10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is Un-American

[Runt]

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is Un-American

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. 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.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. 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.
9. 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.

http://bw.org/gay-marriage.html

 

[UnTheist]

That's really funny. Those answers are so nonsensical it looks like they aren't even serious.

 

[yossarian22]

Hooray for satire.

 

[Valjean]

Hooray for un-americanism!

 

[powder21]

LOL! I love it!

 

[Halcyon]

Heh, funny and poignant. Frubals.

 

[Alexander007]

Very funny. I may be wrong...

Gay rights? I am sure everybody will be happy with this one.....

How about, the law institutions say,"we have decided not to step on people's faces any more. Let them lead their own lives. We don't dictate on individual rights, because they are indeed; INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS."

Why do I say that?

I swear I will not vote yes on gay marriage. I could express a stronger opinion, I don't need to, and many will agree to it. The only way to avoid messing with the rights of individuals of either group, is to realise that we should not vote on whether the other individual should have rights. They deserve those rights. Those who are bringing the issues to be voted on need to be asked their motivations in getting people to alienate each other by voting other people against their own rights.

We should insist that those who draft bills for us to be pass should identify themselves by name, and affiliation, and you will see that you are all being duped. The gay marriage issue is not important enough to consume even a minute in a the house. Period

 

[Dunemeister]

The perfect solution to all this is basically what happens in Europe. If you want to get married, you go to your local office and fill out a form in which the prospective couple make out a legal contract. Let's call that contract a "union." Gay, straight, whatever, you have a contracted union that brings with it certain specified benefits and expectations. It is entirely appropriate for the state to get involved at this level because the state's primary reason for existence is to administer justice, including enforcing the terms of a legally contracted arrangement.

Then, if the couple wishes to, they can go down to their local priest, minister, rabbi, shaman, or what-have-you, and receive a religious blessing, sanctification, prayer fiesta sword dance, or whatever, which will have whatever significance the particular religious (or non-religious) group assigns to it. (There have been a great many secular humanist weddings, for instance, that atheists find spiritually uplifting without involving any reference to a deity or transcendant reality beyond the physical.)

This way, both the state's role as the legimizer and enforcer of legal contracts is respected, and so are the religious freedoms and responsibilities of the religious communities. Another benefit is that it completely and forever eliminates the (mostly artificially created and maintained) culture wars in the US, at least with respect to this issue.

Sadly, I don't see such a compromise being made anytime soon.

 

[Elessar]

The perfect solution to all this is basically what happens in Europe. If you want to get married, you go to your local office and fill out a form in which the prospective couple make out a legal contract. Let's call that contract a "union." Gay, straight, whatever, you have a contracted union that brings with it certain specified benefits and expectations. It is entirely appropriate for the state to get involved at this level because the state's primary reason for existence is to administer justice, including enforcing the terms of a legally contracted arrangement.

Then, if the couple wishes to, they can go down to their local priest, minister, rabbi, shaman, or what-have-you, and receive a religious blessing, sanctification, prayer fiesta sword dance, or whatever, which will have whatever significance the particular religious (or non-religious) group assigns to it. (There have been a great many secular humanist weddings, for instance, that atheists find spiritually uplifting without involving any reference to a deity or transcendant reality beyond the physical.)

This way, both the state's role as the legimizer and enforcer of legal contracts is respected, and so are the religious freedoms and responsibilities of the religious communities. Another benefit is that it completely and forever eliminates the (mostly artificially created and maintained) culture wars in the US, at least with respect to this issue.

Sadly, I don't see such a compromise being made anytime soon.

Hear, hear!

 

[whereismynotecard]

I would actually like the marry Baggins... It's not like we would do secks... Just be married, because he's my soul mate...

 

[Alexander007]

I am giving an opinion, buster, I said give them their rights. Don't ask us to vote for or against, because you know what the answer is. If you can do it in such a way that they have a right for their agreements, without having us to say such conduct is fine, you have all the world's blessings I am sure. You should be president I think, probably Democrat. They like to please everyone at the expense of themselves..

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I am giving an opinion, buster, I said give them their rights. Don't ask us to vote for or against, because you know what the answer is. If you can do it in such a way that they have a right for their agreements, without having us to say such conduct is fine, you have all the world's blessings I am sure. You should be president I think, probably Democrat. They like to please everyone at the expense of themselves..

You're a peach, Alex.

You are willing to give a gay person their rights, but you don't want to have to vote on it. You assume you know what the outcome of a vote will be, and that you will somehow be considered magnanimous, while still being true to your religious bigotry.

 

[Draka]

The perfect solution to all this is basically what happens in Europe. If you want to get married, you go to your local office and fill out a form in which the prospective couple make out a legal contract. Let's call that contract a "union." Gay, straight, whatever, you have a contracted union that brings with it certain specified benefits and expectations. It is entirely appropriate for the state to get involved at this level because the state's primary reason for existence is to administer justice, including enforcing the terms of a legally contracted arrangement.

Then, if the couple wishes to, they can go down to their local priest, minister, rabbi, shaman, or what-have-you, and receive a religious blessing, sanctification, prayer fiesta sword dance, or whatever, which will have whatever significance the particular religious (or non-religious) group assigns to it. (There have been a great many secular humanist weddings, for instance, that atheists find spiritually uplifting without involving any reference to a deity or transcendant reality beyond the physical.)

This way, both the state's role as the legimizer and enforcer of legal contracts is respected, and so are the religious freedoms and responsibilities of the religious communities. Another benefit is that it completely and forever eliminates the (mostly artificially created and maintained) culture wars in the US, at least with respect to this issue.

Sadly, I don't see such a compromise being made anytime soon.

Um, this is already how it is done. You go to your county courthouse, fill out your marriage license. At that point you can have it signed there by the clerk or JP. If you so choose you can have a ceremony (religious or not) and have the officiator (JP or clergy) sign it. Religion has nothing to do with marriage in this country legally. You all are just going batcrap over a word. That's it. You say it's fine to call it another word, but it still be the same thing. If it is the same thing as marriage then why not just call it marriage? :sarcastic:areyoucra

 

[Dunemeister]

Um, this is already how it is done. You go to your county courthouse, fill out your marriage license. At that point you can have it signed there by the clerk or JP. If you so choose you can have a ceremony (religious or not) and have the officiator (JP or clergy) sign it. Religion has nothing to do with marriage in this country legally. You all are just going batcrap over a word. That's it. You say it's fine to call it another word, but it still be the same thing. If it is the same thing as marriage then why not just call it marriage? :sarcastic:areyoucra

Actually, I have no issue with using the word "marriage" to describe committed homosexual unions. I guess I'm suggesting getting rid of the word "marriage" in favor of a more "neutral" word for legal purposes. Culturally, everyone will still use "marriage" to describe what's going on, but for legal purposes, we can call them "unions", which gets us out of the sticky, politically charged debate about "marriage." (Might even get around Cali's Prop 8.) Mostly, this is a sop to the religious crowd whose hackles are raised at the prospect of calling homosexual unions marriages. And as petty as it may sound, a mere turn of phrase may be all that's required in order to get homosexuals what they say they want: legal ratification of committed homosexual unions. Legally, we'll call them "unions" (using the same term to describe heterosexual unions), but among the vulgar, we'll call them marriages, just as we do with heterosexuals.