# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/141 "2004-11-08T23:03:15Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > Marriage is the beginning of a family, not merely a union of agreeable adults. To apply the word to a union that is by its nature incapable of this would not be correct. Really? So because I’m sterile my coming marriage is incorrect? ---
**Author:** ![prisoner6655321](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f8ce5/32.png) [@prisoner6655321](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/prisoner6655321)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/142 "2004-11-08T23:08:25Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, the bible is fortunately not the basis for laws in the United States, or at least it shouldn’t be. I feel _you_ are misguided because your using your faith as a weapon and the “healthy world” you describe is really only healthy for you and those with similar beliefs, and not for anyone else. See the thing is that the people that act the way that I (as interpreting the bible) believe that they should act actually do live healthy lives and raise healthy children. If they don’t, then you can probably point at a sin in their lives, like selfishness, anger, resentment, basically un-christlike behaviour as the culprit. People (in America) that model themselves after Christ live fabulous lives (today). What is wrong with this belief? Do you disagree? I’m tired of this argument. We could go on and on. I have answered the OP. To defend myself is useless in this “worldy” discussion group. ---
**Author:** ![SusanStoHelit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@SusanStoHelit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SusanStoHelit)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/143 "2004-11-09T00:00:17Z")
> [@prisoner6655321](#): > > Chapter and verse please. You have only to ask: > [@](#): > > Deu 24:1-4 > "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, > > (Deu 24:2) > and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, > > (Deu 24:3) > and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, > > (Deu 24:4) > then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance. So while God obviously doesn’t _like_ divorce (explained, as you noted, in Matthew, Mark, and Luke), it is biblically permitted under certain circumstances due to the “hardness of our hearts.” ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/144 "2004-11-09T00:00:57Z")
> [@prisoner6655321](#): > > The world is crumbling. Not too many Leave it to Beaver type shows on TV anymore now are there? This is just your opinion. Of course, some of us are happy that there aren’t shows like Beaver on today, but I think you’ll find a lot of people disagree about the general state of the world. You need to provide more information as to why you think it’s crumbling. > [@](#): > > Yes, a gay couple can DEVELOP loving feelings for an adopted child. But a natural parent is INSTANTLY in love with the newborn. Cite? Tell that to a child who’s been abandoned immediately after birth, but adopted and loved by the new parents. > [@](#): > > And I would PLEASE like to hear some examples about how a gay marriage helps society. AFAICT gays want all the rights that come with marriage without giving any responsibility to society. Like women’s lib, it appears selfish to me. To you. It hardly seems “selfish” to me. As far as what benefits gay marriage would have for society, it seems to me they’re the same as the benefits of straight marriage, which is to say, they’re benefits to the _couple_. I’m not clear on exactly what the benefits to society are in either case, other than fewer single people trolling bars, and usually having theatre seats sell in pairs. If you’re talking about raising children, there are studies going both ways (so to speak), claiming same-sex parents are equally capable (or no)t of raising children as their hetero counterparts. Personally, I tend to view the studies that are pro same-sex parents as being more valid, but that’s my opinion. One thing that has, I believe, been determined is that the sexuality of a parent doesn’t guarantee the sexuality of a child. > [@](#): > > It wasn’t just Matthew. Mark 10:11 also says that any man that marries someone after his first wife commits adultury. Luke 16:18 says the same thing. Still, I get your point. People make mistakes. As far as the world is concerned marriage could be one of them. Obviously divorce won’t ever be outlawed. I just would like it if it were and it was more difficult to get married. Don’t forget, many people don’t consider the Bible to be the final authority on law in the 21st century. > [@](#): > > No, I meant that children will (be more likely to) follow their parents example if the two parents show their deep love and affection for one another. On this I tend to agree. I just think this idea applies equally to children of same-sex parents. > [@](#): > > And I can assure you that I don’t lust for biblical power over you. I believe that you are misguided. I believe that the specifics you mentioned are among the best ways to lead to a healthy world. Just my personal belief. Not an attack. But that is the reason why I am against gay-marriage. Fine. It’s your opinion. But, why should _your_ opinion be the one that we’re all forced to abide by? What difference would it make to you in your life if your neighbors were a gay couple? You’ve suggested that having gay neighbors might give your kids ideas you don’t approve, but do you think that would make your children “turn gay?” It doesn’t work like that. Have you ever had gay neighbors? Maybe you should get to know a gay couple before deciding how you feel about their rights and privileges in our society. ---
