# 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:** 14
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/261 "2009-04-09T02:08:31Z")
> [@Anduril](#): > > The unanimous answer I get from all my gay friends is that they will not want any of it if no legal rights or priveleges are attached to marriage. Do you really think that they would want it otherwise? You think of gays as having a “homosexual agenda” of “homosexualizing” everything they touch, the way you post. It’s scary. What’s scary is your inability to read the words that actually appear on the page. It is clear that SSM proponents want, in fact, two things. One, which is the one they put on the bumper stickers, and the one I support, is that they want and deserve equal rights. For instance, they want the right the law affords married couples that allows one of them to visit the other in the hospital in dire times, etc. The other thing they want is to appropriate the word and use it as a shroud of normalcy in order to create the idea that homosexuality are merely two equal expressions of what it means to be human. They are not. Even leaving God or a god out of it, one expression would allow the species to continue, the other would not. In one, the body an its intended use are aligned. In the other they are not. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/262 "2009-04-09T02:13:12Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The ubiquity of stupidity or prejudice isn’t an argument for its implementation. Which has nothing to do with what I wrote. The point is that if we are to believe that SSM proponents feel they deserve the same rights as married couples (which I agree with), then why would one not pursue the easiest route to those rights being granted? Especially since as a bonus they get the rights they want without jamming a thumb in the eye of their neighbors? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/263 "2009-04-09T02:14:22Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I can’t see what he posts,… And some of you around here say that prayers aren’t answered… ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/264 "2009-04-09T02:17:57Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because the point of those sort of proposals is not to create a separate but equal pseudo-marriage for homosexuals, but to shove them off into an inferior ghetto version. That’s what separate but equal proposals always are; an attempt to make bigotry into law while pretending to be fair. > > In my opinion, the one and only reason people oppose marriage for homosexuals is bigotry. Everything else is misdirection and false justifications designed to hide that basic fact. There’s no difference between the bigots of the past who opposed interracial marriage and the bigots of today who oppose same sex marriage. **Magellan** , I have lost my temper with you in the past, which I regret. Your positions were not the ravings of a madman, but someone arguing a position I felt to be unjust and untenable. Please note what **Der Trihs** has said above, and explain how your conception differs from what he claims – because, to be frank, I have pretty much agreed with what he says on your motivations – and I’d like very much to think better of you than that. Here would be my question-for-you-to-answer: Opposite-sex marriages may be entered into for a variety of reasons, may contemplate children, decide not to have children, be between people who cannot have children, may be religiously motivated or completely without religion, may be based on infatuation, financial security, social precedence, etc., etc. The reasons are multifarious. What justifies calling all such marriages by the term ‘marriage’ while classing all same-sex marriages, whether with biological or adoptive children, motivated by commitment, infactuation, or whatever, in a separate category of ‘civil union’? There appears to be a clear distinction in your mind other than the genitalia of the people involved – what is it? I frankly cannot grasp your reasoning, at least up to this point. So I’m trying again. (And yes, I did lose my temper at your comments on childless marriages – I presume you understand why, now, even if you are still irked at my doing so. I apologize for that – let us try to reason in this thread.) ---
**Author:** ![Mama\_Zappa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@Mama\_Zappa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mama_Zappa)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/265 "2009-04-09T02:23:38Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Except that that group, Catholic Charities of Massachusetts: 1. was not forced to disband, 2. had no issues with Massachusetts’ gay marriage law, and 3. chose voluntarily to cease arranging adoptions due to _non-governmental_ pressure. Like this: CCoM was receiving state funding, a large portion of their adoption program’s operating income, to place children with families. This was done without any more religious aspect entering into it than would happen with any other agency – matching an older child raised in a faith with adoptive parents of that faith who are otherwise qualified is one factor in any adoption agency’s criteria – it’s part of