# To those opposed to gay marriage: Why? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 4, 2004, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013 "2004-11-04T18:24:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![scott\_evil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@scott\_evil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scott_evil)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/81 "2004-11-05T15:15:04Z")
I’m legally marrying my same-sex partner in two weeks. I’ve had a lot of time to reflect on what it means to me on many levels, least of all legally. As well, what happened in 11 U.S. states on Tuesday has further strengthened my political view, which I didn’t think could get any stronger or ardent. I wish I could say that I cannot understand why people can’t follow the logical flowchart that supports gay marriage, and further, gay marriage over gay civil unions. However, I’m not surprised, because in my opinion, fear of losing power - real or imagined - can severely cripple one’s ability to think clearly, logically, and outside the box, if necessary. Here’s how it goes, as far as I’m concerned: The state does not require anyone to be married in a place of worship, nor does it require that a wedding be performed by a member of the clergy. We can get married in a church, a courtroom, a backyard, or in a cave. The officiant can be a member of the clergy, a judge, a justice of the peace, or anyone else legally empowered to perform such a union. Therefore, the state has no claim in, or opinion regarding, the religious aspect present in the majority of weddings. What the state is immediately concerned with is the legal contract of partnership that is being agreed to by two consenting human adults. (I say “consenting adults” in order to reinforce that the bestial or pedophilic arguments are ridiculous.) If the state restricted the authority to perform marriages to clergypeople, that would be a different matter altogether. And no Canadian province - and eventually, the federal government - is going to force any church to perform a gay marriage against its will. They have pledged to not do so, respecting religious freedom in our Charter of Rights and Freedms. Various denominations and even individual congregations therein are free to choose whether or not they will perform such ceremonies. Still, the state has recognized and ruled that the right to religious freedom does not trump the right of all citizens to enjoy equal protection and benefits under the law. If I am subject to obeying the same laws as everyone else, I am therefore entitled to the same protection and benefits of the law. And our laws includes marriage. It follows that the state cannot deny any two consenting law-abiding and tax-paying adults the right to marriage. Finally, the charters of rights of many provinces forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. No right or freedom enjoyed by a heterosexual can be denied to a homosexual. As for civil unions, or “marriage lite,” a dangerous potential presents itself. Conferring a different legal title on a union can lead to conferring different and lesser rights and obligations. (Let’s not forget the _obligations_ that come with the legal contract of marriage.) I think I’ve stated my position clearly, as well as my understanding of the rationale implicit in the court rulings of several provinces that have quashed their respective bans on gay marriage. I’m not going to justify it any further. Because where I live, there’s no need to justify it at all. ---
**Author:** ![joyfool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@joyfool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joyfool)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/82 "2004-11-05T15:57:25Z")
> [@emarkp](#): > > So are you saying that same-sex couples don’t currently honor, celebrate and commit to their mutual love for one another? > > Again, this points to a legislated validation. It’s not about rights, it’s about appearances. If a same-sex couple believes their relationship is valid, why do they care about that? I’m saying that they are _exactly_ like anyone else… straight, young, old, brown, atheist, whatever. And as such, they care because I’m assuming everyone does. If it’s only about “appearances” in your mind for _them_, than what do you care either? I mean, if your “relationship is valid”, do you need the approval of the government to make it so? Or is that something you’d like for a variety of reasons. That it conveys and cements your feelings for one another, that it gives status and benefits to you as a couple that you wouldn’t otherwise have and it lends legitimacy to your beliefs. For example, look at the election results. Bush won by what? A little over 1% margin. Is that correct? However, people are jumping up and down declaring that this is proof positive of _their_ beliefs versus what Kerry stood for. Same thing with the resounding marriage bans. If that is the case when you only have a portion voting and yet it’s almost split 50/50, how can one not understand that having the weight of tradition? your countries sanction? other humans tolerance? be important??? It truly works the same on both side, IMHO. Of course, I still might be too tied up to this emotionally, but my heart keeps breaking for those who aren’t afforded the same luxury as heterosexual for typically non-sound reasons. Again, IMHO though. Secondly, thanks for your clarification on that second part. I still disagree, as evidenced by what our history has already been through, but a backlash was indeed present. I feel why was due to fear mongering, but that’s irrelevant. I’m positive that at some point this will no longer be an issue and the folks who fought so ardently for preventing it from happening will be sorely disappointed in how little our future generations care about who sleeps with whom. It’s inevitable. I just pray that it happens in my lifetime and that we don’t lose many good people to despair and frustration while they wait. Last of all, I feel many point to civil unions as the answer of something that _would_ pass in place of the more strident push for the co-use of ‘marriage.’ However, it’s easy to say something would happen when there is absolutely no chance of there being an opportunity. Although those who _might_ vote in that direction would follow through, there are plenty more that would then be galvanized into action AGAINST if that was what was than on the ballot/ticket. They are the ones who voted in record numbers on Tuesday. If they think they are threatened, they’ll come out in droves. And if this was truly close in any way to being a reality, you’d see more and more of them. How do I know this? I used to believe the exact same way and I was motivated to _protect_ what I viewed as God given. I guess we’ll see though, because that will undoubtedly be the next step. If so, what will everyone do who decried that it was pushiness, etc. preventing gay marriage, when the fact will show (probably) that wasn’t the case? At least, that’s my experience anyway. I hope I’m proven wrong and quickly. However, I fear it’ll be a long time coming before any true headway is made. ---
**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:** [November 5, 2004, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/83 "2004-11-05T17:48:18Z")
> [@emarkp](#): > > Again, this points to a legislated validation. It’s not about rights, it’s about appearances. If a same-sex couple believes their relationship is valid, why do they care about that? Apologies. I should have used the term “equivalent”. Aside from that, passing a law or getting a judge to rule in your favor won’t make something that’s opposed by so many people suddenly become acceptable to them. Exactly what the opponents of civil rights legislation said in the early '60s. The old bigots never got with the new ways. But as a new generation grew up, they found that sharing a school or a water fountain with black people was not the end of the world, and a lot of background bigotry, that was around even in the North where I grew up, went away. Not that things are perfect, but they are sure a lot better. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, if proponents of same-sex marriage were really after results instead of appearances, they’d go after civil unions first–which far fewer people oppose. Except that there are a lot of government benefits not available to those in civil unions. If those against SSM on the right were busy sponsoring legislation to ensure that all rights were available to those in same sex civil unions (I have problems with heterosexual ones, since marriage is available) then I’d believe their protestations of fairness a lot more. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/84 "2004-11-05T18:37:16Z")
> [@Jon the Geek](#): > > Um, but I can’t understand how a **woman** could be attracted to a man, either. To me, the only things that make any sense whatsoever are lesbian couples (note that I’m a heterosexual man)… and yet plenty of people are attracted to men, so I accept that (and, in the case of women attracted to men, am quite pleasantly surprised by it). Why is a heterosexual man expected to accept that women can be attracted to men just as said hetero man is attracted to women, but not accept any of the other combinations? Because you grow up your whole life seeing mostly, or exclusively, opposite sex couples. You don’t have to think about why a woman would be attracted to a man, because you see 100s of examples every day of your life. And it does kinda make sense that they SHOULD be attracted to men, doesn’t it? I mean, how could we exist if they weren’t? It takes a lot more thinking and understanding to figure out that two guys or two women could be attracted to each other. That’s what I meant when I said it was counterintuitive earlier. > [@](#): > > That part **is** heartening. Things may continue to not make sense to some of us for a while, but, in the long run, it’ll take a theocracy to stop us from moving forward, and I don’t **think** we’re going to actually go there (knock on wood). No, but it might take a generation or two. This is an emotional issue for the older folks, not an intellectual issue. It’s very, very hard to overcome an emotional barrier with simple logic. I don’t say that to discourage people from trying, but just to emphasize that you have to do more than just say: You’re a bigot and your argument doesn’t hold together. Most anti-SSM folks aren’t really making an argument in the first place. They just “feel” that it isn’t right. It reminds me of trying to convince someone that holding on to unrequited love is not logical. Of COURSE it’s not logical, but logic isn’t the root of the problem. