10 Reasons to Keep Gay Marriage Illegal...

[Cryozombie]

This is written in a humourous fashion, but its hard to argue with.

10 reasons to ban gay marriage

Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behaviour. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

 

[Cryozombie]

I think, in its clever fashion, it does a good job breaking down the arguments we have against Gay marriage... Why are we, as a society, so hung up on not allowing these types of marriages?

 

[arnisador]

Nice list! I think the answer is hidden in this one:

"Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall."

This is true, but many people refuse to accept that there is a large biological component to homosexuality. They think it's a "lifestyle" one chooses. Until people accept the science, it'll be an uphill battle...and looking at the Intelligent Design movement's successes, I ain't optimistic about science's chances.

Why people who demand antibiotics rather than faith healing still refuse to accept modern biology in other contexts, I don't know.

 

[arnisador]

Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

I've actually heard this argument made--it was broadcast on CSPAN, many years ago, in the context of anti-abortion activism. The speaker stated that the U.S. needs more children to pay for the Social Security of those over 65, so older folks should be anti-abortion. This quote is not so extreme, then, that someone wouldn't say it. The writer will have to work harder to make it parody!

Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

If gay marriage is legalized...well, it's just a short hop from there to women gaining the right to vote. And think of the trouble that could cause!

 

[Kenpodoc]

Good list. Personally I'm always amazed at the number of people so unsure of their own sexuality that they feel legal gay marriage might change their orientation.

jeff

 

[mrhnau]

Good list. Personally I'm always amazed at the number of people so unsure of their own sexuality that they feel legal gay marriage might change their orientation.

jeff

Do you honestly believe thats the only reason people don't want to legalize gay marriage?

MrH

 

[MisterMike]

The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words.
If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words. George Orwell made this clear in his novel 1984. But another way to control the minds of people is to control their perceptions. If you can get them to see the world as you do, they will think as you do. Comprehension follows perception.

99.9999% of the time through history, Marriage has been a union between a man and a woman, whether arranged by the government or a religion.

The push for gay marriage has been one made for several reasons, in the U.S., so that a "couple" may have the same tax, visitation, health benefits, as those couples who are designated as "Married" by the State.

I also think it is to change perception. This is what our kids will grow up to see. Online dictionaries now have modified definitions for marriage to include same sex couples. Depends whether you follow a religious definition of Marriage, or a State code just how much it bothers you. In a country where there is seperation of church and state, how could the state possibly interpret marriage the same way as the various religions. I think "gay marriage" is simply a misuse of the term, an oxymoron, or the beginnings of trying to change the definition.

If your religion does not support this view, while it is being pushed as acceptable, there-in lies the conflict.

 

[arnisador]

Many people have sincere and deep religious beliefes about this. I respect that...but not the point of view that they should be imposed on the country as a whole.

Some people see it as a simple matter of a definition, and suggest an equivalent 'civil union' for homosexuals. But the outbreaks of gay marriages across the country (S.F., etc.) has convinced me that separate-but-equal still doesn't work.

Many people just aren't ready for the idea. That's human nature. But to me, it's a civil rights issue. Look at what happened when they tried to integrate schools, the military, baseball...I see a similar struggle here, but without a clear national leader and spokesperson for gay rights.

 

[michaeledward]

The only legitimate test going on in this country, right now, is in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Approximately 18 months ago, 'Gay Marriage' became state law.

1 year ago, the State legislature had a resolution to revoke the law ... and the vote was pretty even.

1 month ago, the State legislature had a resolution to revoke the law ... and the vote was no longer even. Banning Gay Marriage has lost a good percentage of the supporters.

It seems that having Gay Neighbors get married has not affected any of the straight couples in the Commonwealth. It's just not that big of a deal.

Anti - Gay - Marriage : Full of Sound and Fury signifying Nothing.

 

[mrhnau]

Many people have sincere and deep religious beliefes about this. I respect that...but not the point of view that they should be imposed on the country as a whole.

Are we still a democratic republic? There is a process for changing laws. If it ever does happen, then thats the law of the land. Having rogue mayors endorsing marriages is not the way to get things done. There is a process. What would you say if a large portion of the population dislikes the idea of gay marriages? Every vote during the past elecetions have defeated the legalization of gay marriages. If you really want it legal, get out there and try to change things. Others opposing gay marriages are doing the same thing.

