Analyzing arguments is something we're supposed to do in my ethics class...
I just thought I'd go through the list and examine the comparisons here. :P
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. Those three examples are things people have created to improve things; they are not examples of psychological states/beliefs/sexual attractions/whatever. To apply those examples, homesexuality would have to be a thing created to improve society.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. This would only seem to apply if gay people are gay by birth/because of genes they inherited. First, one would have to show that was the case.
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. The examples given are presumably positive or neutral things -- inventions, health improvements, shifts in jobs. Unless one equated "shifts in jobs" to "shifts in the number of married homosexual couples", I don't see how that could really apply.
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. No comment, except that "straight marriage" seems to imply marriage between two heterosexual people, which still holds true.
5) Straight marriage would be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed. Actually, marriage isn't nearly as serious since divorces have been allowed. If you can just get out, why shouldn't you have one for fun/profit? The example is a negative one, however...what is the implication? That gay marriages would be equally bad but wouldn't matter because of it? That gay marriages would never have any 55-hour just-for-fun marriages?
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. No comment. I don't think I've ever heard someone suggest the only valid marriages were ones that produced children. If you consider heterosexual and homosexual couples, however, only one has ever produced children that I know of. The argument this is (presumably?) mocking might be referring to something like that.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. I don't really see a reason why there would be -less- of a likelihood of gay children in such an environment -- where homosexuality was practiced and (possibly) encouraged. One might check whether there is any reasons that might suggest more gay children would result...PLUS, this whole argument presupposes gay adoption being allowed and that being gay is wrong.
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. By whose religion? Is it right to take the values of those who support homosexual marriage and impose those on the rest of society?
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. Haven't psychologists or whoever considered single marriage? Which is generally better for kids: A single parent, or a married couple (man and woman currently)? Given the comparison in this (mocking) argument, gay marriage might be okay since it's worse than straight marriage, but no worse than a child having a single parent. And who's to say that it's really the same as having a single parent?
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. www.marryyourpet.com ...though I'm not sure if that's a joke website or not, I'm almost sure I've seen a story or two about it already. But aside from that observation, is there not generally a progression where things once thought shocking become commonplace once they are accepted? And then, what's shocking? Something that would originally have been -extremely- shocking, or somesuch, no? You might say that that's a good thing, but one would have to show why, I think.
11) Gay couples are a harmful influence on their kids, because all gay couples abuse their kids, daily. Somewhere back there I thought this was "10 reasons". :P But seriously, not every heterosexual couple abuses their kids, thus presumably not every homosexual couple would abuse their kids (this I think is the underlying argument). But, not all harmful influences are abuse...(besides, the aforementioned presupposition applies to this argument as well -- that gay couples would get kids from somewhere). At any rate, one would have to actually show whether gay couples would be more or less likely to be a harmful influence and what was considered "harmful".
In short, this meme contains what I believe are termed "straw men". ^_^
I just thought I'd go through the list and examine the comparisons here. :P
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
Those three examples are things people have created to improve things; they are not examples of psychological states/beliefs/sexual attractions/whatever. To apply those examples, homesexuality would have to be a thing created to improve society.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
This would only seem to apply if gay people are gay by birth/because of genes they inherited. First, one would have to show that was the case.
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.
The examples given are presumably positive or neutral things -- inventions, health improvements, shifts in jobs. Unless one equated "shifts in jobs" to "shifts in the number of married homosexual couples", I don't see how that could really apply.
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.
No comment, except that "straight marriage" seems to imply marriage between two heterosexual people, which still holds true.
To be continued...
Reply
5) Straight marriage would be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
Actually, marriage isn't nearly as serious since divorces have been allowed. If you can just get out, why shouldn't you have one for fun/profit? The example is a negative one, however...what is the implication? That gay marriages would be equally bad but wouldn't matter because of it? That gay marriages would never have any 55-hour just-for-fun marriages?
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.
No comment. I don't think I've ever heard someone suggest the only valid marriages were ones that produced children. If you consider heterosexual and homosexual couples, however, only one has ever produced children that I know of. The argument this is (presumably?) mocking might be referring to something like that.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
I don't really see a reason why there would be -less- of a likelihood of gay children in such an environment -- where homosexuality was practiced and (possibly) encouraged. One might check whether there is any reasons that might suggest more gay children would result...PLUS, this whole argument presupposes gay adoption being allowed and that being gay is wrong.
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.
By whose religion? Is it right to take the values of those who support homosexual marriage and impose those on the rest of society?
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.
Haven't psychologists or whoever considered single marriage? Which is generally better for kids: A single parent, or a married couple (man and woman currently)? Given the comparison in this (mocking) argument, gay marriage might be okay since it's worse than straight marriage, but no worse than a child having a single parent. And who's to say that it's really the same as having a single parent?
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.
www.marryyourpet.com ...though I'm not sure if that's a joke website or not, I'm almost sure I've seen a story or two about it already. But aside from that observation, is there not generally a progression where things once thought shocking become commonplace once they are accepted? And then, what's shocking? Something that would originally have been -extremely- shocking, or somesuch, no? You might say that that's a good thing, but one would have to show why, I think.
11) Gay couples are a harmful influence on their kids, because all gay couples abuse their kids, daily.
Somewhere back there I thought this was "10 reasons". :P But seriously, not every heterosexual couple abuses their kids, thus presumably not every homosexual couple would abuse their kids (this I think is the underlying argument). But, not all harmful influences are abuse...(besides, the aforementioned presupposition applies to this argument as well -- that gay couples would get kids from somewhere). At any rate, one would have to actually show whether gay couples would be more or less likely to be a harmful influence and what was considered "harmful".
In short, this meme contains what I believe are termed "straw men". ^_^
Feel free to hate on me now. :P
Reply
Leave a comment