Thursday, October 20, 2005 10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal posted at 10:28 AM Found this great list over at Joe Stump's blog. He got it from The Drunken Lagomorph, who got it from Random-Abstract, who got it from a Craigslist posting. (I just like following links, mmmkay?) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 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. 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. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed. 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. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 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. 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. 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. Comments This is awesome :D By  mari at Thursday, October 20, 2005 12:38:00 PM   Because I'm entering the political arena, I've been considering ways to make the argument to voters that they should at least tolerate (as opposed to support) same-sex marriage. Of course, in my upcoming campaign, I won't make an issue of it because I'll have no influence or authority in the office I'm seeking to enact any change. Yet I obviously have ambitions for higher office. My argument centers on a comparison with the nation's freedom of religion. People of many faiths tolerate people of other faiths, even though they think those other people are damned for believing them. I'm not just talking of Christian versus Muslim here, it's a feeling reflected between groups so similar as primitivist Campbellites and Southern Baptists. The point is, as a society we recognize that people have a raw "spirituality" in them. People express that spirituality in diverse ways (I'd argue atheistic scientists have a spiritual awe for nature itself and a desire to know it). So, we all have this universal candle of spirituality that is translated through various cultural lenses. Well, sexuality works in a similar way. We each have a sexuality that gets expressed through complex interactions of cultural lenses. Why is it that we as a nation are so tolerant of people expressing their spiritual selves and not their sexual selves? Typically, there are two comebacks to my argument. First, God will be angry at the nation and destroy it for allowing same-sex relations. Well, of all the evils this nation perpetuates and has carried out in the past, same-sex marriage will be the straw that breaks the camel's back? Furthermore -- "Thou Shalt Have No Other God Before Me" -- isn't God (in the Hebrew Bible form) opposed to the whole religious tolerance thing more than same-sex marriage? Second, I'm told that if we accept same-sex marriage then one day it'll be legal to have sex with animals and kids. Really? See, we have freedom of religion and we don't all sex with animals and kids in that -- it happens, but we throw the pervs in jail. The system protects the innocent as best it can. It will work the same way for freedom of sexuality. So, in 20 years time, when I'm running for the U.S. Senate -- I'll be making that argument. May lose in a landslide, but I don't think so. By  John Duns Scotus at Thursday, October 20, 2005 3:11:00 PM   Post a Comment

ARCHIVES       pixelscribbles intarweb - By Month - June 2001 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008             ABOUT

	top | main | search | links | blogroll | archive | photography | credits All views, opinions, and statements expressed on this website are exclusively those of Heather Meadows, who assumes full responsibility for all opinions, statements, and other content presented herein.