# What bad things might happen if same-sex couples get married? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 25, 2009, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624 "2009-05-25T23:45:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bb73d2/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Joe_Meager)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/101 "2009-05-26T23:18:17Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > No, they don’t. One of the major arguments for letting two dudes get married is that it’s the same legal structure; all we have to do is cross out the words “bride” and “she” where they occur on the forms. Polygamy brings up a whole mess of new legal questions. So? That’s it? “Legal questions”? That’s all it takes to deny people who love each other the right to marry? “Legal questions”? ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bb73d2/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Joe_Meager)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/102 "2009-05-26T23:25:11Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > 3 does not follow from two. A polygomous marriage is not three people getting married, for example, it is one person getting married to two different people. OK. So, according to you, 3 would follow 2 if it were one person getting married to two different people. OK. I’m pretty sure that’ll still fit my argument. So what if one person gets married to two different people? Three different people. One hundred different people? Person 1 gets married to persons 2, 3, and 4. Person 4 gets married to persons 5 and 6. We have: 1 is married to 2 - 3 - 4 (acceptable, by your reasoning, right?) 2 is married to 1 (and nobody else) 3 is married to 1 (and nobody else) 4 is married to 1 - 5 - 6 5 is married to 4 (and nobody else) 6 is married to 4 (and nobody else) Does this follow both your and my logic? ---
**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:** [May 26, 2009, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/103 "2009-05-26T23:26:46Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](#): > > Ah what the heck, I suppose I’ll be derailing a train wreck by addressing the OP… > > I believe… > > 1. Same-sex couples do have a strong argument in favor of being allowed to marry. So strong, in fact, I agree with them. According to this logic, two guys should be allowed to get married. > > 2. The exact same arguments in favor of same-sex marriage apply, with equal validity, to plural marriages. So strong, in fact, I agree with them. According to this logic, three guys should be allowed to get married. Actually, a lot of them don’t. The only one that applies equally to both situations is, “If it doesn’t hurt anyone, there shouldn’t be a law against it.” All of the other arguments for gay marriage are largely unique to gay marriage. And the thing about that one argument they share - well, it hasn’t necessarily been proven yet. In societies where they have legalized polygamy, there’s a pretty strong case to be made that polygamy has a measurable deleterious effect on society. In fairness, these tend to be strongly patriarchal societies (Saudi Arabia, Mormon splinter cults, etc.), and their model of polygamy would not likely be at all similar to how polygamy would be adopted in the US, if we should ever legalize polygamy. However, the effects of legalized polygamy on our society are still largely unknown. Of course, we’ve never had gay marriage before, so one could argue that legalizing gay marriage is a similar unknown. Except, we do have lots and lots of gays who have been in long-term relationships that are functionally and emotionally (if not legally) identical to straight marriage, and this has done no measurable harm to society. It’s unlikely in the extreme that government recognition of relationships that have been existing for decades is suddenly going to flip us all into chaos and ruination. So, really, there’s very little overlap between gay marriage and polygamous marriage. A case can certainly be made for polygamous marriage, but it will have to be made on its own merits. It is not a necessary extension of gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/104 "2009-05-26T23:29:01Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](#): > > So? That’s it? “Legal questions”? That’s all it takes to deny people who love each other the right to marry? “Legal questions”? I was phrasing it generously. It’s a complete fucking mess, and until someone sets up a viable process for, just off the top of my head, distinguishing who is married to whom in a plural marriage, who gets visitation rights after a divorce, who possesses power of attorney for one or more incapacitated members, proposing it just isn’t realistic. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/105 "2009-05-26T23:56:33Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Are there no heroes left anywhere? I see what you did there. I doff my tophat to you, sir. > [@Miller](#): > > Heh. I misread that as Rob Schneider playing Bob Fosse. Reason enough to stop same-sex marriage right there. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/106 "2009-05-26T23:57:18Z")
> [@meanoldman](#): > > I am not opposed to SSM at all. In fact, if it starts to allow loved ones time at a hospital bedside and all that…then I am all in favor of it. > > However, I am related to someone that is against it. I believe his points regarding “bad things that will happen” go something like this: > > 1. Opens door to ‘other’ things, like men marrying little boys (ala nambla) > 2. People marrying pets or other animals. > 3. People marrying inanimate objects. > > I believe he thinks all libruls are in favor of no rules whatsoever; so of course if we’d allow SSM, then the other types of marriage will follow along shortly. Being purely subjective, and anything goes and all that, what possible code could we libruls or would we libruls use to stop people from marrying anyone or anything they chose, he might say. > > I try to counter with, common sense says leave minor children our of it…and his response is always “If you allow SSM you have to allow everything, or you are a hypocrite.” :dubious: > From that point on, if I try to counter argue, he simply gets louder and louder and repeats himself. > > And as far as people wanting to marry animals or inanimate objects…my son came up with what I thought was a fine answer to that…"Let them. And publish the marriage info. So we know who they are. Wouldn’t you like to know who wants to marry their cat? "😃 Besides what **Miller** said, I’d point out that holding the position that “Any two consenting adult people should be allowed to marry” allows SSM, and disallows all those other things, without hypocrisy. Those other things either aren’t adult, aren’t people, or can’t consent. ---
