# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/141 "2010-12-09T21:32:43Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > It’s okay, doc, I’ve been testing your wife’s love every Wednesday afternoon for the last eight months. As to the argument that marriage between a man and a woman being special, there are about 240 million adults in the US. There are about 60 million married couples. That means 120 million adults – half of the adult population – are “special.” ---
**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 9, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/142 "2010-12-09T21:37:39Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > As to the argument that marriage between a man and a woman being special, there are about 240 million adults in the US. There are about 60 million married couples. That means 120 million adults – half of the adult population – are “special.” And “unique”. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/143 "2010-12-09T21:38:22Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > It’s okay, doc, I’ve been testing your wife’s love every Wednesday afternoon for the last eight months. I’ve been meaning to thank you for that. It usually gives me one day off durning the week. ---
**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 9, 2010, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/144 "2010-12-09T22:41:59Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > That means 120 million adults – half of the adult population – are “special.” > [@Czarcasm](#): > > And “unique”. Wow. 120 million kindergarden students… ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/145 "2010-12-09T23:11:33Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Except that there is no expansion at all. > > The Supreme Court has ruled at least 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right of all people. They are of course very particular about word usage in all opinions, and in all 14 cases regarding marriage rights, they have never mentioned gender at all. > > 14 times. > > Under the law, if this was so traditional and important, some of the attorneys in the cases would have made the point, and it would have worked its way into an opinion. > > Apparently, for such a “tradition”, no one ever thought to mention it before. > > 14 times, did I mention? > > It really seems like that horse left the barn a long long time ago, sorry. > > There is really no place in the law where marriage is as tightly defined as you say, because the Supreme Court has already looked past all that 14 times. > > 14 times! Well, I won’t trouble you by asking for cites just yet. I’m sure that most of those writings were done at a time when the concept of two people of the same sex getting married didn’t even enter the psyche. I’m sure that there is also no mention that a person can’t marry someone dead. Or a rock. I exaggerate, yes. But not much. Also, your response seems to miss the point of my post which was one of logic, not law. Think Venn diagrams. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/146 "2010-12-09T23:17:36Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Likewise. I would really like to get married some day. If that were entirely off the table, as in **spark** ’s idea, and I was left with civil unions… Well, who gives a shit about civil unions? I might enter into one if it made sense for tax purposes, or to get one of us onto the other’s health care plan, but absent a solid financial inducement like that, I doubt I’d ever bother. > > Marriage is, indeed, special. And I want a chunk of that specialness for myself, someday. I’m not interested in a margarine marriage. If it’s not the real thing, what the hell is the point? We certainly don’t need to rehash a discussion we’ve had several times, in depth, but this post of yours caught my attention. Can you understand how some people might think how allowing SSCs to marry makes it “less special”? Not that you agree with that, of course. And if you can see that, can you see how people might be slightly less interested in taking the big step, in making that grand gesture? Again, not that you agree with this, but can you see how the traditional view of marriage will be perceived as being “watered down”? If you choose to answer, try to keep it to the points I’ve raised in this post. I don’t think either of us want to go into Round 13. ---
**Author:** ![shy\_guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@shy\_guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shy_guy)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/147 "2010-12-09T23:26:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Can you understand how some people might think how allowing SSCs to marry makes it “less special”? Of course: they are bigots. That was easy. ---
**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:** [December 9, 2010, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/148 "2010-12-09T23:27:21Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > We certainly don’t need to rehash a discussion we’ve had several times, in depth, but this post of yours caught my attention. Can you understand how some people might think how allowing SSCs to marry makes it “less special”? Not that you agree with that, of course. And if you can see that, can you see how people might be slightly less interested in taking the big step, in making that grand gesture? > > Again, not that you agree with this, but can you see how the traditional view of marriage will be perceived as being “watered down”? As a long-married heterosexual, I cannot. When I got married the value of it was and is totally independent of whoever else was getting married on that day. Brittany Spears getting married as a result of getting drunk or stoned or whatever in no way reduced the value of my marriage. Some rich guy marrying a trophy wife in no way devalues my marriage. I might agree that a marriage for the express purpose of circumventing immigration laws should not be allowed, but that is for fraud, not because my marriage is being devalued. I can understand, though not agree with, people who think SSCs are going against God’s law or nature or whatever, and so should not be granted equal rights. But I don’t understand the devaluation of marriage reason. Marriage is not a zero-sum game - I or they do not lose if some SSC wins by being allowed to be married. Maybe you can help us by explaining it. ---
**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 9, 2010, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/149 "2010-12-09T23:39:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Also, your response seems to miss the point of my post which was one of logic, not law. Think Venn diagrams. You have a Venn circle to delineate “specialness”? Does it have frilly pink curtains, guarded by adorable stuffed lions? Is its border sharp and well-defined or is a wondrous rainbow spectrum where every amazing colour is in the eye of the beholder? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/150 "2010-12-09T23:43:10Z")
> [@shy\_guy](#): > > Of course: they are bigots. That was easy. Hmmm. So, bigots, for some odd reason, have a better grasp of logic. That’s an interesting perspective. Thank you for such a weighty contribution. By the way, do you have a newsletter? ---
**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 9, 2010, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/151 "2010-12-09T23:47:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > As a long-married heterosexual, I cannot. When I got married the value of it was and is totally independent of whoever else was getting married on that day. Brittany Spears getting married as a result of getting drunk or stoned or whatever in no way reduced the value of my marriage. Some rich guy marrying a trophy wife in no way devalues my marriage. I might agree that a marriage for the express purpose of circumventing immigration laws should not be allowed, but that is for fraud, not because my marriage is being devalued. Well, what if a couple had a _really_ special marriage, like 80 years, with a dozen well-raised kids, a hundred grandkids, a thousand great-grandkids? And neither partner cheated or even thought about cheating? If “specialness” is measurable in degrees (or so goes the rationalization, since it claims hetero marriages are made _less_ special if same-sex marriages are allowed), than surely compared to that ideal marriage, your marriage is a shallow lie of a shadow of an illusion of a piece of dog-crap that was vomited up after being scarfed down by a different dog, then scarfed up by a third dog, who crapped it out. To preserve the specialness of your own marriage, your duty is clear - find the long and extra-special-married couple and give them a shotgun divorce if you know what I mean. I mean, kill one of them. Or both, either way. ---
**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:** [December 9, 2010, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/152 "2010-12-09T23:51:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Hmmm. So, bigots, for some odd reason, have a better grasp of logic. That’s an interesting perspective. Thank you for such a weighty contribution. By the way, do you have a newsletter? If the opponents of SSM weren’t bigots they would have _compelling logical arguments_. Since there are exactly zero _compelling logical arguments_, doesn’t that suggest that the anti SSM crowd are motivated by something other than logic? It might not be bigotry, but what else could it be? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/153 "2010-12-10T00:10:06Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > If the opponents of SSM weren’t bigots they would have _compelling logical arguments_. > > Since there are exactly zero _compelling logical arguments_, doesn’t that suggest that the anti SSM crowd are motivated by something other than logic? It might not be bigotry, but what else could it be? First, the point I was making in the Post on Page 2 is really one of pure logic. When you broaden the definition of the term, the term becomes watered down, less precise. Not un-precise, necessarily, but _less_ precise. I don’t see why bigots would be able to grasp that and not non-bigots. It’s rather tautological. If I and others start referring to the color purple as blue, then the term blue becomes watered down. It no longer is as an effective nugget of communication as it was. I really don’t see how anyone can argue with this. As far as you’re question, I think you’re premise is wrong. Regardless of where one ultimately comes out, I think there is a compelling argument(s) against SSM, and I’m not a bigot. But you, as others have, will probably say I am. And the proof of that is that I find some of the arguments compelling. So it’s nice, neat tautology that’s been constructed. Convenient as hell when preaching to the choir, but meaningless otherwise. ---
**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:** [December 10, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/154 "2010-12-10T00:19:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > First, the point I was making in the Post on Page 2 is really one of pure logic. When you broaden the definition of the term, the term becomes watered down, less precise. No. You could just as easily say it becomes more robust, more agile. You are painting it as bad because that’s what you want to do. To claim your argument is logical is laughable. Did allowing blacks to marry whites make marriage less special? Are cross-caste marriages in India making your marriage less special? > [@](#): > > Not un-precise, necessarily, but _less_ precise. I don’t see why bigots would be able to grasp that and not non-bigots. It’s rather tautological. If I and others start referring to the color purple as blue, then the term blue becomes watered down. It no longer is as an effective nugget of communication as it was. I really don’t see how anyone can argue with this. You surely do see it. Because you have responded thousands of times and failed utterly to raise a logical argument in defense. > [@](#): > > As far as you’re[sic] question, I think you’re[sic] premise is wrong. Regardless of where one ultimately comes out, I think there is a compelling argument(s) against SSM, and I’m not a bigot. But you, as others have, will probably say I am. And the proof of that is that I find some of the arguments compelling. So it’s nice, neat tautology that’s been constructed. Convenient as hell when preaching to the choir, but meaningless otherwise. You say you’re not a bigot, and fine, I’ll accept that you aren’t. Yet you still have not come up with a reason, based in logic to deny marriage rights to gays. Just because the idea of SSMs upsets you isn’t a good enough reason. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/155 "2010-12-10T00:24:47Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > If the opponents of SSM weren’t bigots they would have _compelling logical arguments_. > > Since there are exactly zero _compelling logical arguments_, doesn’t that suggest that the anti SSM crowd are motivated by something other than logic? It might not be bigotry, but what else could it be? To play devil’s advocate, it could be that they are simply against any kind of social change whatsoever. Change makes them uncomfortable. They want things (in the social sense) to be unchanging, set in stone and immovable. They pine for “simpler times” when (in their minds) there was no change. ---
**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 10, 2010, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/156 "2010-12-10T00:30:05Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > To play devil’s advocate, it could be that they are simply against any kind of social change whatsoever. Change makes them uncomfortable. They want things (in the social sense) to be unchanging, set in stone and immovable. They pine for “simpler times” when (in their minds) there was no change. Then we should publicly express our respect for their views, as soon as they publicly admit “I’m a scared little rabbit in a terrifying world I don’t understand”. ---
**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:** [December 10, 2010, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/157 "2010-12-10T00:33:26Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > To play devil’s advocate, it could be that they are simply against any kind of social change whatsoever. Change makes them uncomfortable. They want things (in the social sense) to be unchanging, set in stone and immovable. They pine for “simpler times” when (in their minds) there was no change. I’d almost be okay with that. But I’ve never heard someone make that argument. Still, being afraid of change isn’t what I’d call a logical reason to deny someone else rights. It seems like that’s based in irrationality. Also, I inserted [sic] in Magellan’s post above, I intended to remove it before posting but forgot. I was showing someone how it’s used. My bad, I know we aren’t supposed to mark up quotes. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/158 "2010-12-10T00:40:50Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > No. You could just as easily say it becomes more robust, more agile. You could. But words become less helpful when definitions are broadened, not more. The word laugh is a fine word. One you might call robust, agile, because it can refer to anything from a guffaw to a giggle. But if the word was so great, we wouldn’t need the precision of “giggle”, would we. And if we now sought to use “giggle” to refer to all flavors of laughs, the definition of the word “giggle” would become less useful, and we’d have to come up with another word to take it place. > [@Lobohan](#): > > You are painting it as bad because that’s what you want to do. I don’t think of this aspect of the topic has anything to do with bad vs good. It’s one of definition, sets, subsets, logic. I think one can grant that the meaning of the word gets diluted and still be pro SSM. But there’s an unfortunate tendency for people to not give an inch, even when it defies plain, pure logic. > [@Lobohan](#): > > To claim your argument is logical is laughable. To you. But does it elicit a guffaw, a giggle…? > [@Lobohan](#): > > Did allowing blacks to marry whites make marriage less special? No. As I’m sure you are aware, blacks and whites both come in male and female. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Are cross-caste marriages in India making your marriage less special? I’ve never been to India, but I’m pretty sure that each of the castes are comprised of males and females. I must admit that I giggle (and roll my eyes) every time miscegenation is brought up in these discussions. There is nothing about the color of someone’s skin that flies in the face of a traditional concept of marriage. Which has been understood to be between one man and one woman. > [@Lobohan](#): > > You surely do see it. Because you have responded thousands of times and failed utterly to raise a logical argument in defense. You see, here you go to far. You conflate a logical argument with one that you find compelling. They are not necessarily the same things. > [@Lobohan](#): > > You say you’re not a bigot, and fine, I’ll accept that you aren’t. Yet you still have not come up with a reason, based in logic to deny marriage rights to gays. Just because the idea of SSMs upsets you isn’t a good enough reason. Again, this is incorrect. I’ve put forth plenty of arguments. Feel free to do a search, as I will not waste my time getting into it yet again. There was one thread in which **mswas** participated that was a good one. I’m pretty sure **Bryan Eckers** participated, as well. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/159 "2010-12-10T00:41:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > We certainly don’t need to rehash a discussion we’ve had several times, in depth, but this post of yours caught my attention. Can you understand how some people might think how allowing SSCs to marry makes it “less special”? So “special” is obviously a very vague word. But I think I know what part of it’s important to you. My guess is that it’s important to you that: (1) Children growing up and becoming young adults firmly believe that they should and will get married, that that’s an important part of their future life (2) People who do get married take it very seriously. They hold their spouse’s interests to be very important, and are very committed to their marriage. (3) Divorces are rare, and happen only after considerable effort to keep the marriage together (4) Marriages are recognized as a fundamental unit of society In particularly, I suspect that (1) is the most important to you. If you have a child or grandchild of your own, and that child grows up and falls in love and starts living with someone, you don’t want to ask them “so, are you two crazy kids going to get married?” and have their response be “uhh… no idea, why would we? who cares?”. Nor would you want your child to just not seem interested in settling down with someone at all. Before I type zillions more, is that a fair summation of the level of importance and “specialness” you’d like marriage to have? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699/160 "2010-12-10T00:53:11Z")
We redefine fundamental social concepts all the time. The idea of “farm workers” was fundamentally changed when we stopped owning them. Traditional politics was changed beyond recognition when women started being allowed to vote. Now we are recognizing that the traditional definition of “marriage” is not broad enough to reflect the relationships of all the people in this country. (Up until about fifty years ago, the traditional definition included the unspoken assumption that the two persons were of the same race. Really.) Change happens, and mostly we are learning and growing. This is a good thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-behind-the-threat-to-traditional-marriage-argument/562699.md?page=9)