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/85 "2004-11-05T19:20:45Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Umm, YES! And you just _don’t_ get it, do you? That’s why you keep losing. Now look- _I personally have absolutely no objections to gay marriage_. But I understand why the older generation does- it is too much, too damn fast. It’s simply not traditional. But- note that few, if any have problems with “civil unions”- or giving “same-sex unions” all, I mean every single thing that goes with marriage- **except the name**. In other words, the Conservatives and Traditionalist are willing to give up 99%. Can’t you wait a generation for the other 1%? . The problem is, IMO, that if they ask only 99%, people opposed to SSM might fight against them getting more than 90%, and if they ask only 90%, people might fight against therm getting more than 80%, and so on. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/86 "2004-11-05T19:50:33Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > The problem is, IMO, that if they ask only 99%, people opposed to SSM might fight against them getting more than 90%, and if they ask only 90%, people might fight against therm getting more than 80%, and so on. This is the way I see it. Most people would approve having civil unions. They don’t want to stop gay people from visiting their partners in the hospital and stuff like that. They may not want to give any special tax breaks to gay couples, but very few people want to prohibit gays from getting on with their lives. For instance, CA voted down SSM very decisively a few years ago, but next year will enact a pretty comprehensive [domestic partnership](http://www.mcjonline.com/news/03a/20030922b.shtml) law. I think this is a winning proposition for gays in most states. Marriage just isn’t going to fly right now. So I don’t see a ratching down to nothing scenario which you imply in your post. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/87 "2004-11-05T20:02:12Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > The problem is, IMO, that if they ask only 99%, people opposed to SSM might fight against them getting more than 90%, and if they ask only 90%, people might fight against therm getting more than 80%, and so on. Slipperly slope fallacy. Especially since the voters & legislatures have shown themselves to be perfectly willing to pass domestic partnership or similar bills. In other words- you/they _get everything but the name_. Live with it. It’s not fair, but neither is Life. ---
**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:** [November 5, 2004, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/88 "2004-11-05T20:27:32Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Umm, YES! And you just _don’t_ get it, do you? That’s why you keep losing. Now look- _I personally have absolutely no objections to gay marriage_. But I understand why the older generation does- it is too much, too damn fast. It’s simply not traditional. But- note that few, if any have problems with “civil unions”- or giving “same-sex unions” all, I mean every single thing that goes with marriage- **except the name**. In other words, the Conservatives and Traditionalist are willing to give up 99%. Can’t you wait a generation for the other 1%? And if you can’t - you could lose it all. You’re pushing too hard, and going too fast, and the Tradionalists, the Deeply Religous and the Conservatives are about to push back. Look here at CMKeller, a mostly liberal poster- but he is opposed to Same-sex marriage. But _not_- if I have read him right- to “civil unions”. (Right CM?). No, I **don’t** get it. That denying marriage to gays creates numerous, serious hardships is incontrovertible. Civil unions would be nice, but it would mean going step by step through the laws and creating identical legislation for every single right conveyed by marriage. And each step _will_ be fought tooth and nail by the bigots out there, and not all of those battles will be won. And, because these are new laws, they won’t be protected by the centuries of precedent that protect marriage laws, and they’ll all be subject to challenge after challenge, and we won’t win all of those, either. It’ll be a fuckin’ miracle if civil unions end up conveying _half_ the right of marriage. We can fight a thousand individual battles, or we can fight one. I’m going to just fight for the one, if its all the same to you. And if you’ve got any sense at all, you’ll agree with me, if for no other reason than money. Can you even imagine how many millions and millions of dollars it’ll cost to get even a half-assed civil union arrangement passed into law in this country? And we’re supposed to go through all of that crap just because “that’s the way it’s always been?” Can anyone look me in the eye and honestly tell me that this makes any fucking sense whatsoever? > [@](#): > > _Why do you have to settle for 99%? That’s not fair?