12 Reasons Same-Sex Marriage will Ruin Society
One of the advantages of working at a really large company is finding interesting stuff in the printer bin.
This particular item apparently made the blog rounds allready, but just in case you missed it: 12 Reasons Same-Sex Marriage will Ruin Society. The Gator Gay-Straight Alliance “Flash!” site is fairly intolerable, but I think I might be Straight is easily the best flyer I’ve seen from a college organization, and the Not-A-Cutout project seems pretty cool.
March 3rd, 2004 at 1:57 am
I’m normally a rather liberal person, well, a VERY liberal person, but…
First off, I think the links are funny. Good job trying to send the message via humor — people will take you seriously that way.
I have plenty of gay and lesbian friends, and as a disclaimer before I continue, they understand and accept my views on homosexuality. A couple even sympathize and share them. That being said I’m probably going to ruffle a few feathers here.
My view that it’s wrong.
We’ll use my friend Angela as an example. She’s one helluva butch lesbian. Now her and I have been friends as long as I can remember, and she’s a great person, but she has something wrong with her. She’s a lesbian.
Do I have a problem with it? No. I regard it as I would a psycological disorder — just because you have a friend who’s bipolar doesn’t mean they’re any worse, they just have a disorder.
Here’s where the difference is, though. Psycological disorders are not encouraged. They’re not looked down upon, but they’re not encouraged. A person with a psycological disorder is prevented from various things (such as getting certain jobs). How is a psycological disorder determined? Easy. It’s not the norm.
Homosexuality is not the norm. It’s abnormal behaviour from a human standpoint and from a more general “living organism” standpoint. Allowing gay marriages, in my opinion, would merely encourage the behavior.
Just a note; there’s nothing wrong with homosexuals, but there is indeed something wrong with homosexuality. Homosexuals should be shown the same respect and humanity that any straight person should be shown. It’s not their fault they’re different.
The difference is between being accepting and being encouraging.
Face it. “Overeaters” can’t get the rules of basketball changed to allow a pastry break every quarter. Be as gay as a jay if you like, but don’t cry because it doesn’t afford you the same benefits as the other 90% of the species.
Ultimately, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not a choice. However, acting out your preference is. If it bothers you that you’re straight or gay and not receiving the same treatment as the other option, feel free to not let it be blatantly obvious that you’re straight or gay. People don’t scratch their asses, pick their noses, or belch in public, and it’s just as annoying to see two straight people groping each-other in public as it is two gay people. Just show a little self-restraint is all.
March 3rd, 2004 at 12:56 pm
Was that comment parody? My snark detector is on the fritz.
March 3rd, 2004 at 6:10 pm
All right, I admit it, I am coming out about it….
I think… uh… I might be straight, everyone. I know this comes as a shock to you all but it’s more shocking to me than any of you. I don’t know how I will live with myself – being drawn…
March 3rd, 2004 at 8:12 pm
All right, I admit it, I am coming out about it….
I think… uh… I might be straight, everyone. I know this comes as a shock to you all but it’s more shocking to me than any of you. I don’t know how I will live with myself – being drawn…
March 4th, 2004 at 1:28 am
…huh. Yeah, either that first comment was satire, or a_s_b is immensely more dislikable even than I had thought.
By any meaningful definition, a “disorder” is not just a variance from average, it’s a harmful condition.
Do you also find white people to have a melatonin disorder? Are people who can roll their tongues also suffering from a disorder? Left-handed people? People who like onions? Male people?
Do you feel we should enact laws to avoid encouraging any of those behaviours? Sure, sure, we won’t actually criminalize being left-handed–they’re people too, right?–but the manufacture or sale of left-handed scissors is right out. Those sinister lefties can do what they want in their own homes, but they can just keep their deviance out of public view.
March 4th, 2004 at 4:56 am
Two of the people I’d expect to recognize the satire most readily miss it. I’d have hoped the second sentense would help with the “snark detection”. What is this world coming to? At least Adam asked in lieu of marching around under an unconfirmed banner.