**Author:** ![SusanStoHelit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@SusanStoHelit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SusanStoHelit)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/145 "2004-11-09T00:23:02Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, for starters. Damn you **Bryan Ekers** and your stupid sexy research skills! > [@prisoner](#): > > I’m tired of this argument. We could go on and on. I have answered the OP. To defend myself is useless in this “worldy” discussion group. So where are you going to go? A christian discussion group? A SMDB debate with Dopers is intellectual _intercourse_ A Church debate with other Christians is intellectual _masturbation_ Only one of these unions has any chance of being fruitful 😉 ---
**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 9, 2004, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/146 "2004-11-09T00:31:50Z")
> [@prisoner6655321](#): > > think that a lot of us have been hoodwinked by Women’s Lib. It was a selfish… aww forget it. Am I the only one who spotted this? That little slip is very telling of where your head is. What a strange, archaic little world you live in. ---
**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 9, 2004, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/147 "2004-11-09T00:37:56Z")
> [@prisoner6655321](#): > > See the thing is that the people that act the way that I (as interpreting the bible) believe that they should act actually do live healthy lives and raise healthy children. If they don’t, then you can probably point at a sin in their lives, like selfishness, anger, resentment, basically un-christlike behaviour as the culprit. People (in America) that model themselves after Christ live fabulous lives (today). What is wrong with this belief? Do you disagree? Yes, I disagree. Christian Americans live fabulous lives? Then why is there crime/unhappiness in the U.S. (where Christians are the vast majority of the population)? Is all the crime being performed by non-Christians, or something? Overall, though, you seem to have the impression that the _only_ way to lead a “fabulous” life is through the New Testament. Similarly, the _only_ way a marriage can work (and should be legal) is if it is heterosexual. You haven’t offered proof of either premise and you’re ignoring any contrary evidence. > [@](#): > > To defend myself is useless in this “worldy” discussion group. Well, we’re only “worldly” because we live in the, y’know, world. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/148 "2004-11-09T01:09:14Z")
> [@Roadfood](#): > > You spoke earlier that a family composed of one father and one mother is the best for rasing children. I won’t argue with that either, [. . .] Then I will. The closest thing to a universal “traditional” family structure that I’m aware of is an extended family (typically multi-generational) and community, interlocked and mutually supporting. Limiting the question to the care of children, there are the following factors: First of all, children are a _lot_ of work. Traditionally, that work has been distributed among members of a large community so that individuals are not overwhelmed by it. The development of the “nuclear family” produced tremendous social isolation and overwork, generally for the women in those relationships, because they were put in a position where they were expected to do more than their actual capacity. Even in this context, however, there is some distribution of labor, as schoolteachers, coaches, and other adults who are responsible for the upbringing of the children. Further, families have responded to this overwork by clubbing together to form mutually supportive groups (for example, my parents and other parents on my street were members of a “babysitting co-op” in which parents traded vouchers for childcare around). Further, most adults will find that there is some age of child that they’re completely unable to deal with. Stereotypically, this is teenagerdom, but this is not a universal; I know a woman who provides foster care for troubled teens in part because she’s capable of interacting sanely with them and can’t deal with younger children at all. In an extended family, there will likely be someone who is adept at infant care, someone who is skilled at dealing with toddlers, and so on, up until the children are recognised at adulthood. A single pair of adults doesn’t have the resiliency to deal with these possible failure modes without risking harm to the children. An extended family unit will leave the children exposed to a number of different people of a variety of ages and roles within the community. Rather than limiting the children to role models as presented by their biological parents, it introduces them to people of their grandparents’ generation (or older, if they’re so lucky as to have