# 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:** 16
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/301 "2009-04-09T18:29:40Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Not when they follow the vagaries of pop-culture trends as they do today. You’re classifying single sex marriage as a _pop culture trend_? :dubious: > [@](#): > > Nor does the tactic of calling an honest difference of opinion, ‘ignorance’. That implies that if I understood what you were saying I would agree with you, except I do understand and I don’t agree. You have presented no reasons for disagreement, and it is not at all clear that you do understand. > [@](#): > > The term, ‘bigot’, applied in the face of disagreement is a tactic of dehumanization, because everyone knows ‘bigots’ are not worth listening to. Absolutely backward. Bigotry IS dehumanization. How is it acceptable, while to point it out is not? Bizarre. > [@](#): > > Civil Unions for everyone. It’s only a matter of contract law at this point. But you’d rather deny the word “marriage” to everyone rather than see it used by buttrammers. Got it. ---
**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, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/302 "2009-04-09T18:33:25Z")
Hint for the lazy: I am not opposed to gay marriage. I’m just fine with it. I even go a step further and think that gay adoption is not only something that we should allow but something that is a GOOD thing. Just in case that clarifies thing. People are more than welcome to misdirect their discontent in my direction if they so choose, I just want to make my position clear. ---
**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, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/303 "2009-04-09T18:35:45Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You’re classifying single sex marriage as a _pop culture trend_? :dubious: No, lets forget the victimology angle. I stated specifically it was a hijack and other people pursued it and I answered questions. > [@](#): > > Absolutely backward. Bigotry IS dehumanization. How is it acceptable, while to point it out is not? Bizarre. Yeah, it’s really you that do not understand. The bigotry cuts both ways, because the two sides have irreconcilable differences. They are not tolerant of homosexuality and you are not tolerant of Evangelical mores. It cuts both ways, both sides are bigots in their own way. ---
**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 9, 2009, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/304 "2009-04-09T18:37:50Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Yeah, it’s really you that do not understand. The bigotry cuts both ways, because the two sides have irreconcilable differences. They are not tolerant of homosexuality and you are not tolerant of Evangelical mores. It cuts both ways, both sides are bigots in their own way. Except that most of us are perfectly content to allow Evangelicals to practice their mores in peace (provided they leave us alone), while the lot of them are quite happy to try to prevent us from living our lives at all in any way outside of their approval. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/305 "2009-04-09T18:40:01Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > **Shodan** , perhaps it might be clearer to you if I pointed out that if you, your wife, and children were transported back in time to Richmond, VA, in, say, 1950, they would deem you not a legal family, and do it according to the accepted custom of the time and the laws passed pursuant thereto. Your belief that that is unjust would hold no merit – the laws of the Commonwealth are what the judges would abide by. What they should abide by would be the Constitution. That’s the point of the _Loving_ decision - that interracial couples (and, by extension, interracial families such as mine) were being denied the equal protection of the laws. The idea is that the basic right of marriage is established in the common law, and was being abrogated. Note the underlined part - it is important to a correct understanding of the nature of rights and how they can be established. > [@](#): > > And your personal twist on the Tenth Amendment – that anything you don’t particularly like is classed as a “new right” and is therefore the province of the states, because it is reserved to the states to “grant new rights,” is contrary to the Constitution, including textualist and originalist readings. Not the parts I don’t like - the parts that aren’t there. And it is not contrary to the Constitution - that is explicitly what the Tenth Amendment says. > [@](#): > > “Gay marriage” is a form of marriage, as surely as “interracial marriage” is. And there you are merely mistaken. 'Taint so. > [@Loving](#): > > The freedom to constitute as **man and wife** according to the laws and customs of a nation has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. See also Black’s Law Dictionary 986 (7th ed. 1999) which defines marriage as the “legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife”. As well the Goodridge decision, which found that marriage “is an engagement, by which a single man and a single woman, of sufficient discretion, take each other for husband and wife”. - (Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 52 (1810)). > [@](#): > > This definition of marriage, as both the department and the Superior Court judge point out, derives from the common law. See Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2 Mass. 530, 535 (1807) > [@](#): > > Marriage has been deemed a basic human right for 40 years now Marriage is. Gay marriage is not. > [@](#): > > .. while it’s not explicitly spelled out… Again, you are mistaken. See above. > [@](#): > > The question therefore becomes, are there any **legal** grounds on which to distinguish between same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage that will stand up to heightened scrutiny? I believe not, but you may reasonably differ with that, and if you do, I’d like to see your arguments. Already done. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/306 "2009-04-09T18:40:33Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No, lets forget the victimology angle. I stated specifically it was a hijack and other people pursued it and I answered questions. You chose the words. > [@](#): > > The bigotry cuts both ways, because the two sides have irreconcilable differences. They are not tolerant of homosexuality and you are not tolerant of Evangelical mores. It cuts both ways, both sides are bigots in their own way. Ah, yes, the old last-ditch argument that it’s intolerant not to tolerate intolerance. :rolleyes: ---
**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, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/307 "2009-04-09T18:41:45Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You chose the words. Right, and you can’t understand them, and it’s not topical so lets move on. > [@](#): > > Ah, yes, the old last-ditch argument that it’s intolerant not to tolerate intolerance. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Tolerance is not a virtue in and of itself. But I am done talking to you because you aren’t responding to what I’m saying, you are responding to what you want me to be saying. ---
**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, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/308 "2009-04-09T18:45:05Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Except that most of us are perfectly content to allow Evangelicals to practice their mores in peace (provided they leave us alone), while the lot of them are quite happy to try to prevent us from living our lives at all in any way outside of their approval. It’s laughably absurd to claim that your lives don’t impact them and vice versa. The idea that one side wants to let the other live in peace is bullshit. I’ve read plenty of people on this board that would happily remove tax exemption from churches and who hate the Christian religion passionately. The reality is that this is a matter of function and not morality. It’s simply not a moral issue, it’s an issue of utility. How do we want to organize our society? Do we allow gay marriage or not? Personally for me, the answer is: yes, allow it. But I don’t get into the morass of pretending that it’s a moral issue, because it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/309 "2009-04-09T18:46:52Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > :rolleyes: Tolerance is not a virtue in and of itself. If that’s what you have to do to prop up your position, maybe it’s time for you to recontemplate it. ---
**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, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/310 "2009-04-09T18:47:22Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Except, of course, the right to be married. Is not. > [@Miller](#): > > 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. Oh, I do. At the heart of this discussion is whether or not a man has a right to marry another man. That is a question to be answered. Yet you continue to assume it to be a given. It ain’t. It’s just your opinion. Sorry again, chum. > [@Miller](#): > > 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. Are you not paying attention? Let me help you, you’re not. In what I wrote, both gays and straights are covered by the exact same laws—one set. One set that will heretofore apply to two groups, with language the prevents any change that does not affect both groups. So, pay attention, wouldya? > [@Miller](#): > > And when you type it, again, I’ll explain why it won’t work. Again. But you haven’t explained it once yet. See above, what you wrote implies you didn’t even read it. What you wrote doesn’t even apply to what I wrote in that paragraph. > [@Miller](#): > > 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. Well, now we’re getting somewhere. So you’re admitting that it’s not just about the legal rights and benefits. That you want the rights and benefits AND the coattails to give committed gay couples a shroud of normalcy. I don’t blame you for wanting that. But I don’t think you have the right to dilute a word that describes the very special bond that only a man and a woman can enjoy. Sorry. I ask you to go find comfort elsewhere. If you want more acceptance in society, how about you respect the wishes of the populace? Your militant all or nothing attitude will create a deep rift between gays and straights that will ensure that you are considered “other”. You can only call a tractor a pumpkin for so long. How about you create your own reasons for the acceptance you want? Don’t you find it a little pathetic to get what you want by grabbing on to someone else’s coattails? > [@Miller](#): > > 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. Complete and utter bullshit. I’ve never accused anyone of lying on this issue. (And extremely rarely outside this issue.) You may want to read the exchange over. You plainly accused me of lying. Aside from being against GD rules (and there’s a good reason why it is), it’s idiotic. Think about it. > [@Miller](#): > > 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?_ Uh, no thanks. Not my cup of tea. And I wouldn’t fuck a dude because I’m not attracted to them. And that’s because I can see the stark differences between guys and girls without fucking them. The soft, gentle ones with the bumbs up top make me want to have sex with her. Not really so much my preference, I guess, than evolution’s. > [@Miller](#): > > In the meantime, why don’t you meditate on all the ways people are not like algebra. Nothing is like algebra. Math is merely a symbolic way to explore and gain understanding of the world. > [@Miller](#): > > 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. Ha! More bullshit. The ad hominem has been a very effective tool of the left. If you don’t ignore the differences between men and women and how they fir into relationships, you’re a homophobe. If you’re against affirmative action, you’re a racist. I grant you the cheap tactic has been effective for the PC police, especially with the malleable Humpty-Dumpty definition of the word. But it is a cheap tactic. Though I would expect no less from someone who seeks his legitimacy through riding someone else’s coattails. > [@Miller](#): > > Right. Because you certainly didn’t intend any other connotations in that particular analogy. I know you understand the concept of analogies better than this. But just in case, the analogy drew parallels between people who blindly hold an extreme view, those with whom one can no longer have a reasoned discussion. The Creationist will no pay attention to the fossil record. The Taliban guy will not be swayed to less hate through any manner of reason. And you refuse to even admit that your “marriage is a right” is just your opinion, and not a “given”. And that’s just for starters. > [@Miller](#): > > So, what, pray tell, makes you think that gay rights is going to be any different? I don’t think gay _rights_ are any different. I’m surprised by now that you think I would. I think both logic and the moral high ground are behind it. But we’re not arguing about gay rights, we agree on the rights (the non-imaginary ones). We disagree on how gays should tap into those rights. > [@Miller](#): > > 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. You forgot check writing. That’s two ways I’ll be attempting to craft society in a way that I believe would most benefit it. I call it the Audacity of Common Sense. ---
**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, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/311 "2009-04-09T18:47:51Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If that’s what you have to do to prop up your position, maybe it’s time for you to recontemplate it. Not really, my position is superior to yours. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/312 "2009-04-09T18:53:46Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What they should abide by would be the Constitution. …The idea is that the basic right of marriage is established in the common law, and was being abrogated. Welcome to the cause! > [@](#): > > And there you are merely mistaken. 'Taint so. Cite? > [@](#): > > the Goodridge decision, which found that marriage “is an engagement, by which a single man and a single woman, of sufficient discretion, take each other for husband and wife”. - > (Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 52 (1810)). Sigh. \*Goodridge \*overturned that portion of _Milford_. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/313 "2009-04-09T18:54:22Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It’s laughably absurd to claim that your lives don’t impact them and vice versa. The idea that one side wants to let the other live in peace is bullshit. I’ve read plenty of people on this board that would happily remove tax exemption from churches and who hate the Christian religion passionately. All of this has nothing to do with gay marriage and you know it. If this is your position, your position is bullshit; gay people wishing to get married have no problem _whatsoever_ with straight people staying married to people of the opposite gender. > [@mswas](#): > > The reality is that this is a matter of function and not morality. It’s simply not a moral issue, it’s an issue of utility. How do we want to organize our society? Do we allow gay marriage or not? Personally for me, the answer is: yes, allow it. But I don’t get into the morass of pretending that it’s a moral issue, because it isn’t. So I assume it wouldn’t be a moral issue if we made it illegal for straight people to get married. And thus took away all their marital rights, and allowed their families to completely shut out the former spouse in cases of children or property or medical determinations or financial support, should the other member of the union become incapacitated. Especially if we did this to people for no _rational_ reason. That’s not a moral issue at _all_. (I think you’ve just reduced the set of “moral issues” to the empty set.) ---
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/314 "2009-04-09T18:56:09Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The bigotry cuts both ways, because the two sides have irreconcilable differences. They are not tolerant of homosexuality and you are not tolerant of Evangelical mores. It cuts both ways, both sides are bigots in their own way. And in Loving v Virginia, one side was not tolerant of interracial marriage and one side was not tolerant of Southern good-old-boys mores. Guess both sides were bigoted there, too. ---
**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 9, 2009, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/315 "2009-04-09T18:57:29Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Not really, my position is superior to yours. For someone who claims to support same-sex marriage, you have a really funny way of showing it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/316 "2009-04-09T18:58:30Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Not really, my position is superior to yours. You’re reduced to defending intolerance itself even \*knowing \*that’s all your position is based upon. To what could it be superior? You can’t even state it _coherently_. ---
**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, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/317 "2009-04-09T19:24:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Are you not paying attention? Let me help you, you’re not. In what I wrote, both gays and straights are covered by the exact same laws—one set. One set that will heretofore apply to two groups, with language the prevents any change that does not affect both groups. So, pay attention, wouldya? No, that’s not what