_ Yes, it’s _not_ fair- and you \*do \*have to settle for 99%- as that is a simple political reality. Sometimes that’s the way it is is, fair or not. Get used to it. > > Look- settle for 99% now, and a generation from now (maybe less) you’ll get the rest. Push it, and you may set “the movement” back a decade. No, we don’t have to settle. And we’re not going to settle. And we already know it’s going to take a long time. It’s already taken since the '60s to get this far. It’ll probably take until the '60s until we’re done. But if we don’t push _now_, if we “give it time,” and “wait for people to come around,” it’s never going to happen at all. If we don’t push, the movement ain’t moving anywhere. The majority has _never_ granted rights to the minority out of the goodness of theirs hearts, not in this or any other nation. We have to demand our rights, and fight for them, and keep fighting until we get them. That’s the _only_ way to equality. > [@](#): > > Your choice. _“Choose wisely”._ Ah. Argumentum ad Indiana. Not particularly persuasive, I’m afraid. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/89 "2004-11-05T21:07:23Z")
I wish people would stop confusing “the older generation” with anti-gay conservatism. Both my parents—born in 1921—were for gay marriage. I know a lot of people in their 70s, 80s and even 90s who are left-wing liberals. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/90 "2004-11-05T21:19:50Z")
To everyone: I apologize for not having had time to address your questions/comments to me today. I will, G-d willing, get to them Saturday night. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/91 "2004-11-05T21:23:19Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > I wish people would stop confusing “the older generation” with anti-gay conservatism. Both my parents—born in 1921—were for gay marriage. I know a lot of people in their 70s, 80s and even 90s who are left-wing liberals. True, but there is no denying that a majority of older folks are against gay marriage and a majority of younger folks are OK with it. Now, some of those younger folks may become more conservative as they get older, but it’s unlikely the older folks are going to change their minds. But if people keep their current views, and if the kids growing up now are also OK with SSM, then it should be made legal eventually. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/92 "2004-11-05T21:43:47Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > No, I **don’t** get it. > > 1. That denying marriage to gays creates numerous, serious hardships is incontrovertible. > > 2.Civil unions would be nice, but it would mean going step by step through the laws and creating identical legislation for every single right conveyed by marriage. > > 3And each step _will_ be fought tooth and nail by the bigots out there, and not all of those battles will be won. > > 1. It’ll be a fuckin’ miracle if civil unions end up conveying _half_ the right of marriage. > > 5 We can fight a thousand individual battles, or we can fight one. I’m going to just fight for the one, if its all the same to you. And if you’ve got any sense at all, you’ll agree with me, if for no other reason than money. > > 6Can you even imagine how many millions and millions of dollars it’ll cost to get even a half-assed civil union arrangement passed into law in this country? > > 7 And we’re supposed to go through all of that crap just because “that’s the way it’s always been?” Can anyone look me in the eye and honestly tell me that this makes any fucking sense whatsoever? (some snippage and broke a long paragraph down into numbered points so that I can respond to each- I changed not a word) 1. Nonsense- it is completely “controvertible”. Denying “Marriage” creates no hardships whatsover- since everything but the name can & has been granted in “domestic partnership” laws. 2. Already out there in many juristictions, with few problems- where have you been the last decade? In fact, there likely is some version of a “domestic partnership” law where you live, and there’l soon be domestic partnership right here in your/our own state (from the link John Mace gave us, just because it was right there): “California became the second state to award homosexual couples most of the rights of married couples when Governor Gray Davis signed a domestic partner bill into law Sept. 21. The bill, which won’t take effect until January 2005, doesn’t use the words “marriage” or “civil union” but nonetheless grants homosexual couples who are registered with the state dozens of rights and responsibilities previously given only to married couples. The California law covers a wide range of areas, including health coverage and parental status. For example, homosexual couples will now be able to take extended unpaid leave to care for an ill partner.” Or- weren’t you aware of this? 3. And this bill did have some minor opposition, and still does- but it passed- easily. And “same-sex marriage” laws were voted down (here in CA mind you) by a significant majority. So you CAN have a 'domestic partnership law" but you can’t have “same-sex marriage”- _like it or no_t. 4. Looks like the law aready on the damn books gives like 90% of the rights- hey look - a MIRACLE! :rolleyes: 5. You can do that- and you’ll lose every damn time. Time after time. For about a decade, I’ll guess. And all that time, while fighting a fruitless battle, you’ll go without those rights which you say are so critical. OR- get 99% of those rights NOW, and the other 1% that same decade from now- or maybe not, since the backlash could come you know. In fact, I see signs of it. So- I am not going to agree with you, _because_ of the money- since money spent on trying to pass “same-sex marriage” into law is pouring that money down a rat-hole. Not gonna happen. 