# 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:** 11
**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, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/201 "2009-04-08T20:36:00Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > 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? You’ve just described the situation as it stands. Legal protection for rights of inheritance/survivorship should be taken. Affirmative action. Just as you would if you were two senior citizens with independent assets and no known living family. YOU decide, taking whatever steps are necessary. I’m under no obligation to make your situation easier because it’s the exception, rather than the rule. Liberty, after all. ---
**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, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/202 "2009-04-08T20:37:59Z")
I would say that when one couple can get all of those protections for about $30 and the signing of names, and another couple has to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars and still get inferior protection (not to mention definitely non-equal treatment by the government), then there is, indeed, a hardship and an immoral discrimination there. ---
**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, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/203 "2009-04-08T20:38:50Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No, I don’t think so, but also I don’t think that the lack of gay marriage is even on the same scale. Why not? Do you think that gay marriage is more likely to prove to be just a passing fad than was abolitionism? ---
**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, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/204 "2009-04-08T20:40:10Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > 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. You’re the one arguing that there are no distinctions, not me. I’m saying that the model of one man and one woman is the model. Everything else is a variation; some are near, some are waaaaay beyond reality. Some are close, but we still don’t recognize, such as bigamy and polygamy, some are never, I hope and pray, going to be, such as zoophilia and pedophilia. So, because you can demonstrate that there are a myriad of sexual partnerships in which humans can engage, does not make them all equally benefiicial to society, and worthy of affirmative protection, as distinct from benign neglect. ---
**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, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/205 "2009-04-08T20:42:06Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > You’re the one arguing that there are no distinctions, not me. I’m saying that the model of one man and one woman is the model. Everything else is a variation; some are near, some are waaaaay beyond reality. Some are close, but we still don’t recognize, such as bigamy and polygamy, some are never, I hope and pray, going to be, such as zoophilia and pedophilia. So, because you can demonstrate that there are a myriad of sexual partnerships in which humans can engage, does not make them all equally benefiicial to society, and worthy of affirmative protection, as distinct from benign neglect. You know, for someone who takes such offense when other people misinfer things from your posts, you sure do load them up with misinference bait. ---
**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:** [April 8, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/206 "2009-04-08T20:46:04Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > I said it was not the only relevance. Is the potential for childbearing a necessary condition for marriage or not? If it is, please explain how heterosexual marriages that are childless are allowed to exist. If it isn’t, please explain why gay marriages are not allowed to exist. > [@](#): > > 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. Fortunately, most things are. Marriage is, for example. > [@](#): > > 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? Heterosexual relationships need never encounter children, either. And why is the number relevant? A right is a right, whether practiced by ten people or a hundred million people. How many interracial do you suppose exist because laws against them were struck down? Even if they comprise a small minority of marriages, are they less valid as a result? I’ve waited patiently for you to explain your rationale. At this point, I’m leaning toward the idea that you don’t and never had one. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/207 "2009-04-08T20:47:28Z")
> [@hobscrk777](#): > > Society would _ **not** _ die if “that were the sole purpose and end use of marriage.” Marriage is not a prerequisite for baby making. > \ I’m astounded that it’s taken this many posts before the above has been pointed out. As for society promoting baby-rearing via the tax code, seems the cart is before the horse. Society (the legislature who creates the tax code) realized that the burdens of child rearing were large, and so attempted to slightly lighten them by slightly reducing certain taxes. Other taxes not payroll related absorb some greater or lesser degree of any perceived savings. Net financial “benefit”-- probably zero. Any argument about marriage that requires realizing societal benefit through our tax code is on horribly tenuous grounds. As \*\*NaSultainne \*\*admitted upthread, it’s all about the sex. ---
