# 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:** 51
**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, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1001 "2009-04-18T18:28:11Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **5-4-Fighting** Without going into specific examples do you think all laws that recognize gender differences are by their very nature discriminatory? No. Just the ones that deny rights in the absent of any compelling reason for not granting them; and absent any procedures of judicial review other than the one(s) I’ve cited, I know of no better way of figuring out if that’s happening. Do you (know of a better way)? ---
**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, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1002 "2009-04-18T18:45:17Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Maybe it did actually because you are using it as an example of why homosexuals should be able to get married. I actually have _several_ legal bases, of which the _Loving_ decision is but one. _Loving_ plus the 14th amendment plus various antidiscrimination laws about sexual orientation… collectively they form an argument that an effort to block gay marriage is inconsistent with existing law. > [@](#): > > Right, ‘Keep that door open til WE get in, then close the damned thing!’ Human nature, I guess. There are examples of it in debates over immigration, too. > [@magellan01](#): > > 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. Well, “tradition” is not enough to sustain a law and what, if not “nature”, is represented in a homosexual couple seeking a long-term pair-bond? Is homosexuality alien or unnatural? I know it’s frequently _perceived_ as such, but is it really? > [@](#): > > The anti-miscagenation laws didn’t address sex, it addressed race. Let’s be honest - it was _largely_ about sex and the revulsion some whites felt about white women being married to black men. As for issues of procreation, the mixed-race offspring would face the same hurdles. It would probably be okay for them to marry blacks, but try to hook up with a purebred white… nope. > [@](#): > > Homosexuality renders it an impossibility. No, it doesn’t. At the very least, please try to recognize that any fertile woman, even if she is a lesbian, can be impregnated by artificial insemination. Even straight women in hetero marriages use this process and, in fact, they were the first and as far as I know remain by far the largest group of users of this process. > [@](#): > > Also, the analogy would be better if blacks had been prevented from marrying people of their own race. Still not good, but better. No, it wouldn’t, for reason that should be obvious. > [@](#): > > 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. Are your fellow citizens who happen to homosexual childish? Are they incapable of making adult decisions? Is it impossible for them to form long-term pair-bonds? Will they run amok if granted the privilege of marriage? Abuse it? Try to destroy hetero marriage with their new foot-in-the-door? How alien do you perceive these people to be? Exactly what do you think the homosexual attitude is? > [@](#): > > 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. I don’t, and I know you don’t, have any but the vaguest idea what American society will be like a century from now or however “down the road” you mean. It’s perfectly conceivable to me that something abhorrent today might seem casually acceptable decades from now, and something acceptable now might seem abhorrent in future. Societies and cultures evolve. Prop 8 represents an effort to resist a change that would hurt no-one and actually increase the happiness of a percentage of the population, hence I look upon such efforts negatively. Besides, popular vote is a terrible way to make law. It bypasses the thoughtful analytical process that making law _should_ be. > [@](#): > > Wouldn’t you say that that position is a bit inconsistent? Or does that not bother you? No, and no. Gay marriage in the various Canadian provinces wasn’t passed by popular vote, incidentally. It represented a back-and-forth process between the courts and legislatures that took several years, which I figure is probably the best way to do so and how it’ll eventually come to the U.S. overall. ---
**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, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1003 "2009-04-18T18:57:28Z")
On further reflection there seems to be an unspoken assumption in play here: Premise: Homosexuals don’t like the process through which children are typically created, i.e. heterosexual intercourse. Conclusion: Homosexuals don’t like children and will never produce children. I see this in all the “procreation” arguments, but is it sound reasoning? ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1004 "2009-04-18T19:05:50Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > That whole ability to breed thing isn’t lost on you? That whole “existing laws regarding heterosexual marriage do not take into account a couple’s ability to breed” thing _does_ seem to be lost on _you_. For the godknowshowmany-th time, heterosexual couples aren’t expected to prove that they’re capable of reproducing before they marry, and they aren’t expected to reproduce after marriage in order for the union to remain valid. I could, if so inclined, get together with my female acquaintance, walk with her into the appropriate facility while wearing my “I have no testicles” T-shirt (and she in her “My uterus and ovaries are in a medical waste bin in New Jersey”), and get a 100% valid marriage license, redeemable for one 100% legal heterosexual marriage. This marriage is not going to produce biological children. The state doesn’t care. The religious significance of a heterosexual couple’s fertility is of no importance in this discussion. We’re discussing civil marriage, i.e., the governmental recognition of the union between two adults. ---
**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, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1005 "2009-04-18T19:12:36Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > wearing my “I have no testicles” T-shirt (and she in her “My uterus and ovaries are in a medical waste bin in New Jersey”) Huh. I’d no idea BustedTees served such niche markets. ---
**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, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1006 "2009-04-18T19:22:14Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > That whole “existing laws regarding heterosexual marriage do not take into account a couple’s ability to breed” thing _does_ seem to be lost on _you_. > > For the godknowshowmany-th time, heterosexual couples aren’t expected to prove that they’re capable of reproducing before they marry, and they aren’t expected to reproduce after marriage in order for the union to remain valid. I could, if so inclined, get together with my female acquaintance, walk with her into the appropriate facility while wearing my “I have no testicles” T-shirt (and she in her “My uterus and ovaries are in a medical waste bin in New Jersey”), and get a 100% valid marriage license, redeemable for one 100% legal heterosexual marriage. This marriage is not going to produce biological children. The state doesn’t care. > > The religious significance of a heterosexual couple’s fertility is of no importance in this discussion. We’re discussing civil marriage, i.e., the governmental recognition of the union between two adults. LOL you’re silly. ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1007 "2009-04-18T19:25:39Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > LOL you’re silly. You’re so cute when you don’t have anything constructive to add to the discussion. ---
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1008 "2009-04-18T19:36:06Z")
Interesting. Here’s what you said: [QUOTE=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. [/QUOTE] When **mswas** challenged you on this, here is your response to her, (which, refreshingly, admitted a rational failing on your part). > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Human nature, I guess. There are examples of it in debates over immigration, too. And when I questioned you on the exact same point, along the same lines as **mswas** , this is your response: [QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] I don’t, and I know you don’t, have any but the vaguest idea what American society will be like a century from now or however “down the road” you mean. It’s perfectly conceivable to me that something abhorrent today might seem casually acceptable decades from now, and something acceptable now might seem abhorrent in future. Societies and cultures evolve. Prop 8 represents an effort to resist a change that would hurt no-one and actually increase the happiness of a percentage of the population, hence I look upon such efforts negatively. Besides, popular vote is a terrible way to make law. It bypasses the thoughtful analytical process that making law _should_ be. [/QUOTE] Yet, you’d be fine in using to restrict **what you see is a right** when it applies to another group. So, why the inconsistency regarding the “right to marry” for different groups? Also, why the inconsistency in your two answers to the same question, one to **mswas** and a different one to me? ---
**Author:** ![hobscrk777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a6a055/32.png) [@hobscrk777](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hobscrk777)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1009 "2009-04-18T19:38:29Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > On further reflection there seems to be an unspoken assumption in play here: > > Premise: Homosexuals don’t like the process through which children are typically created, i.e. heterosexual intercourse. > > Conclusion: Homosexuals don’t like children and will never produce children. > > I see this in all the “procreation” arguments, but is it sound reasoning? Yes, now that you mention that’s very nearly the argument that I’m seeing, too. I’d modify it slightly by rewriting the Conclusion thusly: “Homosexuals, if they want children, cannot copulate in the exact same manner as heterosexual couples. That is, by the very definition of a homosexual couple, one partner cannot insert his penis into the other partner’s vagina. There are either two penises or two vaginas. Despite the fact that many other alternatives exist (some used without comment by heterosexual couples) this is different, and different is bad.” Your version is certainly more concise, though. ---
**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, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1010 "2009-04-18T19:53:36Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > On further reflection there seems to be an unspoken assumption in play here: > > Premise: Homosexuals don’t like the process through which children are typically created, i.e. heterosexual intercourse. > > Conclusion: Homosexuals don’t like children and will never produce children. > > I see this in all the “procreation” arguments, but is it sound reasoning? How in the world do you go from premise to conclusion? Who has claimed that gays don’t like children? You see this in “all the ‘procreation’ arguments”? Really? Please point to one. Please point to anyone who has said that. Or intimated that. You’re just making things up here. ---
**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, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1011 "2009-04-18T19:53:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Interesting. Here’s what you said: What “rational failing” do you mean? Didn’t blacks vote for Prop 8 in large numbers? Wasn’t there comment at the time that this seemed odd - that after their own civil rights struggle that a large number of them should vote to stymie the civil rights efforts of another minority group? My point, and perhaps I was unclear, is that extending civil