# 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:** 47
**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, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/921 "2009-04-17T03:50:16Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **DMC** Alright, I’ll bite. Yes I did object to amending the constitution for such things. I’m not talking about amending the constitution. Prior to all of the uproar, many states had marriage laws on the books that didn’t specify gender in any way. While I’m not going to make the claim that the respective legislative bodies had SSM in mind when leaving out the genders, they nevertheless did. Once SSM started to look like it might have a chance in some places, most of those states were VERY quick to rectify that situation. While they may not have necessarily changed the intent of the law, they sure as hell changed the text of it, thus changing its possible application, depending on when, where, and why the law might have been challenged. I was simply asking if you had a problem with what the states did back then. ---
**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, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/922 "2009-04-17T03:52:35Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > I’m not talking about amending the constitution. Prior to all of the uproar, many states had marriage laws on the books that didn’t specify gender in any way. While I’m not going to make the claim that the respective legislative bodies had SSM in mind when leaving out the genders, they nevertheless did. Once SSM started to look like it might have a chance in some places, most of those states were VERY quick to rectify that situation. While they may not have necessarily changed the intent of the law, they sure as hell changed the text of it, thus changing its possible application, depending on when, where, and why the law might have been challenged. > > I was simply asking if you had a problem with what the states did back then. I wasn’t actually aware that it occurred so I can’t say that I was concerned at the time. Do I care now? No, not that much, because gay marriage shouldn’t be slipped in through a loophole. Like Tom said, it is a change and should be recognized as such. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/923 "2009-04-17T03:57:33Z")
**Lobohan** , this is an emotional issue and I tend to cut folks slack in such situations. However, if you keep throwing words like “childish” and “bigotry” around with such abandon, you are going to garner a Warning. Just address the arguments without trying to characterize the posters. (That goes for the rest of you, of course. **Lobohan** is simply the most emotional poster at this point.) [/Moderating] ---
**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, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/924 "2009-04-17T04:08:12Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > **Lobohan** , this is an emotional issue and I tend to cut folks slack in such situations. However, if you keep throwing words like “childish” and “bigotry” around with such abandon, you are going to garner a Warning. > > Just address the arguments without trying to characterize the posters. > > (That goes for the rest of you, of course. **Lobohan** is simply the most emotional poster at this point.) > > [/Moderating] I’ll reign it it. I was trying to call the arguments bigoted and childish… although I see where I went too far. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/925 "2009-04-17T04:15:59Z")
> [@](#): > > **Tomndebb** : Marriage is intended to support families. Although that is not its exclusive domain, it tends to be the oprational definition in the overwhelming majority of societies throughout history. I have always assumed that people married because that was the tradition for men and women who wanted to commit to spending their lives together and that that was the primary reason. Marriage has been intended as a statement of commitment between two people. ---
**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, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/926 "2009-04-17T07:54:22Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I took the first post of yours I found on a random page of the thread. Look, you are simply stomping your feet and demanding that marriage must be what you think it should be. You’re arguing from emotion and completely without thought. If you think that I, or I venture to say, anyone else, believes this, you are sorely mistaken. But even if you are being truthful, it simply makes your statement that began this exchange less believable. I was truly interested in you pointing to logical flaws in my reasoning. So, I’m a little disappointed, but not surprised in the least, to see that your bluster was just that. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Utterly useless. Marriage has changed constantly throughout the ages. In America alone the rules have shifted greatly. Your assertion here is nothing more than a childish Package Deal Fallacy. I’ve not argued that the meaning of the word _couldn’t_ be expanded, only that it _shouldn’t_ be expanded. Part of the reasoning for that does, indeed, go to tradition. And that does not, in and of itself, render it fallacious. If you disagree, we can define marriage to be between a man and a tractor a man and twenty women, a man and his goat, or a man and himself. And I don’t think the “Package Deal Fallacy” you looked up means what you think it does, as it doesn’t apply here. But even if it somehow did, you should have read further down the Wiki page: [QUOTE=Wikipedia] The Package-Deal argument need not be a fallacy when used to argue that things grouped by culture and tradition are likely to be grouped in a given way. [/QUOTE] > [@Lobohan](#): > > A remarkably stupid Naturalistic Fallacy. You assume based on nothing that the “natural order” has some kind of magic. Looking to the natural order is not