# 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:** 56
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1101 "2009-04-22T02:21:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Oh— **mswas** , at the risk of tainting you further, I truly appreciate your participation in this thread. Partially for the support for my position, for which you’ve been playing devil’s advocate impressively. But even more so for the way what much of you have said applies to ANY debate. Well done. Thank you **magellan01** , you have done a good job of clarifying what I was saying without changing the meaning. Enjoy the rest of your week. I found your position on the issue interesting as well. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1102 "2009-04-22T02:37:06Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > This is not a valid answer. ‘They are persons’ does not explain why the definition of marriage should be changed to encompass homosexuality. > > The constitution says nothing about sexuality. Homosexuality is a descriptor of a sexual orientation, used by some people to instead mean sexual acts committed by a person with another person of the same sex. Traditional marriage is the conjoining of two people as husband and wife. While, human beings being who they are, sex is usually a consistent part of marriage, and indeed failure to enter into connubial relations was traditionally one ground for annulment, there is absolutely nothing in the legal definition of marriage that requires the couple contracting marriage to have sexual relations. Indeed, some couples have contracted marriages of convenience for a variety of reasons, some good and some bad, in which sex was explicitly not contemplated by either party as between them. Contrasting traditional marriage with homosexuality rather than with gay marriage is much like contrasting restaurant menus with bulimia rather than with pre-prepared frpzen meals from a supermarket. It skews the issue. And while the U.S. Constitution says nothing about sexuality, many state constitutions do include sexual orientation as one of the numerous ‘suspect classes’ like race, religion, sex (=gender), national origin, which may not be discriminated against at law in the absence of a compelling reason directly related to a significant governmental function. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1103 "2009-04-22T02:49:48Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > What’s that saying that involves anecdote, plural and data again? You were not at every wedding. All there has to be is a single exception to disprove his statement that ‘no one’ ever got married for that reason. You know what? I was not aware you were looking for a “black swan” in your reference to 1950s marriage customs. Herewith your specific sentence: > [@mswas](#): > > I am certain that people in the 1950s had that as their sole criteria. “People”. Not “some people”. Not “a few people”. The generic. This is what I supplied anecdotal evidence in contradiction of. You’re quite capable of being specific when you choose. What you did here was bait-and-switch – moving from a generalized statement to “a single exception disproves.” Stupid of me, I know, but I try to read what you write and respond to that – not to what you may have intended to say but didn’t. > [@mswas](#): > > Sad story, but the way Cleveland organizes its public housing is again just another anecdote. Oh, by the way: When we’re talking matters of **law** , anecdotal evidence **is** relevant, because the question is not, “Will most people be injured by this statute?” but “Will anyone be injured by it?” A law that says “All **magellan01** ’s worldly goods shall be taken by the state through eminent domain and used to support worthy charitable causes” harms no one but **magellan** – but I’m sure you’d agree that it’s an unjust law nonetheless. (And I picked him specifically because he’s been on the minority side in these arguments – hence functioning as a good example of discriminating against a minority.) ---
**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 22, 2009, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1104 "2009-04-22T13:52:12Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Ok, I can accept clarification. \ Right. > \ So I can’t support one thing in the real world and prefer an ideal solution that is unlikely to occur? No, you can’t support some things in certain posts and contradictory things in other posts-- and still claim to be offering a coherent argument. > [@mswas](#): > > \But procreation WAS my primary criteria in finding a wife. Being a good Mother was the most important quality I wanted in a mate. Why do you find that so hard to believe? I’ve been married twice. My first wife would have made a good Mother, and my current wife IS a good Mother. But it’s always nice to know there are those out there who know my mind better than I do who have my own best interests at heart. Now if you’ll excuse me I am going to try and figure out how you can simultaneously know my mind better than I can regarding my marriage criteria and yet not understand when I speak plainly on other things. No, I make no claim to understand your mind, either better than you do or otherwise. I accept at face value your statement that “procreation WAS my primary criteria in finding a wife”. I said that this was “almost unbelievable” because I think that most people, if asked to provide a primary reason for getting married, would answer with some reference to their interpersonal relationship, e.g., “We’re in love” or “I can’t live without him” or