# 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:** 57
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1121 "2009-04-23T00:15:31Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > OK. Let’s explore the ways in which you are disregarding validity and correctness. Go right ahead. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1122 "2009-04-23T00:21:55Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I am simply not interested in the yawn inducing discussion of whether or not Christian morality is valid. How about discussing if Christian morality is even consistent with relegating some of our fellow children of God to second-class personhood? You are not entitled to the presumption that the anti-SSM position is a product of “Christian morality”, either generally or in the doctrines of any particular denomination. Is such a discussion likewise something you’re “not interested” in? > [@](#): > > 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? That makes you guilty of the very sin you have been ascribing to your opponents in this discussion, that of being unwilling to actually engage in discussing a point. Your premise that your position is simply obviously right is also not something you’re entitled to. Nor is anyone else when they take a similar approach. ---
**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, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1123 "2009-04-23T00:26:30Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > How about discussing if Christian morality is even consistent with relegating some of our fellow children of God to second-class personhood? You are not entitled to the presumption that the anti-SSM position is a product of “Christian morality”, either generally or in the doctrines of any particular denomination. Is such a discussion likewise something you’re “not interested” in? If you have something interesting to say on the topic I might respond. > [@](#): > > That makes you guilty of the very sin you have been ascribing to your opponents in this discussion, that of being unwilling to actually engage in discussing a point. Your premise that your position is simply obviously right is also not something you’re entitled to. Nor is anyone else when they take a similar approach. No one has even disagreed with my premise, at least not in a serious manner. They’ve continually tried to turn this into a bash session against Christian bigotry. My point has been that certain gay marriage proponents see the issue in a certain way. No one has seriously argued that people don’t see it this way. So as of yet, I haven’t had a counter argument to the argument I’ve been making. I’ve had a lot of attempts to shift the goalposts that I’ve resisted, but if there was a credible counter-argument, I must have missed it. So for me to be wrong, you’d have to demonstrate that I am misrepresenting the views of the anti-SSM side. As **Magellan** is the only person here who actually holds a nominally anti-SSM position, and he has largely agreed with what I’ve said, I see no evidence presented here-in that demonstrates that I am incorrect in any 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 23, 2009, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1124 "2009-04-23T00:26:48Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > 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. I didn’t ask about Christian morality, I asked for a justification to oppose gay marriage. If you feel they are inextricably linked, then it should be fairly obvious that someone who doesn’t view Christian morality as an absolute wouldn’t find an argument based on it to have a good foundation. This would also be true if you were arguing from the viewpoint of Muslim morality to someone who wasn’t a Muslim, or Jewish morality to someone who wasn’t a Jew. I get that these moralities mean a great deal to the people who subscribe to them (and even they can’t consistently agree on major issues), but they aren’t objective by any measure. Is Christian morality ultimately _all_ you have? If so, I guess we really are done. ---
**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, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1125 "2009-04-23T00:30:49Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I didn’t ask about Christian morality, I asked for a justification to oppose gay marriage. If you feel they are inextricably linked, then it should be fairly obvious that someone who doesn’t view Christian morality as an absolute wouldn’t find an argument based on it to have a good foundation. I don’t care whether it’s a good foundation or not. It’s irrelevant to me and beside the point. > [@](#): > > This would also be true if you were arguing from the viewpoint of Muslim morality to someone who wasn’t a Muslim, or Jewish morality to someone who wasn’t a Jew. I get that these moralities mean a great deal to the people who subscribe to them (and even they can’t consistently agree on major issues), but they aren’t objective by any measure. And your morality isn’t objective by any measure either. You have all sorts of biases that inform you, but you’re harder to pin down because your ideas are based off of a position that exalts the individual, a position that really isn’t much more elusive than one that exalts the abstract deity. > [@](#): > > Is Christian morality ultimately _all_ you have? If so, I guess we really are done. All I have? This question makes no sense in the context of the discussion. But that being said, we were done over a week ago. I’ve been repeating myself since about post 400. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1126 "2009-04-23T00:32:47Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > If you have something interesting to say on the topic I might respond. If you had anything to say on the topic, you certainly would. I’m not the only other person here, you know. > [@](#): > > No one has even disagreed with my premise, at least not in a serious manner. It’s been hard enough to establish that that’s essentially all it is. Now that we’re there (are we?), it is certainly time to explore it, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > My point has been that certain gay marriage proponents see the issue in a certain way. No one has seriously argued that people don’t see it this way. Then that’s 20+ pages down the drain. After all this time, you \*still \*can’t make yourself say the words “equal protection”, can you? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1127 "2009-04-23T00:35:38Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > And your morality isn’t objective by any measure either. You have all sorts of biases that inform you, but you’re harder to pin down because your ideas are based off of a position that exalts the individual, a position that really isn’t much more elusive than one that exalts the abstract deity. The US Constitution is _elusive_? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is _abstract_? Really? Tell it to the judge. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1128 "2009-04-23T00:54:22Z")
23 pages and over 1100 posts? :eek: really!!?? ---
**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, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1129 "2009-04-23T01:04:35Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The US Constitution is _elusive_? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is _abstract_? Really? Tell it to the judge. What’s elusive to me are people who do not know the difference between ethics, morals and law who don’t realize that by not knowing this distinction they are not qualified to discuss any of them. ---
**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 23, 2009, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1130 "2009-04-23T01:06:08Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I don’t care whether it’s a good foundation or not. It’s irrelevant to me and beside the point. Then why did you bring it up? Please pick a line of discussion and stick to it. > [@](#): > > And your morality isn’t objective by any measure either. You have all sorts of biases that inform you, but you’re harder to pin down because your ideas are based off of a position that exalts the individual, a position that really isn’t much more elusive than one that exalts the abstract deity. Well, I can compare states where the people have individual rights, versus states where a theocracy (or the equivalent) exists with mandatory exaltation (I guess North Korea is a prime example). Where do _you_ want to live? Which states have the better records on issues like infant mortality and literacy and life expectancy? If these are all meaningless, then I guess everything in life is meaningless and the entire gay marriage issue equally so. > [@](#): > > All I have? This question makes no sense in the context of the discussion. For _me_ the context of the discussion has always been “give a reason to oppose gay marriage”. If your response just boils down to “in Christianity, it is forbidden”, then I remain unconvinced. ---
**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, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1131 "2009-04-23T01:06:35Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If you had anything to say on the topic, you certainly would. I’m not the only other person here, you know. Right, but in a long line of not understanding simple ideas, you are calling me out and not realizing that it’s your responsibility to establish the ground. That you cannot find a stable battleground allows me to sit here playing Sun Tzu watching you flail around lost. > [@](#): > > It’s been hard enough to establish that that’s essentially all it is. Now that we’re there (are we?), it is certainly time to explore it, isn’t it? I refer you to your dodge at the top of this post. > [@](#): > > Then that’s 20+ pages down the drain. After all this time, you \*still \*can’t make yourself say the words “equal protection”, can you? :rolleyes: You clearly have trouble following along. ---
**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, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1132 "2009-04-23T01:10:48Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Then why did you bring it up? Please pick a line of discussion and stick to it. You know why I brought it up. I brought it up to say I was uninterested in the topic, I said it plainly and clearly in the post you responded directly to. This sort of mealy-mouthed insipid nonsense is a game you like to pull, but I know you understand better than this. I was clear and direct about what I meant. > [@](#): > > Well, I can compare