# Shrub: "...marriage is between a man and a woman." **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 2, 2003, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881 "2003-07-02T22:36:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Toaster52](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/50afbb/32.png) [@Toaster52](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Toaster52)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/141 "2003-07-11T12:52:20Z")
**Homebrew** …yes, so what? There are always exceptions to the rule. And even granting that the divorce rate these days is probably higher than ever (if that might be the case), I’m talking more about the institution of marriage _as a whole_ over the entire span of time that marriage as an institution has existed. [/lawyer talk] ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/142 "2003-07-11T14:45:14Z")
**Toaster** , old bud, I grasp your concept of “the institution of marriage” and the idea that it is supposed to be a lifelong commitment. And, of course, there are some people who do not regard it as such, or who come to the distressing realization that whatever they may have intended, it is just not working. For some people it is a commitment made before God, a harnessing of their love romantic into His Plan. For others it is a social institution whereby the feelings they have for each other are pledged and made formal and recognized by their society. And the meaning these latter invest in it is no less serious than the God-focused. For others, of course, it’s a way to celebrate their love for each other, and to be discarded with that love. But the question in my mind is, who am I, and who are you, to insist that others regard it with the meaning that either of us does? Is it not sufficient that they agree it enatals the same consequences, the same set of rights and responsibilities? And if they do that, how may we morally judge what meaning they place on it in their inmost hearts? I am confident that **gobear** and **RT Firefly** and **Anthracite** and **Czarcasm** and **scott evil** and **jarbabyj** and **xjetgirlx** and **Mr Visible** , and their respective spouses, do not put quite the meaning on it that Barb and I do. In some cases, the view is very, very close; in others, quite divergent. But I believe I can respect what they mean by “We’re married” or “We intend to marry” as a commitment no less meaningful to teach of them than mine is to me. And I believe that every person in that list, and the millions of others, deserve to be able to contract the marriage that they wish to, untrammelled by my definition of what it ought to mean – or yours either. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/143 "2003-07-11T15:58:50Z")
**So What?** I’ll tell you “so what” The very few examples I listed and the countless more I could are a demonstration that **your** concept of marriage being earned by hets is fucking bullshit. How many damned “exceptions” do you need to see before you realize you’re talking out of your ass. [More than 50 percent of all married women, at some point, cheat on their mates, according to psychologist Bonnie Eaker Weil.](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/community/DailyNews/chat_cheating0618.html) Weil also reports that approximately 70 percent of husbands cheat. How about some historical data? [Historical Divorce data from the UK (PDF)](http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/EXPODATA%5Ccommentary%5CList%20of%20hist%20Mar%20&%20Divs%20with%20notes%20to%20tables.pdf) > [@](#): > > LEGISLATION BEFORE 1836 > Between the 16th and the 19th Centuries, Parliament enacted a number of different laws in an attempt to ensure that marriages in England and Wales were properly regulated and registered by the ecclesiastical authorities. **Such action was necessary because fraudulent and clandestine marriages had become an abuse in the 17th century, which posed a serious threat to lawful inheritance.** To remedy this situation, an Act was passed in 1754 requiring every marriage – with the exception only of those of the Jews and the Quakers – to be solemnised in the Church of England parish church or chapel of one of the parties – and in the presence of at least two witnesses. The Act also stipulated the details which were to be recorded in the marriage registers. However, the Church often kept only lists of names, so that it could be difficult or impossible to prove one’s pedigree and hence right to inherit. What was really required was the keeping of complete marriage records containing identifying particulars, such as parentage. Despite several further Acts of Parliament, it was eventually concluded that thorough registration of marriages was properly supervised by the civil, rather than ecclesiastical, authorities. > > [bolding mine] Shit, boy, if adultery in straight marriages wasn’t a problem, then why would it be one of the 10 Commandments? So much for your vaunted image of monogamous and upstanding marriage among hetereosexuals. Do you know why homosexuals don’t have a history of stable marriages? It’s because motherfuckers like you (and Bush and the Clintons and every asshole who voted for DOMA) won’t allow it because it “creeps you out” or is “against your religion”. How the fuck are we supposed to “earn” the right to be married if you won’t allow it? Tell me, **Toaster52** , why we aren’t “worthy” of or “entitled” to equal rights? The U.S. is not a theocracy and you folks better get used to the idea that “because the Bible says so” is not a legitimate reason to discriminate and equal rights _will_ come to pass someday. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/144 "2003-07-11T16:13:37Z")
Good point, **Homebrew** - if we don’t get a chance, how can we “earn the right?” My friend Steven used to say this all the time - gays aren’t allowed to marry, and have the reputation of being promiscuous; but when they want to settle down and get married, and therefore stop being promiscuous, they’re not allowed to (which, of course, means they’re promiscuous). How catch-22 can you get (especially since the promiscuous part is a stereotype)? Esprix ---
**Author:** ![ElwoodCuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/edb3f5/32.png) [@ElwoodCuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElwoodCuse)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/145 "2003-07-11T19:29:37Z")
Why is it that 2000 election flamewars usually revovle around the Supreme Court and Florida govt. and all that? Can someone explain to me if it was in fact true that a couple of thousand black Florida voters were wrongly disenfranchised because they had similar names to felons? I’ve never been able to find out if that was true or not. ---
**Author:** ![Toaster52](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/50afbb/32.png) [@Toaster52](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Toaster52)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/146 "2003-07-11T19:50:47Z")
Soooo…I’m puzzled… Gays want to be _married_, to be _“…recognised by my community within an institution with gravitas, with established social etiquette…”_, because there is all this wonderful elan and community approval of the institution… …yet according to **Homebrew** , marriage seems to be the most vile and evil institution ever created by the mind of humanity… So which is it? Good Christ, I know there is much wrong with how people live in the institution of marriage. My first marriage effectively ended when I walked in on my wife screwing another man in my own bed. But the institution of marriage, how society _perceives_ it to be…how gays perceive it to be (which is why they want to BE a part of that institution)…is still very much positive. Why? In large part, because of the overall history of that institutional. And where did I bring in the Bible? Let’s not expand this to include extraneous arguments. (And DON’T try to tell me that my arguments are Bible-based…I’m an agnostic). There a tons of civil marriages where there is no minister involved, no Bible involved, no religious trappings of any kind involved. **Homebrew** _“Tell me, Toaster52, why we aren’t “worthy” of or “entitled” to equal rights?”_ Again, please re-read my posts (and those of other people defending me, if you want). I re-iterate again… …pay close attention now… I am NOT against equal rights for gays. I have already admitted to being in _favor_ of equal rights (and responsibilities) of gays. In some sort of civil union. My own personal problem is with calling that union a marriage. And what perchance do you mean by: _"…you folks…_?? Painting with a large brush, are we? **Esprix** Good point, except I might want to quibble with the linking of not being allowed to marry and being promiscuous. I don’t see the stereotype of being promiscuous…and it most definitely IS a stereotype…as being the reason why gays aren’t allowed to marry. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/147 "2003-07-11T20:26:18Z")
No, but because we cannot marry we are denied the opportunity to disprove the stereotype. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/148 "2003-07-11T20:45:13Z")
**Toaster** : My God, an expectation of reasoned debate in the Pit! And you think gay marriage breaks long-standing traditions? You’re breaking one there yourself, don’t you realize? – and I couldn’t be happier. :eek: Okay, given that you’re not arguing on religious grounds, what is there about the _cultural institution_ of marriage that would preclude acceptance of gay marriage? I will concede that, except for sporadic and rare circumstances that have contributed little else to our cultural matrix, same-sex marriages have not been acceptable. Among other reasons, that is because they were generally not contemplated. The idea of being gay as a sexual orientation is a 20th Century phenomenon; it is only within my adult lifetime that people outside a scant few metropolitan enclaves have lived openly as gay people. And America’s history has been an ongoing series in case studies why “We’ve always done it that way” is not a good argument. The fact that gay couples cannot, _within