# 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:** 7
**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, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/121 "2009-04-08T18:30:44Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > 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_. What’s your reasoning in preventing two people who _want_ to be married from having that option, as opposed to a heterosexual couple who has the option but chooses not to exercise it? Would it not be better to let those who want to get married to marry, while who choose not to don’t have to? ---
**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, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/122 "2009-04-08T18:31:21Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Regards, > Shodan Hey, **Shodan**! How’s it going? Let me try this again. Given that Vermont has just legislatively-approved same-sex marriage, in numbers large enough to override the governor’s veto, how do you feel about that development? I’d just like to note that this is the THIRD time I’ve posted this question addressed specifically to you in this thread alone. I’m beginning to assume I’m on your ignore list. ---
**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, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/123 "2009-04-08T18:32:03Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I wonder if **NaSultainne** would do me the honor of identifying [this](http://www.oxfamamericaunwrapped.com/images/P/lg-school_desk.jpg) item. Desk? Or chair? An attached, i.e., combined, desk and chair? This is hardly clever. ---
**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, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/124 "2009-04-08T18:36:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Well, just as an example, having had a hysterectomy would be a pretty big clue. So would being 80 years old. Do you really think people can’t know if they’re infertile before they get married? Ever heard of a vasectomy? > > You’re saying that the potential for a sexual relationship to naturally reproduce children grants the practitioners privileges that should be denied to anybody else…and you’re not even consistent about that since you want to make irrational exceptions for it. Duh. For, like, ever, couples have married being unable to ascertain fertility. In the absence of such information, marriage wasn’t restricted to a demonstration of same. Though it was used to show cause after why a marriage should be dissolved. Still, how long have vasectomies been practical? Something like just over a hundred years? Sheesh, argue on the merits, not the outliers, why don’t you? And, yes, I’m saying that children born to and reared by their biological parents is of benefit to society at large, and that’s why it’s encouraged and supported. Why is this so hard to you to understand? ---
**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, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/125 "2009-04-08T18:38:13Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Hey, **Shodan**! How’s it going? I’m fine, thanks for asking. And you? > [@](#): > > Let me try this again. Given that Vermont has just legislatively-approved same-sex marriage, in numbers large enough to override the governor’s veto, how do you feel about that development? OK, here’s a little test, and yes, there is a point. How about if you describe what you think is my reaction? I think it will give us all insight into your, and my, thought processes, if any. 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, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/126 "2009-04-08T18:40:17Z")
[quote=“42fish, post:100, topic:492382”] 1. Are you actually arguing that if a group is sufficiently small, their rights don’t matter? (And if that’s not what you’re arguing, what’s the meaning behind that “large enough group” comment?) [/QUOTE} Nope. I was arguing that the use of the term ‘citizens’ was unduly and intentionally vague, as it really only applies to a small subsect of people. Secondly, I’m arguing that marriage is a right if you mean the requirements. Which gay relationships do not. > [@](#): > > 1. Maybe women with hysterectomies (and the post-menopausal, the otherwise infertile, etc.) aren’t demanding legal protection because they already have those protections. On the other hand, if there was legislation pending to deny them the right to marriage because of their infertility, then I suspect that, yes, they’d start demanding equal protection. Again, you’re arguing the outliers, the exceptions. Laws aren’t made on the margins, they’re made for the norm, the standard, the usual. All the others have to work around that. A simple look at the tax codes ought to demonstrate this. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelQReilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@MichaelQReilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelQReilly)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/127 "2009-04-08T18:40:35Z")
> [@](#): > > If there is no such specific law on the books then the judges do get to decide. > [@Shodan](#): > > Again, no they don’t. Judges do not - or at least, should not - make up laws when they feel like it. > > Regards, > Shodan There is this thing called the common law, look it up some time. (Hint: It’s judge made law.) ---
**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, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/128 "2009-04-08T18:41:13Z")
I’m prepared to believe that Shodan would hail the decision of the Vermont legislature as a fine example of compassionate legislation through the democratic process, relieving suffering which served no purpose. ---
**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, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/129 "2009-04-08T18:45:17Z")
> [@hobscrk777](#): > > 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. A man and a woman can have children. Normally, all things being equal. Correct? Before you start throwing out all the ‘buts and oh, yeahs, and except fors’, am I correct? For, well, ever, there was no way to know, was there? Young, healthy, seems likely. So, marriage it is. Stable relationship, one hopes, so, let’s encourage this couple to remain together. Oh, children? Good. More benefits! Future workers of the world! What? No children? Illness? Disease? Death? Choice? Whatever. You don’t get the additional benefits, but we’re not taking anything away because we wanted to encourage the initial relationship knowing that the odds are, children would result more often than not. It’s a lottery, on the part of the government. Not everyone gets married. Not everyone stays married. Not every marriage has children, though most do. Let’s promote the ideal. ---
