# 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:** 27
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2009, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/521 "2009-04-11T19:29:22Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Since a few posters {you know who you are} seem to think it’s perfectly fine and just for the majority to vote on what rights a minority should have or what words they are allowed to use perhaps you can come up with some historic example of when that kind of thing has worked out fine for all concerned and history hasn’t shown them to be wrong. Anyone..? How about criminals? The majority voting for their rights seems to have worked out reasonably well. ---
**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 11, 2009, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/522 "2009-04-11T19:39:29Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > How about criminals? The majority voting for their rights seems to have worked out reasonably well. That’s a completely different situation. But if you can delineate exactly WHY homosexuals should be punished by restriction of their rights as convicted criminals are, I’m willing to at least read it. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/523 "2009-04-11T19:50:39Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > That’s a completely different situation. But if you can delineate exactly WHY homosexuals should be punished by restriction of their rights as convicted criminals are, I’m willing to at least read it. I’m not claiming it as a similar situation - just an example that I think answers **cosmosdan’s** question. I don’t believe that many of the same reasons apply between restriction of rights between homosexuals and convicted criminals, which i’d guess I don’t need to go on about to you. That said, this kind of gets at what I feel is an important point. I do feel that, in general, what the majority says should go - democratic rule, and all that. However, there are certain things I am not comfortable having in the hands of the masses, and it’s a similar sentiment that in part led to your Constitution and Bill of Rights; that there are some rights which are so necessary, so worthy of protection, that they require greater than normal effort to change. I personally don’t feel that marriage, straight or gay, is important enough to fall into that particular area. But in general, it makes sense to me that the “importance” of the right should be equal whether it’s between straight or gay couples. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/524 "2009-04-11T20:46:03Z")
From [TURNER](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_v._Safley) v. [SAFLEY](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=482&invol=78), 482 U.S. 78 (1987), > [@](#): > > 1. The constitutional right of prisoners to marry is impermissibly burdened by the Missouri marriage regulation. Pp. 94-99. > > (a) Prisoners have a constitutionally protected right to marry under [Zablocki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zablocki_v._Redhail) v. [Redhail](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=434&invol=374), 434 U.S. 374 . Although such a marriage is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration, sufficient important attributes of marriage remain to form a constitutionally protected relationship. Butler v. Wilson, 415 U.S. 953 , distinguished. Pp. 94-96. > (b) The regulation is facially invalid under the reasonable relationship test. Although prison officials may regulate the time and circumstances under which a marriage takes place, and may require prior approval by the warden, the almost complete ban on marriages here is not, on the record, reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives. Prisoners currently have more rights (WRT marriage) than homosexuals do. ☹ CMC fnord! ---
**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 12, 2009, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/525 "2009-04-12T01:04:58Z")
> [@Redwing](#): > > Or their own examination of their faith? You’re still not allowing them to honestly believe what they say. There’s no bigotry in the honest statement that being gay is fine, but having gay sex is sinful. If you’re going to claim that there’s bigotry there, you’re also claiming that the statement isn’t honest. That’s the problem I have here, because once you’ve declared the other side dishonest, there’s no longer any room for conversation. I gotta disagree with you, there. Consider, by way of analogy, _Guess who’s Coming to Dinner?_ In that film, Spencer Tracy plays a man who’s always been proud of his liberal principles, who has always held that racism is a social evil, and that there is no qualitative difference between blacks and whites. However, he still doesn’t want his daughter to marry one. Tracy has no problem with Sidney Poitier as a person, but objects to his actions - namely, his romance with Tracy’s daughter. And that objection is racially based. It is a bigoted objection. I would argue that the concept behind “love the sinner, hate the sin” is similar. A person holding this belief has no problem with gay people, but objects to their actions - namely, their romances with people of the same gender. It is, again, a bigoted objection. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2009, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/526 "2009-04-12T01:25:59Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > But that only works until the next law gets passed that says, “except this part here.” There’s absolutely no barrier in your idea against that. If you have a law that says, “Group X and group Y both get the same rights,” and you have a later law that says, “Group Y doesn’t get this right” the later law cancels out the earlier law. It doesn’t take an extraordinary effort - in fact, it take no more effort than was necessary to pass the original law. If everyone is put into Group X, they can’t do that. If they want to target a specific subset of Group X, they first have to pass a law that separates that subset into Group Y. Under your plan, that step is already taken care of for them, and they can go directly to the part where they start stripping away rights. It’s not correct that there is no barrier. There is. Yes it can be breached, but so can yours, as you grant. I’m not versed well enough in the law to understand just how strong my barrier could be. That sad, I’m willing to assume that your barrier is a stronger one. As I said, that would be a plus for your way. I’m still left with the objections I have to SSM, and the degree to which my barrier may/is weaker doesn’t address that. BUt you do make a good point. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2009, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/527 "2009-04-12T01:27:30Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Oh, and this? Actually, people did agree, they just didn’t agree with you. In fact, it came fairly close to a consensus on what the term “homophobe” represented. About the only people who disagreed with the consensus were those who fit the definition reached by the vast majority of posters in that thread. That’s not correct. I reviewed that thread before I went on my bike ride, and there was no consensus. Feel free to reread the thread as I did. ---
**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 12, 2009, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/528 "2009-04-12T01:29:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m still left with the objections I have to SSM And that’s fine. I just think you do your fellow citizens no favour if you try to vote these objections into law. I mean, seriously, what does it accomplish? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2009, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/529 "2009-04-12T01:30:05Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Then why bother having two groups if they’re effectively identical? Because it allows gays couples to avoid all the rights and privileges that married couples enjoy without diluting the meaning of the word “marriage”. I know you don’t think it dilutes it or don’t care, but I think it is quite important. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2009, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/530 "2009-04-12T01:43:58Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > How about criminals? The majority voting for their rights seems to have worked out reasonably well. Not relevant to the thread. Criminals are not a minority in the sense we’re speaking of. What might be relevant is how minorities have been treated by the law for the same crime. ---
**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 12, 2009, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/531 "2009-04-12T01:49:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Because it allows gays couples to avoid all the rights and privileges that married couples enjoy without diluting the meaning of the word “marriage”. I know you don’t think it dilutes it or don’t care, but I think it is quite important. I’m assuming you mean “enjoy”. What is the nature of this dilution? What are its effects? How is a hetero marriage sealed in 2005 different from one sealed in, say, 2012, after gay marriage is hypothetically legal and commonplace? ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2009, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/532 "2009-04-12T01:53:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Because it allows gays couples to avoid all the rights and privileges that married couples enjoy without diluting the meaning of the word “marriage”. I know you don’t think it dilutes it or don’t care, but I think it is quite important. “Avoid?” I do not think that word means what you think it means. [ETA: I see others have beaten me to it already] As to the alleged “dilution” and its importance to you, you’ve still not provided a concrete example of the harm such “dilution” does to you or to any other heterosexual person or couple. Some people think that the relationship between an adopted child and its adoptive parents is qualitatively different from the relationship between a child and its biological parents. Shall we come up with new words for the adoption relationship so that the we don’t dilute the meanings of “son/daughter/father/mother/sister/brother/etc.”? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2009, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/533 "2009-04-12T01:58:12Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > No they demanded they be recognized as superior as in the ones who decide what rights the minority gets to have. Yes they wanted to be equal. They wanted the same _rights and privileges_. Which my plan gives. But it sounds like you think gay people, or a term that connotes gay couples, are inferior. If not, what objection do you have to another term. Like I said, the civil rights movement was about rights, not labels. MLK could have argued for the abolishment of back-white labels and proposed something along the lines of we’ve all varying shades of brown, but that wasn’t what he/they did. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > The reason I bring it up is that you seemed to present your “ride in the back of the bus” analogy as something that should be perfectly acceptable. If that’s not the case please explain. If that is the case you’re dead wrong and I’ve already explained. I’m unclear what point you’re making here. I don’t think riding in the back of the bus is fine, unless that is one’s preference. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Let’s start by recognizing that you’re proposing a compromise that most who oppose SSM would not accept. Maybe. It is within their rights to be unreasonable; to insist that they get the legal rights and privileges while jabbing a thumb into the eye of their neighbors and fellow citizens. In the long run, I really think this is a counterproductive route to go. It will deepen the rift that is already there. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > On top of that suggesting that gays shouldn’t be allowed to call their loving commitment to each other by the same name is catering to bigotry and and just as much an insult as riding in the back of the bus was. It’s not just an observation of the real differences, gay or straight, white or black, it’s the inference that those differences make gays something less, not worthy of the same choices or even the same words. No it is not. One was denying a group rights. The other is denying a group a label. A label that, by definition, they do not qualify for. One denies rights to an individual, which is direct contradiction to the founding natural law principle that all men are created equal. The other assess the gay union and finds it, as a union, is not identical to a heterosexual union. One can procreate, one cannot. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I read them and I didn’t see one good reason. The attempts at justification are no different than the objections to interracial marriage. No, that’s not true. Read what I just wrote directly above. A mixed couple consists of one man and one woman. They can do everything a white or black couple can do. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > There are hetero couples who probably shouldn’t be married and aren’t worthy of being parents but nobody seriously suggests their right to marry and have kids be limited. I agree wholeheartedly that there are a bunch of people who should not marry, and more important, shouldn’t have kids. But they meet the basic criteria. Maybe the infertile or elderly fall short, but we’ve had these groups as long as we’ve had marriage and there has been no confusion. I’m much more concerned with the Britney Spears nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2009, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/534 "2009-04-12T02:00:51Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > “Avoid?” I do not think that word means what you think it means. [ETA: I see others have beaten me to it already] What? Isn’t it a synonym for “enjoy”? :smack: Enjoy. Enjoy. My apologies. > [@cwthree](#): > > As to the alleged “dilution” and its importance to you, you’ve still not provided a concrete example of the harm such “dilution” does to you or to any other heterosexual person or couple. I’m pretty sure I have, back a ways. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2009, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/535 "2009-04-12T02:03:03Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If you would ever take the trouble to explain WHY you insist on refusing the word “marriage” to gays, and WHAT is different about the bus analogy, then it would help the discussion quite a bit. > > But you just won’t. What else is to be concluded from that? I don’t know what you my by “I won’t”. I have supplied reasons. If my bike ride left you on pins and needles, I can understand that, but the reasons were supplied earlier. I’m also unclear about “what is different about your bus analogy?” Different than what? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2009, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/536 "2009-04-12T02:04:14Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > In a conventional hetero marriage, does the husband have any special rights the wife doesn’t? Does the wife have any special rights the husband doesn’t? If not, would it be safe to say the gender has no special role within marriage? If not, why not? As individuals, no. As a union, yes. One union is not identical to another, as I explained a few posts back. ---
**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 12, 2009, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/537 "2009-04-12T02:04:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m pretty sure I have, back a ways. I’d be happy to search this out, since I must have missed it. What were some of the words you used? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2009, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/538 "2009-04-12T02:05:27Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > The bolded is exactly what I’m doing. Marriage itself is a specific legal right so therefore, according to your bizarre twist on a perfectly good analogy, a seat. Is that seat at the front of the bus? Can they sit in it? I think yet another perfectly clear, simple, easy to follow explanation will be a waste of time for both os us. ---
**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 12, 2009, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/539 "2009-04-12T02:10:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > As individuals, no. As a union, yes. One union is not identical to another, as I explained a few posts back. It remains unclear that the difference between a heterosexual union and a homosexual union is enough to over-ride existing legislation (including the 14th Amendment) that strive for equal treatment under the law. A woman citizen is legally entitled to the same rights and protections as a man citizen, despite the fact that she has a vagina and he has a penis, correct? I fail to see why a pair of citizens gets a right denied to another pair of citizens simply because (and I can’t see any other reason, can you?) the first pair has a penis and a vagina while the second has two penises or two vaginas. I’d still very much like to read your explanation of “dilution”. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2009, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/540 "2009-04-12T02:11:15Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > The question was answered. You don’t like the answer so so you continue to deny the implications. You admit the majority decides who has what rights but what you won’t admit is historically the majority has consistently been wrong when they attempt to justify not giving the minority equal rights. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Because I don’t think it’s true. The word “consistently” is something you’ve just added to the discussion. It may be, it may not be. If you want to prove that claim, go ahead. But I was happy to agree with your point sans that qualifier. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > “But they ARE equal” you insist and you’ve tried to explain that. No Sir! They clearly are not when the majority declares to the minority "You can do A,B, and C just like we can {aren’t we being nice to you?} but we declare you can’t do D and you if do something close to D you have to call it something else. And just who do you want to decide these issue if not the majority. The minority? Which minority? Are you find with some minority making all the decisions for our society? How about we get the all the people who follow Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and have them deiced some things for all of us. You good with that? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > When that happens, just as it has happened in the past, the majority needs to be corrected, just as you have been. :rolleyes: Maybe I should have stuck with us being done. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=28)