getting a good ‘fit’ between child and parent. But other than that, whether or not parents or child were Catholic had nothing to do with it – much like a church’s soup kitchen where they don’t ask your faith, but feed you because you’re hungry. CCoM was willing to abide by state laws and place children with qualifying gay couples. The Catholic hierarchy, however, was dead-set opposed to this. The state would not fund a program that discriminated against gay couples on the basis of their being gay. CCoM ran the figures and decided that they could not continue to run their adoption program without state funding. And they were under orders from the Archbishop not to agree to place with gay families. So the result is that CCoM regretfully shut down their adoption program – increasing costs to the taxpayer, since their program had been able to do placements at a lower cost than state and other private agencies. > > So someone is lying in that Washington Post article. What you said basically supports what I remembered from the chat - except that it wasn’t the charity’s policy, but that of their overseeing agency (the Archbishop). From [the chat:](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/04/07/DI2009040702538.html) > [@Brian Brown](#): > > Thus, in MA after passage of same-se marriage Boston Catholic Charities adoptions were SHUT DOWN. Why? Because the church could not adopt children to same-sex couples. The state said that this was “discrimination”—and allowed for now exemption. Thus, the state robbed Catholic Charities of the right to help our neediest children. So - from your info (which is less biased), the fellow wasn’t exactly “lying”, just skewing the truth. Sounds like the charity was caught between a rock and a hard place - and kids needing homes are the ones who suffer. Note: I’m strongly in favor of letting people commit themselves regardless of orientation. I know several gay couples whose relationships have lasted longer than the average marriage, and they should have every right to make it legal. Regarding placing a kid in a home: When foster kids are DESPERATE for homes, it’s criminal to rule out any reasonable chance at a loving permanent situation for them just on the basis of a completely irrelevant plumbing configuration. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/266 "2009-04-09T02:24:43Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Then why specifically label it as “leftist”? Because victimology on the right is rooted in particular conservative tradition, whereas from the left all it takes to be considered a victim is to be on the wrong side of the status quo. Somehow being on the wrong side of the status quo elevates the identifiers and gives it value, and then everyone clamors for that victim status, the one that is recognized as a new liberal cause celebre. You rarely hear liberals championing tolerance for Christianity, because in this country Christians are viewed as a power group. All it takes for a cause to be considered noble is that it’s adherents be weak in relation to the status quo. That is what makes it uniquely leftist. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/267 "2009-04-09T02:32:01Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Marriage licenses are like driver’s license. The government has decided to give some out. In order to exclude any group from this privilege, it has to show a rational basis for doing so. For some groups, that’s easy to do (e.g children), but for same-sex couples, court after court has been finding that no rational basis exists to exclude them from the privilege it gives to heteros. Certainly no one in thisthread has been able to come up with any scrap of a reason for why same-sex marriage would hurt society or why the exclusion of same-sex couples confers any benefit. I did above. But I have no illusions that a valid opinion from my side will be pooh-poohed and immediately be characterized as not only unconvincing, but wrong. I’m familiar with the neighborhood. And now here you come with another innocent call for reasons, even though they’ve already been typed. I’m getting deja vu all over again. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > So I;d like to ask the question clearly: how would society be harmed if the federal government recognized same-sex marriages? Oh what the hell: It would dilute the meaning of the word. It would move to separate the word from the special union it defines. It would deprive us of a word that describes, distinctly, an institution of great importance of society. One that is responsible for the raising of future generations. Society has a vested interested in having people enter into marriages and having families. The dilution of the word would over time, in my opinion, make “marriage” less of a special bond for a man and woman to enter into. Therefore, they wouldn’t do it as often. That, again in my opinion, would be to the detriment of society. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Conversely, how does society _benefit_ from NOT recognizing same-sex marriages. As i said, it allows marriage to be the special situation for a committed man and a woman, the union that will produce, and ideally, raise our future generations. It leaves marriage on a pedestal, making it a more attractive thing for a couple to want to share, a more profound contract to ask the other to enter into with them. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If you can offer even a minimally persuasive answer to either of those questions, you’ll be the first. Where do I pick up my award? ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/268 "2009-04-09T02:50:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > - Since we can grant equal rights without the use of the word, we find common ground with the millions of Americans who believe, for both religious and secular reasons, tht marriage should be between a man and a woman. I am not religious, but I see no reason to jab a thumb in your neighbor’s eye when it is not necessary, when you can get the same thing you claim you want without doing so. When the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia, should they have ruled that interracial couples could have the rights of marriage but that it would have to be called something else in order to find common ground with the millions of Americans who believed, for reasons both religious and secular, that marriage between the races is wrong? After all, there was no point in jabbing a thumb in these people’s eyes, was there? ---
**Author:** ![jkusters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/fbc32d/32.png) [@jkusters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jkusters)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/269 "2009-04-09T03:00:28Z")
You know, sometimes I just get the feeling that it all really boils down to “if tab A does not fit into slot B, it’s not a marriage!!!” The arguments raised by many of the “anti” crowd here seem to boil down to a simple obsession with biological geometry. Somehow I doubt that most of the married couples in the history of the human race really thought that much about how their parts fit together. I would guess they were more worried about what kind of person their parents arranged for them to marry, or in modern times, whether they loved the person they were getting hitched to. Come on, you anti-marriage-equality people, just admit that you just don’t like the thought of gay people getting hitched, of getting equal access to the special club, and be done with it. I know I’d sure respect you more if you admitted that instead of trying to hide behind “tradition” or elaborate pseudo-intellectual biology-based arguments. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/270 "2009-04-09T03:04:52Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Oh what the hell: It would dilute the meaning of the word. It would move to separate the word from the special union it defines. It would deprive us of a word that describes, distinctly, an institution of great importance of society. One that is responsible for the raising of future generations. Society has a vested interested in having people enter into marriages and having families. The dilution of the word would over time, in my opinion, make “marriage” less of a special bond for a man and woman to enter into. Therefore, they wouldn’t do it as often. That, again in my opinion, would be to the detriment of society. Three questions: 1. Are you also upset that a phrase like “I’m not married to that idea, but let’s run it by marketing” also dilutes the meaning of the word? 2. Since, as has been pointed out five jillion times in this thread alone, plenty of same sex couple do have kids, why doesn’t society have a vested interest in letting them enter into marriage? 3. Are you seriously proposing that straight people will say “You know, now that gays can marry each other, the thrill of it is gone. Sorry, honey, the wedding’s off”? ---
**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 9, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/271 "2009-04-09T03:12:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Oh, that thing that exists in your mind? That thing that you’re trying to convince others is real by simply repeating it? Gotcha. Something tells me you might find [this edifying.](http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) It also exists in Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, and but for the spite of people like you, California. Also, Canada, Spain, and several other nations. So it’s not entirely imaginary now, is it? > [@](#): > > No. You CHOOSE to perceive it that way. You don the garb of the poor little victim. It’s all about you, isn’t it? Nothing else matters. How dare someone have an opinion that might result in **Miller** not getting his way!!! Everything that results in **Miller** not conform to the world as he thinks it should be due to some law shall hereby be equated to someone attacking him. That’s some powerful persecution complex you got there, **Miller**. Let me get this straight. If people like you have to accept gay marriage, that’s a thumb in their eye. But if people like me have to give up marriage, when we complain about, we’re playing the victim and exhibiting a persecution complex. That’s a fantastic double standard you’ve got there, **magellan**. I’m sure it fits well with your collection. > [@](#): > > If you’re referring to a relationship