# Subtext behind many anti-SSM arguments **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 4, 2004, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520 "2004-03-04T15:24:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/41 "2004-03-05T20:39:10Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > **JJM** raises a good point and one that is often glossed over. The real issue is re-definining marriage, not letting gays marry. > > In a sense, marriage is a subsidy offered by society to encourage a certain kind of behavior. What’s conspiciously missing from the debate is any data that society should encourge that behavior with regard to same-sex couples. This argument is disingenuous, and you know it. How can you demand data proving it’s beneficial, while simultaneously decrying efforts to allow this data to be conclusively demonstrated by actually allowing gays to marry? Kind of a Catch-22, don’t you think? > [@](#): > > There’s lots of data regarding how socially beneficial “normal” marriage is. Married people are healthier, richer, better educated, have clearer skin, better able to leap tall buildings, etc., etc. Let’s see some similar data with respect to same-sex marriage. Then the argument isn’t “We demand our rights and anyone who disagree with us is a dangerous, knuckle-dragging neanderthal!” Rather, the argument is, “Gay marriage benefits society because . . .” This will be a lot more effective, especially since polls indicate that almost 2/3 of the American populace falls into what strident gay marriage proponents like to call the “dangerous, knuckle-dragging neanderthal” demographic. This sounds suspiciously like “argumentum ad populum” to me. It also seems like your trying to get those who might be fence sitting on this subject to go to your side because they don’t like being called knuckle dragging neanderthals. By the way, can you conclusively demonstrate that allowing interracial marriages benefits society in any way? Pretend you were magically transported to 1950s Southern U.S.A. What arguments could you put in favor of changing the status quo, in light of the fact that a strong majority of the poplace is against it? Your argument must start with “Interracial marriages are beneficial because…” ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/42 "2004-03-05T21:30:15Z")
**Truth Seeker** , I think you’re looking at the issue a bit too narrowly. On one hand, the government has an interest in promoting stable relationships. But I don’t think this is because marriage per se benefits society in some way. In fact, given the human race’s propensity to screw each other over, relationships can be a pretty big detriment. They foster a context of trust which can lend itself to abuse. For this reason alone government intervention is A Good Thing. In this light, anyone getting into relationships should have government protection of their civil interests, unless a pressing reason can be shown why the government _shouldn’t_ permit the relationship. This matter is made more clear by the history of court cases about marriage, especially during the civil rights period in American history, where the courts upheld the notion that marriage was itself a kind of right, and along with it, deciding whom one wanted to marry. > [@](#): > > As both Perez and Loving make clear, the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one’s choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare. See Perez v. Sharp, supra at 717 (“the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice”). See also Loving v. Virginia, supra at 12. So as **Blalron** points out, it is not incumbent on proponents to make a case _for_ gay marriage, it is the duty of gay marriage opponents to indicate why the discrimination should stand. The burden of proof lies with the state. IMHO, any state with equal rights amendments can only ultimately rectify the matter by a discrimination amendment. DOMA-like laws simply won’t hold up forever. So far, all I can see people dragging up is historicism. That can be motivational in some respects, especially in matters of law. But when we pass things like equal rights amendments, we should be aware that historicism can be trumped quite easily. Discrimination is not, or at least no longer, the default position of our government, so far as I can tell. If we intend to discriminate, we should make it clear, and the burden is on us to support it. Absent such a pressing argument or reason, the discrimination should not stand. ---
**Author:** ![mjolner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6bbea6/32.png) [@mjolner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mjolner)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/43 "2004-03-05T21:41:20Z")
I live in the county where the County commisioners decided in secret to make it legal for same sex couples to marry. As someone who knows a few of the couples who have been married I have several thoughts on both the folks who are getting married, the commisioners who decided to do this in secret and the morons who are protesting all of it. While I am in favor of granting same sex marriage, I am more than a bit torn by the fact that I firmly believe that marriage involves love, fidelity and honor and yet I am seeing folks in openly infidelious relationships promising to “love, obey, and forsake all others” with no intention of living up to those vows. And while I know the same problem exists in the opposite sex marriage community, I was hoping for better from my gay friends who now have the chance to be legally married. Secondly the county commisioners did this in the worse