surviving great-grandparents) and their collected knowledge (and, with luck, wisdom). It gives them the examples of older children and adolescents so they know what they can expect as they grow older. And it provides them with access to a number of adults of their parents’ generation to talk to, interact with, and take as role models: aunts, uncles, their partners, family friends, and so on. The primary social need of children is stability; children in disrupted homes are more likely to have troubles as adolescents and adults than children from stable ones. (And this is really, IMO, where marriage as for the good of the children comes from; the establishment of formal social ties underscored with economic entanglements promotes stability both by bringing together groups of people and making the dissolution of those bonds non-trivial.) That stability can be and has been produced from a variety of social structures; my personal preference is to look at families within their entire social context, because to break that off closes off avenues that have been, historically, used to keep families stable, and also does not recognise the necessity of distributing the process of child care. ---
**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 9, 2004, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/149 "2004-11-09T01:19:17Z")
Wow, it takes the Village People to raise a child. 😃 Well stated, Lil, but I doubt even exposing prisoner’s generalizations as flawed will deter him. ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/150 "2004-11-09T01:59:17Z")
> [@prisoner6655321](#): > > First off, thanks for being willing to have a reasonable discussion. I hope I can provide it. Yes, you are. I’m just not sure if you’re still around to read this, since you got pulled into another kind of argument with others. > [@prisoner6655321](#): > > Now, I thought I explained this before. It’s not about **MY FAMILY**. It’s about the world around us. . . . Children need to be raised by two parents… Absolutely no disagreement from me on this. But what does that have to do with same sex marriages? SSMs don’t produce children, so how would your statement above be changed if two men were allowed to be married? > [@prisoner6655321](#): > > Anyway, the world is collapsing. Same-sex unions further threaten what I think is a healthy family unit. But how? This is the sticking point where you lose me. Look, in case you missed it, I’m not gay myself. I’m happily married to a person of the opposite sex. I whole-heartedly agree with you that a **family** is best when there’s a mother, a father, and children. I agree that children need both a mother and a father. But where I get lost is: what does that have to do with marriage? I mean, in logic, “a implies b” does not mean that “b implies a”. While I would agree that “family” implies “parents should be married (and of opposite sexes)”, I don’t see where “married” implies that “family” must follow. And, as has been pointed out ad nauseum in this thread, examples abound of a married man and woman who produce no family. So, clearly, marriage between a man and a woman can exist without family, without children, so why can’t marriage exist between two men the same way? > [@prisoner6655321](#): > > Children are too young to be tolerant This I disagree with. In my experience, children are born tolerant. It’s their parents who teach them intolerance. > [@prisoner6655321](#): > > So unconventional family units are more likely to create more people that don’t support what I think is healthy. Premarital sex, for example. So the world further slips into a hedonistic, selfish, materialistic society. It’s about society, not me. See, I don’t get where this follows. What do unconventional family units have to do with premarital sex? Are you really saying that if children were to grow up in a world that allowed two men to be married, that those children would be **more** likely to engage in premarital sex than the children who are currently growing up? I’m not going to argue with you about whether the world is getting “worse” or not, if you see it that way then that’s what’s true for you. But what I just don’t understand is how allowing same sex marriage would contribute to that. How does SSM make the world more hedonistic? How does SSM make the world more selfish? How does SSM harm society? I see it exactly the opposite. Having SSM illegal makes it **more** likely that gays will be selfish. It’s human nature. If society told me that I couldn’t get married to the person I wanted to, while other people could, I’d be angry. I’d say, “Why should I do anything for society when society isn’t allowing me to just live my life the way I want, and the way so many others are allowed to live?” Call it petty if you will, but it’s human nature. If society showed respect for the relationships of gay couples, society would get respect in return. > [@prisoner6655321](#): > > Marriage is supposed to be a commitment to each other. And like it or not, this commitment is supposed to be willing to say, “if we get pregnant, with one child or 10, we will be willing to do our best to turn those children into great human beings.” I’m not saying that a gay couple has to say this so the marriage isn’t a marriage without it. But a straight couple does. 1-20 couples