Ten Reasons Gay Marriage Is Wrong
POSTED BY: CrevanReaver
UPDATED: Friday, June 12, 2026 14:40
VIEWED: 8027
PAGE 6 of 8
"Once again I don't understand exactly what anyone could see wrong with this essay."
Well, it started with the title "Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization". Since what he says in the essay doesn't apply to all civilizations, and perhaps not even most of them, I wonder - who's civilization ? when ? Or are we to assume that only those who conform to his very narrow set of behaviors are 'civilized' ?
"... every American who believes in democracy should be outraged that any court should take it upon itself to dictate such a social innovation without recourse to democratic process."
Back when, when the FF wrote 'all men are created equal', it was a radical bit of social innovation (and a bit of blowhard bluster, but that's beside the point). Are we now not to take them at their word ?
"Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill."
How am I to take this except as a bit of propaganda, which, like propaganda everywhere, demonizes the opposition with lies ?
"But anyone who has any understanding of how [] any civilization [] works [] will realize that this new diktat [] will not have any of the intended effects, while the unintended effects are likely to be devastating."
And what is this except more unfounded panic spreading - the FALL OF CIVILIZATION IS AT HAND ! Be VERY afraid !
He then goes on to repeat the right-wing argument that of course any gay or lesbian can get married as long as they marry the opposite sex. This despite the clear violation of 'pursuit of happiness' principle, the clear analogy to miscegenation laws, and other logic-based arguments against this position.
"However emotionally bonded a pair of homosexual lovers may feel themselves to be, what they are doing is not marriage."
Why not ? His argument is a text-book circular one: I define it as not, therefore, b/c it violates the definition I've proved that it's not.
"And yet, throughout the history of human society []it was always expected that children would be born into and raised by families consisting of a father and mother."
Mai gott. Does he not realize how vastly untrue this is ? From polygamous systems where women raise children together to the care of children by elders to the care of boys by male-elders in sex-segregated houses and the care of girls by females in their own houses - and everything in between, the raising of children by an isolated couple has never been the norm.
"So not only are two sexes required in order to conceive children, children also learn their sex-role expectations from the parents in their own family."
Or the grandparents, the community, the tribe ... in fact, sex-roles are often explicitly taught by the community using rites and rituals of passage.
"Most broken or wounded families are in that condition because of a missing father. There is substantial and growing evidence that our society's contempt for the role of the father in the family is responsible for a massive number of "lost" children."
Even if it's true (and I have no reason to believe it is other than his assertion) - this is a problem of gay marriage - how ?
Anyway - I hope you get the idea.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"... every American who believes in democracy should be outraged that any court should take it upon itself to dictate such a social innovation without recourse to democratic process."
Shall we be equally outraged at school desegregation? The abolition of slavery? The right of blacks to vote? The right of women to vote? At some point, hasn't some court taken it upon itself to dictate such social innovations at nearly every turn?
At some point, hasn't THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES taken it upon itself to dictate such social innovations?
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeesh. Freakin' reductionist (reproductionist?) Mormons. 
For them, all life is summed up in procreation, full stop. You don't make babies? You "don't contribute to society as a whole." Tell that to Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo--what a couple losers they were!
Okay, so you and the Mormons think marriage is about raising children? Most gay people would prolly agree with you! lol The crazy thing is that marriage's "inherent" orientation toward the raising of children, the creation of what most folk consider "a family," its essential meaning, will not change when gays can wed. More gays will simply adopt children, more gays will simply start families. Duh.
But, oh no, says Orson, children need a biological male and a biological female in the house or they grow up bonkers! Too bad these roles of nurturer and protector only ever show up in opposite sex partners, with males ALWAYS playing the protector role, and females ALWAYS playing the nurturer role--oh, wait, gay couples of long standing tend to gravitate toward these archetypes as well? Sorry, Orson.
Ignorance and Oversimplification, the Conservative's favorite drinking buddies! Hey, here come the twins, Paranoia and Neophobia--have a seat girls, the party's just gettin' started!
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ncbrowncoat:
My daughter, practical young person that she is, came up with the idea that everyone enter into "civil unions" with the ONE that you love and leave "marriage ceremonies" to the different religions and churches. I've come around to her idea.
I am in full agreement with your daughter, and have made the case to my own mother, who doesn't agree with me. Marriage has a long history, everyone knows what it means, and it just rolls off the tongue better. All of this is true. My argument, though, is that if religious types are going to shriek about marriage being their tradition, it should be eliminated, in the interest of separating church and state. Either that, or they need to stop claiming it as their own and insisting that it can only apply to one man and one woman. Guess everyone is forgetting about group marriages, multiple wives, multiple husbands, harems, all that stuff that's happened throughout history. No, theirs is the only correct definition of marriage. Well, I say screw 'em.
Siggy, though, has pointed out the problem of the laws and how they're written. It's certainly a pickle. Ideally, again in the interest of separating church and state, marriage should never have become a legal institution. But it is. And, unfortunately, it isn't really practical to change all references to that legal institution. So, again the solution is for the hysterical bible thumpers who fear what they don't understand or don't want to understand, to just shut the hell up and let everyone else live their lives already.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
There's nothing anti-gay about it in my opinion. Would someone please point out what I'm missing.
Gay people are trying to corrupt our children, bring about the fall of civilization as we know it, and ultimately collapse our species. You don't see the hysteria and the hatred towards people who just want to declare their love on paper like everybody else, there? This is all, just, fine with you? This is what you view as a well-reasoned and rational argument, is it?
Edit: HKCavalier, you're pretty gorramn cool :)
[/sig]
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Seconded, although it's a bit of a pisser when he makes my arguments before I do, and better than I do!
Quote:
in the interest of separating church and state, marriage should never have become a legal institution.
For all the lip service it gets, the powers that be have NEVER properly adhered to that principle, and McCarthy and his slobbering pack of idiots (who the current pack of slobbering idiots WILL wind up on the trash heap of history WITH) only drove it further downhill - the worst offenses of which were mangling the pledge then trying to enforce it on children, and tampering with US Currency, given that one of the original mottos printed thereon was "Mind your own business".
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Google up Orson Scott Card's essay on how gay marriage will destroy the world. Unless, of course, you want to be able to read any of his books ever again without a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach.
Hmm. When I triaged 40 years of paperbacks in prep for remodeling the basement, all the Card books went in the give-away pile. Now I'm glad for another reason, other than the freed-up shelf space.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
The only problem with gay marriage is that societies that allow gay marriage tend to start devaluing marriage all together.
LOL as if marriage werent devalued already in todays society, THIS comes along...
I read in the paper the other day about a woman who getting married for the fourth or fifth time saying she still believed in the 'sanctity' that marriage holds.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Google up Orson Scott Card's essay on how gay marriage will destroy the world. Unless, of course, you want to be able to read any of his books ever again without a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach.
Hmm. When I triaged 40 years of paperbacks in prep for remodeling the basement, all the Card books went in the give-away pile. Now I'm glad for another reason, other than the freed-up shelf space.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
I don't know why, but that just made me smile.
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Once again I don't understand exactly what anyone could see wrong with this essay."
Well, it started with the title "Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization". Since what he says in the essay doesn't apply to all civilizations, and perhaps not even most of them, I wonder - who's civilization ? when ? Or are we to assume that only those who conform to his very narrow set of behaviors are 'civilized' ?
Thanks for the answer Rue.
I do see the over the top hyperbole in much of what he says, but it's not anti-gay in my opinion. He just believes that marriage is an important foundation of civilization and that changing the definition of what marriage is by force of law is wrong. If gays begin to enter into civil unions and over time it is seen as a positive thing for society then the term "Civil Union" will have every bit as much weight as the term "Marriage". The issue in my opinion is that the examples of countries that have adopted Civil Unions show that it has not been a positive for society, but instead has lead to the destruction of the respect of that society for the institution of marriage. Can anyone point out an example of a society where gay civil unions have been adopted where the rate of marriage has increased.
I think the response here to my use of the term "promiscuous" is telling in the reason this whole dispute exists. Some think that there's nothing wrong with single people having many partners and others like myself think it is destructive to their mental well being and lessens the chances that they will be able to enter into a stable lifetime partnership. If gays are capable of forming lifetime bonds then whatever name they chose to describe it will quickly gain credibility in society, but in my opinion that has yet to be demonstrated.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I think the response here to my use of the term "promiscuous" is telling in the reason this whole dispute exists. Some think that there's nothing wrong with single people having many partners and others like myself think it is destructive to their mental wellbeing and lessens the chances that they will be able to enter into a stable lifetime partnership.
What I don't understand is why you think gay people who have multiple partners is any different than the straights who have been screwing around for thousands of years. The "sanctity" of marriage has been polluted by heterosexuals since the institution was invented.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME