- Being gay is not natural. Real Americans ™ always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
- Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
- 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.
- Straight 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.
- Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
- 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.
- Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
- Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
- 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.
- 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.
FYI: I do not hate gay people nor do I support any attempts to legally discriminate against them. In other words, this post is pure snark aimed at the idiocy of the bigots who think that “CIVILIZATION ITSELF!!!!!” will end if gay people are afforded the same rights and privileges we straight people enjoy.
To put it another way:
All emails about this post will be deleted.
{ 133 comments }
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
Wow….this is retarded….Reminds me of mainstream media.
Homogamy is a brilliant phrase.
Did you write this piece, KC? It’s hysterical.
Legalizing gay marriage will lead to married gay people. That’s it. Ballgame. Everything else is speculation, and lousy speculation at that. Do polygamists not have lobbyists already? (Should have hired Abramoff…)
Bestiality and pedophilia are easily distinguished by age of consent. Polygamy is easily distinguished by the number of partners (has to do with marriage tax laws, among other things). What are the other slopes people are worried about?
This is one of the last frontiers for two consenting adults.
The argument appears to be:
A religious text says it’s an abomination (the same one that says eating seafood that lacks fins and scales (Levitius 11:11), eating certain birds of prey (Leviticus 11:12) and all insects (Leviticus 11:23 and 11:41) and other biblically unclean animals (Leviticus 20:25) are abominations.) As Elisabeth Anne Kellogg comments – “While some will point out that homosexuality and cross-dressing are in the same category as incest and bestiality, it should be noted that so are divorced people who remarry, those who have sex during menstruation and children who fight with their parents.” (see: Wikipedia – Abomination (Bible))
And then go read up on the First Amendment and get over your little “because that’s what God says” fantasy here in the USA.
But this is silly. The real reason so far as I can discern it is that the icky factor is high. Thinking about men hooking up with men is icky to some people, although less so since shows like Queer as Folk and Will and Grace have become popular.
Oh, but wait a minute, I think you forgot something: the list is a joke, taking the piss out of unthinking buffoons like you. And who exactly do you think life is easy for?
The idea of sending gay people to the moon certainly is logical. Moron.
You’re being slightly disingenous about the fact that you didn’t actually write this, with the original being found here. A single link to another copy of the same article, given without explaination, is hardly sufficient credit.
MR – You are being singled out because to my knowledge you are the only one engaging in a openly hostile behaviour towards a group of people who are also third parties to what you are responding to.
If you review the thread, you will see that you are the only person on your side of the issue calling homosexual men “deviants” and accusing them of being “abnormal”.
This is not acceptable behaviour. If you can’t make your point without insulting homosexuals (or lesbians for that matter), then this is probably not the blog for you on this issue.
You lost me at “I find that offensive.” Why should he, I or anyone give a shit if you’re offended? Everybody gets offended sooner or later, and if you prod somebody hard enough, you’re bound to find some ridiculous triggers.
Being offended is virtually meaningless.
Just laugh at such a ridiculous comment and move on. If we want to do something about these klaxons what bellow irrational thought, why don’t we just cut the crap and act according to reality: they are desparate anachronisms clutching to what shred of the timeline they have left. Treat them as such.
“Marriage is about procreation and building a family”
Can heteros get married without the intent of building a family? Would it be your position to outlaw marriage of women beyond their child-bearing years?
“Homosexuality is ABNORMAL”
Prove it. (And if the best you can do is just quote an ancient book, then you can stop trying to convince us that your morals are absolute either.)
great one!
Isn’t craig’s list is for twenty year olds? Don’t go there anymore, so thanks for sharing.
Anyway, I would never marry my dog. My cat, otoh … ooh, pussy!
Bad Man has no sense of humor. poor baby.
Religion is stupid. God was aborted.
Mmmmm! Strawberry Milkshake Pop-Tarts!
No matter who wrote it or where it came this is just funny.
As for all the religous zealots, y’all just prove that religon is for those too weak minded to deal with our insignificant place in the universe without leaning on an imaginary friend.
PS: Now for some real food for thought. Why is it I can build a PC from the ground up but have so much trouble using the keyboard?
NATURE Proves not Religion:
It is abnormal because it serves to biological purpose. Sex between a man and a woman is meant to make babies. Can’t be done in a homosexual relationship.
Ohh I see, so because I am in the minority position on this blog, I don’t have standing to express my opinions? Wow, sound like th religious rights argument for keeping homosexuals ‘in their place’ sine they are only a small minority of the population.
Anyway, it’s your blog, do what you will. If you wish to keep those rose colored glasses on and be reassured by your drone regular blog posters, so be it.
My argument has never been personal or religious or vulgar in anyway. Moral Relativism is my point. Homosexual marriage is just a point on the moral compass…. civilizations prosper, and succeed by adopting a single entrusted moral compass which guides the ethics of the civilization.
IMO, adopting gay marriage is simply a symptom of the breakdown of the civilization we call the USA.
Ciao
Sure. And infertility in straight people, as well as condoms and other contraceptive devices, makes anyone engaging in sex not for procreative or biological reasons, abnormal, I’m sure.
