12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is Wrong

Here's an oldie but a goodie, written way back in 2004. It's a humorous look at the arguments against gay marriage.

The full article can be found here, but I'm reprinting the entire list.

12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is Wrong

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.

Our Mutual Joy

Heidi H., a reader and friend from Ohio, pointed this Newsweek article out to me nearly a week ago; I've just now gotten around to posting.

The author presents a very cohesive, well-documented and nicely thought-out argument in favor of gay marriage, pointing out many of the misconceptions and logical fallacies held by conservative Christians who claim that Jesus and the Bible only define marriage as being between a man and a woman. One of my favorite passages, at the beginning of the article, points out what many Biblical marriages were like, and asks the reader if he or she would truly like to base their own marriages on that model. It also makes a point of the fact that divorce is mentioned--and condemned--far more often in the Bible than is homosexuality.

Later, the author deals with the book of Leviticus, which many Christians turn to first when condemning homosexuality in general:

The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?

The full article can be found here.

*****

On a personal note, I apologize to my readers (all three or four of you that I have evidence of so far, haha) for my recent neglect of this blog. Unfortunately, when an endeavor is the effort of a single person, real life sometimes supercedes cyberland. Rest assured that I have not been silent in my real world, even if I have been here. Hopefully things will get back to a calmer place in my life, and I'll be able to post more frequently. --DP

The creeping terror hiding inside your closet...is coming...to...your...town!!!

Amy H., one of my loyal readers (and LiveJournal friend) sent me this item:

The American Family Association has come out with a new video which they claim details the tactics used by "the gays" to further their agenda. Apparently, we have a diabolical plan in place to take over America, one city at a time. Sort of like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, only with more style and flair.

Here is a trailer for the new video. Like Amy, I too thought that this might be a joke. Apparently, however, it's all too frighteningly real.




Yes, we Gays are dangerous folks. We go around demanding equal rights and wanting to marry the people we love and getting all uppity and in people's faces. We're dangerous. And we're evil...and WE'RE COMING TO YOUR TOWN!!!

If anyone out there has an actual copy of the Gay Agenda, I'd love it if you'd e-mail me a copy. I just want to make sure I'm in sync with the rest of the invasion force.

Celebrities and Proposition 8

Here are a few choice quotes from various celebrities in regard to Proposition 8:

Melissa Etheridge: "Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. Fifty-one percent of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now."

Composer Marc Shaiman: "I then told [Scott Eckern, Artistic Director of California Musical Theater] that the idea that money from his salary that was, in a small way, made from a production of HAIRSPRAY had now been put to use to pass this bigoted Proposition truly hurt and sickened me and that no future project of mine would ever play his theatre."

Sean Penn: "I think its one shameful aspect of where we are today … but I think that with time, common sense will prevail."

Margaret Cho: "The fact that there is now a ban on gay marriage just kills my spirit, hurts my heart. I was deputized as a marriage commissioner in San Francisco in June, and I got to marry a gay couple and a lesbian couple at city hall, and it was such an honor and a blessing, and we all wept through the entire thing."

Dana Delaney: "There is a difference between having civil union and marriage .. there's something about standing in front of your peers and your families and saying that this is serious and that you want to stay together."

Samantha Ronson: "Yes, i am glad that the chickens will have more room and better conditions as they wait to die, but i just think it's frightening that people show more compassion for tomorrow's dinner than for the chef."

And, just so we get a reminder that Hollywood isn't unanimous in its support of gays and lesbians:

Chuck Norris: "Their pro-Prop. 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage."

What? I didn't say it was going to be an intelligent statement against gay marriage...

Whiny Prop. 8 supporter wants opponents to shut up and leave him alone...

John Diaz of the San Francisco Chronicle has written an op-ed piece about the backlash against the passing of Proposition 8. In it, he talks about a man who wrote a letter to the editor defending Prop. 8. The letter-writer's name and address were published, allowing the public to access information about his business, his website, his clients, etc. Since then, he has been the "victim" of harrassment from angry Prop. 8 opponents, who have picketed his business and basically made his life miserable.

