# 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:** 63
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1241 "2009-05-11T16:26:42Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Maybe they’ll stop having contempt for ‘Breeders’ if their relationships are normalized. I have to admit, I’ve never seen or heard anything of the sort from any of them. Can you provide an example of this “contempt”? And an explanation for your use of the word “normal” there? > [@](#): > > But in general there is a disturbing anti-breeding trend amongst western seculars. Really? Example? > [@](#): > > Miscegenation continues to be an inapplicable example, because white people and black people can produce children, two males or two females cannot. Use of fertility as a qualifying criterion for marriage continues to be an inapplicable example, because neither law nor actual practice refers to it, nor have they ever. So can we expect you to drop it? Use of race as an analogy for sexual orientation is \*highly \*applicable, in that essentially all social-impact arguments made at the time regarding interracial marriage are now being applied to homosexual marriage as well. So can we expect you to address it? ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1242 "2009-05-11T16:39:57Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Use of race as an analogy for sexual orientation is \*highly \*applicable, in that essentially all social-impact arguments made at the time regarding interracial marriage are now being applied to homosexual marriage as well. So can we expect you to address it? But it doesn’t really matter if it is or not-the question asked, which mswas is dodging is this: > [@CannyDan](#): > > The refrain remains > 1 - allow SSM > 2 - ??? > 3 - society degenerates > > Give us the mode of action by which #2 operates. Is it merely this vacuous “dilution” thingy whereby marriage somehow becomes thinner and more watery, like circus lemonade, by the addition of numbers without substance? But then you still have to show that (a) same sex marriages are indeed lacking the same ethereal “substance” characteristic of other marriages. And you’d still have to (b) offer some theory or mechanism by which this diluted version of marriage was actually leading society towards some pitfall. Finally, you’ll be expected to (c) provide any tiny little bit of evidence. If the race example is on point (as I think), it supports the conclusion that there is no evidence for #2. Even if it isn’t on point, that isn’t affirmative evidence for how #2 works (or that #2 exists)–#2 is an affirmative contention by SSM opponents. They have the burden of showing that contention is accurate, or represents what will actually happen in the real world. Especially as there’s no dispute that gay couples are harmed by being denied the rights that come along with marriage. So mswas–other analogies may or may not be on point–but either way, the question is whether there is positive evidence to support the claimed harm that will result. Cannydan sets out what is needed clearly. Since SSM opponents are arguing that this kind of harm ought to overwhelm the strong argument for equal rights, they ought to have the burden of supporting that contention. Since you’re arguing that side, what is the evidence? (This isn’t about which side you actually support–you’ve made a contention in a debate, and I’m asking you to support that contention.) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1243 "2009-05-11T16:44:59Z")
Five years on in Massachusetts (a tenth of the way to Judgment Day already!), and [the sky hasn’t fallen](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/05/5_years_on_gay_marriage_debate_fades_in_mass.php). There are several fine examples in that AP story about children being raised by gay couples benefiting from social recognition and acceptance (grudging at times, but acceptance) of their parents’ 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:** [May 11, 2009, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1244 "2009-05-11T18:04:02Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No, but that doesn’t make it a non-issue. Ideas are non-issue by default, and remain so until they are proven to _be_ issues. Please demonstrate how gay marriage will be a society-hurting issue in 50 years, or even a plausible chain of events by which it _might_ be a society-hurting issue in 50 years. > [@](#): > > Depends. The German/Japanese birthrate definitely bad, very bad, American birthrate? Nah, that’s pretty good. How gay marriage will affect the birthrate is unclear, at best. Hence the repeated requests for clarification. > [@](#): > > Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they’ll stop having contempt for ‘Breeders’ if their relationships are normalized. Do gay people _really_ have contempt for “breeders”? I always had the impression that was sitcom fodder. ---
**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:** [May 11, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1245 "2009-05-11T18:13:38Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Miscegenation continues to be an inapplicable example, because white people and black people can produce children, two males or two females cannot. The only way the analogy doesn’t fit that I can see is that there’s actually a logical chain of progression behind the anti-miscegenation argument that does not exist for the anti-SSM argument. If two guys get married and decide to raise a kid, the odds of that kid not being straight are no different than if he had been raised by straight parents. On the other hand, if a white guy and a black woman get together and have a kid, the kid is going to be mixed-race. So if SSM is being opposed because of concerns over how much of society is heterosexual, it’s a non-issue. Gay parents don’t automatically lead to gay kids. But if mixed-race marriage is being opposed because of concerns over how much of society is white, then there’s definitly a concern there, because mixed-race marriages lead to mixed-race kids, which changes the racial demographics of the country. This is, of course, ignoring the question of whether we should be concerned over the changes of the racial or sexual demographics of the country. I’m just pointing out that, unlike SSM opponents, there is step 2 between, “Make it legal” and “Everything is ruined forever.” ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1246 "2009-05-11T18:24:57Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > This is, of course, ignoring the question of whether we should be concerned over the changes of the racial or sexual demographics of the country. I’m just pointing out that, unlike SSM opponents, there is step 2 between, “Make it legal” and “Everything is ruined forever.” Interesting points as to whether the analogy is accurate–I think that it is, but that we shouldn’t let the discussion shift away from trying to get Mswas to actually state how he thinks Step #2 works as to same-sex 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:** [May 11, 2009, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1247 "2009-05-11T18:42:47Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > Interesting points as to whether the analogy is accurate–I think that it is, but that we shouldn’t let the discussion shift away from trying to get Mswas to actually state how he thinks Step #2 works as to same-sex marriage. Let’s ask \*\*magellan01 \*\*to actually state how he thinks Step #2 works as to SSM. Let’s ask \*\*mswas \*\*to state how those people he claims to be speaking for but whose views do not actually entirely parallel his own think Step #2 works as to SSM. With all due deference lest we reinvigorate another worthless tangent-- remember, \*\*mswas \*\*is playing Devil’s advocate here. Sigh. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1248 "2009-05-11T18:48:25Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Let’s ask \*\*magellan01 \*\*to actually state how he thinks Step #2 works as to SSM. > > Let’s ask \*\*mswas \*\*to state how those people he claims to be speaking for but whose views do not actually entirely parallel his own think Step #2 works as to SSM. > > With all due deference lest we reinvigorate another worthless tangent-- remember, \*\*mswas \*\*is playing Devil’s advocate here. > > Sigh. That’s what i’m doing. I do remember that mswas claims to be playing devil’s advocate–that’s why I’m asking him to support the position he’s asserting–as you clarify, without regard to whether he believes that support or not. If he is taking the role for the purposes of furthering debate (as he states), he ought to understand the need to support the positions he’s asserting–doing so is the very core of the formal debate he says he’s here to engage in. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1249 "2009-05-11T21:15:40Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No, but that doesn’t make it a non-issue. > > Depends. The German/Japanese birthrate definitely bad, very bad, American birthrate? Nah, that’s pretty good. > Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they’ll stop having contempt for ‘Breeders’ if their relationships are normalized. But in general there is a disturbing anti-breeding trend amongst western seculars. Sure the extremes get made fun of a la the epic BBQ Pit thread about it, but it’s pretty uncontroversial to say that real human beings should never have been born if their last name happens to be Duggar. If sexual orientation has anything to do with the birthrate (unclear) isn’t it more likely that the acceptance of homosexuality has more to do with it than marriage? A closeted gay might produce children to blend in - not as likely for someone who is out. I’m thinking men mostly here -it might be the opposite for women. In any case improved standards of living, birth control, and more women in the workforce (thus, later marriages) have far more to do with the decline in the birthrate than sexual orientation. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1250 "2009-05-11T21:24:34Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If sexual orientation has anything to do with the birthrate (unclear) isn’t it more likely that the acceptance of homosexuality has more to do with it than marriage? A closeted gay might produce children to blend in - not as likely for someone who is out. I’m thinking men mostly here -it might be the opposite for women. Yes, acceptance and gay marriage go hand in hand though. Basically what gay marriage represents is nothing other than a full 100% normalization of homosexuality in our society. Something I am very curious about is whether or not it will lead to a decline in homosexuality as fewer homosexuals breed, or if it will lead to a culture of homosexual parents having homosexual children as they opt for artificial insemination. > [@](#): > > In any case improved standards of living, birth control, and more women in the workforce (thus, later marriages) have far more to do with the decline in the birthrate than sexual orientation. Yes, and decoupling sex from reproduction in general. ---
**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:** [May 11, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1251 "2009-05-11T21:28:24Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Something I am very curious about is whether or not it will lead to a decline in homosexuality as fewer homosexuals breed, or if it will lead to a culture of homosexual parents having homosexual children as they opt for artificial insemination. I’m curious when and if homosexuality was ever established as inheritable. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1252 "2009-05-11T22:57:35Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Yes, acceptance and gay marriage go hand in hand though. Basically what gay marriage represents is nothing other than a full 100% normalization of homosexuality in our society. Something I am very curious about is whether or not it will lead to a decline in homosexuality as fewer homosexuals breed, or if it will lead to a culture of homosexual parents having homosexual children as they opt for artificial insemination. All of which is happening already. When there is a political consensus behind SSM (which is going to happen) it will indicate acceptance. The same acceptance allows gay couples to live together not being married, and to have or adopt children. I should have added the acceptance of single parent families to my list, though that may increase the birthrate. > [@](#): > > Yes, and decoupling sex from reproduction in general. It’s always been decoupled to a certain extent. We’ve just reduced the consequences of sex, making it less likely that sex will lead to reproduction when it is not desired. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1253 "2009-05-11T22:58:37Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m curious when and if homosexuality was ever established as inheritable. That would knock out the choice argument, wouldn’t it? I have the impression that the uterine environment is involved also. I suspect it is complicated, as these things usually are. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1254 "2009-05-11T23:09:35Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > All of which is happening already. When there is a political consensus behind SSM (which is going to happen) it will indicate acceptance. The same acceptance allows gay couples to live together not being married, and to have or adopt children. I should have added the acceptance of single parent families to my list, though that may increase the birthrate. The acceptance of single parent families is probably irrelevant as there was always birth out of wedlock, only difference is we no longer treat the Mothers or the children like dogshit. > [@](#): > > It’s always been decoupled to a certain extent. We’ve just reduced the consequences of sex, making it less likely that sex will lead to reproduction when it is not desired. I disagree, it was decoupled in the middle of the twentieth century. ---
**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:** [May 11, 2009, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1255 "2009-05-11T23:31:26Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I disagree, it was decoupled in the middle of the twentieth century. A fast read on the history of contraception demonstrates otherwise - while _safe and consistently effective_ methods of separating sex from conception might only have come into being in the mid-20th century, the desire to do so (and numerous unsafe or ineffective methods) go back to antiquity. Had the Pill existed in ancient Rome, they would certainly have used it - it’s a result of modern science, not modern hedonism. And when attempts at contraception failed, there was always infanticide. ---
**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:** [May 11, 2009, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1256 "2009-05-11T23:35:46Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > And when attempts at contraception failed, there was always infanticide. Or abortion. Until they started burning people for it, pretty much everyone knew some older woman who knew certain herbs. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1257 "2009-05-11T23:53:45Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Or abortion. Until they started burning people for it, pretty much everyone knew some older woman who knew certain herbs. What do you base this on? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1258 "2009-05-11T23:54:49Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > A fast read on the history of contraception demonstrates otherwise - while _safe and consistently effective_ methods of separating sex from conception might only have come into being in the mid-20th century, the desire to do so (and numerous unsafe or ineffective methods) go back to antiquity. Had the Pill existed in ancient Rome, they would certainly have used it - it’s a result of modern science, not modern hedonism. I didn’t say the hedonism was new only the consequences. > [@](#): > > And when attempts at contraception failed, there was always infanticide. Yes, but that’s pretty nasty for the woman. ---
**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:** [May 11, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1259 "2009-05-11T23:58:03Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > What do you base this on? For what it’s worth - from the wiki page on “Abortifaciant”: > [@](#): > > As Christianity and in particular the institution of the Catholic Church increasingly influenced European society, those who dispensed abortifacient herbs found themselves classified as witches and were often persecuted (see witch-hunt). [12] The number indicates a reference, so I guess it has _some_ backing. ---
**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:** [May 12, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1260 "2009-05-12T00:03:26Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I didn’t say the hedonism was new only the consequences. The consequences aren’t new, either. People have been wanting sex without babies for a very very very long time. > [@](#): > > Yes, but that’s pretty nasty for the woman. I imagine it’s worse for the newborn, but in any case people have wanted to avoid inconvenient pregnancies and children for quite some time. In any case, how gay marriage affects any of this remains unclear. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=62) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=64)