10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

The times they are a-changin’.

This post seems to be older than 14 years—a long time on the internet. It might be outdated.

A bit tonge in cheek, but it raises some interesting questions:

  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 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. 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.

a la Audreyln

Thoughts?

0

35 thoughts on “10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong”

  1. Yea, well I’m not as innocent as you might think ;-). I have very strong opinions about certain things. Yes, I’m Christian, but I’m also a person of intellect and logic. The latter is telling me that we (as a society) don’t really know what qualifies a person as homosexual. Sure, someone can claim to be homosexual, but I suspect that it is more than that. And to that point, I have strong feelings about condemning a subset of society to the depths of Hell because of something we don’t even understand!

  2. I’m actually very offended by your statement “I’m a Christian, but I’m also a person of intellect and logic”. This implies that Christians in general are not persons of intellect and logic, and that Christianity opposes intellect and logic. Each of these assertions are patently false, not matter what your views on homosexuality are. Not only that, but the post itself has nothing to say about the misunderstood nature of homosexuality. It just says that people are wrong for condemning it. I also am confused by this sentence: “Sure, someone can claim to be homosexual, but I suspect that it is more than that.” I have no idea what that means or what you’re trying to say. And I have a question about your last sentence. Who is condemning homosexuals to Hell? I’m not, just like I don’t condemn anyone to Hell. Jesus is the judge, not Christians. I’m not totally surprised by the post, but I am very surprised and concerned by the comment.

  3. Sorry, I just thought of something else. I think we do know what qualifies people as being homosexual. It has something to do with (correct me if I’m wrong) being sexually attracted to members of the same sex. What exactly do we not understand about that?

  4. “I?m actually very offended by your statement ?I?m a Christian, but I?m also a person of intellect and logic?. This implies that Christians in general are not persons of intellect and logic, and that Christianity opposes intellect and logic.”

    My point was that there are things said in the Bible that do not make sense to me: things that seem to be illogical. Am I to do away with logic and reasoning and just accept that fact because it is in the Bible, I should follow it?

    ?Sure, someone can claim to be homosexual, but I suspect that it is more than that.? I have no idea what that means or what you?re trying to say.

    Just because someone says they are homosexual does not make them homosexual. I could say that I’m a natural blond, but without proof that means nothing. If you were to look at my DNA, you would see that I have don’t have the genes for naturally blond hair and thus my claim to be naturally blond is false. There are also preferences, such as “I don’t like to eat strawberries.”

    There is no “anti-strawberry gene”, as far as I know. My dislike of strawberries is something that has manifested itself over the years and the proof lies in the fact that over substantial period of time, I have shown dislike of strawberries.

    I don’t know for a fact that there is a “gay gene”, but I suspect that there is some “switch.” Also, just because there is a switch doesn’t mean it is an absolute switch. My family has a gene that makes me more susceptible to alcoholism. That doesn’t mean that I will, without a doubt, become an alcoholic: it just means that my chances are much higher than average.

    Who is condemning homosexuals to Hell? I?m not, just like I don?t condemn anyone to Hell. Jesus is the judge, not Christians.

    This was a bit of an overstatement, and I apologize for that. My point was there are Christians who have rather strong feelings against homosexuality and will do anything in their power to make sure they are not welcome as Christians or in America.

    I think we do know what qualifies people as being homosexual. It has something to do with (correct me if I?m wrong) being sexually attracted to members of the same sex.

    Being sexually attracted to members of the same sex is an indicator of homosexuality, not a qualifier.

  5. “In my opinion, being Christian is 10 times worse than being gay. Gays never hurt anyone?”

    Is this a joke?

  6. Andrew, your site is quickly becoming one of my favorites. This little rant of yours would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

    How can you make such a sweeping generalization like “In my opinion, being Christian is 10 times worse than being gay. Gays never hurt anyone??. I am afraid to ask this question, but are a preponderence of gays atheist? If so, what data do you have to support this position?

    As far as Christians being more apt to hurt others than gays. Where do the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. fall into the pecking order?

    Although no one at this point can be sure if homosexuality is genetic or not, I fail to see where this lifestyle advances the human race. Setting a precedent for the legalization of gay marriages poses some real problems. Ones you have either not thought about or are willing to comprehend. I am certainly not a homophobe. But I can list several occupations of “authority” where I would prefer they not be allowed. Pastor, school teacher, Scout Leader would be a few.

