Top 10 Reasons Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal

[Temerit]

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

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

03) 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.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) 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.

09) 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.



Thoughts?

 

[DrLeftover]

I still honestly do not care how any two, or more, consenting adults spend the weekend or the next ten years together.



As for myself, I know it is not politically correct, but I still like women.

 

[Jazzy]

All the reasons (IMO) are false.

 

[Temerit]

In what way?



Like they aren't making a good point satirically? Or that you agree that all these points people use to reinforce their stance against gay marriage are invalid?

 

[Jazzy]

Or that you agree that all these points people use to reinforce their stance against gay marriage are invalid?

Again, this is my opinion only.

 

[Fatal Dawn]

Arguments against gay marriage/adoption based strictly on personal convictions are invalid.



However that's not to say that there are not legitimate arguments like the ones Fires brought up: http://offtopix.com/topic/17858-gay-marriage-sure-but-do-the-groundwork/

 

[Bluezone777]

What Fires brought up seems to me to be more of an issue of laws that aren't made to account for homosexuals marrying. I imagine a lot of laws involving marriage would need updating to reflect that it is no longer between a man and a woman. I still don't see how they should mean the continuation of the ban on homosexuals marrying though.

 

[Fatal Dawn]

Reverse discrimination for example. In the case of adoption, opponents have argued that same-sex adoption has been used by gay activists as a political tool, at the expense of the long-term best interests of the child. By granting same-sex couples the ability to adopt children jointly, courts can impose gay marriage by judicial fiat. In some cases (Boseman v. Jarrell) custody battles over gay adoption has led to judicial bias and an unequal application of the law where gay activism and judicial activism work together to further an agenda. Not particularly surprising in the court of appeals, but still the argument holds water.



But back to Fires point it does get unnecessarily messy in terms of custody.

 

[Raven]

infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

Also orphanges aren't full yet? wtf? Surely that is a GOOD thing?!

Ever heard of overpopulation and it's effects?

 

[Temerit]

Alright, I figured most people would know I'm probably by far the most liberal person on here.



This piece wasn't written by me, and it's satirical.

 

[Raven]

I had written something else but removed it as on second reading I gathered that.

 

[Evil Eye]

DrLeftover pretty much summed up my thoughts

Thoughts?

I sense sarcasm

As for myself, I know it is not politically correct, but I still like women.

Can't win all the time.

Arguments against gay marriage/adoption based strictly on personal convictions are invalid.

Hardly, people's opinions are the only arguments in a democracy. Convincing others with only your own convictions is hard (unless you're very charismatic) and that's how they become invalid. Majority rule.

Murder is wrong because a (vast) majority believes it so. If everyone thought it was ok, it'd be legal. (Natural selection should rule out that possibility, though.)

I'm probably by far the most liberal person on here.

I demand a vote!

 

[Katatonia]

Since I'm no longer a Christian, I don't really give a fuck anymore, but perhaps the only real issue with gay marriage I have is, if you change the definition of marriage for the gay community, you'll have to change it for everyone else. Including NAMBLA. That's right, NAMBLA. They're also pushing for that.

 

[Bluezone777]

No we don't. We aren't opening up marriage between adults and children just consenting adults who prefer their own gender over the opposite in terms of relationships. I think we all define marriage as between two consenting adults. That aspect of it is not changing regardless if homosexuals can marry or not.

 

[Katatonia]

No we don't. We aren't opening up marriage between adults and children just consenting adults who prefer their own gender over the opposite in terms of relationships. I think we all define marriage as between two consenting adults. That aspect of it is not changing regardless if homosexuals can marry or not.

Let's hope so.

 

[Temerit]

Pedophilia necessitates abuse. That is not something we are pushing for.



Incestual marriage and potentially polygamy may be on the table though. Although polygamy has a history of encouraging abusive behaviors.

 

[Katatonia]

Incestual marriage and potentially polygamy may be on the table though. Although polygamy has a history of encouraging abusive behaviors.

I think incest leads to mentally retarded kids, too.

 

[Fatal Dawn]

There is no such thing.

It does exist (at least judicially). I guess it should be noted I'm not talking in the subjective context of discrimination is discrimination. Historically it has been an issue that has been recognized in the past when quotas are trying to be met or affirmative action is trying to be established (Regents v. Bakke) or when institutions push to have minority groups given greater protection (Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education).



Legally it has been defined as a type of discrimination wherein the victims of discrimination are members of a majority or historically advantaged group. Often, reverse discrimination cases involve programs meant to advance or promote minorities and address inequality, such as affirmative action.

http://definitions.u...discrimination/

http://oxforddiction...ation?region=us



Because anti-discrimination laws were originally enacted to prevent discrimination against minorities and groups that were historically disadvantaged and denied opportunities in the workplace, there has sometimes existed a perception that members of majority groups are not protected by the same laws. The term reverse discrimination originated to describe these kinds of cases where members of a majority group are claiming they were discriminated against in favor of minorities or historically disadvantaged groups.



Traditionally civil rights laws and title vii covered protection from discrimination based on race, color, sex (this includes transgender but not explicitly sexual orientation), religion, national origin, age and disability. It was then specifically extended to sexual orientation in 1998 (Executive Order 13087).

http://www.opm.gov/e...ss2/guide01.asp

Since I'm no longer a Christian, I don't really give a fuck anymore, but perhaps the only real issue with gay marriage I have is, if you change the definition of marriage for the gay community, you'll have to change it for everyone else. Including NAMBLA. That's right, NAMBLA. They're also pushing for that.

Valid point which alludes to what I was saying earlier. There's an agenda underneath it all when trying to redefine marriage for the gay community (especially in the judicial context). Ultimately, I believe it comes down to equal rights for all or none.

 

[Temerit]

I think incest leads to mentally retarded kids, too.

This hasn't been proven at all. Very moderately increased risk of mild birth defects, but you could still allow them to marry and adopt, or just not have kids depending on the risk factors involved.

 

[Katatonia]

This hasn't been proven at all. Very moderately increased risk of mild birth defects, but you could still allow them to marry and adopt, or just not have kids depending on the risk factors involved.

I'm all for those alternatives.