Quantcast

«

»

Nov 06 2013

It Get’s Better – 10 Reasons

I managed to find a list from Defend Marriage (provided by a very nice reader), listing 10 reasons equal marriage rights for GLBT must be opposed and I figured that a short rebuttal is necessary against the most common arguments people give against equal marriage rights. I know a lot of the readers probably agree with me, but a few people will show up and read this and it may change their mind or at least give them something to think about. I understand that this is a TL:DR post, but think of it as a Cracked article.

Naturally this is from a christian perspective, but it’s basically the same arguments as passed down by all the people who wish to deny equality but I shall deal with it mainly from a christian perspective.

1. It Is Not Marriage 

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

Ladies! You get to share a man! Aren’t we generous? You are welcome!
(Signed by the Council of Nicea)

Okay that’s a really cheap shot. It’s just a picture and it’s already crippled the argument through a combination of truth and ridicule (Truthicule?). This argument fails to realise that if the sole purpose of marriage is to breed like rabbits, then surely it doesn’t matter if gay people got married or not. It’s not like they are going to breed and it’s not like their marriage is going to some how cause you to stop breeding. And I thought marriage is about love, about wanting to spend the rest of your life with someone you value, hopefully till you both die together peacefully a long time from now. That’s the ideal but we know it’s not possible. Most people will die leaving a partner behind, and many marriages don’t last till that point. The children we bring up are a product of this love and devotion. At least, that’s what it means to me. Different people see different meanings in marriage and love and I accept that. But you cannot make a blanket statement that marriage exists solely for fucking and babies.

This argument is just sexist to both genders. There are physiological differences in gender brought about by our genetics. I don’t need to point those out, we all know them. Those are differences that are innate to us.

Then there are societal differences, or things that are enforced by society on our gender behaviour. Even such harmless ideas as “men like blue, women like pink” and “women don’t play video-games” or such dangerous ones as “women aren’t as good as men at work” and “Women really mean yes when they say no”. These are societal pressures. These are ideas that are embraced by society and impressed on the various genders, to the point that there are women who don’t work as hard as men because no one told that they could, and that there are men who don’t take no for an answer…

A simple example of societal expectations being subverted is Sigourney Weaver.

The Societal Norm – Weaver as a damsel in distress who needs to be
rescued by “the man”. The man in this case being Bill Murray who
she falls in love with because of gratitude (presumably).
The Subversion – This is Ellen Ripley who doesn’t
need a man to rescue her. All she needs
is a big gun, a flame thrower, duct tape
and a giant robot. 

There are more interesting examples of societal pressure out there. In this case marriage is itself a societal pressure. The expectation to go through a specific song and dance that somehow legitimises the act of sex and somehow stops children from being bastards. The only thing that creates this idea is pure societal pressure.

The Human Race seems to be going along just fine in any case, what with us hitting the Seven Billion Mark. Let’s just say we could do with a fair few more gay marriages in India and China if it indeed worked that way.

2. It Violates Natural Law 

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by nat
ural law. 
Natural laws most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the acts purpose. Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality. Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal andimmutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15) 

Natural Law is the assumption that whatever christians do is good and proper and if anyone does something similar to them then it’s due to Natural Law or the innate divine laws handed down by Jehovah rather than logic and common sense. Never mind that murder is illegal in most societies because murder disrupts society. Never mind that feuds are settled in courts rather than as family conflict which can prevent society from forming. Never mind that these are evolutionarily advantageous things.

Where is Natural Law Written? Are we discussing Platonian or Aristotlian natural law? Or are we discussing the Natural Law as written by Hobbes which is all about behaving nicely and nothing about gay sex or even gay marriage. Unless we lost his 20th constituent of natural law and it says “no fags!”.

There are many different ideas of natural law because there are many different beliefs in it. There exists no natural law bar the ones we create. A lot of laws make sense so many different people come to the same law independently. It’s like how we all have the same shape of drinking container to drink our water. It’s not a natural law, it’s just that beaker shape is great for holding liquids.

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother 

It is in the childs best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children
who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Same-sex “marriage” ignores a childs best interests.

And this will be his high chair! 

This is an argument steeped in the notion that the only way to bring up a child is with a mother and father no matter the quality of parent. There are no other alternative ways of bringing up a child, and if your wife or husband should be taken into the embrace of whatever merciful creator you may believe in then you are out of luck. Your kid is fucked. There is no way, no matter what you do as a man/woman that your kid will turn out fine. However if your wife is alive then you could be crack addicts and make your son sleep in a bed of knives and he will turn out to be perfectly fine.

This is an argument that denigrates the efforts of any GLBT couple who adopt rather than rely on surrogacy. A lot of GLBT couples adopt rather than rely on surrogates and the adoption means that a child is removed from a foster home and placed with people who want to genuinely care for them. Kids in foster care don’t effectively have parents because they are either orphans or their parents are otherwise indisposed (be they severely ill, mentally unsound, criminals or deceased). Apparently being made to live in a series of foster homes is better than being placed in a kind and loving home

Husband! Make me a sandwich!

Any adopted readers will confirm that their adopted parents showered them with as much love and affection as their biological parents. That despite there being no genetic relationship they will consider their adopted parents as their mum and dad solely because they did the things that mums and dads do. This insults single parents who often do a stellar job (be they single mums or indeed single dads who rarely get a nod in the public eye) raising their kids. No, no one hears about the good stories from single parents because that’s not a story. No one starts a conversation about how well behaved their kids are!

And again this works under the assumption that mother and father role models are indeed necessary and gender determined by genetics rather than gender determined by society. That somehow women are the civil society of the house while men form the judicial wing… That men should know power tools and cars and beer while women should know when to cook and when to shut up. And that neither gender can subvert their roles in society, to rise above these foolish pressures and be more than just a penis or a vagina. To these people, the modern society where men can and will take responsibility with the child rearing is a horrid prospect. To these people a society where women can do whatever a man can do is an abhorrent dystopian future rather than an ideal society. They live in the fear that breaking gender roles will create a generation of women who won’t listen to their chauvinist ways and who will understand that they are equal to men and won’t be denigrated by them.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle 

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyones perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

Your brain says no, but your reflexes say yes. 

Yes it does. It does validate the homosexual lifestyle as an equal of our heterosexual ways. I see no point in that. I am straight, I have no attraction to men. At no point after homosexuality was decriminalised have straight men ever decided to that they want to have sex with other men. It’s just not an option. At no point have straight women ever thought “I Fancy Women” because they saw someone lesbian walk by.

How does it even obscure moral values? Whose? The bible isn’t the only moral code and it’s a pretty backwards one at that because it cannot accept that being yourself is the moral thing to do. Pretending to be straight just does not work.

And how does it devalue traditional marriage? I mean seriously? I don’t think my future marriage is any worse off because more people can enjoy it. Do you know what devalues marriage?

Pretending to be something you are not. Lying… It hurts the person you are married to and it hurts you the most.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right 

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false. First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of
the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man
and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

Nature? Rape is one of the most natural things in nature but we ban it. Because we are an unnatural species. Pants are unnatural but I don’t see christians complaining about the nudity laws.

The assumption is that homosexuality is a learned behaviour or is a behaviour that is acquired. It’s not, most gay people learn at a young age that they simply aren’t attracted to women and prefer men instead. It’s “innate”. The reasons don’t matter.

And it has nothing to do with racial equality. They are different issues entirely, it has however everything to do with EQUALITY. In that two adults want to do what they want in the comfort of their own house. And that you don’t have any rights to impinge on theirs. All they want is their unions to be recognised as equal to yours and they have the same benefits as yours. That’s all. They don’t want to get married in homophobic churches, they want to get married in places which accept them for who they are.

This is like stating that people who have sex doggy style are not allowed to be married.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union 

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families. On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families. Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union  marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

What about sterile couples? They cannot produce children so is their marriage null and void?

And most gay people tend to adopt because they would rather raise a child who doesn’t have a family than go through the rigmarole of creating life via artificial and expensive means. Not all gay people are rich enough to afford all of this.

7. It Defeats the States Purpose of Benefiting Marriage 

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and
strengthening society, an evident interest of the State. Homosexual “marriage” does
not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

No, one of the main reasons it bestows benefits on marriage is that it makes life easier for people who are married and makes it easier to settle down in one place and to calculate taxation since a family unit earns as a group.

And people have sex and babies just fine without marriage registers and indeed government encouragement of marriage. I don’t see why a government stamp somehow makes you have babies better, neither do I understand how a church ceremony achieves the same. What I do understand though is that this is a societal pressure, that somehow a ceremony causes your relationship to be legitimise
d and grants you all sorts of benefits.

I mean this is just really spiteful. What are you losing by letting gay people sign onto the register? I mean this logic can be used to deny sterile people the right to sign onto the register. So far this is not an argument against gay people in so much as an argument against people who are incapable of having children for one reason or the other.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society 

By legalizing same-sex “marriage ,” the State be comes it’s official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony , orders public schools to teach it’s acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval. In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants. In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their
consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.
 

If your biggest gripe about legitimising gay marriage is that it will clamp down on homophobia then you are a homophobe.

Take that Nature!

Kids are killing themselves because people have taught their kids hate and to legitimise their bullying of homosexual children. And the biggest gripe the right wing can come up with is “see! They are preventing us from being dicks”.

And I am an atheist. I am an assault on christian morality in that I don’t need a god to exceed the morality of bronze age jews. My very existence is an insult to all faith simply because I can exceed their morality by applying my intellect into finding solutions to problems I am faced with through reason and thought rather than blind faith in a magical set of rules.

That and if bumming is all it takes to subvert the natural order then surely the very existence of humans is an assault on the natural the likes of which have never been seen.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same sex “marriage.” If homosexual “marriage” is
universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations. The railroading of same-sex“marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell
wrote in the Chicago Free Press:
 

The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality.

No… The sexual liberation movement was a product of women realising that they could control their own relationships rather than having to fit into the idea of marrying the first man that got their father’s permission.

It had nothing to do with legalisation of perversion and everything to do with women realising that sex was freaking amazing. And no one is going to legalise incest, bestiality or paedophilia on the basis of “incest isn’t particularly healthy”, bestiality is animal abuse and since children cannot legally give consent it is considered rape and very often it is “classical” rape which is abuse of power and usage of force to acquire sex against a non willing person (who in this case happens to also be underage).

10. It Offends God 

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this.
Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it. Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in
the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Gen. 1:28-29)
The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7). Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down
sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

But hang on, if marriage is mandated and protected almost solely by religion then this isn’t an argument against gay marriage being recognised by the state. It’s an argument against all marriage recognised by the state as per the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US constitution as financial bonuses are given to individuals involved in marriages.

Apparently the biggest threat to marriage isn’t gay marriage but homophobes, not gay people who just want marriage to mean what it means for most of us. A symbol of love and affection between two people who wish to have a special day to formalise their love. And to get presents…

7 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    S_minhas

    Your articles keep getting better and better!

  2. 2
    Varun Shankar

    Nicely written :) I don't want to be a grammar Nazi, but your spelling and grammar need a little work. Your logic is sound and the captions under the images are awesome!

  3. 3
    smrnda

    8 – the ‘imposing acceptance’ fallacy. Just because the state permits something doesn’t mean that it endorses it, and marriages are recognized because it would be rather shitty of the state to decide whose marriages were good enough. Multiple religions which have contradictory beliefs are permitted not because the state is saying they are valid, just saying people can worship whatever gods they want.

    If the notion is Christian people will have to ‘condone’ same sex marriage, well, the rest of us are stuck condoning Christianity every day. If I have a restaurant and a group of Christians wants to come in and pray to their god, I can’t kick them out for that (probably wouldn’t either, unless it became disruptive.) When Christians have their Bible studies in a cafe, they aren’t asked to leave any more than if a group met to talk about chemistry or film. Atheist government employees don’t get to choose not to recognize the marriages of Christians.

    The real issue is that some Christians want special rights to discriminate in the case of homosexuals, since they want to demonize them and oppress them.

    And this one :

    “The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality.”

    I’d say, totally true, and I agree. If we base morality on real world consequences and pragmatic ideas about what is good or bad for people, the objection to homosexuality has nothing. It’s entirely built on religion.

  4. 4
    thascius

    #1 on the list “marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman” Wrong. For most societies throughout recorded history it has been between a man and multiple women. In the west we have already redefined marriage plenty-by eliminating polygamy, by decreeing that a woman cannot marry until she is 18 (instead of marrying as soon as she hit puberty which was the case in the west until the last few centuries), by ending arranged marriages, by allowing married women to own property (which only happened in the US and the UK in the 19th century).
    Several places on the list reiterate procreation as the defining purpose of marriage-so if a postmenopausal woman or infertile person of either sex gets married it’s not a “real marriage”?
    And the Sodom and Gomorrah story-guess the author of that piece never read Ezekiel 16:49 “This was the sin of your sister Sodom. She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned. They did not care for the poor and the needy.”
    “Whenever one violates the natural order established by God, one sins and offends God.” I wonder just how many of the 613 commandments of the Torah the author of the list obeys. Probably not very many.
    And the ever popular “not letting Christians persecute homosexuals is persecuting Christians.” Do these people ever realize exactly how obnoxious they sound?

  5. 5
    M.C. Simon Milligan

    In most western nations the legal definition of marriage is rooted in the Roman tradition of serial monogamy which is EXACTLY what Jesus was condemning in Mark 10:6-7!

  6. 6
    otranreg

    Oh yeah, ‘it’s not natural!’ Why? ‘We said so!’ Why is unnatural bad? ‘We said so!’

    And why is natural good? That’s why:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDY9tWcFEdU

    (NTNOCN bit inside)

  7. 7
    dianne

    You get to share a man! Aren’t we generous?

    Given that the majority of the cases described set the woman or women up in a situation where the man is not one she wants (sexually or otherwise), yes, it is quite generous of you to allow women to share the work of taking care of a man.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>