necessarily fallacious. Not when it goes to that which defines what the things is. As you should have read on the Wikipedia page: [QUOTE=Wikipedia] It is also important to note that philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas held that the “good” was a process of actualization, where the formal principle of a natural object fulfilled its final cause (purpose), such that a tree’s purpose is to develop another tree, or a bouncy ball’s is to bounce. The formal principle to Aquinas was defined through Aristotle as “that which makes a thing what it is”. Thus the source of potency to accomplish all natural objects ends is through the formal cause of an object. For which Aquinas suggests a non-dualistic model for substance: Form and Matter. This argument still holds a lot of weight, against the supposed “naturalistic fallacy”. [/QUOTE] So, to the degree (small) that you think the fallacy applies, I think you assess it incorrectly. Or you don’t understand with the fallacy is. If you think what I wrote in the paragraph you accessed does suffer from that fallacy, I’ll have to ask you to be more specific. > [@Lobohan](#): > > I’m not sure what this is, but it’s simply not thought out well. Homosexuals can have families. Your argument is dead on the face of it. Not to mention, your desire for children to have families to limit “fucking around” is an argument \*for \*SSM. Well, you have yet to point to the illogic of any part of my position. You may disagree, (and heck, you may even be correct or have a better point) but you have yet to substantiate your claim of my argument being illogical. (I am somewhat amused that you don’t see yet _why_ you won’t be able to do so, but I’ll play along.) > [@Lobohan](#): > > You simply state that your argument is true without backing it up. No evidence, just your ignorance trumpeted loudly and without nuance. Again, no identification of the flaw it the point I was making. I’m shocked. And by the way, an opinion doesn’t need evidence. Without it, you are free to remain unconvinced, but that has nothing to do with the logic of the argument. The fact that you don’t realize this is quite amazing. And I don’t think “ignorance” means what you think it means. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Again, assuming that homosexuality is innately disgusting. Using your unabashed bigotry as the reasoning behind the \*dilution \*of marriage. Just to be clear, you included this statement to show my argument is illogical, yet point to no flaw in logic. Okay. But moving along, if you don’t see how what I wrote is 100% factual AND not a slur against gay indicates that you have no grasp of logic whatsoever. Again, unsurprising. > [@Lobohan](#): > > I’m not moving the target, you’re helplessly flailing, trying to divert the conversation because you can’t back up your assertions. You were, and still are, moving the target, but now your making me really laugh. The fact that **mswas** taking you to school has proven so ineffective is not to your credit. You still make the same mistakes. It’s quite unbelievable really. > [@Lobohan](#): > > First off, you don’t want to discuss this. You want to decree by fiat what marriage should be. Based on your bigotry. Do you read what you write? If you do it’s kind of hard to believe that you voluntarily hit the “submit” button. I don’t want to discuss this? Ha! What the fuck do you think I’ve been doing, genius? You see, NOT wanting to discuss it would result in having near zero posts. Not to confuse you with numbers, but my posts in this thread number substantially higher than that. > [@Lobohan](#): > > I trust you’ll admit to the flaws in the other post I linked to now, right? Look. you don’t understand some very basic things. Mainly that your disagreeing with a point doesn’t render it illogical or fallacious or wrong. You misunderstand the burden of an opinion and the role of evidence and proof. **Mswas** tried to explain much of this to you, very patiently, but you’ll have none of it. :rolleyes: Earlier, you said that my argument(s) were "illogical. When asked to identify the argument you had in mind in that post you instead claim to have chosen one _randomly_. And when attempting to demonstrate to show the illogic of what I wrote, you failed. I know you think you’re a smart guy. And I want to engage you on that front. But based on your refusal to digest what **mswas** has written in this thread and what you have continued to put forth, I’m seeing that as less and less of a possibility. It might be more helpful if instead of you trying to classify what you see as flaws in my arguments as technical fallacies, you simply pointed to specific excerpts and said “this doesn’t follow, it doesn’t make sense, and here’s why:”. It’s an idea, anyway. [Shrug] ---
**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, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/927 "2009-04-17T08:02:38Z")
> [@hobscrk777](#): > > Boy, I am a self-avowed misanthropic cynic, but I think you have an even dimmer view of humanity than I do. Let me spell it out for you - any couple who decides to divorce because their union is less special in the aftermath of same-sex marriage legalization isn’t a couple that was going to last long _regardless_ of what the legal environment is. I get your point, but wouldn’t you agree that deciding on a divorce is a big deal? That people struggle with the decision greatly? That some marriages have gotten close to breaking apart, but the people have decided to try yet again to make a go of it, because it is such a weighty decision? I do. I also think that some of those marriages have been turned around for, in part, their desire to not break such a solemn union? I think we 're mainly in agreement, but just thought I’d share the thinking behind my statement. ---
**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, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/928 "2009-04-17T10:44:45Z")
I don’t get why society’s need to promote the “ideal” (granting for the sake of argument that such a need exists) requires banning things that are harmless but not-ideal. ---
