# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/161 "2012-01-16T19:14:04Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Why is marriage made less \*special \*if homosexuals engage in it? I don’t have much time right now, but this one really isn’t that difficult. A simple analogy: Scenario A: Every baseball player who holds a starting position on a pro team is inducted into The Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. Scenario B: As it is today, only a very small number of players are inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Which Hall of Fame scenario do you thing is more meaningful? More “special”? So, do you now see how expanding the definition of who is included in a particular set reduces the specialness of that set? If we cannot agree on this basic logic there really isn’t any point to any further discussion. ---
**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 16, 2012, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/162 "2012-01-16T19:16:34Z")
As bad analogies go, that’s a huge stinker! ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/163 "2012-01-16T19:19:32Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t have much time right now, but this one really isn’t that difficult. A simple analogy: > > Scenario A: Every baseball player who holds a starting position on a pro team is inducted into The Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. > > Scenario B: As it is today, only a very small number of players are inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. > > Which Hall of Fame scenario do you thing is more meaningful? More “special”? This analogy would work better if it took any relevant qualification whatsoever to enter into a legal marriage now. I won’t bore you with all the examples of thoroughly unqualified people who enter into legal marriage; I’m sure you’re aware of them. This isn’t a Relationship Hall of Fame we’re talking about here. So unless you can explain why being among the best ballplayers ever is like walking down to the clerk of court’s office, or unless you can explain why gay people automatically are worse at relationships than straight people, or unless you can find another way to defend this analogy, you need to abandon it. Which gets us back to the question: Why is marriage made less special if homosexuals engage in it? ---
**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:** [January 16, 2012, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/164 "2012-01-16T19:21:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t have much time right now, but this one really isn’t that difficult. A simple analogy: > > Scenario A: Every baseball player who holds a starting position on a pro team is inducted into The Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. > > Scenario B: As it is today, only a very small number of players are inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. > > Which Hall of Fame scenario do you thing is more meaningful? More “special”? > > So, do you now see how expanding the definition of who is included in a particular set reduces the specialness of that set? If we cannot agree on this basic logic there really isn’t any point to any further discussion. A better analogy for your stance might be: _Your country club only allows WASPs, if they start letting in Jews and Catholics, what’s the fucking point of joining?_ Isn’t that a little closer to what you’re arguing. Because you don’t want people you think are less than you to be allowed into your club? Also, wouldn’t, by your absurd standards, marriage be made more special, if you outlawed interracial marriages and marriages for the blind and elderly? Think how special it would be then! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/165 "2012-01-16T19:24:49Z")
To me, a much more reasonable analogy would be: Say that the HoF only allows in right-handed players. One day they decide actually left-handed players can be just as good at baseball as right-handed players. Hey, how about we let them into the Hall, too! And then they do, and left-handed kids grow up thinking that they can be respected enough to get into the Hall and don’t feel that just because they are a minority of the population that they don’t deserve recognition. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/166 "2012-01-16T19:25:56Z")
Two proposals, **magellan** , to compare to your position. BOth of these would do a better job of preserving marriage as an institution of family, IMO: 1. An adult may apply for a maximum of one marriage license every ten years. This would serve to cut down on frivolous marriages. 2. The marriage of a couple who is not legally responsible for caring for a child within five years of the wedding, through birth or adoption, is declared null and void. Would you be willing to give a higher priority to both (or either) of these proposals than you do to resisting same-sex marriage? If not, why not? I think they target your claimed objections much more closely than does an objection to same-sex marriage. (edit: FWIW, I think they’re both lousy proposals–but that’s because I think **magellan’s** proposed aims for marriage are pretty lousy). ---
