# What is the rationale for opposition to same-sex marriage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2009, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382 "2009-04-08T11:47:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/181 "2009-04-08T20:04:48Z")
> [@fish42](#): > > What negative behavior are you discouraging by not allowing same-sex marriage?. > [@NaSultainne](#): > > Tax laws that encourage marriage and childrearing, by default, discourage its opposite. So, is it your contention that same-sex marriage is, in and of itself, a negative behavior that society should use tax laws to discourage? If so, please explain what’s so negative about it. If not, please answer the original question. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/182 "2009-04-08T20:05:40Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Good question, if I knew the law, I’d have better answers. Off the cuff, housing purchases can be put in both names, giving right of inheritance and a property to be divided should the need arise. Same with business. > > What you’re doing here is merely pointing out what we all know: unmarried people, of any shape, color, number, or size, have to take affirmative action in the course of their daily affairs. You’ve presented nothing to demonstrate that gay relationships are or ought to be recognized _as the same as marriage_. Let me reiterate: you’ve acquiesced that in certain situations a gay individual or gay couple is similarly situated as a straight individual or straight couple and should be treated the same, for example, in parenting. Say a gay couple is cohabitating and entering into a long term financial situation together in much the same as a married straight couple does. However, they realize that one never knows what the future holds and would like some degree of certainty and protection should they choose to dissolve their union. How should the law treat them and their property? ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/183 "2009-04-08T20:06:38Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So can we discuss exclusively a heterosexual couple who cannot (or chooses not) to have children versus a homosexual couple who cannot (or chooses not) to have children, so you can explain why the first has the option of marriage and the second does not, since children are now of no relevance? Re-read above; I said it was not the only relevance. > [@](#): > > As I understand it, having children does _not_ carry any particular tax benefit or at least not one large enough to offset the expenses of raising the child. If you mean other benefits, please expand on this, and clarify what benefits a child raised by a heterosexual couple (and in fact over the last forty years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of children raised by a single parent) gets that a child raised by a homosexual couple does not. It won’t be enough that it’s self-evident to you, please explain it to me. You’re correct. The so-called ‘marriage penalty’, as well as the AMT and the general increases in taxes of all kinds, have made the issue more difficult. These, however, are subject to change. When I’ve mentioned benefits, I’m referring to societal benefits. Healthy, productive families are more likely to produce healthy, productive children who will sustain the society. This is a recognized ‘good’. Again, see my previous post. Gay relationships need never encounter children. They are not a by-product of gay relationships. When they do, whatever tax benefits accrue the parents of any children should be received by them as well. Again, smaller homosexual population means a smaller pool of potential mates and, unless I’m just not paying attention, a statistically quite small number of children. So, you’re using the exception of an exception to justify gay marriage? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/184 "2009-04-08T20:07:07Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Then why is not acceptable that gay couples take advantage of them too? Well because it takes a tool that was created to serve a particular function and renders it merely symbolic. I am just fine with the idea of gay marriage BTW. > [@](#): > > In your very own argument, you make the case that the “acceptability” of marriage, even using only societal standards rather than legal ones, is not dependent upon childrearing. So what’s left to discuss of that claimed “difference”? Well you’re making an argument that because people subverted the original intent of the law to different purposes that it justifies further subversion. Gay couples do not have the potential to breed. Marriage at root is not about sex it is about procreation, that there is some leeway there for those who cannot or choose not to breed is beside the point. Making gay marriage available makes marriage about sex, not about procreation. Homosexuals can live together, they can fuck, they can share expenses, but they cannot breed. The law was intended to make it easier on couples to procreate. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/185 "2009-04-08T20:07:40Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Tax laws that encourage marriage and childrearing, by default, discourage its opposite. Someone is paying the higher taxes as a result, yes? There’s no way to promote without, in some respect, discouraging something else. You’re saying that if same-sex couples are prevented from getting married, they will break up and seek out hetero marriages instead? Do you think preventing same-sex marriage turns gay people straight? If that’s not what you’re saying , then who ARE you saying would be discouraged from “marriage and child rearing?” Who is discouraged from getting married and having babies if same-sex marriage is legal? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/186 "2009-04-08T20:08:19Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > Not really. One’s rights over and obligations towards one’s biological offspring are completely independent of marital status. Now, yes. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/187 "2009-04-08T20:08:57Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > This excuse may have been valid 30 years ago, but not in 2009. I find it impossible that anybody who’s not in a coma simply hasn’t thought about this issue, or needs to make a “sudden turn” in an issue that’s been discussed to death over the past several years. > > And your other arguments are just as flimsy. Because you find my statement impossible and my arguments flimsy I am prepared to reconsider my stance on same-sex marriage. And here I thought the OP was curious as to “what is the rationale for opposition to same-sex marriage.” ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/188 "2009-04-08T20:09:05Z")
> [@Alastair\_Moonsong](#): > > I’ve heard this argument before, and it seems to me to contain one major flaw that never gets pointed out. > > You say that allowing gays to marry would negatively affect the institution of marraige because marraige is set up by society as a way to promote childbearing and childrearing, and gays cannot naturally have kids. This is true. However, allowing them to marry isn’t going to mean that society produces less children, is it? > > (Grrr, I’m having trouble putting my thoughts into words; I’m loopy on Percocet following some dental work.) > > Let me try again. As I see it, the belief that the legalization of gay marraige would be a detriment to the traditional heterosexual childrearing familial ideal is based on two assumptions. > > 1. The assumption that if gay marraige is legalized, a significant portion of existing heterosexual marraiges would fall apart on account of one or both parties deciding to enter into homosexual relationships instead. > 2. The assumption that if gay marraige is NOT legalized, gays will choose instead to enter into traditional marraiges, settle down, raise kids, and be happy. > > However, both of these assumptions strike me as false. As it stands right now, individuals in committed gay relationships - the ones likely to actually get married in the first place, were it legal where they live - are currently in all liklihood living together, with no children, and not married. If gay marraige is legalized, they will get married, and live together, with no children. So, yes, they will be married without producing offspring. However, if gay marraige remains illegal, it’s not like these individuals, who love each other deeply, are going to abandon their homosexual relationships in order to enter into traditional marraiges and produce kids. Similarly, I don’t think that there are a lot of “closet gays” in existing heterosexual marraiges, either; since by definition of being gay, they are not attracted to women, it seems unlikely that more than a handful of gays would enter into relationships with and marry women in the first place. > > Basically, what it comes down to is that continuing to block gay marraige is not going to create additinonal happy, traditional, mom-and-dad-and-two-kids families, and so that whole argument falls apart. On top of that, we haven’t yet discussed gay adoption; it seems to me like allowing gays to marry and encouraging them to adopt would solve two problems at once, but that’s a seperate issue. So please, explain: How exactly does allowing gays to marry threaten the traditional family unit? Nope, I’ve argued neither point. I’ll let someone who has, rebut if willing. ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/189 "2009-04-08T20:10:11Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > If Christopher and Barbara are married, then Christopher has a sex change operation to become Christine, are you favor of them still remaining legally married despite now being a same sex couple\*? After all, they had the potential to bear children. > \*Assuming Barbara’s in favor of sticking together, of course. I’d prefer to argue one issue at a time, thanks. Start another thread if you think this issue has merit. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/190 "2009-04-08T20:10:25Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Here’s the distinction. We cannot, you, me, the chair and the desk, presume to know, in advance, which couples will and which couples will not have children. Yet that statement applies just as well to same-sex couples. Could you please explain why the fact that a same-sex couple’s children require one of adoption/a sperm donor/a surrogate mom/a previous hetero marriage makes that relationship unworthy of being a marriage? ---
