# 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:** 50
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/981 "2009-04-18T16:13:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > :rolleyes:Nice strawman you’ve erected there. **Mswas** never claimed in any way that homosexuals were not persons. Here’s what she did say: > > 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. You may want to read those posts over a few times yourself until you understand the position better, since he’s stated in this thread he’s male, so you don’t _inadvertently_ ascribe characteristics or genetalia to him that don’t fit. Have you any response to the application of the equal protection clause to marriage due to homosexuals being found to be a suspect class, warranting extension of rights granted other persons, absent any compelling reason to deny them, as established by the application of the codes of judicial review? And, regarding your slippery slope argument above, note the word “immutability” as the first of those criteria. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/982 "2009-04-18T16:18:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. You don’t see any way to quantify a meaningful difference between incest or polygamy and homosexuality? I think you do, and could, as could the law. This is a disingenuous argument. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/983 "2009-04-18T16:21:41Z")
> [@5-4-Fighting](#): > > . . . ., note the word “immutability” as the first of those criteria. Second, sorry. ---
**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, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/984 "2009-04-18T16:32:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. Well, heck, they drew a line not letting people of different race get married and then when they _did_ allow it, that didn’t automatically open the floodgates. Now another incremental step is being taken, and the floodgates remain closed. How long has gay rights been a serious issue in the United States? Since the Stonewall riots of 1969? Forty years, now? It’s clearly a gradual process. If serious organized rumbling about permitting polygamous or incestuous marriage starts today, maybe it’ll be an election issue in 2048. Of course, if the blacks are any example in how they voted in large numbers against gay marriage, the gays will likely vote down polygamy or incestuous marriage. Therefore, if poly/incest marriages are what you really fear (and that fear is motivating you to hold the line) then your best best is to admit gays, since you soon won’t have a choice anyway, and turn them into allies against your future enemy. ---
**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, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/985 "2009-04-18T17:14:44Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > By ‘everyone’ do you mean 'all incestual couples? If so, then yeah, I am. As far as I can tell it’s kind of precisely the identical reason we don’t allow minors to enter into contracts - because there is an intolerably high risk of coersion. Which, uh, suddenly reduces from 100% to 0% when they attain their majority. Oh well, we have to draw the line somewhere. So even a Brother and Sister who are 21 should not be able to marry? > [@](#): > > Seriously though, there are certainly some minors who are responsible enough to engage in contracts, and there are certainly some siblings that would be able to have healthy romantic relationships with one another. Too bad for them they’re part of a group that we (or, in the latter case, _me_) thinks on average is too much a risk. Right. > [@](#): > > I’m okay with consensual polygamy\* in any state that doesn’t allow the minimum marriage age to drop below the recognized age of majority. In a state where you can get married at 14 with the consent of your parents, I see far too much risk of parents ‘selling off’ their children to each other, especially within (but not limited to) closet communities like the FLDS. Right. So unlike the case of incest if we limit it to 18 years of age, then it should be ok? > [@](#): > > Heck, I’d favor banning ‘underage with parental consent’ marriage for _monogamous_ couples in a heartbeat. Take _that_, traditional conventions of marriage! Yeah, if they are serious about it they can wait until they are 18. ---
**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, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/986 "2009-04-18T17:19:17Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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? Well feminism certainly has had a demographic impact, that is demonstrable, so maybe you are right, women’s suffrage DID reduce breeding rights. 😉 As a child of the first generation where equal rights for women was considered normative, I can honestly say we are experiencing demographic decline. ;p > [@](#): > > 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. I don’t think it as much relates to their voting as their working. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/987 "2009-04-18T17:20:11Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > 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. I’m slightly confused on the breeding patterns comment. (I really haven’t followed this thread much) Why would there be any change at all, except perhaps a bit of an increase? It’s not like birth rates would suddenly plummet, those gay people marrying each other weren’t exactly out popping out kids all over the place anyway. ---
**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, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/988 "2009-04-18T17:20:33Z")
> [@5-4-Fighting](#): > > You may want to read those posts over a few times yourself until you understand the position better, since he’s stated in this thread he’s male, so you don’t _inadvertently_ ascribe characteristics or genetalia to him that don’t fit. oops. I have made this mistake more than once. So, my apologies to Mr. **mswas**. I think it’s the “ms” in front, or something > [@5-4-Fighting](#): > > Have you any response to the application of the equal protection clause to marriage due to homosexuals being found to be a suspect class, warranting extension of rights granted other persons, absent any compelling reason to deny them, as established by the application of the codes of judicial review? And, regarding your slippery slope argument above, note the word “immutability” as the first of those criteria. You and I disagree as to what is a “compelling reason”. As far as the slippery slope, I’m just pointing out the reasoning one provides needs to be sound. ---