**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 16, 2012, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/167 "2012-01-16T19:26:59Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > To me, a much more reasonable analogy would be: Say that the HoF only allows in right-handed players. One day they decide actually left-handed players can be just as good at baseball as right-handed players. Hey, how about we let them into the Hall, too! And then they do, and left-handed kids grow up thinking that they can be respected enough to get into the Hall and don’t feel that just because they are a minority of the population that they don’t deserve recognition. Here’s an even better analogy: Suppose the HoF only lets in heterosexual baseball players. Then one day they realize that homosexual baseball players can be just as good as heterosexual baseball players! ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/168 "2012-01-16T19:28:46Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > A better analogy for your stance might be: > > _Your country club only allows WASPs, if they start letting in Jews and Catholics, what’s the fucking point of joining?_ Well, you wouldn’t be able to celebrate Lent with Holy Ham Fridays! That’s no way to go through life. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/169 "2012-01-16T19:35:35Z")
Holy Ham Fridays? Is that actually a thing? Some kind of Protestant pride thing? (Of course, Hispanic Catholics can eat ham on Fridays, so, um…) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/170 "2012-01-16T19:42:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t have much time right now, but this one really isn’t that difficult. A simple analogy: > > Scenario A: Every baseball player who holds a starting position on a pro team is inducted into The Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. > > Scenario B: As it is today, only a very small number of players are inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. > > Which Hall of Fame scenario do you thing is more meaningful? More “special”? > > So, do you now see how expanding the definition of who is included in a particular set reduces the specialness of that set? If we cannot agree on this basic logic there really isn’t any point to any further discussion. I really hope you can come up with a better analogy when you return. (Actually, I would hope that you could actually come up with an explanation that does not sound like Lobohan’s country club explanation.) By the rules that you apparently prefer, everyone in the entire world can already get married. Your “solution” merely prevents a tiny minority from marrying each other. What is “special” about an act in which everyone can already engage, (provided they choose a partner from among the overwhelming majority of people instead of the tiny minority who actually appeal to them)? ---
**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 16, 2012, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/171 "2012-01-16T20:11:04Z")
Ha, magellan01 will talk to everybody except me. Another pointless arbitrary decision. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/172 "2012-01-16T20:54:53Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > As bad analogies go, that’s a huge stinker! You are asking too much of the analogy. It was offered to make _one_ point, i.e., that the more inclusive you make an identified set the less unique/special that set becomes. That’s it. I intentionally made it simplistic, trying to abstract one particular point. This analogy goes to the specialness of sets generally, but it seems that people are too emotional to be able to focus on the one (sub)point being made. One should be able to agree with my analogy on a particular and not think that that agreement in any way indicates agreement with my position on the issue of SSM. I can’t tell you how shocked I am. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/173 "2012-01-16T21:12:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You are asking too much of the analogy. It was offered to make _one_ point, i.e., that the more inclusive you make an identified set the less unique/special that set becomes. That’s it. I intentionally made it simplistic, trying to abstract one particular point. Okay, but as I said, it still fails, because marriage, unlike membership in the Hall of Fame, doesn’t derive its value from its scarcity (what you seem to be calling “special”). That single point you’re trying to extract is therefore irrelevant to the case at hand. Your analogy works better under similar circumstances–say, right to eat at a restaurant. Sure, when only white people could eat at a restaurant, the set of people eating at a restaurant was more “special” in the sense you’re using the word “special”–but the food wasn’t any better. So I guess we need to alter the question. Why is marriage less “special”–_in any relevant sense_–if gay people can do 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:** [January 16, 2012, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/174 "2012-01-16T21:19:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s it. I intentionally made it simplistic, trying to abstract one particular point. Well, feel free to make the next analogy complicated. We can take it. > [@](#): > > This analogy goes to the specialness of sets generally, but it seems that people