out of 1000 (depending on the study) that have been sterilized accidentally get pregnant. So marriage for a straight couple has GOT to take children into consideration, even if they don’t want children. There is still a decent chance that they will have them, unless they kill them before they are born. (Oh, that’s another thing that is expected of people today. People are expected to be pro-choice. Obvioiusly I am pro-life.) So that point is that traditional marriages have GOT to legally be considered potential families with children, because the chance is almost always there. There is a distinction between them and same-sex marriages. The potential is there for children to be created. So, you said it yourself: “marriage **for a straight couple** has GOT to take children into consideration”. I won’t argue with that (I don’t agree, but I won’t argue it). But what about that is inconsistent with allowing gay marriage? Marriage for a straight couple will still take children into consideration. And marriage for a gay couple won’t. What’s the problem with that? ---
**Author:** ![prisoner6655321](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f8ce5/32.png) [@prisoner6655321](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/prisoner6655321)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/151 "2004-11-09T03:28:00Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well stated, Lil, but I doubt even exposing prisoner’s generalizations as flawed will deter him. Heheh. Exactly. But not quite. I agree with **Lilarian** but I disagree that it “exposes my generalizations” as flawed. In fact it demonstrates my hypothesis. As you so humorously explained, it takes a village to raise a child. So what happened to the “village”. I’ve lived in small towns before where most people know each other. It’s nothing like the world as it used to be. People may be friends, but next door neighbors don’t bother with raising each other’s children. Proof that the world has changed. And why has it changed? Women leaving the home is part of it. I know it’s not the only reason. The industrial revolution is a large part of it as well. But before you can get the village back, women have to be willing to return home and fulfill their duty to their children. ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/152 "2004-11-09T03:48:22Z")
> [@prisoner6655321](#): > > I’m sorry **Roadfood** , I’m not going to specifically answer each of your questions because you are being too specific. Gay neighbors don’t bother me and my family where I’m at. Again, it’s not the specific circumstances. It’s not about ME. It’s about THE WORLD. Ok, so change my questions to “Does the fact that … have any effect on THE WORLD?” See, I think you’ve missed the point of that hypothetical. You have indicated that you think allowing gay marriage would have some negative effect on the world, or society, or marriage in general. But there are plenty of examples of marriages – between a man and a woman, the kind of marriage that everyone approves of – that are exceedingly dysfunctional or destructive or harmful to the participants in that marriage, and even to their children. Why don’t you believe that such marriages contribute to the decay of modern society? How can you accept marriages like that, which have a clear and obvious detrimental effect, and yet not accept a same sex marriage that has no demonstrable negative effect? > [@prisoner6655321](#): > > But having a non-traditional neighbor family can weaken the traditional family. What happens when there are 20 gay couples living on my block and I have the only traditional family? What will that do to my children? Um, perhaps teach them a tolerance of gay people that seems to be lacking in their parents? Teach them that gays are just people, no different, in any significant way, than themselves? That gay people have loving, monogamous relationships, just like straight people, and are just as entitled to be married as straight people are? That allowing same sex marriages will not hurt them, or their family, or their neighborhood, or their city, or their country, or the world, or society? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/153 "2004-11-09T03:57:39Z")
> [@Roadfood](#): > > Um, perhaps teach them a tolerance of gay people that seems to be lacking in their parents? Teach them that gays are just people, no different, in any significant way, than themselves? That gay people have loving, monogamous relationships, just like straight people, and are just as entitled to be married as straight people are? That allowing same sex marriages will not hurt them, or their family, or their neighborhood, or their city, or their country, or the world, or society? Right there’s your problem. To people like **prisoner** , this IS harmful. It’s an incredibly silly and hidebound viewpoint, in my opinion, but there it is. Remember, this is a poster who’s gone on record here as actually holding the opinion, in 2004, that women belong in the home and not in the workforce. Somehow the entire last 40 years have just whooshed over his head. ---