**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:** [April 8, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/191 "2009-04-08T20:10:37Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > And here I thought the OP was curious as to “what is the rationale for opposition to same-sex marriage.” We were kind of hoping to ferret out a _rational_ rationale, rather than “Wow! That cultural shift just SNUCK UP on me!” Not to mention that you’ve REALLY not been paying attention if you only just recently got blindsided by gay marriage. This debate has been going on since _**[1993](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Timeline_of_major_events)**_. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/192 "2009-04-08T20:12:05Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > I’d prefer to argue one issue at a time, thanks. Start another thread if you think this issue has merit. You’re the one who said the former potential to have children was legit grounds for marriage. If you didn’t think it had merit, perhaps you shouldn’t have raised the argument in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/193 "2009-04-08T20:16:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Again, this is the sheerest tautology. This particular government has proscribed only one particular definition of “marriage,” therefore that’s therefore that’s the lexicographical definition, therefore that has to remain the only legal definition. Have you thought this through at all? Have you, Diogenes? I’m telling you that marriage has a definition, accepted by society through its laws. Now, each society can and does maintain its own language, which includes any changing definition over time. I’m also saying, though you’re clearly too deep to see it, that the essence of marriage has not changed. What’s changed is the willingness of some to pretend that a chair and a desk are one and the same. Not equal in value, equal in essence. I agree with the former, not the latter. > [@](#): > > I cited the Bible to show you one commonly accepted example of a lexicographical definition of marriage which is not “one man, one woman.” It’s a refutation of your attempt to argue that marrigae has only one _lexicographical_ meaning. The fact that you didn’t mention the Bible has no relevance. It still provides an example that refutes your _lexicographical_ assertion. I did not cite it for any kind of moral authority. Cool, cause I just know how much you reject any moral authority. Besides your own, of course. ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/194 "2009-04-08T20:19:33Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > So, is it your contention that same-sex marriage is, in and of itself, a negative behavior that society should use tax laws to discourage? If so, please explain what’s so negative about it. If not, please answer the original question. I said society uses tax laws to encourage and discourage behavior. These might occur in completely different contexts. For example, deductions for dependent children: encourage. Taxes on alcohol: discourage. I also made what ought to be an obvious point that offering tax incentives in order to encourage behavior is likely to be seen to be discouraging the opposite behavior. As I said, someone _else_ is paying that tax. ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/195 "2009-04-08T20:20:51Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > You’re the one who said the former potential to have children was legit grounds for marriage. If you didn’t think it had merit, perhaps you shouldn’t have raised the argument in the first place. I wasn’t arguing about trangendered people, though, was I? You extended the argument in an inapt manner. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/196 "2009-04-08T20:25:09Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Well because it takes a tool that was created to serve a particular function and renders it merely symbolic. WTF? There are a myriad of legal rights and responsibilities that marriage entails. They’re not “merely symbolic”. > [@](#): > > I am just fine with the idea of gay marriage BTW. On what basis did you conclude that? > [@](#): > > Well you’re making an argument that because people subverted the original intent of the law to different purposes that it justifies further subversion. Cite for the original intent of the law that you assert? :dubious: > [@](#): > > Marriage at root is not about sex it is about procreation That is often part of what it is about, but not all, and hardly always. > [@](#): > > that there is some leeway there for those who cannot or choose not to breed is beside the point. Not per the concept that the state’s interest in marriage is to support childrearing. As we keep seeing. > [@](#): > > Making gay marriage available makes marriage about sex, not about procreation. And that is different from straight marriage, how? > [@](#): > > The law was intended to make it easier on couples to procreate. Again, cite? ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/197 "2009-04-08T20:29:27Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You’re saying that if same-sex couples are prevented from getting married, they will break up and seek out hetero marriages instead? Do you think preventing same-sex marriage turns gay people straight? > > If that’s not what you’re saying , then who ARE you saying would be discouraged from “marriage and child rearing?” Who is discouraged from getting married and having babies if same-sex marriage is legal? No, good golly, learn to read. I said that tax laws encouraging marriage and childbearing, would, by virtue of those who choose not to do so, end up _discouraging_ those who wouldn’t receive the tax benefits. If I marry and have children, (but you do neither) and pay fewer taxes, you’ve likely just sucked up some of my obligations. All in a manner of speaking, of course, as there are no clearcut hard and fast tax rules, but, geez, the idea is that you’re the one who ends up paying more in taxes. I’m sure I’ve seen this complaint a dozen times by childless and/or single people who resent property taxes to pay for education and the like. So, society subsidizes children. Those without, seems, reasonable to say, though not specifically and directly being penalized, are, in fact, penalized. If you choose to look at it that way. Recognizing that tax laws do not actually work in such a benign, much less benevolent manner these days, I’d say as the married parent I’m likely paying more taxes than those who choose to remain single and child-free. Still, I can dream that this will change. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/198 "2009-04-08T20:30:12Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > I wasn’t arguing about trangendered people, though, was I? You extended the argument in an inapt manner. Your inability to consider the ramifications of your arguments is hardly my fault. I extended it in a perfectly logical manner. If the argument that a couple in which the woman is now post-menopausal\* was once able to have children is a legit reason to let them stay married, then should a same-sex couple that used to be a two-sex couple also be allowed to stay married since they also used to be able to have children? \*Also applies to ones in which the males go impotent, since you’ve whined about my picking on the poor old women. ---
**Author:** ![hobscrk777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a6a055/32.png) [@hobscrk777](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hobscrk777)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/199 "2009-04-08T20:31:48Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Good. It’s _a_ purpose, not the \*only \*purpose. As I believe I said already, if marriage, i.e., a couple in a stable relationship, was the only purpose, there’d be no reason to deny \*any two people \*anywhere the option of marriage. But society would die if that were the sole purpose and end use of marriage. Society would _ **not** _ die if “that were the sole purpose and end use of marriage.” Marriage is not a prerequisite for baby making. > [@](#): > > As to gays, because they lack the fundamental essence of biologically producing their own children, they do not meet this standard. Pretend, for a minute, that no gay couple had children, either from previous marriages or through adoption. Absent that, what benefit does gay ‘marriage’ offer the state? Very little. > > Gay? Want to set up your household with a partner? Go for it. Sign whatever papers you need to, consult lawyers if and as necessary. You’re good to go. What you are not, is married. Marriage is necessary to society, gay relationships are not. First, (assuming at least one member of the gay couple is not infertile), they can still raise a child that is at least biologically related to one-half of the couple. Second, why does this have to be conditioned on whether or not there’s a benefit to the state? It seems that you’ve agreed that there would be no _detriment_ to society by letting same-sex couples marry, your issue is with the fact that there would be no _benefit_ to society (from your perspective) of letting same-sex couples marry. Why not let them marry for the sake of decency - granting them the same rights as heterosexual couples. Finally, I’m also going to add my voice to the chorus calling for you to come down one way or another on the importance of birthing babies to marriage. In one post you claim it’s not important (and this is apparently why we let post-menopausal women marry, even though they certainly won’t be birthing their own children), but then in another post you claim that gays should not marry because they _can’t_ produce their own children. You can’t have it both ways. ---
**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:** [April 8, 2009, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/200 "2009-04-08T20:34:00Z")
It’s not so much that we can’t read. It’s that your arguments are so opaque, incoherent and poorly stated that they make no sense. I cannot get my head around your arguments…they have no substance to them that I can grasp with my mind. They shift, and shimmer, and change as the winds of our questioning erode them as quickly as they’re built. The parts that we actually CAN grasp are opaque as well. I don’t understand them. They don’t seem terribly relevant to me. It’s all boiling down, again, in my mind, to “We’ve always done it this way!” All the other stuff, the children and the benefit to society and all the rest, I’m not seeing how they don’t apply to same-sex couples, too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=11)