the marriage_, beget and bear children without external assistance could be a valid potential argument – were it not obvious that not all marriages incorporate children – some couples are childless by choice, others by vagaries of biology or chance, and other quite strong marriages have passed the woman’s menopause. (My wife and I fall into categories 2 nd 3, and if you decide to argue that ours is not a “proper” marriage on that basis, you can look to **Homebrew** as the voice of calm and reasoned exposition by comparison with the attitude I will take!) And note that many gay couples adopt or beget/bear children with the assistance of a person of opposite sex from the couple, and the adoptions serve to provide good and caring homes for children who would otherwise be without a family. Having anticipated two common arguments, I look to you to explain why the idea of marriage is an improper goal for gay couples – and with the idea that “something like it” is not identical in the eyes of our society, both in law and in cultural attitudes. I grant you every right to have whatever visceral reaction you care to – no one has the right to tell you what you should and should not like – but when you suggest that your personal views should be the basis for law, I expect you to have some argument besides “because I feel that way.” To the best of my knowledge **Dewey** , who favors legalizing civil unions over gay marriage, has no problem with the latter concept (at least none he’s chosen to voice), but believes the former is “just as good” and far more politically feasible at present. In that feasibility analysis, I believe he is correct – but as a matter of principle (and religious conviction) I believe that I am called on to support complete equality – the acceptance of same-sex marriage. In you, a man supportive of civil unions but opposed to gay marriage, I hope to get some logical reason for the visceral stance that is generally expressed by people opposed on other than religious grounds. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/149 "2003-07-11T20:51:20Z")
Are you deliberately being obtuse or is it a congenital problem? You stated that heterosexual “partners in marriage over the centuries have EARNED that status”. I’m calling BULLSHIT on that statement. I said nothing about what I thought of marriage. The purpose of my post was to show that heterosexuals have not “earned” the right to marry any more than homosexuals. Please tell me again on what basis you wish to deny the positive aspects of marriage to homosexuals. Oh, yeah, because you find it icky. You ARE against equal rights for gays because you would deny gays the right to marry. It is precisely because of the social gravitas associated with marriage that civil unions or domestic partnerships are a less than equal proposal. Those arrangements won’t have the same respect and honor as marriage. If your resistance to marriage rights for gays is based solely on your personal queasiness rather than a religious reason, then I find your stance even more despicable because it’s based purely on bigotry. At least the religious people have a misguided belief in God to blame. ---
**Author:** ![Toaster52](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/50afbb/32.png) [@Toaster52](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Toaster52)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/150 "2003-07-11T20:54:30Z")
Some good points, **Esprix** and **Ploycarp**. I will ponder them this weekend, perhaps discuss them with my Sweetie, and get back to you on MOnday, when once again I will have access to a working keyboard. Have a great and safe weekend!! How’s THAT for breaking a Pit Tradition? ---
**Author:** ![Firx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Firx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Firx)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/151 "2003-07-11T21:08:14Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally poster by Toaster52_ > **Homebrew** > > _“Tell me, Toaster52, why we aren’t “worthy” of or “entitled” to equal rights?”_ > > Again, please re-read my posts (and those of other people defending me, if you want). I re-iterate again… > > …pay close attention now… > I am NOT against equal rights for gays. I have already admitted to being in favor of equal rights (and responsibilities) of gays. > > In some sort of civil union. My own personal problem is with calling that union a marriage. And what perchance do you mean by: "…you folks…?? Painting with a large brush, are we? Er, I’m not sure that everyone here would agree with you. It depends a bit on exactly how you define your terms. > [@](#): > > _From Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 3rd Ed., Simon &Schuster (1997)_ > Right n. 2a) that which a person has just claim to; power, privilege, etc. that belongs to a person by law, nature, or tradition So while you have acknowledged the _legal_ rights to marriage same-sex pairs have, you have also denied them those privileges conferred by tradition (in response to my most recent question