are too emotional to be able to focus on the one (sub)point being made. One should be able to agree with my analogy on a particular and not think that that agreement in any way indicates agreement with my position on the issue of SSM. But marriage isn’t special, at least in the way you’re implying. The “specialness” you’re describing can be felt by a homosexual couple as strongly as a heterosexual one (and even then, there are hetero couples who get married capriciously or for economic advantage), so you’re asking us to have regard for a quality of specialness that is so hopelessly ethereal that it can’t even be _defined_, let alone its quantity measured to see if gay marriage will cause a decrease. By your argument, _any couple on Earth_ could declare that their marriage is so incredibly awesomely special that any other marriage allowed to exist corrodes that specialness. Is it true? Can they prove it? Can anyone prove to them that it’s _not_ true? It’s unfalsifiable, is it not? Is an unfalsifiable concept a good basis for law? Are Canadian hetero marriages less special now than they were before 2005? If so, could you be so kind as to explain how, and what effects, if any, this loss of specialness will cause? Anyone can feel free to quote or rephrase this for magellen’s benefit on my behalf, with or without attribution. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/175 "2012-01-16T21:32:37Z")
**magellan** , do you agree that you could equally, if not better, have answered **Lobohan’s** question as follows: > [@hypothetical magellan](#): > > Scenario A: Every person who wants to play baseball may buy a bat and play, as long as he or she can find a willing team. > > Scenario B: Only a very small number of players are allowed to play baseball. > > Which baseball scenario do you think is more meaningful? More “special”? > > So, do you now see how expanding the definition of who is included in a particular set reduces the specialness of that set? If we cannot agree on this basic logic there really isn’t any point to any further discussion. ---
**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 16, 2012, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/176 "2012-01-16T21:44:50Z")
I guess this boils down to: PENIS IN VAGINA = SPECIAL NOT (PENIS IN VAGINA) = NOT SPECIAL There. Logic 101. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/177 "2012-01-16T22:06:13Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I guess this boils down to: > > PENIS IN VAGINA = SPECIAL > > NOT (PENIS IN VAGINA) = NOT SPECIAL > There. Logic 101. To be fair, that’s not at all what he’s saying. He’s saying “PENIS IN VAGINA=SPECIAL; PENIS IN VAGINA ALONGSIDE EVERYTHING ELSE=NOT SPECIAL”. According to his definition of “special,” he’s right–it’s just a meaningless and irrelevant definition of special. ---
**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 16, 2012, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/178 "2012-01-16T22:08:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You are asking too much of the analogy. It was offered to make _one_ point, i.e., that the more inclusive you make an identified set the less unique/special that set becomes. That’s it. I intentionally made it simplistic, trying to abstract one particular point. So, as was mentioned earlier, the “specialness” of marriage was damaged when anti-miscegenation laws were eliminated. Right? If that’s the case, then “special” is not a desirable attribute. ---
**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 16, 2012, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/179 "2012-01-16T22:10:02Z")
Ah. Obviously there was a PENIS IN VAGINA nuance I was overlooking. Allow me to revise. PENIS IN VAGINA = SPECIAL (ANYTHING ELSE IN EXISTENCE AT THE SAME TIME AS PENIS IN VAGINA) -\> PENIS IN VAGINA = LESS SPECIAL ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2012, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411/180 "2012-01-17T03:18:51Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > How exceedingly odd. I think that gay couples should be able to visit each other in the hospital, have the same inheritance rights as married couples, serve in the military, have their partners covered on their insurance, adopt children, etc., etc., etc., and that’s vile? Oh, no, wait—it’s not vile until I also include into the equation the important role the traditional family has played in our culture and want to protect it. Is that right? If I have two things that I view as important and see a way top have both of them, but you value only one of them, _that’s_ what make it vile. Is that about right, Mr. Condescending? Yes. Equality of all people under the law is both a universal human right and a bedrock Constitutional principle in the United States. To oppose it is morally unacceptable and reflects on your character. This is not a debatable issue. (To oppose equality using an insane analogy about baseball is not necessarily worse than opposing it for any other reason, but it still a failing on your part). Here’s an analogy for you: we don’t determine whether people are racist by listing all the racist beliefs they _don’t_ have. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-thread-on-gay-marriage-spinoff-from-abortion-thread/609411.md?page=10)