# 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:** 45
**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, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/881 "2009-04-17T02:01:33Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I’ve a question from this; it stems from the basic curiosity of “Which arguments then, if not totally convincing, are those you include when you judge this issue”, but it would be an interested route to go down. The vast majority of this thread now is focused on your arguments and attempts at supporting or refuting them, which is pretty much expected when it’s countless odd people against one (or two). Instead of everyone’s views on your arguments, i’d like to hear your views on the arguments of others, if that’s reasonable - I sort of get the feeling that I understand why you feel the cons to gay marriage mount up, but not whether the pros don’t, if that makes sense. I get why you think the arguments against are sound ones, but not why the arguments for aren’t, to the extent that some aren’t. The way you’ve worded that, I’m a little confuse to exactly what you’re looking for. But I’ll give it a shot. I agree that homosexuality is naturally occurring and that gay couples can be just and in love as heterosexual couples. Based on that, it is my default position that the two groups should be treated equally. That is why I support extending the complete set of legal rights and privileges to each group through Civil Unions. I think that that should be that. But then the issue of “marriage” comes up. To me, that’s like wanting to call that which is not X, X. Still, people point out, that gays will be happier. Okay, that’s a plus. People point out that gays can provide a healthy environment for the raising of children. I agree, but that’s more of an argument for gay adoption (rights and privileges), so it’s neither a plus or a minus in regards to “marriage”. People say that by allowing them to call it marriage, we can help erase the line between gay and straight. I think that is correct. They view that as a plus, but I view it as a negative. I don’t not equate a group receiving the same rights with that group necessarily having zero difference, or having a difference that is insignificant. I’ve given analogies along these lines. I’ll stop there, as I feel I’m going off on a tangent with what I just wrote and deleted, due to that. ---
**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, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/882 "2009-04-17T02:03:51Z")
**Tomndebb** As I have already conceded there are probably plenty of people who think Fags are Yucky, but does that delegitimize any of the other reasons? You are making an argument based on knowledge of intent of not just a few people but a whole demographic. Though I would say you are probably correct, your criteria are hardly ‘rational’ because you are making a broad-based assumption. ---
**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, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/883 "2009-04-17T02:03:56Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I don’t feel that society will slip into oblivion, if actual data were important to you, you wouldn’t repeat what I have refuted. > > If you care about truth why is it so important to intentionally misquote me? Yes, excuse me. You didn’t say “oblivion”. What you actually said was: > [@you](#): > > My issue with this and similar ones is that I am sad to watch a great civilization die. How could I possibly have misconstrued you? ---
**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, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/884 "2009-04-17T02:07:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. > [@magellan01](#): > > First things first. Back in Post# 824 you claimed that an argument I posed previous to your post was “illogical”. I asked you to point to both the argument and, specifically to the logical flaw(s) therein. > > Still waiting. Wait, you’re wanting me to debate a specific claim you made prior to post 824? I assume you’re stipulating that the post I linked to is in fact without merit then, right? Look, I appreciate that the only option you have is to try to bog down the debate with delaying tactics, but c’mon. I’ll tell you what, give me a post number for anything at all you’ve argued against SSM in this thread and I’ll tear it down for you. As for the one I linked to, if you need the specific fallacy, it’s an _appeal to probability_. ---
**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, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/885 "2009-04-17T02:08:42Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > How could I possibly have misconstrued you? Christian civilization is falling to secular civilization. It is inevitable but I do not think there is something wrong with mourning what is lost in the process. That is not the same as thinking that civilization as a whole will fall into oblivion. ---
**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 17, 2009, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/886 "2009-04-17T02:09:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The way you’ve worded that, I’m a little confuse to exactly what you’re looking for. Yeah, apologies for not being all that clear - I was trying to say that i’ve seen a lot of debate about whether the arguments _you’ve_ brought to the table are right/wrong, but I hadn’t seen much in terms of your opinions of arguments being brought from others. Which I don’t really blame you for, since overwhelming numbers pretty much force anyone to focus more on defence, as it were. But you’ve answered it in the way I was hoping, so thanks! I think it may have given me a bit of insight into at least part of your views; would it be right to say that, in your opinion, by making marriage include both straight and gay couples, the dilution of the concept of it as “for procreation” (to some extent) is potentially bad because it might mean that (for example) heterosexual couples who decide to have kids will be less likely to get married, because it has that connotation less for them now? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/887 "2009-04-17T02:11:17Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Actually, it does appear to boil down to “fags are yucky” for the overwhelming majority of same sex marriage opponents. Only a tiny minority of them actually oppose divorce in any material way. Only a miniscule minority actually promote the idea that heterosexual sex must be procreative–birth control is well established among all the major groups that oppose same sex I also wonder if it’s an unspoken objection to gays having children and raising them and what unspoken moral corruption that means for future generations. It’s the same unreasonable fear when people discover a teacher is gay. “OMFG, what’s he teaching our children?”, as if being gay is something you can be talked in to. My oldest sister married a black man in the early seventies and we quickly found out which family members were bigots. When they had kids I remember some saying, “What they want to do together is their business but bringing innocent children into it is wrong” The concept being that since other people were horrible bigots and they knew their mixed race kids would feel the effects of their prejudice my sister and her black husband shouldn’t have kids and it was irresponsible to do so. It didn’t make sense. So, because some people are bigots others are wrong to not recognize and acquiesce to their bigotry. It’s like the folks who say, I don’t mind what the gays do in private just don’t make a public display of it. So, straight couples are allowed to hold hands, cuddle and kiss in public but gay couples are being offensive. It’s all bullshit. Hey, when I see two guys sucking face in public my reaction is Yuuuccckkkk! but I realize that’s my problem, not theirs. ---
**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, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/888 "2009-04-17T02:15:34Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I also wonder if it’s an unspoken objection to gays having children and raising them and what unspoken moral corruption that means for future generations. It’s the same unreasonable fear when people discover a teacher is gay. “OMFG, what’s he teaching our children?”, as if being gay is something you can be talked in to. Sometimes I feel like I live in an alternate universe. In my world the objection to gays raising children doesn’t go unspoken. > [@](#): > > My oldest sister married a black man in the early seventies and we quickly found out which family members were bigots. When they had kids I remember some saying, “What they want to do together is their business but bringing innocent children into it is wrong” Heh, I had an experience with my step-Mother who said it was mean to bring a mulatto child in the world because of all the discrimination she’d face. > [@](#): > > It’s like the folks who say, I don’t mind what the gays do in private just don’t make a public display of it. So, straight couples are allowed to hold hands, cuddle and kiss in public but gay couples are being offensive. It’s all bullshit. Hey, when I see two guys sucking face in public my reaction is Yuuuccckkkk! but I realize that’s my problem, not theirs. Generally the same people don’t approve of heteros sucking face on the street corner either though. ---
**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, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/889 "2009-04-17T02:21:08Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Sure, that’d be nice. To quote that post: > > [QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] > > I remain curious what disaster is supposed to happen after gay marriage becomes legally recognized in the the U.S. > > [1]Heterosexual marriages will start ending in divorce? They have that already. > [2]Hetero couples choosing to live together instead of getting married? They have that already. > [3]Married people choosing not to have children? They have that already. > [4]Children born out of wedlock? They have that already. > > I’ve never heard of any heterosexual person declaring “If gays can get married, then I won’t!” or words to that effect. [5]Surely examples can’t be hard to find if this attitude is prevalent enough for gay marriage today to cause a measurable drop in hetero marriage five years from now. (numbers added by me) 1. I don’t think this would happen in the short term. Though over time, I think it would play a small role in the divorce rate. 2. Yes, they do this already. I do not view this as a societal good. I also think that SSM would definitely increase this. So, naturally I wouldn’t be for something that I think would increase what I perceive to be a negative. 