Why Gay marriage is "wrong"

MintoTaikuutta · May 24th 2010, 4:33am

1) Being gay is not natural.

Because real Americans will always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay.

The same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.

People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all.

Also, women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed.

Heaven forbid the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.

So 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) Gay parents will raise gay children.

Because, obviously, 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.

9) 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.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society.

And we could never adapt to new social norms, just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

xyz123456 · May 24th 2010, 7:21am

So much win!

Xtwigg19X · May 24th 2010, 9:20am

Great points! However, 8 seems a tad weak. Seperation of church and state seems stronger imo.

christine-707 · May 24th 2010, 2:17pm

Love It !!

BrightLights · May 24th 2010, 2:24pm

i agree

Hitopopamus · May 24th 2010, 3:03pm

Awesome. I'll remember those for when I need them.

Jarndyce · May 24th 2010, 3:09pm

MintoTaikuutta wrote:

1) Being gay is not natural.

Because real Americans will always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

There is a far better argument against the naturalist anti-gay argument. Gay sex does not only occur between homo sapiens, but between creatures of the same sex in other species of animal. Furthermore it has been occurring probably about as long as heterosexual intercourse has.
This being the case, how is it any more or less unnatural than straight sex?

MintoTaikuutta wrote:

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay.

The same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

That is a fallacious argument. I agree that the original statement is highly questionable, but your counter example is not the same form as the original argument. If you want to show it up as being incorrect you would do better to find a counter example which is equitable. If I could think of one as I write this I would include it.

MintoTaikuutta wrote:

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.

People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

This is an immature argument, written sulking basically. If you wish to combat fear arguments then use rational common sense, don't just lash out like an angry child.

MintoTaikuutta wrote:

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all.

Also, women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

Couldn't have put it better myself, but I don't personally understand how the first argument opposes gay marriage.

MintoTaikuutta wrote:

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed.

Heaven forbid the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

Verbal sulking again. This argument is actually true, if there is a second form of marriage then the previously sole form would be less meaningful. That is not however a good argument against having a second form of marriage.

MintoTaikuutta wrote:

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.

So 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.

Your argument here is strange. If the world is so over populated with children then having gay, infertile and old people using IVF and similar procedures will increase this overpopulation. Perhaps you would support gay marriage, but they should not be able to use these procedures to have their own children? If this is the case, the argument for extending their rights is surely weakened?

MintoTaikuutta wrote:

7) Gay parents will raise gay children.

Because, obviously, straight parents only raise straight children.

Does the original argument say that gay parents raise only gay children? The problem with this original argument would be that it fallaciously begs the question. It presumes that it is a bad thing to have gay children, as it argues against gay marriage because being gay is bad. Circles and circles, but no useful argument.

MintoTaikuutta wrote:

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.

Sarcasm, while humourous, doesn't get us very far. The original argument is of course flawed as you point out. Religion is not law, and nobody is forced to be part of a religion which holds views they disagree with, nor do members have the right to force their beliefs upon others. The exception being if the majority of the population believe something, in which case it could become law. The law does represent the views of the masses, at least in theory.

MintoTaikuutta wrote:

9) 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.

Nice point, I personally do agree that a child that grows up with close interaction with both sexes is better, however we can't reasonably hope to achieve the best in every case. The counter argument is of course that if you share that opinion is that we should strive to do the best for children that we practically can.

MintoTaikuutta wrote:

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society.

And we could never adapt to new social norms, just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that people always object to change, ss everything changes over time though. Using effective arguments to establish the justifiability of your position seems likely to decrease the time it takes for change in the direction you desire though.
I personally don't support the movement for increasing gay marriage rights, so I get glared at by the activists at my uni. I have a few gay friends and have read many of the arguments, but am still unable to overcome my inner deep objection to it. It seems that while most anti-gay arguments that are made are utter rubbish, the deep seated aversion to it is strong enough to sustain itself.
Argue well!