Some people see it as a simple matter of a definition, and suggest an equivalent 'civil union' for homosexuals. But the outbreaks of gay marriages across the country (S.F., etc.) has convinced me that separate-but-equal still doesn't work.

how about polygamy outbreaks in Utah? Some other popular locations in the past have had problems with polygamy too. Care to endorse them? Perhaps its a global problem? Through out various sections of the world, there are child marriages. Should we endorse them? They are in isolated territories (sub-saharan africa, some latin american countries). Should we allow that here because its done somewhere else? Where do we draw the morality line? There is no least common factor, otherwise we would not have child molestors, rapists, ect..

Many people just aren't ready for the idea. That's human nature. But to me, it's a civil rights issue. Look at what happened when they tried to integrate schools, the military, baseball...I see a similar struggle here, but without a clear national leader and spokesperson for gay rights.

If its a civil rights issue to you, thats fine. Many people see it as a morality issue. Just because someone is "struggling" does not mandate it as a just cause.

MrH

 

[mrhnau]

The only legitimate test going on in this country, right now, is in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Approximately 18 months ago, 'Gay Marriage' became state law.

1 year ago, the State legislature had a resolution to revoke the law ... and the vote was pretty even.

1 month ago, the State legislature had a resolution to revoke the law ... and the vote was no longer even. Banning Gay Marriage has lost a good percentage of the supporters.

It seems that having Gay Neighbors get married has not affected any of the straight couples in the Commonwealth. It's just not that big of a deal.

Anti - Gay - Marriage : Full of Sound and Fury signifying Nothing.

Having one state endorse gay marriage is going to be tricky.. Lets say you are from California, and you take a trip to MA so you can get married. Should your companies and state taxes reflect that you are married even though its not accepted in your state? Should companies be forced to have health insurance for the "spouse"? I forsee alot of court cases heading for hte Supreme Court over this kind of thing. I personally know some businesses that would drop health insurance for everyone over this issue. That going to become illegal?

A similar issue.. many large corperations are international or at least inter-state. going to cover marriages from people who are transfered out of MA? Going to just go ahead and cover everyone, regardless of where they are?

 

[Kenpodoc]

Do you honestly believe thats the only reason people don't want to legalize gay marriage?

MrH

Here in Ohio that was the general gist of the campaign against gay marriage. I don't really believe that it was the only reason. They suggested that legalizing gay marriage would cause a rush of childless marriages secondary to same sex couples who otherwise would have married people of the opposite sex. I doubt that this would have happened and it is my experience that when closeted gays marry straight partners both people are generally unhappy. I still believe we should stay out of other peoples bed room and that both sides need to respect the others right to disagree.

Jeff

 

[7starmantis]

Here in Ohio that was the general gist of the campaign against gay marriage. I don't really believe that it was the only reason. They suggested that legalizing gay marriage would cause a rush of childless marriages secondary to same sex couples who otherwise would have married people of the opposite sex. I doubt that this would have happened and it is my experience that when closeted gays marry straight partners both people are generally unhappy. I still believe we should stay out of other peoples bed room and that both sides need to respect the others right to disagree.

Jeff

I dont really have a strong opinion on this issue, but there is more to it than what goes on in the bedroom. The state has no business in our bedrooms, but marriage does not take place in the bedroom. I dont get tax breaks in my bedroom.

7sm

 

[arnisador]

Having one state endorse gay marriage is going to be tricky.. Lets say you are from California, and you take a trip to MA so you can get married. Should your companies and state taxes reflect that you are married even though its not accepted in your state? Should companies be forced to have health insurance for the "spouse"?

That's the law--states are required to honor other states' actions in this respect. It's in the Constitution! That's why even though I got married in NY, I am also married in Indiana where I now live...and why I can drive in NM on my Indiana driver's license. So, this is well settled...though I know some states are hoping to get around it on the gay marriage issue somehow.

Marriage is already state-regulated, remember...one gets a license from the state in which one gets married, not from Uncle Sam.

 

[arnisador]

Are we still a democratic republic? There is a process for changing laws. If it ever does happen, then thats the law of the land. Having rogue mayors endorsing marriages is not the way to get things done.

