# 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:** 18
**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, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/341 "2009-04-09T21:05:27Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Except that’s not what I am saying. He said he can’t wait for their culture to die off. Hardly the same thing. I was referring to what YOU said. > [@](#): > > If you really don’t understand the difference well… Try stating it coherently and I might. > [@](#): > > I’m not proposing anything, I am just pointing out that the two sides are locked in a battle to the death, and one will win the other will lose. I think both sides agree that the Conservative Christian side is losing. But you are. You’re proposing that that side be given equal respect. > [@](#): > > Sin is PERFECTLY natural. The call is to resist the natural sinful inclinations. Assuming your conclusion. You have defined homosexuality to be sinful, and expect that simple statement of hatred and ignorance to be accepted as a basis for serious argument. “We love the sinner, what we hate is the _sin_” is one of the most common and most contemptible lies around. > [@](#): > > Marriage itself is unnatural, we are naturally promiscuous Speak for yourself. :dubious: > [@](#): > > ‘Views based on hatred and ignorance.’, see you think your basis for the discussion is just accepted. I don’t agree that the views are based on hatred and ignorance. It’s a non-starter. You can say you don’t agree, but if you can’t or won’t explain why, that opinion is of no value. > [@](#): > > I see both sides You show respect, and even understanding, for only one. Don’t kid yourself. ---
**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, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/342 "2009-04-09T21:08:38Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > If you really don’t understand the difference well… I don’t understand the difference\*. So could you explain the difference between a “Gay Pride” parade and an “Irish Pride”/St. Patrick’s Day parade and why ignoring it if you don’t care for those people is an acceptable solution for one and not the other? \*I understand one difference: except in, say Ulster, the Gay Pride parade is likely to piss off a larger group of people. However, I’m suspecting from your post that you feel there’s a more fundamental difference. ---
**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, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/343 "2009-04-09T21:10:36Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > My point, lest it slip past you, is that the desire to “preserve the definition” is a smokescreen over a barrel of red herrings. Definitions are constantly in flux, and people generally don’t give a shit. But in this case they do give a shit, so your argument doesn’t apply, it’s a special case. > [@](#): > > It is only on this topic that a single word must, for some reason, be preserved in amber now and forever, or civilization as we know it will be rent asunder. Clearly, people care about it for other reasons, which many are unwilling to be honest about. I have slightly more respect for someone willing to admit that they just think fags are yucky, rather than couching their rationale in ludicrous claims of preserving the language. I think they opposition to gay marriage are bluntly honest about the reasons they oppose it. They think it’s immoral. I don’t see dishonesty on that point. No one is claiming it is ONLY about preserving the language. > [@](#): > > You say it isn’t bigotry, and yet the only alternate reason I see offered (excluding religious dogma, which is another smokescreen), time and time again, is some variation on “it’s always been that way.” I have yet to see a single reasonable proposal for how allowing gay marriage is going to hurt anyone, let alone threaten the institution of (heterosexual marriage) and damage society. “It’s always been that way” is a statement devoid of meaning, but “bigotry” sure fits like a glove, and from there all the pieces fall into place. I never said it isn’t bigotry, I said the bigotry cuts both ways, not exactly the same thing. You don’t see an argument that YOU deem reasonable. It’s reasonable to them, but because you disagree with it you dismiss it and reduce it to ‘fags are yucky’. There are some very fundamental reasons from within a Christian point of view homosexuality is wrong. The main one is that sex is for procreation and procreation alone. IE, buggering is spilling one’s seed in fallow soil. The seed itself is sacred as it contains the godly potential to create another life if planted in fertile soil. It’s seen as wasting the gift that God gave you, the power to create life. They are opposed to heterosexual promiscuity as well, it’s not like they are singling homosexuals out. What makes homosexuality a special case is that homosexual sex can NEVER result in a new life. > [@](#): > > You clearly don’t like the term. I suspect a large number of bigots don’t, and similarly lack the self-awareness to realize that their own opinions push them quite easily into that group. It is amusing, albeit exemplifying a “guy on crutches slipping on a banana peel” sort of humor, to watch the artless rhetorical floundering of those trying to convince others (and themselves) that their iron-clad devotion to excluding gays from marriage is driven by something _other_ than bigotry, or if you prefer, some unsavory mélange of distaste, disgust, fear, and ignorance. I am just arguing that throwing the word ‘bigotry’ around as an epithet is a convenient ploy to avoid giving deeper thought to the position your opposition holds. As has been said in this thread, why think about their position? It’s just ignorant bigotry anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/344 "2009-04-09T21:11:06Z")
> [@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. First, you have not one shed of proof except your paranoia to show that this IS the agenda. Secondly, even granting that that IS the case why is this such an issue for you. In the eyes of the law - there should be NO difference. It only matters to the religiously-bigoted worldview of the fundamentalists of the world. If, as you say, the law should offer ALL legal priveleges to gay marriages what it offers to straight marriage, why should the LAW apply a different name other than to satisfy the bigoted. To be honest, my position on the nomenclature is one of indifference - but I could imagine gays to have much stronger feelings about this. And why shouldn’t they? We’re talking about legal nomenclature with legal effects - whatever cultural impact it has is incidental and should not distract from the fact that an injustice is being remedied. Imagine me arguing for a different name on mixed marriages (blacks and whites). I could use (with very little tweaking) the same arguments you are using right now about gay marriage. Do you think I will be considered racist by just about anybody? ---
