# 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:** 40
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/781 "2009-04-14T19:50:08Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The problem is not just a dearth of evidence, but an utter lack even of specific speculation as to what the effects might be. There is not even a \*hypothetical \*negative with any definition being offered. You have been asked repeatedly, but insist only that you have answered the question. You have not. You have ducked it every time (So has everyone else who’s been asked too, though). I talked about demographic decline and a decline in the valuation of marriage. You ignored that. Like I said above it’s not that there aren’t reasons, it’s that the reasons are things you don’t value. But instead of just accepting that the reasons are things yuo don’t value you feel the need to say they aren’t even reasons. That’s bad faith interlocution, that’s all it is. > [@](#): > > At what point can the rest of us fairly conclude that there is no negative effect to be considered at all? Well for you I would say it probably happened some many months maybe years ago that you did this. > [@](#): > > We have all _begged and begged_ for you to support your view with something of substance, anything at all. We all do remain open, but it is quite evident by now that you just don’t have anything to offer. I have offered many things that you do not value. Arguing with you is like arguing with a teenager. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/782 "2009-04-14T19:53:09Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, the two people entering a marriage should be able to consent to it, i.e. they are legal adults (or older teenagers who can secure parental consent). Neither should be currently operating under a judgement of incompetence. Neither should be withholding critical information from the other (like one’s real name). Neither should be already married. I’m willing to consider that the pair should not be blood-related closer than first cousin. There are a few other elements worth considering. Since discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation has been discouraged by law, I don’t see why gender or sexual orientation should be an issue, as long as both partners are making an informed choice and the gender and orientation of the spouse is known (at least as far as the spouse can honestly state - I’m not eager to invalidate a marriage because years later one of the spouses finally came to terms with their orientation, given the social climate). Why shouldn’t siblings be able to marry? If one or the other is sterile would that make an exception to the right of siblings to marry? Why do you discriminate based on familial proximity if breeding is not a relevant function of marriage? > [@](#): > > To me, the key isn’t to demonstrate acceptability, it’s the need by government to demonstrate harm. If you want to call that an irrational position, I can’t stop you. I can only demonstrate the differences between states where the government control is the default versus states where individual freedom is the default. I have a reason to prefer the latter - it is not logical to live in fear of my government. Demonstrating harm is a good criteria in my view as well. That’s not an irrational position. > [@](#): > > You’ll have to abandon the “both sides are irrational” line first. When I say irrational I am not using it perjoratively. I am saying both sides are based off of validating an emotional response. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/783 "2009-04-14T19:55:20Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > In your reply to me you admit objection is entirely based on religious doctrine. You admit there is no evidence of societal harm. And yet you have the temerity to tell me this is insufficient for me to draw any conclusion. And you tell me once again that I’m the one not listening. Because I haven’t allowed an eternity of time in which to see some negative effects. Some people view the loss of religious values as a harm in and of itself. Simply stating its not is argument by assertion. > [@](#): > > Your “arguments” are merely hand waving apology for disgusting bigotry. If you are indeed only acting as the Devil’s advocate, you’ve sidled right up next to that named party. Best be careful that some if him doesn’t rub off on you. Your arguments are merely handwaving away of arguments regarding things you don’t value. _shrugs_ > [@](#): > > There’s little point in dragging this along further. If you have evidence, show it. If not, you are now offering nothing but the circularity of your own arguments. There is some entertainment value in watching a dog chase its own tail, but there is a certain sadness too. Other people got it, you didn’t, that’s ok. ---
**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 14, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/784 "2009-04-14T20:06:21Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I have offered many things that you do not value. Given the length of the thread and the number of contributors, could you summarize the gists of these things into tidy paragraphs and make note of the post number for easy future reference? I have to admit, I’ve seen no major breakthrough moment that made me pause and consider that banning gay marriage might prove necessary, but possibly I simply missed it. Put simply, what do you consider the single best (or best two, or best three) arguments against gay marriage? So far I’ve seen, in very rough terms: [ul][li]Gay marriages don’t produce children[/li][li]Gay marriages will devalue straight marriages[/li][li]Gay marriage will undermine Christianity and society in general[/ul][/li] …and possibly a few others. None of the above strike me as convincing, though. In fact, some of the arguments I’ve seen advanced are just plain false. If there’s a good reason (or two, or three) to ban gay marriage, I don’t see why it need be a complicated one. The state can exercise eminent domain because public infrastructure benefits society. The state can ban drugs because drugs harm individuals. Whether one agrees with these or not, there is physical evidence demonstrated in a busy road used by people getting to and from work (where before there was some farmland), and a wasted junkie dying in an alley (where before was a young person with a promising future). For gay marriage what is the “before” and what is the “after”? ---
**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 14, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/785 "2009-04-14T20:12:58Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Why shouldn’t siblings be able to marry? If one or the other is sterile would that make an exception to the right of siblings to marry? Why do you discriminate based on familial proximity if breeding is not a relevant function of marriage? Okay, siblings can marry. > [@](#): > > Demonstrating harm is a good criteria in my view as well. That’s not an irrational position. I’m just waiting around for someone to demonstrate the harm caused by gay marriage. > [@](#): > > When I say irrational I am not using it perjoratively. I am saying both sides are based off of validating an emotional response. Then at least acknowledge there are degrees of irrationality. I would hope that “all citizens deserve equal treatment under the law” is not viewed as the irrationality equivalent of “kill all fags.” Where on the spectrum of irrationality does “ban gay marriage” sit? Closer to the former or the latter? ---
**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 14, 2009, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/786 "2009-04-14T20:28:49Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The numbers support this because every country with legal SSM has a below replacement birthrate. That’s because the countries that have legalized SSM are mature, industrialized and have undergone the [demographic transition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition). The mature, industrialized countries that have NOT legalized SSM _also_ have [below-replacement birthrates.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate) The fall in birthrate has several causes, but the most salient seem to be the cost (in money and energy) of raising children, which leads some people to have fewer children and some people to have no children, and the desire for smaller families among those that do choose to have children so that parents can focus more on each child. There has been quite a lot of research on this (admittedly most aimed at “how can we get the transition to happen faster in developing countries?”). Hedonistic orgies and rampant homosexual affairs have never been suggested as a contributor by any study I have yet seen. > [@mswas](#): > > Right, but you are not paying attention to the response. I am elucidating what the ‘rationale’ is and people are so obsessed with their own navals that it’s more important to them to seek ‘proof’ which is irrelevant. The anti-SSM contingent is worried about future harm over the course of generations, something we CANNOT HAVE data for. > > The reality though is that they are right, SSM does destroy THEIR NOTION of civilization. Your side vacillates between, ‘Good riddance’ and ‘Prove it to me’. Anyone who believes that civilization is contingent on not letting two people of the same sex mary gets a free “bigoted idiot” T-Shirt from me. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/787 "2009-04-14T20:29:23Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I talked about demographic decline and a decline in the valuation of marriage. You ignored that. No, I dismissed them as being euphemisms for fear and hate, being utterly inconsistent with the world of fact or even with the “moral code and tradition” from which you allege them to arise. > [@](#): > > Well for you I would say it probably happened some many months maybe years ago that you did this. You can either answer the question or let it be concluded that you cannot. I’ll ask again: When can the rest of us conclude that there is nothing substantial in the pro-homophobia position you so stoutly defend? > [@](#): > > I have offered many things that you do not value. Arguing with you is like arguing with a teenager. Like one who’s being incessantly told “Because I said so, that’s why?” 😃 Yes, it’s true - I do not value hatred, or fear, or wrapping those things in religious cloaks and demanding that they therefore be accepted. Guess I’m just funny that way. ---
**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 14, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/788 "2009-04-14T20:31:39Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Some people view the loss of religious values as a harm in and of itself. Simply stating its not is argument by assertion. I asserted nothing about loss of religious values-- except that such loss was not caused by the existance of homosexuality. If you asert that homosexuality (or any manifestation of it, like SSM) will accelerate historical loss of religious values, it is your burden to make some offer of evidence. As I’ve asked before. > [@mswas](#): > > Your arguments are merely handwaving away of arguments regarding things you don’t value. _shrugs_ You have no idea what I may or may not value. And I have offered no arguments. I asked for evidence, which continues to be absent. > [@mswas](#): > > Other people got it, you didn’t, that’s ok. Anybody who “got it” want to help an old fool out here? Apparently my Altzheimer’s is showing. I’ll go back to watching that dog and his tail, while I wait. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/789 "2009-04-14T20:38:16Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Okay, siblings can marry. > > I’m just waiting around for someone to demonstrate the harm caused by gay marriage. > > Then at least acknowledge there are degrees of irrationality. I would hope that “all citizens deserve equal treatment under the law” is not viewed as the irrationality equivalent of “kill all fags.” Where on the spectrum of irrationality does “ban gay marriage” sit? Closer to the former or the latter? somewhere in the middle. ---
**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 14, 2009, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/790 "2009-04-14T20:40:48Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > somewhere in the middle. Does that mean “ban gay marriage” is a more irrational position than “all citizens deserve equal treatment under the law” ? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/791 "2009-04-14T20:44:21Z")
> [@JR\_Brown](#): > > That’s because the countries that have legalized SSM are mature, industrialized and have undergone the [demographic transition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition). The mature, industrialized countries that have NOT legalized SSM _also_ have [below-replacement birthrates.