**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 9, 2004, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/154 "2004-11-09T04:17:10Z")
> [@prisoner6655321](#): > > Heheh. Exactly. But not quite. I agree with **Lilarian** but I disagree that it “exposes my generalizations” as flawed. In fact it demonstrates my hypothesis. As you so humorously explained, it takes a village to raise a child. So what happened to the “village”. I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure it didn’t run and hide because of homosexuality. > [@](#): > > I’ve lived in small towns before where most people know each other. It’s nothing like the world as it used to be. People may be friends, but next door neighbors don’t bother with raising each other’s children. Proof that the world has changed. So, what would be better environment for a child: a hetersexual couple living in suburban isolation, or a gay couple with lots of adult brothers and sisters, involved parents etc. in a support network? What’s the more important factor, sexuality or support? If you worked at an adoption agency and had to decide between a straight couple with no support, and a gay couple with extensive support, how would you decide and why? > [@](#): > > And why has it changed? Women leaving the home is part of it. I know it’s not the only reason. The industrial revolution is a large part of it as well. But before you can get the village back, women have to be willing to return home and fulfill their duty to their children. How is this even slightly relevant to the notion of gay marriage? Can we please save the discussion of the roles of women for another thread? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/155 "2004-11-09T04:29:20Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > How is this even slightly relevant to the notion of gay marriage? Can we please save the discussion of the roles of women for another thread? It’s all of a piece, **Bryan**. He can no more separate his archaic beliefs from each other than he can separate his arm from his body. Homophobia and sexism are two sides of the same coin, and people like **prisoner** prove it. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/156 "2004-11-09T20:55:32Z")
And thus we see: this topic cannot be discussed civilly on this board. And we’re on our way to 48 states with amendments similar to the 11 that passed in this cycle. ---
**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 9, 2004, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/157 "2004-11-09T21:16:23Z")
> [@emarkp](#): > > And thus we see: this topic cannot be discussed civilly on this board. Hey, I’m doing my best! Heh. ---
**Author:** ![Bongmaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Bongmaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bongmaster)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/158 "2004-11-11T20:54:27Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > My quote there was not meant to state that my rationale was religious. It was just to make the point that self-perpetuation as an inherent property of a marriage union is consistent with historical practice. So to boil this down…you don’t want to change the way marriage works because that’s the way we’ve _always_ done it. Let me share a little story with you: [http://www.swordstyle.com/blog/archives/000051.html](http://www.swordstyle.com/blog/archives/000051.html) Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result - all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it. Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted. Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that’s the way it’s always been done around here. I guess the moral is…you don’t have to do what you’ve _always_ done simply because there is a history there. Sometimes its just an experiment that started with a monkey and now its safe to get the bananna. You’ll never know unless you try. And the stakes here are far higher than a bananna…we’re talking about human dignity. ---
**Author:** ![prisoner6655321](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f8ce5/32.png) [@prisoner6655321](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/prisoner6655321)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/159 "2004-11-11T22:18:44Z")
> [@Bongmaster](#): > > So to boil this down…you don’t want to change the way marriage works because that’s the way we’ve _always_ done it. Let me share a little story with you: Haha. Funny story. But it’s already been established that those of us who are against gay marriage aren’t against it because man/woman marriage is the way it’s always been. Read my first post. I outlined two perfectly understandable and logical (if selfish) reasons why some might be against gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013/160 "2004-11-11T22:30:59Z")
Aside from the fact that we still, for the moment, have freedom of religion in this country, **prisoner** , there’s one small problem with your argument: The God upon whose values your argument is based said **explicitly** that He values certain other behaviors above all else, and your intent to condemn others – including me; I’m half of an infertile marriage, remember? – is contrary to what He said to do. It’s not my place to tell you what to do, but I’d suggest a healthy dose of self-examination and repentance for speaking out against His Word in public. May His peace be with you! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-opposed-to-gay-marriage-why/273013.md?page=9)