# 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:** 8
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/141 "2009-04-08T18:56:00Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > 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? It’s not. It’s just far to shallow to be a valid argument. There are almost no requirements for straights to have and raise kids. Really horrible parents can raise kids who are really horrible citizens. Is that what society is protecting? ---
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/142 "2009-04-08T18:56:20Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > 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)? None of the above. Damn. I’ve said it and said it. We don’t demand childbearing of any couple. Period. Stop raising the red herring, it’s dead. That’s why married couples have certain benefits, while couples with children receive other and/or additional benefits. Some of these benefits are even available to those who do not marry. ---
**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, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/143 "2009-04-08T19:01:33Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > An attached, i.e., combined, desk and chair? This is hardly clever. I thought it was a little clever. At least as clever as you original analogy, but I suppose that’s a low bar, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > 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. Okay, so, what’s the point in this process where we decide gays don’t get to participate? Gays get married. They get some benefits. If they have kids, they get more benefits, because gays raising kids is as beneficial to society as straight people having kids. If they don’t have children, they don’t get any additional benefits, same as hetero couples. Where in this argument does the substitution of gay for straight throw the equation out of whack? > [@](#): > > None of the above. Damn. I’ve said it and said it. We don’t demand childbearing of any couple. Period. Stop raising the red herring, it’s dead. Look, you’re going to have to make up your mind one way or the other on this subject. Is having kids necessary to a marriage, or isn’t it? If it isn’t, then you can’t bring that up as an excuse to prevent gays from marrying. If it is, then you’re going to have to explain why that restriction is only applicable to gay couples, and not to straight couples. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/144 "2009-04-08T19:01:35Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > None of the above. Damn. I’ve said it and said it. We don’t demand childbearing of any couple. Period. Stop raising the red herring, it’s dead. That’s why married couples have certain benefits, while couples with children receive other and/or additional benefits. Some of these benefits are even available to those who do not marry. Then what reason do you have for not allowing gays to marry? Your arguments are emotional and without any merit whatsoever. Howling about how gays are \*different \*isn’t a compelling argument. ---
**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, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/145 "2009-04-08T19:01:41Z")
> [@The\_Superhero](#): > > 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. You were doing okay, with a minimal error, but then failed at D. First, marriage does provide a benefit. But, in and of itself, always and in all ways distinct from childbearing, it could be argued that the societal benefits are limited in scope. Stable relationships of any size or shape would be similar in this regard. Children are what make the difference. Society, naturally, has a much longer timeframe in which to be concerned, because children are expected to take their place in a future, hopefully successful society. ---
**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, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/146 "2009-04-08T19:01:55Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > None of the above. Damn. I’ve said it and said it. We don’t demand childbearing of any couple. Period. Stop raising the red herring, it’s dead. That’s why married couples have certain benefits, while couples with children receive other and/or additional benefits. Some of these benefits are even available to those who do not marry. And we’ve been telling you that there is, in practice, much less of a gap between straight couples and gay couples on this issue than you apparently seem to think. Gay parenting is becoming more and more common all the time. Like I said, I actually think I know more gay couples WITH children than I do without at this point. So you say “Let gay parents have the rights of parents, then.” Okay…but if you’re willing to give gay parents the rights of parents, then why can’t gay couples get the rights of straight couples as far as marriage goes as well? Your argument is not consistent, and, frankly, it appears to change as new arguments against it come up. Is there some consistent reason that a non-bio-parent member of a gay couple with kids should have fewer rights and responsibilities for those kids than a straight step-parent? It’s all tied together, in knots that are way too fine and convoluted to pick apart…these “parental rights” and separate “marriage rights” that you seem to think are so easy to separate and apply to what are, to you, differing relationships. Edited: And that’s without even mentioning gay couples who adopt. I fail to see ANY difference between a straight couple who, being infertile for whatever reason, adopt children, and a gay couple who adopt children. Not only that, but gay couples tend to adopt “problem” children in larger numbers, kids who are older, or not the “right race” (surprisingly more common than you might think) or mentally or physically handicapped. If that doesn’t confer a net benefit to society, I don’t know what does. ---
**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, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/147 "2009-04-08T19:02:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by \*\*NaSultainne \*\* > Let’s promote the ideal. Hmmmm is this an emotional appeal? By all means, lets. I think equal rights for human beings is a fine ideal don’t you? Isn’t that in societies best interests? ---
**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, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/148 "2009-04-08T19:02:50Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Damn. I’ve said it and said it. We don’t demand childbearing of any couple. Period. Stop raising the red herring, it’s dead. If it’s such a dead red herring, perhaps you should stop basing your objections to same-sex marriage on it. ---