I’ll contribute this little discrepancy to election-year stress. And what’s this “more dislikable” stuff? onan, did I rub you the wrong way so much to make your anger retroactive? I haven’t posted here in damn near forever (and as far as I can remember never with satire _THIS_ thick).
March 4th, 2004 at 12:44 pm
ASB: Your comment just sounded so uncomfortably close to stuff I’m reading on, say, Mrs. du Toit’s site. A lot of people believe exactly as you’ve written here. It’s scary and unnerving.
March 4th, 2004 at 12:47 pm
My attempt at gay/straight snark, from back in June before everything exploded:
http://www.lucky8ball.com/wordsmeanthings/index.cfm?postID=1685
March 4th, 2004 at 1:17 pm
Good to see another du Toit reader. I tried to make it sound like something one would find there.
And this next chunk isn’t directed at you, Adam, but is clearly intended for a general audience.
___
Perhaps people here need to be a bit more open-minded about being open-minded. It seems some of the people here who consider themselves to be so jump on those who they consider not to be.
People are going to have different views on subjects. They may not be views that you agree with, but those people have the right to express their opinions as much as you do. This axe swings both ways, people, and can cut both the conservative and liberl way.
Being “open-minded” doesn’t mean you have to accept every liberal idea and crusade against those who don’t. It means you’re willing to consider to all ideas. To paraphrase Socrates, “The mark of a wise man is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it.”
___
Back to the program…
Maybe homosexuality IS wrong, maybe it ISN’T. Both sides have their points and that there has to be some common ground where people who support and people who ridicule homosexuality can both be comfortable — or both be up in arms to a lesser extent.
Personally I could care less whether or not gay marriages are legalized as I’m not a homosexual. The friends I have who ARE homosexuals don’t particularly care either because, and I quote my gay friend Jason (who’s “married”), “A real relationship doesn’t exist on paper or in the courts. Gay marriage is just a few greedy fags looking for a tax break.”
I’ve personally been turned down for jobs and whatnot next to less qualified individuals who got said jobs because they’re a minority and the employer gets a tax break. I don’t think this is right, and I don’t think minorities should receive special benefit because they’re a minority, but I don’t see a reason why they shouldn’t have any of the rights that I do.
Last time I checked, gays were a minority. And last I checked I was able to get married to a woman because I’m straight. Though I may not care what decision the courts make, I don’t see why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
March 4th, 2004 at 3:34 pm
ASB: I don’t think being open-minded means accepting others’ view that being gay is wrong. I can’t and won’t accept that. I don’t ask anyone else to give up their deeply-held beliefs, and objecting to what I see as bigoted and ignorant speech is my right, too.
Sounds like your “married” friend Jason would feel right at home on Mrs. du Toit’s site. Her current position (after burning through all the other anti-gay-marriage positions) is that the straight world has no obligation to give state benefits to gay couples. Fits right in with the “few greedy fags” hypothesis.
Civil rights affect us all, gay and straight. And if GWB gets another term and the Federal Marriage Amendment passes, just wait for the plans the religious right has for you.
March 4th, 2004 at 5:06 pm
*shrug* I never said you had to accept the idea that homosexuality is wrong, just understand why other people think so and accept that the point of view exists — and that the OPINION in opposition to yours is just as “right” as yours is, regardless of whether it has a logical basis or not. Honestly, to me, the most blatant homophobes and the most staunch homosexual rights activists stand on exactly equal ground — just as they would if they were to vote on something like this.
The greatest and simultaneously most debillitating thing about America is the right to have an opinion without basing said opinion on any kind of knowledge on the subject or sound reasoning.
If you won’t accept that some people think it’s wrong, don’t be surprised when some won’t accept that you think it’s right. But don’t call yourself open-minded if you refuse to see where those opposed to your position are coming from, because to them you’re just as closed minded as they are to you. Remember, opinions aren’t objectively right and wrong.
