# What is the argument in favor of gay marriage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 4, 2006, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448 "2006-01-04T19:53:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/261 "2006-01-10T14:40:16Z")
I think that **LHoD** is on the right track with his last post. In fact, the state already has civil unions, it just denies them to same-sex couples. While my religious faith causes me to view my marriage as a lifetime commitment that should reflect the biblical ideal of male/female relations, the state simply says that I have entered into an agreement with my wife that can be terminated by both parties for no reason, subject to laws concerning property, income and child support. While we are married, the state grants certain rights and privileges to us that terminate upon divorce. When I married my wife, two completely separate things happened. We made a commitment to each other based on our faith and before our pastor, and we form a state-sanctioned union under the civil law. Many people enter into the state-sanctioned portion of this without any church involvement, and I can’t think of a justification for denying that right to same-sex couples. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/262 "2006-01-10T15:03:57Z")
Broadly speaking, I agree with the concept of separation of church and state, however, I can see why religious bodies would find the idea of devolved civil union and marriage unacceptable or unpalatable; I’m all for allowing same-sex unions, but if this must be done at the expense of state-recognised religious marriage, then it almost vindicates the complaints of the nutters when they complain about the erosion of traditional marriage. I really don’t see the problem with allowing a religious minister to act as the agent by which a civil union is solemnised - so you get married in church(or whatever) and a civil union is assumed to have taken place at the same time. It doesn’t have to be viewed a state endorsement of that religlion, it’s more like the vicar filling in a form on behalf of the happy couple. Of course the state could allow other individuals (including its own registrars) to perform the same service in other contexts religious and otherwise, same-sex and otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/263 "2006-01-10T15:33:17Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I really don’t see the problem with allowing a religious minister to act as the agent by which a civil union is solemnised - so you get married in church(or whatever) and a civil union is assumed to have taken place at the same time. I’ve got no problem with it, as long as **anyone** is equally eligible to be the agent by which a civil union is solemnized. If Pastor Biff can go down to town hall and pay a hundred bucks to become a licensed civil unionist, then Mechanic Joe ought to be able to do the same thing. It needs to be religiously neutral, because holding religious authority is not a relevant distinction between two people when it comes to whether they should be granted governmental power. I’m pretty happy with the idea of SSM as well: my primary concern is about the pricniple of justice, and allowing everyone either to marry the adult they want to marry\* or join in a civil union with the adult they want to join in a civil union with\* satisfies the principle of justice. My slight preference for calling that relationship a civil union is unrelated to the principle of justice. Daniel - With the obvious provisos: both parties must want to get joined, neither party can be already joined with a third party, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/264 "2006-01-10T15:37:35Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I’ve got no problem with it, as long as **anyone** is equally eligible to be the agent by which a civil union is solemnized. If Pastor Biff can go down to town hall and pay a hundred bucks to become a licensed civil unionist, then Mechanic Joe ought to be able to do the same thing. It needs to be religiously neutral, because holding religious authority is not a relevant distinction between two people when it comes to whether they should be granted governmental power. Absolutely; and the point being that if Mechanic Joe wants to call the couple ‘welded’ instead of ‘married’ (and obviously assuming they’re happy with it), then so it should be. I don’t think there should have to be more than one term to describe any particular relationship - the term ‘married’ (or ‘welded’, or whatever) would be taken to automatically imply an underlying civil union. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/265 "2006-01-10T17:30:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why not simply limit incesteous marriage to infertile couples? If an incesteous couple can show surgical sterilization, would you then concede they should be permitted state recognition of their marriage? [This is, in fact, done in some states for first-cousin marriages.](http://www.cousincouples.com/info/states.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/266 "2006-01-10T18:17:13Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I’ve got no problem with it, as long as **anyone** is equally eligible to be the agent by which a civil union is solemnized. If Pastor Biff can go down to town hall and pay a hundred bucks to become a licensed civil unionist, then Mechanic Joe ought to be able to do the same thing. It needs to be religiously neutral, because holding religious authority is not a relevant distinction between two people when it comes to whether they should be granted governmental power. Agreed with one caveat for consideration: In Virginia, one of the requirements for being issued a concealed handgun permit is being able to certify that you have the requisite firearms training. Past military experience, past law enforcement training, and similar credentials meet this requirement. In addition, successful completion of NRA-sponsored handgun courses is sufficient to meet the requirement. Now, the NRA is not a government agency, and you might argue that it’s being unduly favored by this rule. But in fact, since the state knows that the NRA has a process for certifying its instructors and that its courses meet the state need, it makes sense to include them. Other organzations’ courses may also meet the requirement, something that can be decided on a case-by-case basis. I see something similar for churches here. If the rule in a particular state is that a minister of marriage must have certain training (say, about the laws of the state concerning marriage, etc) then Mechanic Joe must somehow demonstrate that. But I’d be amenable to a rule that recognized ministers of established faiths wherein they ALREADY have such training as not requiring any further certifications. ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/267 "2006-01-10T18:50:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Agreed with one caveat for consideration: > > In Virginia, one of the requirements for being issued a concealed handgun permit is being able to certify that you have the requisite firearms training. Past military experience, past law enforcement training, and similar credentials meet this requirement. In addition, successful completion of NRA-sponsored handgun courses is sufficient to meet the requirement. > > Now, the NRA is not a government agency, and you might argue that it’s being unduly favored by this rule. But in fact, since the state knows that the NRA has a process for certifying its instructors and that its courses meet the state need, it makes sense to include them. Other organzations’ courses may also meet the requirement, something that can be decided on a case-by-case basis. > > I see something similar for churches here. If the rule in a particular state is that a minister of marriage must have certain training (say, about the laws of the state concerning marriage, etc) then Mechanic Joe must somehow demonstrate that. But I’d be amenable to a rule that recognized ministers of established faiths wherein they ALREADY have such training as not requiring any further certifications. But that is not the case (certainly not in VA). I am one of those ordained-on-the-internet ministers and have performed two weddings. The first was in PA where there are no requirements for who can do it. You can even get a self-marrying license where you perform the ceremony yourself and have a couple witnesses sign. The second was in VA. They only let ordained ministers (they do not let internet-ordained people perform them) or select government agents do it. You may say that they are ensuring that those who perform the ceremonies know the law, but they actually allow private citizens to get a one-time marrying license… if they put down a $500 bond. There is not training that comes with it, just lay down the cash and fill out the form. Thus they only seem to be making it difficult for your average citizen to perform the ceremony, not ensuring any level of competence. ---
**Author:** ![Serket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Serket](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Serket)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/268 "2006-01-10T19:14:23Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Yes. Cite? This is in regard to societies where no one reviled homosexuality. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/269 "2006-01-10T19:18:23Z")
In that case, **Bricker** , I’d think the correct approach would be to allow private agencies to become licensed to license people to provide marriage licenses :). That is, if the Southern Baptist Convention wants all its pastors to be able to marry people, they need to demonstrate to the state that they have a good program (analogous to how universities become accredited, albeit much less intense). Once they’ve demonstrated the satisfactory rigor of their program, they’ll be trusted to pass along the requisite knowledge to their pastors. If Bob’s School of Car Repair and Embroidery wants to license all its mechanics and knitters, they’d go through the exact same process as the Southern Baptist convention. How’s that sound? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Serket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Serket](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Serket)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/270 "2006-01-10T19:26:11Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > I am pro-SSM, and anti-incest. > > I do not believe children are capable of making the decision of who to sleep with - I don’t think they have matured to the point that 1) they actively want a sexual relationship and 2) are capable of sound reasoning and judgement. > > Adults, generally, are capable of making that decision - as they are capable of deciding who is the partner for them. > > Please point out the hypocrisy for me. There is nothing about incest that makes it inheritanly involved with children. What about consensual adult incest? ---
**Author:** ![Serket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Serket](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Serket)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/271 "2006-01-10T19:29:38Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Given that, I would say that the onus is on you to **demonstrate** that SSM is not a Civil Rights issue. Has the SCOTUS addressed the issue yet? Only one state Supreme Court has ruled that such a right of SSM exists. And three of the justices disagreed. > [@](#): > > Rather than arguing against your second strongest reason, I’d like to hear the reasoning underlying your argument that such a stance is hypocritical. Well, are civil rights being violated for people involved in incest? Or if you argument is that people should be able to marry whoever they love, why not for incest love? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/272 "2006-01-10T19:31:41Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > How’s that sound? > > Daniel A fine plan! ---
**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:** [January 10, 2006, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/273 "2006-01-10T19:35:09Z")
> [@Serket](#): > > Has the SCOTUS addressed the issue yet? Only one state Supreme Court has ruled that such a right of SSM exists. And three of the justices disagreed. Irrelevant. The fact that gays lack the right to marry whom they want makes it a civil rights issue; what a court says or doesn’t say doesn’t make it less of one. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/274 "2006-01-10T19:39:09Z")
> [@Serket](#): > > Well, are civil rights being violated for people involved in incest? Or if you argument is that people should be able to marry whoever they love, why not for incest love? And what if people don’t have a problem with cousins, or even siblings, marrying? Does that that the wind out of your sails? I have no issue at all with cousins marrying. There may be an issue of coercion with closer family members that need sorted out and closer examination; but I’m not willing to categorically dismiss the notion. However, the issue of same-sex marriage rights is totally unrelated and independent from society’s stance on incestuous marriages and your conflating of the two is a red-herring. Furthermore, even if it is hypocritical to support SSM and oppose incestuous marriage, that detracts _nothing_ from the logical argument **for** SSM. A whole class of citizens’ rights should not be dependent upon absolute consistency. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/275 "2006-01-10T20:38:26Z")
