# Yet another thread on gay marriage (spinoff from abortion thread) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 13, 2012, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411 "2012-01-13T18:44:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**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:** [January 14, 2012, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/81 "2012-01-14T19:35:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I hate to burst your bubble that you think you’ve burst my bubble, Miller, but I think you’ve joined the ranks of those with reading comprehension problems in this thread. It seems clear to me that he is NOT in agreement with me—at all. His opinion regarding the term is completely counter to mine, and in alignment with all those giving him a hard time. Which is what I find some entertaining. Okay, I guess I misread you on that one - I thought (and, apparently, so did **Jack** ) that you were equating your position on SSM with his, when in fact they are, as he pointed out, miles apart. > [@](#): > > That said, if your point was a smaller one…that I may have equated his “You and I are miles apart on this one.” with, as you offer, “you and I have nothing in common”, I might grant you that. But I don’t see how that matters. It doesn’t change his stance or mine. Or make the jackal-like pawing at him any less entertaining. Yeah, that’s all I was referring to with the “snark bubble” comment. As a connoisseur of good snark, I felt it incumbent upon me to point out that your snark didn’t make much sense. ---
**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:** [January 14, 2012, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/82 "2012-01-14T19:36:18Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > So why should same sex marriage be illegal in your mind, or are you unwilling to share those views? **John Mace** does not in any way oppose gay marriage, and you’re really not helping in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/83 "2012-01-14T19:39:43Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Women were still treated as property in this country unfortunately. Just out of curiosity, can you expand on this a bit. What period are you talking about? Is it still that way in your mind? If not, when did it change? Also, for the period that you think they were treated as property, do you think they were treated identical to slaves? If not, what would you say were the differences? ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/84 "2012-01-14T19:40:37Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > **John Mace** does not in any way oppose gay marriage, and you’re really not helping in this thread. He has never stated support for such in this thread. That being said I will take the rebuke and leave. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/85 "2012-01-14T19:43:08Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Yeah, that’s all I was referring to with the “snark bubble” comment. As a connoisseur of good snark, I felt it incumbent upon me to point out that your snark didn’t make much sense. I quibble with your “make much sense”, but I was a little loose with my reading which does fairly strip my reply of points. I commend you on being a staunch Defender of The Snark. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/86 "2012-01-14T19:46:05Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > He has never stated support for such in this thread. > > That being said I will take the rebuke and leave. Somehow, I don’t think the rebuke is the cause of your leaving. But if it is, you need to grow thicker skin. Seriously. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/87 "2012-01-14T19:52:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Somehow, I don’t think the rebuke is the cause of your leaving. But if it is, you need to grow thicker skin. Seriously. Start a new topic and I will continue, leave this to the pit though. ---
**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:** [January 14, 2012, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/88 "2012-01-14T19:55:40Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > A: There were laws preventing people of different races from marrying. > B: There were/are laws preventing people of the same sex from marrying. > > It does not follow that the reason(s) for A & B were the same. > > Do you agree with that. If not, how? If so, why seek to conflate the to different issues? Well, the U.S. has enshrined the concept of equal treatment under the law, though it’s taken them quite some time to put it into practice. There was a time when blacks were subject to different laws than whites, there was a time when women were subject to different laws then men, and now the issue is whether or not homosexuals will be subject to different laws than heterosexuals. Beats me why anyone would want to treat his fellow citizens to unequal treatment without a durn good reason, but what can I say - I like justice and liberty. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/89 "2012-01-14T20:12:44Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Start a new topic and I will continue, leave this to the pit though. We already have a topic that we both have an interest in: SSM and its relation to inter-racial marriage. Feel free to continue, as I’m very curious as to what some of your answers might be. Why in the world would we continue on a different topic? The Black Sox Scandal? The pros and cons of Tivo? The whereabouts of Amelia Earhart’s plane? And if you took my comment regarding skin thickness to bit pit-like, I apologize, as it was not my intent. The fact is that Miller’s comment to you was mild and it would probably be best to take those comments for what their worth and move on. ---
**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:** [January 14, 2012, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/90 "2012-01-14T21:10:22Z")
I’m kinda curious - what did it actually _cost_ anyone to permit interracial marriage? What will it _cost_ anyone to permit gay marriage? If the answer in both cases is “nothing”, then what purpose do the laws serve? If the answers are not “nothing”, what are they? ---