possible way. While I have always known the county plays fast and loose with Oregon State law so as to interprete it in a manner that best suits their political ideals, holding multiple secret meetings with only two of the five commisioners present to duck the open meeting law is wrong. Likewise they never held a vote on this, the four women commisioners simply came to a consensus and decided to instruct the license bureau to start issuing same sex marriage licenses without informing the fifth commisioner who happens to represent the more conservative section of the county. Likewise they gave the govenor just 90 minutes warning and never asked the attorney general for the state to review the legal opinions that they are basing all this on. As for the protestors, I am truely amazed that they have not been picked up by animal control as they act like they have a advanced case of rabies. I am sick of folks shouting that AIDS cures fags and God hates fags. Grow up you hypoencephaltic morons, Jesus taught love and compassion, not hatered and foaming at the mouth while you try to beat the gay out of someone. All you can see is one group that you can publically hate and despise with some impunity. grow up and understand that we are all gods creatures and while you may not like what some of us do, you have no right to ram your version of godliness down our throats. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/44 "2004-03-05T21:48:56Z")
> [@mjolner](#): > > While I am in favor of granting same sex marriage, I am more than a bit torn by the fact that I firmly believe that marriage involves love, fidelity and honor and yet I am seeing folks in openly infidelious relationships promising to “love, obey, and forsake all others” with no intention of living up to those vows. And while I know the same problem exists in the opposite sex marriage community, I was hoping for better from my gay friends who now have the chance to be legally married. I’m rather troubled by the application of the word “infidelitous”, a word that means oathbreaking, to what seem to be consensually open relationships by your description. It cannot be infidelity if promises are not being broken; personally, I would not vow to “forsake all others” even if I were interested in a monogamous relationship, and neither “obey” nor “forsake all others” was in my wedding vows. ---
**Author:** ![mjolner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6bbea6/32.png) [@mjolner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mjolner)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/45 "2004-03-05T21:56:50Z")
> [@Lilairen](#): > > I’m rather troubled by the application of the word “infidelitous”, a word that means oathbreaking, to what seem to be consensually open relationships by your description. It cannot be infidelity if promises are not being broken; personally, I would not vow to “forsake all others” even if I were interested in a monogamous relationship, and neither “obey” nor “forsake all others” was in my wedding vows. Well they did get married and promise to love obey and forsake all others, ie a very standard wedding vow from what I heard. However the use of the word was quite deliberate as I do believe that when you enter into a marriage it should be exclusive to you and your partner or partners if you are entering into a poly marriage. If they want a open relationship thats great, but please don’t call that marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/46 "2004-03-05T22:13:44Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > This argument is disingenuous, and you know it. _Well_, I suppose that shows _me_! All the knees-up-running-about while self righteously bleating about the _obvious_ constitutional right to gay marriage (always sans actual legal analysis) is pretty much unanswerable. Oh, and be sure and waive your hands a lot. I always find that particularly convincing. > [@](#): > > How can you demand data proving it’s beneficial, while simultaneously decrying efforts to allow this data to be conclusively demonstrated by actually allowing gays to marry? Kind of a Catch-22, don’t you think? Not really, since I’ve already described one obvious methodology. > [@](#): > > By the way, can you conclusively demonstrate that allowing interracial marriages benefits society in any way? Pretend you were magically transported to 1950s Southern U.S.A. What arguments could you put in favor of changing the status quo, in light of the fact that a strong majority of the poplace is against it? Your argument must start with “Interracial marriages are beneficial because…” One difference is, of course, is that race is a protected class under the U.S. constitution while sexual preference is not. Therefore, the constitutional analysis with respect to interracial marriage is completely different. Another difference is that many states permitted inter-racial marriage at the time the ban was declared unconstitutional. If you’re willing to wait another fifty years or so for that all that to happen with respect to gay marriage, go ahead. By then the data will have compiled itself. > [@erislover](#): > > So as Blalron points out, it is not incumbent on proponents to make a case for gay marriage, it is the duty of gay marriage opponents to indicate why the discrimination should stand. The burden of proof lies with the state. May I take it then, that you support the right of adult siblings to marry? In any event, as discussed above, sexual preference is not a protected class under the U.S. constitution. You and **Blaron** are certainly free to insist that the status quo make the case against change, but I don’t think you’re going to have much luck convincing the status quo with that argument. Folks, there are two ways to do this. Convince the U.S. Supreme Court that sexual preference is a protected class or convince people that gay marriage is a good idea on policy grounds. Everyone seems to be in favour of option one. It is certainly more emotionally satisfying in that it allows for a great deal of self-righteous posturing. But it is stupid. On present form, you’re going to end up with a gay version of _Plessy_. It took more than fifty years to re-visit and overule that case. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/47 "2004-03-05T22:34:57Z")
