# Why put gay marriage up for a vote? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 30, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694 "2013-10-30T22:28:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/101 "2013-11-04T14:11:27Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I said homeschool graduates, but that’s not the point. The question is whether it would be “forced” on people if the majority didn’t want it. > > In fairness, Scalia does constantly compare gays to all kinds of sexual deviants. > [@jtgain](#): > > In fairness, Scalia said that the elected representatives of Texas could pass laws reflecting the beliefs of citizens of Texas that homosexuality was similar to those other behaviors. > > He did not claim that as a matter of federal constitutional law, or even his personal opinion, that homosexuality was similar to those behaviors. He simply said that historically they were equated and that a state had the power to continue to treat them the same way. **jtgain** has the better argument here. Imagine the following argument: WILLIAM: It’s outrageous that the police can set up checkpoints along the highway for HOV (high-occupany vehicle) violations! They have no right to demand that I slow down so they can peer into my windows and make sure I have two passengers! It violates my privavcy! MARY: Why? WILLIAM: Because the police can never stop anyone’s car unless they have probable cause that THAT car’s driver committed a crime! MARY: What if the police are looking for a child that was just kidnapped along that exact road? Can’t they set up a roadblock and look into car windows going by? WILLIAM: Now you’re comparing HOV violations to kidnapping children! But Mary didn’t really do that. She offered up the two cases not to compare the two infractions of the law, but to explore the distinctions, if any, in the rule proposed by William. When Scalia “compares” gay behavior to other types of behavior that most of society still regards as morally depraved, he’s doing the same thing: not saying that the two behaviors are equivalent, but asking what rule precludes us from forbidding same-sex sexual relations, but allows us to forbid, say, bestiality, or incest. What, he is asking, are the characteristics of the rule that supposedly limits government power in this respect? He’s not comparing the acts – he’s asking what the rule is, and inviting the reader to consider that a far-reaching rule would have effects beyond the instant case. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/102 "2013-11-04T14:20:10Z")
Oh, rubbish. It’s pretty obvious why bestiality and incest are banned. If he was asking the question in good faith he’d limit his inquiry to, say, polygamy. But he doesn’t. Hell, he even compared it to _murder_ in _Romer_. I don’t think Scalia is the ideologue many here do, but his personal views are clearly evident when he writes anything about The Gays. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/103 "2013-11-04T14:27:19Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Oh, rubbish. It’s pretty obvious why bestiality and incest are banned. Beastiality, perhaps, but not incest. Bans on incest are based on the ick factor and bad science-- just like bans on homosexuality were (and are). > [@](#): > > If he was asking the question in good faith he’d limit his inquiry to, say, polygamy. But he doesn’t. Hell, he even compared it to _murder_ in _Romer_. I don’t think Scalia is the ideologue many here do, but his personal views are clearly evident when he writes anything about The Gays. Eh. Scalia likes to shock people. That he chose shocking examples is not, well, shocking. I think **Bricker** nailed it in his post, above. Giving a counter example to demonstrate the flaw in an argument is not to compare the two situations, only to compare how the law treats those situations. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/104 "2013-11-04T14:34:52Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Oh, rubbish. It’s pretty obvious why bestiality and incest are banned. If he was asking the question in good faith he’d limit his inquiry to, say, polygamy. But he doesn’t. Hell, he even compared it to _murder_ in _Romer_. I don’t think Scalia is the ideologue many here do, but his personal views are clearly evident when he writes anything about The Gays. It isn’t “pretty obvious.” That is, i agree it’s obvious why we wish them to be banned, and why it’s a good idea to ban them. But it’s equally “pretty obvious” that the judicial rule should not be, “Hey, allowing this ban is okay, for reasons that are ‘pretty obvious.’ And striking down restrictions on same-sex sexual conduct is judicially permissible, for pretty obvious reasons.” The judicial role should be to enunciate a rationale under which same-sex sexual conduct is constitutionally protected but incest and bestiality are not. For example, “Anything done between consenting adults is fine, and forbidding such conduct violates the Due Process Clause” does not work, because an 18-year-old brother and an 18-year-old sister, both adults and both affirming their consent, are also protected by the claimed rationale. So, no, when it comes to striking down or upholding legislation, I don’t agree that “pretty obvious” has much traction. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/105 "2013-11-04T14:39:10Z")
Indeed. I’m sure that **RNATB** is not proposing that the judicial rule for what behaviors are banable should be: “whatever is pretty obvious”. What is the rule, and how does homosexual behavior differ from other behaviors that the rule might now allow which were illegal before? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/106 "2013-11-04T14:42:19Z")
Quite right. I am saying that “ick factor” (or moral disapprobation, as J. Scalia would put it) is not a legitimate state interest, standing alone. Bestiality and incest are not banned because of the ick factor, standing alone. Homosexuality is banned because of the ick factor and what _used_ to be scientific consensus, which is long dead. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Beastiality, perhaps, but not incest. Bans on incest are based on the ick factor and bad science-- just like bans on homosexuality were (and are). Maybe I’m not up on this, but I was under the impression that incest between highly consanguinous individuals pretty much always led to birth defects. Is that no longer good science? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/107 "2013-11-04T14:47:39Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Maybe I’m not up on this, but I was under the impression that incest between highly consanguinous individuals pretty much always led to birth defects. Is that no longer good science? There is a slight increase, yes. But only slight. And really not significant for cousins. Still, we let dwarfs marry and have children and people with known genetic diseases to do so. There are many people who are allowed to have sex with each other who have a much higher likelihood of passing on genetic “defects” than do incestuous relationships. Let’s say I’m deaf, and that my deafness is genetic and the genes I carry are dominant. That is, there is a 100% probability that any children I have will be deaf. Should the law be able to forbid me to have sex with anyone? ---