that is marriage-like, they’re not the same thing. If they were, we wouldn’t be discussing this issue. Take ten couples of each type drop them on completely isolated islands and come back in 100 years. Which islands do you think might have life on them? So, no, they’re not the same thing. Which brings us back to the fallacy of fertility. For a rebuttal to this bit of nonsense, see every other post in this thread not made by you or **NaSultaine**. > [@](#): > > If there was significant/adequate research done, by unbiased groups, you might have a point. There is, and I do. Please collect your prize at the front door. > [@](#): > > And again, to be clear, the point is that a married man and a woman can provide the “ideal” environment for raising child. And so is a man and a man, and a woman and a woman. You think I’m wrong? Prove it. > [@](#): > > You don’t say. Which is why I didn’t say that one would automatically lead to the other, but that it created a slippery slope: the allowance of one helps the argument for the allowance of the other. You’ve admitted as much in another thread, if I recall correctly. I’ve said that I don’t particularly care if polygamy is legalized. I’ve never said that one will necessarily lead to the other. I’d have to be some kind of an idiot to make that argument. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/272 "2009-04-09T03:25:38Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > This paragraph makes no sense. Sure it does. If the point of wanting to be able to marry someone is to be afforded the same rights enjoyed by a married heterosexual couple, but I just hand you those rights in full, the reason for getting married becomes moot. > [@Miller](#): > > No, you say, “All of the rights, EXCEPT marriage.” I’m not willing to settle for that. And you are arguing like an eight-year-old here, **Miller** , insisting that this right to SSM exists. And I say that to you as someone’s who debating style I generally applaud. See the link in my previous post to you. You’re clearly begging the question. > [@Miller](#): > > And it was shown to you, repeatedly, why that solution would leave gay relationships vulnerable to narrowly crafter, discriminatory legislation. And I have repeatedly said that there could easily be a clause to the effect: “Any and all legal rights and privileges enjoyed by married heterosexual couples will now be enjoyed fully and equally by same-sex couples who have entered together in a Civil Union. If a new right or privilege is granted to one group, it must be granted to the other. If an existing right or privilege is stripped from one group, it must be stripped from the other.” See? Simple. One paragraph. Feel free to take it, gratis. But why do I have the feeling that you’ll ignore this yet again and make the same point, only to have me type it again? > [@Miller](#): > > Right now? Yours. What does that prove? I’m not saying that civil unions are not something we can do as temporary measure. If we could get a civil union law passed in, say, Alabama, that would be a great victory. Even if it only had half the rights associated with marriage in that state, it would still be a great step forward, considering how backwards gay rights are in that state at the moment. But it wouldn’t be the end of the battle, it would just be another step towards the eventual recognition of gay marriage. Just like in California, where we already have your solution, and we’re now pressing to get back our marriage rights. But why wouldn’t that be the end of the battle? Once you have the rights, hopefully with language similar to what I crafted above, why would you continue to battle? For what? You’d already have ALL the rights. > [@Miller](#): > > I do support a two-pronged approach. I always have. It’s not necessary in California, which is the context in which most of my gay marriage arguments have been made, because one prong has already achieved its objectives - we have civil unions that are mostly equal to marriage. Now, in this state, it’s time to work on the other prong, which is abandoning the ludicrous distinction between straight and gay marriages and uniting them under a single body of law. But once you have the rights, there’s no need to do that. None. There may be some desire on your part for whatever reason. But you and a married woman would be enjoying exactly the same benefits. > [@Miller](#): > > That’s a lie. :rolleyes: Oh so now you know that not only is what I typed not true, but that I know it to be not true. Nice job, Kreskin. I’m disappointed that you stoop to such lazy accusations of lying. By the way, isn’t there a rule in GD against such characterization? Not that I care really, it’s just that I thought it a very good rule, for the reasons I alluded to. The fact is that the moral component of the argument is the part that goes to equal rights—hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. Move away from that argument and I see no moral high ground. Opinion, valid maybe. But no moral high ground. > [@Miller](#): > > What I want is marriage. I thought this had been made clear to you? Civil unions are not marriage. They will not convey all of the rights and protections of marriage. By the very fact of them being a