You know, I agree...yet, I view it as a form of civil protest, and I respect the sentiment behind it. I know some who issued those licenses were censured (e.g., in NY) and I support the rule of law here...but it still makes a statement to me that this is a movement whose time has come.

Surely civil disobedience has a reputable history?

There is a process. What would you say if a large portion of the population dislikes the idea of gay marriages?

I'd say "Majority rule, minority rights" and to my mind this is a clear case of minority rights. There are too many government-sanctioned benefits of marriage to disallow it to certain individuals based on sexual orientation.

Through out various sections of the world, there are child marriages. Should we endorse them?

This seems wholly unrelated to the topic at hand, and intentionally inflammatory. (The "marry my dog" issue from the parody.) We're talking about adults of the same sex having rights to marriage and the state-sanctioned benefits it confers.

Where do we draw the morality line? There is no least common factor, otherwise we would not have child molestors, rapists, ect..

Way, way off the point, and inflammatory. Legalizing gay marriage will not cause anyone to be raped.

As to morality...in a multicultural society like the U.S., whose morality do we use? Each state's? That thinking led us to the Civil War. The majority's only? Not everything that most people believe is right.

How do you justify denying tax benefits to same-sex partners when they are extended to opposite-sex partners? It seems unconstiutional to me.

If its a civil rights issue to you, thats fine. Many people see it as a morality issue. Just because someone is "struggling" does not mandate it as a just cause.

I agree. I'm not offended if someone disagrees with me on this. But to me, it's not much different from women's suffrage (many of your arguments above were used, or ones isomorphic to them) or the civil rights struggles of the 60s. If you disagree, that's fine. We agree that it ultimately has to be settled in the legislature and/or courts, I think.

 

[mrhnau]

That's the law--states are required to honor other states' actions in this respect. It's in the Constitution! That's why even though I got married in NY, I am also married in Indiana where I now live...and why I can drive in NM on my Indiana driver's license. So, this is well settled...though I know some states are hoping to get around it on the gay marriage issue somehow.

Marriage is already state-regulated, remember...one gets a license from the state in which one gets married, not from Uncle Sam.

Quite right! However, the definition of what marriage is is in question. Having some definition thats acknowledged from state to state would clarify things. Its not a question among states that a man can marry a woman, so thats a non-issue. The differences between states among heterosexual marriages are minor in comparison (blood tests, things of that nature), so acknowledging a marriage done in NY in NM should not be a serious issue. I'd be interested to see it play out in court. you might be quite right... then the question becomes, why doesn't every gay couple spend their vacation in MA and get married. No other state needs to change its laws then. only slightly joking on that one...

 

[mrhnau]

You know, I agree...yet, I view it as a form of civil protest, and I respect the sentiment behind it. I know some who issued those licenses were censured (e.g., in NY) and I support the rule of law here...but it still makes a statement to me that this is a movement whose time has come.

Surely civil disobedience has a reputable history?

Civil disobedience implies a movements time has come?

Civil disobedience has played an important role in the past. I'll agree with that. Then again, I'll state as I stated before, that "struggling" or engaging in civil disobedience does not make something a cause worthwhile. Simply means that a decent number of people are supporting the cause and are passionate about it.

This seems wholly unrelated to the topic at hand, and intentionally inflammatory. (The "marry my dog" issue from the parody.) We're talking about adults of the same sex having rights to marriage and the state-sanctioned benefits it confers.

Not meant to be inflammatory. These issues are not ones we are currently dealing with in this country (at least no to a notable degree). Polygamy we have dealt with in the past however, and that has to do with consenting adults. Your original comment was:

Some people see it as a simple matter of a definition, and suggest an equivalent 'civil union' for homosexuals. But the outbreaks of gay marriages across the country (S.F., etc.) has convinced me that separate-but-equal still doesn't work.

My point is that we can't base the validity of a cause or an issue based on its occurance in certain locations. I'm trying to draw an analogy of things that have happened in the past. If polygamy were to make a come back and lots of marriages take place in Salt Lake City, or Montana makes it legal, would this make it a just cause? Do we adust out national sense of morality based on this?

Way, way off the point, and inflammatory. Legalizing gay marriage will not cause anyone to be raped.