**serket** , I’d be interested in hearing your analysis of same-sex marriage as relates to the principle of justice, which I’ve described above. I believe that it’s fair to say that if a state’s behavior results in an identifiable class of people being treated worse than another identifiable class of people, **and the identity of the class does not logically result in the worse treatment** , then: 1. The state is acting in an unjust manner; and 2. The civil rights of the first class of people are being violated. #2 is, I think, almost by definition. If you disagree that a civil rights violation occurs under such circumstances, can you provide the criteria you use to judge when a civil rights violation occurs? Daniel ---
**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:** [January 10, 2006, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/276 "2006-01-10T21:12:28Z")
> [@Peanut50](#): > > Having resided in Alaska for a few years a while back, and having viewed the residents of a not-to-be-named bush village where inbreeding was rampant (primarily due to isolation and no cultural taboo against it for first cousins and equivalently close relations), I can say with some assurance that incestuous breeding is a seriously bad idea. The volume and level of mental and physical defects was flatly staggering. A tragic pattern among many aboriginal communities is substance abuse. Some of what you witnessed might have been due to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (or similar environmental causes) rather than crunched genetics. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/277 "2006-01-11T00:04:30Z")
On a humorous note, PVPOnline recently had a nice bit of forwarded email on the subject. The author makes me cringe a bit, but I liked this forwarded piece: > [@](#): > > 10 reasons Gay Marriage is wrong: > > 1. Being gay is not natural. And as you know Americans have always rejected unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. > > 2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. > > 3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because, as you know, a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. > > 4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. > > 5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed. > > 6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children. > > 7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. > > 8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America. > > 9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. > > 10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/278 "2006-01-11T03:47:00Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > **serket** , I’d be interested in hearing your analysis of same-sex marriage as relates to the principle of justice, which I’ve described above. I believe that it’s fair to say that if a state’s behavior results in an identifiable class of people being treated worse than another identifiable class of people, **and the identity of the class does not logically result in the worse treatment** , then: > > 1. The state is acting in an unjust manner; and > 2. The civil rights of the first class of people are being violated. > > #2 is, I think, almost by definition. If you disagree that a civil rights violation occurs under such circumstances, can you provide the criteria you use to judge when a civil rights violation occurs? I disagree with the above, because “does not logically result in the worse treatment” is vague. You may contend, for example, that it’s illogical to assume that fifteen year olds are incapable of driving, but sixteen year olds are; that seventeen year olds cannot wisely vote but eighteen year olds can. Some measure of arbitrary line drawing is necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/279 "2006-01-11T05:12:26Z")
(In response to a “two chicks kissing is hot” post) > [@Serket](#): > > I guess that depends on the women. I think the Britney and Madonna kiss was disgusting. Usually what I find interesting is if there is a hot girl involved I would like to be in the place of the other person. Are you serious? Are you really going to moan on about “icky” man-on-man kissing (with some vague legal arguments, prompted by other posters), then get wishy washy on lesbianism (and porn in general, it seems. And masturbation, too?)? FYI, **Brokeback Mountain** ’s audiences are full of straight women who can’t wait to see two guys going at it. I wouldn’t even know where to begin to join this debate. IMO, the parallels to interracial marriage are too obvious to ignore (though I’m sure there are a few people still smartin’ from that one). It is just beyond me how any human being could lose sleep over other people’s marriages (unless they believe the article from **The Onion** > [@](#): > > Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens to Gay Marry. > > Hundreds of confused but vocal protesters lined the street outside the statehouse Monday night, waving both American and rainbow flags. Their chants, which broke out in pockets up and down the street, included, “Hey hey, ho ho, homophobia’s got to go, but frankly, this is fucked up” and “Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve, but not Adam and Some Random Guy.” Others held signs that read, “On Second Thought, Boston Christians Are Willing To Consider A Compromise." Lordy. ---
**Author:** ![Peanut50](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8491ac/32.png) [@Peanut50](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peanut50)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/280 "2006-01-11T07:37:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > [Dr. Emmett Brown] > You’re not thinking fourth-dimensionally! > [/DEB] > > No reason to tie the two together. Why not simply limit incesteous marriage to infertile couples? If an incesteous couple can show surgical sterilization, would you then concede they should be permitted state recognition of their marriage? > > We’ve just spent page after page arguing, either implicitly or explicitly, how irrelevant procreation is to recognizing marriage. Why does it suddenly become a reason for denial? I concur that the two issues are unrelated, and I believe I clarified my first post (responding solely to Serket’s assertion in re: hypocrisy) in a response to **Tevildo**. I did, however, state that I think (government) trying to become the “incestuous marriage police” vis-a-vis procreative abilities is/would be a logistical nightmare, which has some bearing on how I view the matter. Peanut50 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448.md?page=15)