Gay Marriage Killed The Dinosaurs

[dairygirl4u2c]

apologetics for those against gay marriage!

[quote]Some suggest gay marriage will merely undermine one of our most fundamental societal institutions, causing countless straight couples to get divorced because exclusion of gays was the only thing holding their marriage together.

But we know better. Gay marriage killed the dinosaurs. If we let liberal activist judges in Massachusetts and California set the course, the blood will run in rivers. Mixed with molten lava.

Top ten reasons to make gay marriage illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) 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.

04) 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.

05) 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.

06) 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.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) 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.

09) 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.[/quote]

[Maggyie]

I've gotten this in an e-mail before. It's funny, but like most e-mail forwards it's not particularly cogent. Sets up a lot of straw men, etc.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Funny as this is, I don't see a debate. It's a joke and is clearly meant to be taken as a joke. I'll give it a while, but I'd just as soon move it to the lame board as bother articulating a response.

[track2004]

They have a Facebook group about this. I think it is brilliant. But I think a lot of things are brilliant. Speaking of brilliance has anyone seen that Washington cartoon Cox and Combes?

In a similar vein, theres is the argument that obese people shouldn't get married. The argument is as follows:

In light of the recent passing of Issue 1 in Michigan (and Ohio, etc.), we wish to propose a new amendment: Fat people cannot get married nor enter into civil unions. Reasoning: The Bible says that gluttony is a sin, so it is wrong. The thought of fat people having sex is revolting. If fat people have kids, the kids will be fat, grow up, and spread the fat agenda. Fat people are more likely to suffer from asthma, diabetes, heart conditions, and numerous other "fat diseases" which can make health insurance more expensive. They chose to be fat; it is a choice and a sinful one. Join us now in banning fat people from having the right to be married.

I think they are valid counter arguments in that they show some of the absurdity of the anti-gay marriage argument. I wouldn't say that it discounts the whole thing, but it does show that if you make one argument then you can't quite be upset when that argument is shown to produce somewhat ridiculous results (e.g. dinosaurs and fat people).

[prose]

I think that there is something to be said about the slippery slope argument.

I know that people try to use the extreme and say that it is not like people will marry their dogs, but there are other issues. Where does it stop?

Is it a man's right to be a polygamist?

Bi-sexuals should have the right to marry a man AND a woman, it isn't, afterall, their fault that they are bisexual. What if they love both?

[quote]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.[/quote]

It isn't that they will never succeed, but there is definately a bigger struggle. Children from homes with a male and female head have much better grades in school and are better adjusted psychologically. Look up this in any sociology book. In fact (I will find my old textbook that has this study as soon as I can), children being reared in homosexual homes have similar outcomes as children in single parent homes. Does it mean that they are entirely disadvantaged? Not necessarily, but they are certainly not as healthy psychologically.

[prose]

Another valid argument opposing gay marriage:

With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.

This undermines my religious right to raise my children according to my beliefs.

[catholimaniac]

The first fruits of gay marriage?





Gay divorce.

[track2004]

[quote name='prose' post='1206377' date='Mar 1 2007, 05:07 PM']I think that there is something to be said about the slippery slope argument.

I know that people try to use the extreme and say that it is not like people will marry their dogs, but there are other issues. Where does it stop?

Is it a man's right to be a polygamist?

Bi-sexuals should have the right to marry a man AND a woman, it isn't, afterall, their fault that they are bisexual. What if they love both?[/quote]

The thing is though, that SCOTUS already gave a resounding "heck no" to polygamy and dogs can't sign legal documents. So both those arguments are fairly moot. Bi-sexuals marring a man and a women would fall under polygamy. It's not like I could marry two boys if I fell in love with both right now, so why would that be any different.