Absolutely not my point. My point is that people have different views of morality. Some people morally do not like gay marriage. Some people do. Some people have no moral problem with polygamy. Some people have no moral problem with rape. I in no way drew the conclusion that legalizing gay marriage would cause more rape. Reread this:

Where do we draw the morality line? There is no least common factor, otherwise we would not have child molestors, rapists, ect..

I'm stating that if we want to have some element of morality in our law, we can not use the lowest common factor, which would be child molestors and rapist. I'm asking where do we draw that line. No flaming intended, its an honest question. I think we do that through the legal process.

As to morality...in a multicultural society like the U.S., whose morality do we use? Each state's? That thinking led us to the Civil War. The majority's only? Not everything that most people believe is right.

How do you justify denying tax benefits to same-sex partners when they are extended to opposite-sex partners? It seems unconstiutional to me.

Which morality? We are a democratic republic, let the legal process work its magic. If people have problems, let their voices be heard. I have a feeling the time will come when it will become legalized. If so, then let it. People will remain who will protest against it after the fact. Let them engage in the same democratic process.

as for tax benefits, I've got more problems with the tax system than this, but thats another issue. Don't know what the constitution has to say about this though. Think the laws could be altered to accept a civil union instead of a marriage?

If you disagree, that's fine. We agree that it ultimately has to be settled in the legislature and/or courts, I think.

I hope so... I forsee it will become legalized in the future. As my dad is fond of saying, "The world can change, but does not mean I have to change with it."

MrH

 

[Xequat]

In mrhnau's defense, I don't find those arguments inflammatory in the least. Probably the best, and possibly the only good, logical argument against gay marriage that I've heard is that it would discriminate against bisexuals, pedophiles, people who like animals, etc. The reason is discriminates against bisexuals, for example, is that if we are supposed to marry one person from the opposite gender, but we make the change based solely upon a sexual preference, then we have to make a change based on all sexual preferences; therefore, a bisexual should be able to marry a man and a woman. That could be the next step. The next step could be that I might like redheads and brunettes, therefore I should be able to marry one of each. The step after that could be that someone lives on a horse ranch and claims to be in love with his horse, then I guess he could get health insurance for his horse. At least that's how I understnad the argument, and although I don't completely agree with it, I can see some merit in it. My solution to that would simply be to rewrite the law defining marraige as a union between two consenting human adults who are not blood-related, blah blah blah. But I think that it's become too simple an issue...it's not only whether gays should have the privilege or not.


I really like this thread because I think I've gone from absolutely not caring in the least to supporting gay marriage. One of the major problems that the gay community has been criticized for is the lack of monogamy. I think this would help because without the ability to make a commitment like marriage, the commitment is not as easily made in people's minds.

 

[Kenpodoc]

I dont really have a strong opinion on this issue, but there is more to it than what goes on in the bedroom. The state has no business in our bedrooms, but marriage does not take place in the bedroom. I dont get tax breaks in my bedroom.

7sm

True but marriage benefits are more general. In healthcare a married partner has more rights to intervene on behalf of their partner. Marriage also provides the rightof divorce and the protections inherant in that right. Society as a whole benefits from long term partnerships and the economic stability they provide. I doubt that the chromosomal makeup of the partnership is a significant factor in the economic benefits as a whole.

Religious opinions are a different story, but although the same word is used and they are related entities the religious use of the word married differs from the state sponsored legal version of the word. Until the day she died my Mother-in-law did not believe my wife and I were married. We stood upin Meeting, gave our marriage vows and signed a 24 by 36 inch document witnessed by everyone present. But no Minister was present so in her mind we were not married. So it goes.

As to marriage not taking place in the bedroom, that's true but unfortunately that is likely where most of the objections to gay marriage derive.

Jeff

 

[Cryozombie]

for example, is that if we are supposed to marry one person from the opposite gender, but we make the change based solely upon a sexual preference, then we have to make a change based on all sexual preferences; therefore, a bisexual should be able to marry a man and a woman. That could be the next step.

Actually... I dont think it should give you the right to marry one of each... but rather a choice between the two.

I mean... using a similar analogy to yours, I like Asian women and redheads, but since I cant find a red-headed asian woman, I need to choose between the two I dont get one of each.

Now. If only I could find one of either that actually liked ME... :waah: