Ten Arguments Against Gay Marriage
September 4, 2007
I spent some time earlier today on the internet trying to find some arguments against gay marriage other than the slippery slope argument or just raw homophobia.
The majority of arguments I could find were summarized on one website, which listed the “10 Arguments Against Gay Marriage.”
Nearly all the arguments are written out in long paragraphs, but I thought I’d summarize then here, just so that you can see them all together rather quickly. I’m not joking, exaggerating or making these up. These are essentially the reasons why gay marriage is banned in (nearly?) all states.
1) Scandanavia allows gay marriage and has a large number of children born out-of-wedlock. Therefore allowing gay marriage will cause children to be born out-of-wedlock (Seriously I’m not joking).
2) Legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamy.
3) The creation of gay marriages will make divorce easier.
4) Public schools will be forced to teach that homosexuality is not immoral.
5) Gays will have equal rights in court relating to child care issues such a custody, adoption, or foster care.
6) Straight foster-care parents would be required to undergo homosexual senstitivity training (I swear I didn’t make that one up).
7) Allowing gays to collect Social Security for their deceased husbands/wives will cost the government billions of dollars.
Allowing gay marriage in the US will lead to the legalization of gay marriage in other countries.
9) “Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed.”
10) The social conservatives will have lost the culture war.
Personally I think these are all ridiculous. Rather than going through and writing about how each these are either homophobic, paranoid, or just inane, I would like to ask my readers to pick their “favorite”, and comment on why you think this is or is not a valid reason for prohibitting gay marriage.
Also, if you have a different reason why gay marriage should not be allowed, please, please, comment.
Ummm most of these arguments ARE “slippery slope” arguments or just plain anti-homosexual bigotry. After reading the arguments I’d like to present my own summarization of them, because I think it will be fun:
1) Children will be born out of wedlock and ignored by their self-interested gay parents and “huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street” (actual quote). Because gay parents don’t care about their kids are are only interested in themselves.
2) Gay marriage will open the door for polygamists and people who want to marry their animals. Gay marriage will force states to prove why polygamy is socially harmful. (Correct me if I’m wrong, but in a free society isn’t the onus on the state to prove why something should be illegal, rather than citizens having to prove why something should be legal?)
3) Gay marriage will make marriage equivalent to getting a driver’s license or a hunting permit. This is because gay couples don’t take a marriage commitment as seriously as straight couples, and so allowing it will remove all “legal entanglements” of getting a divorce. (Seriously?)
4) Public schools will be forced to teach that gay people are NOT moral degenerates. (Yep, no bigotry here.)
5) Courts will no longer be able to discriminate in favor of heterosexual couples in cases involving adoption and child custody.
6) Foster parents will not longer be able to discriminate against homosexual couples, and will be forced to teach the kids in their care that homosexuals are NOT moral degenerates.
7) It will be too expensive for our government to stop discriminating against homosexuals. If we give them equal rights it will bankrupt Social Security. (Kinda beside the point, IMHO.)
9) Christianity will be forced to win followers by being a something people want to follow, rather than indoctrinating children from birth. This is because people will stop teaching their children about God and Christianity if gay marriage is allowed.
10) Gay marriage will anger God and bring another coming of “the days of Noah” (for those of you not familiar with the story, think: REALLY BIG FLOOD.)
After reading the site, I thought that ALL the arguments were either slippery slope arguments or badly veiled bigotry. After all, legalizing gay marriage will stop people from going to Church and will unravel the very fabric of our society, plunging us into unheard-of decadence and anarchy. Only preventing homosexuals from getting married will prevent this horrible future.
I’m sure you realize this is a bit of a straw-man, since these are certainly not the only reasons why one might object to legalizing gay marriage. One of the more persuasive arguments I’ve heard was the invocation of the conservative impulse against discarding established traditions and norms that have served society well for a long period of time. It’s not that culture is already perfect and therefore needs no changing, but simply that we don’t yet know what the consequences will be of throwing our traditions out the window, so we’d best not be hasty. A lot of America’s success is traceable to our cultural heritage; the liberties enshrined in our constitution may be necessary for, but are hardly a guarantee of, success (cf. Liberia).
Then again, I’m personally libertarian on the whole matter, and would just as soon see the government get out of the marriage business altogether.
Great point, Mark!
This argument is little more than bigotry, it’s just better veiled than the 10 reasons Andy listed. This argument relies on the implicit assumption that gays and lesbians (and their relationships) are somehow fundamentally different from the relationships that straight people have with one another.
Perhaps back when marriage was a legal contract that transferred ownership of a woman from her father to her husband, this argument would have borne out because the relationship between two people of the same sex is, by definition, gender neutral. Power and labor are divided based on inclination and skills, not along gender lines.
In modern marriage, where the legal relationship is now gender-neutral, this means that gay and straight relationships are virtually indistinguishable.
We threw traditional marriage out the window a long time ago when the proposition shifted from ownership to partnership. There is no longer any tradition standing in the way other than entrenched bigotry.
Wait, so I don’t own you?
I agree with Teresa. The “it’s an established tradition” argument in favor of stalling on gay marriage assumes that gay marriage is an issue that would fundamentally change anything - it wouldn’t.
In fact I’m startled such an issue hasn’t come before the Supreme Court yet - this issue clearly falls under the ‘equal protection’ clauses of the 14th Amendment. If married couples get particular legal advantages, there must be alternative ways for others to obtain those same advantages. Right now, there isn’t for gays.
Andy: No, honey. We’re not married. Remember?
Patrick: Equal protection plays a huge role in this. I think the social conservative argument against it is that homosexuality is a choice, not a real identity like race.
The law isn’t stopping gays from getting the same particular legal advantages married couples get. It’s just that they can’t attain them in the means they’d prefer (by marrying a member of the same sex rather than the opposite). All citizens are banned from marrying members of the same sex, just as they’re permitted to marry members of the opposite sex; in that respect, equal protection under the law is perfectly satisfied.
Where the conflict emerges is in how what the government allows and forbids aligns with what people actually desire to do. But then you really do have to consider how you deal with all the weirdos who want to marry their cousin, their sister, or their dog. (See #2 in the original post.) According to your reasoning, the 14th amendment is discriminating against them too, since they can’t get the legal advantages of marriage with the person (/animal) they desire. And this isn’t bigotry — pointing out a legitimate parallel is not the same as equating gays with (what most people would consider) serious moral deviants.
If you’re going to draw a line and say that X should be sanctified by the government as a legitimate form of marriage, but Y should not, then are you really surprised that others would draw the line between X and Y differently?
Teresa:
It’s silly to get bogged down in a debate over whether gay marriage is “fundamentally” different than straight marriage, since it’s just begging the question as to what is fundamental about marriage and what isn’t. The fact of the matter is that, females-as-property aside, marriage HAS traditionally been held to be between a man and a woman. And if society is going to value its traditions, then it IS legitimate to resist a redefinition of the notion of marriage. Calling that bigotry doesn’t make it so.