separate institution, they are more vulnerable than straight marriages, and therefore, inherently unequal. And once again you ignore HOW those laws can be crafted. the language I crafted above would take care of it easily. > [@Miller](#): > > My solution would take a single word. Actually it wouldn’t there would be some Proposition or law or decision. But I did it in a paragraph. Shall we quibble over word count? > [@Miller](#): > > Equality is not an extremist position. When one insists in making things equal that aren’t, it is. If A + B = A + A, then A = B. and men and women are two different things. Actually, if I recall correctly, you’re bi, so you should know that. You may want redo your research. > [@Miller](#): > > You know, for someone who goes on at such lengths about how “words mean things,” you seem to be pretty cavalier when it comes to redefining the word “homophobe.” You think that letting homosexuals marry would harm the country. That’s an inherently homophobic belief. I can’t even concieve of how anyone could argue other wise. And I say that after having spent years watching you attmept to do just that. Yeah, and you continue to skirt by the reasoning and get to the hominem. It’s a necessity for you. You must characterize me as a homophobe so my opinions can be written off as homophobic by both you and others who might be more on the fence. How neat. > [@Miller](#): > > Did you miss the part earlier where I pointed out myself that homosexuality and polygamy are two unrelated subjects? So why do you think that declaring you’re opposed to polygamy is going to prove anything about your oppositition to polygamy? That was for the benefit of other readers who have not had the benefit of my enlightened insights as often as you. > [@Miller](#): > > This, from the guy who called me an extremist, and compared me to the Taliban? **Miller** , you’re disappointing me here. You know how analogies work. And your analysis is wrong. The equation groups three topics and three people who feel strongly about each of them respectively. The common denominator for the people half of the analogies is devout belief. > [@Miller](#): > > Judging by events in Vermont and Iowa, yeah, these tactics seem to be working quite nicely. Probably work again in California in 2010, when we drag your assinine prop 8 kicking and screaming out of our constitution and shoot it in the street like a dog. It might. But here’s what I am sure of. If that happens, the tide will again turn against SSM. Look at history, ancient Greece, during it’s glory years homosexuality enjoyed varying degrees of acceptance (though none as full as a lot of people think). Yet, we didn’t wind up with the acceptance being the norm. Societies that came after took a lot of what Greece did have, but not their most liberal views regarding homosexuality. They talk about the wisdom of the masses in politics. I think the wisdom of the masses over ages and ages will eventually bring us back to where man has always returned: understanding that there is a line that separates men and women. And that one was meant to be with the other. Personally, I hope we don’t revert too far back, as I do think homosexuality should be accepted as natural, and that SS couples should enjoy the legal rights of any couple, but should gays be able to use political correctness to override nature today, nature will have it’s way tomorrow. As it always does. In the meantime, I’ll see you at the next Prop 8 battle. Thanks to a previous discussion with you, I’m already saving up! > [@Miller](#): > > Enjoy the ashheap of history, **mags**. You’ll have lots of company. This hubris, in light of the facts of history and nature, is truly astounding. ---
**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 9, 2009, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/273 "2009-04-09T04:07:13Z")
At this point, the anti-SSM arguments seem to consist largely of snark. I take this as a sign of weakness. And I’m neither gay nor married. I just don’t like prohibitions that serve no apparent purpose. _Why_ deny women the vote? No reason. _Why_ prevent interracial couples from marrying? No reason. These two cases suggest that prohibiting someone from doing something because of gender is pointless and preventing a marriage between two people of different race is pointless, so how is preventing a marriage between two people of the same gender not pointless? If someone can explain how the first two cases are viable civil rights issues but the third is not, please do so. ---
