# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![hobscrk777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a6a055/32.png) [@hobscrk777](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hobscrk777)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/101 "2009-04-08T18:08:30Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > **Yes, it’s not the same**. Society is promoting what is of benefit, not just something to be arbitrary and piss-off the gays. Stop picking on the old folks and the infertile. Since society, **for the last time** , does not mandate childbearing, it does not penalize those past fertility or lacking thereof. So…society does not penalize those lacking fertility in the sense of denying marriage privileges…but, despite this, we still can’t have gay marriage because it’s “not the same.” How? I’m honestly not following you here. It sounds like you have some reason for being against gay marriage, but you’re not taking issue with any of the points that have been raised in favor of it. All you’re offering is that gay marriage is somehow magically different. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/102 "2009-04-08T18:10:14Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > **Yes, it’s not the same**. Society is promoting what is of benefit, not just something to be arbitrary and piss-off the gays. Stop picking on the old folks and the infertile. Since society, **for the last time** , does not mandate childbearing, it does not penalize those past fertility or lacking thereof. Presuming we can even know this in advance, and what the hell kind of world would we be living in when the government is looking up women’s skirts??? Then why did you introduce the concept of childbearing into the conversation in the first place? You can’t say, “Well, we can’t have gay marriage, because they can’t have kids together,” then get upset when people point out that this is not a barrier to thousands and thousands of straight couples. If childbearing is a necessary component to the definition of marriage, then that definition should be enforced equally to all applicants to the institution of marriage. Because it is not, then the state has no business using it to narrowly bar gays from marriage. ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/103 "2009-04-08T18:13:29Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Lack of marriage harms same-sex couples. The documentation of actual harm is long and well recorded. Some of it is financial and some of it is basic human decency. A recent case saw a couple forcibly separated in a Florida hospital while one partner died. The hospital would not recognize same-sex marriage since it was Florida, and ignored the power-of-attorney documentation sent to them. Yep, I went through the deaths of a couple people very close to me in the last several years. I had similar difficulties, and, no, I’m not gay. Life sucks sometimes. Now, is there a way this awful situation could have been prevented? Yep. And if so, why does the onus fall upon society? I’d toss in inheritance rights in the absence of a will as another frequent bone of contention. > [@](#): > > Lack of marriage puts couples in danger of financial woes if one partner dies, especially when the deceased’s family is itself bigoted. The surviving spouse has been left homeless. Marriage would have protected the interests of the couple. So would a good attorney. Look, this isn’t a new situation, is it? You’re taking anecdotal evidence and proclaiming the entire world revolve on your dime because of it. That’s just not good enough. > [@](#): > > Just because someone buries its head in the sand and doesn’t pay attention to or care about, real cases of harm due to the lack of marriage rights, doesn’t mean harm doesn’t and isn’t happening every day. I know, life does suck, geez, I know that, but how. Gay people are not the only people who are vulnerable to these situations. ---
**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 8, 2009, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/104 "2009-04-08T18:15:42Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > I know, life does suck, geez, I know that, but how. Gay people are not the only people who are vulnerable to these situations. So, they should be _more_ vulnerable? I don’t follow. ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/105 "2009-04-08T18:16:56Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > What about other areas, such as economic? Let’s say two same sex partners live together in a house for many years, pool their funds into a business they own as well as various investments together, and then after many years go their separate ways. How should their property be treated? Good question, if I knew the law, I’d have better answers. Off the cuff, housing purchases can be put in both names, giving right of inheritance and a property to be divided should the need arise. Same with business. What you’re doing here is merely pointing out what we all know: unmarried people, of any shape, color, number, or size, have to take affirmative action in the course of their daily affairs. You’ve presented nothing to demonstrate that gay relationships are or ought to be recognized _as the same as marriage_. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/106 "2009-04-08T18:17:13Z")
Never mind. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/107 "2009-04-08T18:17:44Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > **Yes, it’s not the same**. Society is promoting what is of benefit, not just something to be arbitrary and piss-off the gays. So childless marriages are not of benefit? > [@](#): > > Stop picking on the old folks and the infertile. Stop picking on gays. > [@](#): > > Since society, **for the last time** , does not mandate childbearing, it does not penalize those past fertility or lacking thereof. Then why should it penalize gays, even those who are rearing children? [quote\Okay, now this is an argument. You’re right. Property rights, child custody and support are all or can be related to…marriage.[/quote] Legally, including a few other things like medical treatment decisions, that’s all marriage is, and all that the states have done that have stopped denying the privilege and ensuing rights on the basis of an inborn and unchangeable sexual orientation. > [@](#): > > Not always, and not necessarily. Such as when? > [@](#): > > But, it is reasonable for society to protect the family unit integrity by assuring continuance of support in the event of disruption. Otherwise, in a perfect world, you’d have no need to lock your doors at night, so to speak. And therefore gay families should reasonably expect that protection as well. Your own argument. > [@](#): > > And my definition is not “personal, arbitrary, capricious, self-serving”. It’s a definition based on biological relations, which is a common frame of reference. Know what? Gays have biological relations **too**! > [@magellan01](#): > > Civil Union laws can be crafted to grant exactly the same protections Then why bother with a different name? > [@](#): > > Granting rights needn’t be confused with approving of what people do, and your tactic is to force acceptance beyond rights Nope. Rights are not granted, but recognized. The right in question has been in the Constitution for nearly a century and a half. Sometimes acceptance of the existence and applicability of a right does have to be forced upon those who would prefer it did not exist, but that’s _their_ problem. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/108 "2009-04-08T18:18:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Don’t have much time now, but a quick comment or two: > > You’re assuming that for people to intertwine their lives and affairs and protect that intertwining with government enforcement they MUST be “married”. That’s not the case. Just as marriage laws were crafted to grant protections, Civil Union laws can be crafted to grant exactly the same protections. That reduces your argument ito one of convenience. That it would be _easier_ to do it through “marriage”. It might be, but that assumes it’s a thing society wants. At the very least this moves you off the the high horse you confuse with moral high ground. By seeking the protections through a civil union you allow marriage to mean what the majority think and want it to mean AND you get the RIGHTS you claim are so important to you. I’ve come to realize that the rights argument is one of total bullshit for strong SSM proponents. They seek to grab on to the coattails of the word for some degree of “legitimacy”, a degree of “normalcy”. This is fine to seek, but it has nothing to do with the “rights” issue. Granting rights needn’t be confused with approving of what people do, and your tactic is to force acceptance _beyond_ rights. Again, that is a fine goal to have, but it is not a valid argument for the rights being granted. Marriage is, itself, a right. If gays are being denied marriage, then they are being denied equal rights, regardless of what other paliative measure is put forward. That aside, you dismiss the chief argument against your solution far too cavalierly. You are proposing a solution that will take years and millions of dollars to achieve, and whose ultimate success is very much in doubt. I do not, personally, believe that it will ever be possible for civil unions to be exactly equal to marriage. You are demanding, however, that we pursue this path, instead of the easier, more logical, and more equitable solution of allowing marriage to any who want it, for no rational reason that you have ever been able to articulate. You want gays to work harder, and suffer longer, for not better reason than allowing gays to marry is outside your comfort zone. So you still do not have equal moral footing in this argument, even if your characterization of our motives were remotely correct. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/109 "2009-04-08T18:19:28Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Good question, if I knew the law, I’d have better answers. Off the cuff, housing purchases can be put in both names, giving right of inheritance and a property to be divided should the need arise. Same with business. > > What you’re doing here is merely pointing out what we all know: unmarried people, of any shape, color, number, or size, have to take affirmative action in the course of their daily affairs. You’ve presented nothing to demonstrate that gay relationships are or ought to be recognized _as the same as marriage_. You’re saying there should be laws in place and affirmative actions taken to protect the property interests of same sex couples. What should those laws be, and what actions should they take? ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/110 "2009-04-08T18:21:16Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Which means what, exactly? Agriculture means food in a localized area, which encourages humans to stay in one place. What does “foundational human unit” mean? You’re going to play difficult? Fine. A person is the smallest distinct unit of humanity. A man and a woman can then become a couple, which in today’s society _mostly_\* means married. They then can and usually do produce children. We usually call this a family, though we can back up a step if you’d like. I won’t quibble. This family then joins with other families, becoming, well, pick a name: clan, tribe, a social unit, m’kay? The tribe increases in size…and, voila, you eventually have a culture/society. You know this, why play games? \*I know, marriage is so screwed in today’s society. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/111 "2009-04-08T18:22:21Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Good question, if I knew the law, I’d have better answers. Off the cuff, housing purchases can be put in both names, giving right of inheritance and a property to be divided should the need arise. Same with business. > > What you’re doing here is merely pointing out what we all know: unmarried people, of any shape, color, number, or size, have to take affirmative action in the course of their daily affairs. You’ve presented nothing to demonstrate that gay relationships are or ought to be recognized _as the same as marriage_. Because straight couples can have these things guaranteed for a nominal fee, whereas gay couples would have to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees for a lesser certain degree of protection. You’ve also yet to demonstrate how gay relationships are different from straight relationships. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/112 "2009-04-08T18:24:14Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > **Yes, it’s not the same**. Society is promoting what is of benefit, not just something to be arbitrary and piss-off the gays. Stop picking on the old folks and the infertile. Since society, **for the last time** , does not mandate childbearing, it does not penalize those past fertility or lacking thereof. Presuming we can even know this in advance, and what the hell kind of world would we be living in when the government is looking up women’s skirts??? **It’s not the same** is not a reason but merely an observation. I asked for a valid reason you haven’t given one. Not only that you claim that society doesn’t penalize those lacking fertility you’re incorrect. It does penalize one group but not others. That’s what you’re required to explain if you want to present a valid reason. So far you haven’t. > [@](#): > > Okay, now this is an argument. You’re right. Property rights, child custody and support are all or can be related to…marriage. Not always, and not necessarily. But, it is reasonable for society to protect the family unit integrity by assuring continuance of support in the event of disruption. Otherwise, in a perfect world, you’d have no need to lock your doors at night, so to speak. Is it reasonable for society to deny people the right to form a family unit of their choosing that poses no harm to society or other citizens? It is reasonable for society to deny a minority the same rights as it gives it’s other citizens. Granting gays the same rights of marriage does not threaten family unit integrity, it actually expands the boundaries of a family unit. So, please present something other than\* they’re not the same\*. We know that and it is not a valid reason in any way. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/113 "2009-04-08T18:25:35Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Equal protection is not a “new right”, and it was “created” in exactly the manner you approve. Equal protection isn’t a new right - it’s in the Constitution. Gay marriage is a new right, and it isn’t. The notion that the Constitution was amended by judicial activism is pretty self-evidently stupid, to the point that it doesn’t really need to be addressed apart from pointing and laughing at the notion. > [@Bricker](#): > > Your comment is true, but outside the scope of this thread. I think (and am open to correction on the point) that the idea was to explore opposition to the concept itself. > > Put another way, one might ask, “What is the rationale for opposition to same-sex marriage in Vermont?” There, it’s been instituted by the legislature. No one can seriously argue it has circumvented the democratic process. Obviously, you are quite correct - no one would object to elected legislators making such a change on the grounds of judicial activism. The only objection that I could think of that is even remotely related is that changing the definition of marriage to include a new right to SSM is so sweeping and fundamental a change as to require the explicit consent of the people. That objection could be met with the suggestion that, if the people don’t like the new law, they can elect new representatives who could overturn it. But apart from that, the only objections are non-falsifiable ones based on moral or philosophical objections to homosexuality. > [@cosmodan](#): > > Judges , especially state supreme courts do get to decide on definitions when weighing human rights. Which states are you talking about? Perhaps you could quote the part of the state constitution where it says “state judges get to decide what new rights are, and the people can go pound sand if they don’t like it”. And as far as the feds go, under the Tenth Amendment, no, they don’t. All powers not explicitly assigned to the federal government belong to the states, or the people - not judges. The power to bring new rights under the aegis of the federal government is not explicitly assigned to the federal goverment, ergo it belongs properly to the states, or the people. > [@](#): > > We’ve had enough struggle with civil rights in this country to understand that the majority should not vote on the civil rights of a minority. Again, I am afraid I don’t agree. As I mentioned, under the Tenth Amendment the majority very clearly does get to vote on what previously