Jonah, unless it can been shown that there is an advantage to keeping marriage between only a man-and-woman then that aspect of the tradition of marriage holds no value, as does the argument of keeping marriage between a man-and-woman for the sake of tradition.
personally i still think there is some value in marriage–at least in a romantic notion sort of way–but i’ve come to realize there are a whole lot less incentives than there used to be. my fellow leykis listeners will know what i’m talking about.
that said, i think in principle if we are all supposed to be equal, then we should be equal in practice. banning gay marriage isn’t going to stop ‘gayness’ from influencing our society–which is what social conservatives fear will result from allowing gay marriage, right?
from an economic perspective (which fiscally traditional republicans can appreciate), greater acceptance of gays and lesbians in our society open up a plethora of marketing opportunities for products and services geared toward homosexuals/homosexual couples–moreso than there already is at present. think of how much more tax revenue the government could get!
(this is coming from a ‘libertarian’ for lack of a better descriptor; raised traditional republican, educated liberally, and moderate fence-straddler in reality)
Deb: Good points all. And as long as we’re talking about this economically, think about the lost productivity due to misery over personal identity. Social acceptance of gays and lesbians means happier gays and lesbians, and happy people are productive people.
Jonah:
I’ll reply to this as the header for the rest of your post.
What you’re essentially trying to argue is that gays COULD just marry the opposite sex like everyone else, and thus have access to the equal protection of the law.
Except that the Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you. Sexual orientation has already been ruled a protected characteristic under the 14th amendment; this means that you’re robbing them of their free sexual orientation in order to make that argument.
Do you really believe sexual orientation is a choice? Or is it merely convenient to consider it so in order to make your argument?
Of course it is. Social change should never be undertaken willy-nilly. But in this instance, this isn’t change for the sake of change. And the argument from protecting traditions only takes you as far as how considered the change is - it does not automatically make an argument to prohibit the change.
If you want to engage in logical fallacies in order to make your argument sound more convincing, I don’t need to continue this.
Teresa,
You recently commented on my blog. I would prefer to send this to you as an email but you don’t list one on your site so this format will have to do.
Firstly, you accuse me of missing the point of your rejection of these arguments. I didn’t miss the point, I knew perfectly well that your sumary was intended to shoot them down. On re-reading my own post I see that I could have expressed this better so I will add in a sentence or two shortly to make it clear.
It was not my intention to defame your work, Teresa, I was defaming the “No Gay Marriage” people’s work. You probably would have realized this if you’d taken the time to read the blog post.
On the second charge, of linking. Have a look at the first paragraph. Click on the second link it you will be taken to your site. So don’t cry about a missing inbound link opportunity.
Next time, why not email me first before writing nasty comments? We are both LGBT activists–if you had pointed out my mistake in wording the post ambiguously we could get on with our lives and work together towards a common goal instead of fighting each other over semantics.
Dan
You now have two inbound links, and I think you owe me an apology.
The irony is that this is true, except that their relationships are often better. John Gottman, who’s done a lot of great research on hetero marriage, has also done serious work on same-sex couples: see http://www.gottman.com/research/projects/gaylesbian/
Dan: I already apologized to you. Twice. What more do you want?
Teresa,
I’m so sorry that this has gotten so out of hand. Accept my public apology for that second comment… it was written straight after the first one when I hadn’t heard from you (talk about jumping the gun!). So yeh, I’m sorry and I humbly accept your apology.
Dan
Dan: I’m sorry too.
Let’s never fight again. 
I am writing a paper on Homosexual marriages and whether they should be legal or not. I will openly admit that I’m 100% against it. I will honestly have to tell you that a LOT of these points I have enstilled in my paper, BUT you must also know that I didn’t leave these open ended. If you really think about these 10 reasons that you have found I’m sure that at least HALF of these you will be able to prove, and find are NOT written in the view of a “homophobe.” I guess my point is that a lot of these are good reasons. A few I will admit sound as if they were written strictly out of a bias person’s mouth.
Someone said gay couples won’t take marriage as seriously as straight couples. This is totally untrue. They get married because they are in love, and take the same vows as anyone. How can someone be so ignorant to see that homosexual love isn’t different than a heterosexuals? You make it seem like gay people are out to destroy our values, but really, you’re the ones attacking us.
why do gay people even try to like peple they just send bad influence to little children and they should even do it in public.
I have arguments against your arguments
1) Scandanavia allows gay marriage and has a large number of children born out-of-wedlock. Therefore allowing gay marriage will cause children to be born out-of-wedlock (Seriously I’m not joking). - THAT IS COMPLETELY OBSURD. IT IS NOT GAYS FAULT CHILDREN ARE BEING BORN OUT OF WED-LOCK. IT’S WHAT HAPPENS TO TEENAGERS ALL OVER THE WORLD.
2) Legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamy. -HOW? A SEXUAL PREFERENCE WON’T GET THE IDEA OF MULTIPLE WIVES OR HUSBANDS LEGALIZED. IT IS A SEXUAL PREFERENCE, NOT A NUMBER OF MARRIGES YOU HAVE AT ONCE PREFERENCE.
3) The creation of gay marriages will make divorce easier. -THAT IS NOT TOO BAD, IF SOMEONE ISN’T HAPPY, THEY GET A DIVORCE AND FIND SOMEONE WHO DOES MAKE THEM HAPPY EVEN IF IT IS OF THE SAME SEX.
4) Public schools will be forced to teach that homosexuality is not immoral. -IT ISN’T IMMORAL, IT PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. gAY MARRIAGE WILL DO WONDERS FOR OR WORLD, WE ARE KILLING OUR PLANET WITH CO2 AND OVERPOPULATION.
5) Gays will have equal rights in court relating to child care issues such a custody, adoption, or foster care. -SO? THEY WOULD MAKE JUST AS GOOD PARENTS AS ANY STRAIGHT COUPLE, YOU CAN’T FORCE A KID TO LIKE THE SAME GENDER, IT IS THE KIDS CHOICE AND ONCE THEY GET TO HIGH SCHOOL THEY BECOME INDEPENDENT ANYWAY.
6) Straight foster-care parents would be required to undergo homosexual senstitivity training (I swear I didn’t make that one up). - THAT IS A GOOD THING, GAYS AND LESBIENS NEED MORE HELP IN THIS WORLD.
7) Allowing gays to collect Social Security for their deceased husbands/wives will cost the government billions of dollars. - WE ALREADY SPEND BILLIONS ON STRAIGHT MARRIAGES, IT WOULDN’T CHANGE ANYTHING.
9) “Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed.†-WTF!!! WHAT DOES THAT HAE ANYTHING TO DO WITH?
