# What's behind the "Threat to Traditional Marriage" argument? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2010, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699 "2010-12-02T19:27:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/81 "2010-12-07T14:52:29Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > In other words, due to history’s intolerance of SS couples, the unique celebration of love between a man and a woman should now be gotten rid of? Please elaborate on this position. There’s nothing about the love between a man and a woman that isn’t just as true for SS love. To think otherwise is proof of bigotry towards gays. Their love isn’t the same as our love? I can’t think of a more dehumanizing way to talk about a group of people. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/82 "2010-12-07T15:43:39Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I think a stronger argument from the anti-gay-marriage crowd would be to say that the love between a man and a woman is special enough to warrant its own celebration, and it’s that kind of love that _marriage_ is celebrating. The love between two people of the same gender is of course also special, hence, probably deserves its _own kind_ of celebration. A brilliant notion. And while we’re at it, I think black people are so goshdarn special they deserve their _own_ section of the bus. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/83 "2010-12-07T16:52:13Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > A brilliant notion. And while we’re at it, I think black people are so goshdarn special they deserve their _own_ section of the bus. Let’s be fair, nobody is trying to give gays their own section of the bus. They’re not allowed on the bus. If they’re lucky, we might allow them some sort of “special” transportation instead of a bus. They’re definitely not going to be allowed to call it a bus, though, maybe we can call it a “civil transportation unit”. ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/84 "2010-12-07T17:34:24Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > … Proponents of SSM want society to recognize their relationships, legally and socially. And that’s, uh…, bad, right? Because society recognizing an icky relationship inherently creates a “Threat to Traditional Marriage”? ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/85 "2010-12-07T17:59:17Z")
Ah, the institution of heterosexual marriage---- so special, so unique, so sanctified and pleasing to the LORD— and yet, apparently as fragile as a spun-sugar geodesic dome. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/86 "2010-12-07T18:05:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > They are two different points, but the connection is that gay marriage is not simply a desire to live and let live. Proponents of SSM want society to recognize their relationships, legally and socially. Leave aside “socially”, what’s wrong with that? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/87 "2010-12-07T18:10:31Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Ah, the institution of heterosexual marriage---- so special, so unique, so sanctified and pleasing to the LORD— and yet, apparently as fragile as a spun-sugar geodesic dome. Well yes. Gay sex is 10 times more appealing than boring straight sex. Obviously no man would want to have sex with a woman, but since God commanded us to, we have no choice. As for the notion that “marriage” is a religious term, I’m an atheist. I also claim to be married. Am I kidding myself? Am I re-defining the word “marriage” to suit myself? Can a non-Christian really be married? ---
**Author:** ![Wheelz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wheelz/32/5718_2.png) [@Wheelz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wheelz)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/88 "2010-12-07T18:26:20Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > In other words, due to history’s intolerance of SS couples, **the unique celebration of love between a man and a woman should now be gotten rid of?** Please elaborate on this position. Except that _nobody_ in favor of gay marriage is suggesting this. It’s a straw man set up by the opposition. If I give you a dollar, you have a dollar. If I then give your next-door neighbor a dollar, guess what – _you still have a dollar!_ Can you simply not stand for anybody else to also have what you have? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/89 "2010-12-07T19:01:49Z")
To those that think that they will lose the “specialness” of their marriage if same sex marriage is allowed-_you are still the only one in the world married to your spouse, and you can’t get any more exclusive than that._ ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/90 "2010-12-07T20:28:34Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I think a stronger argument from the anti-gay-marriage crowd would be to say that the love between a man and a woman is special enough to warrant its own celebration, and it’s that kind of love that _marriage_ is celebrating. The love between two people of the same gender is of course also special, hence, probably deserves its _own kind_ of celebration. If your (presumably heterosexual) marriage must receive some sort of special recognition, it seems to me that’s what church is for. Get a marriage license, and then get married in church. Problem solved. You now have a “special recognition”. And when a gay couple get a marriage license and then get married in a church which recognizes gay marriage, _your marriage is still special._ ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/91 "2010-12-07T22:12:07Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > As for the notion that “marriage” is a religious term, I’m an atheist. I also claim to be married. Am I kidding myself? Am I re-defining the word “marriage” to suit myself? Can a non-Christian really be married? Your marriage is a magic spell whether you believe it or not. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/92 "2010-12-08T00:59:09Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > In other words, due to history’s intolerance of SS couples, the unique celebration of love between a man and a woman should now be gotten rid of? Please elaborate on this position. Is a marriage between a man and a woman in, say, Massachusetts different than one in, say, Rhode Island in any noticeable way? Is the Massachusetts one less of a unique celebration of their love? Has _any_ straight couple felt compelled to cross the border because it just wouldn’t be the same otherwise? What, exactly has been gotten rid of? ---
**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:** [December 8, 2010, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/93 "2010-12-08T01:11:15Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I think a stronger argument from the anti-gay-marriage crowd would be to say Can we just skip ahead to what you think is the strongest anti-SSM argument? This “stronger” one you describe is idiotic and unworthy of analysis. ---
**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:** [December 8, 2010, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/94 "2010-12-08T04:12:41Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Gays also want the financial benefits of marriage, like Social Security survivor benefits, as well as the other legal advantages. Interestingly enough, many of them insist on calling it “marriage”, not civil union, and those who are reluctant to call it that are labeled bigots (unless they are Democrats). [/quote] > [@Shodan](#): > > They are two different points, but the connection is that gay marriage is not simply a desire to live and let live. Proponents of SSM want society to recognize their relationships, legally and socially. Okay, I can see a connection between what you just said, and the first sentence from your previous post. I still don’t understand how the second sentence relates to either. It seems a total non-sequitor. ---
**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:** [December 8, 2010, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/95 "2010-12-08T05:06:28Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > You know, I thought I’d never be the one saying this, but bigotry and prejudice alone do not a bigot make. I really can’t think what else could possibly be a necessary component for being a bigot other than bigotry. > [@](#): > > Because everyone has biases and is somewhat prejudiced. The question is how they behave when it’s pointed out (after the initial shock that takes it as an insult). I would argue that someone who knows they have bigotted beliefs, but tries their best to change them, is not a bigot. I don’t think this is actually possible. You either believe that a particular group is somehow less worthy than the mainstream, or you don’t. If you’re “working to change” a belief that, say, blacks are inherently lazy, haven’t you already changed your mind about it? If you hadn’t, why would you be trying to change it? > [@](#): > > And, if Dio is right about Obama, then he wouldn’t be a bigot anyways. Except that there’s no particular reason to think that **Diogenes** is right about Obama. It would be nice if his supposition were true, but there’s no evidence to support it, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I tend to take people at their word. Obama has said that gays should not get married, based on some unstated fundamental difference in the quality of relationships between gay couples as compared to heterosexual couples. This is a bigoted position. If one holds it, they are a bigot. In Obama’s case, he’s less bigoted on the subject than most people in the US, which speaks well of him. Doesn’t change the fact that he’s still a bigot, though. > [@](#): > > Plus, it was you who said it’s okay to be bigoted towards bigots. But surely you would feel guilty making a racial slur against our president. When I have, in the past, argued that it is okay to be “bigoted towards bigots,” I did not intend to give the impression that, if someone is a bigot, it is acceptable to employ racial, religious, or sexual slurs against that person. I’m genuinely surprised that anyone could have read that particular argument, and arrived at the conclusion which you have. For your benefit (and, I expect, yours alone, because I can’t find it in me to believe that anyone else could have arrived at your specific error), I do not think it is ever acceptable to insult someone on the basis of their race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. I do think it is acceptable to insult someone based on _their_ habit of insulting other people for their race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. That’s what is meant by the “bigoted towards bigots” line of argument. It was never (God help me) intended to cover using racial slurs against people who disagree with me on gay rights. ---
