10 Reasons why Gay Marriage is Wrong!!

[Agathon]

This made me laugh...

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

1. Homosexuality 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 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 dogs because they can legally sign the marriage documents.


4. Heterosexual 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.

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

6. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Homosexual 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 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.

...well almost as much as the wag who argued that allowing gay marriages in MMORPGs would destroy the sanctity of online marriages.

[C0ckney]

good grief, is it monday already!

[Japher]

I don't know why gay people want to get married, it just doesn't make any sense!

It's like Vegetarians wanting to eat things that taste like meat!

It's just nuts.

[Verto]

BTW, did you hear Blizzard backed down on the gay policy thing?

[Japher]

What? That all employees had to be gay?

[VetLegion]

@ Japher

[Last Conformist]

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

Hyperlamarckianism for the win!

[germanos]

As the gay's over here keep pointing out:

there is no thing as a Gay Marriage.
It's just marriage between two persons of the same gender.

[/ grammar Nazi]

[StarLightDeath]

Source for this list?

[Ben Kenobi]

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

I didn't know you were into sheep ******** Aggie. Isn't the grounds against that because it is against the natural order?

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

Gee, I guess that means if you've ever slept with a lady that you are never going to sleep with a man.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their dogs because they can legally sign the marriage documents.

Why not? We can do whatever we want with our bodies?

4. Heterosexual 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.

So divorce is just the same as being able to marry black folks? I didn't know you were a closet racist, Aggie.

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

If divorce is a good thing, why is Spear's 55 hour marriage a bad thing.

6. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Homosexual 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.

Yes, we all know how we need more gay couples so that these orphanages can be emptied.

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

Hey if you're born with it, wouldn't it be passed on to future generations? How could straight parents ever give birth to gay kids?

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.

Yes, the evil Episcopal Church of the USA. Which by the way approves of gay priests. Is this a bad thing?

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.

Indeed. So having a man in your life is a bad thing, Aggie?

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.

Or ******** sheep I suppose.

[Verto]

That was the worst rebuttal I've seen...












today.

[Whaleboy]

Isn't the grounds against that because it is against the natural order?

Wasn't homosexual behaviour observed in a number of higher mammals? If one is to say that homosexuality is human and artificial, iow exclusive to humans, couldn't one also say the same of religion? A religious person would say that their experience is powerful and valid, could not the same be said of one person's love for another?

Why not? We can do whatever we want with our bodies?

But not necessarily with anyone else / anything else that does not or is not capable of consent. Homosexuality does not represent a slipperly slope towards bestiality and paedophilia, and I've always found efforts to demonstrate otherwise both peculiar, amusing, and frankly disturbing.

So divorce is just the same as being able to marry black folks?

That was not stated, intended, nor implied.

The rest... well it hardly seems worth it, does it?

[Ben Kenobi]

Verto, it's a troll.

Now a serious argument would merit a serious response.

[Whaleboy]

But I'm still going to pick on you

[Ben Kenobi]

Wasn't homosexual behaviour observed in a number of higher mammals? If one is to say that homosexuality is human and artificial, iow exclusive to humans, couldn't one also say the same of religion? A religious person would say that their experience is powerful and valid, could not the same be said of one person's love for another?

Lots of arguments bundled up here. The argument from natural order assumes all created beings, be they men or animals have certain characteristics in common. One of those characteristics is a desire to perpetuate the species. This is why it is said that reproduction, and sexual activity with the purposes of reproduction is said to be in harmony with the natural order, because it would also permit the perpetuation of the species, regardless of whether you are a man or an animal.

If you argue that human beings are somehow special, then you are in very interesting territory. If we should expect human beings to act contrary to the natural order, then you are also bringing in a whole host of assumptions about the heirarchy of man. I would agree with you on certain things, even as I disagree that we see no similarities between man and the rest of the natural world.

As for homosexuality in higher mammals, you would be running up against the assumption that the natural order is for an organism to perpetuate itself.

You make a very very good point as to the limits of the argument from natural order. With respect to your argument about religion, religion would be seen as a higher function, and apart from the natural world, as would love between two persons. However, we must be very careful in the language here. Does it make sense to say that eros is contrary to the natural order? Or more sense to say that agape is contrary to the natural order? If you mean the latter, then really, yes you are right that there is nothing wrong with agape between two men. However, I suspect you mean the former.

But not necessarily with anyone else / anything else that does not or is not capable of consent.

Do you have to consent to chip a marker on a tree? You are right that we are not permitted to to do these things against someone who does not consent, but what is the argument against doing this to animals who, after all are not considered persons? Why is it wrong for me to sleep with an animal if I am in fact permitted to act contrary to the natural order of things?

Homosexuality does not represent a slipperly slope towards bestiality and paedophilia, and I've always found efforts to demonstrate otherwise both peculiar, amusing, and frankly disturbing.

I asked one question. If we accept this assumption against natural order, what is the argument against bestiality? Why is bestiality wrong?

That was not stated, intended, nor implied.

If we believe that it is good to marry black folks and it is good to be able to divorce, then you are saying that it is just as good to divorce as marry black folks.