Jonah Goldberg's article, "An ugly attack on Mormons" was sure to rile up more than a few people. A little research on Golderg found that he is a conservative flame-baiter on any controversial topic du jour.
The gist of the article I mention, is basically that evil liberal supporters of same-sex marriage are attacking, completely unprovoked, Mormons. And that Mormons are the real victims in the Prop 8 hoopla in California.
Blahblahblah. Obvious flame-baiting.
Besides the fact that no one can prove whether the attacks are real or not, most supporters of gay marriage do not approve of physical attacks and violence. That anyone would attribute the actions of any extremist person or group to an entire population of people is an example of pure intellectual laziness.
Goldberg's article collected well over 1000 comments. Among these, not surprisingly were a mix of pro and anti same-sex marriage arguments.
I have noticed many trends in debating the merits of same-sex marriage online. I have noticed many ignorant, many religious-based arguments. However, it is my opinion that they can all be summarized into just a few basic ideas.
Here, from the collection of comments from Goldberg's article and a couple of other articles I easily found online, are the
1. The "I'm-Too-Manly-to-Say-I-Like-Gays-But-Still-Supportive-of-Their-Rights" Married Straight Guy:" "Hey, whatevs. If the homos want to jump into a 50%divorce rate, why not let them be miserable like the rest of us."
[Okay, while technically not an argument against same-sex marriage, this one annoys me.]
2. The "My Bigotry is for The Children" Olde Towne Crier: "Gay marriage puts sexuality in front of children long before they need to be considering it. Kindergarteners don't need to be taught about homosexuality."
[because, you know, straight marriage doesn't do that at all. Just the Gay Marriage.]
3. The I'm-Just-Jealous-that-Gays-Are-Happy-and-I'm-Not-Repressed-Homosexual- Straight-Man: "Gay rights??? The freedom to be openly sexual, the freedom to make others recognize your sexuality so you feel good. That is individual and self-centered by nature. Marriage is a sacrifice, people! I made that sacrifice! You don't deserve to be happy if I don't!"
[because, you know, allowing yourself to be happy basically equates to sinning]
4. The "Gays Are Nazis" Fundamentalist/Extremist Religious Follower:" "The 'Big Reveal' was to find out that gays are nothing but a fascist splinter group,that villified white heterosexuals, enjoys the benefits of being white, and when a democratic decision makes a decision, they take a page out of the Third Reich's book on how to hunt down people that disagree with them. Isn't it amazing to find out that fascism was also in the closet. Boy, was I right that Obama's victory would flush out the closeted bigots. The Gay Reich is on the march!" [note: exact wording taking from an actual comment to Golderg's article]
5. The Psychic Harbinger of The Day of Reckoning [dun dun dun!]: "There are many abominable causes, such as gay rights in America that are about to boil over. The day of reckoning is coming. There are those that are tired of seeing the sickness that is on display daily in America. Those from that silent majority are getting restless, when the pot finally boils over I believe the carnage that will result, will be greater than anyone could have ever imagined."
[Again an actual argument taken from Golberg's article]
6. Alas, beware The Dreaded Circle of No Return Argument: "Gay Marriage is wrong because it's against tradition because marriage is for heterosexuals because heterosexuals produce babies so gay marriage is wrong because it's against tradition because marriage is for heterosexuals because heterosexuals produce babies so gay marriage is wrong."
[It's best to just avoid entering this one altogether, as their argument is circular, and thus, neverending.]
7. The "Gays-Are-All-God's-People-But-They-Shouldn't-Force-Their-Lifestyles-on-the-Rest-of-Us" argument usually goes a little something like this: "It is homosexuals' God-given right to choose whichever lifestyle they wish. Christians are obliged to treat homosexuals compassionately, as they, like all of us, are children of God. If tolerance were the Gay Rights movement agenda, I would agree. If the issue were simply about a State-issued legal contract binding two consenting homosexual adults, I would support it. But the Gay Rights movement has demonstrated the issue is much broader: putting homosexual "discrimination" on par with racism and sexism, in order to legally force complete acceptance by society. Anyone who dissents is threatened with slurs or legal action."
[Yes, folks. We all choose our lifestyles of Homosexuality (let me find the ICD-9 code for that) and take our Radical Gay Agendas everywhere with us, threatening innocent little Cwistians]
8. The "I'm-a-Patriotic-Blue-Blooded-Gun-Totin-American-Born-American-Yet-Don't-Understand-Democracy" Argument: "Radical, liberal, progressive judges have overruled the will of the people in California. The Supreme Court of California has ruled that a law, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. The law was voted on by the citizens of the state back in 2000. This judicial activism is a direct attack on American morality and traditional family values. This is outrageous, offensive, and the good people of California have been dealt a terrible blow."
