Why marriage equality should be opposed

[Tamhansen]

[Grakor]

I've read this before, but it always brings a smile to my face every time I see it.

[Vanity Evolved]

What Graktor says. I'm quite keen on the 'unnatural', 'being tall' and 'gay parents = gay children' arguements. Can't help but giggle each time.

[Tamhansen]

personally I've always liked the straight marriages will be less meaningful argument.

A year from now. (october 1st 2013) the first gay marriages ever will reach 12,5 years. A big marker. Divorce rate in gay marriage so far is about 11% to a national average of 35%

[Hemingway]

I like a lot of those, but number one seems like it could've been different. As it stands, it looks like a tacit admission that homosexuality is unnatural.

Which it isn't.

At least if "natural" means something like "occuring in nature". Of course the people opposed to gay marriage on grounds that it's "unnatural" will never accept that solid, concrete evidence as, well, evidence, but still.

[Stattick]

The image won't load for me. All I see for the original post is a blank post. I can't even it to work by putting the image's URL directly into the location bar.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The image won't load for me. All I see for the original post is a blank post. I can't even it to work by putting the image's URL directly into the location bar.

This would be part of why Vekseid encourages people not to simply post a link or picture without any context or writings.

[Tamhansen]

The image won't load for me. All I see for the original post is a blank post. I can't even it to work by putting the image's URL directly into the location bar.

I'm sorry I checked it myself on various system configurations, without issue. I'll try to find an alternative for you

[Oniya]

Text-only version:

10 Reasons to oppose Marriage Equality

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

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

3. 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 a legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around for a long time and hasn't changed as all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful is gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' would be destroyed.

6. The only valid marriages are those which 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.

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

8. 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.

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

10. 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.

[Caela]

Oniya, thanks for the text only version! I needed a laugh today! :D

I have yet to hear any argument for why two consenting adults, of any gender configuration, can't sign a legal contract and enjoy all the rights and privileges that contract confers.

[Vanity Evolved]

Oniya, thanks for the text only version! I needed a laugh today! :D

I have yet to hear any argument for why two consenting adults, of any gender configuration, can't sign a legal contract and enjoy all the rights and privileges that contract confers.

Because there is none which hold up as a secular arguement against it. :3 My opinion has always been the same as Peter Griffin's.

"If gays want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, I say let 'em."

[Oniya]

I think I heard George Carlin use that line as well.

[Shjade]

#9 seems like the shakiest one on the list.

No, single parents aren't expressly forbidden to raise children, but doesn't pretty much anything to do with parenting and child development suggest a single parent household is generally worse for the kid(s) than a two-parent household? Not sure it's so helpful to draw that particular comparison.

[Vanity Evolved]

I think I heard George Carlin use that line as well.

Quite possibly! I don't think I've heard much, if any of his work, however. :3 So, I can't confirm nor deny~

[Caela]

#9 seems like the shakiest one on the list.

No, single parents aren't expressly forbidden to raise children, but doesn't pretty much anything to do with parenting and child development suggest a single parent household is generally worse for the kid(s) than a two-parent household? Not sure it's so helpful to draw that particular comparison.

A lot of things say that a single parent household is worse for kids, unfortunately there are a lot of variables to cover in that and I don't think any study can really cover them all. Single parents (especially those who don't get the support owed them by the other parent) are more likely to have money problems, have more stress in their household, have less overall time to spend with their child etc. I'd have to do some looking to find it, but I think I recall reading somewhere (could be faulty memory here) that children of widowed single parents don't fare as badly as children of "broken homes".

I think a lot of the problem though is that single parents don't have the support they need to help raise a child. No one is Superman or Wonder Woman and no one person and really be everything for a child. I'm a single mom myself and beyond grateful, every day, that my folks live less than 2 miles away and that one of my brother only lives a couple blocks away (he used to live with us). I don't know that it necessarily take a village to raise a child, but I do think it's easier when a whole family is helping to raise them. It gives them love and support they need while reinforcing behavioral lessons as well as long as you can keep folks on, mostly, the same page.

/end hijack

[Skynet]

Urg, I saw a YouTube video making these same points for humor, but I can't find it!  Otherwise I would've posted it here!

[Oniya]

Quite possibly! I don't think I've heard much, if any of his work, however. :3 So, I can't confirm nor deny~

Gah!  Get thee to YouTube!  (No, seriously, you'd probably like his stuff.)

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I have seen some secular arguments before in regard to prohibiting gay marriage.  They are interesting and thought provoking.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I've seen this list before but this is the first time I've ever seen it taken seriously.  Sarcasm has been the main point when it's printed or quoted unless some forum or site thinks it's for real and those are usually radical or fundamentalist in their leanings.

