# 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:** 28
**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, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/541 "2009-04-12T02:15:22Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > Having slept on it, I think magellan01’s proposal isn’t so much a back-of-the-bus idea. Instead it’s more like if the city of Montgomery had responded to Rosa Parks by doubling the number of buses and drivers and having a set of buses for blacks and a set for whites. You may want to sleep on that again. Or have some coffee. There are no two buses. I can’t believe we’re back to this nonsense. ONE bus. ONE set of legal rights and privileges. ONE. The groups that qualify to tap into these rights and privileges are two fold: 1) those joined through marriage and 2) those joined through civil union. My position is really not that complicated. ---
**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, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/542 "2009-04-12T02:20:05Z")
> [@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. That’s really the part I don’t understand and can’t make sense of any explanation. IMO given the divorce rate, the rate of people living together rather than being married, the rate of unwed parents the meaning of marriage has been diluted by society long before SSM came to the fore as an issue. A loving commitment by two people who may or may not raise a family is found in their heart and no place else. Surely not in a set of laws. I can’t see how it means anything about my marriage whether my neighbors are monogamous and committed or open and swinging. If two people of the same gender decide they want to try the difficult task of making a lifetime commitment to each other more power to them. It’s the quality of love ion their heart that counts and it doesn’t affect the quality of love in mine at all. ---
**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, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/543 "2009-04-12T02:20:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The groups that qualify to tap into these rights and privileges are two fold: 1) those joined through marriage and 2) those joined through civil union. > > My position is really not that complicated. It’s more complicated than it has to be, at least until such time as you explain the need to have two groups when one will do. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2009, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/544 "2009-04-12T02:23:58Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > It’s more complicated than it has to be, at least until such time as you explain the need to have two groups when one will do. And as I have noted above, having two groups can lead to different treatment EVEN IF THE RIGHTS EACH GROUP GETS AT HOME IS THE SAME. In cases (such as the examples I offer of civil unions and gay marriage), the loss of rights can be avoided by having one, rather than two groups–given that, what justification do you (Magellan) have to still have two groups? ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2009, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/545 "2009-04-12T03:11:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. Since you’ve just conceded that we’ve _always_ allowed marriages that “fall short” of your basic criteria, could you explain the objection to allowing one more group that falls short to marry? ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2009, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/546 "2009-04-12T03:19:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. I know I’ve asked this before\*, so here goes again: Do you think that the Supreme Court in deciding Loving v. Virginia should have ruled that interracial couples would be entitled to the rights and privileges of marriage but that the resulting unions should be called something other than marriage to avoid “jabbing a thumb in the eye” of those neighbors and fellow citizens who object to the practice? _I think I asked it of you, but it’s hard to keep the players straight_\* without a scorecard \*\*Pun not intended ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/547 "2009-04-12T03:24:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You may want to sleep on that again. Or have some coffee. There are no two buses. I can’t believe we’re back to this nonsense. ONE bus. ONE set of legal rights and privileges. ONE. The groups that qualify to tap into these rights and privileges are two fold: 1) those joined through marriage and 2) those joined through civil union. And Montgomery has ONE transportation system and ONE set of routes. The groups that qualify to use these routes are two fold: 1) those riding buses and 2) those riding civil transportation units. > [@magellan01](#): > > My position is really not that complicated. I don’t find anything at all complicated about your position. The only things complicated are the mental contortions required to pretend that going “straights can get married” and “gays can get civil unions” isn’t – at its best – the epitome of “separate but equal.” ---
**Author:** ![rock\_party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19b73/32.png) [@rock\_party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rock_party)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2009, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/548 "2009-04-12T03:36:09Z")
This was discussed in another thread but who would decide what to call the SS Civil Union? Would Mr & Mrs be used? Would one partner take the last name of the other partner? Someone said in that thread that no…John Smith remains John Smith. No taking of his partners last name. In fact it should be as innocuous as possible. In the workplace you couldn’t tell at all if someone was “civil unioned”. Bullshit, I say. If they won’t be allowed simple, accurate “marriage”, then SS couples should create some VERY clever descriptive prefixes. Ones that define the relationship and it’s differences. The “marriage protectionists” opened up this can of worms…so I say gays should go for it. They’re being forced to differenciate…they should go all the way! Define who they are and their differences! ---