[Yep, in my world too, is a Supreme Court composed of a Republican, conservative majority called, "progressive" and "liberal" and "activist." Only if it's opposite day!]
9. The "I'm Not Bigoted, I Swear! But Every Single Gay Person is Responsible For the Attacks on the Mormon Church Post Prop-8" Argument: "I was indifferent about the issue until I have seen the aftermath of protests and vandalism. I don't think MLK would have gotten anywhere in the realm of public opinion by sending powder filled envelopes to the state office in AL. I too think that sam-sex marriage is inevitable, but it will inevitably be delayed by the tactics that are being used."
10. The Insane Indecipherable Armageddon Argument: "we will all rot in HELL 4 siding with the DEVIL and his adgenda.To force people to do things against their beliefs is an adbomination .Forcing a photographer those behind this we burn in the fire of HELL.They should of got another member of the Anti-christ to shoot the pics."
[Perhaps I should borrow this person's tinfoil cap and then I, too, will be able to predict the future with such certainty]
11. The-I'm-Too-Ignorant-or-Stupid-to-Learn-What-Gay-Means Argument: "No one is denying homosexuals the right to marry. They have every right to get married, just like heterosexuals do. They can find an opposite sexed partner to do it."
[Just like how straight people can go find a same-sex person to enter into a "Homosexual Relationship" with. See below.]
And, finally, last but not least:
12. "I'm-Either-A-Proud-Gay-Hater-or-Jose-Solano-Who-Doesn't-Hate-Gays" Argument: "If homosexuals wish to obtain special privileges for their relationship they should campaign for a 'Homosexual Relationship License' and let the people vote on its approval..." or, "A man having sex with a man, or a woman with a woman, is a naturally absurd activity, an absurd relationship. No amount of clever sophistry can ever remove that realization from the depths of their consciences. So when the objective therapist or friend communicates from the foundation of this reality, he/she needs to realize that, of course, the homosexual unconsciously realizes this also. The homosexual suffers immensely in trying to reconcile his/her wants with what he/she deeply recognizes as absurd. Almost always the wants win out. This is generally the same with almost all manifestations of concupiscence. It is a truly lamentable hoax that has been thrust on homosexuals by telling them they have been born that way and cannot change. Homosexual scientists themselves have contributed to this hoax by insinuating the existence of a “gay gene” and allowing this debunked myth to proliferate because it suited their political agenda in gaining societal affirmation."
[Funny. Jose, I mean, "others" insist so very admanantly that they know about the course of human nature and science, as if it is all established fact based on scientific reasoning. He feigns to know something that well-established science doesn't yet know. Something like human sexual orientation, which, can not possibly be absolutely known or measured at this time. But I suppose we should just take this hater's word for it. I mean, "Jose's" word for it.]
While there are probably more arguments out there, these are by far the most common types.
I really urge opponents of same-sex marriage to do better.
Or not. The more ignorant and crazy they sound, the better for us. Until next time...
Thursday, December 4, 2008
12 Types of Anti-Same-Sex Marriage Arguments
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I didn't see where my argument fits in to any of those. My argument is that we should have Civil Unions that give all the rights of marriage except the right to attempt to conceive children together, and that we should prohibit all attempts at creating children that do not join a man and a woman's unmodified gametes, because we need to do that to preserve individual procreation rights and equality, and prevent expensive, wasteful, coercive eugenics from taking over how people are created.
Would you like to write a guest post at EggAndSperm about it? Fannie said she was going to research the legal and scientific aspects of same-sex conception and write something up, but she never did.
Soon, we are going to be talking about it, it can't be avoided for much longer. So why not now, while Obama is going to have to enter the DOMA debate, and California is going to have to re-write its same-sex partnership legislation, and thousands of same-sex couples are suffering without equal protections right now?
Btw, I see you are public health person. So am I. I think allowing a few crazy rich people and renegade labs to attempt same-sex conception is very bad public health policy. If allowed, we'd have to divert millions of public health resources to regulate and make available same-sex conception services, and then, because it would open the door to other genetic interventions, start regulating and subsidizing genetic engineering for all couples.
We'd have to divert resources to follow-up studies on children created from same-sex conception, which would be intrusive and psychologically damaging to the children. If there are any problems that show up in the children, they could be brand new never seen before problems that will divert still more resources.
Meanwhile most poor people will continue to be born naturally and without any enhancements or interventions, concentrating inheritable diseases in the poor segments of the population. Not only will there be less money for them, but less interest in caring for their diseases, and there would be a coarsening of attitude, a contempt for people who were still being born naturally.
As a public health priority, it makes no sense, and we need to ban it completely and put all of our resources into caring for people already here.
"Gay marriage puts sexuality in front of children long before they need to be considering it. Kindergarteners don't need to be taught about homosexuality."