**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 9, 2009, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/274 "2009-04-09T04:10:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think the wisdom of the masses over ages and ages will eventually bring us back to where man has always returned: understanding that there is a line that separates men and women. Sounds like that direction leads to _The Handmaid’s Tale_. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/275 "2009-04-09T07:04:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The other thing they want is to appropriate the word and use it as a shroud of normalcy in order to create the idea that homosexuality are merely two equal expressions of what it means to be human. They are not. Even leaving God or a god out of it, one expression would allow the species to continue, the other would not. In one, the body an its intended use are aligned. In the other they are not. I actually threw up a little in my mouth, while trying to digest this stinking pile of shit. I thought I was reading a post by **kanicbird**. Have you seen some of the people who are “allowing the species to continue”? This is “what it means to be human”? This is something that I should aspire to, that I am less a human being for not doing? If I felt that I needed to reproduce in order to justify my existence, I could just knock up some drunken slut like so many straight guys do, and cast off my “shroud of normalcy.” But frankly, I have better things to do with my life, and the world would be a much better place if certain people didn’t feel the need to reproduce. ---
**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 9, 2009, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/276 "2009-04-09T07:12:41Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Sure it does. If the point of wanting to be able to marry someone is to be afforded the same rights enjoyed by a married heterosexual couple, but I just hand you those rights in full, the reason for getting married becomes moot. Except, of course, the right to be married. > [@](#): > > And you are arguing like an eight-year-old here, **Miller** , insisting that this right to SSM exists. And I say that to you as someone’s who debating style I generally applaud. See the link in my previous post to you. You’re clearly begging the question. No, I’m stating a premise. If you’re going to start trying to use the rules of logic at this late date in your posting career, you really should understand the terms involved. > [@](#): > > And I have repeatedly said that there could easily be a clause to the effect: “Any and all legal rights and privileges enjoyed by married heterosexual couples will now be enjoyed fully and equally by same-sex couples who have entered together in a Civil Union. If a new right or privilege is granted to one group, it must be granted to the other. If an existing right or privilege is stripped from one group, it must be stripped from the other.” And someone can come along and amend it to, “except this right,” or “except that right.” If gay marriage and straight marriage are covered by the same law, they can’t do that. If there’s only one statute, they can’t craft a law that only targets gays. That’s why your “solution” is unacceptable. Well, one of the reasons. There are, as you well know, plenty more besides. > [@](#): > > See? Simple. One paragraph. Feel free to take it, gratis. But why do I have the feeling that you’ll ignore this yet again and make the same point, only to have me type it again? And when you type it, again, I’ll explain why it won’t work. Again. > [@](#): > > But why wouldn’t that be the end of the battle? Once you have the rights, hopefully with language similar to what I crafted above, why would you continue to battle? For what? You’d already have ALL the rights. Except the right to marriage. It’s really amazing that you haven’t figured this part out yet. You know how strongly you feel about marriage, they you’ll spend time and money to keep people who have never done you any harm away from it? I feel just as strongly. As much as you feel that marriage is something that needs to be protected from people like me, I want to be able to get into it. Marriage is important. The word is important. The concept is important. And I won’t accept being forced out of it because people like you are so stuntedly terrified of any sort of change. > [@](#): > > But once you have the rights, there’s no need to do that. But I won’t have all the rights, will I? I think you can guess which right I won’t have: I’ll have all of them… except the right to marriage. > [@](#): > > :rolleyes: Oh so now you know that not only is what I typed not true, but that I know it to be not true. Nice job, Kreskin. I’m disappointed that you stoop to such lazy accusations of lying. By the way, isn’t there a rule in GD against such characterization? Not that I care really, it’s just that I thought it a very good rule, for the reasons I alluded to. Sorry, is this like the “thumb in the eye thing?” Only people on your side of the debate get to do it? You’ve been told, again and again, that it is a rights issue. When you say that it’s not really a rights issue what are you doing? That’s right: you’re accusing the other side of lying. > [@](#): > > The fact is that the moral component of the argument is the part that goes to equal rights—hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. Move away from that argument and I see no moral high ground. Opinion, valid maybe. But no moral high ground. No, I don’t expect that you can see it, from where you’re standing. > [@](#): > > If A + B = A + A, then A = B. and men and women are two different things. Actually, if I recall correctly, you’re bi, so you should know that. You may want redo your research. Well recalled! I’ll tell you what. You go fuck a dude, then come back and tell me how different men and women are. Until then, it looks like I’ve got more relevant experience on the issue than you do, _n’est pas?