# 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:** 42
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/821 "2009-04-16T23:52:46Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’ve read the entire thread. All I see is a bunch of whiny special pleading and outright stupidity. You are on the wrong side here, you’re arguing based on emotion not intellect. More of the same.:rolleyes: You know, if the excellent job **mswas** did in explaining things in the last few pages was not able to penetrate, I doubt explaining the same things using different words will help. So much for stupidity. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/822 "2009-04-16T23:54:27Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It will make SS couples happier. Your turn. That’s a claim, not proof. I guess you really don’t know what the word means after all. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/823 "2009-04-16T23:56:30Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I’m lazy. Link it or repeat it, or I’ll think you’re lazy too. Lazy. Fed up. Take your pick. It’s there if you want it. If not, that’s fine with me. ---
**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 16, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/824 "2009-04-16T23:58:57Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > More of the same.:rolleyes: You know, if the excellent job **mswas** did in explaining things in the last few pages was not able to penetrate, I doubt explaining the same things using different words will help. So much for stupidity. The problem is you’re spouting the same gibberish as MSWAS. Just because two unfocused, illogical arguments resonate between the two of you doesn’t make it right. It just means that otherwise intelligent people can internalize vapid stupidity and argue it 'till the carpal tunnel sets in. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/825 "2009-04-17T00:00:12Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So in other words, “Fags are yucky”? > > Kidding. 😃 > > If it’s similar to sexual mores being changed as you say, don’t the self same religious people think blowjobs are yucky? Or cunnilingus? Or heterosexual anal? Or threeways with two dudes? Or facial cumshots? Or double-sided baby jesus dildos? Evangelical religions build people who find stuff yucky. > > And as I said, even if we accept your stance, it’s still not a rational argument for outlawing SSM. The problem is your definition of rational is self-serving. You base rationality on the starting premises and assume that yours are more rational. They are both equally emotionally based, and both equally based in tradition. The modern egalitarianism that informs your view is every bit as ideological as theirs. ---
**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 17, 2009, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/826 "2009-04-17T00:00:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s a claim, not proof. I guess you really don’t know what the word means after all. I was assuming you were using it in the vernacular. I didn’t expect you really know what a logical argument is, since you’re convinced you’re making them and only spouting drivel. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/827 "2009-04-17T00:04:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Also, you are aware that correlation does not indicate causation, right? Correlation can indeed suggest causation; it just doesn’t prove it. > [@magellan01](#): > > The “proof” you want is not available. I’ve said that all along. Yet, some people keep crying for it. Odd, that. Are you hallucinating? I said “until we see rational arguments or evidence, I don’t think we need to worry about “proof”.” What part of “I don’t think we have to worry about proof” equates to “I want proof” to you? I probably know more about what “proof” means than you do, because I _don’t_ expect either side to provide it. The larger issue that that the anti-SSM marriage can’t seem to provide _anything_ argumentively compelling. > [@magellan01](#): > > How about this" why don’t you give me proof that legalizing SSM in the U.S. will be a benefit to society. I’ll wait. Those who are asking for proof are asking for a really high bar from their opponents, often because they can’t clear an ankle-high bar themself and wish to make sure that their opposition can’t clear the bar either. (Other times people are speaking hyperbolically - though hopefully not \*just \*after pointing out the existence of a difference between argument, evidence, and proof.) And, there’s ample reason to believe that urinating on human rights is a bad thing, yes? Banning marriages between consenting adults without a reason is a bad thing and pisses both on civil rights and, when you do it to a small group, equal rights. Removing moronic, bigoted, and evil blockades to civil and equal rights is very arguably _a_ benefit. I’ll worry more about wether it outweighs any negatives (and thus is an _overall_ benefit) when there is an evidence whatsoever of even the slightest _negative_ effect of SSM. > [@magellan01](#): > > Lazy. Fed up. Take your pick. It’s there if you want it. If not, that’s fine with me. I don’t think it’s there. And if you don’t mind me thinking that, that’s fine with me too. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/828 "2009-04-17T00:10:09Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Bolding mine. This is lovely, but it’s incomplete. A significant portion of these people fight very hard to make and/or keep rape, abortion, and _homosexual marriage_ illegal. They do not attempt to make masturbation, fornication, or even _homosexual_ fornication illegal. And a large percentage of those in favor of litigating against homosexual marriage would panic if you tried to litigate _against_ divorce. This logic is flawed. You see hypocrisy where the reality is merely a level of pragmatism. They are fighting the battle on the ground where it’s set. A lot of the things you are referring to ARE things they have tried to address at different times and in different places. It’s not like they are ‘allowing’ those things, just that they currently aren’t the battleground. > [@](#): > > So the claim that it’s “wholistic” is uninformative; this same holistic system argues strongly against the acquisition of wealth, a belief which _nobody_ follows. The real question is why people _care_ about the homosexual marriage part of their “holistic system”. It’s pretty easy to see why they care about the rape and abotion parts; there are actual arguments to be made for banning those practices. Well my point is that a Christian society with a large degree of agreement would function just fine, just as a Modernist Secular society with a large degree of agreement functions just fine. The argument is about how to order society. Yes, I brought up the lack of inspiration to fight a system based on usury earlier in this thread, it is one of the major sticking points to argue against the wholistic system that they want to create. Unlike the your ‘fellacious’ 😃 argument above this one shows a deeper hypocrisy. They WOULD get rid of fellatio if they could, but they arent’ even addressing usury. > [@](#): > > It’s blatantly obvious that a significant portion of the marriage opponents pick and choose which parts of their theological system to follow. The question is, what is _their_ rationale? They may claim it’s the theology talking, but that doesn’t answer why they give such import to that _part_ of the theology. Can you answer that? Yes they do, and it is part of the reason they cannot put together a rational and cohesive alternative. It’s why they are losing. Now we are getting to the point where viewing them as a group breaks down. There are obviously as many opinions as there are individuals who oppose gay marriage. No doubt a large proportion ARE driven by ‘Fags are Yucky’. I don’t dispute that Fags are Yucky is a major part of this debate, my problem with it was the reducing the entire debate to simply that. It’s more complex than that, but it definitely plays a major role. > [@](#): > > Because it seems pretty clear that the ONLY reasons such people _care_ about the (flimsily-supported) religious proscriptions against homosexual marriage are bigotry and ‘Fags are Yucky’. Well that’s certainly true for some, but I know quite a few Christians who are far more concerned about consumerism and a culture of usury than they are about gay marriage. So there is a spectrum of opposition here. People can oppose gay marriage for reasons other than ‘fags are yucky’. But yes, there are plenty of bigots out there for whom that is the overwhelming reason for it. But the reality is the vast majority of people think on a very rudimentary level that can barely be conceived as actual ‘thinking’ in the philisophical sense of the term. You’ll never find me arguing that the impetus for populism on any side is not driven by base impulses to a large degree. ---
**Author:** ![hobscrk777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a6a055/32.png) [@hobscrk777](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hobscrk777)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/829 "2009-04-17T00:13:02Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The rationale is not based on ‘Fags are Yucky’ it’s a religiously based socio-political theory based upon a method of moral ordering that relegates sexuality subordinate to a procreative role. I still don’t understand the framing of the debate in this fashion. What’s the endgame here? Ban same-sex marriage and scare all the homosexuals straight? People who have self-identified as gay and are in a committed enough relationship to consider marriage are just as qualified for marriage as a straight couple is: That is, they both are willing to go through with the ceremonial and legal proceedings. Either one could break apart a week later or last until both partners’ dying days. Both sets of couples can produce/bear offspring, adopt, or forego children altogether. Both sets of couples can be kinkier than the weirdest porn you’ve ever seen on 4chan, or they can be sex-free. What I’m getting at here is that you’re the only one putting emphasis on this idea that gay marriage promotes sexual promiscuity over procreation. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/830 "2009-04-17T00:13:25Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’ve read the entire thread. All I see is a bunch of whiny special pleading and outright stupidity. You are on the wrong side here, you’re arguing based on emotion not intellect. But so are you. Your philosophical adherence to egalitarian ideals is also a form of special pleading and argument for emotion. You have to demonstrate that sexual egalitarianism is in and of itself something worth valuing before we can move on to the real argument. That it is a value is just presumed by your side of the debate. Why should I regard sexual egalitarianism as a value worth upholding? To turn the tables and get you to defend your side, ‘rationally’. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/831 "2009-04-17T00:14:08Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > What makes you choose 40 years as your benchmark? Just the fact that it is safely in the future? And do you really think that the trend clearly demonstrated by the 15 year study cited above would be so thoroughly reversed given additional time? I think forty years is a good number as the people coming of age to marriage will have grown up in a society in which the debate is old news. They will enter a society in which SSM is the default. I think that that generation will grow in a society in which marriage isn’t viewed as being so special, that it will not be viewed as strongly as it is now as being a special way in which to show the love you have for the person you want to go through life with and procreate. > [@CannyDan](#): > > I was trained as a scientist. I know the difference between these three terms. Good. Then we shouldn’t have a problem. > [@CannyDan](#): > > As I said above, no one has offered proof of any societal harm. No one claimed to have any either. In fact, it’s been pointed out by both me and **mswas** (who is pro-SSM) that the proof is unavailable (without a time machine). > [@CannyDan](#): > > Neither has there been any offering of evidence of societal harm, a far lower standard. Somewhat true. I did offer the example of Welfare, although that simply goes to the fact that what we may think is a good idea today may prove to be detrimental to society decades down the road. > [@CannyDan](#): > > Contrary to this, a number of citations have been offered showing zero harm, and sometimes actual benefit. First, I think there was only one indication of actual benefit, so the singular seems called for. But since you are trained as a scientist, I’m sure you’re aware that the correlation that might exist should not be confused with causation. That it is possible that SSM might have had nothing to do with any benefit. In fact that it might have had a detrimental effect that was over-ridden by other factors. Right? And again. We’re talking about the effects on a culture in Denmark, which does not have SSM over just 15 years. > [@CannyDan](#): > > When the theorem proposed, the rationale as you call it, is supported by zero proof, zero evidence, and has actual evidence to counter it, then that rationale does not conform to the real world. It is, by definition, not rational. Already addressed. > [@CannyDan](#): > > It may continue to be offered as a rationale, or rationalization, but it cannot be termed a rational argument. It belongs on the ash heap occupied by other failed theorems and world views. A rational argument need to comport with the rules of logic, which mine certainly does. If you believe it does not, point to the specific problem areas. otherwise, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/832 "2009-04-17T00:15:16Z")
> [@hobscrk777](#): > > I still don’t understand the framing of the debate in this fashion. What’s the endgame here? Ban same-sex marriage and scare all the homosexuals straight? People who have self-identified as gay and are in a committed enough relationship to consider marriage are just as qualified for marriage as a straight couple is: That is, they both are willing to go through with the ceremonial and legal proceedings. Either one could break apart a week later or last until both partners’ dying days. Both sets of couples can produce/bear offspring, adopt, or forego children altogether. Both sets of couples can be kinkier than the weirdest porn you’ve ever seen on 4chan, or they can be sex-free. > > What I’m getting at here is that you’re the only one putting emphasis on this idea that gay marriage promotes sexual promiscuity over procreation. Gay marriage cannot by its very nature lead to procreation, so the very act in and of itself is fornication. Sodomy is ALWAYS fornication from the perspective of one who suborns sex to procreation. That is the qualitative difference. ---
**Author:** ![hobscrk777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a6a055/32.png) [@hobscrk777](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hobscrk777)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/833 "2009-04-17T00:28:24Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Gay marriage cannot by its very nature lead to procreation, so the very act in and of itself is fornication. Sodomy is ALWAYS fornication from the perspective of one who suborns sex to procreation. That is the qualitative difference. A gay couple is capable of raising a child that contains the genetic material of at least one of the parents. I’m willing to bet that at some point in the future, two females will be able to raise a daughter that contains genetic material from each of them (two X chromosomes = girl). Besides, who the are you to say that two people can’t marry because they only want to fuck? How do you know? If anything, the fact that they’re interested in marriage would seem to suggest that they see value in something _more_ than just plain old sex. You don’t need to get married to have that. Why doesn’t this equally apply to straight couples who don’t plan on/aren’t capable of having kids. > [@](#): > > Why should I regard sexual egalitarianism as a value worth upholding? Maybe this is just me, but it seems like the burden of proof falls on the person in favor of _restricting_ equality. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/834 "2009-04-17T00:31:15Z")
> [@hobscrk777](#): > > A gay couple is capable of raising a child that contains the genetic material of at least one of the parents. I’m willing to bet that at some point in the future, two females will be able to raise a daughter that contains genetic material from each of them (two X chromosomes = girl). Yes, and they would oppose that as well. > [@](#): > > Besides, who the are you to say that two people can’t marry because they only want to fuck? How do you know? If anything, the fact that they’re interested in marriage would seem to suggest that they see value in something _more_ than just plain old sex. You don’t need to get married to have that. Why doesn’t this equally apply to straight couples who don’t plan on/aren’t capable of having kids. I answered this question in the post you replied to just now. > [@](#): > > Maybe this is just me, but it seems like the burden of proof falls on the person in favor of _restricting_ equality. Why is that? Why should the person in favor of the status quo have the burden of proof? Shouldn’t the burden of proof fall upon the person seeking to alter the status quo? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/835 "2009-04-17T00:33:42Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Correlation can indeed suggest causation; it just doesn’t prove it. You are correct. I meant to type “equal”. Still it is of zero proof (which I’m sure you agree with) and little evidence, given all the dissimilarities. > [@begbert2](#): > > Are you hallucinating? I said “until we see rational arguments or evidence, I don’t think we need to worry about “proof”.” What part of “I don’t think we have to worry about proof” equates to “I want proof” to you? > > My apologies, here. I was responding to the whining of others. It was inappropriate in replying to you and what you wrote. > [@begbert2](#): > > I probably know more about what “proof” means than you do, because I _don’t_ expect either side to provide it. The larger issue that that the anti-SSM marriage can’t seem to provide _anything_ argumentively compelling. For you. And that’s fine. Because I think what a person might find compelling is based on their predisposition to the issue. Though, I admit that I do find some of the arguments for SSM more compelling than others. > [@begbert2](#): > > Those who are asking for proof are asking for a really high bar from their opponents, often because they can’t clear an ankle-high bar themself and wish to make sure that their opposition can’t clear the bar either. (Other times people are speaking hyperbolically - though hopefully not \*just \*after pointing out the existence of a difference between argument, evidence, and proof.) Well said. > [@begbert2](#): > > And, there’s ample reason to believe that urinating on human rights is a bad thing, yes? Banning marriages between consenting adults without a reason is a bad thing and pisses both on civil rights and, when you do it to a small group, equal rights. Removing moronic, bigoted, and evil blockades to civil and equal rights is very arguably _a_ benefit. I’ll worry more about wether it outweighs any negatives (and thus is an _overall_ benefit) when there is an evidence whatsoever of even the slightest _negative_ effect of SSM. Here’s where things get sticky. And those things we agree to be rights, we have no problem. But there is an assumption of on the other side that a man has a right to marry another man. Since that comports so poorly with both nature (two men can’t procreate) and tradition, I have an hard time seeing it as a “right”. > [@begbert2](#): > > I don’t think it’s there. And if you don’t mind me thinking that, that’s fine with me too. Then we’re good. ---
**Author:** ![hobscrk777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a6a055/32.png) [@hobscrk777](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hobscrk777)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/836 "2009-04-17T00:37:09Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I answered this question in the post you replied to just now. I don’t follow. You said that gay marriage cannot lead to procreation. I stated that _it can_. You said that gay marriage inherently has a proclivity to fornication for fornication’s sake. I stated that the fact that many gays are seeking marriage indicates that they want _more_ out of a relationship than mindless sex (i.e. a legally recognized marriage with all the legal benefits that entails). Where’s your refutation?? > [@](#): > > Why is that? Why should the person in favor of the status quo have the burden of proof? Shouldn’t the burden of proof fall upon the person seeking to alter the status quo? Not if altering the status quo results in equal protection under the law. Justice should not differentiate between the gender of the involved parties (at least in the case of marriage). I didn’t realize that granting everyone equal opportunity and privilege would be such a radical idea to some people. ---
**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 17, 2009, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/837 "2009-04-17T00:40:46Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The rationale is not based on ‘Fags are Yucky’ it’s a religiously based socio-political theory based upon a method of moral ordering that relegates sexuality subordinate to a procreative role. It’s a wholistic system, and homosexuality is actually incidental, the are just as opposed to divorce, fornication, masturbation, abortion, and rape. They aren’t even opposed to homosexuality specifically, they are opposed to sexual activity without the purpose of procreation. So… _sex_ is yucky? That’s great, but the incidence of recreational sex in a hetero relationship is of no legal significance when determining if a marriage is valid, so why should it mater to a homosexual relationship? I get that you (or at least the people you claim to represent) have hang-ups about sex-for-fun, but if you (or they) want to punish people for having sex-for-fun, at least set a good example by giving it up first. > [@](#): > > That’s been explained over and over, but the people who desperately want to believe it’s about, “Fags are yucky”, don’t care and don’t even respond to that. Here’s my entirely nondesperate response - the views you describe are in conflict with the spirit of equal treatment before a secular body of law. There was a time, not long ago at all, when fear and/or disgust with homosexuality made this kind of expansion to marriage law inconceivable. Well, through a gradual shift in society’s views, it’s conceivable _now_ and though the resistant attitude persists, a resistant attitude is all it is - it has no foundation in reason, no supporting empirical evidence, and no indication the result would be negative in any objectively measurable way. > [@](#): > > It’s a fundamental dispute about the principles around which we order our society, and doesn’t even actually single homosexuals out in any way, they are just resisting the attempts to legalize gay marriage the same way they have resisted other modifications to the sexual mores of our society. But the principles around which you order your society, I thought, were described in your Constitution, which contains some language about securing the “blessings of liberty”, and nothing about sexual mores. There is indeed a growing conflict in America, perhaps the beginning of a major chapter in its history where the separation of church and state goes from an ideal to a reality. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/838 "2009-04-17T00:41:48Z")
> [@hobscrk777](#): > > I don’t follow. You said that gay marriage cannot lead to procreation. I stated that _it can_. No, you stated that men can have a child out of wedlock with a woman and RAISE it within the marriage, and then began to talk about science fiction scenarios where one day a woman can get another woman pregnant. > [@](#): > > You said that gay marriage inherently has a proclivity to fornication for fornication’s sake. I stated that the fact that many gays are seeking marriage indicates that they want _more_ out of a relationship than mindless sex (i.e. a legally recognized marriage with all the legal benefits that entails). Where’s your refutation?? You clearly do not understand the usage of the term fornication. ANY sex EVEN IN wedlock that is not devoted to procreative purposes, is fornication. (By the standard that I am arguing.) > [@](#): > > Not if altering the status quo results in equal protection under the law. Justice should not differentiate between the gender of the involved parties (at least in the case of marriage). I didn’t realize that granting everyone equal opportunity and privilege would be such a radical idea to some people. You are using equal protection as a buzzword. You still haven’t established why homosexuals should be given equal protection based upon sexual proclivities. They have equal protection outside of their sexuality. Why should equal protection factor sexuality into the equation? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/839 "2009-04-17T00:42:35Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The problem is you’re spouting the same gibberish as MSWAS. Just because two unfocused, illogical arguments resonate between the two of you doesn’t make it right. It just means that otherwise intelligent people can internalize vapid stupidity and argue it 'till the carpal tunnel sets in. As much as I am inclined to take you as an authority on all things concerning “vapid stupidity”, I think you conflate “logical” and “right”. Neither of us will convince the other of which argument is “right”, I’m sure. But you claim that some argument of mine or hers is “illogical”. Can you point to that argument you so characterize and show where the logical flaws are? I think your doing so will benefit the discussion greatly. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/840 "2009-04-17T00:45:43Z")
**Bryan Ekers,** When I last left this thread I promised to answer your questions, and asked for clarification as to what you liked answered. Were the questions in your Post #637 your reply? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=41) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=43)