unenumerated rights the minority have. Otherwise it is too easy to simply define whatever I want as a new “right”, and get some judge to give it to me. > [@](#): > > If there are laws on the books specifying marriage is only to be between a man and a woman then those laws can be addressed but it doesn’t require a public vote to recognize them as archaic. Again, it seems clear enough that the will of the people is not to be so casually flouted. The issue is who gets to say “that law is archaic”? If it is some judge, based only on his own feelings, then fine - I will agree, providing I get to pick the judge. > [@](#): > > If there is no such specific law on the books then the judges do get to decide. Again, no they don’t. Judges do not - or at least, should not - make up laws when they feel like it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/114 "2009-04-08T18:25:36Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Could you please describe in specific terms what it is you’re losing? Losing the argument. To emotional appeals. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/115 "2009-04-08T18:26:59Z")
I’m going with what is “Ewww, icky buttsexx ahoy” or what is an “evolutionary cul-de-sac” for 1000, Alex. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/116 "2009-04-08T18:27:01Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > Well, if the woman was post-menopausal that would be a pretty good sign the marriage wouldn’t be producing any kids. Yet, strangely, such people are still allowed to get married. Yeah, isn’t that weird? I propose that: 1. Either gays are allowed the full rights of marriage, or 2. Married couples have 5 years to conceive (and, no using any fertility treatments, because homosexuals can do that too) or else the marriage is dissolved, also 2a. Once the the couple is no longer fertile (either through menopause, surgical procedures to the man or the woman, accident, etc.), once the kids reach 18, the marriage is automatically dissolved, and 2b. Infertile couples shall not be allowed to get married. 2c. To further protect the sanctity of marriage, divorce shall henceforth be illegal. So, which is it \*\*NaSultainne \*\*? (1) or (2)? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Superhero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Superhero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Superhero)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/117 "2009-04-08T18:27:37Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Again with the harm. I haven’t said gay marriage will harm society. You’ve also failed utterly and completely to answer the key question: If - as you yourself observe - gay marriage does no harm to society, why should we not, as a society, allow gay couples to share in the many benefits to society that marriage provides? Let’s lay this out logically. For the sake of clarity within this discussin, **NaSultainne** (and anyone else who would care to), please state your agreement or disagreement and the reason for it with each of the following statements: A. Marriage is the formal societal recognition of two individuals as a unified household, with certain rights and responsibilities conferred upon each of those individuals as a result of the arrangement. B. Marriage as an institution in and of itself is beneficial both to the individuals within the marriage and to society at large. C. A marriage may or may not produce children, based on the choice of the married couple or on biological factors. The production of children is beneficial to society, but is not to be considered the ultimate purpose of marriage. D. Because marriage is a beneficial institution, there is no reason to deny access to the institution based on the gender or sexual orientation of the individuals wishing to be married. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/118 "2009-04-08T18:27:46Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Losing the argument. To emotional appeals. Good. ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/119 "2009-04-08T18:28:18Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Yep, I went through the deaths of a couple people very close to me in the last several years. I had similar difficulties, and, no, I’m not gay. Don’t even try to equate the death of a friend to that of a spouse. Just. Don’t. You suppose that attorneys can make this all better? Really? That’s all that you’ve got now? They did have legal papers. The hospital IGNORED them. Uniform marriage rights would have protected them. Also, even with a lawyer (not to mention the expense), the rights are not protected. Marriage carries a heavy weight in law. Wills, on the other hand, can be contested (and they are: “Hey, court! My Uncle didn’t mean to leave all his money to a total stranger; the money should be left to legally-recognized family!”), marriage is much more clear cut and enforceable. ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/120 "2009-04-08T18:30:34Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is fatuous and tautological. We’re talking about the expansion of a privilege which is defined _legislatively_, not lexicographically, and even if lexicography mattered, you’d still be wrong since the lexicographic definition includes polygamous and same-sex marriage. Hardly, though you’re cleary incapable of seeing it. A priviliege cannot be defined legislatively until it is defined lexicographically. And for the purposes of our country, we have for its entirety defined the word marriage as a union of one man and one woman. It’s fatuous to pretend that law defines lexicography. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=7)