_ In the meantime, why don’t you meditate on all the ways people are not like algebra. > [@](#): > > Yeah, and you continue to skirt by the reasoning and get to the hominem. It’s a necessity for you. You must characterize me as a homophobe so my opinions can be written off as homophobic by both you and others who might be more on the fence. How neat. No, I’m merely pointing out a self-evident fact. The word means what it means. I’m not going to pretend it has a different definition just too avoid hurting your feelings. > [@](#): > > That was for the benefit of other readers who have not had the benefit of my enlightened insights as often as you. Those lucky bastards. > [@](#): > > **Miller** , you’re disappointing me here. You know how analogies work. And your analysis is wrong. The equation groups three topics and three people who feel strongly about each of them respectively. The common denominator for the people half of the analogies is devout belief. Right. Because you certainly didn’t intend any other connotations in that particular analogy. By the way, you wouldn’t happen to have a bridge you’d like to sell, would you? I’m in the market. > [@](#): > > It might. But here’s what I am sure of. If that happens, the tide will again turn against SSM. Look at history, ancient Greece, during it’s glory years homosexuality enjoyed varying degrees of acceptance (though none as full as a lot of people think). Yet, we didn’t wind up with the acceptance being the norm. Societies that came after took a lot of what Greece did have, but not their most liberal views regarding homosexuality. They talk about the wisdom of the masses in politics. I think the wisdom of the masses over ages and ages will eventually bring us back to where man has always returned: understanding that there is a line that separates men and women. And that one was meant to be with the other. Yeah, you know what else the Greeks had that didn’t catch on? Democracy. The United States picked up that particular torch and ran with it. Back when we first tried it, you know what people said? “It’ll never work.” “No one else has ever done it before.” “It’s against the natural order.” I think it’s worked out pretty well for us, though. I’m willing to bet you agree. We’ve also picked up a few other ideas. Religious freedom. That was a rarity prior to ‘76, wasn’t it? So was racial equality. Took us a while to figure that out, but in all fairness, “Kill the foreigner” was pretty deeply ingrained in the human psyche. But I think we’ve made pretty good strides in that area, don’t you? And hey, how about _sexual_ equality? I can’t think of any other society that said, “Men and women should have the same rights,” before we came along. Probably, someone will point out some place that tried it, but it’s still got to be pretty fuckin’ rare, historically speaking. But we’ve made a real go of it! So, what, pray tell, makes you think that gay rights is going to be any different? > [@](#): > > Personally, I hope we don’t revert too far back, as I do think homosexuality should be accepted as natural, and that SS couples should enjoy the legal rights of any couple… Except, of course… for the right to marriage. > [@](#): > > In the meantime, I’ll see you at the next Prop 8 battle. Thanks to a previous discussion with you, I’m already saving up! Glad to hear it! I can’t think of anything that will do more good for our cause than your vocal opposition. Make sure you muster the full acumen and insight you habitually bring to the table on this issue. I wouldn’t want the public at large to miss out on the full display of your intellectual rigor. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/277 "2009-04-09T12:30:34Z")
**TWEEEEEET!** EVERYONE, ratchet it down a notch. This particularly applies to **magellan01** and **Miller** , but it goes for everyone. If you simply must insult other posters or make personal commenrts about their posting style, then just move over to the **Pit** and get it out of this forum. **[/Moderating]** ---
**Author:** ![emmaliminal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7bcc69/32.png) [@emmaliminal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emmaliminal)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/278 "2009-04-09T12:53:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > **TWEEEEEET!** Thank you! ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/279 "2009-04-09T13:23:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Correct. Quickly, here are a few reasons: > > - There is no need to us the word. We can craft a law tomorrow that would afford gay couples all the she rights and privileges. > > - Since we can grant equal rights without the use of the word, we find common ground with the millions of Americans who believe, for both religious and secular reasons, tht marriage should be between a man and a woman. I am not religious, but I see no reason to jab a thumb in your neighbor’s eye when it is not necessary, when you can get the same thing you claim you want without doing so. I came back to this post after reading the later one where you claimed to have spelled out why SSM would harm society and why the exclusion of SS couples benefits society. Is this it? At least part of it right? I’m thinking if your neighbor wanted to infringe on rights that mattered to you or someone you cared about you’d be willing to jab a thumb in their eye if that’s what it took. You should find and read Letter from Birmingham Jail by MLK. It relates. There are very good reasons why a society should continue to challenge prejudice and bigotry and I’ll bet you can think of them. Civil unions are merely a transition to equal rights and GM. Many of the people who oppose SSM also oppose CUs because they see them as a slippery slope towards GM. Go figure. > [@](#): > > - As language progresses, it should get more accurate, more specific, not less. I don’t see any group wanting to erase the words “giggle” and “guffaw” from the vocabulary and because we can all just use “laugh”. I find it particularly odd that we would go from currently having a word that clearly points to the special union that a man a woman can enjoy, a union that has been a cornerstone of society, and move to a place where we don’t even have a word to clearly describe it. I don’t get this. Did marriage suddenly take on a more sacred role when gays decided they wanted in? Look at the divorce rate. Higher among the religious last time I looked. Look at the rise in single parent homes , or couples who ditch the complications of marriage and potential divorce to just live together. I have two sisters in their sixties who have been living in sin with their significant other for decades. What special union are you talking about? I’d say to the religious that the term marriage and the legal ramifications of that have nothing to do with whether your vows or your matrimony is holy. It’s in your heart or it isn’t, and evidently, statistically speaking, it isn’t. Your inference that SSM will somehow invalidate the meaning of the word just doesn’t hold up. > [@](#): > > - I think that it is in society’s best interest to promote behavior that best benefits society. So do I. That’s why it’s important to challenge baseless religious belief that adversely affects the rights of others and prejudice and bigotry in general. > [@](#): > > I think that a traditional home consisting of a married man and woman is the ideal environment in which to raise a child. Perfect always? Hardly. Can a single parent or a gay couple do a terrific job in this regard? Absolutely. I’m not looking to penalize those groups. I simply think that society should have cues laid out for the next generation that guides them into situations that are most beneficial to society as a whole. Let’s deal with reality as it’s presented instead. Let’s teach our kids that society and people are complex and varied and that’s something to be glad about rather than afraid of. What kind of cue is, “Let’s deny this group equal rights and find some reason to justify it” > [@](#): > > - The slippery slope argument (which is not always fallacious). If we say that “marriage” no longer means what most everyone knew it to mean, where do we draw the line. If marriage is simply an agreement be loving, consenting adults, why can’t we have polygamy? I’d go as far as to say that the it would be easier to defend polygamy (which I am against, to be clear). Our climbing divorce rate shows that we’ve already said that. Polygamy is another argument. The slippery slope argument doesn’t fly any more than if I made the argument that traditional marriage often leads to broken homes which damage society. If we give this one group equal rights then heck, other groups will be coming out asking for their rights as well. Pretty soon we have to give all sorts of undesirables equal rights and the next thing ya know some dam gay atheist is in the Senate running for president. You just have to draw the line on equal rights somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Love\_Rhombus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/love_rhombus/32/10694_2.png) [@Love\_Rhombus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Love_Rhombus)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/280 "2009-04-09T13:45:24Z")
Ok, so…if this is true… > [@magellan01](#): > > If there was significant/adequate research done, by unbiased groups, you might have a point. But it doesn’t exist, so you don’t. Then how do you know this to be true? > [@magellan01](#): > > And again, to be clear, the point is that a married man and a woman can provide the “ideal” environment for raising child. That doesn’t mean other situations can’t be better than some traditional households. Many single and same-sex couples provide much better environments than even the norm. Some provide absolutely wonderful environments. But they will all fall short of the best of traditional situations. I just roll my eyes whenever you or others dispute this. A married couple can provide a child with everything a same-sex couple can provide, but a same-sex couple cannot provide all that which a heterosexual couple can provide. Sorry, but thems the facts. Don’t like them, talk to Evolution or God, whomever you think responsible. And a gaytheist president would be interesting, if only for the massive head explosions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=15)