Top 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is UnAmerican Written by Summer Ludwig at 9:53 am on 10/20/2007 http://wwjv4.com/politics/top-10-reasons-gay-marriage-is-unamerican-47 I found this list on BW.org there was no attribution as he found it somewhere else. I thought it was very pertinent to this site and concisely addresses the most common arguments against gay marriage in a very funny way. 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. I had to laugh a bit at this.
The fundamental arguments are not strawman. I've heard several of them many times. There are smarmy little bits added on the end, but the fundamental argument is accurate. For instance: [rquoter] 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. [/rquoter] remove the very end and you have: [rquoter] Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets. [/rquoter] which I hear in just about all these discussions, with pedophilia being substituted for bestiality as a common variant. The format simply combines the arguments with their refutations in one compact, easy to use package.
That was actually pretty funny. I think divorce (with children) is a bigger problem in this country than gays wanting to get married. Always ironic to me that half the people screaming about gays getting married "destroying the sanctity of marriage" are the ones that are divorced and remarried and divorced and remarried...
That was a crappy list, a horrible failure of an attempt at humor, and I say that as a supporter of gay marriage.
Its the smarmy bits that make them strawmen. Yes, these are common arguments made against gay marriage, but they aren't presented in their strongest manner. The smarmy bits simplify the arguments they refute. That's what makes them strawmen. But, hey, it's supposed to be humor (or maybe ridicule); it'd probably be less funny if it delved too deeply into the actual argument.
Nope it'll die if you dont continue. Anyway, Princeton Wordnet defines strawman as "a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted"
The truth about anti-gay people is like the racists who dislike blacks. It is just pure prejudice. The reasons you listed are sugarcoating that. But then any society will have some sort of prejudice. For example, criminals are another class of people who are discriminated against. However, when people figure out that there is no free will, then we might even embrace criminals.
I have a dream, that one day, little gay boys, and little straight boys, will be able to sit at the same table. lmao
The list has some sarcastic points, but I think overall there is a solid argument here. I think #3 is especially valid because too many people stress liberty above what is ethical or right and that opens the way for radical behavior.
this is really interesting... FROM REUTERS... Gene switch altered sex orientation of worms By Julie Steenhuysen CHICAGO (Reuters) - Altering a gene in the brain of female worms changed their sexual orientation, U.S. researchers said on Thursday, making female worms attracted to other females. The study reinforces the notion that sexual orientation is hard-wired in the brain, said Erik Jorgensen, scientific director of the Brain Institute at the University of Utah. "They look like girls, but act and think like boys," Utah researcher Jamie White, who worked on the study published in the journal Current Biology, said in a statement. Researchers in Jorgensen's lab switched on a gene in female worms that makes the body develop male structures, but they only activated the gene in the brain. As a result, the female worms still had female bodies, but they behaved like males. "It suggests sexual behavior is encoded in our genes" and not caused by extra nerve cells specific to males or females, Jorgensen said in a telephone interview. Animals such as nematodes, fruit flies and mice share many of the same genes as humans and are often used as models to understand human genetics. But Jorgensen said the study is not likely to resolve the burning question about the genesis of sexual orientation in humans. "A human's brain is much more complex than a worm's brain," he said. Many scientists think a host of factors such as genetics, hormones and environment may play a role in determining sexual orientation in humans, but this has not been proven. Jorgensen said the study is interesting because it suggests rather than being caused by extra, sex-specific nerve cells, attraction behaviors are part of the same brain circuit. The finding was part of a study looking at areas in the worms' brains involved in sexual attraction. LIVE IN DIRT, EAT GERMS Nematodes, or C. elegans, are tiny worms about one millimeter long that live in the dirt, chomping bacteria. They have no eyes and rely on smell for navigation and propagation. There are few males, only one in 500, so most of these female nematodes are hermaphrodites, meaning they have both male and female sexual organs. This gives the female worms the ability to fertilize their own eggs and produce offspring in the absence of a male. "For the most part they are females," Jorgensen said. "It's really hard to tell that they are hermaphrodites, but they do make these few sperm." When they do mate with males, female worms produce 1,200 progeny, compared with just 200 when they produce their own sperm. The researchers were trying to understand the underpinnings of sexual attraction in the male nematodes. They reasoned it could arise from four extra smell-related nerve cells found only in male worm brains, from four core nerves found in both males and females or from a mix of both. When they systematically neutralized the male-only neurons, mature male worms still responded to the females. The findings imply nerve cells common to both male and female worms are central to sexual attraction and sexual orientation. "They have genes for both male behavior and female behavior in them," Jorgensen said. "It suggests the brain determines behavior." The study expands on prior studies suggesting a genetic component to sexual orientation. "This is one more observation. We've seen this in flies and in mice," he said. "The difference is we know what cells are involved." The study was funded by the National Science Foundation.
Marriage is a religious partnership that was tied in with the legal system long ago. Seperate the religious aspect out of the legal contract and let homo's sign all the contracts they want. Hell if people can leave millions to their dog let a guy get medical insurence from his butt buddy. I wonder what the divorce rate would be if people could get married with no legally binding contract?
See every argument presented by the poster TraderJorge on the BBS Board "ClutchFans / BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion"