**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, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/345 "2009-04-09T21:13:56Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > I don’t understand the difference\*. So could you explain the difference between a “Gay Pride” parade and an “Irish Pride”/St. Patrick’s Day parade and why ignoring it if you don’t care for those people is an acceptable solution for one and not the other? One is a celebration of sexuality the other is a celebration of ethnicity. They would oppose a celebration of BDSM culture too. They don’t like their children seeing men in pink hotpants and a 20inch papier mache schlong. I am certain some people DO oppose St. Patrick’s Day parades because they are orgies of public drunkenness. > [@](#): > > \*I understand one difference: except in, say Ulster, the Gay Pride parade is likely to piss off a larger group of people. However, I’m suspecting from your post that you feel there’s a more fundamental difference. I don’t know what you’re getting at. It’s just the open display of sexuality that sets it apart. ---
**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, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/346 "2009-04-09T21:19:23Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I was referring to what YOU said. So you are implying that you are going to simply ignore context and yet try and get me to respond anyway? > [@](#): > > Try stating it coherently and I might. It’s perfectly coherent to some people. Your inability to comprehend isn’t the same thing as incoherence on my part. > [@](#): > > But you are. You’re proposing that that side be given equal respect. No I’m not. I am saying that in a thread about the rationale it’d be nice to discuss the rationale rather than see it turn into a cathartic thread about venting spleen at a mutually hated subculture. You’re not here to understand you are here to denounce. > [@](#): > > Assuming your conclusion. You have defined homosexuality to be sinful, and expect that simple statement of hatred and ignorance to be accepted as a basis for serious argument. “We love the sinner, what we hate is the _sin_” is one of the most common and most contemptible lies around. I haven’t defined homosexuality as anything. I pointed out a recognized position that some people hold. You really want me to hold the hated position so you can have a target that you feel justified in being mean to. I am not going to be a vessel for your bigotry. > [@](#): > > Speak for yourself. :dubious: I did, and you are one of the only people here who cannot separate my personal view from the Devil’s Advocate position. > [@](#): > > You can say you don’t agree, but if you can’t or won’t explain why, that opinion is of no value. Ok, the views are not based in hatred and ignorance they are based in religious doctrine. > [@](#): > > You show respect, and even understanding, for only one. Don’t kid yourself. Right, because I don’t just agree with your pat oversimplifications that makes ME ignorant. :rolleyes: ---
**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, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/347 "2009-04-09T21:20:35Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > One is a celebration of sexuality the other is a celebration of ethnicity. And the difference between those, in regard to societal acceptance, is what?:dubious: > [@](#): > > They would oppose a celebration of BDSM culture too. They don’t like their children seeing men in pink hotpants and a 20inch papier mache schlong. I am certain some people DO oppose St. Patrick’s Day parades because they are orgies of public drunkenness. Then, in either case, they don’t have to go. Simple. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what you’re getting at. It was clearly a joke. ---
**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, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/348 "2009-04-09T21:21:27Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > One is a celebration of sexuality the other is a celebration of ethnicity. They would oppose a celebration of BDSM culture too. They don’t like their children seeing men in pink hotpants and a 20inch papier mache schlong. Then I would suggest that they not take their children to a Gay Pride parade. Come to think of it, that’s pretty much what ElvisL1ives said, yet you seemed to have a problem with his suggestion. Guess I’ll have to ask again: Why is “don’t go if you don’t support it” an unacceptable solution in your eyes? (ETA: Actually I wouldn’t have any problems with the community banning the paper mache schlongs under local obscenity statutes. I’m not sure what the problem with men in pink hotpants is, except as a crime against fashion.) ---
**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, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/349 "2009-04-09T21:22:23Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And the difference between those, in regard to societal acceptance, is what?:dubious: Are you serious? > [@](#): > > Then, in either case, they don’t have to go. Simple. They are held in public spaces and often people are not aware that they are going to happen. So no that’s not an option. > [@](#): > > It was clearly a joke. Ok. ---
**Author:** ![JR\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JR\_Brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JR_Brown)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/350 "2009-04-09T21:23:08Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > One is a celebration of sexuality the other is a celebration of ethnicity. […] > I don’t know what you’re getting at. It’s just the open display of sexuality that sets it apart. So if participants in Gay Pride Parades consisted exclusively of stony-faced people in buttoned-up business suits, you would approve of them? Or would that still be a “celebration of sexuality”? ---
**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, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/351 "2009-04-09T21:24:58Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > Then I would suggest that they not take their children to a Gay Pride parade. Come to think of it, that’s pretty much what ElvisL1ives said, yet you seemed to have a problem with his suggestion. Because it’s not a reasonable solution. What if I live on [Fifth Avenue](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Pride_Parade_(New_York_City)) in New York? > [@](#): > > Guess I’ll have to ask again: Why is “don’t go if you don’t support it” an unacceptable solution in your eyes? Because they are parades through the center of town. What if I live on [Central Avenue](http://www.abqpride.com/parade.html) in Albuquerque? ---
**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, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/352 "2009-04-09T21:26:27Z")
> [@JR\_Brown](#): > > So if participants in Gay Pride Parades consisted exclusively of stony-faced people in buttoned-up business suits, you would approve of them? Or would that still be a “celebration of sexuality”? No, _I_ personally prefer them the way they are, much better than if they were stoney-faced in business suits. 😉 I’ve gone out of my way to go to Burning Man several times, where people behave like they are at a gay pride parade for a whole week. I am simply pointing out the ‘rationale’, you know, staying on-topic? But yes, I am sure that those who care about the issue would be more ok with it if they were dressed modestly. ---
**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, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/353 "2009-04-09T21:26:49Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Because it’s not a reasonable solution. What if I live on [Fifth Avenue](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Pride_Parade_(New_York_City)) in New York? How is that any different from me disliking the Irish and living on Fifth Avenue when St. Patty’s Day rolls around? ---
**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, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/354 "2009-04-09T21:28:13Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > How is that any different from me disliking the Irish and living on Fifth Avenue when St. Patty’s Day rolls around? I already answered that question. ---
**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, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/355 "2009-04-09T21:31:14Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > So you are implying that you are going to simply ignore context and yet try and get me to respond anyway? If you can’t defend your position, that’s nobody else’s problem. > [@](#): > > It’s perfectly coherent to some people. The ones who already have the prejudice you’re catering to, perhaps. > [@](#): > > I am saying that in a thread about the rationale it’d be nice to discuss the rationale rather than see it turn into a cathartic thread about venting spleen at a mutually hated subculture. In a thread about the rationale it’d be nice to see some _rationality_. You haven’t provided any. > [@](#): > > You’re not here to understand you are here to denounce. I \*do \*understand, and that is \*why \*I denounce. > [@](#): > > I haven’t defined homosexuality as anything. I pointed out a recognized position that some people hold. “Some people” define homosexuality as sinful, as you said. Your “rationale” is based on that definition, so why should one not believe you share it? > [@](#): > > You really want me to hold the hated position so you can have a target that you feel justified in being mean to. I am not going to be a vessel for your bigotry. If that’s truly not the position you hold, you should not be arguing it. Very bad form. Honesty-impaired, even. But if you won’t profess any other, what else can the rest of us conclude? > [@](#): > > I did, and you are one of the only people here who cannot separate my personal view from the Devil’s Advocate position. It is merely your “personal view” that marriage is unnatural and people are naturally promiscuous. OK. Just a question, then - are you married? For how long? > [@](#): > > Ok, the views are not based in hatred and ignorance they are based in religious doctrine. Which, of course, often provides a convenient excuse for harboring hatred and ignorance. > [@](#): > > Right, because I don’t just agree with your pat oversimplifications that makes ME ignorant. :rolleyes: Your words, not mine. No, the fact that you show respect and understanding for only one side makes your protestations of neutrality and objectivity doubtful. ---
**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 9, 2009, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/356 "2009-04-09T21:33:09Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > \ Marriage itself is unnatural, we are naturally promiscuous, and breeding in the wild generally resembles rape and subjugation more than the modern conception of, ‘making love’. \ Well, there is one of the more outrageous statements I’ve ever seen. Imagine, _wild_ humans, breeding _in the wild_! Raping and subjugating! Later, when they caught civilization and religion, they learned that it was far better to go against their _natural_ inclinations. Thence tender love. Phwew!!! What a story. And of course those damn gays just can’t control themselves and get with the program. They’re all out there being _wild_ and promiscuous and all, just because they want to be defiant. Like bad children. We’ve told them over and over, but they just won’t listen! Hundreds of posts, and it is still all about the sex. No other rationale has been offered that can stand on its own. Only more and more circuitous revolutions around the _eeck!_ factor. Facts shall not sway them in light of a higher truth. ---
**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, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/357 "2009-04-09T21:35:08Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I already answered that question. No, you did not. I prodded you on the difference as regards societal acceptance between ethnicity and sexuality, and your reply was merely to question my seriousness. :rolleyes: Now try it for real - and remember about “being born that way”. ---
**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, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/358 "2009-04-09T21:35:37Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I already answered that question. I’ll admit you’ve technically answered it, but “One’s about ethnicity and one’s about sexuality” doesn’t have much explanatory power behind it. As far as I can tell the position is: Because you’re\* uncomfortable with gay people marching down Fifth Avenue, we have to ban Gay Pride events, but I’m equal uncomfortable with Irish people on Fifth Avenue, but I have to suck it up when March 17 rolls around. Please explain why we have to cater to your discomfort but not mine. \*Generic you, not necessarily you personally. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/359 "2009-04-09T21:39:18Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > There are some very fundamental reasons from within a Christian point of view homosexuality is wrong. The main one is that sex is for procreation and procreation alone. IE, buggering is spilling one’s seed in fallow soil. The seed itself is sacred as it contains the godly potential to create another life if planted in fertile soil. It’s seen as wasting the gift that God gave you, the power to create life. A problem that the Lord himself, in His infinite wisdom, solved by ensuring that we have a virtually limitless supply of sacred seed from our early teens until the deathbed. The minority who actually adhere to the strictures you lay out—who have never masturbated, engaged in oral, used birth control, or thought of sex as a pleasurable act rather than a societal imperative for procreating—are, of course, free to live out the rather grim-sounding lives they’ve hollowed out for themselves, at least until Barack Hussein Antichrist’s Jerkoff Squads begin breaking in doors and forcing holy men to touch themselves in unholy ways. For the rest, alleged Christians whose focus narrows on the “immorality” of gay sex while ignoring their own myriad transgressions—I will add “hypocrisy” to their short list of attributes. I am perfectly willing to exclude bigotry as a motivating force; I simply haven’t heard presented an alternate reason that passes the smell test, from you or anyone. ---
**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, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/360 "2009-04-09T21:40:25Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If you can’t defend your position, that’s nobody else’s problem. I’m defending it just fine. Whether your ignorance is fought ultimately is not my concern. I am making the attempt, but if I fail I can handle it. You have nothing to teach me here because I am not ignorant of your position. > [@](#): > > The ones who already have the prejudice you’re catering to, perhaps. _Yawn_ More attempts to personalize it so your bigotry has an outlet. > [@](#): > > In a thread about the rationale it’d be nice to see some _rationality_. You haven’t provided any. lol > [@](#): > > I \*do \*understand, and that is \*why \*I denounce. If you say so. > [@](#): > > “Some people” define homosexuality as sinful, as you said. Your “rationale” is based on that definition, so why should one not believe you share it? Believe what you want, whatever makes you feel righteous and ‘tolerant’. > [@](#): > > If that’s truly not the position you hold, you should not be arguing it. Very bad form. Honesty-impaired, even. But if you won’t profess any other, what else can the rest of us conclude? lol Your inability to separate a person from the argument isn’t my concern. Did you not take debate class in HS? > [@](#): > > It is merely your “personal view” that marriage is unnatural and people are naturally promiscuous. OK. Just a question, then - are you married? For how long? Yes, I am married, almost four years, lived with her a few years before that and have been married once before for 2.5 years. > [@](#): > > Which, of course, often provides a convenient excuse for harboring hatred and ignorance. Whatever allows you to oversimplify things. > [@](#): > > Your words, not mine. No, the fact that you show respect and understanding for only one side makes your protestations of neutrality and objectivity doubtful. I don’t show respect and understanding for only one side. **Jayjay** got it just fine. He understood my view perfectly. I think it’s an abstract social good. I am neither gay nor a Christian Evangelical. If I were on a Christian message board I’d be arguing the opposite position in order to educate people about the other side of the debate, like I am attempting to do here. In fact I’d be arguing more passionately because I am in support of gay marriage. I passionately support gay adoption because I am all for opening up the field of contenders for foster care and adoption based on the idea that a larger field of contenders will provide an opportunity to place the kids more effectively. I have seen some really atrocious hetero foster care in my life and don’t think that gay couples will do any worse. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=19)