**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:** [May 27, 2009, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/107 "2009-05-27T00:06:51Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > And the thing about that one argument they share - well, it hasn’t necessarily been proven yet. In societies where they have legalized polygamy, there’s a pretty strong case to be made that polygamy has a measurable deleterious effect on society. In fairness, these tend to be strongly patriarchal societies (Saudi Arabia, Mormon splinter cults, etc.), and their model of polygamy would not likely be at all similar to how polygamy would be adopted in the US, if we should ever legalize polygamy. However, the effects of legalized polygamy on our society are still largely unknown. Here is a specific example. I was in Egypt last month, so this information comes from our guide. Polygamy is legal in Egypt, up to four wives. Divorce is also legal, and can be initiated by either husband of wife. However, if a woman initiates a divorce she must return money received by the man, so it is financially disadvantageous. Men wishing to get divorced do so by adding a wife and making life intolerable for the first one. Now our divorce laws might be more equitable than theirs, but even so it would be hard to prevent this de facto divorce from happening here. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/108 "2009-05-27T00:09:55Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Joe\_Meager](#): > > Ah what the heck, I suppose I’ll be derailing a train wreck by addressing the OP… > > I believe… > > 1. Same-sex couples do have a strong argument in favor of being allowed to marry. So strong, in fact, I agree with them. According to this logic, two guys should be allowed to get married. > > 2. The exact same arguments in favor of same-sex marriage apply, with equal validity, to plural marriages. So strong, in fact, I agree with them. According to this logic, three guys should be allowed to get married. > > 3. In equality between the sexes, so if we allow a man to have multiple wives I think we must allow a woman to have multiple husbands. According to this logic, three guys and three gals should be allowed to get married. > > 4. The number of spouses in a plural marriage should be the judgement of the people being married. (Some) Muslims take four wives, (some) Mormons take five, six, or more wives. If we allow six why not seven? If seven why not eight? Nine? Twelve? More? According to this logic, 2034 men and 2061 women should be allowed to get married. > > Therefore, I think… same-sex marriage = yes, plural marriage = yes, gender equality = yes, no limit on the number of spouses = yes. The resulting mess? > > Every Scientologist will marry each other. > > On a more realistic note - any “family” benefit would need to be extended to all 4095 married people in the above example. “Family” court (divorce court). “Family” rates on goods & services (health insurance). “Family” leave when one of them gets pregnant. > > I think 4095 people in a “marriage” is absurd. But… my line of reasoning logically leads to that result. > > Do you think 4095 people in a “marriage” is realistic? Absurd? Do you agree with my four points? Do you agree they lead to where I think they lead? The potential for literally thousands of people to be “married” to each other. And what about the Scientologists? But where does the slippery slope begin? Maybe it started with allowing two people of the same race to be married, then it was extended to allow inter-racial marriage. If we hadn’t allowed these then there would be no SSM argument. Maybe we should go back to American “tradition” and get rid of inter-racial marriages. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/109 "2009-05-27T00:11:27Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Here is a specific example. I was in Egypt last month, so this information comes from our guide. Polygamy is legal in Egypt, up to four wives. Divorce is also legal, and can be initiated by either husband of wife. However, if a woman initiates a divorce she must return money received by the man, so it is financially disadvantageous. Men wishing to get divorced do so by adding a wife and making life intolerable for the first one. > Now our divorce laws might be more equitable than theirs, but even so it would be hard to prevent this de facto divorce from happening here. The penalty for polygamy is two wives. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/110 "2009-05-27T00:21:06Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Besides what **Miller** said, I’d point out that holding the position that “Any two consenting adult people should be allowed to marry” allows SSM, and disallows all those other things, without hypocrisy. Those other things either aren’t adult, aren’t people, or can’t consent. But why two? Why not just leave the word out? Why keep three people from living the loving happy lives they see for themselves? ---
**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:** [May 27, 2009, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/111 "2009-05-27T00:23:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But why two? Why not just leave the word out? Why keep three people from living the loving happy lives they see for themselves? He was referring to the “Marrying kids, animals, and inanimate objects,” argument, not