any way? Because the federal government does not recognize any relationship we have at this point. We are harmed by that. Few states other ANY recognition, we are harmed in most states by that. So your response is flawed, we do not enjoy all the legal/financial benefits that married couples do. ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/518 "2008-11-10T04:45:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > How? Keep in mind my position is that they have all the rights, sans “marriage”. They can then love who they want, live with who they want, grow old with who they want, and enjoy all the legal/financial benefits that married couples do. So how are they “materially” or “concretely” harmed. Or harmed in any way? If you’re going to sit back and argue that the word is so unimportant, then why not let them have the word and save the government money on printing different forms? ---
**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, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/519 "2008-11-10T04:45:34Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > Because the federal government does not recognize any relationship we have at this point. We are harmed by that. > > Few states other ANY recognition, we are harmed in most states by that. > > So your response is flawed, we do not enjoy all the legal/financial benefits that married couples do. Uh, the question was HOW does that harm gays? ---
**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, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/520 "2008-11-10T04:45:59Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > How? Keep in mind my position is that they have all the rights, sans “marriage”. They can then love who they want, live with who they want, grow old with who they want, and enjoy all the legal/financial benefits that married couples do. So how are they “materially” or “concretely” harmed. Or harmed in any way? But they DON’T have those rights. Prop 8 made that denial of rights the law of the land in CA. You support measures like Prop 8; therefore, you support harming gays because of what you say is mere semantics. However, it is worth considering that your opposition to the use of the word marriage is rooted in your belief that gays are deviant and abnormal, a view you share with those who supported Prop 8. IMO, that is indefensible. HOW does that harm gays? Let me turn it around: how does marriage benefit straight people? Depriving gays of those benefits is harming them. It also shows that they are second-class citizens in America. To me, that’s not very American. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250.md?page=27)