# 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:** 64
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1261 "2009-05-12T00:32:56Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The number indicates a reference, so I guess it has _some_ backing. The reference is to a translation of the _Malleus Maleficarum_, a fifteenth century manual on prosecuting witches. The most relevant passage I could find with the minimal effort I bothered to expend is this: > [@](#): > > Sixthly, how witch midwives in various ways kill that which has been conceived in the mother’s womb; and when they do not do this, offer the children to devils. From [this page](http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/?p=37). ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1262 "2009-05-12T01:36:10Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The consequences aren’t new, either. People have been wanting sex without babies for a very very very long time. Wanting has nothing to do with consequences. Consequences occur whether you want them to or not as a natural result of action. > [@](#): > > 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. Yes, worse for the newborn but not as low cost as RU-486 or shiving it in the first trimester. Carrying a baby to term and then killing it requires a good bit of callousness that we are hardwired against. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1263 "2009-05-12T01:38:07Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > For what it’s worth - from the wiki page on “Abortifaciant”: > > The number indicates a reference, so I guess it has _some_ backing. I never argued that abortifacents didn’t exist only that I was skeptical that they were just regularly available to most people. ---
**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, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1264 "2009-05-12T01:44:17Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Wanting has nothing to do with consequences. Consequences occur whether you want them to or not as a natural result of action. Well, of course wanting \*alone[/I doesn’t lead to consequences. Wanting plus action does. And people have been taking actions to avoid pregnancies for thousands of years. > [@](#): > > Yes, worse for the newborn but not as low cost as RU-486 or shiving it in the first trimester. Carrying a baby to term and then killing it requires a good bit of callousness that we are hardwired against. Well, anyone who believes that greatly underestimates the callousness humans are capable of. Anyway, until some kind of link between gay marriage and birth rates is established (or even plausibly argued), this whole line of discussion is a waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1265 "2009-05-12T01:48:08Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, of course wanting \*alone[/I doesn’t lead to consequences. Wanting plus action does. And people have been taking actions to avoid pregnancies for thousands of years. Generally ineffective ones. > [@](#): > > Well, anyone who believes that greatly underestimates the callousness humans are capable of. Oh, I know it happens. > [@](#): > > Anyway, until some kind of link between gay marriage and birth rates is established (or even plausibly argued), this whole line of discussion is a waste of time. _shrugs_ I’m pretty exhausted on the actual topic. It’s only the tangents that have my interest at this point. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1266 "2009-05-12T03:41:01Z")
> **[The Great European Witch Hunt](http://www.tangledmoon.org/witchhunt.htm)** > [@](#): > > Third, the only witch-hunting manual most people have seen was written by an inquisitor. In the 1970’s, when feminist and Neo-Pagan authors turned their attention to the witch trials, the _Malleus Maleficarum_ (Hammer of Witches) was the only manual readily available in translation. Authors naively assumed that the book painted an accurate picture of how the Inquisition tried witches. Heinrich Kramer, the text’s demented author, was held up as a typical inquisitor. His rather stunning sexual preoccupations were presented as the Church’s “official” position on witchcraft. Actually the Inquisition immediately rejected the legal procedures Kramer recommended and censured the inquisitor himself just a few years after the _Malleus_ was published. Secular courts, not inquisitorial ones, resorted to the _Malleus_. > > As more research was done and historians became more sensitive to the “an inquisition/the Inquisition” error, the inquisitorial witch-hunter began to look like a rare bird. Lamothe-Langon’s trials were the last great piece of “evidence”, and when they fell, scholars re-examined the Inquisition’s role in the Burning Times. What they found was quite startling. In 1258 Pope Alexander IV explicitly refused to allow the Inquisition from investigating charges of witchcraft: “The Inquisitors, deputed to investigate heresy, must not intrude into investigations of divination or sorcery without knowledge of manifest heresy involved.” The gloss on this passage explained what “manifest heresy” meant: “praying at the altars