Tomb · May 24th 2010, 3:15pm

MintoTaikuutta wrote:

1) Being gay is not natural.

Because real Americans will always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay.

The same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.

People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all.

Also, women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed.

Heaven forbid the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.

So 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) Gay parents will raise gay children.

Because, obviously, 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.

9) 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.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society.

And we could never adapt to new social norms, just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Yeah! High five!

But if you do not mind, I would like to add onto that.

1) Being gay is not natural.
Neither is McDonalds and Taco Bell

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behaviour.
You can add that to the list.

Things that make people do crazy things:
1. Grand Theft Auto
2. Slipknot
3. The Da Vinci Code
4. Lady Gaga
5. Perez Hilton
6. Gay marriage

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.
But...but...but...but...but...I don't like children. They are noisy, and smelly, and expensive.

But yeah, I hate this whole gay marriage debate. It is stupid, childish and pathetic. Politicians preach free will and freedom of expression, but something so minor, like gay marriage is such a huge issue. I still do not get it.

The problem I think is religion still has a say in politics, which I feel is wrong. Religion is religion. Politics is politics. If people want to follow religion, it is their problem, but I do not see why the whole world (or country) has to suffer because of it.
I actually found this article online. 20 Reasons To Abandon Christianity:
20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity

This part was quite interesting

17. Christianity is homophobic. Christianity from its beginnings has been markedly homophobic. The biblical basis for this homophobia lies in the story of Sodom in Genesis, and in Leviticus. Leviticus 18:22 reads: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," and Leviticus 20:13 reads: "If a man lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
This sounds remarkably harsh, yet Leviticus proscribes a great many other things, declares many of them "abominations," and prescribes the death penalty for several other acts, some of which are shockingly picayune. Leviticus 17:10–13 prohibits the eating of blood sausage; Leviticus 11:6–7 prohibits the eating of "unclean" hares and swine; Leviticus 11:10 declares shellfish "abominations"; Leviticus 20:9 prescribes the death penalty for cursing one’s father or mother; Leviticus 20:10 prescribes the death penalty for adultery; Leviticus 20:14 prescribes the penalty of being burnt alive for having a three-way with one’s wife and mother-in-law; and Leviticus 20:15 declares, "And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast" (which seems rather unfair to the poor beast). (One suspects that American Christians have never attempted to pass laws enforcing Leviticus 20:15, because if passed and enforced such laws would decimate both the rural, Bible-Belt population and the cattle industry.)
Curiously, given the multitude of prohibitions in Leviticus, the vast majority of present-day Christians have chosen to focus only upon Leviticus 20:13, the verse calling for the death penalty for homosexual acts. And at least some of them haven’t been averse to acting on it. (To be fair, some Christian "reconstructionists" are currently calling for institution of the death penalty for adultery and atheism as well as for "sodomy.")
Throughout history, homosexuality has been illegal in Christian lands, and the penalties have been severe. In the Middle Ages, strangled gay men were sometimes placed on the wood piles at the burning of witches (hence the term "faggot"). One member of the British royalty caught having homosexual relations suffered an even more grisly fate: Edward II’s penalty was being held down while a red hot poker was jammed through his rectum and intestines. In more modern times, countless gay people have been jailed for years for the victimless "crime" of having consensual sex. It was only in 2003 that the Supreme Court struck down the felony laws on the books in many American states prescribing lengthy prison terms for consensual "sodomy." And many Christians would love to reinstate those laws.
Thus the current wave of gay bashings and murders of gay people should come as no surprise. Christians can find justification for such violence in the Bible and also in the hate-filled sermons issuing from all too many pulpits in this country. If history is any indication, the homophobic messages in those sermons will continue to be issued for many years to come.

So yeah, there you have it. My apologies if you are Christian, I just wanted to make a point.

Hitopopamus · May 24th 2010, 3:21pm

No need to turn it into an essay...

---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 PM ----------

Jarndyce wrote:

Nice point, I personally do agree that a child that grows up with close interaction with both sexes is better, however we can't reasonably hope to achieve the best in every case. The counter argument is of course that if you share that opinion is that we should strive to do the best for children that we practically can.