above); this is the point that **Lilairen** seems to have been making. He reasonably claims that by denying access to the institution of marraige, you effectively deny acces to its traditional trappings: wide acceptance, established social etiquette, and intangible (nonlegal) benefits such as respect. So effectively, you **are** against equal rights for gays, since you would deny them access to a social institution they might otherwise have a claim to, and of which everyone else has unrestricted use. Don’t get me wrong here - I respect that you would grant equal legal rights to all. But on the other hand, the risk of excluding gays from the cultural side of marriage is very real. Frankly, I’m not sure what to make of your responses, since they seem to conflict a little. Why would you want to give gays the legal rights of marraige but not the intangible ones? Are you saying you want them to be equal under the law but still generally disapproved of and disrespected? Perhaps you could clarify by expaining which cultural bits of marraige you’d like them to have access to? ---
**Author:** ![Toaster52](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/50afbb/32.png) [@Toaster52](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Toaster52)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/152 "2003-07-14T20:58:14Z")
**Firx** _“So effectively, you are against equal rights for gays, since you would deny them access to a social institution they might otherwise have a claim to, and of which everyone else has unrestricted use.”_ Not necessarily everyone…most states have laws against a person marrying his/her first cousin. By this argument, I could marry my cousin (who, btw, is pretty hot), my niece (who definitely is hot!), my sister…my mother…There are definite restrictions that states have put on marriages that are customarily adhered to. Is this, then, an argument that those restrictions are not valid…that I _should_ have the capability to marry any of them? Most states still have laws against polygamy; and it’s only in Utah that that particular restriction has anybody fighting it. In the name of fairness, shouldn’t I then have the right to marry BOTH my cousin and my niece? Damn, would that sex be hot… To me, the argument that just because gays want to marry = they _can_ marry = they have to be _allowed_ to marry falls apart here. \…_“by denying access to the institution of marraige, you effectively deny acces to its traditional trappings: wide acceptance, established social etiquette, and intangible (nonlegal) benefits such as respect.”_\ Well , here I would be in agreement with your point; that gays would not have access to marriage’s traditional trappings. **Polycarp** , you said: _"I expect you to have some argument besides “because I feel that way.”_ I guess I could be snarky and reply that in the end, that’s how ALL laws are made…because a majority of citizens want it to _be_ that way. But that kind of begs the question, I suppose. What we have here is a case of one group of people wanting to allow gays to marry (because they feel that way) and another group of people wanting gays NOT to marry (because they feel that way). ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/153 "2003-07-14T21:12:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Toaster52 \* > Not necessarily everyone…most states have laws against a person marrying his/her first cousin. By this argument, I could marry my cousin (who, btw, is pretty hot), my niece (who definitely is hot!), my sister…my mother…There are definite restrictions that states have put on marriages that are customarily adhered to. Is this, then, an argument that those restrictions are not valid…that I _should_ have the capability to marry any of them? No, this is an entirely separate argument, that presents enormous amounts of proof that gay people are being harmed by not being allowed to enter into a legal contract that allows them recourse to the courts for issues such as child custody, inheritance, medical insurance, and divorce proceedings. Bringing up other forms of unions is irrelevant, unless you can provide proof that legalizing gay marriage will automatically make other forms of marriage legal. I think it’s delusional to think that, when it’s taken gay people hundreds of years to come this far in their fight for equality, polygamists and incestual relationships are just going to waltz into legitimacy on our coattails. > [@](#): > > To me, the argument that just because gays want to marry = they _can_ marry = they have to be _allowed_ to marry falls apart here. That’d be interesting, if that was the argument at hand. How about, “Gays have been living together in monogamous relationships without the protection of law since this country began, and it’s done enormous amounts of demonstrable harm to them. Since they’re human beings too, and should be treated equally under the law, this is an issue that needs to be corrected.” Where does that one fall apart for you? > [@](#): > > But that kind of begs the question, I suppose. What we have here is a case of one group