Like I said, that axe cuts both ways. Everyone is free to believe what they want, and everyone is free to scream and object to what they want. While you’re right that civil rights affect us all, gay and straight, I don’t see any particular harm or boon in the Federal Marriage Amendment. I’m not gay, I’m not going to be some multiple divorsee hillbilly, and my promiscuious sexual escapades are behind me.
As for the “religious right”; as hard as it is to believe, they’re just trying to help people. I’m agnostic and STAUNCHLY against most fanatical religious institutions, but I think that we can all agree that for the most part religious mainstays such as “don’t kill” and “don’t steal” could use a bit more enforcement in the states. Maybe a bit more emphasis on the spirituality side of the coin could help this country full of thieves and murderers?
If it ever comes to the point where I terribly disagree with policies that the U.S. has in place, I’ll leave. If I ever don’t see a bit of a point in what people like Jason say — straight or gay or whatever — I’ll stop talking with them. That’s my decision. For now things are still tripping the fringe of tolerable.
March 4th, 2004 at 7:48 pm
I think it’s pretty worthless to consider absolutely all views to be equally valuable, or to say that it’s simply impossible to discuss the correctness or at least consistency of any statement. Some views are entirely internal, others can be evaluated for correctness or consistency.
If someone’s stated view is, “I’m opposed to gay marriage because I find it creepy,” okay, we’ve got a reasonable statement. That’s all personal opinion, and expressed as such. We could then get into a conversation about the most reasonable societal compromises to address such opinions, but I can’t exactly just contradict, “no, you’re wrong, you don’t find it creepy.”
But that’s a different case from, “gay marriage will make straight marriage meaningless,” or, “gay marriage is part of a ploy to criminalize Christianity,” or, if you read Adam Yoshida, “gay marriage causes cannibalism.” Or, in this case, “gay marriage will encourage people to develop mental disorders.”
Being open-minded would require me to take the time to examine such assertions and come to a rational conclusion about their accuracy, ideally in a manner I can articulate. Fortunately, these weren’t exactly stumpers.
March 4th, 2004 at 9:10 pm
ASB: The religious right is “just trying to help people”? Wow. Sure you’re not back on the parody side? And if you don’t see the harm in enshrining discrimination in the Constitution, whether you personally are gay or straight, then yeah, I guess the common ground is pretty thin.
March 5th, 2004 at 12:08 am
onan — You’re getting farther and farther from making accurate connections. Where was it said that “gay marriage will encourage people to develop mental disorders.”? Did I miss where this was typed? Should I do a google search?
Other than that you have a good point. Saying something directly causes something is much different than fielding an opinion. All OPINIONS are equal, not all information from which those opinions are derived. The difference is that a totally valid opinion can come from a worthless chunk of informatio. Just look at the voting system — whether someone votes for a candidate based on their political standpoints or merely because they think the canidate is better looking is irrelevant. Both votes are counted equally.
I never said the consistency or facts on which an opinion is based shouldn’t be questioned, just that an opinion shouldn’t be labeled as objectively right or wrong. One person saying “summer sucks” is no more right or wrong than another person saying “winter sucks.” Now if person #1 thinks summer sucks because he can’t ski, while #2 thinks winter sucks because he thinks gangs of yetis on motorcycles ravage his town, yes we can point out the obvious flaws in reasoning in person #2, but he still thinks winter sucks which is a completely valid opinion.
But yes, as you said, “Being open-minded would require me to take the time to examine such assertions and come to a rational conclusion about their accuracy, ideally in a manner I can articulate.” By doing this you’re actually making an effort to understand the point of view expressed. Commendable. However, “gay marriage causes cannibalism” is just a false conclusion rather than an opinion.
Adam — Yes, I suppose the religious right is “out to get people” just like those big bad homosexuals. You’re falling victim to the same pattern of thinking that you’re critisizing on your site. The religious right is just doing what it thinks is best for people, just as the homosexual movement is doing what it believes to be best for homosexuals. Neither side is looking to intentionally offend or opress people, though it may happen unintentionally.
