# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/161 "2006-01-06T01:27:36Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > How does letting women vote “benefit society as a whole” in a way that letting gays marry does not? And why is it wrong to deprive people of the right to vote or own property, but not wrong to deprive people of the right to marry? > > Sorry, but there’s absolutely nothing consistent or compassionate about your position here. So you say. Fortunately, I don’t depend on your noniexistent powers of observation or logic. And now, in the spirit of what the Bush Administration should have done in Iraq, I’m declaring victory and retiring from the field. Feel free to pillage. ---
**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 6, 2006, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/162 "2006-01-06T01:31:00Z")
> [@Serket](#): > > If you have enough votes and state support you can put anything you want into the Constitution. And all things that are legal or popular are right, and all things that are illegal or unpopular are wrong? So you’d be OK with laws like the [Jim Crow laws](http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/creating2.htm), which were quite popular with the voting public at the time? And the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was just fine, because it was popular? The Founding Fathers deliberately set limits on what could be done by a majority vote, because they feared (among other things) that a majority of the people could take away fundamental rights from an unpopular minority. > [@zamboniracer](#): > > marriage is the most efficient way to have and raise children and therefore contributes greatly to society. So you’d support taking away the right to marry from: couples in which the woman is past the age of childbearing couples who don’t plan to have any children couples with at least one person who is infertile After all, those marriages won’t be producing children, so they have no value to society. And why should we let people stay married and get those tax breaks after they’re unable to have children, or after they raise all the children that they plan to? Should divorce be mandatory when your youngest child has his/her 18th birthday, if the couple are not planning to have more children? And what should we do with couples who plan to have children when they get married, but later change their minds, or something happens (such as radiation therapy to treat cancer) to make one of them infertile? Should they be required to divorce? Or, since they never did raise children to justify those tax benefits, should their marriage be annulled and they be forced to pay back any tax benefits they received? How exactly does a straight marriage with no children and no possibility of having children benefit society in a way that a gay marriage does not? The right to marry has never been conditional upon having children. Quite the reverse- some states allow first cousins to marry _only_ if they are not able to bear children. > [@](#): > > it is wrong to deprive anyone of the right to vote or to own property. Why is it more wrong to deprive someone of the right to vote or own property than it is to deprive them of the right to marry the person of their choice? In fact, some states deprive convicted felons of the right to vote, even after they have served their sentences. They don’t, however, have laws restricting felons’ right to marry. [Ted Bundy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy#Conviction_and_execution) was allowed to get married after he had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He would not have been allowed to vote at that time. Sounds to me like the law regards the right to marry the person of your choice as _more_ fundamental than the right to vote, not less. ---
**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 6, 2006, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/163 "2006-01-06T01:40:41Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: \< sarcasm \> Your counterarguements have stunned and overwhelmed me. \< sarcasm \> Do you have an _actual_ rebuttal ? > [@zamboniracer](#): > > And now, in the spirit of what the Bush Administration should have done in Iraq, I’m declaring victory and retiring from the field. No, I’m afraid you’re more like Bagdad Bob, declaring victory while the enemy tanks roll up to the palace. ---
**Author:** ![hannable1975](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a87d85/32.png) [@hannable1975](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hannable1975)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/164 "2006-01-06T01:45:44Z")
I find it interesting : Marraige is greatly understood as the legal, public declared conjoining of two willing people. I met my wife in high school - I fell in love - we dated - i asked her to marry me - We are still together 12 + years later, and going strong. We are a good unit. To borrow from the awefully apparent ending of Jerry McGuire, She “Completes Me”. And, just because a man is in love with another man, people want to deny them that public recognition? I find it hilarious that people will condone a gay / lesbian couple living together, but shirk the idea that they be allowed to publically and legally get spousal benefits and general recognition of their commitment. In a society where about half of straight couples end in divorce, I think ANYONE regardless of prediliction of emotion should be allowed to pursue their passions, as long as they are of legal age, since marraige, like buying a home or even a car, is a legal as well as social contract. ---