rights in one situation _doesn’t_ open the floodgates to all vaguely-similar situations. In fact, in practice, the group that just benefited from the extension can easily move to prevent further extension. I don’t understand why this isn’t a valid response to slippery-slope arguments that homosexual marriage today will inevitably lead to incest marriage tomorrow. Incest marriage may happen one day (it has in the distant past) but I figure it’ll have to go through the same lengthy battle that blacks and homosexuals have, and that the successes of blacks and homosexuals aren’t necessarily going to be helpful. I don’t understand the second part of your post (“Yet, you’d be fine in using to restrict what you see is a right when it applies to another group”) so I can’t comment on the claimed inconsistency between my responses to you and mswas. ---
**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, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1012 "2009-04-18T19:57:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > How in the world do you go from premise to conclusion? Who has claimed that gays don’t like children? You see this in “all the ‘procreation’ arguments”? Really? Please point to one. Please point to anyone who has said that. Or intimated that. You’re just making things up here. So if a gay marriage has access to artificial insemination and surrogates, all the reproduction arguments are moot, right? After all, we have a gay marriage that will bring a child into the world, albeit with some outside help, such help already being enjoyed by many heterosexual marriages. ---
**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, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1013 "2009-04-18T20:31:44Z")
On further reflection, I think I get what magellan01 was referring to in #1008. It’s not _just_ the actions of so-called activist judges, or even legislators, that create social change. Civil rights for blacks was a hard struggle that eventually won over enough of the society at large to let progress be made, helped along by the gradually shrinking perception that blacks were inferior or animalistic and had to kept in their place for the good of society. In more recent years, there’s a gradually shrinking perception that homosexuals are sinful and willfully evil, and must be kept in their place for society’s good. No bang of a judge’s gavel or wave of a legislator’s pen could make these perceptions fade away, it took gradual change within the society to do that. Sure, the Prop 8 voters were resisting this change. That’s understandable (though not logical). However, the society around them is becoming less supportive of their views, not more, and Prop 8 is a setback for the rights of homosexual Americans, not a defeat. If there’s a perceived hypocrisy in my attitude (i.e. I like society when it agrees with me, and not when it doesn’t), I’d like to clarify that, by default, efforts to increase rights have my favour, while efforts to deny or decrease them _without a very good reason_ do not. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2009, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1014 "2009-04-19T02:10:51Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. You’re fooling yourself if you think this is true. Posts ago I quoted one of the arguments against interracial marriage. from the landmark case. This from the trial judge > [@](#): > > Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. He’s talking about tradition and nature, as in, interracial marriage violates tradition and nature. Which , as we now see, is total bullshit. there is a very clear and apt comparison between the civil and basic human rights struggle for interracial marriage and the current one for SSM. > [@](#): > > The laws were overturned simply because they didn’t comport with our founding principles. Which is why they will be overturned in this case as well. > [@](#): > > 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. That’s what it is alright, in both cases, but it is a process of making society aware. > [@](#): > > 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. And you haven’t presented any substantial reason for seeing it that way. You just do. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2009, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1015 "2009-04-19T03:14:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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**. I am not at all sure why you resort to repeating this error that I have bolded. [It was debunked pages and days ago](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11030717&postcount=573): [How Many Children Have Gay Parents in the US?](http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm)] > [@](#): > > [ul][li]There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976.[/li][li]In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have a gay or lesbian parent.[/li][li]Between 8 and 10 million children are being raised in a gay and lesbian households.[/ul][/li] > Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include: > > An estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting. > An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent. > More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states. > Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States. > Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born. While the numbers emphasize adoptions, (the numbers come from an adoptions web site), they also note the existence of a third to a half million homosexuals who had parented biological children over thirty years ago. The numbers have surely grown since then. It seems odd, to me, anyway, to harp on procreation as the key to the words to be used rather than the aspects of child rearing and families. It appears to be a capricious way to stigmatize the children in non-traditional families much more than a way to reinforce societal support for family units in which to rear children. This is especially true given the increasing number, (already large), of marriages in which the (currently) heterosexual couples eschew procreation: [Childless By Choice](http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_2001_Nov_1/ai_79501204/) > [@](#): > > It’s a trend that applies to all age groups: For the 25 to 29 bracket, 28 percent were childless in 1998, up from 16 percent in 1976; for 30- to 34-year-olds, it was 20 percent, compared with 11 percent in 1976; for 40- to 44-year-olds, 19 percent were childless, up from 10 percent in 1976. The 2000 census figures on fertility weren’t available at press time, but Amara Bachu, co-author of the Census Bureau’s 1998 report, “Fertility of American Women,” says: “From the data we’ve gathered so far, it looks like childlessness is continuing to go up.