of people wanting to allow gays to marry (because they feel that way) and another group of people wanting gays NOT to marry (because they feel that way). The dividing line is demonstrable harm. I can demonstrate how much harm it does me to be unable to have my relationship with my boyfriend legally recognized; I can go into the 1049 federal laws that pertain to married couples, and the hardships that being denied access to the legal system imposes on gay couples. And if you like, I will. But if you ask me to do so, be warned: I’m going to ask you to provide some concrete evidence that legalizing gay marriage will harm anyone. And that’s going to be a much tougher case to make. ---
**Author:** ![Priam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/77aa72/32.png) [@Priam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Priam)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/154 "2003-07-14T21:12:27Z")
Actually, **Toaster52** , I am personally in support of abolishing any laws still around “for the sake of custom”. If the arguments against incest (which I’m sure exist) could be successful debunked by its supporters, I’m all for removing that taboo. If the arguments against polygamy can be successfully debunked by its supporters, I am in favor of doing the same. Inequality should only exist when plausible reasons for that inequality. Otherwise, the state has no business enforcing it. A lot of things we find abhorrent today were customary in the past. That simply is an invalid argument. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/155 "2003-07-14T21:22:52Z")
Toaster52 wrote: > [@](#): > > Most states still have laws against polygamy; and it’s only in Utah that that particular restriction has anybody fighting it. Incorrect. I live in Massachusetts. ---
**Author:** ![Firx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Firx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Firx)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/156 "2003-07-14T21:48:15Z")
**Toaster** , I think you may have missed an important aspect of the debate here. You see, it isn’t simply about letting anyone do whatever they want - if it were, you could argue for all sorts of things that aren’t currently acceptable, like child marraige, or vigilante justice. Or slave labor. And you might be able to make convincing arguments for some of them. At its crux, though, this argument isn’t about what you or I feel to be acceptable behavior. Its about what amounts to systematic disenfranchisement and discrimination. Gay people are as defined by their sexuality as straight people are, and it isn’t really about what they’d prefer to be. This is where they differ from your analogy - and why the analogy fails to reflect the situation. In the example you gave, there is no group to be disenfranchised. I mean, who could it be? The group of people whose desire to marry their cousins is a defining element of their character? You can’t expect us to seriously compare that with gays, can you? So that’s where the problem is; by denying gays the same rights and traditions as everyone else, you’re (note: in this case I’m using ‘you’ not to refer to **Toaster** alone, but to all those who would like to restrict the rights of gays to marry) discriminating against a group of people as surely as if you were to deny blacks the right to marry. Or New Zealanders, or Blondes, or martians. It’s the same thing. ---
**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:** [July 15, 2003, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/157 "2003-07-15T00:33:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Toaster52 \* > \*\*Not necessarily everyone…most states have laws against a person marrying his/her first cousin. By this argument, I could marry my cousin (who, btw, is pretty hot), my niece (who definitely is hot!), my sister…my mother…There are definite restrictions that states have put on marriages that are customarily adhered to. Is this, then, an argument that those restrictions are not valid…that I _should_ have the capability to marry any of them? > > Most states still have laws against polygamy; and it’s only in Utah that that particular restriction has anybody fighting it. In the name of fairness, shouldn’t I then have the right to marry BOTH my cousin and my niece? > \*\* Firstly, i agree with those who oppose laws against polygamy, and against marrying cousins. Why not let people marry who (and how many) they want? But that aside, your analogy is still flawed, because gays and lesbians are not asking to marry multiple partners, and nor are they asking to marry their cousins. They just want to marry other people of the same sex. Presumably if marriage rights were extended to gays and lesbians, laws against polygamy and incest would still apply. You are arguing as if gays and lesbians want some sort of “special” treatment, when the fact is that they are simply asking to be covered by the same rules that govern the rest of us. And some irrelevant religious dogma, or the queasy feeling that some people get in their stomach when they think