states where the people have individual rights, versus states where a theocracy (or the equivalent) exists with mandatory exaltation (I guess North Korea is a prime example). Where do _you_ want to live? Which states have the better records on issues like infant mortality and literacy and life expectancy? If these are all meaningless, then I guess everything in life is meaningless and the entire gay marriage issue equally so. It’s not going to work. I am not going to suddenly fall for it and have the off-topic discussion you are dying to have. Like I said, if you want to discuss merits, start a thread. I know you are harassing me because you want me to take the bait here, because you know I won’t post in the other thread because it doesn’t interest me. > [@](#): > > For _me_ the context of the discussion has always been “give a reason to oppose gay marriage”. If your response just boils down to “in Christianity, it is forbidden”, then I remain unconvinced. But that’s not what this thread is about. This thread is about understanding why the opposition behaves the way it does. You are still enamoured of your own ideas, and want it be about showcasing your thoughts. It’s not about that, this thread is about why people oppose SSM, not about whether or not YOU deign to give it your stamp of approval. I already know what you think, you have nothing to offer ME in the debate you want to have. ---
**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 23, 2009, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1133 "2009-04-23T01:45:25Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > You know why I brought it up. I brought it up to say I was uninterested in the topic, I said it plainly and clearly in the post you responded directly to. Oh, well, in _that_ case, I’d like you to know how uninterested I am in lacrosse. Completely indifferent. Buncha guys running around with sticks and such… meh. I guess I could bring up all kinds of topics just to show how uninterested I am in them, but it strikes me as a bit of a waste of time. > [@](#): > > This sort of mealy-mouthed insipid nonsense is a game you like to pull, but I know you understand better than this. I was clear and direct about what I meant. I’ve _always_ been clear and direct about what I mean, so much so that your insults mean nothing to me except that, in all honesty, I think you’re just lashing in out lieu of an actual argument. > [@](#): > > It’s not going to work. I am not going to suddenly fall for it and have the off-topic discussion you are dying to have. I don’t want you to fall for anything. I want you to give me a reason to oppose gay marriage, if you can. > [@](#): > > Like I said, if you want to discuss merits, start a thread. The merits is what _this_ thread was supposed to be about, and I see no need to start a new one just because you can’t stay on topic. > [@](#): > > I know you are harassing me because you want me to take the bait here, because you know I won’t post in the other thread because it doesn’t interest me. What other thread? The thread that no-one has started? Go ahead and start it yourself if you think it’s so valuable. Meantime, I’ll respond as I choose to the public comments made here. If that’s “harassment”, then your definition is quite different from my own. tomndebb is active in this thread. Ask him if I’m harassing you. Heck, ask anyone. > [@](#): > > But that’s not what this thread is about. This thread is about understanding why the opposition behaves the way it does. You are still enamoured of your own ideas, and want it be about showcasing your thoughts. It’s not about that, this thread is about why people oppose SSM, not about whether or not YOU deign to give it your stamp of approval. I already know what you think, you have nothing to offer ME in the debate you want to have. I’ve given up on understanding why the opposition behaves the way it does. Since my first post, I’ve simply wanted to know a good reason to oppose gay marriage. If you have one, please present it. If all you have are dubious claims about my motivation, you can save the effort and the embarrassment. ---
**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 23, 2009, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1134 "2009-04-23T02:35:54Z")
I said this several hundred posts back, but I’ll try to repeat because some seem to be missing \*\*mswas’ \*\*point and I think I get it. \*\*mswas \*\*is only explaining the minds of SSM opponents, as he understands them. Full stop. And all he admits to doing is offering that explanation. Again full stop. All else is “uninteresting” to him. And he is proven correct in his explanation of the rationale behind opposition, as evidenced (he says) because the only poster directly opposed to SSM, **magellan01** , has mostly not disagreed with him, and the rest of us don’t count because we denigrate Christianity, or something. He has been alternately engaging in then ducking from our discussions of the supportability or the morality of opposition. He engages when it suits him, then runs for cover behind the shroud of supposed objective advocacy for a theoretical position, or feigning boredom, either of which serves as a facile distraction. He requires this diversion apparently because he is unable to actually defend the indefensible position he posits as the opposition to SSM. But again, he insists that he need not defend, but merely elucidate. And he is after all only explaining a position that he himself does not hold, to hear him tell it. Frankly the whole situation has become annoying. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1135 "2009-04-23T03:23:03Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Frankly the whole situation has become annoying. Which is why this thread is going to be put out of my misery if there is more personal sniping and no serious discussion. [/Modding] ---
**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 23, 2009, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1136 "2009-04-23T14:50:00Z")
As an afterthought, I wouldn’t think there was anything specific to Christianity about objections to gay marriage. The relevant biblical passages are from the _Old_ Testament, so at most a Christian’s objection is just inherited from an older Jewish objection. There were some changes in the transition, where Christians discarded some Jewish laws (don’t eat pork) and picked up new ones (don’t eat meat on Fridays) but I’m not aware of anything specific to Christianity about gay marriage. ---
**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 23, 2009, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1137 "2009-04-23T20:56:52Z")
I think we have satisfied the OP. We have \*the \*-- or at least \*\*\*a \*\*\*-- rationale for opposition to SSM. I’d be interested in continuing exploration of whether or not this – or any other that may be presented – is or should be sufficient for the USA and/or its political subdivisions to continue to disfavor SSM. A fresh start, as it were, beyond the constraints that \*\*mswas \*\*tells us were presented by the OP. If of course someone wanted to start such a thread. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1138 "2009-04-23T23:28:19Z")
First of all, despite my utter and complete disagreement with his position, I want to thank **Magellan** for sticking it out and continuing to argue his position in a basically polite fashion. It can’t be easy being totally piled on by people who disagree with him and everything he says, not to mention the smaller number of people who are, to varying degrees, saying insulting things to him. Secondly, I do want to point out that, perhaps surprisingly, it is entirely possible for someone to hold a position that is in direct opposition to what one might refer to as SDMB orthodoxy and NOT be hounded off the board by hordes of liberals calling him names. Granted, this discussion has hardly been without rancor, but at the same time, I truly believe that some amount of signal has been there under all the noise. Anyhow, having read a fair percentage of the posts in this thread, I think I understand **Magellan** ’s position, the levels on which it makes sense, and why I think it’s horribly misapplied. So let’s imagine a hyothetical simpler time in the past. In this hypothetical, there was no divorce. Married was married. Marriage was a lifetime commitment, and premarital sex was extremely unusual and gravely frowned upon. In fact, let’s say that extramarital sex was truly illegal, and investigated and prosecuted. Then, a movement arises (this is an imaginary movement, not analogous to anything that actually happened afaik) in which some people, because want to have lots of hot sex without making a lifetime commitment, come up with the idea of a “short span marriage (SSM)”, which was something that lasted 6 months to 2 years, during which a man and woman would move in together and fuck like bunnies, and at least temporarily take on some of the accouterments of a “real” marriage… ie, they’d have dinner parties, maybe (since this is a crazy hypothetical after all) the woman would temporarily change her last name, or whatever. Anyhow, a small but vocal percentage of the population wants these SSMs to be recognized by law as just as valid and legal (for their duration) as real marriages, so that they will stop being arrested for having sex. Now, in this hypothetical time, there lives someone named **McCellan01** , who is a firm believer that the institution of marriage, as it exists in that society, is the foundation of a healthy society and community. But he also thinks that throwing people in jail for having sex is silly, and he’s a bit of a libertarian who generally thinks people should be able to do whatever they like. So he believes that the laws should allow these temporary cohabitations, but that they should be referred to as Cohabitative Unions (CUs), not “Marriages”. His argument is basically the argument the real live **Magellan** is making about gay marriage, but in this fairly extreme hypothetical, the argument actually makes sense: -these SSMs are clearly less likely to result in children than real marriages. Society needs children to continue itself -they also dilute the power and specialness of the word “marriage”, along with “husband” and “wife”. Before SSMs if you meet someone and they say “and this is my wife, Judy”, you know that there’s a deep lifetime commitment. You know that Judy is someone who will always be involved with the decisions and affairs of her husband, etc. Post SSMs, if someone says “this is my wife Judy” she may just be a glorified fling -It also seems quite plausible that legalized SSMs