    I feel they certainly have a right to express their sexual orientation under the privacy of their own home. Just like you and I. But I believe their thought process is different and until it is proven otherwise, I do not want my children exposed to what I see as nothing more than a deviant lifestyle.

    With that said, how do bisexuals and fit into this mix?

  7. Not a joke at all… Im talking about organized religion in general. Not just christianity, but thats the biggest problem religion in america. Hey, my country is being bombed because of it, and im not even christian. By the way, i was raised with my dad reading the ‘childrens bible stories’ when i was a kid, just grew into seeing the hypocracy with just about everything the christians do. Also in my opinion, organized religion tops my list of the worst things to ever happen to mankind.

  8. Andrew, your site is quickly becoming one of my favorites. This little rant of yours would be funny if it wasn?t so sad.

    Although no one at this point can be sure if Judaism is genetic or not, I fail to see where this lifestyle advances the human race. Setting a precedent for the legalization of inter-faith marriages poses some real problems. Ones you have either not thought about or are willing to comprehend. I am certainly not an anti-semite. But I can list several occupations of ?authority? where I would prefer they not be allowed. Pastor, school teacher, Scout Leader would be a few.

    I feel they certainly have a right to express their religious orientation under the privacy of their own home. Just like you and I. But I believe their thought process is different and until it is proven otherwise, I do not want my children exposed to what I see as nothing more than a deviant lifestyle.

    With that said, how do Muslims fit into this mix?

    Alternately feel free to substitute “Blacks” or, if you’re Anne Coulter, “Liberals” or any other term that separates one group from any other group. By labeling one group of people based on something controllable or not and attempting to restrict their rights you create a divide, discriminate, and turn them into second class citizens. To prevent homosexuals from joining the priesthood is not your choice or something that can/ought to ever be regulated by the government. It would be a purely ecumenical matter. To prevent them from becoming scout leaders is on weaker grounding and blatantly discriminatory, though I’m sure it happens and will continue to, being run by a private organization. But to feel that gays should be prevented from being school teachers…well, this shocks me. Govermental and offical discrimination can lead to nothing but evil. I do not often use the term “evil,” but I feel that it applies exceptionally in this case. Not to mention the sheer evil of the first few discriminatory statutes, any such relegation of one group to second-class status is bound to snowball into taking away more and more of their rights.

    I see that your primary concern is to prevent gays from contaminating children with their “deviant” lifestyle. However, homosexual teachers, pastors, or scout leaders are (unlike many other groups) out to convert people or children. Perhaps they’d teach about tolerance and that all people are equally worthy of love and respect, but I doubt an American Christian would disagree with that. If one were to begin to speak inappropriately, they should be sacked. However, that’s not because of their homosexuality, but because of the subject matter. Any straight teacher discussing their sex life should also be fired. As should anyone expounding a single idea to children instead of teaching them. Should Muslims not be allowed to teach because they’ll tell children about their “deviant” (to some) religion? Of course not! Nor would it be an issue, for any respectable teacher would know how to separate personal beliefs and lifestyles from the subject that they teach. And if they didn’t, they would be reprimanded and fired.

    I’m afraid that your misconceptions extend beyond whether to allow gay marriage. I hope that you’ll reconsider your views on homosexuality.

  9. Oh, and I’m not gay, nor pro gay rights, but they dont bother me. After all i live in Oakland… But I’m am 100% anti-christian/any other religion that looks down upon others for not being a sheep aswell. Yes, i realize I am sort of doing the same by hating them, but hey, theyve been getting away with it a thousand years. Sorry to divert from the gay conversation, but i just hate christians so much i cant help myself.

  10. From The West Wing:
    President Bartlet: I like how you call homosexuality an abombination.

    Jenna Jacobs: I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President, the Bible does.

    President Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.

    Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.