**Author:** ![mamboman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mamboman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mamboman)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/165 "2006-01-06T08:36:01Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > JFK said (paraphrasing Hitler, but never mind that) “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country?” To me, gays asking for the right to marry is just asking what the country can do for them. I don’t see being able to marry someone of the same sex as a basic civil right. If it doesn’t help me, and doesn’t help the downtrodden, and doesn’t protect innocent victims, I oppose it on the general principle that it costs me too much money. And by too much money, I mean “any money.” . I’m probably coming in late on this but doesn’t allowing hetero couples to marry also, by the same reasoning in your previous post, cost \*you \* money? You must be really pissed at that! I mean, the right ot marry may have some benefit to you, but if you and your beloved want to set up joint bank accounts, name each other as beneficiaries in wills and insurance policies etc, what’s the difference. if it’s good enough for Bob and Steve, after all… so why not ban all marriages? mm ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/166 "2006-01-06T10:17:27Z")
I’m just rather bemused by the amount of time the OP apparently spends thinking about other people’s sex lives. I mean, it’s never occurred to me to think about what my friends do in their bedroom nor do I spend my time thinking about sexual activities I find gross and disgusting unless my attention is directly drawn to them. **Serket** , you mentioned that you think anal sex is the main way that homosexual men have sex and that most men consider male homosexuality disgusting. What’s your take on female homosexuality? I’ve noticed that there seems to be a lot of porn directed at straight men which shows women having sex with each other. I assume if that were considered disgusting, it wouldn’t sell. CJ ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/167 "2006-01-06T12:33:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Fortunately, I don’t depend on your noniexistent powers of observation or logic. **Moderator’s Note:** Just a reminder, the rule is to debate the other poster’s ideas and positions, not the person. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/168 "2006-01-06T16:02:55Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > No, that’s not how it works. > > If you ever took a tax class, you’d know that whenever a tax benefit is conferred it costs the US Treasury money. Allowing gays to marry and file joint returns and claim either other as dependents confers a tax benefit that costs money. That money must either then come from another source or the government must reduce spending. The government ain’t gonna reduce spending anytime soon. There’s a war against terror on, doncha know. So if a tax benefit is conferred on group A, then taxes on group b are going up, even if it is infintesimal at the micro individual level. But the differences in tax rate has nothing to do with dependents and deductions. The standard deduction is $5,000 per person. John and James can either claim that each separately, or one of them can claim both. It doesn’t change the amount of income removed from the tax pool, so it has nothing to do with deductions. John makes $45,000 a year and plans to take the standard deduction. James makes $45,000 a year and plans to take the standard deduction. If they file separately, the calculations are as follows: Gross Income: $45,000 Deduction: $5,000 Taxable Income: $40,000 Tax Owed: $6,671 Total Tax paid by both John and James: $13,342 If they file jointly: Gross Income: $90,000 Deduction: $10,000 - Note this is the same as it if they filed singly! Taxable Income: $80,000 - still the same as above Tax Owed: $13,336 $6 is the “cost” to the government for allowing them to marry. A .045% decrease in revenue (ie, a drop in the bucket so to speak). Do you still contend that this is strictly a financial consideration for you? Would it be okay if we simply removed the $6 rounding error from the tax tables? For the “cite” monsters out there, calculations were done using: [IRS Form 1040](http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf) -PDF [IRS Form 1040 Instructions](http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf) - PDF ---
**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 6, 2006, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/169 "2006-01-06T16:26:45Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > :: blinks in mild astonishment that anyone expects to get away with a line like “fags shouldn’t marry, because gay sex squicks me out” :: Oh, it’s a good idea, but it doesn’t go far enough. Old-people sex squicks people out, too. There’s probably a biological repulsion toward it, because it can’t produce children. So we should not allow people over a certain age to get or stay married, because if we did they might have old-people sex. ---
**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 6, 2006, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/170 "2006-01-06T17:02:29Z")
> [@Anne Neville](#): > > Oh, it’s a good idea, but it doesn’t go far enough. > > Old-people sex squicks people out, too. There’s probably a biological repulsion toward it, because it can’t produce children. So we should not allow people over a certain age to get or stay married, because if we did they might have old-people sex. In fact, _everyone_ is offensive or disgusting to _somebody_, so _nobody_ should be allowed to get married. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/171 "2006-01-06T18:29:58Z")
> [@Siege](#): > > I’m just rather bemused by the amount of time the OP apparently spends thinking about other people’s sex lives. Ever take a look at the celebrity mags and supermarket tabloids? Apparently, a lot of people spend a lot of time thinking about perfect strangers’ sex lives, love lives, personal issues, etc. Bemusing, yes, but hardly rare. ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/172 "2006-01-06T18:30:03Z")
Those who are squicked out by gay men having sex should be in favor of SSM. There’s certainly less of it now - eight years into our relationship. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/173 "2006-01-06T19:41:24Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > In fact, _everyone_ is offensive or disgusting to _somebody_, so _nobody_ should be allowed to get married. Ah, but since it’s sex that grosses people out, (sex by other people that is), marriage should be allowed, but not sex. Never again. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/174 "2006-01-06T21:47:40Z")