**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:** [April 8, 2009, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/208 "2009-04-08T20:48:24Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Let us further agree (again, for the sake of argument) that those heterosexual couples who are unable to or unwilling to produce offspring that is biologically their own are - in your own words - “outliers,” statistically insignificant. They are therefore allowed to participate in the institution of marriage because they are, essentially, harmless. They do not provide societal benefit, but they create no detriment, either. Why should gays not be included under this harmless statistical outlier? If we can make an exception for straight people who cannot have, or do not want, children, why can we not make a similar exception for gay people, including the ones that do want, or already have, children? > [@](#): > > Close, dang, we’re almost there and I’m running out of time here. 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. Some will choose to, some will choose not to. Some will be fertile, some will not. Some will face illness, death, or other situations unique to their lives. Sure we can. We can’t predict accident or illness, of course, but we can, at the very least, impose some sort of check for fertility. This is, under your rationale, precisely what we are doing when we forbid gays from getting married. What you are proposing is simply a visual fertility check: if you can tell just by looking at a couple that they’re not going to have kids, then they should be forbidden from getting married. But if fertility is reason enough to bar gays from marriage, why is it not also reason enough to bar other couples from marriage, except that it would require more work? And if fertility alone is not good enough reason to bar any other couple from marriage, why is it sufficient to bar gays? > [@](#): > > 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? Except that’s not the state in of affairs, is it? There are thousands and thousands of gay couples out there raising children. Allowing them to marry would make raising their children easier in countless ways. As a society, we want to encourage people to raise children, gay people as much as straight people. So why should the state not aid and encourage gay couples in the raising of children in precisely the same manner they aid and encourage straight couples? > [@](#): > > Again, I’m arguing that gay relationships do not offer the state the benefit of a presumption of childbearing. They cannot do so. So, no marriage. But that argument is false on its face. Gay couples do, in fact, have children. The drive to reproduce is no less strong in gays than it is in straights. Why should the government not encourage this drive in gay couples as well as in straights? Hell, considering that gays will need to make an extra effort in order to become parents, shouldn’t the state provide _more_ incentive to gays to marry than straights? Straight people who want to be parents just need to fuck. How much help do they need with that? Furthermore, gay couples will virtually never have unwanted children. I do not think it is controversial to suggest that family planning is in the best interest of the state. A family that has more children than it can support, either financially or, worse, emotionally, creates enormous drains on the state. This is almost never going to be a problem for gay couples. As such, shouldn’t the state encourge this more responsible form of familial bonding over the relatively irresponsible heterosexual couples, who frequently have children they cannot or will not support, simply because there’s a chance of producing a child every time they fuck? I’d be genuinely pleased if you’d actually respond to one of my posts in this thread. Would it help if I included more pictures? ---
**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, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/209 "2009-04-08T20:48:49Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Why not? Do you think that gay marriage is more likely to prove to be just a passing fad than was abolitionism? No I don’t think it is just a passing fad, but at this point homosexuals are not a poor subgroup that cannot find gainful employment. As I understand it homosexuals are actually per capita wealthier than straight couples. It might be an injustice, but there are levels. Back when we put homosexuals in prison, that was on par with slavery. This isn’t even as bad as having separate water fountains. At a certain point we need to recognize that it’s all about how we decide to organize society in a Democracy and not treat every aspect that we come out on the wrong side of as some sort of victimization. I approve of same-sex marriage, but it’s not on a scale of atrocity equivalent to slavery. ---
**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, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/210 "2009-04-08T20:49:25Z")
> [@hobscrk777](#): > > 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. But he’s already made clear how important it is: just important enough to keep gay people from marrying (regardless of their ability/plans to have kids because if you need outside help it doesn’t count as a family for some undefined reason), yet not so important as to prevent any straight couple under any circumstances from marrying. Funny how the importance to marriage of having children lands at just that exact spot. ---