Honestly, I think it just saves him/her an oedipus/electra complex. It's all about the unconditional positive regard if you ask me. (Like how I fused Freud and Rogers? xD)

Tomb · May 24th 2010, 3:26pm

Hitopopamus wrote:

No need to turn it into an essay...

Why not? Writing essays are fun

Batgirl · May 24th 2010, 3:38pm

Lady Gaga doesn't make people crazy. She's not crazy, just herself<3 If being creative is being 'crazy' then I don't want to be sane.

Hitopopamus · May 24th 2010, 3:43pm

Batgirl wrote:

Lady Gaga doesn't make people crazy. She's not crazy, just herself<3 If being creative is being 'crazy' then I don't want to be sane.

She makes me crazy in a good way. :D

---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 PM ----------

Tombgeek wrote:

Why not? Writing essays are fun

Not when it ruins the epicness of the post.

Tomb · May 24th 2010, 5:13pm

Batgirl wrote:

Lady Gaga doesn't make people crazy. She's not crazy, just herself<3 If being creative is being 'crazy' then I don't want to be sane.

I'm not saying that Lady Gaga makes you crazy. I'm not a huge fan, but I like her music, and I like her originality.

I just said that because some of her music and her style causes a lot of controversy. For example, I hear that the Westboro Baptist Church hates her for some apparent reason.

Westboro Church: God Hates Lady Gaga | News | Advocate.com

Jarndyce · May 24th 2010, 11:50pm

Thanks to the people who gave me negative rep for my post. I'm sure that 'thinking too much' about this is clearly a bad thing.
Was the one that called me 'gay' going for some obscure self-demeaning irony?

ohemgee11 · May 25th 2010, 12:53am

Jarndyce wrote:

Thanks to the people who gave me negative rep for my post. I'm sure that 'thinking too much' about this is clearly a bad thing.
Was the one that called me 'gay' going for some obscure self-demeaning irony?

I'm not going to give you a negative rep for expressing your opinions, because I believe in free speech.
However, I do find it a little rude that you'd go on someone's post, that was meant to unify people, and point out everything that is wrong with it.
I'll tell you guys that I've seen this circling around the net for a long time, it wasn't written by the person who posted it. They just wanted to share it.

And it's not that I'm against people offering counter-arguements or anything, I just think that nitpicking everything like that kind of de-values their original arguement.
...Not meaning to offend anyone here, either. ;D

Saradactyl · May 25th 2010, 1:08am

Jarndyce · May 25th 2010, 2:14am

ohemgee11 wrote:

I'm not going to give you a negative rep for expressing your opinions, because I believe in free speech.
However, I do find it a little rude that you'd go on someone's post, that was meant to unify people, and point out everything that is wrong with it.
I'll tell you guys that I've seen this circling around the net for a long time, it wasn't written by the person who posted it. They just wanted to share it.
And it's not that I'm against people offering counter-arguements or anything, I just think that nitpicking everything like that kind of de-values their original arguement.
...Not meaning to offend anyone here, either. ;D

I intended to be as reasonable as possible. I pointed out some arguments that I saw as meaningless, and highlighted other ones that I liked. If people don't feel like taking my thoughts on the matter there is no need to, they are just the thoughts of one person. If however one wanted to improve the level of ones arguments here I believe that what I posted was helpful.
I'm sure we would agree that unifying people behind questionable or incorerect statements is not a good way to go. True and effective arguments have never to my personal knowledge been abused, while fallacious and incorrect arguments have caused much harm in the past.

Hitopopamus · May 25th 2010, 11:56am

You're one big frowny smartass aren'tcha.

Cass Cass · May 25th 2010, 12:07pm

Win is won

Jarndyce · May 25th 2010, 2:34pm

Hitopopamus wrote:

You're one big frowny smartass aren'tcha.

Not intentionally, I try not to be offensive.

Share

Tags