What is it about calling people “fucking idiots†that makes you feel better about yourself? Did I make some reference to “a book written 2000 years ago”? Having two lesbians raise teenage boys, for example, is indeed “very negative and perverse”. If gay people want to live together that is their prerogative. But to pretend that is marriage is foolish. Marriage has always meant one man and one woman. There is no reason to redefine it because some gay guy decided he is offended now. Nobody is saying that homosexuals should all be killed, but can we quit pretending that they are exactly the same as heterosexuals in every way?
On what basis do you “feel most gay couples would make better parents then most straight couples”? That is ludicrous.
Well, by definition, infertility and contraceptive devices do create an abnormal situation. Perhaps you are confused about the definition of the word?? I posted a link the definition elsewhere in this blog.
One more thing, since when are homosexuals and lesbians two different groups? I certainly was wrong to think this blog contained rational, crticial thinking people instead of politically correct drones.
I believe in God, and Jesus. I consider myself a christian but I dont see the problem in gays getting married. How will it hurt you? You can still go marry that woman you love.The concept of marriage wont change. A marriage is a legal document. whether or not the two people have signed this peice of paper will not stop them from loving each other, or wearing ring or being forever devoted to one another. whats wrong with adding a little more love to the world, like you said “our lack of love for each other…”, so a little more love wont hurt anyone. Do us all a favor and get off your soap box, tone down your ego and act like a christian. Love everyone and dont stand in the way of them loving each other.
“To those who oppose gay marriage – what about gay civil unions, giving them all the legal benefits without calling it marriage?” – I applaud you, now, before you think I’m a homophobe or anything… let me explain.
To me there are two different kinds of marriages. There are the state marriages, and then there are the religious marriages. Now let me clarify even further.
A state sanctioned marriage is just that. You can go down to the courthouse and get one. You can have an appropriate official get your signatures, read the whole speech, and tell you to kiss the bride (or whatever). A religious marriage is a whole different affair. Take for example, the catholic church – they require a period of premarital counseling, further more, they expressly forbid divorce, and in NO CIRCUMSTANCES will they allow it. Annulment is the closest you can get, and really, all it says is that the marriage wasn’t really ever there because of whatever reason they gave the annulment for (sometimes it is that one party didn’t realize what they were getting into, or one of the partners lied about who they were, etc, at any rate).
As such, I have no problem saying that I think that religious marriages should be restricted to man & woman – at least if that religion believes that it is the proper way to be. However, At the same time, just as the government has no right to tell the churches what to do, the churches should have no right to tell them what to do.
In that, I feel that they should be given something that is equal in status and connection as a state endorsed marriage. I feel that they have every right as a human being to do as they please as long as it does not prevent my right to be reasonably free (i use this term, because we cannot do anything we wish, but we can do anything within reason). If need be, I feel that the government should change all marriages that are not religiously affiliated to a ‘civil union’ (which, they may already do) and leave the term marriage to be a religious term, and then give all couples an equal opportunity to have a civil union. After all, the government has to be fair, but the churches can do as they wish. The catholic church won’t let females be priests, scientologists won’t let poor people in, etc… All in all, they deserve it, if for no other reason than the fact that they have gone through enough, they deserve it. But I personally think they deserve it because they are a human being with emotions like love and pain, and when we tell them that they are horrible creatures and wrong, and that their concept of being in a monogamous relationship is evil, we are hurting them immensly. Lets be christians for a change, and think about how we would feel if the roles were reversed.
I’ve posted at least once in here already, but I want to make a statement here as well. I spent the last… hour and a half or so reading this entire page of comments. Believe me when I say there are people on both sides of the issue that need to get their head on straight.
But I digress.
Homosexuality is a very hot topic right now. Almost everyone will have something to say about it. Me? I personally dislike openly flamboyant homosexuals who go on about how whatever sex organ they hate is ugly. Or that adopt the stereotypical gay attributes. I know a few that do, and they piss me off, but I know a lot more homosexuals that are just like you or me, but the only difference is that they like someone of the same sex. Don’t think that I believe that heterosexuals should be able to go on about how they think a particular sex organ is ugly either. It is a two way street. I find it rather bothersome when a guy (or girl) is stereotypically male (or female). It is just because I dislike it when people play into a stereotype – as it hurts the view of that particular group of people usually.
Also, as far as the ‘choice’ factor. It is both a choice, and not a choice. For instance, I have a really good friend, he is catholic, and he is gay. For YEARS he wanted to be straight, he’d date women, he’d have sex, he’d do whatever he felt the need to do. Yet, eventually, he realized it wasn’t making him happy. When he ‘came out’ to himself, I guess you could say, he became much happier, and was able to find individuals he could be with that would give him joy. Is it not one of our inalienable rights that we have the right to pursue happiness? So, I think it is more than just making a choice, I don’t think it is reasonable to say that there is no biological connection. However, I feel that when you realize what makes you happy, as long as it is a reasonable action, you should be allowed it. And, I really do mean reasonable, because killing someone isn’t – as it takes away their right to life. There is a difference between a moral stance on murder, and the idea that we all have the right to live as human beings.