    President Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophmore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here’s one that’s really important because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? “Think about that, will you? Oh, and one last thing. You may have mistaken this for your meeting of the ignorant tight-asses club but in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

  11. Yeah, we’ve got some issues here. I’ll start from the beginning. No, you shouldn’t do away with logic and and intellect. I would say that if there are things in the Bible that you do not understand, then you don’t understand because of a failure of your own logic and intellect, not because such things are not logical. Don’t do away with logic and reasoning, just don’t pretend yours are perfect.
    In the second place, I think it’s good that you (and the rest of the world) admit that we don’t know what causes homosexuality (nature vs nurture, etc.). We don’t know a lot of things. The question is not what makes a person homosexual, but the sinfulness or nonsinfulness of homosexual activity. That was all that was ever at stake.
    In response to the next point, I agree, but I’d hate to point fingers at people for pointing fingers. You seem to be judging people for judging people. That’s just silly.
    Your last point is not correct, as far as I can tell. If you don’t agree that being sexually attracted to members of the same sex is not the definition of homosexuality, then we’re talking about different things.
    Finally, I assume the comment that follows the one I’ve been referring to is a different Andrew. Because if it isn’t, I’m going to punch you in the face the next time I see you.
    As far as the issue was initially concerned, gay marriage is wrong because marriage is a sacrament (though not in Protestant churches). If you want to get a piece of paper saying you’re legally connected to a member of the same sex, go for it, but don’t expect the Church to back you up.

  12. Wow. I posted with my internet unplugged, and when I plugged it back in there were a bunch of new comments. Great West Wing quote, by the way. Anyway, I’d first like to say that I apologise for confusing you with the other Andrew. He is obviously a very frustrated individual whom I will be praying for.
    Second, I never knew our discussion was about discrimination (which I’m against). I agree with everything Alec said, which was nothing about gay marriage. Which is fine, I’m just having a hard time keeping up with the conversation. What is the issue at hand?

  13. Arthur W. Kelly III

    Alec. From my standpoint, I see no reason to intertwine race or relgion with this issue. I was simply responding to Andrew’s post and how he attempted to correlate the two. By the way, my apologies to Fergie. There are two Andrews here and I wasn’t aware that one of them has a serious problem with faith based organizations. Better grow up kid, they all are corrupt to some extent. And some of them are much worse than the Christians.

    Alec. As I said, I don’t have a problem with ones sexual orientation. I simply just don’t understand homosexuality as well as being bi, trans-sexual, etc. You seem to have dismissed my point that there must be something in their thinking and/or genetics that drive them to this lifestyle.

    Opinions are like assholes and we all have one. My opinion is simply that these folks have a right to do as they wish in the bedroom. I do not feel they have the right to marriage and as a father, I do no want them influencing my children in any way, shape or form.

    You look at the law from only one direction. That of possible discrimination in the workplace. Shall we talk about the llitany of Catholic priests that have molested boys over the years? How about the laundry list of cases where teachers and scout leaders have been involed in the same activities? Are these cases of homosexuality? I would guess the majority are. These are sick fucks that prey on children because for some unkown reason to us they can’t get a man or a woman their own age.

    I have no misconceptions about homosexuality and I certainly do not need to re-think my position on this issue as you suggest. My guess is that you are gay or otherwise too close to the issue to be objective.

    You have your opinion and I have my mine. I doubt we will convince each other who is wrong or right here and that is okay. I am sure there are plenty of other issues we would agree on.

  14. Arthur W. Kelly III

    Andrew (Not Fergie):

    Just curious. Specifically what country is being bombed by U.S. Christians? Seems there are a lot of them these days and there will be a couple more in the near future.

    Stop blaming the U.S. for all the worlds frigging problems. Man it sounds like a scratched CD.

    I don’t know where you are getting your information, but you really need to get a new source. I would suggest Fox News. You are really scaring me, dude.

  15. I wasn’t implying that you were intertwining race or religion, rather, I was implying that the same line of logic has been used many times before with disastrous results, and that such thinking as “I’m fine with them, just so long as neither I nor my family has to interact with them,” led to things such as American segregation, South African Apartheid, and the complacency of the German people in the Holocaust. This thinking and distinguishing of an “other” whom you look down upon and refuse to deal with is dangerous.

    As for the Catholic molestation etc. events, I say that those are a combination of pedophelia and rape. By rape I mean taking sexual advantage of someone for the purpose of power rather than any genuine attraction. These are no more the same as homosexuality than incest and “straight” pedophelia are the same as heterosexuality. I wholy agree that I wouldn’t want my children to be around them, nor to interact with them myself. When I speak of gays and homosexuality, I’m speaking of consenting adults.

    As for your guess, I’m sorry to disappoint, but I’m 100% straight. I have no close connections to anyone gay, althought I’ve certainly had friends who are. I did live in Seattle and now inhabit New York, so I am familiar with the gay culture and community, but I’d hardly say that puts me “too close to the issue” to be objective, and if anything should give me credibility, as I’ve had significant experience with the gay community, and am not making judgments on something that I don’t know about.

    However, I agree that neither you nor I will probably convince the other, but I simply feel the need to present the opposite side of the argument.

  16. Arthur W. Kelly III

    Alec. The mention of Fox was a joke. Although a bad one at that I surmise.

    I don’t want to beat a dead horse so I’ll take my parting shot and stay out of the fray.

    Your first paragraph is based on a series of assumptions. As I have stated before, their lifestyle is their own business and I honestly have no problem interacting with them and I certainly do not look down upon them. As I also said before, I can’t begin to understand the choice they have made. I do not flaunt my sexuality and I would simply appreciate the same.

    I find your second paragraph fascinating. Again you make sweeping assumptions that these were acts of pedophilia when some of the cases involved young men over 18. To me, it seems like you want to bury the whole ugly mess in the backyard and chalk it up to something other than what could be a contributing factor. Unless you are a psychiatrist and have researched each of the cases, certainly you must agree that your statement that none of the cases involved homosexuality is a stretch. There has to be an answer why the majority of these crimes were mae and male. If by chance you are a psychiatrist, I would honestly like to hear your rationale for these occurences.

    As far as your last paragraph. I would surmise that I am much older than you and thus have had many encounters and friends who have been gay. Some have been pleasant, some not. Not much different than with heteros. I have had two close friends die from AIDS and it was probably one of the most gut wrenching experiences of my life.

    To this day, I do not understand what caused them to take the path they did. I hope they found whatever it was they were looking for and that it was worth it.

  17. No country is being bombed by US christians. The US is being bombed because the majority is christian. You know the religious war going on right now? If the majority of the US was unaffiliated, Islamic militants wouldnt be pissed at us for having a different religion. There would be none. But also, if they had no religion, they wouldnt be pissed at all. If there was no religion, if everyone just had will power to get through the day on their own, the world would be a better place. I bag on christians only because theyre the only religious jerkoffs in close proximity to my well being.

  18. While I don’t know exactly what issue is currently at hand, I do have a few points to add. I believe the original point was in regards to legalizing gay marriage. Despite whatever a particular faith tradition may teach, our country upholds (in theory at least) a separation between Church and state. Because of this fact alone, I find it ridiculous that the States have not yet legalized gay marriage. Perhaps those worried about what precedent it might leave should research Denmark and other European countries who have implimented civil unions for over a decade. It is disheartening that a country founded on religious freedom should be so far behind the times on this particular issue.

  19. being gay means that you are an adult who is sexually attracted to other adults of the same gender. a gay relationship is a consensual relationship between two adults. pedophilia is obviously not the same as homosexuality. is the relationship between man and molested little girl the same as that between man and wife? should heterosexuals be denied the position of school teacher or day care provider since some (bad) men molest little girls? please try to think through your arguments against homosexuality before you compare us to pedophiles and rapists.

    to say that you wouldn’t want gays to hold certain jobs is highly discriminatory. people once said the same about blacks and women. those political views are dated and very dangerous.

    to say that gays are too close to the issue to be objective is ludicrous. the issue is the morality of homosexuality, is it not? so if gays are not allowed to participate in the discussion, then who is? should we let a bunch of conservative christians call us sinners, agree, and go home? okay. fine.

    and as far as the church’s support for gay marriage goes, we don’t want it. do jewish people have support from the christian church? surely their marriage is not a sacrament because they have not accepted jesus as their saviour. their marriages are just as unholy as ours. religious arguments have no place in political debates. if gays are to be denied the right of marriage because their vows would be unholy, then so to should we deny the jews and the muslims and the atheists.

    homosexual relationships are consensual. they involve adults, not children. they involve love and compassion. gay marriage isn’t a threat to anybody. gay families will not recruit the local neighborhood children into a homosexual lifestyle. it doesn’t work that way.

    nobody convinced me to be gay. I didn’t choose it, either. in fact, until my early college years I resisted it and lied about it and was constantly ashamed of myself. I never chose to be gay.

    did you choose to be straight? did somebody sit down with you and convince you to be straight? could I or anyone else convince you to be gay? I doubt it. that’s not the way things work. we do not decide on whom we develop a crush, we do not decided with whom we fall in love. and nobody else makes that decision for us.