6. The CA law cost little so far, and a “same sex marriage law” simply won’t pass. 7. Nope- you’re supposed to “go through all this” because you won’t get all you want, like it or not. “Better half a loaf than none” is true- but in your case the choice is 99% of a loaf- or none. :dubious: Look dude- sometimes there are political realities in life. This is one of them. America- even a State as Liberal as CA- just ain’t gonna allow a por- “same-sex marriage” bill into law. You can scream, yell, or even hold your breath until you turn blue. But it still won’t happen. And, the more you “act up”, and the more dudes call reasonable guys like Chaim a “homophobic bigot”- then the more of us Moderates you’ll lose. Then, because we see that (even though we support you) it’s not going to happen- you’ll start calling US “homophobic bigots”- then you’ll be back to what 4% of the vote will get you- nothing. “Homophobic- you keep using that word- I do not think that word means what you think it does”. ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/93 "2004-11-05T22:54:58Z")
So, I realize that I’m probably just beating my head against the wall here (and opening myself up to be called “full of it” again), but I’d like to get back to my OP. I really and truly didn’t want to start an argument, I really did want to try to understand the point of view of those opposed to same sex marriage. By way of analogy, abortion is, also, an emotional topic. I am pro-choice. But I can also understand the point of view of those opposed to abortion. I can understand **why** they are opposed, and more importantly I can **respect** that view and I can respect the people who hold it. People opposed to abortion see it as causing harm, a great harm, in that it kills an innocent child. I understand that. I personally feel that that harm is outweighed by other factors, but that doesn’t stop me from being able to respect that point of view. And I would never think of denigrating someone for being anti-abortion. I can’t say that about those who are against gay marriage. So far in this thread, The reasons I’ve seen are: that the purpose of marriage is procreation and the protection of the family; that “it’s always been for a man and a woman”; that people don’t want to change the definition of marriage; and that gay people are not, in fact, being denied the right to marry (as long as it’s someone of the opposite sex). None of those “reasons” speak to any sort of harmful, bad, or even slightly undesirable outcome if same sex marriage was allowed. No one has put forth a reason that is worthy of any respect. No one has put forth a reason that is not, in reality, based on bigotry. No one has even tried to explain how their marriage or my marriage or the institution of marriage or the sacredness of marriage would be **harmed** in any way if the married couple down the street were of the same sex. Those who think that I’m “full of it” and am just asking in order to argue, that’s not true, but even if it were, if you can’t put forth an argument for your position that’s worthy of respect, what choice do you leave me but to think that your reasons arise from nothing but bigotry? (I know, Priceguy told me I’d never get an answer. I keep beating my head against this wall because I just can’t believe that so many people in this country could feel so strongly opposed to something that’s nothing more than a basic freedom, and yet have no rational basis for that opposition). ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2004, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/94 "2004-11-06T00:20:57Z")
> [@Roadfood](#): > > No one has put forth a reason that is worthy of any respect. No one has put forth a reason that is not, in reality, based on bigotry. No one has even tried to explain how their marriage or my marriage or the institution of marriage or the sacredness of marriage would be **harmed** in any way if the married couple down the street were of the same sex. > > Those who think that I’m “full of it” and am just asking in order to argue, that’s not true, but even if it were, if you can’t put forth an argument for your position that’s worthy of respect, what choice do you leave me but to think that your reasons arise from nothing but bigotry? You know “Marriage” is mostly a Tradional thing. Thus, why can’t you accept “that it’s just not Traditional”? Why do you need to call those who are not bigots in anywayshapeprform- bigots? Can’t see see how closed minded- yes perhaps even "bigoted’- that is on your part? They just don’t like change in the way “things have always been”. If someone is willing to support “domestic partnership” laws, but isn’t quite able yet to wrap their mind around “same-sex marriage” they are not bigoted- they are just “old fashioned”, “traditonal” perhaps even “hide bound”. But not bigoted. But I want to congratulate you. I voted for the “gay marriage” prop here in CA. In fact, I even signed the petition. But no more. I am tired of dudes calling people like Chaim a “bigot”. You just lost my vote- because you’re just plain rude. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![laigle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@laigle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/laigle)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2004, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/95 "2004-11-06T00:30:31Z")
