# Pros and cons of SSM as it pertains society **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 28, 2012, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675 "2012-07-28T14:28:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Max\_the\_Immortal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6de8d8/32.png) [@Max\_the\_Immortal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_the_Immortal)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/21 "2012-07-31T21:23:16Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > To sum up the plausible, empirically verifiable cons mentioned: it may result in a small reduction in tax revenues, and it _will_ result in an increase in litigation. > > Less plausible/empirical cons include the “redefinition” of marriage. So you’re saying that proponents of same-sex marriage should bill it as a tax cut to try to get conservatives to support it? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/22 "2012-07-31T21:28:12Z")
> [@](#): > > In THIS THREAD, Magellan01 asserts that once can hold the position that SSM is a negative influence on society and thus should remain banned while simultaneously allowing gay couples most of the same rights as hetero couples currently enjoy. To me, this smacks of the ‘equal but separate’ stance attempted during the early days of expanding civil rights in the US. It basically doesn’t work, since you never actually GET ‘equal but separate’…merely institutionalized discrimination sugar coated or whitewashed into something that, on the surface, looks more palatable. The only upside to that stance is it’s easier in the short term…you don’t have to shift people as much from their status quo comfort zone, and it takes less effort, since the bigots will rightfully see this as a small concession on their part to give them that de facto institutional discrimination. The pros to doing it the right way are that, well, it’s the right thing to do, and in the long run it’s going to happen, so we should bite the bullet and get on with it, so that the healing part, which takes decades or longer anyway can begin. Look at how this has worked out for minority issues in the US wrt Civil Rights and you can see all the up side of doing this the right way…and you could project what the down side WOULD have been had we not (race riots and the like on a regular basis…plus, just the general feeling that we were less than we SHOULD be, as a people, and that it just wasn’t right or just to do what we were doing). ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2012, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/23 "2012-08-01T12:40:04Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Well, my mother is surprisingly lacking prejudices against homosexuals given her generation (she’s 87) and her prudishness. Still, she’s opposed to SSM. The concept seems ludicrous to her. She can’t fathom the idea of two men leaving the town hall hand in hand with people throwing rice on them. > > It’s not the result of her religious beliefs, of an inexistent hate of homosexuals, or of deeps thoughts about the possible bad consequences of SSM. It’s just that the idea is plainly absurd from her point of view. You won’t get _any_ argument from her justifying her position. It’s just obviously idiotic and not worth discussing, period. She expects that it should be equally obvious to everybody else. The sun doesn’t rise in the west, and men don’t marry men. The interesting thing here though isn’t the assumption that it is absurd. It is the jump from making that personal assumption to actively voting against or denying someone else their right to be absurd. Where does _that_ come from? ---
**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:** [August 1, 2012, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/24 "2012-08-01T13:06:50Z")
If being absurd were illegal, I would be serving five or seven consecutive life sentences. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2012, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/25 "2012-08-01T14:03:01Z")
> [@Max\_the\_Immortal](#): > > So you’re saying that proponents of same-sex marriage should bill it as a tax cut to try to get conservatives to support it? Well, it would help if we could recast it that way. Maybe point to some high-profile wealthy gay job creators. When’s Elton John’s next album out? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/26 "2012-08-01T15:03:19Z")
While it is all fun to describe any opinion with which we disagree as bigotry, I would note that magellan01’s specific response to the idea of SSM is a civil union that, by law, was declared equal to marriage in all regards except the word. Unless one has a specific example of a statement that denigrates homosexuals or indicates that they should have a lesser status in society, I think that throwing around the terms “bigot” and “prejudiced” and similar epithets are not appropriate to this discussion–particularly when we have not yet heard from anyone in this thread who actively disapproves of SSM. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2012, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/27 "2012-08-01T15:38:34Z")
With all due respect to the moderator (all hail the great moderation on this board without whom we would be wallowing in the chaos and filth of our own making), I am wondering how we should argue against views whose underlying basis seems to be the belief that homosexuals and homosexual relationships are lesser than heterosexual and heterosexual relationships, without pointing out that such a view is based on prejudice. It would be like having a discussion about abortion, but disallowing the pro-life view that a fetus is a person at conception. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/28 "2012-08-01T15:39:10Z")