Kinda waitin for a response to this. > [@lissener](#): > > Serious question, **Serket** : has this thread made you want to restate any of your reasons for opposing gay marriage? > > I mean seriouly: you do understand that advocating limited civil rights for millions of Americans based on what you think is “gross” is pretty dang unconstitutional, not to say un-American? I’m sure there are things you do that some individual American somewhere thinks is gross, but you wouldn’t think it was right to base a system of law on that, would you? Isn’t that kind of like limiting the civil rights of broccoli farmers if you think broccoli is gross? Would you want someone else’s standards of what’s “gross” imposed on you, and what you can do with your life? Is that kind of interference in others’ freedom the kind of governmental system you want to live under? > > And limiting the civil rights of millions of Americans because they have a certain thing in common with a few individuals that you think are “radical”? Isn’t that kind of like supporting Apartheid because you don’t like Al Sharpton as an individual? What about the blacks who AREN’T Al Sharpton. Statistics show that most African Americans are not Al Sharpton. > > Most of your reasons are very personal, emotional reactions. Is that really the best approach to making laws that govern other people’s lives? ---
**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 6, 2006, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/175 "2006-01-06T22:52:36Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Sorry, but I gotta say this: Cite? > > 😃 Number of African-Americans as of 2000: 36.2 million ([cite, pdf](http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-25.pdf)) Number of African-Americans who are the Reverend Al Sharpton: 1: ([cite](http://internetweekly.org/images/al_sharpton_axe.jpg)). Number of African-Americans who were not the Reverend Al Sharpton as of 2000: 35,999,999. If anyone can provide any updated figures, I’d appreciate it. I think we can all agree, though, that as of 2000, most African Americans were not Al Sharpton. **serket** , I’ve got a proposal. It sounds as if you’ve got a lot of reasons for opposing gay marriage. As you can tell, this discussion is all over the place. Instead of discussing them all simultaneously, how about you choose what you think is the single best reason for opposing same-sex marriage and describe it, and then we can debate that one reason? If folks do convince you that this reason isn’t sufficient for opposing SSM, then you can offer your next-strongest reason for debate. How does that sound? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/176 "2006-01-06T22:57:31Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > That’s an easy one and entirely consistent with my position. I would’ve supported women’s sufferage and the civil rights act whole heartedly. It would cost me but would benefit society as a whole. As I said, it is wrong to deprive anyone of the right to vote or to own property. What about the laws banning interracial marriage? Would you have been in favour of repealing them? If so, what’s the difference between that and banning gay marriage? ---
**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 6, 2006, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/177 "2006-01-06T22:59:15Z")
**zamboniracer** , do you believe that adhering to the principle of justice (i.e., that the government should treat relevantly similar situations in a relevantly similar fashion) benefits society as a whole? That is, do you benefit from knowing that your government, when faced with the choice to be just or unjust, chooses to be just? I absolutely believe that you benefit from this, and therefore believe that you ought to support SSM. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/178 "2006-01-07T09:32:49Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Number of African-Americans as of 2000: 36.2 million ([cite, pdf](http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-25.pdf)) > > Number of African-Americans who are the Reverend Al Sharpton: 1: ([cite](http://internetweekly.org/images/al_sharpton_axe.jpg)). > > Number of African-Americans who were not the Reverend Al Sharpton as of 2000: 35,999,999. > > If anyone can provide any updated figures, I’d appreciate it. I think we can all agree, though, that as of 2000, most African Americans were not Al Sharpton. So, statistics do indeed show that most African Americans are not Al Sharpton! Who’da thunk it? My thanks to **LHoD** for his hard work and diligence in ferreting out this obscure fact. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/179 "2006-01-07T09:53:02Z")
> [@Serket](#): > > [Nineteenth Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) You have utterly failed to address the reason why the 19th amendment should have been passed in the first place. You merely note that it was passed. > [@](#): > > If you have enough votes and state support you can put anything you want into the Constitution. The mere observation that it’s legally possible doesn’t address the wisdom of putting something into the constitution though. If you lived in a time before the passage of the 19th amendment, wouldn’t you have supported its passage? > [@](#): > > I would also like to address another topic. Abuse in marriages of straight couples is not justification for gay marriage. The abusers should be punished according to the law. It may not be justification, but it does deflate one argument **against** same sex marriage (that it will be abused by unscrupulous people). ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/180 "2006-01-07T09:57:01Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > **zamboniracer** , do you believe that adhering to the principle of justice (i.e., that the government should treat relevantly similar situations in a relevantly similar fashion) benefits society as a whole? That is, do you benefit from knowing that your government, when faced with the choice to be just or unjust, chooses to be just? Society as a whole benefits from granting minority rights for this simple reason: virtually every one of us is a minority of some sort (whether it be ethnicity, gender, political point of view, religion, the list goes on and on). So if you’re willing to support a government that discriminates against minorities the chances will increase that you too will be trampled upon by the majority one day. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448.md?page=10)