**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 12, 2009, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/549 "2009-04-12T03:37:32Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Not relevant to the thread. Criminals are not a minority in the sense we’re speaking of. Why not? Certainly, there are differences, but why is the argument totally irrelevant? ---
**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, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/550 "2009-04-12T05:06:15Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Why not? Certainly, there are differences, but why is the argument totally irrelevant? Well, a palpable reason exists to treat criminals differently, and they get this treatment after (one hopes) due process of law. There’s no due process, nor is there any particular reason, for the state to treat homosexuals differently. Or if there is, I’ve yet to hear it. ---
**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, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/551 "2009-04-12T05:52:52Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. He only wanted one label. Equal. Really equal. Not just some compromise that is close to equal. That’s why the separate but equal farce didn’t work. You’re trying to turn it around, asking me why I object to another term while justifying your insisting on one. That’s not gonna fly. As I said, your idea won’t work because most who oppose SSM will not support it. They’ll see giving gays all the same legal privileges under a different label as a short step to SSM which is what it amounts to. A transitional phase while people recognize how empty their objections really are. I’d see it as a step forward if people would support it but it still falls short of equality. The inference that SSM is not as real or as good as hetero marriage is the only point. You won’t admit it but the fact that you see SSM as somehow diluting the term marriage indicates the truth. > [@](#): > > 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. What if they prefer the term married over civil union? Get it? > [@](#): > > 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. Are we talking about two different groups here? I was talking those who oppose SSM and that would likely reject your plan as well. You seem to talking about supporters of SSM and if that’s the case all I can say is OMFG. Deepen the rift? Look at the history of our gay community and the prejudice they’ve faced and tell me about deepening the rift. That why I suggested you read [Letter From Birmingham Jail.](http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html) > [@](#): > > We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.” > Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, “Wait.” > when your first name becomes “nigger,”{homo} your middle name becomes “boy”{fag} (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”–then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. Although your proposal may take us to the edge of equality it perpetuates the “something less” “something wrong” mindset that is the root of prejudice. > [@](#): > > 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. The fact that the qualification is decided by the majority against the minority without real moral or fact based justification is what makes it prejudice. > [@](#): > > 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. Which has been clearly shown to be a a bullshit justification early on in the thread since hetero couples that cannot procreate are able to marry. > [@](#): > > 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. The point being that the majority came up with bullshit justifications to declare interracial marriage illegal such as this gem from the landmark case of [Loving v. Virginia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) > [@](#): > > Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. Now , decades later, most people see it as the bullshit it was and is. Despite your protests your justifications are the same because they that what they are, baseless justifications. Once gays have gained the rights they deserve and people see that society doesn’t crumble into moral decay the objections to SSM will be seen just as empty as the ones against interracial marriage are. ---
**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, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/552 "2009-04-12T06:35:19Z")
I think you got your quotes mixed up but I’ll respond to this. > [@magellan01](#): > > 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? Comon. The history of this country shows without reasonable doubt that equal rights has to be fought for or the majority will not give it up. Please don’t attempt to justify prejudice with majority rules. We strive to overcome our shortcomings not slap a fresh coat of paint on them and call them something else. Who gets to decide? We do, by standing up for the principles of equality and equal rights for our fellow citizens when the majority is wrong. It’s been a repeating pattern in our nations history. I asked a question of you and others a few posts back. If you think the majority should decide then answer it. > [@](#): > > :rolleyes: Maybe I should have stuck with us being done. That’s fine by me, since I thought you were done several posts ago. Still, I’d like to see you answer my question in post 519 if you can. ---
**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, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/553 "2009-04-12T06:41:39Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, a palpable reason exists to treat criminals differently, and they get this treatment after (one hopes) due process of law. There’s no due process, nor is there any particular reason, for the state to treat homosexuals differently. > > Or if there is, I’ve yet to hear it. Asked and answered **RT** , Thank you **Bryan** ---
**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 12, 2009, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/554 "2009-04-12T14:35:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > \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? \ Your whole argument follows from a basic misunderstanding. You keep trying to force the argument into “my side gets to decide because there are more of us than your side” without convincing SSM proponents to accept your pronouncement. Well, \*\*\* there’s your problem!!!\*\*\* The majority always tries to decide issues, and decide them in its own favor. Self interest is a core human motivation, after all. If this were some sort of pure democracy, the majority would thereby be able to do whatever it wishes with the minority (any minority). Fortunately the Founders saw the danger of such a system, and instead created a Constitutional democracy. That Constitution contains protections of the minority from the actions of the majority. Neither the state itself nor any group within (majority or otherwise) can impose restrictions upon another group without demonstrating an overwhelmingly compelling societal benefit from such restriction. Despite all the hand waving in this thread, there has been no demonstration that same sex marriages, including use of the word marriage, would cause any measurable harm to any person. Without such a demonstration (and the \*ecchhh \*factor doesn’t count; neither does appeal to any particular religious doctrine) the ban on same sex marriage is a violation of equal protection rights. ---
**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, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/555 "2009-04-12T15:36:23Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Your whole argument follows from a basic misunderstanding. You keep trying to force the argument into “my side gets to decide because there are more of us than your side” without convincing SSM proponents to accept your pronouncement. Well, \*\*\* there’s your problem!!!\*\*\* You must not have read the thread. I’ve not tried to force that argument as you say at all. I did comment when a poster brought up the issue with the implication that the majority is always wrong in these cases and that we should ignore their desires. Feel free to read the entire thread, specifically, all my posts, before you think you know what I “keep trying to force the argument into”. ---
**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, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/556 "2009-04-12T15:46:27Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > I know I’ve asked this before\*, so here goes again: Do you think that the Supreme Court in deciding Loving v. Virginia should have ruled that interracial couples would be entitled to the rights and privileges of marriage but that the resulting unions should be called something other than marriage to avoid “jabbing a thumb in the eye” of those neighbors and fellow citizens who object to the practice? No, they should not have ruled the way you suggest. There is no difference between a black man and a black woman and a what man and a white woman other than skin color. And skin color is not a criteria for what constitutes a marriage. I pretty sure there were any documents or laws that stated something to the effect, “marriage is between one white man and one white woman”. I don’t think the bible may any such reference either. (I’d like to point out that I bring this up not for the religious argument, which has no bearing on nonbelievers, but as a book that has largely crafted culture from a historical perspective.) Marriage needs: one man, one woman. The color of thier skin is immaterial. Now, some people might not have liked it, but there was no logic other than bigotry, as far as I can see. Are you aware of other arguments? ---
**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, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/557 "2009-04-12T16:01:45Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Marriage needs: one man, one woman. Why? ---
**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, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/558 "2009-04-12T16:02:47Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > And Montgomery has ONE transportation system and ONE set of routes. The groups that qualify to use these routes are two fold: 1) those riding buses and 2) those riding civil transportation units. THIS would be separate but equal. You have two distinct things—buses and civil transportation units—that two different groups will be accessing exclusively, with the hopes of making them equal. The major problem with “separate with equal” is the acknowledgement that the different thing each group has access to will not/cannot be equal, as much as one might try. My opposition does not have two different things people will be accessing. It has one. One set of legal protections, rights, and privileges that each of the two groups can access equally and in full. It won’t help you any more if you emphasize: ONE transportation system and ONE set of routes in ONE city in ONE state in ONE country on ONE planet in ONE solar system in ONE galaxy in ONE corner of the universe. The only thing that needs to be ONE is the thing being accessed, and in my plan we have ONE set of laws. > [@42fish](#): > > I don’t find anything at all complicated about your position. The only things complicated are the mental contortions required to pretend that going “straights can get married” and “gays can get civil unions” isn’t – at its best – the epitome of “separate but equal.” I agree that it is not complicated. But, evidently, you’ve not been able to comprehend it, as evidenced by your first paragraph in this post. And your second . ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2009, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/559 "2009-04-12T16:07:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Now, some people might not have liked it, but there was no logic other than bigotry, as far as I can see. Are you aware of other arguments? Well, there’s the quasi-religious “God made the races separate for a reason” argument that was actually espoused by the state in Loving. I don’t know why you want to offend these God-fearing people by legitimizing the sin of miscegenation by calling it a “marriage.” Besides, so far the only arguments offered against same-sex marriage have consisted of bigotry, extreme language prescriptivism, and the utterly false claim “marriage is intended for procreation and gays can’t have kids.” Yet you seem to find those arguments sufficient. So why do you endorse kowtowing to avoid offending the homophobes, but are against kowtowing to avoid offending the racists? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2009, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/560 "2009-04-12T16:14:32Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > THIS would be separate but equal. You have two distinct things—buses and civil transportation units—that two different groups will be accessing exclusively, with the hopes of making them equal. The major problem with “separate with equal” is the acknowledgement that the different thing each group has access to will not/cannot be equal, as much as one might try. My opposition does not have two different things people will be accessing. It has one. One set of legal protections, rights, and privileges that each of the two groups can access equally and in full. > > It won’t help you any more if you emphasize: ONE transportation system and ONE set of routes in ONE city in ONE state in ONE country on ONE planet in ONE solar system in ONE galaxy in ONE corner of the universe. The only thing that needs to be ONE is the thing being accessed, and in my plan we have ONE set of laws. > > I agree that it is not complicated. But, evidently, you’ve not been able to comprehend it, as evidenced by your first paragraph in this post. And your second . ONE set of laws for all marriages would be superior. Any two people of marriageable age can marry. Why isn’t that superior to the current state of affairs? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=29)