**Tom** , if _anyone_, **magellan01** or otherwise, \*can \*offer a “specific example” of a reason other than bigotry to deny SS couples the use of the word “marriage”, it would be welcomed. If there is another possible inference that can be drawn that can be articulated, that too would be welcomed. The fact that it hasn’t happened yet is certainly relevant to the discussion, and to discourage or ban the point is hardly conducive to exploring the topic. Sometimes you do have to call a thing by its own name, and not simply because it’s “fun”, as you so contemptuously describe it. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2012, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/29 "2012-08-01T15:50:25Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > In [THIS THREAD](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=659876), **Magellan01** asserts that once can hold the position that SSM is a negative influence on society and thus should remain banned while simultaneously allowing gay couples most of the same rights as hetero couples currently enjoy. I disagree that this position is logically supportable on _any rational basis_. Further, I assert that attempting to hold such a position is nothing more than masking a subtle or overtly held type of bigotry; the basis of which is either religious or ignorant in nature. > > (ETA I will be at work for several hrs and unable to respond for a while, I will return this evening to address responses) He never said it would negatively influence society, you did (and a few others) He may dance around the issue quite a bit but he specifically used traditional marriage roles provide a “greater benefit” rather than what you are supposes he said. Basically you reading into what he wrote for your “calling out thread” is based upon your own interpretation of what he said, good luck in that endeavor. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2012, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/30 "2012-08-01T16:01:00Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **Tom** , if _anyone_, **magellan01** or otherwise, \*can \*offer a “specific example” of a reason other than bigotry to deny SS couples the use of the word “marriage”, it would be welcomed. If there is another possible inference that can be drawn that can be articulated, that too would be welcomed. The fact that it hasn’t happened yet is certainly relevant to the discussion, and to discourage or ban the point is hardly conducive to exploring the topic. I hate taking this side of the issue, but one valid reason is that abrupt changes in law are divisive and sometimes things need to be eased in. I didn’t like DADT, but it may have been the path leading to the elimination of discrimination based on sexuality. Also, I don’t think the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business to start with. Now to cleanse my soul, nobody is using valid reasons in the real life political argument, it’s all based on intolerance and political pandering. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2012, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/31 "2012-08-01T16:03:42Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **Tom** , if _anyone_, **magellan01** or otherwise, \*can \*offer a “specific example” of a reason other than bigotry to deny SS couples the use of the word “marriage”, it would be welcomed. If there is another possible inference that can be drawn that can be articulated, that too would be welcomed. The fact that it hasn’t happened yet is certainly relevant to the discussion, and to discourage or ban the point is hardly conducive to exploring the topic. > > Sometimes you do have to call a thing by its own name, and not simply because it’s “fun”, as you so contemptuously describe it. I don’t see the fact that some people feel that ‘marriage’ is only between a man and woman as being 'one who regards or treats the members of a group ‘as a racial or ethnic group with hatred and intolerance’ (from Webster online). I disagree with people who make that distinction, but I don’t think that automatically equates to them being a bigot. And calling someone honestly engaged in a debate like this a bigot serves no freaking purpose except to inflame the discussion to no point and stifle the debate by turning off those who might otherwise engage. Seriously, do you WANT a freaking echo chamber on this board, or do you want folks to debate points that might not be the main stream thinking of the majority on this board?? I think Tom made a good call there. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2012, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/32 "2012-08-01T16:08:35Z")
Divorce lawyers will reap a bonanza from the additional work in a few years as SS couples decide to terminate their relationships. I don’t know it that’s a plus or a minus. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2012, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/33 "2012-08-01T16:48:29Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I don’t see the fact that some people feel that ‘marriage’ is only between a man and woman as being 'one who regards or treats the members of a group ‘as a racial or ethnic group with hatred and intolerance’ (from Webster online). Then, as I said, if there is another articulatable reason, it would be welcome. Do you have one? Can you point us to any? > [@](#): > > Seriously, do you WANT a freaking echo chamber on this board, or do you want folks to debate points that might not be the main stream thinking of the majority on this board?? There can only be debate if there are differing articulatable views based on more than visceral emotions. The fact that we aren’t getting any of that from the anti-SSM faction is not the fault of those who do have articulatable positions. At what point are you willing to conclude, and state, the obvious? ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/34 "2012-08-01T17:08:21Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > He never said it would negatively influence society, you did (and a few others) He has expressed this opinion a number of times. It’s not like people are reaching when we say **Magellen01** believes SSM would negatively influence society. Here are a few. [QUOTE=Magellan01] False. How do I know? Because I am a person who believes both that SSM will cause long-term negative effects AND that racial integration and voting rights for women are good things. Of course, if you can prove this opinion of yours to be correct, I’d love to see that cite. So, I’m askiing for it. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Magellan01] Examples? EXAMPLES? It was pointed out over and over that said negative consequences would be two generations or so down the road, so any call for “examples” is ridiculous. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Magellan01] Oh what the hell: It would dilute the meaning of the word. It would move to separate the word from the special union it defines. It would deprive us of a word that describes, distinctly, an institution of great importance of society. One that is responsible for the raising of future generations. Society has a vested interested in having people enter into marriages and having families. The dilution of the word would over time, in my opinion, make “marriage” less of a special bond for a man and woman to enter into. Therefore, they wouldn’t do it as often. That, again in my opinion, would be to the detriment of society. [/QUOTE] ---
**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:** [August 1, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/35 "2012-08-01T17:12:52Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I hate taking this side of the issue, but one valid reason is that abrupt changes in law are divisive and sometimes things need to be eased in. I didn’t like DADT, but it may have been the path leading to the elimination of discrimination based on sexuality. Sounds nice, but what that generally boils down to in the real world is discrimination being written into law, and the supposed stepping stone to greater equality becomes just another roadblock that has to be destroyed before progress can be made. DADT for example simply led to greater levels of persecution and to more people being thrown out of the military for their sexuality. If anything, I think it significantly slowed down the elimination of discrimination, and that was why it was created in the first place. And it was immensely divisive. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2012, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/36 "2012-08-01T17:22:17Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Sounds nice, but what that generally boils down to in the real world is discrimination being written into law, and the supposed stepping stone to greater equality becomes just another roadblock that has to be destroyed before progress can be made. DADT for example simply led to greater levels of persecution and to more people being thrown out of the military for their sexuality. If anything, I think it significantly slowed down the elimination of discrimination, and that was why it was created in the first place. And it was immensely divisive. Trouble is, I don’t have the heart to put up a fight on this (Skald’s took it I think). In general, I’d say there are some legitimate reasons to make distasteful compromises in furtherence of a goal. I just don’t feel like defending these particular cases on those grounds. But it could be an argument that’s not based on some type of intolerance. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2012, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/37 "2012-08-01T17:43:52Z")
Might **magellan01** simply be looking for an excuse to have a chicken sammich? ---
**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:** [August 1, 2012, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/38 "2012-08-01T18:09:44Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Trouble is, I don’t have the heart to put up a fight on this (Skald’s took it I think). In general, I’d say there are some legitimate reasons to make distasteful compromises in furtherence of a goal. I just don’t feel like defending these particular cases on those grounds. But it could be an argument that’s not based on some type of intolerance. I agree that disruptive new laws should be phased in, but is there any evidence that legalization of SSM is disruptive? It hasn’t appeared to be in the states which have legalized it. (Except for the rush to get married in the short time it was legal in California.) If the problem is with people not being to stand the idea, it is much less disruptive than civil rights laws were. ---
**Author:** ![Death\_of\_Rats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a6a055/32.png) [@Death\_of\_Rats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Death_of_Rats)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2012, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/39 "2012-08-01T18:31:50Z")
I live in a state where SSM is legal. I see the ramifications to society everyday. There haven’t been any. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675/40 "2012-08-01T19:02:21Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I agree that disruptive new laws should be phased in, but is there any evidence that legalization of SSM is disruptive? The only obvious disruption has been in the state of spontaneous undergarment massing in those who oppose it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-ssm-as-it-pertains-society/629675.md?page=3)