would cause young people starting out in life to have less interest in “real” marriage, since SSMs are such a superficially enticing alternative -And for various other similar reasons, it seems not irrational to hold a position that while CUs should be issued to consenting adults who apply for them, SSMs should remain illegal. (Now I’m not saying that, in that hypothetical, I would _agree_ with that position, but I can certainly see the logic in it.) Anyhow, back in the real world, while the situations are superficially similar, all the really meaningful issues in the hypothetical are absent, or even reversed. For example, if same sex marriage is legalized, and you meet a man and he points to a woman and says “this is my wife, Judy”, does the legality of same sex marriage in any way change the meaning of what he said, the solemnity of it, the importance of it? If you get down on one knee before your opposite sex lover and ask him or her to marry you, does the fact that Adam and Steve can now legally do the same thing mean that the commitment or specialness of what you are undergoing is lessened? And addressing the issue of children, in our hypothetical case, a Short Span Marriage is less likely to result in children. And if Short Span marriages are legalized, and thus presumably become more common, then more heterosexuals are going to enter into them, thus presumably fewer will enter into real marriages, thus presumably fewer children. But in the real world, Adam and Steve who want to get married to each other aren’t, if they can’t legally marry each other, going to go marry women and start fathering babies, instead. In fact, as many have argued, they are MORE likely, as a legally married and committed couple, to want to raise children, either adoptive or through a surrogate. More stable families raising kids = good (at least by magellan’s general argument). Finally, (and I’m basically restating an argument made eloquently by **whorfin** and then ignored), the real question, if we view committed marriage as a good thing and want to perpetuate it, is what people growing up and achieving marriageable age will do, and what will influence them. Now, gay people exist. Most people growing up will know some. So young Jack is 25 and has met Jill and they are madly in love. One of Jack’s favorite people while growing up was his wacky uncle Adam, gay lover of Steve. Now, regardless of whether SSM is legal or not, Jack knew and respected Adam, and knew that Adam and Steve were in a committed relationship. Seems to me that if Adam and Steve were happily married, that’s one more example of a good solid healthy marriage which Jack and Jill can look at while deciding to get married vs just shacking up. The more people who are happily married – and it’s clear to me (and even **Magellan** doesn’t seem to dispute this, except on a semantic level) that gay people can be happily and stably married – the more good role models of happy marriage Jack and Jill will have, the more likely they will be to get married themselves, and the more straight marriage will continue to hold a special and fundamental position in our society. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2009, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1139 "2009-04-24T00:02:30Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > I said this several hundred posts back, but I’ll try to repeat because some seem to be missing \*\*mswas’ \*\*point and I think I get it. > > \*\*mswas \*\*is only explaining the minds of SSM opponents, as he understands them. Full stop. And all he admits to doing is offering that explanation. Again full stop. > > All else is “uninteresting” to him. And he is proven correct in his explanation of the rationale behind opposition, as evidenced (he says) because the only poster directly opposed to SSM, **magellan01** , has mostly not disagreed with him, and the rest of us don’t count because we denigrate Christianity, or something. > > He has been alternately engaging in then ducking from our discussions of the supportability or the morality of opposition. He engages when it suits him, then runs for cover behind the shroud of supposed objective advocacy for a theoretical position, or feigning boredom, either of which serves as a facile distraction. > > He requires this diversion apparently because he is unable to actually defend the indefensible position he posits as the opposition to SSM. But again, he insists that he need not defend, but merely elucidate. And he is after all only explaining a position that he himself does not hold, to hear him tell it. > > Frankly the whole situation has become annoying. I don’t see how it’s a dodge to not address those issues, it’s fairly straight forward. I don’t want to discuss or defend whether or not these positions are defensible. It doesn’t interest me, that’s not ‘ducking’ anything. ---
**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 24, 2009, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1140 "2009-04-24T02:00:38Z")
Given a hypothetical person who was completely indifferent to gay marriage and ignorant of the various legal battles, can anyone suggest a line of reasoning one would use to convince them to oppose it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=56) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=58)