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2009, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1016 "2009-04-19T16:41:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > :rolleyes:Nice strawman you’ve erected there. The Constitution is a strawman? Really? > [@](#): > > **Mswas** never claimed in any way that homosexuals were not persons. He asked why they should be considered equal. I pointed to the Constitution, in the place where it \*says \*why. Because they’re persons. He’s been given that explanation in the past, too. So, it can only be inferred that he either (A) doesn’t accept that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, or that (B) its equal protection guarantee doesn’t apply for some reason, and in fact there’s only one reason inferrable from that text. I’ve asked already, and will ask again, and maybe one of you can answer, though that looks exceedingly doubtful: Why do you believe gays are not entitled to equal protection of the laws under our Constitution? ---
**Author:** ![hobscrk777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a6a055/32.png) [@hobscrk777](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hobscrk777)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2009, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1017 "2009-04-19T17:41:31Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The Constitution is a strawman? Really? > > He asked why they should be considered equal. I pointed to the Constitution, in the place where it \*says \*why. Because they’re persons. > > He’s been given that explanation in the past, too. So, it can only be inferred that he either (A) doesn’t accept that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, or that (B) its equal protection guarantee doesn’t apply for some reason, and in fact there’s only one reason inferrable from that text. > > I’ve asked already, and will ask again, and maybe one of you can answer, though that looks exceedingly doubtful: Why do you believe gays are not entitled to equal protection of the laws under our Constitution? Because apparently there’s an even _more_ Supreme Law of the Land: procreation. :rolleyes: ---
**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 19, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1018 "2009-04-19T18:26:49Z")
> [@hobscrk777](#): > > Because apparently there’s an even _more_ Supreme Law of the Land: procreation. :rolleyes: Well, you have to admit that if procreation in the U.S. stopped entirely, the Constitution would eventually become moot. How gay marriage would bring this about, though, is unclear. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1019 "2009-04-19T18:38:06Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The Constitution is a strawman? Really? > > He asked why they should be considered equal. I pointed to the Constitution, in the place where it \*says \*why. Because they’re persons. > > He’s been given that explanation in the past, too. So, it can only be inferred that he either (A) doesn’t accept that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, or that (B) its equal protection guarantee doesn’t apply for some reason, and in fact there’s only one reason inferrable from that text. > > I’ve asked already, and will ask again, and maybe one of you can answer, though that looks exceedingly doubtful: Why do you believe gays are not entitled to equal protection of the laws under our Constitution? It’s because of the squirrelly standards for application of the Equal Protection Clause, which SCOTUS in its wisdom has not deemed sequal orientation to be a legitimate application of, as yet. The whole thing revolves around: May the states regulate marriage? Yes, obviously. All of them do, and laws prohibiting a 40-year-old and a 10-year-old from marrying are almost universally considered reasonable. On what grounds may states devise regulation? Anti-SSM contingent: Whatever they choose to, so long as they don’t violate the prohibition against anti-miscegenation laws, which we think is a reasonable one. But otherwise, they’re supreme: Just look at the Tenth Amendment. Pro-SSM contingent: Well, you’re supposed to have valid reasons related to state purposes. “Protecting the instutition of marriage” from some ill-defined threat is not one of them. And you cannot violate the established “suspect classes” without outstanding reason. In many states sexual orientation IS a “suspect class”; in all states and the Federal jurisprudential regime, sex is – and if Tom can marry Susan but Beth can’t, fo no good reason other than Beth is of the same-sex as Suisan, that is a discrimination on the basis of sex, and needs a law with grounds that will survive heightened scrutiny to be allowable. And those grounds are not evident. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2009, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1020 "2009-04-19T18:52:33Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > . . . I don’t have to respond myself to **ElvisL1ves** ignorant babbling. . . Let’s avoid this sort of personal swipe. [/Moderating] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=50) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=52)