3. Yes, they already do. But I don’t see SSM increasing or decreasing this. 4. This is like #2. But much more important, as children are involved. It definitely does not help society to lessen the link in young people’s minds (especially young males) between sex, the birthing of children, and the serious, long term responsibility that comes with them. I just look to the inner cities and see what happens when the relationships between these things are decoupled. 5. While I think you choose the wrong timeframe, I think this is a very important point. As I said, I view traditional marriage as a great societal good. Now, while I don’t see anything happening in the very short term you use, I do see it affecting the marriage rate further down the road. Let’s look just at those people who might want to get “married” because they fully expect to have children and want to become part of that institution. The degree to which the link between marriage and procreation is lessened, people will find the institution less special, less of specific relevance to them. ---
**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, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/890 "2009-04-17T02:24:49Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Marriage is for helping to encourage procreation, it’s not a perfect system, but if you are CERTAIN it cannot work then why do it? Because two people want to be married and gain the various rights and privileges that entails, regardless of how many children they might have, or might not be able to have. > [@](#): > > Also, in prior times barren women and sterile men WERE stigmatized. Yes, and in prior times, heretics were burned at the stake. In modern times, though, fertility is not a requirement of marriage. Was it _ever_, in the history of the United States? > [@](#): > > Right, and marriage is recognized at the state level, which is where the fight is occurring. Yes, and individual states will gradually recognize gay marriage (New York may be next) and under the well-established full-faith-and-credit principle, other states may have to choose to recognize out-of-state gay marriages even if they don’t perform them. Refusal puts them in violation of Article IV of the Constitution. I’m sure many court cases will follow in the next decade or so while it all gets sorted out. > [@](#): > > Right, but you are seeking to redefine those laws. You use rhetoric as though your side is the default and that the status quo is the radical one. The only rhetoric I’m using is already written in U.S. law. Is the 14th Amendment rhetoric? Is citing antidiscrimination law rhetoric? > [@](#): > > It’s clever language, but you are on the side seeking a change in the laws of the land. Well, so were women who wanted the vote. Of course, so is NAMBLA, so what’s your point? Laws should never change? > [@](#): > > So what you are saying is that the religious should not be represented then? I believe your first amendment addresses this. > [@](#): > > The problem with this is that we see a difference between ideology and religion. This distinction benefits you of course because you are able to claim a sort of unbiased ideological purity that is not ‘tainted’ by religion. In reality it’s one belief system vs another. IE, your religion is winning. There is no difference between ideology and religion, but it is helpful for one side and hurtful in the other. My “religion” is equal treatment under the law, as written in your constitution. Why shouldn’t it apply in this case? Your fellow citizens want a right enjoyed by others. Why stop them? ---
**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, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/891 "2009-04-17T02:26:29Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > But you’ve answered it in the way I was hoping, so thanks! I think it may have given me a bit of insight into at least part of your views; would it be right to say that, in your opinion, by making marriage include both straight and gay couples, the dilution of the concept of it as “for procreation” (to some extent) is potentially bad because it might mean that (for example) heterosexual couples who decide to have kids will be less likely to get married, because it has that connotation less for them now? I think that’s fair. I just commented along these lines to another poster. Also, I believe that there is an ideal situation in which to raise children, and it behooves society to send that signal to future generations. However subtly. Just to clarify, I am pro gay adoption. I have seen first hand the wonderful environments that can be created by both single-parent households and same-sex households. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/892 "2009-04-17T02:31:26Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Right, but you are seeking to redefine those laws. You use rhetoric as though your side is the default and that the status quo is the radical one. It’s clever language, but you are on the side seeking a change in the laws of the land. I recall not too many years ago where your side was the one seeking to change the laws of the land, in a very big way. Hell, most states didn’t actually have anything on the books that would have prohibited same sex marriage. Did you bitch when those laws were changed? ---
**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 17, 2009, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/893 "2009-04-17T02:38:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think that’s fair. I just commented along these lines to another poster. Also, I believe that there is an ideal situation in which to raise children, and it behooves society to send that signal to future generations. However subtly. Just to clarify, I