**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, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/211 "2009-04-08T20:49:30Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > I’m astounded that it’s taken this many posts before the above has been pointed out. Sorry. We were baffled by **NaSultainne** ’s bullshit throughout this thread…I’m still trying to trace my way through that tangle of justifications. ---
**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, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/212 "2009-04-08T20:51:55Z")
> [@hobscrk777](#): > > Society would _ **not** _ die if “that were the sole purpose and end use of marriage.” Marriage is not a prerequisite for baby making. True, I learned this in Sex-Ed. However, studies show that children raised in unmarried households suffer by comparison. Again, I focus on the ideal. [QUOTE}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.[/QUOTE] First, yes they can, by golly. But, there is never a reason for them to. That they choose to do so is completely arbitrary. Second, I never said there was no detriment to society of gay marriage. I’m not arguing the point, is all. Second, law is not written for the sake of decency, is it? Am I missing something? I’m not arguing any action by the state to prevent gay people from setting up a home in any manner of their choosing. I’m saying, that’s not marriage. To be intellectually honest, all those pursuing this point will have to demur if they cannot honestly assert that the lack of marriage alone is preventing them from establishing relationships and having children. Lastly, children are not essential to a marriage, being as one would suppose they are subsequent to that ceremony. I’m saying they are the ideal, as society goes, as well as the norm, and that’s the issue. Society should encourage the ideal and promote behavior consistent with this ideal, which is clearly going to discourage alternate behavior. To insist otherwise, is to deny that marriage prior to no-fault divorce is any different in any measure from marriage today. The stats don’t bear it out. By making divorce easy, abortion available, work the expectation for women, all have their part in the decrease in marriages. I cannot quantify precisely, but the social scientists chew on it regularly. Either society has the ability to strengthen, and likewise, weaken, relationships, or it doesn’t. I say it does and should, in a positive manner when society benefits, in a negative manner when society is harmed. ---
**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, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/213 "2009-04-08T20:55:37Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > You’ve just described the situation as it stands. Legal protection for rights of inheritance/survivorship should be taken. Affirmative action. Just as you would if you were two senior citizens with independent assets and no known living family. YOU decide, taking whatever steps are necessary. I’m under no obligation to make your situation easier because it’s the exception, rather than the rule. Liberty, after all. Actually, no, I haven’t described the situation as it stands at all. You can’t just jump over a broom, draft some documents and easily create a legal arrangement that is the functional equivalent of marriage. In my state, the state constitution was recently amended to specfically disallow any such arrangement, and courts are prohibited from recognizing any marriage-like contract between two persons. Similar laws exist in at least 12 other states. In the event that a gay couple splits up or if one of them becomes ill, trying to determine their rights and obligations is a nightmare for lawyers, courts, and the individuals involved. Since a long term cohabiting gay couple is similarly economically situtated to a cohabiting married straight couple, would you appove of laws that allowed them to enter into “cohabitation contracts” which would make determining their rights and obligations possible? ---
**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, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/214 "2009-04-08T20:56:17Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > a certain point we need to recognize that it’s all about how we decide to organize society in a Democracy and not treat every aspect that we come out on the wrong side of as some sort of victimization. How else do you define the “wrong side”, then? How do you justify staying there once you know it’s where you are? To the OP (remember the OP? There was an OP), the answer is clearly that there is no rationale, only rationalization, and lame rationalization at that. The true reasons cannot be articulated in public or the rationalizations wouldn’t be necessary. They’re easy enough to infer, though. ---
**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, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/215 "2009-04-08T20:56:42Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’d be genuinely pleased if you’d actually respond to one of my posts in this thread. Would it help if I included more pictures? I will, it’ll just have to wait. As I mentioned, I’ve run out of time right now. Off to see the MD. ---
**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:** [April 8, 2009, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/216 "2009-04-08T20:58:31Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I approve of same-sex marriage, but it’s not on a scale of atrocity equivalent to slavery. Hell, I wouldn’t argue that, even at its worst, the