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!

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!

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.