12 Reasons Why Gays Should Not Be Married

[urbuddha]

1.. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and
birth control are not natural.
2.. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children.
Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the
world needs more children.
3.. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight
parents only raise straight children.
4.. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's
55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5.. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't
changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce
is illegal.
6.. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts,
because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically
protected the rights of minorities.
7.. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours,
the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's
why we only have one religion in America.
8.. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that
hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9.. 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 license.
10.. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models
at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11.. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual
marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new
social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12.. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with
a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is
always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just
as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

[UndertheOcean]

1. Right on !

:)

[Tinksrival]

2. You forgot something

>>>>>>>>>> :sarcasm: <<<<<<<<<<

:hi:

[pooja]

3. This is pretty funny

I would have to say that on number 12... I think that all "marriages" should actually be called unions. Marriage has a religious conotation and there are many religions that do not abide by a traditional christian ceremony. Union should replace the words marriage in an contract written by the govt.

[unblock]

4. the "separate but equal" analogy fails on other grounds as well

if "civil unions" were made available for gay marriages and conferred exactly the same legal rights as "marriages" but were different in name only, that would be an insult to gays but it would get gays the same effective legal rights as heterosexuals (w.r.t. marriage, at least).

"separate but equal" facilities for blacks was a whole nother ball game entirely. separate schools was more than just a putdown in name. it was discrimination outright, because the quality of those separate facilities was inherently unequal. blacks got inferior facilities, not equal facilities, and it was the separation that permitted this discrimination.

it's hard to imagine that applying to "civil unions" if they actually conferred the same legal rights. i suppose it's possible that some states might create "civil union dissolution courts" to separate gay split ups from "divorce court", but it's not clear why they'd bother. "separate but equal" made sense (in a heinously racist way) in order to keep more and better resources away from blacks. but separate courts for split-ups wouldn't accomplish anything like that.


i agree with your further point, much of the issue goes away if you leave "marriage" to the realm of religion and leave "civil unions" for the government. i would think that religion would actually enjoy that, as it would remind people that "marriage" IS a religious institution.

[readmoreoften]

8. there is no "separate but equal."

How many times do we have to do through this????

With civil unions, we can still be discriminated against at hospitals
We still can't collect our partner's SSI
We still can't bring our partners in from other countries to emigrate.
And 1000 other reasons.


Legal Marriage in America is not a Church Ceremony. Legal marriage IS a CIVIL UNION. When you say you're going to give us civil unions, but not marriage, it means you're not going to give us the same civil union that you have. It means that you're going to set up a separate system for us. You're going to set up the separate system so that your institution doesn't touch our institution. The only reason to do this is because you think that we're inferior to you. And that means that it will be unequal.

[unblock]

10. agreed

just to reiterate, my post was predicated on "civil unions" conferring the same legal rights as "marriage", the difference only being what you called it.

as you correctly point out, what is currently proposed as "civil union" falls rather short of the legal rights conferred by "marriage".

the "separate but equal" doesn't hold because there isn't even the pretense of "equal".

[readmoreoften]

11. But the point is, if they wanted them to be the same thing

they'd use the same word.

The only reason to use a different word is because one group doesn't want to be culturally infected by the other. The discrimination is inherent. If we all have civil unions, I'm fine with that. But until then, let's all have marriage. Equal.

[unblock]

12. but with "separate but equal", they DID use the same words

they said we got schools, they got schools. separate, but equal.

we agree on how stupid both methods of discrimination are. i'm only quibbling with the analogy. "separate but equal" was a different way to discriminate, and it doesn't really relate to "civil unions" vs. "marriage.

[readmoreoften]

13. How is it that it doesn't relate? Is "distinct but equal" a better term?

But on a practical level, it is impossible for there to be two legal concepts with different names, one being "civil union" the other being "marriage" and have them be equal. Every law in America that says marriage would not apply to people with civil unions. Hence it would be unequal.

No the situation isn't separate as in physically separate. The demand of a distinction in terminology is a demand to be culturally separate and remain legally superior to GLBT people which will naturally have consequence in law. It is absolutely an attempt to culturally separate G&L people from straight married people and reduce the value of GLBT relationships.

If what you are saying that the two events are not parallel, that the marriage rights of a sexual minority are different than the education rights of a racial minority, then that is something else.

If not, I don't know what you're saying. Two separate terms for marriage, will not be treated equally under the law. Separate, unequal.

[unblock]

15. i'm saying that no one's saying that they're equal

hence "separate but equal" doesn't relate.

"civil unions" (as currently proposed, with far fewer legal rights than marriage) are being advanced precisely to give homosexuals something UNequal to what heterosexuals have with "marriage".

it's not "separate but equal", it's just plain unequal.

[readmoreoften]

17. Oh yeah, I agree. /nt

[kdpeters]

20. Civil marriage has no religious connotation

It's a legal construct equally afforded heterosexual couples Christians, Jews, Wiccans, Atheists, and Satanists without any consideration of their religious views. Yes, this same legal institution is denied to same sex couples whose MARRIAGE has been blessed by a mainstream Christian church.

I reject your inability to contextually distinguish various meanings of the same word. I reject any suggestion that semantic nitpicking has any importance or relevance to fundamental civil rights or a justification to deny them. I reject that I should give any consideration or respect to the lie that civil marriage has a religious component to it.

Stop compromising with bigots!!

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Hey Now! Welcome to DU!

:thumbsup:

Nice.

[Up2Late]

6. Very good but I Oppose ALL Gay Marriage Laws, especially Federal

I oppose Gay Marriage laws, but I also oppose Heterosexual Marriage Laws!

ALL MARRIAGE LAWS, especially Federal Marriage Laws! ALL Marriage Laws should be thrown out as Un-Constitutional!!!

WHY? Take a second and honestly ask yourself, What is the actual reason for Marriage Laws?

Reason #1) They are for giving TAX Breaks and certain privileges and Rights to one group of people and not another! In other words they are legalized Discrimination!

As a 42 year old, never married, Single, heterosexual man, with no kids, who has about as much chance of meeting someone to marry (if in fact I did want to get married, 99% of the time I don't) I've never gotten a "per Child Tax credit" for each of my children (which I don't have).

And since the ReThugs "fixed" the "Marriage Penalty," now I'm again not getting the same TAX Break that I would get if I was Married.

Reason #2) Marriage is something your CHURCH does, the STATE should not have any say in the matter.

When I was a Roman-Catholic, was it up to the Government to Marry Me to someone? NO! That was something the Church decided and did.

And even if I chose to get a divorce from "The Government," was that enough for the church for me to be Divorced? NO! Roman-Catholics don't get Divorced! Even if the Government say you are Divorced, a Roman Catholic has to petition the Church for an Annulment!

Reason #3) We have marriage Law so that wealthy people don't have to share their property ("The Family Estate") with poor people when they die.

If I posted anymore reasons, you wouldn't believe them anyway, so I invite any comments why you think we need Government Marriage laws. I will be back in a few hours with well thought out answers for your hopefully well thought out questions and relies.

NOTE: this challenge in not only directed at the OP, it's to everyone.

Come on everyone, give me ONE fair reason we need to have Government Marriage Laws!

And remember, If you don't believe in Evolution, which these anti-Gay marriage people mostly don't, Marring you sister or first cousin shouldn't cause a problem, unless it says you can't in "The Bible," which I don't know if it does, because, as a former Roman-Catholic, I haven't read it Cover to Cover.

Time to sleep now.

[emanymton]

7. Marriage Laws Are Ways Of Simplifying The Passing On Of Property

Marriage laws are economic rules to make simple the lines of passing property.

[readmoreoften]

9. There are many radically progressive institutions

that support marriage equality until marriage is abolished. You can't say, I'm theoretically against all marriage laws, so you people should suffer until marriage for straights is abolished too. It's absurd.

[Up2Late]

16. I CAN'T say that?!? I just DID Say that, This is AMERICA! 1st Amendment...

...remember?

And I didn't say I'm "...theoretically against all marriage laws..." I'm factually against All Marriage Laws!

Listen, If you want to get the non-thinking RWers to actually think, you have to keep it simple. Give them all a hard punch to the head.

The ReThugs have created too many shades of gray within this issue. The Non-thinking majority needs Black and White on this issue so that they can see the gray shades of their hypocrisy.

Cut the BS bedroom Police crap completely and force the Churches to make the marriage laws for their followers if the want to!

This strategy does 2 things:

1) It's a hard Kick in the Head to all the numb-skulls who have bought in to this banning Gay Marriage crap that the "I'm against 'big Government'" crap is total B*llSh*t because this is more micro management by an increasingly larger Government. It will begin to end all these other government religion laws and legislation

2) It will show how weak, morally corrupt and undeserving of Tax Breaks, some of these so-called religions are, especially the evangelicals and televangelist based ones.

Plus, it give the talking heads over at Fox "news" and the other so-called news channels a paper tiger to rail against. Give them an extreme position to bitch about, and when the "final bill" comes out that's more in the middle, they think they won.

If Evangelicals want these rules within their church, let them make those rules, but leave me (a Buddhist) out of it, and stop handing out discriminatory, Religion based, Tax Breaks. Either we all get them or none of us get them.

Sorry, I just woke up and am just starting on my first coffee, if this is unclear now, the coffee will help future posts.

[readmoreoften]

18. Hey you can say anything you want...

"You can't say, I'm theoretically against all marriage laws, so you people should suffer until marriage for straights is abolished too."

1) If you want to say that queers should suffer without rights until marriage for straights is also abolished, heck, go ahead. But people are going to think you're pretty cruel, at least gay folks.

2) I'm with ya in spirit. But I don't think that giving everyone civil unions is going to keep things simple for the RW. I think that Fox New is going to latch on and say SEE THEY DO WANT TO DESTROY MARRIAGE! THEY DON'T WANT MARRIAGE FOR ANYONE!!!! And they will be absurd when they come to this conclusion. But no more absurd than "the war on Christmas" or any other spin they come up with. Smart RWers will see that is actually a GOOD thing. But smart RWers are few and far far far between.

My parents have a 30 year marriage. They were married by the mayor. No religion. No god. A civil ceremony conducted by a statesmen. If someone were to tell my parents that they weren't married, that they were civil unionized, they'd think someone had screws loose.

We will never win a semantics debate with these people because they HHHHHHATE gays. Actually, they want us imprisioned or institutionalized. You can call it unions, marriages, partnerships, whatever. But Fox news won't be happy until we are all processed into mental health wards.

Might as well push forward and get what we want. Equal rights under the law.

[kdpeters]

21. Very good, but as a practical matter, you're opposing equality

"I oppose Gay Marriage laws, but I also oppose Heterosexual Marriage Laws!"

Hopefully you recognize how extreme your position is such that it has barely 0% chance of manifesting in the real world. The 90-98% of the population that is heterosexual will NEVER give up the benefits and privileges of marriage. That you'd oppose same sex equality to tilt at windmills rather than deal with an unfavorable fact of your life and support equality makes me question your sense of priorities.

"Reason #1) They are for giving TAX Breaks and certain privileges and Rights to one group of people and not another! In other words they are legalized Discrimination!"

Married couples also take on significant responsibilities and obligations.

As a 42 year old, never married, Single, heterosexual man, with no kids, who has about as much chance of meeting someone to marry (if in fact I did want to get married, 99% of the time I don't) I've never gotten a "per Child Tax credit" for each of my children (which I don't have).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does a per child tax credit require really require marriage? I thought the credit was more specifically for dependents whether or not you parented you sired them and not for children raised by someone else that you donated the sperm. If you're raising no children, why should you receive a per child tax credit regardless of marital status.

I might be more open to your high minded ideals if you didn't sound so selfish and petty. Why do you think you deserve the same rewards as interdependent, mutually accountable citizens if you don't also accepted the extra liabilities and obligations that come with marrying another person?

"Reason #2) Marriage is something your CHURCH does, the STATE should not have any say in the matter.

When I was a Roman-Catholic, was it up to the Government to Marry Me to someone? NO! That was something the Church decided and did.

And even if I chose to get a divorce from "The Government," was that enough for the church for me to be Divorced? NO! Roman-Catholics don't get Divorced! Even if the Government say you are Divorced, a Roman Catholic has to petition the Church for an Annulment!"

This is a very odd argument. To support your contention that marriage is solely a the province of the church, you go on to give a great example of how religious and civil marriage are wholly separate institutions completely independent of one another.

"Reason #3) We have marriage Law so that wealthy people don't have to share their property ("The Family Estate") with poor people when they die.

For this reason you want to junk a cheap and legally sound vehicle for poor couples to gain next-of-kin status and all the rights that follow?

I think your position is terribly myopic. I don't see any evidence that you've considered all the implications for tossing out the whole thing.

"And remember, If you don't believe in Evolution, which these anti-Gay marriage people mostly don't, Marring you sister or first cousin shouldn't cause a problem

But I do believe in in Evolution. But it doesn't matter. There's no reason for gay couples to have to answer for polygamy, incest, bestiality, or marriage to household appliances. That is also another argument these anti-gay marriage loons often bring up. But the issues before us should be argued on their own merits distinct and separate from the issues raised by marrying your toaster.

[Up2Late]

22. I don't think you're understanding the idea that I'm trying ...

...to get across either.

I hope we both can agree that an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a extreme RW proposal.

Well, all I'm saying is that to counteract such an extreme position, so that Red State Bush supporters can understand just how extreme it is, you have to have a LW group proposing an equally extreme proposal on the left.

That way, when a less extreme position is proposed, the less extreme position seems more reasonable.

I probably shouldn't have tried to sum up such a complicated new idea here, I might have to white a book or small book or something to fully explain what I'm talking about.

[Vidar]

14. Well done. Welcome to DU.

[kdpeters]

19. Forgot one: Gay people have the right to marry the opposite sex

... because the government does not question the legitimacy marriage for the sake of legal benefits such as tax-free health benefits, spousal immigration for a foreign citizan, or permission for enlisted soldiers to live off base. This is evident by the fact that there is no such crime as "marriage fraud".

[readmoreoften]

23. Marriage fraud. Great point. /nt

[Raiden]

24. Great post!

I'm posting on this thread so I can find it easy later...you shot down all the RW talking points re: gay marriage