**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:** [November 4, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/108 "2013-11-04T16:12:14Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Maybe I’m not up on this, but I was under the impression that incest between highly consanguinous individuals pretty much always led to birth defects. Is that no longer good science? I’m not sure it was ever good science. The real risk involved in close relations having children is if their carriers for some genetic disease. Since they’d both be carriers, the kid would be pretty much guaranteed to get the illness. If they’re not carriers for anything, though, the chance of birth defects is not significantly higher than its for any other couple. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/109 "2013-11-04T17:18:25Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m not sure it was ever good science. The real risk involved in close relations having children is if their carriers for some genetic disease. Since they’d both be carriers, the kid would be pretty much guaranteed to get the illness. If they’re not carriers for anything, though, the chance of birth defects is not significantly higher than its for any other couple. No, no, no. If they are carriers, the kid has a 25% chance of getting the illness (assuming simple Dominant/recessive genetics). Sickle Cell Anemia and Tay Sachs (to name two famous genetic disorders) operate that way. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/110 "2013-11-04T17:50:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > IThe judicial role should be to enunciate a rationale under which same-sex sexual conduct is constitutionally protected but incest and bestiality are not. Are you advocating the use of slippery slope arguments in the writing of judicial opinions? I’m a bit confused, because I generally see you advocating a much more limited view of judicial reasoning, where the case before the court is what is decided and grand pronouncements about other, unrelated cases, are generally disfavored. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/111 "2013-11-04T19:32:40Z")
**John** and **Miller** : thanks. I guess it’s not really obvious that incest should be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/112 "2013-11-04T19:35:25Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Then here’s an excellent chance for you to prove yourself right. But, just to be fair, you should know that we’ve been this road at least once (maybe more) and I can guarantee you it does not lead where you think it does. > > But don’t let that stop you. Bring it on! Sure. Just first explain how its ironic that reality is liberal ties together with Scalia’s comparison of gays to things like incest and bestiality. He’s factually wrong, that’s not a bias at all ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/113 "2013-11-04T20:28:12Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Sure. Just first explain how its ironic that reality is liberal ties together with Scalia’s comparison of gays to things like incest and bestiality. He’s factually wrong, that’s not a bias at all Because he didn’t do that, that’s why. Please read **Bricker’s** post, above, about car pool abusers and child kidnapper. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/114 "2013-11-04T21:57:07Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Are you advocating the use of slippery slope arguments in the writing of judicial opinions? I’m a bit confused, because I generally see you advocating a much more limited view of judicial reasoning, where the case before the court is what is decided and grand pronouncements about other, unrelated cases, are generally disfavored. Grand (or meek) pronouncements about other cases are indeed disfavored. What is favored is the announcement of the rule by which the current case is decided. That rule is then used to decide future cases. ---
**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:** [November 4, 2013, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/115 "2013-11-04T22:57:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, no, no. If they are carriers, the kid has a 25% chance of getting the illness (assuming simple Dominant/recessive genetics). Sickle Cell Anemia and Tay Sachs (to name two famous genetic disorders) operate that way. Thanks, my bad. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/116 "2013-11-05T00:07:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Grand (or meek) pronouncements about other cases are indeed disfavored. > > What is favored is the announcement of the rule by which the current case is decided. That rule is then used to decide future cases. Which is a good reason to conclude that the Lawrence decision was poorly written. That does not, however, make the result wrong. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/117 "2013-11-05T00:39:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Because he didn’t do that, that’s why. Please read **Bricker’s** post, above, about car pool abusers and child kidnapper. Of course he did, and Bricker is wrong. The reason is marked by how the conservative mind thinks: “If I disagree with something, there must be something wrong with it” HOV lane violations and kidnappings are linked as a crime. There is no reason why Scalia should compare gays to murder, incest, or bestiality. He might as well have said “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against Legos?” The fact that he chose to compare it to something awful like murder paints a pretty clear picture of what’s in his head. You and Bricker may not want to believe it, but he chose murder specifically to make the connection between the two. Has he ever compared gays to something positive like donating to the homeless or rescuing animals from shelters? So I ask you again, what’s so ironic about Scalia’s gay-hating comparisons and the fact that liberals don’t fail at analogies in such a spectacular way? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/118 "2013-11-05T00:40:34Z")
You’re not helping. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/119 "2013-11-05T00:42:32Z")
I think I am 😃 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694/120 "2013-11-05T01:46:11Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > So I ask you again, what’s so ironic about Scalia’s gay-hating comparisons and the fact that liberals don’t fail at analogies in such a spectacular way? In the real world (as opposed to your imagination), he didn’t do that. That’s what ironic. But here’s a suggestion. Rather than hijack this thread, if you really think you have a case to be made, open another thread and let’s debate it there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-put-gay-marriage-up-for-a-vote/672694.md?page=7)