**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, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/989 "2009-04-18T17:22:03Z")
> [@5-4-Fighting](#): > > You may want to read those posts over a few times yourself until you understand the position better, since he’s stated in this thread he’s male, so you don’t _inadvertently_ ascribe characteristics or genetalia to him that don’t fit. All except for my actual gender part, he made a good rebuttal. It’s helpful since I don’t have to respond myself to **ElvisL1ves** ignorant babbling, strawmen and innuendo. > [@](#): > > Have you any response to the application of the equal protection clause to marriage due to homosexuals being found to be a suspect class, warranting extension of rights granted other persons, absent any compelling reason to deny them, as established by the application of the codes of judicial review? And, regarding your slippery slope argument above, note the word “immutability” as the first of those criteria. As I’ve said, this is one of the more compelling arguments. ‘We already see them as a suspect class.’, is one of the best ones. So lets ask another question. Is it unconstitutional to have ANY gender-specific laws? ---
**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, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/990 "2009-04-18T17:23:57Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > You don’t see any way to quantify a meaningful difference between incest or polygamy and homosexuality? I think you do, and could, as could the law. This is a disingenuous argument. I think they can. The point is, as I made above, is that the if a reason is given for why we must/should allow gays to marry AND that reasoning applies just as well to other groups who we do not want to extend the right to, then that reasons fails as such. ---
**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, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/991 "2009-04-18T17:24:04Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, heck, they drew a line not letting people of different race get married and then when they _did_ allow it, that didn’t automatically open the floodgates. Now another incremental step is being taken, and the floodgates remain closed. Maybe it did actually because you are using it as an example of why homosexuals should be able to get married. > [@](#): > > How long has gay rights been a serious issue in the United States? Since the Stonewall riots of 1969? Forty years, now? It’s clearly a gradual process. If serious organized rumbling about permitting polygamous or incestuous marriage starts today, maybe it’ll be an election issue in 2048. Of course, if the blacks are any example in how they voted in large numbers against gay marriage, the gays will likely vote down polygamy or incestuous marriage. Therefore, if poly/incest marriages are what you really fear (and that fear is motivating you to hold the line) then your best best is to admit gays, since you soon won’t have a choice anyway, and turn them into allies against your future enemy. Right, ‘Keep that door open til WE get in, then close the damned thing!’ ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/992 "2009-04-18T17:37:51Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > oops. I have made this mistake more than once. So, my apologies to Mr. **mswas**. I think it’s the “ms” in front, or something Understandable. > [@magellan01](#): > > You and I disagree as to what is a “compelling reason”. As far as the slippery slope, I’m just pointing out the reasoning one provides needs to be sound. Putting aside our individual opinions on the matter for a moment, can you sketch out the brief you would submit to a Court’s strict review in such a case, that couches and elucidates your compelling reasons for denial in some data, study or trend (re the dilution of marriage and lessening of childbirth) that supports a ruling continuing denial of equal rights? Others here have posted statements and cites which could be shaped into such a brief supporting granting such equal rights that I think a court would find (and has found) compelling. ---
**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, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/993 "2009-04-18T17:47:19Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, heck, they drew a line not letting people of different race get married and then when they _did_ allow it, that didn’t automatically open the floodgates. Now another incremental step is being taken, and the floodgates remain closed. As I’ve stated, allowing people of different races to intermarry is not analogous to allowing gays to marry. This is, and will continue to be, I’m sure, trotted out as some great argument. It’s not. Think about it. The resistance to gay marriage is that the definition of the word is and should be and restricted to one man and one woman. Why? Both tradition and nature. The anti-miscagenation laws didn’t address sex, it addressed race. Race has nothing to do with the ability to procreate, which has been one of the underpinnings of marriage. Homosexuality renders it an impossibility. Also, the analogy would be better if blacks had been prevented from marrying people of their own race. Still not good, but better. The laws were overturned simply because they didn’t comport with our founding principles. I don’t see that as an incremental step. I see it as rectification of a mistake. The removal of an artificial dam, barring a group of people who were able to fully participate in marriage from doing so. Now, I’m not arguing our ability to not take further steps. Incremental in size or grand. But that is a an action we have to take, a privilege we consciously grant, or not. As we see fit. And I just don’t see it as either necessary or wise. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > How long has gay rights been a serious issue in the United States? Since the Stonewall riots of 1969? Forty years, now? It’s clearly a gradual process. If serious organized rumbling about permitting polygamous or incestuous marriage starts today, maybe it’ll be an election issue in 2048. Of course, if the blacks are any example in how they voted in large numbers against gay marriage, the gays will likely vote down polygamy or incestuous marriage. Therefore, if poly/incest marriages are what you really fear (and that fear is motivating you to hold the line) then your best best is to admit gays, since you soon won’t have a choice anyway, and turn them into allies against your future enemy. Wait. So, down the road you’d be willing to have the populace decide the issue—polygamy, for instance—by popular vote, assuming (probably correctly) that it will be voted down, and without concern with the moral and rational arguments. But the passage of Prop 8 is an abomination? A mistake created by people who are bigoted, irrational, hateful, ignorant, etc. Wouldn’t you say that that position is a bit inconsistent? Or does that not bother you? ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/994 "2009-04-18T17:48:39Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Maybe it did actually because you are using it as an example of why homosexuals should be able to get married. Good point but **magellan01** (and you to a certain extent) seem to be ignoring the “immutability” criteria when looking at these groups - homosexuals, polygamist, incestors – under judicial review. When immutability is taken into account, which one of those things is not like the other one? Among genders, races and sexual orientation, which one is mutable? Yes, others and your resistance is based on changing a word’s meaning, but legislative and judicial review has to be based on something larger, more compelling, and more encompassing of equality where possible. ---
**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, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/995 "2009-04-18T17:57:30Z")
> [@5-4-Fighting](#): > > Good point but **magellan01** (and you to a certain extent) seem to be ignoring the “immutability” criteria when looking at these groups - homosexuals, polygamist, incestors – under judicial review. When immutability is taken into account, which one of those things is not like the other one? Among genders, races and sexual orientation, which one is mutable? I didn’t ignore it, I said it’s a good point, and one of the best arguments. I’ve said this several times. It just doesn’t address the DEFINITION of marriage argument. This is why I am actually against state sponsored marriage as a whole. We are going to keep having these arguments until we just make civil union a part of contract law, and then allow anyone who wants to enter into it to do so, including in cases of incest and polygamy. > [@](#): > > Yes, others and your resistance is based on changing a word’s meaning, but legislative and judicial review has to be based on something larger, more compelling, and more encompassing of equality where possible. But law is ALL ABOUT definitions. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/996 "2009-04-18T18:00:03Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I didn’t ignore it, I said it’s a good point, and one of the best arguments. I’ve said this several times. It just doesn’t address the DEFINITION of marriage argument. Yes, you did acknowldge it. I should have been more clear and said immutability when measured against the equal protection clause, not in defining marriage. ---
**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, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/997 "2009-04-18T18:10:22Z")
> [@5-4-Fighting](#): > > Yes, you did acknowldge it. I should have been more clear and said immutability when measured against the equal protection clause, not in defining marriage. I know what you meant. But the thing is you are saying they are being denied something that is defined a certain way that excludes them. They want to change the definition of marriage so it includes them, so it’s not exactly the same as previous anti-miscegenation laws. Because in that case it was still a couple that could breed together. ---
**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, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/998 "2009-04-18T18:14:16Z")
Except that, for seemingly the ten billionth time, **the definition of marriage is not and never has been immutable.** As I’ve demonstrated with the story about my grandparents, it’s changed within living memory. What **Magellan** is defending as “always in existence” is scarcely twice as old as he it – that is, that states have the right to license marriages and restrict them to certain specific combos. True, bigamy, incest, adultery all were crimes known to the common law – but the idea that you may not be married without the permission of the state in the form of a marriage license is very much a 20th century phenomenon. The state has historically chosen what marriages it will recognize, yeah, but its arrogating to itself the privilege of deciding what marriages may exist, is a construct of roughly the last hundred years. You may define marriage however you like. But you do not have the privilege of insisting on your definition as the one that always was, is now, and forever will be. That has changed time and again – and is changing again now. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/999 "2009-04-18T18:16:46Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I know what you meant. But the thing is you are saying they are being denied something that is defined a certain way that excludes them. They want to change the definition of marriage so it includes them, so it’s not exactly the same as previous anti-miscegenation laws. Because in that case it was still a couple that could breed together. Maybe I should put this another way. The measurement of immutability is foremost part of a review to see if equal protection is being applied or upheld. The resulting potential to change the word marriage (and statistics about marriage and birth rates, _if at all applicable_) is by far secondary to achieving a fair, just and equitable application of constitutional protections under that review. **Polycarp** , you have an excellent point (as always) but **mswas** ’ and my discussion was about immutability as a criteria in judicial review of laws and statutes that are deemed potentially unconstitutional. ---
**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, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1000 "2009-04-18T18:23:06Z")
**5-4-Fighting** Without going into specific examples do you think all laws that recognize gender differences are by their very nature discriminatory? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=49) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=51)