Oct 20, 2005 19:40
As you may or may not know, it's Coming Out week here in America. I just wanted to share a few thoughts about it with all of you.
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, liposuction 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 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.
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...
As a side note, marriage as defined by the Catholic religion should stay as marriage and gay people can't be married because it goes against the doctrine. Fine. So what's our excuse for not according gay couples committed to each other the same rights legally enjoyed by married people? I completely understand (but don't agree with) the Church's opposition. However, the couple should still have the right to change religion (which they do) and enter into a legally binding contract with the same rights, stipulations and benefits as couples who are religiously married (which they do not, without years of legal action and filling out of forms, which can in some cases be disregarded, especially if the blood relatives contest such contracts). So, for my standpoint, while religion should not have to accomodate things which it finds repugnant in its own faith, neither should the legal system be bound by such religions even if that religion makes up the majority of the population of a country. All in all, marriage as religious can choose what to sanction and support, a legal system is bound by its constitution and laws to uphold the rights of everyone, regardless of pressure from religion.
politics