10) The social conservatives will have lost the culture war. - WOW, YOU KNOW WHAT, DO MORE RESEARCH AND REWRITE THIS WEBSITE, BUT i HAVE HEARD WORSE EXCUSES THEN THIS, BUT YOU SOUND SMART, RESEARCH THIS TOPIC AND THEN I CAN GIVE YOU ADVICE, BUT THIS SUFF IS JUST UNBELIEVEABLE.
Wow dude, i am an 18 year old punk and i strongly believe i have more knowledge on the subject then you do…
these arguements were nothing but straight bigotry and hatred towards homosexuality. None of these reasons i would even constitute as an arguement, they are nothing more then shallow insecurity mixed with some ignorance.
I hope one day you will be ashamed of posting this blog because in all honesty you should be.
Aaron - If you re-read my post, you will see that I am STRONGLY in favor of gay marriage, and posted the arguments I’ve read off various conservative blogs to highlight how ridiculous the anti-gay marriage arguments are. For further context, read some of the additional posts on the subjects. You’ll find that I’m a liberal, pro-gay, pro-marijuana legalization, pro-choice, pro-nudity hippie.
Deal. But only if it means there’s more nude women.
Teresa, I mean no disrespect..
hey
i would just like to say that children who have gay parrents are really missing out. If for example ,2 gay women adopt a boy, who is the boy going to look up to as a male roll model which is essentail for young men? We aren’t exactly encouraging men to be “men” if they only ever grow up seeing and doing what a woman would do. I think this is essential to children growing up these days.
I would also like to say that young children can be very mean and gruel. Bullying is a very common problem which can even result in suicide. Do you not think that the child of gay parrents will not be teased and bullied about it? It doesn’t matter if you put laws there or similar because a child is very unlikely to follow it!
I think gays should consider other people and not try to inconvinence other people and be so selfish. Is it really worth a young child’s hurt and pain for your good feeling.
Roosha - Aside from the fact that I disagree strongly with the idea kids with gay parents are more prone to be bullied than kids with nerdy parents, or that I can list dozens of historical strong males raised without fathers, I hope you realize that the alternative for most orphaned kids to adoption by gay parents would be foster care. Do you feel that gay parents would be inferior to orphanages or foster homes?
Roosha - Besides agreeing completely with Andy that I doubt kids with gay parents are more prone to be bullied than kids coming from any number of other “weird” backgrounds, I would like to ask you this: Do you believe that Black parents shouldn’t have children either? Aren’t they choosing to bring a child into the world KNOWING that that child will face racism, discrimination, etc.? I don’t understand how your argument against gay parents is any different.
I have patiently read all of these posts and wonder whether a lot of these people actually think…
I’ll take on each one in turn:
Jonah,
The argument for “tradition” is ridiculous. The only reason that western democracies, founded on a Christian tradition have managed to flourish is because o constant reflection followed by appropriate changes. Which of these original Christian traditions such as:
“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones”
Psalm 137:9
or
“Suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”
1 Timothy 2:12
It is exactly western civilisation’s ability to distinguish between established tradition and a sense of moral duty towards the citizens therein. The slavery, African American rights, the Aboriginal vote in Australia, women’s suffrage, the recognition of gays as having (almost) equal legal rights. Traditions usually change when a fundamental right is being denied to free citizens. This is one of those issues.
Janie:
I look forward to reading your non-biased commentary on “Should gay marriage be legal”, as you are 100% against it. Maybe the title should read “Gay marriage shouldn’t be legal” so as not to confuse your paper with an exercise in balanced reason.
Roosha:
Where to begin…
Maybe the fact that children born with a single mother also has the same apparent disadvantage though I do not see you arguing that they should be denied access to marriage or child rearing.
Or maybe the fact that most gays and single parents for that matter have straight parents or straight siblings, (the child’s grandparents, uncles and aunts). Not to mention the child’s teachers, friends, sports teammates and, later, workmates. Believe it or not, gays do not live in some kind of community vacuum.
Or maybe your statement that gay kids are likely to be bullied at school because of their lack of masculinity. Ignoring for a moment the fact that there is not a shred of evidence that suggests that children of gay parents will exhibit the same preferences and ignoring the ridiculous generalisations about the behaviours of gays, I am more concerned about your protection of bullies.
As a teacher, I find it morally repugnant that you would prefer that anyone avoid having children rather than risk that they might be bullied for their parents.
Perhaps if the bigoted attitude of parents towards gays would change, that attitude wouldn’t be passed onto their children, (who have no aptitude towards critical thinking of controversial issues or issues of human rights), and the just maybe the children would accept these kids as many have come to accept these kids, (who most likely aren’t even gay).
And finally…. if you don’t like gay marriage….DON’T GET ONE!
#7 is rather easy to refute. Despite any outlays of SS benefits as noted, there are savings also, mostly in the form of decreased supplemental income available to individuals after they become married.
The Congressional Budget Office (a non-biased entity) issued a ten page report that does all the math and explains in plain English how same-sex marriages allowed in all 50 states would actually result in a net INCREASE to the federal budget by approximately $1 Billion per year. Read it here at: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06-21-SameSexMarriage.pdf
Gays will have equal rights in court relating to child care issues such a custody, adoption, or foster care.
Forget everything past the first seven words. Gays-will-have-equal-rights-in-court.
Does the author of this list realize s/he is saying that giving everyone equal rights in court is bad…
Ten Arguments Against Gay Marriage:
1. Gay Marriage means the government is promoting sexual behavior that the majority of society regards to be immoral. Promoting gay marriage will promote gay relationships as a morally equivalent choice to heterosexual relationships when the majority of society believes that homosexual relationships are contrary to society’s standards of moral behavior. We may all agree that sex between consenting adults can be legal, but marriage is a societal institution to promote relationships which are deemed by society to be moral and beneficial to society.
2. Marriage is not a fundamental right — not everyone who wants to get married can do so. For example: siblings, fathers and daughters, uncles and nieces, and people who are already married. Also, group marriage is outlawed.
3. Being gay or lesbian is not the same as being black or physically disabled. One can choose to engage in gay or lesbian sexual relationships, but one can’t choose whether or not to be black or physically disabled. The idea that because gays or lesbians are genetically so predisposed their conduct should be acceptable is no more rational than to say that because child molesters are genetically predisposed to sex with young children society must approve their behavior, or because some men are sexually attracted to animals society should promote marriage between people and animals.
4. Gay/lesbian marriage will result in the promotion of committed homosexual relationships, which will thus dilute the promotion of heterosexual marriage, when the majority of society agrees that committed heterosexual relationships are the best for our society because they result in human reproduction (thus, the continuation of our society) and the best relationship to raise children.
5. Gay/lesbian marriage will promote gay and lesbian couples to seek to conceive children through artificial means and purposely raise them without both a mother and a father, when the majority of society believes that children should, whenever possible, be raised by their own biological parents and that promoting the conception of children whether to gay/lesbian couples is not in the best interest of society.