you’re saying. You are NOT arguing for one law. One law would be marriage for everyone. What you’re advocating is TWO laws. One called marriage, and one called civil unions. This is basic arithmetic, for god’s sake. How can you except to implement wise social policy when you can’t count to two? > [@](#): > > But you haven’t explained it once yet. See above, what you wrote implies you didn’t even read it. What you wrote doesn’t even apply to what I wrote in that paragraph. Okay, let’s try it again. Maybe this will help you figure out the gigantic, glaring flaw in your previous statement. We have a system of laws we call marriage. This law says, “Men and women can get married, and they get rights A, B, and C.” You get a civil unions law passed. It says, “Same sex couples can get civil unions. Civil unions have all the same rights as marriage.” There are now two laws regarding marriage - one for straight people, and one for gay people. The body of the second law is basically one big, “ditto” to the first law, but they’re still separate. Now along comes Johnny Homophobe. He gets a law passed that says, “Civil unions no longer get rights B or C.” Now marriage and civil unions are no longer equal. And because it’s possible for someone to pass a law like this, the two institutions of civil unions and marriage were never equal to begin with. Now, if there were only one law that said, “Anyone can get married, and they get rights A, B, and C,” Johnny couldn’t do this, because there isn’t a separate civil unions law that only effects gays. He can’t take away rights B and C from us without losing them himself. > [@](#): > > Well, now we’re getting somewhere. So you’re admitting that it’s not just about the legal rights and benefits. I’ve never said that it _was_ just about those. However, those elements are also intrinsic to my position. > [@](#): > > That you want the rights and benefits AND the coattails to give committed gay couples a shroud of normalcy. That’s not what I said. I don’t care what other people think about my marriage. I want marriage because of what it means to _me_, not because of what it means to anyone else. > [@](#): > > If you want more acceptance in society, how about you respect the wishes of the populace? Because their wish is for me not to be accepted, of course. I can’t gain acceptance by giving up acceptance. > [@](#): > > Your militant all or nothing attitude will create a deep rift between gays and straights that will ensure that you are considered “other”. What all or nothing attitude? Where have I ever said that I want full marriage rights or no rights at all? For that matter, where have I ever advocated the use of force in obtaining my civil rights? Because that’s what the word “militant” means, you know. It’s not just a modifier that means, “really a whole lot.” > [@](#): > > Complete and utter bullshit. I’ve never accused anyone of lying on this issue. You have repeatedly ascribed motives to me that I have specifically disavowed. > [@](#): > > Ha! More bullshit. The ad hominem has been a very effective tool of the left. And some day, we might even become as adept at using it as the right. > [@](#): > > If you don’t ignore the differences between men and women and how they fir into relationships, you’re a homophobe. No, if you believe that homosexuals are inherently inferior to heterosexuals, you’re a homophobe. If you believe that homosexuals should be treated differently under the law, you’re a homophobe. Both of these are positions to which you subscribe, although I’ll grant a pass on the latter one due to the mathematical difficulty you’ve demonstrated earlier in this post. > [@](#): > > I know you understand the concept of analogies better than this. Unfortunetly for you, I’m also conversant with the concept of subtext. > [@](#): > > I don’t think gay _rights_ are any different. I’m surprised by now that you think I would. I think both logic and the moral high ground are behind it. But we’re not arguing about gay rights, we agree on the rights. Except the right to marriage. > [@](#): > > You forgot check writing. That’s two ways I’ll be attempting to craft society in a way that I believe would most benefit it. I call it the Audacity of Common Sense. Calling what you pedal common sense is pretty audacious, I’ll give you that much. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/318 "2009-04-09T19:32:47Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > No, if you believe that homosexuals are inherently inferior to heterosexuals, you’re a homophobe. If you believe that homosexuals should be treated differently under the law, you’re a homophobe. Both of these are positions to which you subscribe, although I’ll grant a pass on the latter one due to the mathematical difficulty you’ve demonstrated earlier in this post. But you shouldn’t given his “shroud of normalcy” comment - which can only mean that homosexuality is not normal. And isn’t that the heart of the matter? ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/319 "2009-04-09T19:44:52Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I wonder if **NaSultainne** would do me the honor of identifying [this](http://www.oxfamamericaunwrapped.com/images/P/lg-school_desk.jpg) item. Desk? Or chair? Scalene triangle? ---
**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, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/320 "2009-04-09T19:57:00Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You’re reduced to defending intolerance itself even \*knowing \*that’s all your position is based upon. To what could it be superior? > > You can’t even state it _coherently_. I’m not defending intolerance at all. I am calling out intolerance where I see it. The intolerance cuts in both directions. I’m sorry that’s not clear to you. As I am not really on either side of the debate I can step back and see the hate and vitriole from both ends. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=17)