Straight people don't have sex...the stork drops the baby off...remember! And lesbians just cuddle...so yes, talking about gay people and gay families is really just talking about butt sex...and that's just wrong.
By the way, our "Gay/Lesbian/Nazi/Convert them while they're Young" meeting got postponed to Friday because there is a Armageddon threat for tonight from all of our sins, so if the world is still in existence, we'll meet at my place.
On the agenda is reconciling with the Mormons and converting them. If I can "choose" gay, so can they!
Thanks for the list, Jane.
Thoroughly entertaining yet disturbingly true.
Same sex marriage is an oxymoron.
It is based on the rejection of the other sex. It is about sex apartheid.
In addition, it violates the fundamental human right of children to have and be raised by their own father and mother.
A sperm, a Dad, an egg, a mother are an inseparable unit.
Gay activists are trying to steal marriage by forcing its redefinition on all of us. It violates our rights.
By the way, the increase in divorce in America is due to the no fault divorce law that was introduced in California and supported by the same crowd which is pushing ss marriage.
Instead of blaming religion blame the lack of common sense in the NO on 8 philosophy of sexual extinction
Thank you.
Anonymous said "philosophy of sexual extinction." I wonder what this means? Care to elaborate?
John Howard, you are right. I didn't include your argument, mostly because I am not informed enough on the topic to say whether or not I oppose it or not. I've been thinking about it a lot lately. I think you are way ahead of the game in many respects, as others who oppose SSM on the grounds I mentioned in my article.
I wish I had more time to devote to your topic. I would like to write a guest article, but only once I am more informed. I will stop by your blog and read up on the resources you mentioned first, though.
John Howard, I've joined the discussion on the bioethics blog. I am looking forward to learning more. http://bioethicsdiscussion.blogspot.com/2008/11/developing-reproductive-technique-eggs.html
Re: "Gay marriage puts sexuality in front of children long before they need to be considering it. Kindergarteners don't need to be taught about homosexuality." [because, you know, straight marriage doesn't do that at all. Just the Gay Marriage.]
That one really pisses me off, as a parent of small kids who grasps how kids perceive things.
Re: I made that sacrifice! You don't deserve to be happy if I don't!
This one applies to so much of the rationale behind religion and theocracy, not just gay marriage.
But, I don't think you've quite hit on the point that angers me the most about this whole debate: On a psychological level, satisfaction is relative. Things that help families in an absolute sense (health care, day care, maternity leave) are expensive -- so instead of footing the bill for real help, they "help families" by kicking somebody else down. As far as I'm concerned, it's the most egregious example of adding insult to injury, to imagine that families would accept this type of preferential treatment in place of real help.
C.L. Hanson, it's been a pleasure to read your comment, as always. :-)
Those 2 arguments against same-sex marriage are the ones that anger me the most, as well.
What most people who argue that children will be "taught" homosexuality are forgetting is that children are already taught sexuality from basically birth, regardless of the sexual orientation of their parents. Most people forget that the dominant ideology of heterosexuality is an ideology, too. Just an invisible one.
And besides, children need to stop being taught that there is anything wrong with sexuality in the first place. All major studies in the field have shown that abstinence-only education is less effective at its goals (reducing teen pregnancy and STD rates) than comprehensive sex ed.
And the part about "sacrifice" regardless of happiness just doesn't make any sense at all to me.
For people to declare with absolute certainty that an afterlife exists which rewards "good" behavior and punishes alleged "bad" behavior to me is just ludicrous. As far as I am concerned, we have one life. No one knows what comes after it, and we best enjoy it to the best we can, without harming other people, of course. :-)
To base an argument against same-sex marriage on a religious/puritanical stance of "gay people don't deserve to be sexually happy" just does not have any merit in my book. If being in a same-sex relationship is what makes anyone happiest, and no one is harmed from it, what is the problem? Why would anyone try to interfere with that in any way?
Sorry for the ramble...I guess the winter break without school is making me a little philosophical.
For the record: I'd like to see Mr. Howard reconcile the following statements (both his):
1)we should prohibit all attempts at creating children that do not join a man and a woman's unmodified gametes
And 2) We also need to figure out how to produce fewer gay people who are unable to love someone they can have kids with.
I'm inclined to believe he'd throw #1 under the bus in order to achieve objective #2. Which would make his claims against bias disingenuous at best.
Mrs.Waltz, great point. I haven't heard from Mr. Howard in a while, so I have no idea if he's still interested in discussion. But I was definitely wondering the same thing. It sounds to me like he is for the very thing he claims to be against (obsessively, even). Perhaps he is only against eugenetics insofar as gay and lesbian couples are concerned? I don't know. The more I read what he writes the more convinced I am that he is really no different from the OE gang.
Post a Comment