Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Why Gay Marriage is Wrong


While surfing the net earlier this evening, I came across the following “humorous and educational” post about gay marriage and thought I’d share it here at The Wild Reed. Enjoy!

________________________________


Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

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

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

3) 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.

4) 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.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) 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.

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

8) 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.

9) 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) 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.


For more serious fare, see the previous Wild Reed posts:
John Corvino on the “Always and Everywhere” Argument Against Gay Marriage
Patrick Ryan on the “Defense of Traditional Marriage” Argument Against Gay Marriage
Nathanial Frank on the “Natural Law” Argument Against Gay Marriage


6 comments:

Ray from MN said...

Homosexual marriage is wrong because it endorses a lifestyle that takes twenty years off of the lives of those who participate in homosexual lifestyles.

Michael J. Bayly said...

Ray, from my research that kind of erroneous statement stems from the work of a single “researcher” – the discredited Paul Cameron.

In November 1997, Cameron’s “findings” compelled former Education Secretary William Bennett to declare on ABC’s This Week that homosexuality “takes 30 years off your life.”

That’s quite a charge! Yet is it true?

According to Walter Olson of Slate.com, there are serious problems and flaws with Cameron’s “research.”

Here’s what Olson has to say:

“Paul Cameron, [is] a researcher well known to followers of gay controversies. Cameron, a former assistant professor at the University of Nebraska who has consulted for such gay-rights opponents as former Rep. William Dannemeyer, R-Calif., heads a group called the Family Research Institute.

“Cameron resigned under fire from the American Psychological Association and was later formally terminated from membership following complaints about his research methods. He has had run-ins with other professional groups, including the Nebraska Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association. According to Mark Pietrzyk’s exposé in the October 3, 1994, New Republic, the state of Colorado initially hired Cameron as an expert witness to defend its statute restricting gay-rights ordinances, then elected not to use his testimony after it got a closer look. His life-span figures have circulated for years in religious-right circles, but Bennett’s comments appear to represent their first real breakout into wider public discussion.

“Cameron’s method had the virtue of simplicity, at least. He and two co-authors read through back numbers of various urban gay community papers, mostly of the giveaway sort that are laden with bar ads and personals. They counted up obituaries and news stories about deaths, noted the ages of the deceased, computed the average, and published the resulting numbers as estimates of gay life expectancy.

“What do vital-statistics buffs think of this technique? Nick Eberstadt at the American Enterprise Institute sums up the reactions of several of his fellow demographers: ‘The method as you describe it is just ridiculous.’ . . .”

Other useful articles from reputable professional organizations on this issue can be found here and here.

And then there’s this letter from a group of doctors, protesting that their findings on this matter have been distorted by “homophobic groups [that appear] more interested in restricting the human rights of gays and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.”

Peace,

Michael

Michael J. Bayly said...

Oh, one other thing, Ray: the "statistic" you cite is supposedly related to the "lifestyle" of gay men - not lesbians. I assume, then, that it's only marriage between men that you oppose. It sounds as if you're okay with the lesbian "lifestyle" and with lesbians marrying.

Peace,

Michael

kevin57 said...

This is hilarious. Love it!

Donna said...

If it's the negative consequences of promiscuous gay male sexual behavior that Ray is concerned about then you'd think he'd be supportive of marriage for gay people! Isn't it a good thing when folks want to commit and get married? Why would we deny anyone the stabilizing influence of marriage?

kevin57 said...

Donna,

Bingo! This is an argument that sensible conservatives--not the wacky religious homophobes--have been offering in defense of marriage equality. Recognizing gay marriage will help stabilize gay relationships, and thus help all of society.