As for enshrining discrimination in the constitution, the only way for that NOT to happen is for the constitution NOT to exist. Everyone suffers discrimination in some form, whether it be as base as ageism or something more extreme. And a lot of it is protected by documents such as the constitution. I suppose that you feel people born outside of the U.S. should be able to be president, too. Or maybe that convicted felons should be allowed to hold government jobs or own firearms? After all, that’s in the past and everyone deserves a second chance.
And that’s all I have to say about this. I would like to thank you, onan and Adam, for reminding me why I stopped posting here. The railroading of those who don’t share the popular view — or even those who merely question the way of thinking — is disgusting. I’d imagine that if I were to continue this little exchange it would eventually result in my being blatantly insulted for one reason or another.
I miss lies.com, JBC. Please bring it back some day.
March 5th, 2004 at 5:58 am
ASB: I don’t think my comments were “railroading” you. I do take issue with some things you said, and expressed that. Isn’t that what you’re talking about? Exchange of ideas?
As for the religious right, my problem with them is that they think they know what’s best not only for them, but for the rest of humanity, too. And they want to do everything possible to make sure the population lives exactly as they prescribe. In contrast, a gay person who wants the right to marry is simply asking for the same rights as the rest of the society. It doesn’t damange or diminish anyone else’s marriage, despite all the hue and cry to the contrary. I think there’s a huge difference between those two outlooks.
As for the Constitution, comparing being gay to being a felon doesn’t really help the conversation.
I’ll talk about any subject with anyone. I’ve waded into the muck over at Mrs. du Toit’s more than I care to admit. And I’ve never personally insulted anyone for their opinions. Never. But that doesn’t mean I’m not going to engage when I think something has to be challenged.
March 6th, 2004 at 8:26 am
“a_stupid_box” as he’s known here, or Clark as those of us who aren’t in on his little internet geek parade call him, recently (yesterday) presented this in his Written Communications course.
It was intended as an example of how people miscommunicate, or more appropriately, how people misinterpret a message.
I can see why he used this as an example. Adam, you seem intent on disagreeing with Clark regardless of the topic. As a result, you make incorrect connections. He wasn’t comparing being gay to being a felon, he was merely saying that the two groups are both discriminated against, are are minors because of their age.
You somewhat twisted the meaning and omitted to say “comparing being gay to being a child”. This leads me to think that you are a rather capable communicator yet are on the same wavelength as so many others. You misunderstand something, take it out of context, and just as the republicans running the nation, disregard parts that don’t support your ideas or would invalidate your points.
Another example is how you tried to insinuate that by not having an opinion on homosexual marriages he doesn’t care about “enshrining discrimination in the Constitution”. Knowing him personally I can vouch for the inaccuracy in this statement, and as a member of his class I’m surprised he even dignified this with a reply. Not having an opinion on a small segment of something doesn’t mean one does not care about the whole. Your statement is comparable to saying someone isn’t a patriot because they don’t say the pledge of allegiance every day.
My personal view is that homosexuality should be somewhat under the table. I don’t look forward to my children asking how two men or two women have sex or why; what if they become homophobes because they see it as disgusting? Would I be to blame? By your logic, Adam, I probably would because I’d have “explained it wrong” or some such rubbish.
To gain a better understanding or your writing, Adam, I visited your site. I found much more of the same inaccuracies I found here in a variety of your articles. I congratulate you on your fine ability to tilt something in your favor, however, I remain unimpressed in general. I’m sure that if the president needs a spindoctor you’d be a prime candidate.
onan at least stopped when his items were addressed. You just keep digging up more. I sincerely hope that your understanding of subjects discussed on your site surpasses your ability to write from an objective standpoint. Feel free to reply to this, as I’m sure you’ll feel the need to have the last word. Just be aware that I’ve commented on this only to indicate my surprise that such underqualified and biased individuals are writing on the internet, especially on such sensitive subjects.
I won’t be returning. Ejoy your day.
March 6th, 2004 at 10:15 am
Tabitha: Where do I begin here?
-There’s a difference between discrimination and punishment. Felons have to face the consequences of their actions. Gay people have to face the consequences of who they are. Huge difference.