**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:** [December 8, 2010, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/96 "2010-12-08T05:24:06Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I think a stronger argument from the anti-gay-marriage crowd would be to say that the love between a man and a woman is special enough to warrant its own celebration, and it’s that kind of love that _marriage_ is celebrating. The love between two people of the same gender is of course also special, hence, probably deserves its _own kind_ of celebration. The fundamental flaw in this argument is the assumption that love between a man and a woman is, on the whole, noticeably different from love between two men, or love between two women. Further undercutting this argument is the fact that, if you go back about ten years ago, the people currently arguing that gay relationships should have their own “special” kind of recognition overlap almost perfectly with the people who used to argue that gay relationships didn’t deserve any kind of recognition at all. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/97 "2010-12-08T07:28:28Z")
> [@Wheelz](#): > > Except that _nobody_ in favor of gay marriage is suggesting this. It’s a straw man set up by the opposition. > > If I give you a dollar, you have a dollar. If I then give your next-door neighbor a dollar, guess what – _you still have a dollar!_ Can you simply not stand for anybody else to also have what you have? By this logic, regardless of how many people were awarded the Medal of Honor, it would have the same weight. That’s not the case. Or how about granting half the NBA “All-Star” status? Part of the specialness of the term “marriage” in our society is owed to the fact that it has been tightly defined, restricted to one man/one woman. You expand the definition—for good or for ill—and the term is watered down. That’s not an argument for whether the term should be expanded, only that expanding it does, in fact dilute its meaning. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/98 "2010-12-08T07:29:57Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Leave aside “socially”, what’s wrong with that? Personally, I think nothing. And that would be the case with civil unions. ---
**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:** [December 8, 2010, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/99 "2010-12-08T09:20:52Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > By this logic, regardless of how many people were awarded the Medal of Honor, it would have the same weight. That’s not the case. Or how about granting half the NBA “All-Star” status? Part of the specialness of the term “marriage” in our society is owed to the fact that it has been tightly defined, restricted to one man/one woman. You expand the definition—for good or for ill—and the term is watered down. > > That’s not an argument for whether the term should be expanded, only that expanding it does, in fact dilute its meaning. Sure, if you start from the assumption that gay relationships are in some way inferior to straight relationships. Otherwise, your logic doesn’t work, as is demonstrated by the fact that the examples you picked to prove your point are situations where someone does something extraordinary. Certainly, the Medal of Honor would be diminished if you started handing it out to people for being particularly good potato peelers. But it is not diminished if you hand it out to everyone who jumped on a hand grenade to save the lives of their comrades - regardless of how many service members have been jumping on hand grenades to save the lives of their comrades. Of course, if you started restricting who could get a Medal of Honor based on an arbitrary, in-born characteristic that has no bearing on the person’s bravery, I think that it would diminish the concept of the MoH. Like, say, if left-handed people who jumped on a hand grenade got a Medal of Shininess, while anyone else in identical circumstances got a Medal of Honor, I think that would be extremely damaging to the concept of the award, because creating a new “honor” purely as a vehicle for discrimination does not elevate the new award to the same level as the old one - rather, it drags down the old award to the level of the new one. Which is, I think, the central irony of this entire debate. The single biggest threat to marriage in the USA isn’t gays, it’s social conservatives who insist on politicizing the issue, and making the word “marriage” a vehicle for hatred and bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/100 "2010-12-08T10:17:39Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > There’s nothing about the love between a man and a woman that isn’t just as true for SS love. No idea what you mean by “just as true”. I’m simply saying it’s different. Not inferior or inferior, different. If my father started demanding that I also call him “mum”, I would explain to him that while he’s not inferior to my mum, he is _different_, and I would prefer to identify him differently, rather than just address both him and my mother as “mum”. > [@](#): > > To think otherwise is proof of bigotry towards gays. Their love isn’t the same as our love? I can’t think of a more dehumanizing way to talk about a group of people. Woah. Why would you jump to the conclusion that if gay love is different, it’s therefore inferior? What are you, a bigot? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699.md?page=6)