"They're intimidating people that don't have the same beliefs as they do ... so they'll be silenced," he told me last week. "It doesn't bode well for the free-speech process. People are going to have to be pretty damn courageous to speak up about anything. Why would anyone want to go through this?"

Why, indeed? Perhaps this guy needs to receive an education in what gay people have had to deal with for years. Protests at their weddings, their funerals, their places of worship... Yes, we are "pretty damn courageous" to speak up for our rights. We would prefer not to go through this ourselves.

Mr. Diaz, in his op-ed piece (which can be found in its entirety here) condemns the actions of Prop. 8 protestors who have called for boycotts of businesses and institutions that funded the "Yes On 8" campaign:

"Blacklists" of donors who contributed to Yes on 8 are circulating on the Internet, and even small-time donors are being confronted. A Palo Alto dentist lost two patients as a result of his $1,000 donation. The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre resigned to spare the organization from a fast-developing boycott. Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the Sacramento theater group and a Mormon, had given $1,000 to Yes on 8.

This out-of-scale attempt to isolate and intimidate decidedly small players in the Yes on 8 campaign is no way to win the issue in a court of law or the court of public opinion.

Oooh...the poor widdle dentist wost two whole patients. I guess that's the price you pay for standing up for your beliefs, right, Doctor? And as for Mr. Eckern, there's so much hypocrisy going on there when you look into the story, I can't even begin to fathom it.

Besides, it's not like gay people invented the boycott. I seem to remember boycotts being called against movies, Proctor & Gamble, hell, even frickin' Disneyland because something done by the people in charge didn't sit well with religious organizations.

Look. I don't approve of the protestors who are actually out there hurting people, or defacing property, or endangering the safety of those who disagree with them. Nothing hurts our cause more than overzealous fanatics stooping to the level of the bigots on the other side of the issue.

But please. There are very few methods of protest more peaceful and more civil than boycotts. Hitting your opponent in the wallet, taking away business to show them you disapprove of their views. That's been an American institution for decades now. And the people who are whining now because they don't think it's fair that we're using that tactic against them? Perhaps they're in need of a little history lesson.

This is what I've been saying all along...

A reader at retrieverweekly.com articulates an argument that I've been advocating for a couple of years now:

"... if this country is based on the concept of separation between church and state, then the word "marriage" should not be involved in this argument at all. "Marriage" is a religious institution, therefore the government should not have a say in it. All couples, heterosexual and homosexual, should be granted domestic partnerships instead. If they choose to get married within their respective religions, that is a matter for their houses of worship to determine."

Read the full letter here.

The new argument: Gays must die for their rights

The website thinkprogress.org has thrown a light onto the newest argument being thrown our way by the bigots who feel justified at denying an entire segment of the population their rights: Gay Rights are not Civil Rights, and are in no way comparable.

Take, for instance, this statement from Family Research Council's Tony Perkins (full article here):

You try to compare this to interracial marriage. It is not the same thing. There were extra provisions put that would prohibit people that were man and woman to marry. This is redefining marriage. It’s a totally different issue.

Even more disturbing is another trend in Right-wing punditry: the argument that Gays cannot claim to be oppressed, and cannot claim to be fighting for their Civil Rights, because they have not suffered enough violence to earn those rights.

Exhibit A: Governor Mike Huckabee, appearing on the ABC series The View and being interviewed by Joy Behar (full article here):

HUCKABEE: It’s a different set of rights. People who are homosexuals should have every right in terms of their civil rights, to be employed, to do anything they want. But that’s not really the issue. I know you talked about it and I think you got into it a little bit early on. But when we’re talking about a redefinition of an institution, that’s different than individual civil rights. We’re never going to convince each other.

BEHAR: Well, segregation was an institution, too, in a way. it was right there on the books.

HUCKABEE: But here is the difference. Bull Connor was hosing people down in the streets of Alabama. John Lewis got his skull cracked on the Selma bridge.