am pro gay adoption. I have seen first hand the wonderful environments that can be created by both single-parent households and same-sex households. I’m not sure that I necessarily agree your point works through, then, mainly because of what marriage would stand for for people if it didn’t have the connotations of procreation. I mean, my concern would be that if for many people “marriage” is tied to procreation, then couples aren’t going to get married until they decide to have kids - certainly there’s the implicit idea that marriage should come before kids, but i’d be worried that the tighter that connotation is, the more likely it is that people see marriage as just a stepping stone to having kids, rather than the considerable commitment and change in circumstances that it is. A minimization of marriage as a method to something, rather than a thing unto itself. And that in turn might lead to more divorces afterwards, since people might find marriage isn’t for them, by which point there may well be kids, and it’s a bit too late for them. Whereas on the other hand, if marriage becomes less about procreation, the obvious question is “What would it then stand for, instead?”, and i’d have to wager that it would be more about that commitment and dedication in and of itself. And that would benefit children and society in turn, because it would mean that a couple have more time between marriage and having kids to get used to the whole thing, and beyond that marriage is recognised more as “marriage”, and less “the thing you do when you want kids”. ---
**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, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/894 "2009-04-17T02:39:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > [QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] > [1]Heterosexual marriages will start ending in divorce? They have that already. > [2]Hetero couples choosing to live together instead of getting married? They have that already. > … > [4]Children born out of wedlock? They have that already. > > I’ve never heard of any heterosexual person declaring “If gays can get married, then I won’t!” or words to that effect. [5]Surely examples can’t be hard to find if this attitude is prevalent enough for gay marriage today to cause a measurable drop in hetero marriage five years from now. (numbers added by me) 1. I don’t think this would happen in the short term. Though over time, I think it would play a small role in the divorce rate. [/quote] How? People in hetero marriages ending them to form new homosexual marriages? That’s already happening as people who’ve been closeted for years now feel free to “come out”. It’ll be the lessening of the stigma associated with homosexuality that will gradually increase this, and then it’ll fall off sharply, I figure, as homosexuals feel less pressured to form hetero marriages in the first place. > [@](#): > > 1. Yes, they do this already. I do not view this as a societal good. I also think that SSM would definitely increase this. So, naturally I wouldn’t be for something that I think would increase what I perceive to be a negative. I don’t know how SSM will do this any more effectively than the dissipating stigma against living together already has. Can you elaborate? > [@](#): > > 1. This is like #2. But much more important, as children are involved. It definitely does not help society to lessen the link in young people’s minds (especially young males) between sex, the birthing of children, and the serious, long term responsibility that comes with them. I just look to the inner cities and see what happens when the relationships between these things are decoupled. The inner-city trend you describe has been going on for decades. How gay marriage will aggravate it is unclear to me, especially since gay marriage, it has been argued, doesn’t even involve the birthing of children (it can, of course, but I’m playing along). > [@](#): > > 1. While I think you choose the wrong timeframe, I think this is a very important point. As I said, I view traditional marriage as a great societal good. Now, while I don’t see anything happening in the very short term you use, I do see it affecting the marriage rate further down the road. Let’s look just at those people who might want to get “married” because they fully expect to have children and want to become part of that institution. The degree to which the link between marriage and procreation is lessened, people will find the institution less special, less of specific relevance to them. Well, conveniently, a five-year span is being dismissed as too short to be relevant, and a forty-year span is being dismissed as too long to be predictable, except that something bad is apparently sure to happen. Special relevance isn’t written in the law. How special a couple feels is entirely up to them. People who want to procreate will still be able to do so, straight or gay, married or unmarried. ---
**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, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/895 "2009-04-17T02:40:42Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Wait, you’re wanting me to debate a specific claim you made prior to post 824? I assume you’re stipulating that the post I linked to is in fact without merit then, right? No. I have a lot to deal with, without one of the many posters I’m trying to respond to moving the target. I also want to pin you down as to the repeated claim you’ve made regarding a lack of logic on my part. So, that claim you made in #824 referred to something, right? Or were you just blubbering some baseless generalizations that you’re so sure of in your mind? Since you would never do that latter, well, let’s see it. Let’s see you point to this argument you were referring to and to the logical flaws in it. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Look, I appreciate that the only option you have is to try to bog down the debate with delaying tactics, but c’mon. I’ll tell you what, give me a post number for anything at all you’ve argued against SSM in this thread and I’ll tear it down for you. As for the one I linked to, if you need the specific fallacy, it’s an _appeal to probability_. No. I’m giving you the opportunity to simply pointing to the specific argument you had in mind. You know the one that preceded #824 that you had no doubt evaluated and deemed to be “illogical”. I’ll wait. Again. If you are unwilling to do so, you’ll understand if I write you odd as being unserious about really wanting to discuss this. ---
**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, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/896 "2009-04-17T02:42:39Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > I recall not too many years ago where your side was the one seeking to change the laws of the land, in a very big way. Hell, most states didn’t actually have anything on the books that would have prohibited same sex marriage. Did you bitch when those laws were changed? Hey Johnny you’ve come lately, read the thread. ---
**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, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/897 "2009-04-17T02:47:32Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I’m not sure that I necessarily agree your point works through, then, mainly because of what marriage would stand for for people if it didn’t have the connotations of procreation. > > I mean, my concern would be that if for many people “marriage” is tied to procreation, then couples aren’t going to get married until they decide to have kids - certainly there’s the implicit idea that marriage should come before kids, but i’d be worried that the tighter that connotation is, the more likely it is that people see marriage as just a stepping stone to having kids, rather than the considerable commitment and change in circumstances that it is. A minimization of marriage as a method to something, rather than a thing unto itself. And that in turn might lead to more divorces afterwards, since people might find marriage isn’t for them, by which point there may well be kids, and it’s a bit too late for them. > > Whereas on the other hand, if marriage becomes less about procreation, the obvious question is “What would it then stand for, instead?”, and i’d have to wager that it would be more about that commitment and dedication in and of itself. And that would benefit children and society in turn, because it would mean that a couple have more time between marriage and having kids to get used to the whole thing, and beyond that marriage is recognised more as “marriage”, and less “the thing you do when you want kids”. Where we differ I think is that you seem top be assuming that marriage would start to be associated exclusively with the begetting of children. If that were the case, I think you would be correct in pointing to that danger. I’m not advocating that we tie marriage to the getting of children exclusively, only that it be an ingredient. ---
**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, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/898 "2009-04-17T02:47:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I believe your first amendment addresses this. It says nothing of the kind. It says the state will not make an official religion, not that religious principles will cease to affect the shaping of the law. Your interpretation is a radical one that favors your ideology. > [@](#): > > My “religion” is equal treatment under the law, as written in your constitution. Why shouldn’t it apply in this case? Your fellow citizens want a right enjoyed by others. Why stop them? No, they want a right that no one previously has enjoyed. ---
**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, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/899 "2009-04-17T02:48:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m not advocating that we tie marriage to the getting of children exclusively, only that it be an ingredient. Is it a _required_ ingredient? Do couples with children get additional privileges denied to couples without children? ---
**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, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/900 "2009-04-17T02:55:06Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It says nothing of the kind. It says the state will not make an official religion, not that religious principles will cease to affect the shaping of the law. Your interpretation is a radical one that favors your ideology. Radical? I disagree. Try to pass a law that makes it illegal to take the Lord’s name in vain, a well-established religious principal that has no secular value. Your supreme court will find it to be unacceptable. > [@](#): > > No, they want a right that no one previously has enjoyed. There was a time when no right existed to marry someone of a different race and there were laws against it. Those laws were challenged. What’s your point? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=44) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=46)