> [@emarkp](#): > > A better choice would be equivalence. Men and women are different. Pretending they’re equivalent is ignoring reality. Similarly, male-female relationships are different than same-sex relationships. Black people are different than white people. Thus black-white relationships are different than black-black or white-white relationships. Thus we should outlaw interracial marriage. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![scott\_evil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@scott\_evil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scott_evil)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2004, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/96 "2004-11-06T02:49:22Z")
The “life isn’t fair, so deal with it” is the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever heard against pressing for a just and equitable society. The idea that we should settle for crumbs thrown on the ground with insincere and snide generosity, while the rest of you dine in first class, is just plain insulting. Please, Sir, can I have some more? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2004, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/97 "2004-11-06T04:32:35Z")
> [@scott evil](#): > > I’m legally marrying my same-sex partner in two weeks. Congrats. So, for which gay anniversary is the traditional gift leather? Or is it all of them? 😃 ---
**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:** [November 6, 2004, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/98 "2004-11-06T05:06:20Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 1. Nonsense- it is completely “controvertible”. Denying “Marriage” creates no hardships whatsover- since everything but the name can & has been granted in “domestic partnership” laws. Patently false. There is no way, to pick the most obvious example, for same-sex spouses to gain access to each other’s Social Security benefits. The same Social Security both of them have (one assumes) been paying into for their entire working lives. > [@](#): > > 1. Already out there in many juristictions, with few problems- where have you been the last decade? In fact, there likely is some version of a “domestic partnership” law where you live, and there’l soon be domestic partnership right here in your/our own state (from the link John Mace gave us, just because it was right there): "California became the second state to award homosexual couples most of the rights of married couples when Governor Gray Davis signed a domestic partner bill into law Sept. 21. Yeah. Most. In the most liberal state in the union, with the largest population of gays. We managed to get “most” of the rights of marriage. Hip hip hooray. I feel so very, very equal. > [@](#): > > The bill, which won’t take effect until January 2005, doesn’t use the words “marriage” or “civil union” but nonetheless grants homosexual couples who are registered with the state dozens of rights and responsibilities previously given only to married couples. Dozens… out of _over one thousand._ This is supposed to make me feel better? > [@](#): > > 1. And this bill did have some minor opposition, and still does- but it passed- easily. And “same-sex marriage” laws were voted down (here in CA mind you) by a significant majority. So you CAN have a 'domestic partnership law" but you can’t have “same-sex marriage”- _like it or not_. I don’t like it. I’m not gonna like it until we have full, 100%, total equality. I don’t care how long it takes. > [@](#): > > 1. Looks like the law aready on the damn books gives like 90% of the rights- hey look - a MIRACLE! :rolleyes: 90% my ass. But never mind that: why do you expect me to be happy, or even content, with being ninety percent as much a citizen as everyone else? Yes, it’s better than nothing. But it’s not nearly as good as everything. Would _you_ settle for 90% of your rights as an American citizen? Especially if you didn’t get any say in which rights the majority would deign to grant you? > [@](#): > > 1. You can do that- and you’ll lose every damn time. Time after time. For about a decade, I’ll guess. And all that time, while fighting a fruitless battle, you’ll go without those rights which you say are so critical. OR- get 99% of those rights NOW, and the other 1% that same decade from now- or maybe not, since the backlash could come you know. In fact, I see signs of it. So- I am not going to agree with you, _because_ of the money- since money spent on trying to pass “same-sex marriage” into law is pouring that money down a rat-hole. Not gonna happen. Bullshit. You know why we have the partial rights we have now? Because gays have spent forty years demanding _all_ the rights. The gay rights movement didn’t start with Gavin Newsome, you know. When it started, homosexuality was _grounds for commital_. Gays fought - hard - for four decades to get to the point where most Americans were willing to “grant” us civil unions. Get it? That law didn’t get passed in California because mainstream America started out being mostly okay with gays. They started out hating us _even more_ than they do know, and because we were “shrill,” because we “pushed too hard,” we’ve managed to make it all the way up to second class citizen. Why on Earth do you think we’re going to stop now? > [@](#): > > 1. The CA law cost little so far, and a “same sex marriage law” simply won’t pass. Yet. > [@](#): > > 1. Nope- you’re supposed to “go through all this” because you won’t get all you want, like it or not. “Better half a loaf than none” is true- but in your case the choice is 99% of a loaf- or none. :dubious: By your own cite, I’ve already got half a loaf. Why I should be content with half a loaf when every one else gets a full one is something you still have yet to explain. > [@](#): > > Look dude- sometimes there are political realities in life. This is one of them. America- even a State as Liberal as CA- just ain’t gonna allow a por- “same-sex marriage” bill into law. You can scream, yell, or even hold your breath until you turn blue. But it still won’t happen. Yes it will. So long as we never settle for less than full citizenship, sooner or later, we will get marriage. We are _never_ going to stop demanding it until we get it. Never. There’re two ways to make us shut up: give us what we want, or force us back into the closet at gunpoint. There is no middle ground. > [@](#): > > And, the more you “act up”, and the more dudes call reasonable guys like Chaim a “homophobic bigot”- then the more of us Moderates you’ll lose. Then, because we see that (even though we support you) it’s not going to happen- you’ll start calling US “homophobic bigots”- then you’ll be back to what 4% of the vote will get you- nothing. I’m not calling him a homophobe, but I’m sorry: his position is not reasonable. He is basing a denial of a basic human right to a huge number of people on the basis of _semantics_. That’s not reasonable: that’s irrational. > [@](#): > > “Homophobic- you keep using that word- I do not think that word means what you think it does”. Just to make this absolutely clear: I’m also not calling you a homophobe. I don’t think you’re a bigot. I don’t think you have a clue about what you’re saying, but I believe that you are saying it in earnest good faith. I want to make sure that’s clear before I say this: Would you please stop with the cutesie movie quotes? I find it very offensive and trivializing about an issue which I think is very important, and if it were not for the caveats mentioned in my previous paragraph, I’d probably think you were including them for that specific purpose. I’m not making a demand, because I don’t have the right to make that demand of you. I’m asking as a favor: knock it off. ---
**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:** [November 6, 2004, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/99 "2004-11-06T05:17:31Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > Another reason to oppose gay marriage. Many heteros see homosexuality as a _choice_. Note that in some cases this is obviously so. There are bisexuals who sometimes enjoy having sex with a member of the opposite gender, and at other times having sex with a person of the same gender. Some who oppose gay marriage do so as to discouraging people to choose a premanent partner of the same sex. I wanted to adress this earlier, but forgot: I’m bisexual. I did not choose to be bisexual. I struggled with it for years before I accepted it. I’m lucky in that, unlike many homosexuals, I never had to try and pretend to like the opposite sex. I never had to live a lie, and if I wanted to, I could easily live my entire life in the closet and still lead a happy life. My “struggle” was small cheese compared to most. But I never chose my orientation. ---
**Author:** ![Cerri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3bc359/32.png) [@Cerri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerri)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2004, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/100 "2004-11-06T05:46:36Z")
[http://www.freep.com/news/metro/cooper14e\_20041014.htm](http://www.freep.com/news/metro/cooper14e_20041014.htm) > [@](#): > > Proposal 2 would have us revise the Michigan Constitution to ban gay marriages and civil unions. For guidance on how to vote, I need only to remember how another marriage ban robbed my ancestors of a basic human right. > > A love story > My great-grandparents, Mary and Logan, met in rural Virginia in the late 1800s. He was a white planter descended from a family that built a fortune growing peanuts. She was a mixed-race midwife who also worked as a cook in Logan’s kitchen. > By all accounts, they were devoted to each other, but under Virginia’s antimiscegenation laws, which dated to 1691, it was illegal for them to marry. According to attorney and author Phyl Newbeck in his book, “Virginia Hasn’t Always Been for Lovers,” the laws against interracial marriage were grounded in the desire to preserve slavery. Children who were half-white, half-black would “obscure the racial barriers necessary for the maintenance of the system,” he writes. > But the more common justification was the enforcement of God’s “natural law.” > “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red and he placed them on separate continents,” wrote a Virginia appeals court judge as late as 1965. “The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” > Not only was intermarriage considered anti-Christian, it was deemed morally repugnant. “Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit,” said Georgia’s Sen. Seaborn Roddenberry in 1912. “Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy.” The more things change, the more the stay the same, it would appear. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013.md?page=6)