6. Most gays and lesbians really don’t care about getting married, but only want to change society’s acceptance of their lifestyle. Most gays and lesbians don’t live as couples. Even with nearly a half a million people living as openly gay/lesbian couples in the United States, less than forty thousand have chosen to be married. With a tremendous effort since the 1970’s the GLBT community has worked very hard to gain social acceptance for homosexual and other deviant behavior. So far, it looks like they have convinced a little less than half the population of the USA. This is quite a feat, given that the GLBT population is only 2-3% of the population.
7. Promoting gay/lesbian marriage will do more harm than good in society so it should not be promoted with a social institution like marriage. We don’t promote polygamy (more than two people in a loving, committed relationship) or polyandry (group relationships) because we deem the relationships not good for society. They are not illegal, just not promoted. Our laws also do not make adultery illegal, but the majority of society will agree that adultery is not good for society, so there is not a social institution to promote the behavior of cheating spouses.
8. By promoting gay/lesbian relationships through allowing gay/lesbian marriages, the government will be promoting the gay/relationship relationship to be relationship role model for our society’s children when society deems homosexual behavior to be immoral.
9. Gay/lesbian marriage will promote men and women to leave heterosexual relationships and result in their biological children not being raised in families with a father and mother, which the majority of society (as well as sociologists) agree is the best way to raise children.
10. Gay/lesbian marriage will promote gay and lesbian couples to adopt children when the majority of society (as well as sociologists) believes that the best way to raise children is in a family with a mother and father in a committed heterosexual relationship.
Joe - Your main argument seems to boil down to this: homosexuality is viewed as immoral by the majority of society, and therefore should not be promoted or supported by the government.
Correct me if that’s wrong.
Assuming that is your main argument, here’s a quick list of some other things that the majority of American society has viewed as being morally wrong:
1) Interracial marriage
2) Women’s suffrage
3) Ending slavery
4) Allowing Native Americans to stay on their land
So, back when the majority of society say, wanted to keep blacks and whites from marrying, stop women from voting, own blacks as slaves, and kill the majority of the native population, would you have said, “hey, the majority of the country is in favor of this, so we should allow it.”
P.S. Your sole other argument, that sociologists agree if totally incorrect. I was a psychology major in college. A stable loving house-hold is what children need. I highly doubt you can show me ANY evidence that children raised in same-sex parent households grow up with more psychological problems than hetero-sexual households.
I was going to answer this point by point but I’m sorry, I have had exactly 3 hours of sleep in the past 48 hours. I am too tired to indulge Joe’s post which simply cannot be serious and looks rather like a drive-by re-posting of “common internet content.”
Hey Happy Birthday Patrick! (sorry it’s a day late)
Hehe, thanks Andy! You too
Hope your birthday weekend was awesome! I had an awesome birthday - I can’t wait to see you guys again!
Hospitals and blood centers request that gays do not donate blood. If screen blood that is HIV positive. If the gay life style taints blood then it is unhealthy. Any person who does something that endangers their life or the life of another could be judged as mentally ill or criminal. Homosexuality is a mental illness. Marriage is progressive and life promoting. Illness degrades and harms. Homosexually and marriage are therefore inherently non-compatible. Marriage is not about sex. It is primarily about continuing the human race and providing a safe and nurturing environment for children. The average gay relationship lasts 5 to 6. This is not a period long enough to nurture a child to adulthood. Promoting lifestyles that cause disease is poor policy of any civilization.
Perry - I have several friends who are in med school or are doctors. I have NEVER heard of a hospital or blood center requesting that gays not donate blood, even in UTAH, which I am from.
If the average gay relationship last 5 to 6 years than that is incredible. The average straight relationship last about 9-18 months. At least, a relationship as defined by Maxim and Cosmo (meaning, basically, you referring to each other as significant others). However, you don’t actually define what you would constitute as a relationship, so I have no fucking clue what statistics you might actually be referring to. My guess is you pulled that statistic out of nowhere and have no idea about how healthy gay relationships are compared to straight ones or how long they last.
When you say controversial things, you need to provide EVIDENCE. Something that actually supports your claim, that demonstrates that perhaps you might not be CLEARLY ignorant on these issues. Otherwise people might assume that you are just an ignorant gay-hating bigot.
**Oh, and by the way, I was a psychology major and pre-med. The AMA and APA (American Medical Assocation and American Psychological Association), do not consider homosexuality to be a mental illness. PLEASE PLEASE do some actual fucking research on the subject of homosexuality.
Dear Andrew
Perry - I have several friends who are in med school or are doctors. I have NEVER heard of a hospital or blood center requesting that gays not donate blood, even in UTAH, which I am from.
The above is personified abstraction. I have friends too with impressive titles, but they do not qualify be to be other than I am. I roommate is college was pre-med, I have a life long friend who is a nurse practitioner, my brother is a chiropractor and I am an electrical engineer. Try donating at the Red Cross and read the requirements for giving blood. The legally discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. People who have paid for sex are also disqualified. Do some research
If the average gay relationship last 5 to 6 years than that is incredible. The average straight relationship last about 9-18 months. At least, a relationship as defined by Maxim and Cosmo (meaning, basically, you referring to each other as significant others). However, you don’t actually define what you would constitute as a relationship, so I have no fucking clue what statistics you might actually be referring to. My guess is you pulled that statistic out of nowhere and have no idea about how healthy gay relationships are compared to straight ones or how long they last.
My parents have been married over 50 years. Common sense would tell you that most marriages last more than 9-18 months. We are talking about gay marriage or didn’t you notice. The statistic of 5 to 6 years is off the internet. Look it up yourself.
When you say controversial things, you need to provide EVIDENCE. Something that actually supports your claim, that demonstrates that perhaps you might not be CLEARLY ignorant on these issues. Otherwise people might assume that you are just an ignorant gay-hating bigot.
The argument I presented is mere logic. Hate was not implied by a simple statement of reason.
**Oh, and by the way, I was a psychology major and pre-med. The AMA and APA (American Medical Assocation and American Psychological Association), do not consider homosexuality to be a mental illness. PLEASE PLEASE do some actual fucking research on the subject of homosexuality.
The American Psychological Association did qualify it as a mental illness until about 1973. At that point the liberals were responsible for having them remove. The argument I gave tells anyone with common sense that it is indeed a illness. Try attacking the actual statement with reason and logic.
Lastly I would argue that homosexuality is an obscene act.
ob?scen?i?ty
1. the character or quality of being obscene; indecency; lewdness.
2. something obscene, as a picture or story.
3. an obscene word or expression, esp. when used as an invective.
in?de?cen?cy
? ?
1. the quality or condition of being indecent.
2. impropriety or immodesty.
3. obscenity or indelicacy.
4. an indecent act, remark, etc.
im?pro?pri?e?ty
? ?
1. the quality or condition of being improper; incorrectness.
2. inappropriateness; unsuitableness.
3. unseemliness; indecorousness.
