# 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:** 49
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/961 "2009-04-18T00:00:36Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, it’s been legal in Denmark for 15 years and in Canada for about six, and I’m not aware of negative repercussions in either country. About how much more questioning do you think would satisfy you? Would _any_ amount? Well again as Magellan and I both pointed out 15 years is a drop in the bucket compared to the revolutionary civilizational change that is being proposed. We won’t know what it means for a century at least because we need a period of time for it 1. To become widely accepted legally 2. To become widely accepted culturally 3. To watch the breeding patterns in the first generation where it is fully normalized. So really it’s not until my daughters generation starts having kids that we’ll really know what this means. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/962 "2009-04-18T00:03:13Z")
**DMC** I know it may be irritating but arguments of discrimination don’t sway me in the slightest. We discriminate all the time, the very notion of law is based on discrimination, we discriminate that some behaviors are acceptable and others are not, and inevitably SOME cohort wants to engage in proscribed behavior. It is in the defining of a suspect class where this issue is interesting. ---
**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 18, 2009, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/963 "2009-04-18T00:04:19Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > No, it’s expanding a right that they’ve always had (just ask the far right, who will happily tell you that gay women are free to marry any man they want). We’re just expanding it to include people that they might actually be interested in marrying, which is sort of important to many people when it comes to a marriage. Dick Cheney is free to marry the woman of his dreams. If he had a son, he’d be able to also marry the woman of his dreams. His daughter should be able to do the same, and not allowing it certainly looks like gender discrimination to me. Personally, I find it clear that sexuality belongs in the group of “suspect classes”, but even if not, you could make a strong argument that it’s gender discrimination. Hey, if a black person can marry a black person, then it’s not infringing on his rights to say he can’t marry a white person, right? Right? On preview: a _century_? Wow. I guess we _don’t_ know if it’s okay for interracial couples to marry. Better ban it for another half-century then. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/964 "2009-04-18T00:05:20Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Hey, if a black person can marry a black person, then it’s not infringing on his rights to say he can’t marry a white person, right? Right? > On preview: a _century_? Wow. I guess we _don’t_ know if it’s okay for interracial couples to marry. Better ban it for another half-century then. You do understand the difference in fertility between a heterosexual interracial couple and a homosexual one right? That whole ability to breed thing isn’t lost on you? ---
**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 18, 2009, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/965 "2009-04-18T00:06:54Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > You do understand the difference in fertility between a heterosexual interracial couple and a homosexual one right? That whole ability to breed thing isn’t lost on you? I understand it doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the question of whether the right exists or should exist. Do you? The thing to remember here is that not all rebuttals work for, or even make sense for, all arguments. You have to kind of match them up. As an addendum, lest you state that I brought a tangent of a different argument in by responding to your post, you have to state what impact the reproduction is going to make, given that the prospective couples _are going to be sticking together and avoiding hetero sex whether or not they’re allowed to marry_. Which means that we can reliably state that there will be no difference in reproduction rates between the gay marriage legal and gay marriage illegal scenarios. Which makes it completely irrelevent. (To \*this \*argument anyway.) ---
**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 18, 2009, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/966 "2009-04-18T00:14:53Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **DMC** I know it may be irritating but arguments of discrimination don’t sway me in the slightest. We discriminate all the time, the very notion of law is based on discrimination, we discriminate that some behaviors are acceptable and others are not, and inevitably SOME cohort wants to engage in proscribed behavior. It is in the defining of a suspect class where this issue is interesting. Then let’s go with the “suspect class” argument and apply the 14th amendment. Do you consider homosexuality “immutable”? Forgive me if you’ve answered this already. While I’ve read the entire thread, I certainly haven’t committed it to memory. For the record, my answer to the above question is “yes”, far more so than religion, which is why I think sexual orientation should garner a suspect classification. ---
**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 18, 2009, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/967 "2009-04-18T00:17:09Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > As an