the polygamy argument. ---
**Author:** ![meanoldman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@meanoldman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/meanoldman)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/112 "2009-05-27T00:46:55Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But why two? Why not just leave the word out? Why keep three people from living the loving happy lives they see for themselves? You do indeed sound a lot like my relative. If we libruls (actually, I am an old school republican) say that there isn’t any difference whether the couple getting married has the same genitals or not; you make up some false argument and pretend that you have an answer. I suggest you shout louder and repeat yourself more frequently. That way, you don’t have to acknowledge how you have no answer to “What is wrong with SSM?” Instead of asking your brilliant question about why don’t we open it up to three people, you should have asked the “Why not 2 people and a sea turtle?” Oh, how that would have sent us reeling. Page 3 of thread. What is the bad thing that will happen if SSM is allowed? ---
**Author:** ![3trew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/13edae/32.png) [@3trew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/3trew)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/113 "2009-05-27T01:38:31Z")
> [@meanoldman](#): > > Page 3 of thread. What is the bad thing that will happen if SSM is allowed? Remember when Canada legalized same sex marriage? Less than a decade later\*, boom, global economic meltdown. Sure, it might not be connected, but can you take that chance? \*I say less than a decade because I can’t be bothered to Google it and it was so much of a non-issue for those not directly affected that I can’t really remember when it happened. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/114 "2009-05-27T02:33:47Z")
> [@meanoldman](#): > > You do indeed sound a lot like my relative. If we libruls (actually, I am an old school republican) say that there isn’t any difference whether the couple getting married has the same genitals or not; you make up some false argument and pretend that you have an answer. What the hell is a “false argument”? I think of arguments being measured by degrees of validity. Then again, I seem to have a better handle on the whole argument thing than you do. > [@meanoldman](#): > > Instead of asking your brilliant question about why don’t we open it up to three people, you should have asked the “Why not 2 people and a sea turtle?” Oh, how that would have sent us reeling. Your desire to place me comfortably in one of the little boxes you’ve built with your wooden mind aside, I didn’t because I there was no need to use a fantastical example. The point is, if it’s okay for you to rejigger the definition to accommodate two people of the same sex, why can’t polygamists rejigger it slightly to accommodate their lifestyle? Fact is, that is a problem for the SSM proponents. And I would contend, that it makes it less of a change to accommodate three people than it does two people of the same sex. Make sense, Sparky? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/115 "2009-05-27T02:54:22Z")
You would be wrong. Sex is irrelevant to marriage. ---
**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:** [May 27, 2009, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/116 "2009-05-27T03:02:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And I would contend, that it makes it less of a change to accommodate three people than it does two people of the same sex. And you’re wrong, because same-sex marriage requires a few minor cut-and-paste operations on the various forms, while 3+ marriage requires new legislation. Divorce alone would take up volumes. It’s definitely not a “slight” change. Actually, I’ve suggested that for 3+ marriages, the best avenue is not to adapt marriage law, but legal partnership law. Model a 3+ marriage after a law firm or medical practice partnership, where structures already exist allowing partners to come and go. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/117 "2009-05-27T03:05:15Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > You would be wrong. Sex is irrelevant to marriage. That’s what you’re arguing, yes. But that is not true traditionally or historically. Now, if you want to hang your empty skull on the same hook with **Snoboarder Bo’s** empty coat and cite the Nuer, be my guest. You guys would make a good team. But I think, HOPE, you’re not that dumb. Actually I hope nobody else is that dumb. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/118 "2009-05-27T03:06:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But why two? Why not just leave the word out? Why keep three people from living the loving happy lives they see for themselves? Would you mind terribly addressing the topic put forth by the title of this thread, as I asked politely [here?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11178272&postcount=69) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/119 "2009-05-27T03:07:32Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > And you’re wrong, because same-sex marriage requires a few minor cut-and-paste operations on the various forms, while 3+ marriage requires new legislation. Divorce alone would take up volumes. It’s definitely not a “slight” change. I meant conceptually, as you would still have the man-woman thing. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624/120 "2009-05-27T03:09:51Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Would you mind terribly addressing the topic put forth by the title of this thread, as I asked politely [here?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11178272&postcount=69) Not right now. And when I do, it won’t be in the pit. God knows it gets contentious enough in GD. Also, I need to have ample time to answer the slews of questions, objections, and counterpoints. It’s a full time job. Believe me, I know. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-bad-things-might-happen-if-same-sex-couples-get-married/497624.md?page=7)