about homosexuality, are not reason enough to deny them that right, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Toaster52](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/50afbb/32.png) [@Toaster52](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Toaster52)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/158 "2003-07-15T17:18:10Z")
**Priam** , I think you hit the nail on the head there. While not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the right- or wrongness of gay marriages, I can agree that they definitely have been held as “wrong” as much as by the sake of custom as anything else. And I would also agree that if…_IF_…the laws against gay marriages can be successfully debunked by their supporters, then they should be removed. Granted, the fight will not be an easy one, or short. There will probably always be people such as me that, while we can agree _intellectually_, we will probably always have that _ewwwww_ factor in dealing with gays. Again, I’m not proud of that, but there you go. Massachusetts, also, huh? I wasn’t aware of that. **Mhendo** , actually, that argument is not an argument for special treatment. The laws and customs right now (for good or bad) define marriage as between one man and one woman. To follow your argument, presumably if marriage rights were extended to gays (who currently are “outside” those rights), then other groups currently “outside” would/should also be included. Those people who practice polygamy just want to be _“…covered by the same rules that govern the rest of us.”_; presumably, those who practice incest, etc would want the same rights. NOTE: I am NOT equating gay partnerships with incest, etc. I am following a line of argument here. **Flix** _“Its about what amounts to systematic disenfranchisement and discrimination.”_ And the same argument would apply to those who practice polygamy, incest, etc. They could make the claim that they are suffering systematic disenfranchisement also, could they not? So again, what we have here is an institution that has (right or wrong) been under the control of the state (that is, by granting beneficiary rights, etc); with the state (theoretically, at least) being under the control of its citizens. So from a historical point of view, when enough time has elapsed that gay partnerships are generally viewed as acceptable by the majority of the states citizens, then they will as a matter of course be allowed to have the same legal rights as heterosexual partners. Also note: I am not arguing that this is the way it SHOULD be, but that this is the way it probably WILL be. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/159 "2003-07-15T18:55:18Z")
> [@](#): > > **I am following a line of argument here.** But your line of arguement is fatally flawed because you are comparing situations that are not equal. Polygamy is a practice. It is not a sexual orientation. Whether it should be illegal or not is a separate issue. Incest is not a sexual orientation. Whether it should be illegal is a separate issue. Homosexuality, like Heterosexuality, is part of a person’s identity. It is a core aspect of who they are. Discrimination on this basis is wrong. Extending equal rights to homosexuals is a matter of justice. ---
**Author:** ![Firx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Firx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Firx)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881/160 "2003-07-15T19:08:12Z")
**Toaster** , I’m beginning to get the impression that you aren’t dealing fairly with us. In your example, the incestuous or polygamous have, and I don’t want to come on too strong here, _decided_ that those were activities they would like to engage in. In the same way, I could decide to kill my brother, and a law banning fratricide wouldn’t disenfranchise me or others who also wanted to kill their brothers. Not in the same way that gays are being disenfranchised, because they haven’t made such a choice. They are prevented from marrying just because of who they are. Think of it this way; if a law were passed preventing straight people from getting medical insurance, wouldn’t that be unfair discrimination against a group of people just because of who they are? Would you support that? Essentially, I think that your argument is flawed because neither polygamists or those who practice incest are personally defined, in the same way that gays and straights are defined, by their sexual preferences. But I’m willing to admit that I’m wrong here. Are there any gay posters who could shed some light on the issue? By the same token, any polygamists who’d like to comment? Incidentally, I don’t think the “historical point of view” is the one in contention here. We all know that gays have historically been held in disesteem and discriminated against. That doesn’t mean we should continue to do so; the question here isn’t ‘what happened in the past?’, but ‘what should we do about it?’. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrub-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/185881.md?page=9)