Years ago during a discussion of "civil unions" or "partnership agreements" for cohabiting couples I hear a remark along the lines of not letting homosexuals have this benefit because if we do the next thing you know is they'll want to get married.  I've seen too many people suffer because their relationship couldn't be formalized in some way and this is true for same sex and intersex couples.

[Ironwolf85]

well that made me have to clean my desk, aftder soda shot out my nose.

[Vanity Evolved]

I have seen some secular arguments before in regard to prohibiting gay marriage.  They are interesting and thought provoking.

I'd love to know what those secular arguements are against it.

Edit: ^Legitimate secular arguements against it. ;)

Gah!  Get thee to YouTube!  (No, seriously, you'd probably like his stuff.)

Perhaps I should!

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Most of them deal with the one thing gay couples cannot do which is create children.  I have seen a couple pursue lines of thinking along the functionalist argument regarding the determent of the social institution of marriage.  A sort of argument regarding the exact nature of state sponsored marriage and the benefit the state and thus society can draw from the contractual obligation.

[Vanity Evolved]

Most of them deal with the one thing gay couples cannot do which is create children.  I have seen a couple pursue lines of thinking along the functionalist argument regarding the determent of the social institution of marriage.  A sort of argument regarding the exact nature of state sponsored marriage and the benefit the state and thus society can draw from the contractual obligation.

I'd hardly call that legitimate. Does this mean that the State needs to revoke the marriage status of barren women or infertile men because their marriage 'isn't useful to the State'? I'd be glad to see more marriaged homosexual couples, if only for the fact that it means more opportunities for children in care to find new homes.

[Sixties Throwback]

I saw this...and was about to get ANGRY!!!

Made me smile. =D

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Not sure what your definition of legitimate is to be honest.  The amount of barren heterosexual couples is vastly smaller than barren homosexual couples.  I believe the WHO puts the number at around 3-7% worldwide.  So using the barren argument doesn’t work much since the probability of a heterosexual couple being infertile is so low.  The state would obviously be smarter investing in heterosexual couples if the interest is child procreation.  Adoption is also an option already in most states for a single gay person, so adoption isn’t a real good argument either for gay marriage.  Plus adoption by a gay person and gay marriage are two separate issues.

[Vanity Evolved]

They are two seperate issues.

My point is that what that arguement is about isn't targetted at why homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed - it's arguing that people who are unable to procreate should not be allowed to marry, which doesn't just include homosexuals. If that is the stance, then why arn't people trying to revoke the marriage of couples who can't have children, yet are heterosexual?

It also brings up a lot of other questions. Would that opinion extend to people who can have children, but choose not to? Does this mean that for a marriage to be valid and wanted, the State mandates they must have children for their marriage to be of worth to the State? Is a marriage viable if the potential for fertility is there? If so, do we allow lesbians to marry as they can recieve IVF or, in other cases, even actually have sex with someone so they can have a child to be brought up by their partner? Does this count subfertility routes to children, such as a gay couple persuing surrogacy?

It's an arguement that raises a lot more questions than it answers. It also doesn't address why homosexuals shouldn't be married. It argues that marriage is a union which requires the potential to procreate for it to be valid, unless you're heterosexual, then you can be married and not reproduce and you're able to remain married while not intending to have children.

[Serephino]

All heterosexual women who are post-menopausal are barren.  Should this mean that if said women shouldn't be allowed to get married?  I guess my mom is screwed, not that she wants to re-marry anyway...  No, the fact that homosexual couples can't produce children is not a valid argument.  Children shouldn't even be part of it since there are married couples who choose not to have children, and lots of single people with children. 

[Stattick]

I can't think of a single reason to oppose gay marriage that isn't based in bigotry.

[Sabby]

I can't think of a single reason to oppose gay marriage that isn't based in bigotry.

Glad someone else finally said that.

[TheGlyphstone]

I can't think of a single reason to oppose gay marriage that isn't based in bigotry.

If you also oppose straight marriage, maybe? I dunno, maybe there's a sect of extremist polyamorists out there somewhere who oppose legal unions of any kind? ;D

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well the argument is valid because the argument applies to the purpose of state sponsored unions.  The argument is a secular one and is legitimate.  Is the argument a good one?  Maybe, because it is true that the state should remain out of the “love” business and look more toward the welfare of the people.  Is the argument a strong one?  Not that I have seen thus far due to a serious lack of supporting evidence.