similar. After all, I’ll bet I could drag a seine down most any street in town and catch dozens of women with whom I could successfully “procreate”. Heck, the drunkest, ugliest bitch of a woman left alone in a bar at last call is, statistically at least, likely to fulfill this \*\*primary \*\*requirement. This probably does not represent what most people would consider reasonable or sufficient search for a partner leading to marriage. If indeed you are that black swan (the one to whom “most” does not apply), and this is how you yourself actually undertook the search for a life partner, then no, \*liar \*does not fit you-- but cognitive dissonance surely does. Oh, and hey, I’m still waiting to hear, from the Devil or anybody, a single piece of evidence (not trickle-down-the-timeline speculation) suggesting societal harm from same sex marriage sufficient to overcome the requirement for equal protection. ---
**Author:** ![hobscrk777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a6a055/32.png) [@hobscrk777](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hobscrk777)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1105 "2009-04-22T16:55:26Z")
The words “logical” and “rational” have been thrown around a lot in this thread. In fact, the word “rationale” appears in the title. Since we’ve gone for 23 pages without much headway, I think it might be conducive to the successful resolution of this debate if **mswas** and **magellan01** would do us the favor of enumerating their premises and explaining, as dispassionately as possible, how these premises logically and validly lead to the conclusion that homosexual marriage is a right to be denied. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1106 "2009-04-22T17:06:30Z")
> [@hobscrk777](#): > > The words “logical” and “rational” have been thrown around a lot in this thread. In fact, the word “rationale” appears in the title. Since we’ve gone for 23 pages without much headway, I think it might be conducive to the successful resolution of this debate if **mswas** and **magellan01** would do us the favor of enumerating their premises and explaining, as dispassionately as possible, how these premises logically and validly lead to the conclusion that homosexual marriage is a right to be denied. Seconded. Let’s have a thread reset! ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1107 "2009-04-22T17:12:42Z")
Why don’t you guys start a thread about that? I won’t attend because I see it as a boring topic. I am far more interested in why people think the way they do than I am in whether or not their viewpoint is valid and correct. So have at it, start a thread about the topic and maybe **Magellan** will come by. But since this one isn’t about that, I have no interest in pursuing that line of inquiry. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1108 "2009-04-22T17:17:46Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Why don’t you guys start a thread about that? I won’t attend because I see it as a boring topic. I am far more interested in why people think the way they do than I am in whether or not their viewpoint is valid and correct. So have at it, start a thread about the topic and maybe **Magellan** will come by. But since this one isn’t about that, I have no interest in pursuing that line of inquiry. I see what you’re talking about. The post I was seconding does poison the well. I am interested in seeing an argument laid out, in a single post, in relatively logical terms, for the view that people of the same sex should not be married. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1109 "2009-04-22T17:20:42Z")
I am not the person to defend it since I don’t believe it. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1110 "2009-04-22T17:30:59Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I am not the person to defend it since I don’t believe it. Though you don’t believe it, aren’t you defending it in this thread? ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1111 "2009-04-22T17:38:25Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Oh, and hey, I’m still waiting to hear, from the Devil or anybody, a single piece of evidence (not trickle-down-the-timeline speculation) suggesting societal harm from same sex marriage sufficient to overcome the requirement for equal protection. How about: really bad movies. With same-sex marriages legal in only a handful of states, Adam Sandler unleashed the POC that is “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” on the world. If SSM becomes legal nationwide, who knows what horrors might be released? Same-sex marriage “comedies” starring Rob Schneider? Carrot Top? Or (Og forbid) Larry the Cable Guy? (Hey, it’s a lot more likely than magellan01’s “The straights will stop marrying because wedlock will not seem specal enough once gays start doing it” theory.) ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1112 "2009-04-22T17:39:01Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Though you don’t believe it, aren’t you defending it in this thread? Nope, I have studiously avoided challenges to justify it. ---