of idols, to offer sacrifices, to consult demons, to elicit responses from them… or if [the witches] associate themselves publicly with heretics.” In other words, in the 13th century the Church did not consider witches heretics or members of a rival religion. > > It wasn’t until 1326, almost 100 years later, that the Church reversed its position and allowed the Inquisition to investigate witchcraft. But the only significant contribution that was made was in the development of “demonology”, the theory of the diabolic origin of witchcraft. As John Tedeschi demonstrates in his essay “Inquisitorial Law and the Witch” (in Bengt Ankarloo and Gustav Henningsen’s Early Modern European Witchcraft) the Inquisition still played a very small role in the persecution. From 1326-1500, few deaths occurred. Richard Kieckhefer (European Witch Trials) found 702 definite executions in all of Europe from 1300-1500; of these, only 137 came from inquisitorial or church courts. By the time that trials were common (early 16th century) the Inquisition focused on the proto-Protestants. When the trials peaked in the 16th and 17th century, the Inquisition was only operating in two countries: Spain and Italy, and both had extremely low death tolls. > > In fact, in Spain the Inquisition worked diligently to keep witch trials to a minimum. Around 1609, a French witch-craze triggered a panic in the Basque regions of Spain. Gustav Henningsen (The Witches’ Advocate) documented the Inquisition’s work in brilliant detail. Although several inquisitors believed the charges, one skeptic convinced La Suprema (the ruling body of the Spanish Inquisition) that this was groundless hysteria. La Suprema responded by issuing an “Edict of Silence” forbidding all discussion of witchcraft. For, as the skeptical inquisitor noted, “There were neither witches nor bewitched until they were talked and written about.” > > The Edict worked, quickly dissipating the panic and accusations. And until the end of the Great Hunt, the Spanish Inquisition insisted that it alone had the right to condemn witches – which it refused to do. Another craze broke out in Vizcaya, in 1616. When the Inquisition re-issued the Edict of Silence, the secular authorities went over their head and petitioned the king for the right to try witches themselves. The king granted the request, and 289 people were quickly sentenced. Fortunately the Inquisition managed to re-assert its monopoly on trials and dismissed all the charges. The “witches” of Cataluna were not so lucky. Secular authorities managed to execute 300 people before the Inquisition could stop the trials. > [@](#): > > Before trial evidence was available, there were two major theories on who the witches were. Margaret Murray (The Witch Cult in Western Europe and The God of the Witches) proposed that witches were members of a Pagan sect that worshipped the Horned God. Murray’s research was exceptionally poor, and occasionally skated into out-right textual manipulation. She restricted her studies to our worst evidence: witch hunting propaganda and trials that involved copious amounts of torture. She then assumed that such evidence was basically accurate, and that the Devil was “really” a Pagan god. None of these assumptions have held up under scrutiny. > > In 1973, Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English suggested that most witches were mid-wives and female healers. Their book Witches, Midwives, and Nurses convinced many feminists and Pagans that the Great Hunt was a pogrom aimed at traditional women healers. The Church and State sought to break the power of these women by accusing them of witchcraft, driving a wedge of fear between the wise-woman and her clients. > > The evidence for this theory was – and is – completely anecdotal. Authors cited a number of cases involving healers, then simply assumed that this was what the “average” trial was like. However a mere decade after Witches, Midwives, and Nurses was published, we knew that this was not true. Healers made up a small percentage of the accused, usually between 2% and 20%, depending on the country. There was never a time or a place where the majority of accused witches were healers. In 1990, D. Harley’s article, “Historians as demonologists: the myth of the midwife-witch” (in Social History of Medicine 3 (1990), pp. 1-26.) demonstrated that being a licensed midwife actually decreased a woman’s changes of being charged. On the other hand, the [_Didache_](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-hoole.html), (Teaching of the Apostles), dating to the first century, notes in Chapter 2, Verse 2: > [@](#): > > 2:2 Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not corrupt youth; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use soothsaying; thou shalt not practise sorcery; thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born; thou shalt not covet the goods of thy neighbour; (Note that whle sorcery and abortion are both forbidden, they are placed together by the happenstance of the list and have no language linking them.) ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1267 "2009-05-12T14:07:54Z")