Well, folks, you heard **Truth Seeker** : social equity has to be earned. It’s not enough to just want to live your life without hurting anyone else, you’ve got to prove that your private life will somehow make the world a better place, or you don’t deserve to be treated the same as everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/48 "2004-03-05T23:19:41Z")
By gay friends have to prove that their love is good for YOU before they can be equal? I’m sorry, but what sort of bigotted bullshit is THAT? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/49 "2004-03-05T23:23:20Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > In another sense, gay folks “rights” are being infringed because they can’t marry their partners while straight folks can. But this is fundamentally different. By recognizing a marriage, society bestows goodies (e.g. tax breaks, automatic inheritance rights, social security benefits, etc.) on the married couple that single people don’t get. So this is, in a very real sense, about getting a subsidy from the government. > > Think of it like this. Congress gives a tax break to, say, the cherry picking industry. If the apple-picking industry wants the same tax break, it tries to get it by convincing Congress that apple picking provides the same benefits (in terms of jobs, campaign contributions or whatever) as cherry picking does. I’d really love to this argument made with respect to gay marriage. There are two things wrong with this position, **Truth Seeker**. 1. Society (which the context of your post makes clear is synonymous with “the government” in your usage above) does not “give” rights to anybody. At most, it **guarantees** them – or not. The Preamble to the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment make clear that rights exist and inhere in the people, who create the government in order to establish a stable, fair means of protecting themselves, including from each other, and guaranteeing each other those rights. The most that can be said relative to governmental “giving” of rights in relation to this is that the government selects which rights it will guarantee, by constitution and statute, and your assertion of any other rights is likely to come afoul of a statute that does not recognize it. 2. All the impassioned assertions by gay people in relation to what failure to recognize their marriages entails virtually never makes reference to the financial side of the problem, except in exhaustive lists of what privileges a legal marriage is awarded by government. Rather, they focus on inheritance issues – the couple who bought a home together, could place mortgage and title in only one name, though both paid on it, and when one partner died, his relatives evicted his gireving partner and sold his home out from under him – the gay person in intensive care whose partner of 20 years is not allowed in to see her, because they have no legal relationship – the dozens of adjuncts to raising a child which are impeded because the partner of the parent-of-record has no legal status with relation to the child, although he has been ably parenting the child for years. The references to financial benefits all come from the anti-gay-marriage side of the debate. And they tell me one thing: for the people who raise that argument, it’s their purses, not their consciences, that are offended. “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” ---
**Author:** ![kimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f0a364/32.png) [@kimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kimera)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/50 "2004-03-06T00:02:55Z")
> [@Talon Karrde](#): > > First, you can probably draw some parallels to the fall of Rome (though they’re not necessarily accurate). I don’t know much about history, but from my understanding Rome was in a pretty bad moral state at the time it ended, and I guess some people believe that helped contribute to its downfall. The allowing of gay marriage is a huge step toward that (in their perspective), and they want to delay that as much as possible. Actually, there is absolutely no way you can argue that homosexuality caused the fall of Rome. There are more arguments for Christianity and homophobia being the fall of Rome than homosexuality. The date for the fall of Rome is generally estimated to be 476. After Constantine converted to Christianity(313), paganism and homosexuality became ‘evil’ and were prostecuted. Homophobia rose with the first law against homosexuals being passed in 342 which was probably not enforced. However in 390, an edit was passed by Theodosius which quoted Leviticus and suggested that homosexuals should be put to death. This law was enforced and there were people put to death because of this law. In his book _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ Edward Gibbon discusses a few things that Christianity did that helped contribute to the fall of Rome. IIRC, he has nothing to say about homosexuals causing the fall of Rome. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/51 "2004-03-06T01:00:51Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > By gay friends have to prove that their love is good for YOU before they can be equal? > > I’m sorry, but what sort of bigotted bullshit is THAT? I dunno. What kind of head-in-the-sand tantrum-throwing is this? I see you’re in Kansas, **Spectrum**. Since your cutting and insightful argument drops the scales from the eyes of all who hear it, you’d better get on down to the Kansas state legislature. Look what they did today! > [@](#): > > The Kansas House backed a proposed amendment banning gay marriages and benefits that associate marriage to other relationships. The measure now goes to the Senate, which could put it before voters in November. I’m sure one blast of your righteous indignation will bring them around! All you’ll have to do is say, “But gays are equal!” and they’ll all be slapping their foreheads saying, “But of course! Why didn’t we think of that!” ---
**Author:** ![Priam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/77aa72/32.png) [@Priam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Priam)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/52 "2004-03-06T01:02:05Z")
**ava** raises a very good and ironic point about the Roman Empire example often bandied about. All those Bacchic orgies and sex parties we imagine occuring as Rome burned under the torch of the Vandals? Those pretty much happened earlier. Blame homosexuals, rather, for the _rise_ and stabilization of the Empire if you wanna go down that route, which I don’t. You cannot, however, discount that at least one of the Good Emperors credited for reinvigorating Rome was well known for his affection towards his male lover (going so far as to found a city in his name). Of course this is all gross generalizations and you can’t credit homosexuality for either the rise _or_ the fall of Rome, which happened for any number of reasons. You can maybe promote the rise of Sparta and Thebes to their same-sex unified fighting men (The Sacred Band, anyone?). ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/53 "2004-03-06T01:17:20Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > One difference is, of course, is that race is a protected class under the U.S. constitution while sexual preference is not. And a few lines farther on, > [@Truth Seeker](#): > > In any event, as discussed above, sexual preference is not a protected class under the U.S. constitution. And, for a hat trick, > [@Truth Seeker](#): > > Folks, there are two ways to do this. Convince the U.S. Supreme Court that sexual preference is a protected class or convince people that gay marriage is a good idea on policy grounds. Let’s have a little less of the sexual _preference_, and a little bit more of the sexual _orientation_ in the discussion, if you please. As for me, the orientation is hetero; the preference is lots and lots. I trust that someone who really seeks the truth will understand which one is relevant. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/54 "2004-03-06T01:37:30Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > 1. Society (which the context of your post makes clear is synonymous with “the government” in your usage above) does not “give” rights to anybody. At most, it **guarantees** them – or not. The Preamble to the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment make clear that rights exist and inhere in the people, who create the government in order to establish a stable, fair means of protecting themselves, including from each other, and guaranteeing each other those rights. The most that can be said relative to governmental “giving” of rights in relation to this is that the government selects which rights it will guarantee, by constitution and statute, and your assertion of any other rights is likely to come afoul of a statute that does not recognize it. There are several well-established theories of rights. This is none of them. To give a very brief overview, there are positive and negative rights. ( I prefer the “rights and liberties” terminology.) Very crudely, negative rights are things the government can’t do to you, while positive rights are things the government has to do for you. Nor is this distinction academic. In the case that struck down restrictive covenants in property deeds, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively held that individuals _do_ have the right to engage in racial discrimination but that the government was under no obligation to assist them in exercising that right. > [@](#): > > 1. All the impassioned assertions by gay people in relation to what failure to recognize their marriages entails virtually never makes reference to the financial side of the problem, except in exhaustive lists of what privileges a legal marriage is awarded by government. Rather, they focus on inheritance issues – the couple who bought a home together, could place mortgage and title in only one name, though both paid on it, and when one partner died, his relatives evicted his gireving partner and sold his home out from under him – the gay person in intensive care whose partner of 20 years is not allowed in to see her, because they have no legal relationship – the dozens of adjuncts to raising a child which are impeded because the partner of the parent-of-record has no legal status with relation to the child, although he has been ably parenting the child for years. These are among the worst rationales for gay marriage that there are. As I pointed out a few posts ago, most of these things can be handled outside marriage quite easily. In some cases, as with the child care issues, gay marriage would do little or nothing to help. For example, > [@](#): > > the couple who bought a home together, could place mortgage and title in only one name, though both paid on it, and when one partner died, his relatives evicted his gireving partner and sold his home out from under him. What this says to me is, “I’m a lazy moron who couldn’t be bothered to look after my own interests.” Assuming, arguendo, this is a plausible scenario (I’m unaware of any bank that isn’t perfectly happy to have as many people obligated on a mortgage as possible or that would care if you took title as Joint Tenants.), have these people never heard of a will or what? ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/55 "2004-03-06T01:44:36Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Let’s have a little less of the sexual _preference_, and a little bit more of the sexual _orientation_ in the discussion, if you please. Spare us the sanctimonious PC posturing. If the term is OK with the ACLU, I don’t see that you have any cause to bitch about it. > [@](#): > > As a Gay African American man, I am also interested in the ACLU’s groundbreaking work in its driving- while- black and brown campaign, and its tireless efforts against discrimination based upon race and sexual preference. I truly appreciate your support and your vote. [http://www.aclunc.org/aclunews/news021126/election.html](http://www.aclunc.org/aclunews/news021126/election.html) ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/56 "2004-03-06T01:54:19Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > Spare us the sanctimonious PC posturing. If the term is OK with the ACLU, I don’t see that you have any cause to bitch about it. If it’s sanctimonious to insist that the meanings of words have relevance to a discussion, I guess I’ll have to plead sanctimonious. :rolleyes: Be good enough to not accuse me of posturing, though, without some evidence. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/57 "2004-03-06T04:56:33Z")
> [@StarvingButStrong](#): > > I’ve had many, many conversations with anti-ssm-marriage people lately, and like most of you have said, the ‘reasons’ offered for their views seem pathetically weak. So weak, you wonder they can even bring themselves not to apologize for offering them. > > However there seems to be two related subtexts, things the speaker feels but can’t/won’t come out and talk about openly, that get hinted at frequently. They go approximately like this: > Homosexuality is enormously attractive. If we started giving gays all the same rights as straights, and there wasn’t this enormous weight of social disapproval, some huge fraction of currently straight-acting guys would no longer be able to resist their attraction to gay guys. All these guys would dump their wives and children and hook up (probably with each other) in gay marriages. And _THAT_ is the source of the ‘danger’ gay marriages present to straight marriage. > > AND > > If children didn’t see that gays got beat up and mocked and denied rights, many more boys would ‘choose’ to be gay. We don’t want to have gay sons, so to ‘protect’ our sons from abandonning the closet we must continue to oppress gays. > > Is this just my warped mind, or do you also find this to be the unspoken argument behind many anti-ssm speeches? > And, btw, I phrased it that way deliberately – the perceived threat always seems to be that guys will turn gay, no one seems to worry about girls. > > Strange? HUH? "subtets? IOW, how YOU think that they’re thinking? This is how you’re percieving arguments by people who are against gay marriages? I’ve not heard or read any reasons/arguments, other than 2 or 3 by some of my family members. And THEIR reasons are far FAR different, and don’t even come close to what you’re thinking people mean here. Not disagreeing with you, just surprised and confused that this is what people (who I’ve obviously not had the opportunity to hear :D) are arguing as reasons. If that’s true, it makes me laugh. If those people really believe that, they they must have some serious fear going on. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/58 "2004-03-06T05:03:59Z")
> [@CanvasShoes](#): > > I’ve not heard or read any reasons/arguments, other than 2 or 3 by some of my family members. And THEIR reasons are far FAR different, and don’t even come close to what you’re thinking people mean here. So what are their reasons, then? ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/59 "2004-03-06T05:33:12Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > Spare us the sanctimonious PC posturing. If the term is OK with the ACLU, I don’t see that you have any cause to bitch about it. Spare us the sanctimonious appeal to authority. If **kaylasdad99** has an issue with the terminology being used, what the fuck does the ACLU’s definition have to do with anything? Or did you decide on our behalf that we’d be using it? > [@](#): > > What this says to me is, “I’m a lazy moron who couldn’t be bothered to look after my own interests.” Yeesh, no doubt. They should have just gotten married or something… ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/60 "2004-03-06T06:14:47Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > I dunno. What kind of head-in-the-sand tantrum-throwing is this? I notice you have still failed to show why I must show that my love is good for YOU before I’m worthy of equality. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520.md?page=4)