Exhibit B: Tara Wall of the Washington Times (full op-ed piece here):

Black civil and religious leaders - rightfully - have expressed outrage at the gay community's co-opting "civil rights" to include gay sex. Blacks were stoned, hung, and dragged for their constitutional right to "sit at the table." Whites - gay or not - already had a seat at that table. There is no comparison. Activists argue that, like skin color, gays don't choose their lifestyle. Even if, for the sake of argument, that were so, homosexuals are still "choosing" to get married. To compare voters denying what is not a right to blacks dying for what is - is beyond the pale.

I have two words for Mr. Huckabee and Ms. Wall: Matthew. Shepard. Try telling his parents, his family, his friends, that gay people have not suffered enough violence to justify their calls for equal rights. Try saying the same thing to all the gay people in the nation who have been beaten up, bullied, and driven to suicide, all because the people they love and form attractions to happen to be of the same gender.

I have a question for Mr. Huckabee and Ms. Wall as well: How many of us have to die before you admit that maybe we deserve the rights we're crying out for? How many people's lives have to be senselessly ruined before your bigoted bloodlust is sated?

From out of the past, a reason for hope...

A very interesting article from latimes.com, via the good folks at Towleroad.com:

In 1992, the State of Colorado passed Amendment 2, which abolished anti-discrimination laws in some of Colorado's major cities. It was considered a major step backward for the Gay Equal Rights Cause, until legal appeals were brought against it.

Following the enactment of Colorado's Amendment 2, its opponents filed suit claiming that it unlawfully singled out gays and lesbians as a class to deny them rights that other citizens not only possess but take for granted. These rights include access to housing, government services, public accommodations and public and private employment opportunities without regard to an individual's race, sex, religion, age, ancestry, political belief or other characteristic that defines each of us as a unique human being. Amendment 2, the opponents argued, therefore denied gays and lesbians the equal protection of the laws, which is a guarantee of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

To the surprise of many, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, deemed Amendment 2 unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy wrote:

"[It] is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance." Laws such as Amendment 2 "raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected," Kennedy wrote, adding a reference to another 1973 ruling. "If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."

Full article can be found here.

This raises hope for those of us who oppose Proposition 8, because the same basic argument can be made in this case that the Supreme Court made in 1992. The very fact that Proposition 8 rescinded rights already in place, rather than denying rights that did not already exist, suggests that definite malice, or as Kennedy put it, "a bare...desire to harm", was at play.

Let us hope that the current Supreme Court, if the case must be taken that far, recognizes the wisdom of the 1992 Supreme Court and agrees to reinstate to gay couples in California the rights to which they are entitled.

Nepal grants its LGBT citizens the dignity America can't

From gaypolitics.com:

The Nepali Supreme Court released a decision today granting protections and rights for sexual and gender minorities. The decision comes after four gay rights groups, including the Blue Diamond Society, filed a petition through the court.

The decision reads, in part:

All LGBTI must be defined as "natural persons" and their physical growth as well as sexual orientation, gender identity, expression are all part of natural growing process. Thus equal rights, identity and expression must be ensured regardless of their sex at birth.

Full article can be found here. I found the link courtesy of the great folks over at Towleroad.com.

Okay, America. Nepal gets it. Let's get on the ball!

I...really don't know what to say about this one...

From an interview with the Whackjob Formerly Known As the Artist Formerly Known As Prince in The New Yorker:

When asked about his perspective on social issues—gay marriage, abortion—Prince tapped his Bible and said, "God came to earth and saw people sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever, and he just cleared it all out. He was, like, ‘Enough.’ "

Complete article can be found here.

Ummm...hello? Really, Prince? I mean, really?! Aren't you the guy who changed his name to a symbol that represented hermaphroditism? Who is probably second only to Boy George in the arena of turning sexual-orientation ambiguity into career gold?

When you're reading the phrase "Prince tapped his Bible", you know you've gone down the rabbit hole.