addendum, lest you state that I brought a tangent of a different argument in by responding to your post, you have to state what impact the reproduction is going to make, given that the prospective couples _are going to be sticking together and avoiding hetero sex whether or not they’re allowed to marry_. Which means that we can reliably state that there will be no difference in reproduction rates between the gay marriage legal and gay marriage illegal scenarios. Which makes it completely irrelevent. (To \*this \*argument anyway.) If anything, I would expect increased child-birth and/or child-rearing by gay couples if they were allowed to marry. ---
**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 18, 2009, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/968 "2009-04-18T00:34:26Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > We won’t know what it means for a century Well, may as well get started now so at least our own children might live to see the result. ---
**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 18, 2009, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/969 "2009-04-18T00:51:48Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > On preview: a _century_? Wow. I guess we _don’t_ know if it’s okay for interracial couples to marry. Better ban it for another half-century then. The U.S. has another 13 years to go before they find out for sure if letting women vote was a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/970 "2009-04-18T04:33:17Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I have no doubt whatsoever that the people who drafted the 14th Amendment has no idea it would used in this manner (heck, the14th talks about the “privileges” of “citizens” but it wasn’t until the 19th Amendment that women got the privilege of voting, as they apparently didn’t count as citizens until then). They did not, however, write in an exception for homosexuals, so it’s up to modern-day Americans to apply it as they see fit. That’s kind of what Prop 8 did. Right? > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, it’s been legal in Denmark for 15 years and in Canada for about six, and I’m not aware of negative repercussions in either country. About how much more questioning do you think would satisfy you? Would _any_ amount? No. SSM is not legal in Denmark, even today. They have Civil Unions. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/971 "2009-04-18T04:36:30Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > No, it’s expanding a right that they’ve always had (just ask the far right, who will happily tell you that gay women are free to marry any man they want). We’re just expanding it to include people that they might actually be interested in marrying, which is sort of important to many people when it comes to a marriage. Right. You’re “expanding” it to include a right that previously did not exist. If it already existed, you wouldn’t have to expand anything in order to include it. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/972 "2009-04-18T04:52:38Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The U.S. has another 13 years to go before they find out for sure if letting women vote was a good idea. What does women voting have to do with breeding or gay marriage? I didn’t know that procreation was impacted by voting. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/973 "2009-04-18T04:56:57Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Right. You’re “expanding” it to include a right that previously did not exist. If it already existed, you wouldn’t have to expand anything in order to include it. Oh? Nobody had the right to marry before now? That wpuld be contrary to what I would imagine any random survey of people would answer, and to the dictum of SCOTUS in the Loving case. That people advocate extending the application of this right to same-sex couples may perhaps be what you mean. But there is not now, never has been, and never will be a “right to gay marriage” in the way that **Shodan** and a few others suggest is being proposed as a “newly created right.” Rather, the agelong right to marry is being applied to a class of people who previously were denied it, or at least denied it as it has generally been applied in America, that is, the right to marry the person of one’s choice. And before we get into “the person of one’s choice” being a sister, a ten-year-old, a pet dog, or a house plant, that’s an entirely different set of topics, on a particularly gritty level surface (as opposed to slippery slope, that is). ---
**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 18, 2009, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/974 "2009-04-18T05:15:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Right. You’re “expanding” it to include a right that previously did not exist. If it already existed, you wouldn’t have to expand anything in order to include it. Actually, while I used the term “expanding”, it was mainly because that was in the text I was responding to. In my opinion, all we need to do is recognize a right that already exists, via the 14th. Some day, in the near future, we’ll have SCOTUS that will recognize that fact. Even if I prove to be wrong (I won’t), why in the fuck would you care if we “expanded” a right in the first place? Remember, you’re the one who actually wants to expand their rights. ---
**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 18, 2009, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/975 "2009-04-18T05:17:01Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > What does women voting have to do with breeding or gay marriage? I didn’t know that procreation was impacted by voting. Women voting were enjoying a right that previously had only been held by others. The right for a woman to vote had been created, hadn’t it? Do you need a hundred years to study the effects of that new right? And it remains unclear that procreation will be impacted by gay marriage. Possibly it _was_ affected by suffrage if women were out voting when they should have been at home submitting to their husbands, or voting for pro-choice politicians or something. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/976 "2009-04-18T05:49:40Z")
Hey, women were endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Men were just a little absentminded about that. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/977 "2009-04-18T12:15:21Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > That’s not an explanation, that’s an assertion that homosexuality is equivalent. No, that homosexuals are persons. That’s the word in the 14th’s equal protection clause. > [@](#): > > You still haven’t explained it, you take it as axiomatic that sexuality should be a form of identity that is recognized by law. No, that _personhood_ entitles a person to equal protection of the laws. > [@](#): > > Please prove to me that it is such. Please prove that homosexuals are persons? You’re \*serious \*about that? Wow. It’s getting very hard to see any value in continuing to engage you here, you know that, right? > [@](#): > > You really haven’t answered this question yet. I don’t expect you to because I don’t believe that you can, this is more about the limits of rationality than it is about proving such a thing. It isn’t even about rationality, the remarkable notion that homosexuals are not actually “persons” notwithstanding. It’s about the law, and about the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law? > [@](#): > > No one is depriving homosexuals of life, liberty or property by denying them marriage. They are denying them a legal distinction that you have yet to demonstrate, ‘rationally’, includes them. What does the phrase “equal protection of the laws” mean to you, then? Or the word “person”? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/978 "2009-04-18T15:54:04Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Actually, while I used the term “expanding”, it was mainly because that was in the text I was responding to. Oh come on. You chose to opine on what **mswas** had written, and went on for a whole paragraph arguing for the expansion of rights. When your own logic was used against you to show the problem with your position you then claim the above. You’ve got to be kidding. > [@DMC](#): > > Even if I prove to be wrong (I won’t), why in the fuck would you care if we “expanded” a right in the first place? Remember, you’re the one who actually wants to expand their rights. I’m all for expanding rights, as we see fit. After evaluating them. This little game you play trying to make that the default position, then claiming that rights are being _denied_, is weak, **mswas** has explained more than a few times. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/979 "2009-04-18T16:02:06Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Please prove that homosexuals are persons? You’re \*serious \*about that? Wow. It’s getting very hard to see any value in continuing to engage you here, you know that, right? > > It isn’t even about rationality, the remarkable notion that homosexuals are not actually “persons” notwithstanding. It’s about the law, and about the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law? > > What does the phrase “equal protection of the laws” mean to you, then? Or the word “person”? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:Nice strawman you’ve erected there. **Mswas** never claimed in any way that homosexuals were not persons. Here’s what she did say: > [@](#): > > That’s not an explanation, that’s an assertion that homosexuality is equivalent. You still haven’t explained it, you take it as axiomatic that sexuality should be a form of identity that is recognized by law. Please prove to me that it is such. You really haven’t answered this question yet. I don’t expect you to because I don’t believe that you can, this is more about the limits of rationality than it is about proving such a thing. > > No one is depriving homosexuals of life, liberty or property by denying them marriage. They are denying them a legal distinction that you have yet to demonstrate, ‘rationally’, includes them. You may want to read this over a few times until you understand her position better, so you don’t _inadvertently_ ascribe statements or beliefs to her that doesn’t hold. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/980 "2009-04-18T16:07:28Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > And before we get into “the person of one’s choice” being a sister, a ten-year-old, a pet dog, or a house plant, that’s an entirely different set of topics, on a particularly gritty level surface (as opposed to slippery slope, that is). It’s completely relevant. Either ALL people have the right to marry whomever they desire or they don’t. If it’s an existing “right”, they do, correct? But we do draw lines. Take polygamy even. If there is no line we can draw with homosexuals, then there is no line we can reasonably draw amongst siblings, Oedipal relationships, polygamists, etc. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=48) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=50)