Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted)

tags: ,

A reader sent this list of ten reasons to resist gay marriage as an institution. I remember seeing this a year or so ago on Craigslist, so I have no idea who originally wrote it, although I suspect this came from The Tonight Show. Nonetheless, I thought you might appreciate reading this (thanks also to my reader for sending it to me).

Ten Reasons to Be Against Gay Marriage

  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. 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.
  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 Britney 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. 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

  1. #1 Adam
    May 31, 2007

    Haha…great points all. I really don’t get the big deal with gay marriage. Who cares. If its against your religion, they can’t get married under your church or temple anyway. Religion has no standing in a state ruling. If this issue ever goes to the supreme court, gay marriage will be legal. There is simply no constitutional standing against it.

    I think people are just weirded out by it, which I can understand, but if you think logically about it it becomes a non-issue. If its against your religion for gays to marry, its already against your religion for them to be gay, which is already a protected right, so you have no constitutional ground to stand on.

  2. #2 Chris' Wills
    May 31, 2007

    It’s Icky.

    Please note: this is a proposed addition to the list not a comment.

  3. #3 kimi
    May 31, 2007

    Well i’m not against it because i’m bisexual and i have a girl friend and yes iam a girl but her and i are getting married after high school in 08 we don’t see any one else way of gay couple

  4. #4 Anon
    May 31, 2007

    Chris’. If you find it icky, then don’t marry a guy. Gays don’t want everyone to have a gay marriage, they just want it for themselves.

  5. #5 Chris' Wills
    May 31, 2007

    Chris’. If you find it icky, then don’t marry a guy. Gays don’t want everyone to have a gay marriage, they just want it for themselves.
    Posted by: Anon

    It was a proposed addition to the list of silly arguements against it, not what I think.

    The list is meant to ridicule those argueing against same-sex marriage so this is another silly reason to add to the list.

    I apologise if “Please note: this is a proposed addition to the list not a comment.” wasn’t a clear indication of this.

  6. #6 Aerik
    May 31, 2007

    Remember in 3rd grade when half your friends turned into long division and multiplication tables, or even onomatopoeia?

  7. #7 Kapitano
    May 31, 2007

    Some that didn’t make it into the list:

    * It’s in the bible. Somewhere near the bits about stoning shellfish eaters and not trimming your beard.

    * It’s icky.

    * All the founding fathers really cared about was hetrosexuality and marriage. Even the gay and unmarried ones. It’s what America is about.

    * All homosexuals are paedophilles, therefore gay marriage is paedophille marriage. Do you want your kids marrying kids?

    * If we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to throw away all the biblical rules that don’t make sense.

    * If we accept gay marriage we’ll have to find some other group to hate.

    * If you accept gay marriage, your kids might turn out gay. And if you’re a fundamentalist, you might get caught having gay sex.

    And most importantly:

    * If we stop going on about gay marriage we’ll have to start thinking about things that really matter.

  8. #8 Coin
    May 31, 2007

    I’ve seen this before and I really like it, but I do have one nitpick: I don’t actually think I’d say we as a society or a species have adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans…

  9. #9 Maddy
    May 31, 2007

    I support gays and I say right on the point!

  10. #10 dondoo
    May 31, 2007

    What part of the word “marriage” is not readily apparent to you? It is a word people, a word that is rooted in “formal religion” (in this country, mainly a Christian root thus far ). How difficult is it to make a word? Make a “gay” word to describe the same thing, then get the “legal and tax benefits” (as if there really are any in the long run). Like it or not, our language is English and it has roots in history and reality …… not “spin”. Get over it and quit bitching about it. Making fun of those that disagree with you, while bitching and moaning about being treated the same verbally is asinine and childish. Take the “higher road” instead and use LANGUAGE in your endeavour. Personally, I don’t give a damn at all either/whatever way …… put it in my face (hetero, homo, omni, whatever) …… we got problems however. Defining oneself by sexuality is a pretty sad thing …… regardless of choice.

  11. #11 kamimushinronsha
    May 31, 2007

    I’m confused dondoo are you saying they should just make a word like “garriage” and give it all the legal benefits of marriage? I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think it works that way.

  12. #12 Tyler DiPietro
    June 1, 2007

    “Take the “higher road” instead and use LANGUAGE in your endeavour.”

    Oh, I do so love when the semi-literate rabble come out of the woodwork to expound their nonsense, especially when they make demands like this after a barely legible post.

  13. #13 csrster
    June 1, 2007

    The icky thing needs to be clarified to fit in with the rest of the list:

    11. It’s icky, and icky things are unconstitutional.

  14. #14 Giovanni
    June 1, 2007

    I always enjoy reading posts by Americans who think their version of the USA way is the only way (dondoo). In many countries, for over 100 years, marriage has been purely a governmental word with formal religion only getting to bless the act after the legal contract has been signed. Formal religion has been kicked out of being the sole word on marriage since what, Napoleon?

    It is the government that allows formal religion to perform a government function. You may have heard similar words at a wedding “By the power invested in me by the [insert name of governmental authority here] and by [insert name of religious authority here as appropriate] I now pronounce you married.” The prescribed language requires the State’s power over the formal religion to be incanted so the legal contract can be binding.

    Civil marriage has always been allowed in this country. And that is all same-sex couples are requesting – equal treatment under the law without religious interference.

    But speaking of religious interference, when interracial marriages were illegal in California, the ban was overturned because the law denied the plaintiffs the right to exercise the religious right to participate in the religious sacrament of marriage. Now that certain religious groups have sanctioned same-sex marriages, why is that argument not being used again?

  15. #15 Different Adam
    June 2, 2007

    You also forgot that it would destroy the fundementals of marriage, you know, polygamous marriages, polyandry marriages, jewish marriages, hindu marriages, arranged marriages, exogamous marriages and all the rest :P

  16. #16 Pacian
    June 4, 2007

    I love the first one on the list. The whole ‘is homosexuality natural’ debate seems so hugely irrelevant to me – along with the ‘is it a choice’ one. So what if it is/isn’t?

  17. #17 Kevin
    November 23, 2009

    This list is stupid….i am for gay marriage not only because i am gay also because it is only right for us to be able marry as well as straight couples. And number 4 and 7 on the list jus dumb. Blacks can marry whites….and 7 is no where near true…my mom and dad are straight and look at me….Im gay…so jus because i gay couple decide to adopt or however they decide to have kids does not mean they will raise that child to be gay!!!

  18. #18 Jacob
    December 2, 2009

    I only needed one

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.