**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, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/130 "2009-04-08T18:46:31Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > OK, here’s a little test, and yes, there is a point. > > How about if you describe what you think is my reaction? I think it will give us all insight into your, and my, thought processes, if any. Truthfully, I have no idea. Seriously and honestly. I’m blank on this. I’m genuinely curious to find out if the fact that this was legislated as opposed to judicially imposed makes a difference to you. ---
**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, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/131 "2009-04-08T18:46:47Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Losing the argument. To emotional appeals. No, you’re losing out because you haven’t presented a compelling convincing argument. You’ve explained why society supported marriage in part but your argument is severely lacking on the subject of the OP. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/132 "2009-04-08T18:47:18Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Losing the argument. To emotional appeals. If it makes you feel better, even without emotional appeals, you’d be losing on inconsistency (among other grounds). ---
**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, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/133 "2009-04-08T18:48:07Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So childless marriages are not of benefit? > > Stop picking on gays. Because I disagree with you, I’m hardly ‘picking’ on you. > [@](#): > > Then why should it penalize gays, even those who are rearing children? Have I not said, repeatedly even, that gay _parents_ should be entitled to all the rights of straight _parents_? ---
**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, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/134 "2009-04-08T18:48:44Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Equal protection isn’t a new right - it’s in the Constitution. Right. > [@](#): > > Gay marriage is a new right, and it isn’t. Wrong. Gay marriage is not a right, and never has been, and isn’t being claimed to be. Try again. > [@](#): > > 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. Is it that you really don’t get it, or just that you’re playing a game here? > [@](#): > > 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”. Perhaps you could demonstrate for us what “new right” you have found described in \*any \*such legal decision, or any such law. Or perhaps quit pretending that this “new right” thing you keep harping on is at all related to reality. > [@](#): > > 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. Yes, that’s part of a court’s job (and it’s based on a little more than “feelings”). Yes, you do get to play a role in picking him, via your elected officials who do the nominating and confirming. Glad to see you accept that. > [@](#): > > Again, no they don’t. Judges do not - or at least, should not - make up laws when they feel like it. Do you think they should be able to ignore the Constitution when they feel like it? It seems you do. ---
**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, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/135 "2009-04-08T18:49:04Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Let’s promote the ideal. So, since I don’t want to put words in your mouth, though Og knows you choose your own so carefully that you can argue them either way, as you’ve demonstrated, let me ask a question of _you_. Are same-sex relationships inferior to opposite-sex relationships, in your estimation? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/136 "2009-04-08T18:49:45Z")
> [@MichaelQReilly](#): > > There is this thing called the common law, look it up some time. (Hint: It’s judge made law.) Confound you and your legal knowledge! I bet you think that makes you better equipped for a legal argument, don’t you? ---
**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, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/137 "2009-04-08T18:50:17Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Because I disagree with you, I’m hardly ‘picking’ on you. I asked why you’re picking on gays. > [@](#): > > Have I not said, repeatedly even, that gay _parents_ should be entitled to all the rights of straight _parents_? Then you do support their right to marriage under the law. Congratulations! Now, for gay non-parents having the rights of straight non-parents … ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/138 "2009-04-08T18:50:37Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Again, you’re arguing the outliers, the exceptions. Laws aren’t made on the margins, they’re made for the norm, the standard, the usual. You know, post-menopausal women are hardly that freakish an outlier. Since, in your view, the purpose of marriage is to promote (but not mandate) children, why were these women allowed marry? ---
**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, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/139 "2009-04-08T18:54:37Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Let’s promote the ideal. Yes, let’s. But is it necessary to throw up barriers to situations that are, as you would define it, less than ideal? Does promoting one situation require banning others? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/140 "2009-04-08T18:55:01Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Hardly, though you’re cleary incapable of seeing it. A priviliege cannot be defined legislatively until it is defined lexicographically. This is simply not true. We are talking about a privilege which is defined _entirely_ legislatively. Legal marriage is whatever the government says it is. Its broader lexicographal meaning neither controls, nor is controlled by a statutory definition. > [@](#): > > 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. Only legislatively. Lexicographically it has _always_ had a broader range of meaning. “One man, one woman” is certainly not the Biblical definition, for instance. > [@](#): > > It’s fatuous to pretend that law defines lexicography. Yes it is. Good thing I’m not doing that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=8)