4. an erroneous or unsuitable expression, act, etc.
5. an improper use of a word or phrase.
1. lacking propriety and good taste in manners and conduct; “indecorous behavior” [ant: decorous]
2. not in keeping with accepted standards of what is right or proper in polite society; “was buried with indecent haste”; “indecorous behavior”; “language unbecoming to a lady”; “unseemly to use profanity”; “moved to curb their untoward ribaldry” [syn: indecent]
Got something to say?
in?dec?o?rous
1. lacking propriety and good taste in manners and conduct; “indecorous behavior” [ant: decorous]
2. not in keeping with accepted standards of what is right or proper in polite society; “was buried with indecent haste”; “indecorous behavior”; “language unbecoming to a lady”; “unseemly to use profanity”; “moved to curb their untoward ribaldry” [syn: indecent]
I would argue that homosexual is not only unhealthy it is also lacking propriety and good taste in manners and conduct as are you in your use of language choice of words
Trying looking up addiction. The American Psychology Association the the
American Medical Association both define and treat that — especially sexual addition.
Finally what you haven’t done is pretty impressive. What do you actually do for a living? I’m interested.
Perry - First, as far as duration of straight vs. gay relationships go, you didn’t clarify you were talking about marriage. Since gay marriage has only been legal in a few states for a few years, there is no possible way that two gay people could have been married for 50 years, so I have no idea why you would try to make this comparison.
Secondly, I looked up redcross.org’s blood donation policies. They allow homosexuals to donate blood. They do not allow men who have had (anal) sex with men to donate blood there is a difference.
Your main argument against homosexual sex appears to be that is it riskier than heterosexual sex, and therefore homosexuality should be considered a mental illness.
As ridiculous as that argument is, I’ll throw out two quick refutations.
First, if we classify anyone who puts themselves in harms way or engages in risky behavior as mentally ill, then I guess we also should consider mountain bikers, rock climbers, skiers, skydivers, firefighters, etc as mentally ill.
Secondly, while an argument could be made that male homosexual sex is riskier than than heterosexual sex, FEMALE homosexual sex is much, much, MUCH safer than heterosexual sex. So if you want to classify all men who sleep with men as being mentally ill, make sure than you include all women who sleep with men in that classification.
Seriously, you don’t honestly believe homosexuality is a mental illness, do you?
P.S. Evil “liberals” are not responsible for bullying the APA into declassifying homosexuality as a mental illness. Alfred Kinsey was responsible for that, because he did actual RESEARCH on homosexual behavior.
Andrew,
You still didn’t answer my question about what you do for a living. Mountain biking does not inherently degrade the body nor do the others activities you listed.
Andrew,
Are you strait or gay? If gay, what is the longest relationship you have had personally?
A Perry -
My occupation, sexual orientation, and relationship history are irrelevant to this topic.
You failed to respond to my counter-arguments. Simply saying, “nuh-uh, it’s different” is not a valid argument. Your argument against homosexuality, for all I can tell is, that it is unnecessarily risky, and does not last as long as straight relationships.
“Any person who does something that endangers their life or the life of another could be judged as mentally ill or criminal.”
Mountain biking endangers my life. So does driving a car (a lot more people die each year in car accidents than from homosexual sex). Where exactly do you draw the line though on this?
As for the duration of marriages, you failed to respond to my counter-argument all together, and chose to move toward personal questions, rather than refuting ideas. I wonder if you are trying to change the subject because you know are wrong?
That was intentional. You failed to respond to many of my arguments and assertions and questions. You did answer me as to whether you are gay and what you do to earn money and if gay, how long your relationships last.
I quote: “Perry - First, as far as duration of straight vs. gay relationships go, you didn’t clarify you were talking about marriage. Since gay marriage has only been legal in a few states for a few years, there is no possible way that two gay people could have been married for 50 years, so I have no idea why you would try to make this comparison.”
In one of you previous e-mails you stated that I had not made it clear that I was talking about gay marriage. For your benefit I have restated my original arguement. My very first statement in this thread was:
Hospitals and blood centers request that gays do not donate blood. [They] screen blood that is HIV positive. If the gay life style taints blood then it is unhealthy. Any person who does something that endangers their life or the life of another could be judged as mentally ill or criminal. Homosexuality is a mental illness. MARRIAGE is progressive and life promoting. Illness degrades and harms. Homosexually and MARRIAGE are therefore inherently non-compatible. MARRIAGE is not [only]about sex. It is primarily about continuing the human race and providing a safe and nurturing environment for children. The average gay relationship lasts 5 to 6 [years]. This is not a period long enough to nurture a child to adulthood. Promoting lifestyles that cause disease is poor policy of any civilization.
The problem is that in the context of seuxal relationships, and a common strategy in debate is to change the context, anal sex, when is what most homosexual males engage in, is inherently more risky that heterosexual marriage. You mentioned lesbain relationships are being safer. That could certainly be argued although mainly sexual acts the lesbians engage in are risky as well. The point is that homosexually includes both gay and lesbian relationship and thus if one is unsafe then the classification “homosexual” in the agregate is unsafe.
I would also argue that if you perform an act that creates real health risk to another, it would be akin to maming or attacking someone. Those are punishable crimes. If I hurt some one mountain biking, skydiving etc. I am still liable for the harm I caused. This does not seem to be much of a problem for people promoting gay marriage. If a person commits a criminal act, a felony for example, they are denied certain civil rights which other enjoy. Thus, government could reasonably deny homosexual acts that harm the sanction of marriage. Marriage status is provided protection under the law becaused it provides a tangable benefit to society — propigation of the race and care for offspring. Gay relations can not compete here. There are not the same. As any one who has filled out a driver’s license application knows, sex and race as not the same. Benefits denied for one (race) and correctly restored by the civil rights movement, are not the same as rights related to sex or sexual orientation.
If you go to the following link you can find all kinds of marriage statistics. http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf
I will quote only one statistic from this sight: “While 76 percent of men married in 1955 to 1959 stayed married for at least 20 years, only 58 percent of men who married in 1975 to 1979 stayed married as along.”
It is commonly reported that about half of marriages end in devource. If only half lasted for the average life time of a marriage or about 40 years, the average duration would still be around 20 years. This is just logic.
In regard to my statement about the liberals and the American Psychiatric Association redefining the status of homosexuality as a mental illness, I would provide the following statement about Mr. Kinsey’s books on the sexaulity of men.
The books have been widely criticized by conservatives as promoting degeneracy. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male has been on two lists of the worst books of modern times. It was #3 on the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s 50 Worst Books of the Twentieth Century and #4 on a conservative website with modest web-traffic Human Events’ Ten Most Harmful Books of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.
Since the poliitcal arena is mainly compressed of liberals and conservatives, and the conservations condemned the books Kinsey worte, one is left to conclude that is was indeed the liberals to were responsible.