**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:** [January 14, 2012, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/91 "2012-01-14T21:21:02Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > I really wouldn’t give a hoot what they believe, if they want to force their beliefs on others through laws it is their job to defend them. > > So why should same sex marriage be illegal in your mind, or are you unwilling to share those views? I think SSM should be legal. I just don’t think bullshit arguments do anything to promote it. > [@](#): > > I still make the claim, that outside of bigotry and or religion there is no reason to disallow same sex marriage, and in this country, in theory religion is not a reason. You’re not “still” making that claim. That’s the first time you made it. You’re all over the map with what you are claiming, making easy pickings for people who do think SSM should be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/92 "2012-01-14T21:49:09Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think SSM should be legal. I just don’t think bullshit arguments do anything to promote it. > You’re not “still” making that claim. That’s the first time you made it. You’re all over the map with what you are claiming, making easy pickings for people who do think SSM should be illegal. My main issue was that you made the claim that the Federal government never defined marriage between races as verboten. Now where they did not, as that is not a Federal level law, they did decide that such laws were legal. As for the evangelical christian view of why they oppose gay marriage I am not all over the board, just falling for thread drift. In Biblical based marriage the woman is property, for some who hold those views it is very difficult to think of a relationship outside of one where the female subjugates to the male is still the norm. E.G. from Mark Driscoll’s own mouth. > [@](#): > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSGIPqXhofE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSGIPqXhofE) At least in my area of the world, these are the people who are putting money behind the fight against SSM, a very very real fight as there is a bill in front of my state legislature right now. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/93 "2012-01-14T21:57:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Just out of curiosity, can you expand on this a bit. What period are you talking about? Is it still that way in your mind? If not, when did it change? > > Also, for the period that you think they were treated as property, do you think they were treated identical to slaves? If not, what would you say were the differences? If you were a woman at the time of the Civil war it was likely that You could not file for divorce from your husband for the same reasons he could If he did leave you had no rights to your kids and or to any property. If your husband died you also did not have rights to the children or property in many states, in others the control of both would be handed over to a male relative. You could not own property in many states, nor could you vote. Your money was your husbands, but not the other way around. You had no recourse if there was spousal rape, even if you were separated. You could be beaten with no recourse, and it was not grounds for divorce. This all changed with first wave feminism, no it was not as ugly as pure slavery but I never made that claim, it does reduce a woman’s roll to that of chattel, personal property of the husband. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/94 "2012-01-14T22:51:52Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > If you were a woman at the time of the Civil war it was likely that > > You could not file for divorce from your husband for the same reasons he could > If he did leave you had no rights to your kids and or to any property. > > If your husband died you also did not have rights to the children or property in many states, in others the control of both would be handed over to a male relative. > > You could not own property in many states, nor could you vote. > > Your money was your husbands, but not the other way around. > > You had no recourse if there was spousal rape, even if you were separated. > > You could be beaten with no recourse, and it was not grounds for divorce. > > This all changed with first wave feminism, no it was not as ugly as pure slavery but I never made that claim, it does reduce a woman’s roll to that of chattel, personal property of the husband. I don’t think the property rights issue is what you imagine. From Wikipedia, concerning the woman who would become Martha Washington: > [@](#): > > Daniel Custis’ death in 1757 left Martha a rich widow, with independent control over a dower inheritance for her lifetime and trustee control over the inheritance of her minor children. And while it is true that women were not treated the same as men, and men did have _control_ of their property,[it is not that women weren’t recognized to own property:](http://womenshistory.about.com/od/marriedwomensproperty/a/property_rights.htm) > [@](#): > > New York, 1771: Act to Confirm Certain Conveyances and Directing the Manner of Proving Deeds to Be Recorded: required a married man to have his wife’s signature on any deed to her property before he sold or transferred it, and required that a judge meet privately with the wife to confirm her approval. > > Maryland, 1674: required a private interview between a judge and a married woman to confirm her approval of any trade or sale by her husband of her property. (1782: Flannagan’s Lessee v. Young used this change to invalidate a property transfer) > > Massachusetts, 1787: a law was passed which allowed married women in limited circumstances to act as femme sole traders. > > Connecticut, 1809: law passed permitting married women to execute wills > > Various courts in colonial and early America: enforced provisions of prenuptial and marriage agreements placing her “separate estate” in a trust managed by a man other than her husband. > > Mississippi, 1839: law passed giving a woman very limited property rights, largely in connection with slaves. > > New York, 1848: Married Women’s Property Act, a more extensive expansion of property rights of married women, used as a model for many other states 1848-1895. > > New York, 1860: Act Concerning the Rights and Liabilities of Husband and Wife: expanded married women’s property rights. Even so, not being able to own property, or control it, or vote, is a far cry from chattel slavery. and of course, doesn’t change the fact that inter-racial marriage and SSM were/are disapproved of for different reasons. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/95 "2012-01-14T23:07:51Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t think the property rights issue is what you imagine. From Wikipedia, concerning the woman who would become Martha Washington: > > And while it is true that women were not treated the same as men, and men did have _control_ of their property,[it is not that women weren’t recognized to own property:](http://womenshistory.about.com/od/marriedwomensproperty/a/property_rights.htm) > > Even so, not being able to own property, or control it, or vote, is a far cry from chattel slavery. and of course, doesn’t change the fact that inter-racial marriage and SSM were/are disapproved of for different reasons. This is why I said in some states, these are all state level laws, some did not allow women to own or inherit property until the 1890s. If you had clicked through on your own cite to this URL [http://womenshistory.about.com/od/marriedwomensproperty/a/property\_1848ny.htm](http://womenshistory.about.com/od/marriedwomensproperty/a/property_1848ny.htm) > [@](#): > > Before married women’s property acts were passed, upon marriage a woman lost any right to control property that was hers prior to the marriage, nor did she have rights to acquire any property during marriage. A married woman could not make contracts, keep or control her own wages or any rents, transfer property, sell property or bring any lawsuit. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/96 "2012-01-14T23:55:58Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Or maybe next time someone tells you that this argument will hijack a thread, you should believe them :). I shall never doubt you again. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/97 "2012-01-15T00:55:58Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > This is why I said in some states, these are all state level laws, some did not allow women to own or inherit property until the 1890s. So? Nothing I said put different words in your mouth. Now, maybe we can get back to the issue: that inter-racial marriage and SSM were/are objected to on different grounds? Do you now see now the reason people were against inter-racial marriage is not the same reason as to why people might be against SSM now? And that bringing up the former when discussing the latter is a conflation of the issues and a cheap appeal to emotion? Not to mention insulting to those who suffered through slavery? ---
**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:** [January 15, 2012, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/98 "2012-01-15T01:04:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Do you now see now the reason people were against inter-racial marriage is not the same reason as to why people might be against SSM now? And that bringing up the former when discussing the latter is a conflation of the issues and a cheap appeal to emotion? Not to mention insulting to those who suffered through slavery? I don’t think the reasons are exactly the same, but there is more commonality than not. Both are based on a non-scientific understanding of humans and human sexuality and an attempt to impose that misunderstanding on others. Certainly some who opposed interracial marriage did so on religious and not just cultural grounds. Both groups thought, incorrectly, that it would be bad for society. And both groups fought against a change in society that was inevitably going to happen. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/99 "2012-01-15T01:20:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t think the reasons are exactly the same, but there is more commonality than not. Both are based on a non-scientific understanding of humans and human sexuality and an attempt to impose that misunderstanding on others. Certainly some who opposed interracial marriage did so on religious and not just cultural grounds. While I can see overlap, the hearts of the reasons are worlds apart. Blacks were viewed to be inferior beings. The notion of inter-racial marriage was, at its worst, almost akin to bestiality. Blacks were viewed as being less than men an women. That is what was made the U.S. version of slavery even worse than the normal version, in which anyone could wind up a slave to a victor. Gays, on the other hand, do not suffer that same deficit. Certainly not in degree now in the eyes of the majority who oppose SSM. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Both groups thought, incorrectly, that it would be bad for society. Assumes evidence not available, as I know of no SSM opponent who believes that the degradation of society they fear will happen inside a few generations. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > And both groups fought against a change in society that was inevitably going to happen. We’ll see. If if it happens, we’ll see how long it lasts before society swings the pendulum back the other way. As I’m sure has been done scores of times by past civilizations. ---
**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:** [January 15, 2012, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/100 "2012-01-15T02:25:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > While I can see overlap, the hearts of the reasons are worlds apart. Blacks were viewed to be inferior beings. The notion of inter-racial marriage was, at its worst, almost akin to bestiality. Blacks were viewed as being less than men an women. That is what was made the U.S. version of slavery even worse than the normal version, in which anyone could wind up a slave to a victor. Gays, on the other hand, do not suffer that same deficit. Certainly not in degree now in the eyes of the majority who oppose SSM. Bestiality. You mean like man on dog? Somehow, that argument sounds surprisingly current. As for those saying it will take generations for SSM to destroy society… I’ve not heard that, and I don’t think it’s a common argument. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411.md?page=6)