The whole teaching your kids something is right when you don't agree is just something that exists. Lots of people don't believe in evolution or Freud's theories or that the holocaust happened. If you disagree with it so much (and it happens) send your kids to Catholic school where they teach it is morally wrong. Being morally right and illegal aren't the mutually exclusive, and being morally right and legal aren't the same. The law and The Church disagree on things, and sometimes that's fine. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='catholimaniac' post='1206385' date='Mar 1 2007, 05:20 PM']The first fruits of gay marriage?
Gay divorce.[/quote]

Indeed. I also have to note that the thing about these types of relationships in books for kindergarteners will divide their minds. Funny thing is we had this discussion in Writer's Craft today for our journal entry topic. Some people were saying things like 'they're born with it' and they don't chose this, etc etc. The former I could easily refute but the latter is harder to say. I don't think I said as much as I should have, and I was told after I definitely did not say as much as the people in my class wanted (I'm known for being a real Catholic). I personally am not fully ready to take this one on. I just do not want to do more damage than harm. At the end of the day though, good apologetics requires the frequent use of the dignity of humanity speal as well as the fact that one does not hate a certain group.

My two cents.

Oh and about the topic, I did not like the email/post. I was sort of offended, though I foresee something with the dog... who knows, that may be the next biggest sin... not trying to give any ideas here.

[Maggyie]

From [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11786790/site/newsweek/"]From Newsweek/MSNBC:[/url]
[quote]Polygamists, Unite!
They used to live quietly, but now they're making noise.

By Elise Soukup
Newsweek

March 20, 2006 issue - Marlyne Hammon knows what it's like to feel hated and hunted. In 1953, when she was an infant, her father—along with dozens of other men in her tiny community of Short Creek, Ariz.—was arrested and sent to jail on charges of polygamy. She, her mother and siblings were forcibly exiled from the community and sent to live with a family in a nearby city. Her father was released after a week, but because the family feared further prosecution, they lived apart and corresponded in secret for the next six years. "Our community had this idea that we should live our lives quietly to avoid trouble," she says. "We were taught not to make a big ruckus."

Not anymore. Hammon, who's involved in a polygamous relationship, is a founding member of the Centennial Park Action Committee, a group that lobbies for decriminalization of the practice. She's among a new wave of polygamy activists emerging in the wake of the gay-marriage movement—just as a federal lawsuit challenging anti-polygamy laws makes its way through the courts and a new show about polygamy debuts on HBO. "Polygamy rights is the next civil-rights battle," says Mark Henkel, who, as founder of the Christian evangelical polygamy organization TruthBearer.org, is at the forefront of the movement. His argument: if Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy.

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11786790/site/newsweek/"]STORY CONTINUES[/url][/quote]

What exactly is the argument against polygamy that can not also be applied to gay marriage? I always ask this question in gay marriage debates, and nobody ever gives me a good answer.

*Tradition - it's the constant tradition of our civilization to have only two-partner marriage. But it's also a constant tradition to have only man-woman marriage. Actually, polygamy has many more historical roots in the US than gay marriage. See the history of Utah.

*It wouldn't be good for families/children? - how does a three-way marriage threaten families or damage the psyches of children? The same way same-sex marriage threatens families and damages children. If two parents, regardless of sex, are best for a child, aren't three parents even better?

*The government/laws/Supreme Court say no - If the [i]sex[/i] of partners is just an arbitrary social standard that should change with the times, then isn't the [i]number [/i]of partners even more arbitrary? Shouldn't we "adapt" our laws to the changing social standard which doesn't demand monogamy?

I am not in favor of polygamy. Not by a long shot. It distorts the concept of marriage just as much as gay marriage and widespread divorce. My point is that the "slippery slope" argument is not a logical fallacy when the slippery slope is as real as the Rocky Mountains.

[Socrates]

I honestly find the quoted email neither funny nor clever. It's simply a string of attacks on straw-men dressed up as "humor." (Now before I be accused of not having a sense of humor, I find plenty of things, including some authored by liberals, funny. This is not one of them - it is simply a transparent mockery of anybody who opposed homosexual "marriage.")