Again my state was for gay relationships, not gay marriages. Gays have been out of the closet for at least 30 years now, so my statement of the average RELATIONSHIP lasting only 5 to 6 years could easy be substantiated by 30 years of reasearch and data.
Finally, to clarify, my main argument again gay sexual practice is that it harms both participate physiologically enough that if only ONE act has been committed, the Red Cross will not accept their blood.
One other thing. Gandi was able to use passive resistance to free India from British rule. This was possible because Britian is a Christian country and Christianity as a CULTURE is tolerant and kind. Had he been appealing to Saddam Hussan, most likely he would have been gassed along with the rest of his followers. If the gay community were ever to find itsself in a society without Christianity and tolerance, I would argue that they would find themselves in a much harsher situation like is previlent in many country’s who punish with harshness rather than exercise tolerance.
You orientation and employment are not irrelivant to this discussion. If you are gay you could hardly be considered as objective in the treatment of the topic. If you are gay and you refuse to be honest and admit that your relations have not lasted very long you are deceptive. Finally if you work for the ACLU or are a lawyer or a paid professional hunting around on blogs to promote your agenda, then people reading this would view your comment in a different light.
Any time you want to answer the guestions about sexual orientation occupation so I know more about who I’m dealing with, let me know. Since you last comment was posted in late morning when most people are at work, I wonder if you have a job or if you are a paid professional.
Just one last comment. I’m not trying to tear you down if you are gay. There are many people who have moved away from that live style and found happiness. I have a good friend from high school who is gay. I was told that he tried to free himself from it in his early 20’s but could not find any one who could help him. My guess, not being a pyshologist or psychiatrist, but being one who has struggle with depression, is that it falls in with compulsive behavior. I read a book about 10 years ago that was very good. It is Breaking the Cycle of Compulsive Behavior (Paperback)
by Martha Nibley Beck (Author), John C. Beck (Author)
One of the authors is a Harvard grad.
You know some people just disgust me!!!!! All the reasons up there for “being aginst gay marriage” are seriously selfish reasons. For all you ignorant people that honesttly believe its so wrong to love the same sex, are not people of god!!!! Because god taught everyone to love everone equally for who they are. To judge someone for there sexuality and to actually make them feel discusted with themselves is inhuman of someone to do!!!! You know why don’t you put yourself in their shoes for a change…just try to imagine what gays go through to try to gain respect and acceptance from his/her peers. And to say all gays are selfish and all they think about is themselves…well think about the reason why none of you want gays to have rights….yea i think you have that part backwards because ythe only selfish people i see is everyone aginst gay marriage!!!!!!!!!!!!! These feelings are coming from a straight female but if i was GAY I WOULD BE PROUD OF IT
Marriage is not a fundamental right, marriage is an institution that promotes the creation of children, nations that have allowed gay marriage have seen a dramatic drop in marriage altogether, people stop having children and abortion on demand becomes the norm. Core Population group declines over time, and governments in the west increase immigration from NON-western nations further eroding the foundation of those societies, and erasing all the ties that bind homogeneous societies together. Unity becomes a thing of the past, and ethnic enclaves form political separatists groups whose goal is to establish ethnic self-autonomous zones within the established nation, further breaking the nation apart. Over time these groups gain political power over the core population, limiting fundamental rights according to the alien cultures doctrine and promotes alien ideologies and ethnic supremacy. These trends lead to civil unrest as the core population group attempts to assimilate alien population, unassimilated populations resist and small extremists groups form, and begin a campaign of terror against the core population, small acts initially and eventually, with proper funding from interest groups, large attacks. The inevitable civil unrest and violence escalates leading towards genocide and or ethnic cleansing. Marriage is linked to homogeneous population growth, plain and simple.
A. Perry -
I am not a “paid professional”, comment hitman, ACLU ;awyer, or whoever it is that you think is being paid off by the evil gay rights movement. If you did even a tiny bit amount of research you would know that this is MY blog, I write what I write here for free, I am straight, and I have been dating the co-host of this blog for six years. I have a job as a software developer and have never received any money for this blog. I am just an intelligent straight person who was raised with an open mind.
By the way, despite your two pages of comments, you didn’t despute that your main argument boils down to this:
gay anal sex is risky, so gay people are mentally ill criminals.
If that is in fact you’re argument, than wow. That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. If it is something else please be more coherent. And yes, you are trying to tear down gay people. You are telling them that they ” could be judged as mentally ill or criminal,” and denying them basic civil rights.
I have a small point to add to the on-going discussion between Andy and A. Perry, but sadly cannot get to all the points as there is WAY too much to cover.
A. Perry has repeatedly pointed out that the average gay relationship lasts between 5 and 6 years, while deriving from other statistics that the average heterosexual marriage lasts somewhere around 20 years.
The problem with this comparison is that you are not comparing like terms. I believe Andy has tried to point this out in some of his comments but I’d like to be as clear as I can be. At this point feel free to skip to the end of my comment for my main point if you don’t like to read semi-involved calculations involving math and the explanation of assumptions.
I would conjecture that the vast majority of heterosexual relationships do not result in marriage and instead only the most successful relationships do. I have not seen the methodology behind the study that suggests gay relationships last 5-6 years (A. Perry, if you could provide a link I would be most grateful) so I can’t say what the study qualifies as a ‘relationship’, but I would guess that the definition is pretty broad, compared to marriage.
Since I don’t have a large data set from which to do calculations (although if the studies cited could be linked that would help) so I will use my own life as my data set: I have been in seven (7) situations that I would classify as a relationship (not counting one-time encounters or any situation that lasted less that a month. If I find the average duration of those relationships it turns out to be less than a year (not surprising, as I’m 25 years old and have never been married). If I were to marry TODAY and stay married until my expected death at age 70 (average life expectancy for a male born in 1980 [source:http://tinyurl.com/6eez5e]) my average relationship length would be 7.34 years, based on relationships I have already had.
Again, I would have to be married for 45 years (more than DOUBLE the average length of marriage) to bring my average relationship length to a number significantly higher that the average length of a gay relationship. And I’m straight.
My point (at long last): Any comparison of the length of gay relationships with the length of heterosexual marriages is invalid for the purposes of debating gay marriage. To use this comparison is to assume that all gay relationships would result in marriage (if it were legal), which is as absurd as assuming that all heterosexual relationships result in marriage. I hope this discussion can continue, but I hope it can do so without the use of this fallacious argument.
My grandfather knew he was gay when he was young, but he grew up and married my grandmother anyway. He loved her and she him, sure, but he wasn’t always happy in the marriage because it just wasn’t who he was, and they both knew it. My father grew up knowing his father was gay and everyone they knew also knew of it. There wasn’t any abuse, emotional or physical, befallen upon my father because of my grandpa’s homosexuality. Well, other than the normal bigotedness of ‘polite’ society at large. But it wasn’t like Grandpa treated Dad any different. Dad knew that even though his parents divorced and Grandma got remarried, at least Grandma and Grandpa were friends about it. Dad still sees both his father and step-dad as ‘Dad’, and feels that to him, there isn’t a difference. My grandpa now lives with his partner of three or four years now and is truly happy. His partner has children, all grown, who embrace their newest addition, and their children do the same because it never mattered to them how their grandparents are sexually.