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate) The fall in birthrate has several causes, but the most salient seem to be the cost (in money and energy) of raising children, which leads some people to have fewer children and some people to have no children, and the desire for smaller families among those that do choose to have children so that parents can focus more on each child. Generally the liberal social engineering you describe is taken as a wholistic system and viewed as pernicious as a whole. One place I agree is that the demographic transition is terrible thing. The idea that breeding below replacement rate is somehow a good thing is a vile idea. So not only is this generation of old people running up the debt per capita, they are also producing fewer people who will be saddled with that debt. Smaller families is a matter of replacement rate, going below replacement rate is imbalanced and has dangerous consequences. We will see what that’s like when the Boomers get to be hospice age and they break the socialized medicine systems they worked so hard to put together. SSM isn’t even the core of this issue, it’s just one particular battleground. It’s seen as a bad omen because the social engineering has taken us so far that it even redefines marriage. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/792 "2009-04-14T20:45:26Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Does that mean “ban gay marriage” is a more irrational position than “all citizens deserve equal treatment under the law” ? Yes. ---
**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 14, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/793 "2009-04-14T20:57:04Z")
Now that “liberal social engineering” has been thrown into the ring, can I ask who’s in charge of it and what you think their goals are? After all, the word “engineering” implies a directed thought process, not a natural evolutionary process. I mean, if “both sides are irrational” invokes images of arguing for creationism, “liberal social engineering” sure reminds me of various conspiracy theories I’ve heard. Of course how gay marriage affects the birth rate is unclear. Heck, I’m sure there are some lesbian couples out there who would gladly have kids if they had the stability offered by a legal marriage - i.e. the pregnant spouse can be covered by the working spouse’s health insurance and the nonpregnant spouse can be assured of parental rights. The mechanism by which one of the spouses gets pregnant can be the well-established process of artificial insemination or she could just (ick!) have sex with a man. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/794 "2009-04-15T12:48:59Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Now that “liberal social engineering” has been thrown into the ring, can I ask who’s in charge of it and what you think their goals are? After all, the word “engineering” implies a directed thought process, not a natural evolutionary process. > > I mean, if “both sides are irrational” invokes images of arguing for creationism, “liberal social engineering” sure reminds me of various conspiracy theories I’ve heard. > > Of course how gay marriage affects the birth rate is unclear. Heck, I’m sure there are some lesbian couples out there who would gladly have kids if they had the stability offered by a legal marriage - i.e. the pregnant spouse can be covered by the working spouse’s health insurance and the nonpregnant spouse can be assured of parental rights. The mechanism by which one of the spouses gets pregnant can be the well-established process of artificial insemination or she could just (ick!) have sex with a man. A friend of mine has a lesbian sister. She and her long time partner were talking to him about having kids and thought they might ask him to donate to a selected sperm bank since genetically he was close to his sister and her partner would be having the baby. His question was “Haven’t you heard of direct deposit?” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/795 "2009-04-15T14:23:49Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > And I have said there is a dirth of evidence due to the timeline being too short to examine effect. Hold up, now. I posted a link to a study just two pages ago that has some pretty good evidence. Read my post [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11033576&postcount=656). (I should note that this post was in conversation with **magellan01** , who never returned to comment on it). Here’s the money quote: “15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down.” 15 years is a decent timeline. Yes, it would be better if it were longer - all the more reason to get SSM legal ASAP so the new studies can begin. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/796 "2009-04-15T18:44:53Z")
There should be other data correlating that to a decline in Christianity in Denmark over the same period, then. And an increase in crassness. ---
**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 15, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/797 "2009-04-15T18:55:28Z")
Yes, what is Denmark’s current Crassness Index? ---
**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 15, 2009, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/798 "2009-04-15T20:15:47Z")
Well, this time I didn’t have to read hundreds of posts to catch up. I too think that 15 years is likely to be a statistically significant timeline, although a longer one would perhaps be nice. Are we done here, now? _(Does crassness index = thumbs in eyes?)_ ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/799 "2009-04-16T16:57:39Z")
> [@ShadowFacts](#): > > Hold up, now. I posted a link to a study just two pages ago that has some pretty good evidence. Read my post [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11033576&postcount=656). (I should note that this post was in conversation with **magellan01** , who never returned to comment on it). > > Here’s the money quote: “15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down.” > > 15 years is a decent timeline. Yes, it would be better if it were longer - all the more reason to get SSM legal ASAP so the new studies can begin. 😉 Huh. First time I posted about this study in response to **magellan01** , he disappeared from the thread. Then I posted about it again to **mswas** , and _he_ disappeared. Must be some kind of magic bullet or something… 😃 ---
**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 16, 2009, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/800 "2009-04-16T17:04:59Z")
Maybe they smelled something rotten. Denmark is full of stuff like that, I hear. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=39) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=41)