Also – I know that this topic was done in humor, when I first started reading it, I was kinda offended b/c I thought it was gay-bashing. I was happy when it wasn’t. Really, all in all, we just need to seperate the church and state. The comments made about religious persucution being why the pilgrims originally came here, and it coming full circle have a very valid point. We should under any circumstances impose our religious beliefs on another (or lack there of). I’m not saying that the bible is something to throw out, but at the same time, it isn’t a word for word account of history. It is a book of very well written propganda – sorry, but this is true – and as such, needs to be read for the message, not just the content. When we read the message, we are able to adapt it to our current times, as the laws and whatnot in the bible are obviously outdated. If we just go word for word – we’re in a horrible trap. Oh, and for those of you who wish to argue that the bible is exactly how it happened, read. Read the bible, and tell me how two accounts of the same storie can be so completly different.
yeah as if normal kids dont get bullied if they have straigh parents. the children would be fine and if it becomes normal for both straight and gay couple to have kids then that whole bullying thing will diappear.
you seem to forget that kids get bullied for completly foundless and stupid reasons so its bollox to say that gay people should think about the bullying when pretty much everysingle child has to deal with bullying (and adults too come to think of it)
We don’t need to adapt the bible, period. It is a religious document, and thus, shouldn’t be used for as a source for any law, no matter how much that gets the Christian Coalition’s panties in a bind. The fight over gay marriage is the perfect example of how people in the U.S. don’t *want* to separate church from state at heart. You have to choose- you can’t have laws based on any religion’s belief, period, if you want a free nation. Theocracy or Constitution- your choice. The people who scream and kick today about letting gays get married are the same kind of intolerant narrow-minded shmucks who opposed de-segregation and sufferage. There is No practical, pragmatic reason to not legalize gay unions. As for something that MR wrote way back that irritated me- Rome didn’t fall because of moral “decay”- it fell because of its dependence on mercenaries, and its INABILITY TO ADAPT AND CHANGE.
Seth, that’s the best advice I’ve read in a long time.
Thanks… that was a much needed reminder for me.
you really shouldnt get your panties in a bunch seeing as its listed under ‘humor’ not ‘omg im attacking your politicol and religious beliefs’
In response to your mention of adaption – I meant that for the religious people, not for the law makers – because I feel that eventually catholics should allow female priests and, if possible, the complete acceptance of homosexuals. Oh well though, that probably won’t happen in my lifetime… but of course, people in the 1950′s probably said that about things in the catholic church such as, having masses in English, etc (sorry, most of my religious knowledge, at least in doctrine and history, is in catholicism)
Aside from homosexuality the examples you have given relate to consent by both parties (in previous posts, pedophilia was also part of the example). No one in thier right mind consents to be a slave, consents to a victim of presecution of govt, or consents to incest (very very very strong genetic reasons not to consent to incest). Homosexuality already exists and is part of society. All that giving them the ability to marry in the eyes of govt (see someones earlier post about the differnce between legal marriage and religious marriage) and grant to them the same property rights etc that a hetro married couple have.
From a simple biology viewpoint you are right. However like I said before there are already homosexuals, not letting them marry is not going to stop them from being gay. In fact it can make it harder for them to assist helping where they can by adopting children for example(which I am aware is another point of contention). Most western countries are already experienceing population replacement problems as more and more adult CHOOSE not to have children, in or our of marriage. And these are marriages recognised by BOTH church and state.
No. Marriage exists for two reasons, neither of which are having children. As eloquently pointed out by an earlier poster, Marriage by government relates to property rights and the application of various laws. Marriage by religion is the continuation of tradition. I am unaware of any religion even that makes children a REQUIREMENT of marriage. There is a social expectiation but to my knowledge no requirement. Marriage was and is a method of social control. By two people commiting to marriage it publically announces that the relationship is off limits, this increases trust in the long term strength of the relationship, thus increaseing the chance of both people agreeing to procreate.
Finally, Strictly biologically speaking marraiage is NOT useful to further the race. If biology is your ultimate yardstick for law making then sex with any female human capable of childbirth should be legal, regardless of consent. The institution of marriage wastes much procreation time espcially for those who wait until married before procreating. Think of all the non-pregant women you see everyday, with marriage and the current requirements of consent and the current laws surrounding welfare payments to single mothers there are a lot of wombs sitting idle especially considering females humans are constantly ‘in heat’.
By your viewpoint it should be socially unacceptable for a woman to not be pregnant and also a male devoting themselves to a single female who will be unable to procreate for at least 12 months at a time (gestation and recovery time) should be made illegal.
This all neatly comes back to my point in my last post. Legalisation of homosexual marraiges will not be the moral downfall of civilisation due to the overriding moral requirement for consent.
I’m straight, but i can’t remember choosing heterosexuality. You can choose whether to have sex with someone or not, but you can’t choose who you are attracted to.
as long as they can bring kids up right, who cares about their sexuality?
since when has a marriage between 2 adults who love each other been “abnormal behaviour”?
“We should under any circumstances impose our religious beliefs on another (or lack there of).”
do you mean “shouldn’t”?
haha… yes, sorry
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 23 trackbacks }