But the arguments are there so people can be happy some critical thinking went into them.  Though I do contend that the blocks on gay rights have more to do with culture than religion.  A poll done on the opinion of whether homosexual marriages should be legally sanctioned found the common determining factor to be age, not religion.  So as the culture changes and the new generation comes forward, support for marriage equality will grow as we are seeing now.

[TaintedAndDelish]

In Catholicism, straight sex between a man and a woman (married or not) is considered a sin if they do it for any reason other than producing a child. Therefore, we shouldn't be too surprised that they refuse to accept homosexuality as anything other than a sin. For shits and giggles, I skimmed though this page for a refresher on their *logical* views on sexuality.

From the vatican's website:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

And lastly, they added this little summary as a reminder for us... which conveniently omits the act of pedophilia by horny catholic priests who have no legitimate form of sexual release.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

[Oniya]

Unitive.  What does that even mean?

*checks*

Serving to unite; tending to promote unity.

Well, there you go.  The Catholic church has said that it's okay if you have sex if it brings you closer together as a couple.

J'adore langue.

[Lux12]

This is simply hilarious.I wouldn't be surprised if this was actually taken from some fundamentalist website.

[Oniya]

Nope.  Written as pure satire.  The point of it being that we've already 'accepted', 'adapted', or otherwise gone along with all of these other changes that share (by some standard) a characteristic that has been used as a reason not to allow gay marriage, from eyeglasses, to allowing divorce, to single-parent households.

[Lux12]

Nope.  Written as pure satire.  The point of it being that we've already 'accepted', 'adapted', or otherwise gone along with all of these other changes that share (by some standard) a characteristic that has been used as a reason not to allow gay marriage, from eyeglasses, to allowing divorce, to single-parent households.

Sadly true.They once used equally ridiculous arguments when trying to convince people that those who are left handed are left handed centuries ago.Thank the divine we're past that at least. Things are changing though and I have a sense of confidence that a greater measure of equality for those of the lgbt demographic shall see many great strides in their crusade for greater equality in all spheres.

[Tamhansen]

So wait? We're dealing with major overpopulation, worldwide food shortages, orphanages with wall to wall kids, and octomom, and you're argument is don't let gays get married because they won't reproduce? Hell if that's the defining difference I'd say we better ban straight marriages.

[Lux12]

So wait? We're dealing with major overpopulation, worldwide food shortages, orphanages with wall to wall kids, and octomom, and you're argument is don't let gays get married because they won't reproduce? Hell if that's the defining difference I'd say we better ban straight marriages.

Who are you talking to?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I assume me.

[Vanity Evolved]

So wait? We're dealing with major overpopulation, worldwide food shortages, orphanages with wall to wall kids, and octomom, and you're argument is don't let gays get married because they won't reproduce? Hell if that's the defining difference I'd say we better ban straight marriages.

This.

I also only just noticed, but 'gays can't have kids' is actually already on the parody list.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Doesn't mean the point is a bad one. 

[Vanity Evolved]

It's in a list where people are teasing poor and out-right wrong reasons for opposing gay marriage... That is somewhat telling about it's content. Especially as you didn't address any of the points brought up by the list itself on why 'Gays can't marry because they can't have kids, but barren women can', or any of my points on the topic and simply said 'Well, it's still valid'.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Because I have no vested interest in that point of view and no desire to get that deep into a devil's advocate standpoint. 

[Vanity Evolved]

Well... Generally, if you're presenting something as a valid point, you'd be able to argue why it is. Not just "Well, I put it there, but I can't really be asked to defend it and I don't agree with it myself so... meh."

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Not really interested in your attempts to pick a fight Vanity. 

[Vanity Evolved]

Not trying to pick a fight. ._. Just sayin'.

[Vekseid]

It's perfectly addressable, and if you want to address it you should do so.

Namely, that if government recognition of marriage is supposed to be for supporting children, it should instead focus on supporting pregnant mothers and child-rearing. Neither of which requires a heterosexual arrangement.

[Sabby]

Your such a bully Vanity. Expecting people to back up their arguments. Meany.

[Vekseid]

Enough with the content-free, sniping one-liners, please.

[Sabby]

yes sir.

[Vanity Evolved]

It's perfectly addressable, and if you want to address it you should do so.

Namely, that if government recognition of marriage is supposed to be for supporting children, it should instead focus on supporting pregnant mothers and child-rearing. Neither of which requires a heterosexual arrangement.

This.

[NotoriusBEN]

I guess if you had to have a reason to disallow gay marriage its that tax laws make it so the government wouldn't be able to collect as much taxes on a married couple over two individuals.
That is the only reason I can think of and it's pretty petty, but that's government for you.

Like what was said on page 1.
If they want to be as miserable as the rest of the married people out there, let 'em.

[TaintedAndDelish]

That's sexual discrimination.

[Lux12]

I say all marriages should be between two people and a cheese sandwich. :P

In all seriousness though, I swear people are just making up arguments against it just for fun these days. None of them ever have any level of evidence to back them up.

[Skynet]

I say all marriages should be between two people and a cheese sandwich. :P

In all seriousness though, I swear people are just making up arguments against it just for fun these days. None of them ever have any level of evidence to back them up.

I post on a political forums and under the politics sections of other boards (under different usernames, of course).  Unfortunately, there's still a bunch of homophobes out there, and not just the ultra-religious ones; some of them just think that gay male sex is gross, or are worried that gay guys will flirt with/hit on them now that a lot of them are out of the closet.  Interestingly, they don't extend this same fear and hate towards lesbians.

I'm pretty convinced that a lot of hardcore homophobes are very insecure.

[Lux12]

I don't think it's that kind of insecurity to be honest. I think it's social insecurity, unless you're talking about those leaders of ex-gay ministries who are the most closeted s.o.b.s on the planet. Anyway, people have this idea of normalcy, anything that goes against that is disturbing.This is true of anything that upsets what they believe to be the proper order of things. They also resent the perceived special attention these groups are getting without remembering how much privilege they actually have.

Also, many guys, myself included, think girl on girl is hot. Thus lesbians are immune to many forms of homophobia.

I find the idea of two men getting it on far less than pleasing in aesthetic sense, but there are things that are more important than aesthetics such as basic human rights.  So as long as they aren't doing it in front of me I don't care. There's no logical reason to treat them as lesser.

[Oniya]

If the activity on various scan and fanfic sites is any indicator, many girls find guy-on-guy to be pretty hot, too, although they tend to go for written and/or illustrated erotica/smut, rather than live-action.

[Sabby]

If the activity on various scan and fanfic sites is any indicator, many girls find guy-on-guy to be pretty hot, too, although they tend to go for written and/or illustrated erotica/smut, rather than live-action.

That's because yaoi doesn't involve all the nasty, sweaty, jiggly truths of man sex. They probably think buttsecks works every time, even by surprise. Silly. Women :3

[Lux12]

If the activity on various scan and fanfic sites is any indicator, many girls find guy-on-guy to be pretty hot, too, although they tend to go for written and/or illustrated erotica/smut, rather than live-action.

Ah, but the right (as far as an unjust society is concerned) to decide who gets the short end of the stick belongs to the group in power in any given society and those men who hate them are often the power group.

[Oniya]

That's because yaoi doesn't involve all the nasty, sweaty, jiggly truths of man sex. They probably think buttsecks works every time, even by surprise. Silly. Women :3

True enough, but I doubt lesbian sex is quite the same as what they show in the pornos.  ;D

[Lux12]

True enough, but I doubt lesbian sex is quite the same as what they show in the pornos.  ;D

*gags Oniya* Lies! Lies and blasphemy! Ignore the heretic! *whispers* Seriously be careful...There's an inquisition. *looks around in a paranoid fashion*

[Torch]

Also, many guys, myself included, think girl on girl is hot. Thus lesbians are immune to many forms of homophobia.

[TheGlyphstone]

*gags Oniya* Lies! Lies and blasphemy! Ignore the heretic! *whispers* Seriously be careful...There's an inquisition. *looks around in a paranoid fashion*

Nobody expects the Lesbian Inquisition?

[Skynet]

Also, many guys, myself included, think girl on girl is hot. Thus lesbians are immune to many forms of homophobia.

I find the idea of two men getting it on far less than pleasing in aesthetic sense, but there are things that are more important than aesthetics such as basic human rights.  So as long as they aren't doing it in front of me I don't care. There's no logical reason to treat them as lesser.

*Sigh* So many men, thinking with the wrong head.

Not directed at you, just at irrational people.

[Lux12]

Nobody expects the Lesbian Inquisition?

Torch-Those aren't all Lesbian though and the porn does exist so.... I'd still rather look at those two regardless of whether they resemble porn stars or not.

Glyph-No one ever does, but they aren't the only inquisition out there that- *claps a hand over his own mouth* I almost told you too much. You heard nothing! You saw nothing! *looks around again then ducks into hiding*

[Torch]

That's because yaoi doesn't involve all the nasty, sweaty, jiggly truths of man sex. They probably think buttsecks works every time, even by surprise. Silly. Women :3

Some of us women actually prefer watching the nasty, sweaty, Crisco-drenched reality of hot man-on-man sex.

Just sayin'....  ::)

[Sabby]

Wish we got the never-fail anywhere-anal though.