The simple truth is that two men or two women engaging in sodomy is [i]not[/i] a marriage by its very nature, and has no reason to be legally recognized as one. There have been countless debates on this topic, and I suggest running a search if one wants to read the actual arguments.
Whether a married man and woman are black or white, fat or thin, etc., is not analogous, and therefore such comparisons are irrelevent.

Since the "top ten reasons" neither makes nor answers any actual arguments, I second Raphael, and say it be moved to the Lame Board where it belongs.

[Socrates]

[quote name='prose' post='1206381' date='Mar 1 2007, 05:14 PM']Another valid argument opposing gay marriage:

With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.

This undermines my religious right to raise my children according to my beliefs.[/quote]
Already happening in Massachussets.

[Socrates]

[quote name='track2004' post='1206466' date='Mar 1 2007, 07:05 PM']The thing is though, that SCOTUS already gave a resounding "heck no" to polygamy and dogs can't sign legal documents. So both those arguments are fairly moot. Bi-sexuals marring a man and a women would fall under polygamy. It's not like I could marry two boys if I fell in love with both right now, so why would that be any different.

The whole teaching your kids something is right when you don't agree is just something that exists. Lots of people don't believe in evolution or Freud's theories or that the holocaust happened. If you disagree with it so much (and it happens) send your kids to Catholic school where they teach it is morally wrong. Being morally right and illegal aren't the mutually exclusive, and being morally right and legal aren't the same. The law and The Church disagree on things, and sometimes that's fine. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.[/quote]
So if the SCOTUS were to give a resounding "heck no" to homosexual marriage, would you be so accepting of that?

And liberals of course howl if anyone suggest that religious values - even the Bible or Ten Commandments - be taught in public schools (which they were originally, btw) because atheists, etc. disagree, yet you have no problem whatsoever with a homosexual agenda being taught to kids, and if Christian parents disagree with their children being taught an immoral agenda with their own tax dollars, that's just too bad.

The hypocrisy here is staggering. The idea that public schools must teach and represent the views of everyone but Christians is wrong and ridiculous.

And Catholic and Christian parents have to pay taxes to support the public schools just like everyone else, so their say should not be completely shoved aside. And not everyone can afford to send their kids to private school or homeschool.

And we're not legal positivists. The law should reflect what is morally right, not promote what is morally wrong.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Socrates

[track2004]

I don't want the schools teaching the "homosexual agenda" because there isn't one. It isn't like every person who comes out goes to meetings and have talks about how they want the country to change so that everyone is gay. There is no plan, no agenda. I would just like it if people didn't deny the fact that gay people exist and are raising families. You don't have to put a value on it, don't have to say it is good or bad, just say that it exists and that kids raised in gay families should be treated the same as kids raised in straight families.

[Socrates]

[quote name='track2004' post='1206813' date='Mar 2 2007, 09:43 AM']I don't want the schools teaching the "homosexual agenda" because there isn't one. It isn't like every person who comes out goes to meetings and have talks about how they want the country to change so that everyone is gay. There is no plan, no agenda. I would just like it if people didn't deny the fact that gay people exist and are raising families. You don't have to put a value on it, don't have to say it is good or bad, just say that it exists and that kids raised in gay families should be treated the same as kids raised in straight families.[/quote]
Oh, there isn't a homosexual agenda?
Then, how do you explain this?
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=65205"]Network of Homosexual Political Donors Influencing State Election Campaigns[/url]

[url="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200703/tim-gill"](Original Atlantic Monthly Article Here)[/url]

And then what was the point of that homosexual "fairy tale" being read to 2nd graders in Massachussets public schools, and why did that judge insist that parents not be allowed to exclude their kids from that class?

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=65083"]Judge Orders "Gay" Agenda Taught to Children[/url]

But I suppose such things are only the hallucinations of crazed, paranoid right-wing religious fanatics. Never mind that even favorable secular liberal publications publish these stories.

Edited March 3, 2007 by Socrates