**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, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/929 "2009-04-17T12:20:28Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I don’t get why society’s need to promote the “ideal” (granting for the sake of argument that such a need exists) requires banning things that are harmless but not-ideal. maybe not even harmless but actually a positive but less than ideal situation. The same less than ideal situation that straights already have the option of. If we accept that the family unit of Male Father, Female Mother, and kids has long been the tradition under the term married, why should we assume that will change or be affected in any way because a small percentage is not traditional. As Tom explained so well, the natural evolution of society has already established a change. And, are truly supporting and promoting the ideal in any way by denying equal rights to a small minority? IMHO we are clearly not promoting the ideal that moves society in a more positive direction. What’s happening is one ideal, which won’t be harmed or affected adversely, is being used as a false justification to do real harm to another important foundational ideal. ---
**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, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/930 "2009-04-17T12:36:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think you’re correct, that’s one way it might increase the divorce rate. Another way is that people might view it as a less special union than they thought, and if times are tough, be more inclined to say, aw, fuck it". Nothing at all to support this. > [@](#): > > It would make it even easier for people to opt out of the traditional union. This seems self-evident. Hardly self evident since there’s nothing to support this either. > [@](#): > > My point was not that the problem in the inner city would increase, but that the incidence of unmarried people having children would increase. And that is not a good thing, as we can see in the inner cities. (Not that there aren’t other factors that make the plight worse than it would be in broader society.) Nothing to support this either. > [@](#): > > Huh? What do you want me to say? You thew that number out. I think it way to short a timeframe to see what I fear happening happening. Please see my post about baseless unsupported fears. > [@](#): > > Yes. But we’re talking about is how much of a desire will those who wish to procreate also have to marry. That goes to what will come to define our society. And I absolutely believe that society has a right and a responsibility to encourage those behaviors it deems beneficial to that society. I repeat, What’s happening is one ideal, which won’t be harmed or affected adversely, is being used as a false justification to do real harm to another important foundational ideal. ---
**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, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/931 "2009-04-17T13:05:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I get your point, but wouldn’t you agree that deciding on a divorce is a big deal? That people struggle with the decision greatly? That some marriages have gotten close to breaking apart, but the people have decided to try yet again to make a go of it, because it is such a weighty decision? I do. I also think that some of those marriages have been turned around for, in part, their desire to not break such a solemn union? > > I think we 're mainly in agreement, but just thought I’d share the thinking behind my statement. I do agree that it’s a big deal. Where I disagree with you is that it’s one that is easily influenced by other people in otherwise committed couples. Let me offer you a sentence: “Hey, Bill and Ted down the street just got ! That settles it then, I’m going to get one, too!” If you insert “HD TV” in the brackets, it’s a perfectly reasonable sentence. If you insert “divorce” in the brackets, it becomes ludicrous. ---
**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 17, 2009, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/932 "2009-04-17T13:55:52Z")
A busy night, and more than a hundred posts to catch up with. Still though, the same arguments seem to be circling the same bowl. With a couple of exceptions. Somewhere upthread is offered the canard (I paraphrase, being too lazy to go back and quote) “Your lack of religion is a belief system equivalent to my religious belief system, so you can’t have the law intrude on my (religious) belief system in favor of your (irreligious) belief system.” Thank goodness \*that \*nonsense didn’t go anywhere. And also exceptional was \*\*tomndebb’s \*\*marvelous summary in post 908. My only quibble is that I might have expressed “…it is time to recognize the expansion of the meaning of the word.” a bit differently, as “…it is time to recognize the expansion of the application of the word.” Otherwise, it hits 99+%. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/933 "2009-04-17T14:07:11Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Explain why homosexuality should be treated as equivalent to heterosexuality. Sigh … that’s been explained so many times to you that the fault for any failure to get through is your own entirely. Amendment XIV to the US Constitution: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/934 "2009-04-17T14:18:53Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Marriage is intended to support families. Fine if you define “family” as including “childless couples”. Otherwise your definition is too narrow. > [@](#): > > As part of the lowering of those taboos, the movement emerged to permit homosexuals to be recognized to be entitled to all the same rights as any other persons Your tying that to in vitro fertilization of all things, without stated regard to the overall social context of the time in which civil rights, equal protection, and equal opportunities for social minorities\* of all kinds\* were being examined and guaranteed, is interesting but idiosyncratic. > [@](#): > > I think that enlarging the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples is a change. But not to the marriages, either in words or in meaning, of heterosexual couples. > [@](#): > > it seems clear to me that viewing marriage only in the context of sexual procreation has already been abandoned by society. If it had ever been the case anyway, that is. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/935 "2009-04-17T15:12:32Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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. The Defense of Marriage Act specifically excuses them, for now. Don’t look for the current Supreme Court to even take a case examining its constitutionality, much less strike it, though. > [@](#): > > I’m sure many court cases will follow in the next decade or so while it all gets sorted out. Happening already. Iowa was an example. > [@](#): > > 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? Just for curiosity, what is the comparable equal protection language in your Charter? ---
**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, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/936 "2009-04-17T15:37:42Z")
Well, don’t be hassling tom (though I’m not sure if I was included in his “‘rational’ foofaraw” remark, or if so, if I should be offended by it). The 1950s were a crushingly conformist time in the U.S. and improvements in education, wealth and technology have allowed them to gradually (but obviously not completely) escape it. Sure marriage was once primarily about having children - and having a _lot_ of children, because you could reasonably expect most of them to die before the age of ten. This is no longer true in the westernized countries, so why hang onto the trappings? Many humans feel the need for long-term companionship and the security that entails. Most of these humans specifically feel the need for a companion of the opposite sex, and some feel the need for a companion of the same sex. So what? The objections of magellan and mswas hinge on the fact that they don’t like what these latter companion-pairs do privately. In an age of increasing freedom and tolerance, I expect this view to gradually shrink in popularity, though there may be backlashes along the way. I have no doubt whatsoever that there were a sizable number of Americans in 1967 who saw _Loving v. Virginia_ as the first step toward turning the U.S. into a nation of mongrels and half-breeds. They had no evidence this would happen, but they could make vague-though-dire predictions. I’m sure there was similar rhetoric in 1920 when women got the vote about how this would destroy Christianity (women no longer being subservient and such). All this is purely academic, anyway. Every voter over 60 who dies is more than likely to oppose any normalization of the treatment of homosexuals, and every voter who just turned 18 is more than likely to shrug at such efforts. The last holdout states will likely be Alabama, Texas and Utah. I figure a decade, tops. If I’m still an SDMB member (and assuming the SDMB still exists), I’ll try to remember to link back to this thread in April 2018. ---
**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, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/937 "2009-04-17T15:57:03Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The Defense of Marriage Act specifically excuses them, for now. Don’t look for the current Supreme Court to even take a case examining its constitutionality, much less strike it, though. Well, maybe Obama can tackle that in his second term. > [@](#): > > Just for curiosity, what is the comparable equal protection language in your Charter? Heh, I never even thought about it because compared to the contentious American example, gay marriage in Canada earns a mere shrug. It was like “Ontario approves gay marriage” and everybody just went “uh, okay.” Saskatchewan and Alberta put up some token resistance, but it was futile and they knew it and the Federal Civil Marriage Act of 2005 sealed the deal, though by then every other province had already approved gay marriage within its borders. The Charter itself was unmodified, though its section 15 (in place since 1985) was used to bolster the CMA: > [@Section 15](#): > > Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Alberta (being our equivalent of Texas, I guess) is the province most likely to resist, for what it’s worth. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/938 "2009-04-17T15:59:14Z")
Thanks. Is Alberta making noises about firing up the Notwithstanding clause? ---
**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, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/939 "2009-04-17T16:09:09Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Thanks. > > Is Alberta making noises about firing up the Notwithstanding clause? They did in 2000. The invocation expired in 2005 and they could have renewed it, but by then it was clearly hopeless and there was a good argument that the definition of marriage was a Federal matter and not a Provincial one, so they gave up. When the Civil Marriage Act passed, Alberta started issuing same-sex marriage licenses, though I’m sure there a suitable amount of grumbling, all very Canadian and polite. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/940 "2009-04-17T16:36:03Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Even though they’re irrelevant to my argument, which hangs on equal treatment under the law, what’s wrong with sex and affection? Because in the case of two men, it’s just buttsex! With a reacharound! And who wants to think about that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=46) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=48)