**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 22, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1113 "2009-04-22T17:45:59Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Nope, I have studiously avoided challenges to justify it. You have? Then what was the point of drawing this distinction: > [@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? Is the lack of ability to breed (assuming for the sake of argument that artificial insemination and surrogacy are out of the equation) a justification to block gay marriage while permitting interracial marriage? That’s just one random example. I’m confident I can find others in which you do indeed try to present justifications for an SSM ban or at least present, devil’s advocate style, the arguments of those who believe such a ban is justified. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1114 "2009-04-22T17:48:13Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You have? Then what was the point of drawing this distinction: > > Is the lack of ability to breed (assuming for the sake of argument that artificial insemination and surrogacy are out of the equation) a justification to block gay marriage while permitting interracial marriage? > > That’s just one random example. I’m confident I can find others in which you do indeed try to present justifications for an SSM ban or at least present, devil’s advocate style, the arguments of those who believe such a ban is justified. I was trying to elucidate the rationale of course. ---
**Author:** ![hobscrk777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a6a055/32.png) [@hobscrk777](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hobscrk777)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1115 "2009-04-22T18:34:31Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Why don’t you guys start a thread about that? I won’t attend because I see it as a boring topic. I am far more interested in why people think the way they do than I am in whether or not their viewpoint is valid and correct. So have at it, start a thread about the topic and maybe **Magellan** will come by. But since this one isn’t about that, I have no interest in pursuing that line of inquiry. Well, I can’t change your mind on this, but I admit I’m genuinely disappointed to read this. If you and **magellan01** outlined exactly what you are arguing and how your premises lead to the conclusion (no homosexual marriage), I think it would provide quite a lot of insight as to the “why.” Furthermore, if the argument _can_ be shown to be both valid and logical, then perhaps we can lead the discussion into a more informed debate. ---
**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 22, 2009, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1116 "2009-04-22T19:28:00Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I was trying to elucidate the rationale of course. The difference between elucidating the rationale for something and supplying a justification for it eludes me. If we can keep it simple: why should gay marriage be opposed? Please give a rationale or a justification or whatever you want to call it. ---
**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 22, 2009, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1117 "2009-04-22T20:50:46Z")
> [@hobscrk777](#): > > Well, I can’t change your mind on this, but I admit I’m genuinely disappointed to read this. If you and **magellan01** outlined exactly what you are arguing and how your premises lead to the conclusion (no homosexual marriage), I think it would provide quite a lot of insight as to the “why.” Furthermore, if the argument _can_ be shown to be both valid and logical, then perhaps we can lead the discussion into a more informed debate. No, \*\*mswas \*\*\*claims \*to endorse SSM (some times in some posts in this thread) but to be taking the contrary position as a matter of formal debate, and to elucidate for us the reasons actual opponents harbor for denying it. Nobody seems quite sure what \*\*magellan01 \*\*is arguing. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1118 "2009-04-22T21:02:14Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I am far more interested in why people think the way they do than I am in whether or not their viewpoint is valid and correct. “Why people think the way they do” \*inherently \*involves exploring how they can disregard validity and correctness. Come on now. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1119 "2009-04-22T21:15:02Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > “Why people think the way they do” \*inherently \*involves exploring how they can disregard validity and correctness. OK. Let’s explore the ways in which you are disregarding validity and correctness. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1120 "2009-04-23T00:12:28Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The difference between elucidating the rationale for something and supplying a justification for it eludes me. > > If we can keep it simple: why should gay marriage be opposed? Please give a rationale or a justification or whatever you want to call it. I am simply not interested in the yawn inducing discussion of whether or not Christian morality is valid. It’d be a discussion with people who do not understand Christian morality, and are not interested in understanding because they are already certain that Christian values are worthless. So what’s the point? If I had any faith whatsoever that my interlocutors were open-minded even in the slightest, I might make the effort, but for now it seems like it would be entirely wasted on the audience. It’s an argument I am not very comfortable in making and thus not ready to confront with a hostile audience. I am uninterested in an SDMB one-sided moratorium on Christianity at this time. I’ve had enough experience with, “I don’t need to read the New Testament to know that it’s stupid.”, arguments around here to know that it’s an utter waste of time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=55) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=57)