Do the anti-gay marriage people have a single defensible reason why it should not be permitted - that is something which is actually logical and concrete? On a recent thread on a message board about it, I can't find a single thing. Just more of the same "well, it's plain wrong, but I can't tell you why it's wrong" that one normally gets from racists and bible-thumpers. Let's take a look at their arguments:
"it seems to me that people want to force the rest of society to not only accept but to embrace alternate lifestyles. That is where I draw the line."This is an absurdity. Nobody is forcing anyone to "embrace" anything. By allowing people to live their lives the way they want, not bothering anyone else, are we inviting people to hold guns to our heads in order to make us "be gay"? A lot of people don't "embrace" eating meat, believing that Jesus Christ is the Savior, and numerous other things which are a part of other peoples' lives - but guess what - it still exists, and doesn't affect a damn soul who chooses not to get their panties in a wad about it. Are we still so backward, even in the 21st century, that we fail to realize that people are different and do not neccesarily subscribe to our own singular mores?
"The family as I see it has always been intended to mean a man and a woman and their children (zygotes which have been allowed to develope[sic] for those who seem to have forgotten). Of course there is the extended family, grandparents, cousins, aunts uncles, etc. The core of the family is the mother, father and those whom they raise.Aha...a pseudo-biological argument, and completely invalid. In order to make this work, one would have to hold the position that a man and a woman who have
adopted and are raising a child are not a family, nor are childless couples a "family". There would be nothing saying that a gay couple could not adopt and raise a child. So there is no difference except the part about "a man and a woman". And on that issue, all we get from the above is
"as I see it" , and
"intended to mean". Well, hell, "mail" was
intended to mean that you write words on a piece of paper, put it in an envelope, put a stamp on it, and drop it in a mailbox - not type it out on a computer. Airplane was
intended to mean a propeller-driven thing, and video tapes were intended to be available in either VHS or Beta. Who decides what it was
intended to mean anyway? God? Why, of course:
"The only reason that I believe that gay marriage is wrong is because I believe that God only intended for marriage to be a union between a man and woman." And what if the person
who the gay marriage issue actually affects doesn't believe in the same god you do, or even in none at all? How about if I worship a stone in my yard that doesn't care who I marry? I'm free to worship this stone, but in matters of morality I have to listen to what Yahweh thinks? How can anyone, with a straight face, actually believe that they have the right, based on what they think their particular Great Ju-Ju in The Sky thinks about anything, to tell other people what they can and cannot do, particularly as we have a little thing called freedom of religion? We're not talking about obviously harmful acts here, like murder or child molestation, we're talking about two consenting adults. We don't expect Hindus to study the teachings of Christ, anymore than Christians would be too hip to being told they need to follow the words of Muhammed. Once again religion rears it's ugly head to divide us.
"I don't feel that homosexual (same sex) people can fully grasp the concept of raising a child in all of its aspects. I think all too often a child will be reared to accept alternative lifestyles as normal, when they by their very nature are not.I feel that children raised in these circumstances run the risk of not becoming socially developed."Really? 872,000 children were determined to have been victims of child abuse/neglect in 2004 alone (source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau:
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/index.htm ), so I am very inclined to believe that heterosexuality is hardly a good predictor of ability as a good parent. "Normal"? Who the hell is "normal", and what makes them so? "Run the risk of not becoming socially developed"? Data please, or at least a reasoned argument?
Then we have this site, and others like it:
http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com/dawntestimony.phpI can only say that there isn't a single horror story (exposure to STDs, pornography?) that would be any more accepted or legal if she had a straight parent. I don't see that anything she says is related to her parent specifically being gay, only that he was a monstrous shithead. There are precious few otherwise gay men who are also pedophiles. Damn near every convicted pedophile is otherwise hetero. Psychologists have postulated that this is due to a female being conceived of as more childlike in the molester's brain than another full-grown man would be. Ms. Stefanowitz strikes me as having "found religion" and having become a poster girl for the evils of homosexuality. It should also be pointed out that her page is way out of date: federal laws ratifying same-sex marriage were passed almost two years ago in Canada, and they've been able to adopt children for years. Yet, lo and behold, their society has not collapsed - just as ours didn't when people of different races started marrying. Amazing.
"Follow the money. This push for homosexual marriage doesn't have a thing to do with love. It has everything to do with money. The two most important are medical insurance and spousal retirement benefits. The real issue is always money."And why shouldn't it be? Homosexual adults pay the exact same taxes and Social Security as do heterosexual ones. Why in the hell shouldn't they have the exact same benefits? Because they are denied equal rights because of religious objections to the way they live, that's why, and nothing more.
"It is nothing but a sexual paraphilia. It has no more right or recognition than those who are sexually turned on by children, dogs, or rubber suits. I am sure those with other paraphilias think they were born that way too."Once again, moral judgements which are essentially a non-sequitur anyway. Nobody is clamoring to marry their rubber suit, nor can dogs receive survivor's benefits. Equating an adult, consenting human being with an innocent child or inanimate fetish item in logically absurd in the extreme.
"Unlike the other voices on this issue, I fully state that these are my opinions. As a person I am indeed intitled entitled[sic] as such. While I respect others' having the completely opposite ideas from my own, at least I acknowedge their right to speak their mind. My ideas are my own, they are how I believe and shall raise children in kind."This is always the last gasp of one who cannot justify their position - "well, it's my opinion! I'm entitled to my opinion!". Does no one get anymore that an opinion should be based on something concrete, or that they can logically support in some way? People seem to roll out of bed in the morning imbued with opinions about shit yet don't have the foggiest logical reason why they have such an opinion, or shit they know absolutely nothing about. The idea isn't "your own", it's simply the position which has been fed to you, evidenced by the obvious fact that you haven't thought about it very much.
It all boils down to this:
"First, I personally don't believe homosexuals should be recognized or allowed to marry because it's just plain morally wrong. Yes, according to my morals."Read: "Unless you meet my preconceived notions of what is moral and what is not, then you must therefore be immoral and an abomination". And to think it's friggin' 2006.
I myself have a wife and two children, about as conventional and traditional a family as there is. We've never had any previous marriages, and have been happily married for 16 years. However, I will never understand why people do not realize that not everyone else is, or even should be, the same as they are. If only 1 Kings 14:24 read "verily I say unto thee: different strokes for different folks" the world would probably be a lot better place.