My aunt (let’s call her Jane) has a girlfriend who was and still is being harassed and assaulted by her ex. He’s gone so far as to threaten to kill her and their kids because he lost custody. Jane and her girlfriend love each other very much and have vowed to each other not to hurt each other, emotionally, physically, what-have-you. They value each other very much, and there has not been any ill effect from homosexuality on the three children who’ve lived in their home for years now.
My other aunt (call her Mary) lives with her girlfriend of five or six years now. They’re happily raising two dogs in lieu of children, as neither of them desire small children. They find that their relationship has lasted longer than a lot of their straight friends’ relationships, and think that’s amazing.
I had two uncles who are gay (one’s died of AIDS, Goddess rest his happy beloved soul) and my uncle has children. They’ve said that in terms of family dynamics, it hasn’t bothered them any. They’ve all experienced when their dad tried a straight marriage and felt that it was ‘weird’ and tension-filled.
I’ve noticed that a lot of my straight family has had rough relationships and multiple partners, whereas my gay family members tend to a) spend more ‘together time’ with their partners, b) form tighter bonds to their partners and vice versa, and c) actually love their partners and be loved back for who they are. Sure, these may just be that my family may be awesome in that respect, but I know my straight family has collectively divorced more times than any of my gay family has split from their partners.
I don’t believe in the argument against gay marriage that basically says that homosexual couples wouldn’t value the institution of marriage and the whole concept would go down the drain, not because my own family proves otherwise, but because if the gay community as a whole has worked so hard for it, why would they willingly abuse it? If a man and a woman had to fight for the right to marry, and they fought for it because they loved each other very very much, would they be likely to just marry and then get a divorce a second later? It’s not likely. If a couple is committed to each other enough that they risk everything, from jobs to insurance to even their LIVES, to live as a married couple, why stop them?
If someone fights hard enough for something to finally be granted it, are they likely to treat it badly? No. But straight couples who have the right to marry can divorce at will.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ”
It’s even in the Declaration of Independence.
Lauren
http://www.myspace.com/an_enigmatic_love
[...] marriage between same-sex partners, following the lead of Connecticut and Massachusetts. Currently, there is a debate on an earlier post about this topic. I recently listened to an interview on Air America (evil liberals!) about the best strategy for [...]
Jason - I’m sorry, but are you trying to argue that gay marriage can cause terrorism? Really? Two guys tie the knot and people starting blowing themselves up?
Please, for all of you gay marriage bashers out there, don’t use correlations to suggest that gay people are responsible for every problem in every country that has allowed gay marriage. Correlation does not equal causation. For example, there is a direct correlation between ice cream sales and violent crime. However, ice cream does not lead to violence.
Here’s a thing that has griped me for many a year. People (like A. Perry here) always talk about these health-related things - such as ‘tainted blood.’ They extrapolate that HIV/AIDS itself is the result of an angry God’s impatience with the horrid and unnatural sexual behaviors of homosexuals.
Yet millions of women (and men, by the by) - millions of them - have become sterile due to STD’s they got how? Oh, yeah - from performing those abominable heterosexual sex acts.
So where’s our parity here? Either God is punishing people for heterosexual sex, and for homosexual sex, leaving them both equally unhealthy, unfit to adopt, etc. etc. Or God is punishing NO ONE for having sex. But that’s never what you hear. You never hear them say that faithful, virtuous heterosexual couples are rendered unable to conceive because of God’s anger at them for having faithful, heterosexual sex. All you hear about are the homosexuals, and God’s anger at them. And that they are unhealthy and live horrid lives in oh-so-many ways and the Red Cross rejects their blood. Very odd, no?
There is actually research out there that shows the healthiest population alive to be lesbian women in couples. Sorry, A. Perry. Full disclosure: I am one of them. Guess the Good Lord is smilin’ upon me, eh?
BTW, this is my first visit to this blog, it rocks, and I thank both Teresa and Andy, who seem extraordinarily cool.
Jason,
You’re taking a huge leap of logic here: if societies allow gay marriage then straight people will stop having kids, and then we’ll get greater immigration of people from different cultures who don’t necessarily share our values. Is that about right?
What about gay marriage would keep straight couples from having kids? “Well shoot Jenny, I love you, but since them gays are now allowed to get married I’ve decided we shouldn’t have kids.” That’s a bit of a stretch.
Here’s a news flash for you: the birthrate for citizens of the United States is 1.9 births per woman, which is BELOW the replacement rate of 2.1 births. If not for immigration and the higher reproductive rates of immigrants the population of the USA would already be declining. But the USA doesn’t yet allow gay marriage….curious. Could it be that declining birthrates have NOTHING TO DO with gay marriage?
I suspect Jason is a huge fan of the Turner diaries.
Mark - You are assuming that Jason and A. Perry are interested in thinking logically to come to the best conclusion possible (otherwise known as reasoning), rather than trying come up with some whacky logic that justifies their bigotry.
Kimster - You are correct. Note that A. Perry tries to skip over the fact that lesbian sex is about 5,000 times safer than heterosexual sex. Any health arguments against gay marriage are ridiculous. Especially since, last time I checked, married people tend to have LESS sex. If anything gay marriage would lead to less gay sex. But this isn’t about sex. It’s about basic rights, respect, and dignity.
By the way, this blog post comes up SECOND on a google search for “Ten Arguments Against Gay Marriage”. How cool is that!!!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=“ten+arguments+against+gay+marriage”&btnG=Search
Lauren - Unfortunately most people do not oppose gay marriage for any of their stated reasons. They are just irrationally threatened by alternative life choices and sexual freedom.
Can we define morality
Morality is the act or quality of being moral.
Societally speaking there are two definitions; normal people’s, and crazy people’s:
1) Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
2) Gay people are evil and must be destroyed.
But doing unto others as you would have others do unto you would have nothing to do with morality of homosexuality… then it shouldn’t even be considered a morality question… according to that definition of moral…
you should not turn to the dictionary for the definition but define it yourself….
It has everything to do with the morality of homosexuality. I wouldn’t want someone to tell me which consenting adults I should or should not sleep with, fall in love with, or marry. Would you?
no of course not… but i feel that what somebody says doesn’t effect the morality of a situation…
so just because you wouldn’t mind if somebody did something to you… so that automatically makes it moral? just because you wouldn’t care if it was done to you… it sounds like a selfish explanation of morality(to me)….