treatment of gays in this country has ever approached the level of atrocity inherent in the American system of slavery. However, I do think it’s sometimes relevant to point out that the reasoning behind some anti-gay laws and/or attitudes are functionally identical to the reasoning behind historic incidents of racial prejudice, even if the reasoning isn’t implemented as vehemently as it used to be. ---
**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, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/217 "2009-04-08T20:58:36Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > You know, for someone who takes such offense when other people misinfer things from your posts, you sure do load them up with misinference bait. I’m guessing it’s so he can complain about the misinferences and avoid answering the original question (which, in this particular case, he’s already dodged twice). ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/218 "2009-04-08T21:00:16Z")
You want to know what the primary purpose for marriage is? I’ll tell you. It’s so _the other person doesn’t run away!_ If I want to have children and/or reliable companionship and/or regular sex, I want to make sure the person I hook up with isn’t going to turn around and hook up with someone else down the line. Marriage cements a romantic relationship both by impressing the partners with the solemnity of their vows, and by establishing certain legally-binding links that cannot be wontanly severed. Commitment. That’s what marriage is about; that’s what marriage _is_. ---
**Author:** ![Alastair\_Moonsong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3e96dc/32.png) [@Alastair\_Moonsong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alastair_Moonsong)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/219 "2009-04-08T21:20:40Z")
I have a rather simple question, **NaSultainne** : You argue that society has set marriage up to offer legal encouragement for procreation via benefits such as tax breaks. Essentially “straight couples producing kids benefits society so we will create the institution of marriage to provide benefits that encourage them!” Furthermore, you have posited that because encouraging the male-female childbearing traditional family is so important to society, we should accept that some “outliers” (heterosexual couples who cannot or do not have kids) will also be married. In other words, because procreation is so important, we as a society should encourage male-female pairings (for example, via tax breaks, as mentioned above) even though some male-female pairs cannot have kids and so will be able to take advantages of those benefits without offering anything (read: children) to society as a whole in return. Finally, you claim that since ALL gay couples fall under the “childless” category described above, they should not be allowed to marry. Most heterosexual couples can have kids, so society should offer heterosexual couples marriage (with all of its benefits) to encourage heterosexual relationships; however, NO homosexual couple can have kids, and so society should NOT offer them marriage (with all of its benefits) in order to _discourage_ these relationships that contribute nothing to society. If I have misunderstood any part of your argument, please clarify exactly what I have wrong. Now, my question: If marriage did not convey any benefits whatsoever - that is, it was an institution which costs society nothing and exists only to define two people’s relationship in legal terms for purposes of life-planning and crisis management (think end-of-life decisions, inheritance, property distribution at separation, and other aspects which, unlike tax breaks, have no cost to society and exist merely to clarify who has what rights in a relationship) - would you still oppose gay marriage? In other words, if marriage did not amount to society doing favors for couples with the expectation of offspring in return, would you still oppose gay marriage? ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/220 "2009-04-08T21:24:56Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Of course, wills are contested all the time. You’re arguing that difficulty demands equality. That’s inadequate. I’m not arguing anything of the sort. You’ve completely missed the point. You asserted that lack of marriage does not create harm. I’m saying it does. Lack of marriage removes the ability of same-sex couples from achieving an important state of a legally recognized relationship. The lack of that mechanism creates harm. That wills are contested “all the time” is not an excuse. Same-sex couples are put in legal peril because they cannot codify their relationship. Your entire stance is predicated on assertions that when proved wrong shift to irrelevant platitudes. You argued that there was no harm in not having same-sex marriage. I am demonstrating that there is harm. It is but one of many reasons why same-sex marriage is needed. To focus on one aspect, then carelessly toss one point away as “inadequate” is myopic. Sure, _by itself_ a single argument might be “inadequate,” but it is the totality of all the points brought up here that makes same-sex marriage overwhelmingly the right thing to do. In Summary: Bigoted rationale - There is no harm in not having same-sex marriage, so why have it? Refutation - Lack of access to a method for creating a legally-recognized relationship puts same-sex couples in financial, societal, and legal peril. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=12)