**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, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/149 "2009-04-08T19:06:13Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Don’t even try to equate the death of a friend to that of a spouse. Just. Don’t. Stop with the emotion. I might as well tell you not to equate a gay relationship to a straight relationship in terms of impact of a loss. Why? _Because you just don’t know_. But I haven’t, because emotions are the same all over. So knock it off. > [@](#): > > So, 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. That royally sucks, in all seriousness. I’m thinking, lawsuit. People get screwed. The question is, what is the remedy and is it commensurate? > [@](#): > > 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. Of course, wills are contested all the time. You’re arguing that difficulty demands equality. That’s inadequate. ---
**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, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/150 "2009-04-08T19:09:55Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > 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? Inferior? Not so much, I have to say. Except. They are not the same. So, if you’re asking as a quantitative measure, they don’t measure up to the benefit to society. As a standard or for practical measures. No closets, no broken-down doors, no beatings by police or the public. ---
**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, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/151 "2009-04-08T19:15:43Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > Inferior? Not so much, I have to say. Except. They are not the same. So, if you’re asking as a quantitative measure, they don’t measure up to the benefit to society. As a standard or for practical measures. Quantitative? That word, I don’t think it means what you think it means. Aside from that, though: > [@](#): > > they don’t measure up to the benefit to society. As a standard or for practical measures. Why? ---
**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, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/152 "2009-04-08T19:16:18Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > 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? What nonsense. If we don’t mandate childbearing, why would we then turn around and ‘punish’ those past fertility who are unable to, I don’t know, bear children?? Is this supposed to be an argument? They at one time, presumably, had the potential, thus are entitled to marry. We promote and encourage the ideal, and those who approximate the ideal. It’s about promoting the best interests of society’s long-term health. That which does so is encouraged, that which does not, is not encouraged. To punish those who fall outside would require not only demanding proof of fertility and mandatory childbearing, but also to prevent households from forming in any other manner. We don’t do that. Live with whom you will. If it benefits society, you’ll be benefited in return. ---
**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, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/153 "2009-04-08T19:17:36Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > You’re arguing that difficulty demands equality. That’s inadequate. And you’re arguing that, well, something demands inequality. The exact nature of that something is hard to determine since the sole ground you’ve given – childbearing – is also one that you’ve declared to be a red herring. ---
**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, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/154 "2009-04-08T19:18:26Z")
And I ask you, **NaSultainne** , to please define “the ideal”. It’s kind of like trying to pin down jello here…throw us a bone. ---
**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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/155 "2009-04-08T19:19:20Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. That’s pure bull. The family structure pre-dates society. Society cannot construct families. They’re a natural human social unit. Yes, they vary from culture to culture and time to time. But our society says, this is marriage. > [@](#): > > Only legislatively. Lexicographically it has _always_ had a broader range of meaning. “One man, one woman” is certainly not the Biblical definition, for instance. Did I mention the Bible? No. So, if you wish to _rely_ upon it, I’m cool. If not, I’m still cool. You choose. ---
**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, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/156 "2009-04-08T19:20:30Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > They are not the same. So, if you’re asking as a quantitative measure, they don’t measure up to the benefit to society. As a standard or for practical measures. If I’m to assume, based on what you’re repeatedly written, that childbearing is of no relevance, what “benefits” are you referring to? ---
**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, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/157 "2009-04-08T19:21:54Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > They’re a natural human social unit. If this does not apply to two people with mutual emotional and sexual attraction who wish to form a long-term bond, please explain. ---
**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, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/158 "2009-04-08T19:22:19Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Quantitative? That word, I don’t think it means what you think it means. They provide neither the quantity of potential marriages nor the likelihood of the potential children. Quantity. Get it? As it, they’re a small subset of the population, and laws promote the norm, as in, the usual. ---
**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, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/159 "2009-04-08T19:23:28Z")
Are children relevant or not? Can we get a firm decision, here? ---
**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, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/160 "2009-04-08T19:23:29Z")
> [@NaSultainne](#): > > What nonsense. If we don’t mandate childbearing, why would we then turn around and ‘punish’ those past fertility who are unable to, I don’t know, bear children?? If we don’t mandate childbearing, then why should we punish same sex couples? > [@NaSultainne](#): > > It’s about promoting the best interests of society’s long-term health. That which does so is encouraged, that which does not, is not encouraged. … Live with whom you will. If it benefits society, you’ll be benefited in return. Please explain how allowing post-menopausal women to marry benefits society in a way that allowing same-sex couples does not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=9)