-The Constitution: ending slavery, giving women the right to vote, ensuring a free press. Yeah, very discriminatory document. Let’s add more!
-“Not having an opinion on something” is a cop-out. Do you have an opinion about whether black people should be able to vote? I’ll bet you do. Do you have an opinion about whether a black man can marry a white woman? You don’t have to be black to know that limiting the citizenship, in any way, of a black person is dead wrong.
-I’m sorry you feel that I should live my live “somewhat under the table,” an incredibly insulting comment. I don’t really like how straight people throw it in my face all the time either, but I don’t get to decide that, do I? Good luck with your kids, especially if they turn out to be gay.
-One thing you got right: I am biased. I’m an unapologetic liberal. I don’t think there’s such a thing as “unbiased writing” – I’m just more honest about it.
-I didn’t write this to “have the last word.” But sometimes outrageous statements need to be refuted, even at the danger of seeming petulant.
Finally, Tabitha, when I leave a comment anywhere on the internet, I sign it with my full name, e-mail address and site address, if possible. I stand by each and every one of my comments. Too bad you’re not willing to do the same.
March 6th, 2004 at 1:19 pm
maybe she’s trying to protect her anonymity should her classmates read her comments and for any reason it became an issue? especially due to her stance on homosexuality.
you remind me of people who scream coward at other people on message boards for not having a picture.
stupid box does have a point though. you don’t seem that open minded. also, not having an opinion isn’t a “cop out”. you probably just have a hard time accepting any view besides your own, even if it’s a neutral stance.
and you still avoided the point of the felon comparison, as terrible as it was. you again failed to adress the ageism.
with how uptight you sound adam you’ll probably make some guy very happy if you’re a bottom.
March 7th, 2004 at 11:54 am
Bah. I didn’t “stop when my items were addressed,” I just had better things to do on the weekend than follow the “conversation” after a_s_b lost the ability to discern whether he was making a strongly anti-gay argument, or whether he was just kidding about that, or whether he was actually making a mildly anti-gay argument, or whether he was just feinting to test our open-mindedness, or whether he just wanted to whine because two people disagreed with him.
As to the nonsensical question about where I got the “gay marriage encourages mental disorders” assertion from your post, I think it was somewhere around here:
” I regard it as I would a psycological disorder — just because you have a friend who’s bipolar doesn’t mean they’re any worse, they just have a disorder.
Here’s where the difference is, though. Psycological disorders are not encouraged. They’re not looked down upon, but they’re not encouraged. A person with a psycological disorder is prevented from various things (such as getting certain jobs). How is a psycological disorder determined? Easy. It’s not the norm.
Homosexuality is not the norm. It’s abnormal behaviour from a human standpoint and from a more general “living organism” standpoint. Allowing gay marriages, in my opinion, would merely encourage the behavior.”
Perhaps you would care to enlighten me about any subtle nuances in the longer text that make the shorter an innappropriate assessment?
March 7th, 2004 at 5:44 pm
i don’t see where it’s says gay marriage will encourage psychological disorders. stupid box would have to say that “being gay is a psychological disorder”. I don’t see that. besides that the comment was satire. is there something you aren’t understanding onan?
though I do see where one could make your mistake onan. you just decided what you wanted it to mean rather than reading what it said more carefully. i can’t find the article, but a while back there was an article on here about drawing the wrong conclusions from information. give it a read onan.
i see rather clearly what happened here, onan, it’s called topic drift. stupid box is always clear on what topic he’s addressing it just chages quite often. as a neutral party let me outline this.
1. stupid box makes a jackass post
2. adam asks if the comment was satire
3. onan attacks comment admittedly not knowing if it was satire
4. stupid box explains his initial post was satire, gives a dictionary definition of open-minded pointing out that people here aren’t, and explains his actual neutral stance on the subject of homosexual marriages
5. adam misunderstands what open minded is. points out that civil rights affect us all, and casts the religious right in a slightly ominous light.
6. stupid box explains what adam misunderstood about being open minded. indicates he cares about civil rights. says religious right isn’t malevolent.
7. onan misunderstands what he should be critical of in an opinion. makes incorrect connection, believeing stupid box to have said homosexuality is a psycological disorder rather than just similar to one in the idea that its abnormal non-beneficial behavior. in a post that was satirical in nature in the first place mind you. onan shows an example of being critical of an incorrect conclusion (the irony being that he makes one himself) which he believes as being critical of an opinion.
8. adam mocks stupid box’s belief that the religious right is just trying to help people. accuses stupid box of encouraging discrimination in the constitution.
9. stupid box does a crappy job of implying to onan that he never said homosexuality is a psychological disorder, therefore the conclusion that gay marriage encourages psychological. congratulates onan’s understanding of what being open minded would entail. informs adam that the religious right is no more malevolent as the homosexual rights movement. explains that discrimination can’t be removed from the constitution while the constitution exists by giving a good example (ageism) and a crappy crappy example (felons). voices his displeasure with the website.
10. adam explains he’s not trying to railroad box. explains that gays want to help gays while the religious right wants to help everyone and by doing so doesn’t help everyone (probably not realizing he’s proving stupid box’s point that they aren’t being malevolent). jumps on the crappy example of felons being discriminated taking it to be a direct comparison between gays and felons. explains that he feels the need to comment on what he thinks is wrong.
11. tabitha voices her displeasure with adam’s writing and thinking. admits she’s a homophobe.
12. adam points out the difference between punishment and discrimination. says those without an opinion have an opinion. says he’s insulted by tabitha’s opinion. says he’s biased. defends his need to have the last word. calls tabitha a coward.
13. i try to explain why tabitha might not be a coward. propose the idea that adam might not be able to accept any view alternative to his own. told adam that he missed the point that discrimination exists in the constitution. told adam he’d made a good bottom. (yes i’m an asshole but i fit in with the rest of you.)
14. onan tries to insult stupid box by saying he didn’t know what topic he was talking about. addresses only the original (satirical) comment about psychological disorders and whatnot. quotes again show he misunderstood the post. disregards stupid box’s statement that he won’t post here anymore and asks for an explanation.
15. this post outlining the progression of this chat.
and i think that about sums it up. some posts’ summaries were left out for whatever reason.
June 23rd, 2004 at 10:15 pm
I’m tired of having political correctness being jammed down my throat. If you’re gay, it’s a decision. Where is the scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic? I’ll tell you -NOWHERE. It’s just agenda-driven junk science. It comes from the same mindset that claims we’re all going to freeze to death due to another ice age brought on by global warming which, if you’re REALLY “pc”, you will blame on the evil, internal combustion engine.
It’s the same mindset that says you need sunlight, but then says you can’t have any, lest you contract skin cancer.
It’s the same mindset that once proudly proclaimed caffeine as the “death drug”.
Claiming that homosexuality is genetic means being able to bury one’s head in the sand when the topic of moral absolutes comes up. Of course, the world is so upside down these days that the liberals claim that Christians are just oh-so-oppressive towards gay and lesbian people. In Canada, if a Christian pastor addresses homosexuality as an abomination in the eyes of the Lord (in accordance with the Bible), then that pastor can be charged with a hate crime!
Ain’t liberalism just grand? If they had things their way, only THEY would have free speech! Apparently you have to agree with leftist rhetoric in order to NOT be browbeaten for speaking your mind!
Well guess what folks? I DARE to be conservative! You might not like me or what I have to say, but I have a right to speak my mind, and I think homosexuality is chosen by weak-willed people who know right from wrong, but who want to live a perverted lifestyle.
OK, I’ve said my piece. Now go call the internet police, and have me arrested for a “hate” crime. (Is there such thing as a “love” crime?) Didn’t think so.) Send me to “sensitivity training” so I can laugh at the limp-wristed liberal psychologist who wants a group hug once he/she pacifies all of us. Isn’t that special!
May 15th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
i’m doing a reapout on pre moting gay rights ans used this as a vsual aid using sulutions to each problem