Thanks **tomndebb** that’s a very interesting bit of info. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1268 "2009-05-12T16:08:22Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m curious when and if homosexuality was ever established as inheritable. It seems unclear at this point. Near as I can tell (from admittedly casual reading on the topic) there may be some link but it is more complex. > [@](#): > > In 1985, Richard C. Pillard and James D. Weinrich conducted the first modern study on the pattern of homosexuality runs in families. “The random pooled data for men show that about 57% of identical twins, 24% of fraternal twins and 13% of brothers of gay men are also gay. For women, 50% of the identical twin, 13% of sisters of the lesbians are also lesbians.”(LeVay/Hamer 26) Data of homosexuality combined and analyzed, it showed a good possibility of family clustering of sexual orientation becomes evident for both sexes. But others say this finding reveals another significant problem with a “born gay” conclusion. The argument against the data indicating above is if homosexuality is inherited then identical twin brothers who share 100% of their genes should have 100% chance of being gay instead of 57%? The respond to this argument is in a gene there are two alleles. For example of Huntington’s disease, it comes in two alleles. One is to suppress the gene and the other activates the disease. Therefore, the baby has a 50% to 50% change of his identical twin brother will get the same “gay” trait. > > SOURCE: [http://www.freeessays.cc/db/27/hec29.shtml](http://www.freeessays.cc/db/27/hec29.shtml) Also, does a “gay gene” come from the mother? Father? Or a particular combination of the two? (no clue myself) ---
**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 12, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1269 "2009-05-12T16:08:25Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I disagree, it was decoupled in the middle of the twentieth century. That’s not the way the human mind (or hormones) works. Since pregnancy is not an inevitable consequence of sex, the heat of the moment overwhelms the connection. And I assure you, even 40 years ago with contraception there was some fear of pregnancy. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1270 "2009-05-12T16:10:35Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > That’s not the way the human mind (or hormones) works. Since pregnancy is not an inevitable consequence of sex, the heat of the moment overwhelms the connection. And I assure you, even 40 years ago with contraception there was some fear of pregnancy. Yes, but 150 years ago, the chance of pregnancy was pretty much on par with the natural cycles of the human body. Sheep’s intestine condoms and herbal abortifacents putting a miniscule dent into the chance of pregnancy as compared with today’s birth control. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1271 "2009-05-12T16:35:42Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Yes, but 150 years ago, the chance of pregnancy was pretty much on par with the natural cycles of the human body. Sheep’s intestine condoms and herbal abortifacents putting a miniscule dent into the chance of pregnancy as compared with today’s birth control. This is really all beside the point… the larger question here is whether it’s moral to force sex to be coupled to fertility when that is contrary to what many want for themselves and their lives. In nations with a falling birthrate, what’s the moral thing to do with respect to the human rights of the citizens? Force them to couple sexual relations to reproduction, or concentrate on building a society where people feel like they feel sufficient desire and optimism to create a family? In other words, if you’re thinking it’s moral to keep gay marriage unlawful (or prevent people from divorcing, or from using birth control, or from having abortions) just because some countries need more babies, that’s just wrong. It’s not right to mess with someone’s individual fertility choices just because you deem that society needs a higher birthrate. I’m not sure if that’s what the argument is here… seems like everyone is ringing the doorbell and running away w/r/t that particular argument. But if so, it’s wrong just on principle, and particularly wrong because we can’t even say whether gay marriage _might_ affect fertility. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1272 "2009-05-12T16:55:51Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > This is really all beside the point… the larger question here is whether it’s moral to force sex to be coupled to fertility when that is contrary to what many want for themselves and their lives. It’s not beside the point to me. I am interested in the tangent about impacts on demography not so much as to what people’s opinions are about what is moral and what isn’t. Not to say that your argument isn’t an interesting one, only at this point I am somewhat exhausted by the main thrust of the thread and have found the tangents more interesting. > [@](#): > > In nations with a falling birthrate, what’s the moral thing to do with respect to the human rights of the citizens? Force them to couple sexual relations to reproduction, or concentrate on building a society where people feel like they feel sufficient desire and optimism to create a family? There is no effective means by which you can force people to breed, so the point is moot. > [@](#): > > In other words, if you’re thinking it’s moral to keep gay marriage unlawful (or prevent people from divorcing, or from using birth control, or from having abortions) just because some countries need more babies, that’s just wrong. It’s not right to mess with someone’s individual fertility choices just because you deem that society needs a higher birthrate. I’m not sure if that’s what the argument is here… seems like everyone is ringing the doorbell and running away w/r/t that particular argument. But if so, it’s wrong just on principle, and particularly wrong because we can’t even say whether gay marriage _might_ affect fertility. Sure, if Germans don’t want to fuck to save their own people who am I to argue? I hope those Europeans change their views regarding immigration policies because they certainly are not going to have enough children of their own to change their bedpans in 40 years. It doesn’t help that their Eastern European labor pool has the same demographic problems that the wealthier western employer nations do. Ultimately what I see coming a demographic crisis that will correct itself after the true scope of the tragedy that is unfolding is understood by about mid-century. What I see going on in this thread is a dismissal of the relevance of decoupling sex from procreation in general. I agree that there is no reason to focus on homosexuals in that regard as heterosexuals are behaving in the same way. Sex and the City culture is all pervasive whether you are buggering young boys or buggering young girls. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1273 "2009-05-12T16:56:55Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > That’s not the way the human mind (or hormones) works. Since pregnancy is not an inevitable consequence of sex, the heat of the moment overwhelms the connection. And I assure you, even 40 years ago with contraception there was some fear of pregnancy. I’d be interested to see a curve representing birthrates over time in affluent first world countries, I suspect you see a precipitous nose-dive with the advent of birth control. ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1274 "2009-05-12T17:15:29Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > I’m not sure if that’s what the argument is here… seems like everyone is ringing the doorbell and running away w/r/t that particular argument. But if so, it’s wrong just on principle, and particularly wrong because we can’t even say whether gay marriage _might_ affect fertility. Don’t feel bad - that’s pretty much all that’s going on at this point. A couple of people keep raising the issue of fertility, either of the couple or of society, and when when pressed as to how (or if) this relates to the the legalization of same-sex marriage, they go silent. For example: > [@mswas](#): > > [QUOTE=Brian Ekers] > Anyway, until some kind of link between gay marriage and birth rates is established (or even plausibly argued), this whole line of discussion is a waste of time. _shrugs_ I’m pretty exhausted on the actual topic. It’s only the tangents that have my interest at this point. [/QUOTE] I’m more interested in the process outlined by **Canny Dan** : [QUOTE=Canny Dan] 1 - allow SSM 2 - ??? 3 - society degenerates [/QUOTE] Posters who claim to speak for (I say “speak for”, not “agree with”, since at least one is explicitly playing devil’s advocate in this thread) the anti-SSM contingent have been asked to enlighten us on the details of step 2 above, but that hasn’t happened yet. I’ve been hoping one of them would step up to the plate and do so, but no such luck. If someone would like to offer a serious explanation of how step 2 works, I’m sure that **Canny Dan** ’s question is still open\*. \*And if, instead, someone provides a low-word-count response that relies on the words “silliness,” “LOL you’re silly,” or some variation on the “silly” theme, I _will_ flag down a mod, OK? ---
**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 12, 2009, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1275 "2009-05-12T17:24:14Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I’d be interested to see a curve representing birthrates over time in affluent first world countries, I suspect you see a precipitous nose-dive with the advent of birth control. You’d have to separate out the more important consequence of contraception - greater participation by women in the work force, leading to more equal rights leading to postponement of first children and few children. Contraception is available all over the world, but birth rates vary wildly. If you are worried about birthrates, rolling back equal employment opportunity would do a lot more than banning SSM. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1276 "2009-05-12T17:53:44Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You’d have to separate out the more important consequence of contraception - greater participation by women in the work force, leading to more equal rights leading to postponement of first children and few children. Contraception is available all over the world, but birth rates vary wildly. I am not sure how relevant those things are considering that working women have sex pretty regularly. Without birth control (and I am including better contraceptives here) advances women probably wouldn’t have been so prevalent in the work force, and if they were they might have been more likely to be celebate as a result. As it is with the advances of modern science a woman can go to work and fuck whomever she wants without worrying (as much) about a baby ruining her career. > [@](#): > > If you are worried about birthrates, rolling back equal employment opportunity would do a lot more than banning SSM. Like I said above I think that has little to do with it, I think birth control is much more relevant, otherwise fucking your boss on top of the copier is just as likely to get you pregnant as making love to your Chasidim husband through the hole in the sheet. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1277 "2009-05-12T17:55:40Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > Posters who claim to speak for (I say “speak for”, not “agree with”, since at least one is explicitly playing devil’s advocate in this thread) the anti-SSM contingent have been asked to enlighten us on the details of step 2 above, but that hasn’t happened yet. I’ve been hoping one of them would step up to the plate and do so, but no such luck. Full disclosure, I dropped the devil’s advocate role quite a while back and am now just discussing the tangents I’m interested in. As I’ve said normalization of homosexual marriage is just the final nail in the coffin of procreation/sexual coupling. It’s not indicative of anything except the end of the sexual revolution. ---
**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 12, 2009, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1278 "2009-05-12T18:02:21Z")
One thousand two hundred seventy six posts later, and yes, the question (“Explain the mode of action of #2”) is still open. This diversion into (or back to) fecundity provides zero elucidation of it. But it does keep the thread going without anyone having to provide that answer. As for heritability-- If we are asking “Is sexual identification imposed by one’s surroundings post-partum, in other words can one ‘catch teh gay’?”, then the answer is clearly NO. Gay people virtually without exception describe their own struggle to overcome the sexual orientation imposed upon them by society, and their inability to ‘catch the straight’. Their testimony demonstrates that sexual identification is not acquired, but something they themselves recognize from early in life. So on some basic level, sexual identification is clearly heritable. If though we are asking “Is it inherited as a single simple allele, like Mendel’s peas were either smooth or wrinkled?”, then the answer is also NO. Like most complicated behavior suites of humans, there are many elements controlling, suppressing, enhancing, and/or triggering the behavior, all of which are themselves inherited as a complex of alleles. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1279 "2009-05-12T18:26:44Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > As I’ve said normalization of homosexual marriage is just the final nail in the coffin of procreation/sexual coupling. Actually, it is not even a nail in the coffin. It is a piece of ornamental trim glued to a desk in another building, entirely. It has nothing to do with decoupling procreation and sexuality in terms of marriage. That decoupling has already been completed without any reference to homosexuality. SSM simply seeks to take advantage of a situation that has already been completed. ---
**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 12, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1280 "2009-05-12T18:31:37Z")
It seems to me that there’s a lot of “ZOMG! NO! Heterosexual marriage will fall apart into smithereens if gay marriage happens!” The truth is, you’re all just trying to deflect as much blame for the devaluation of “traditional marriage” onto a set of people who’ve had very little to do with that devaluation or destruction. It’s heterosexual folks who’ve devalued and destroyed “traditional marriage” if it’s anyone. Why don’t you all get to work outlawing no-fault divorce if you’re so concerned for the state of marriage? Or re-criminalizing adultery? Generally, it’s not gay folk who are going out and cheating on their non-existent husbands and wives. It’s not gay folk who are putting more divorce lawyers into Mercedes every year. We want to share in the institution of marriage. We’re not interested in destroying it. We want to perpetuate it. Frankly, except for extreme closet cases, homosexuals aren’t doing crap to marriage, because at the moment, in most places, _we aren’t a part of it_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=63) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=65)