How about help others, and don’t do anything that would harm others? Like blocking people from loving and marrying the people they want. How about actually trying to fix the institution of marriage instead of scapegoating all of modern society’s problems on gay people.
how is it blocking people from loving each other?
so how is blocking people from loving each other?
lag…
Perhaps not “blocking”, but certainly making it more difficult by denying them things such as the opportunity to visit them in the hospital. How would you like it if you couldn’t visit your wife in the hospital when she got sick because her parents had some ridiculous and arbitrary bias against something about you?
Well of course I would not argue that would not be discriminating against a homosexual couple, but we what we should be trying to understand would be whether or not the discriminatory act is just. So we could say that it is ridiculous or arbitrary, but what does that mean. Say a husband beats the crap out of his wife and was the reason she was in the hospital. Then the police arbitrarily wouldn’t let the man see his wife. That would be subject to some ridicule. So that would be consistent with your conclusion. But my instance would be just discrimination (in my opinion), even though the police would have ridiculous and arbitrary bias against something about the dude…
So…you’re saying it’s okay to discriminate against homosexuals?
i said no such thing… shouldn’t a statement like tht come at the en of the convo rather the begining??? but what i am saying there is a difference between just discriimination and unjust discrimination… and to say all discrimination is unjust is a faulty conclusion….
JP - Isn’t that the point of your argument though, that homosexuality is wrong so it is “just” to discriminate against them? Or was there some other reason to compare a homosexual to a wife beater?
You pulled these from one source, and the source happens to be a very respected Christian pastor/psychiatrist, who’s very wise. If you really want to mock all those that are against gay marriages you should probably search for more than just those ten reasons, cause there are millions out there.
well. This is great getting to hear how straight people view us “homos”
But what you don’t know is that our way of life is not a choice. It is as much as a choice as the color of our eyes or the color of our skin. Bitch and moan all you want, Gays will get the right to marry. And if Im not mistaken, you straight couples are the ones getting all of the divorces. So don’t make it seem like gays are going to be the ones getting all of the divorces.
Ryan: Just wanted to tell you that not all straight people view us as “homos.” As someone who swings from both sides of the plate - and benefits from straight privilege a lot of the time - I’ve noticed that there are a lot of heterosexuals out there who support us. I hope you know that not all straight people are asshats.
Kiley - Millions? Name one that is not a mask for homophobia.
[...] wrote a while back about the ten main reasons against gay marriage, which are essentially masks for homophobia. I have not been able to find ten reasons against [...]
I’m doing a research paper on gay marriage and I don’t see how you would think that gay marriage would lead to polygamy, how it would make divorce easier, or why it would make schools teach homosexual sensitivity. Polygamy is the marriage of one person to multiple people at a time, to me it does not hold a similar meaning. The marriage is still between two people, the only difference is their of the same sex. Schools today don’t teach homosexual insensitivity so why would it cause people to do otherwise? Also how would allowing gay marriage cause divorce to become easier? As for the gay rights for childcare or adoption and other cases of the sort, could the just conference with a gay rights activist leader and make changes to some of the rights of gay marriage? I am not against gay marriage but I am also not completely against it. An remember this is for a research paper I’m not trying to get into an argument.
The Red Cross is not intending to disriminate against male homosexuals with their guidelines. The prohibition against donating for someone who has participated in anal sex goes for males and females. The pertinent factor is this could mean the person has been exposed to an illness that may not show in tests for months if not years after the exposure. The same level of restrictions apply to anyone who ate beef while in Europe due to Mad Cow Disease or Crutchfeld-Jakov Disease. No one feels they are discriminating afainst world travelers. Bigotted, small-minded people have searched for fallacious justifications for their views for centuries. Fortunately, there seem to be enough open-minded, live and let live mind-set people to keep the crazies in check.
why do people agree with homosexuals, if they get children they will depress them and they might comitt suicide, whats teh kids fault with all of that?
leisha - Do you have any actual statistics that suicide rates among children adopted by homosexuals are significantly higher than children adopted by heterosexuals, or is this just own estimate, as a bigot.
“10) Gay marriage will anger God and bring another coming of “the days of Noah” (for those of you not familiar with the story, think: REALLY BIG FLOOD.)” said by MARK is not true. In the bible it states that what the rainbow represents, it represents Gods covenant that he will NEVER flood the earth again and destroy what he has created, so NO that is not true that God would bring another coming of “the days of Noah.” Just though I would inform you.
more gay in the world, leaves more woman for me.
lesbians would fuck a guy, but a gay guy wont fuck a woman.
i have no problem fucking lesbians and hetersexual woman and bi sexual woman.
and what the fuck is wrong with america? bill cliton just got some blow jobs and people make a big deal of it. just be happy he did not get a blow job from a guy. I think for people who has such power should get 3 blow jobs a day , so that they remine happy and not to do something stupid!!
Kevin -
“lesbians would fuck a guy, but a gay guy wont fuck a woman. ”
Is that statement based on ANYTHING. Other than porn.
Also, why did we care that Bill Clinton didn’t get blow jobs from a guy? Would it matter at all if he were gay or bi as long as he didn’t lie about it. Particularly under oath (and to his wife).
1….In the light of marriag’s defination, marriage is the bound or union between a man and a woman. This defination is not just an idea but a proven fact, so legalizing gay marriage will be a negative shift in human mentality in redefining marriage. This negative shift should not be mistaken with a modern day enlightenment becos we see the same shift in other areas of societal living e.g teen drinking and smoking, children’s respect for their parent, sex b4 marriage, terrorism etc. These are trends that have suddenly beome rampant in our today’s world.
2…Gay-marriage threatens the conception and orientation of adopted children in a so called gay family. The innocent child tends to have a completely different idea about an ideal family setup or structure (father, mother + children) .
3…Homosexuality threatens the social and population expantion of a state becos everybody tends to have sexual affairs with their same sex types. Now tell me, who should, who will and who can give birth?
4….The idea of even sleeping with the same sex is so unnatural that it becomes repulsive. it would be an abuse, disrespect and an unrecognition of the dignity of those whose partner suddenly developes the lust and taste for homosexuality.
5….Homosexuality cannot be justified because it is a man-made, man-developed and man-experimented form of sexuality that never existed within our naturalbeing.It is anti-nature and unhuman.
6…..Human existenz depends on a normal man-woman relationship and would ever be grateful for that. Gay marriage unhdermines this wonderful marriage arrangement.
7…..Looking at homosexuality even from a very ordinary perspective (without the influence of religion/morals) one notices that homosexuals are very unnatural humanbeings-their behaviours are morally-sick and irritating. Can someone explain why a man should be acting or talking like a woman?
8…..Homosexuality as disrupted the cordial relationship between our civil,religious and human rights because we have always tried to create a space for this form of sexuality in our society’s moral structure although no space for it exists. We’ve tried to be socially fair at the expence of our understanding of civil, religious and human rights - Homosexuality is not civil, religious or human!!!
9…..Marriage is a symbol that encompasses our values on sex, sexuality and human relationship. Gaymarriage is a fake or unequivalent of this symbol
10…..Homosexuality is a sin