12 Important Reasons Why Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society
Some of you may be aware of a Proposition that will be on the ballot in California next week which, if passed, will repeal that state's current allowance of marriages between two men or two women. As a Canadian who has witnessed first-hand the longer-term effects of legalizing gay marriage on a society, I thought it was very important to reprint this list of 12 Important Reasons Why Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society before California voters go to the polls.
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. 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 license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.
The above list was compiled by GatorGSA , a group of people who clearly have their heads screwed on straight, no pun intended.
[In all seriousness, marriage rights for gay men and women in California are seriously threatened by this proposition. The greatest outrage in my opinion is the pouring of millions of dollars into anti-gay-marriage propaganda ads by evangelical groups outside the state who presume to tell Californians what their values are. I can't even imagine the gutted feelings of married gay Californians who may be told for the second time that their lifelong commitment before their family, friends, any Higher Power they believe in, and the world is, sorry, invalidated. The Proposition 8 vote will be an important test of whether the US has made the leap with this election into the 21st century, or has not quite shaken off the yoke of theocracy. After the Presidential contest, Prop 8 will be my second-most-closely-worried-and-watched contest of this election.]
ronnie
Labels: human rights
posted by ronnie at
9:00 p.m.
8 Comments:
i like the one that says hanging around gay people makes you gay just as hanging around tall people makes you tall...words to that effect. i've always thought that a) if there is an afterlife and b) if there IS a heaven and a hell, c) the most frequently heard words will be, "who, ME?" since god is not only compassionate but humorous, i think the greeter at heaven's door will be JUDY GARLAND. "c'mon in, honey." "who, ME?"
I'm not sure why the government should have a lot to do with marriage anyway, since it's a social convention better regulated by personal religion and beliefs. When I rule the world, all "marriages" under law will be civil unions between two people (and just as hard to untangle if they fail as they are at present) and we'll let people throw rice and cut cakes on their own time and dime.
Meanwhile, I agree with the part about producing children. I don't understand why tax status follows the civil union and not the production of kids. Bigger tax allowances for people raising and educating kids make a lot of sense. A separate tax rate for those who cohabit with a note from city hall? What's up with that?
Finally, I remain optimistic that the era of intolerant prigs leading voters around by the nose is coming to an end. Let's hope things have progressed to the point where results on this stupid proposition represent the coming of the new times and not the last gasp of the old.
I miss Pierre Elliot Trudeau. I loved his wisdom as Prime Minister in the 70's when he often told Canadians that government has no place in the bedrooms.
Oh if only it were that simple, and the leaders would worry about the economy and let us worry about who we choose to live with.
I'd find hyperbolic ruminations about an American theorcracy funny if it were only based on something real.
Which isn't to suggest that I disagree with the sentiment expressed in the list.
Regards,
Dann
excellent post; humorous and insightful. much better than my usual legalistic and rather dry approach to the same topic! I'm posting a link to this on my blog -- unless you don't want me to, in which case I'll take it down.
M.E. I like your heaven.
Mike - I agree completely. Should've been done decades ago.
Dave - I miss him too. A lot. Let's give Justin some time to get some experience under his belt...
legalmist - Please give the credit to Gator Gay-Straight Alliance, which wrote the original piece. They've given the ok for others to post it, with credit to Gator GSA.
Dann - "Based on something real"? Yeah, right. If "accusing" Barak Obama of being a Muslim and all the other religulousnous this electino didn't make it clear enough (I mean, forums on the candidates' faith beliefs and Christian bona fides??), Liddy Dole's bottom-feeding new ad that accuses her opponent of flirting with "Godless America" should seal the deal.
If you don't believe that America is a theocracy, let me know when you expect to see a Muslim or an atheist as a Repub or Dem presidential candidate.
ronnie
Ronnie,
There is a difference, IMO, between having a nominal religious component to a society and being a theocracy.
Although with the potential rise of the religious left these days, perhaps we are headed in a theocratic direction.
Regards,
Dann
The US is probably in no danger of becoming a theocracy on the federal level, but the mere fact that gay marriage is such an issue - that states are having such a battle to legalize it - is proof of huge influence by fundamentalists on forming government policy at lower levels.
There is NO basis for opposing gay marriage, EXCEPT the one of a religion or denomination insisting that its tenets be declared the civil law over all, and another denomination's be declared illegal. ONLY religion supports the view that it's a "sin," or that gay orientation is a choice, or that gay unions can have any effect whatsoever on anyone who isn't gay.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home