    I’m not asking to get married in your church. I’m asking for the same legal rights as other American couples.

  20. This list tells me a number of things… primarily that this list is a bunch of crap.

    1. ‘real Americans’ is a code word for bigots — as opposed to what?
    2. Whoever wrote it ASSUMES being gay IS NOT a choice… careful arguing that point as you no more data on this than the ‘conservative’ side does…
    3. ‘pets’ is taken to the extreme but does not invalidate the argument.. what if I wanted to marry my SISTER? Have offspring. The argument becomes much more tangible… or are you a bigot because you are against people marrying their sister???
    4. Straight marriage has been around for a long time because it originated as a religious practice… Gays seem to think they can just trample over anyone’s religious beliefs under the guise of tolerance.
    5. Straight marriage IS degraded when society is forced by law to equate gay marriage with straight…

    6. — basically this argument isn’t even worth commenting on it’s so bad..
    7. — again, if being Gay is NOT a choice, than this argument is worthless.

    8. Actually, we have hundreds of religions in America… and if they want to choose a judaeo-chrisitan man-woman ceremony which has been granted certain legal benefits by the public as a whole, they can. But no… they want to force society to accept them.. not just tolerate.. but force acceptance. Why can’t they EARN it? The last time I checked with my friend Rev. Jackson… forcing whites to accept blacks via legislation still hasn’t worked.

    9. –I would hardly say children are better off in single-family homes.. would you?

    10. — again, a worthless argument.

    This author assumes being gay is a choice when it advances his argument and assumes its a choice a question later. How ANYONE can think these 10 reasons shed ANY light on this debate is what the real eye-opener is. Most people are just ignorant and fall for poorly-written but witty blurbs.

  21. First, I am very impressed with the intelligence and respect that is portrayed in this forum, (with a couple exceptions) it was really interesting to read all of your posts.
    Unlike the last post, I don?t think that homosexuality is a choice; every gay person I know is adamant that if in fact they did have the choice, they would chose heterosexuality. Because I believe that homosexuality is not a choice, it instills the belief that the same issues are present as were, and still are present in racial issues are applicable to homosexuality. For the government to refuse homosexuals the right to marriage is a blatant case of discrimination. Some day conservatives will be realize their offensive beliefs and the US will be over this issue. When that happens, the actions of people like Joe Solmonese (Human Rights Campaign President) will be outlined in history books and novels as an American hero who fought for fairness justice all equal rights for all people.
    Arthur, do you believe that homosexuality is a choice? If so I can understand and even side with the idea that homosexuality is a selfish and relatively unbeneficial lifestyle, a life style inferior to a heterosexuals. Nothing you have said has lead me to believe this is your belief.
    Joel, What research have you done which has lead you to believe that homosexuality is a choice? Do you know any gay men who have even suggested this to be true? Have you read any current books which have outlined studies into the cause of homosexuality which have stated that it is not a question of nature or nurture but rather a question of personal preference?

  22. look… I was not saying it is or is not a choice as much as I was commenting on the original authors selective application of either side when trying to make an argument… However, to answer Peter’s question, I have not read studies on the matter. And, I think your question is valid.. by all means.

    I will come out and say with a little more clairity that it seems to me that reproductive evolutionary biology dictates that you are born heterosexual… This SEEMS like a very strong SCIENTIFIC argument which I have heard made in support of the argument that it is a choice. I think my opponents on this issue too quickly discredit arguments such as that.. I do not believe that the ‘born gay’ argument has any MORE facts ‘on their side’ which makes believing them some logical imperative. It is simply making the same a priori assumption of his opponent (albeit an opposite assumption).
    I happen to have friends who are gay. And, quite unfortunately, there was real, awful sexual abuse in their past… something that I think had a very real impact on the kind of person they became as an adult. My experience gives me a different perspective than Peter. I’m not discussing this in a vaccum by any means…

    but I do agree, this has been a rather civilized discussion… I hope I did not upset the ‘tone’ by my comments.

    Best!

  23. What the hell? Air conditioning is unnatrual? Marry dogs? Marrying blacks is wrong? women are still property? What decade no century do you live in? I have many other things to say but one thing….you callling my glasses unnatrual? Also I don’t reject them because without them I couldn’t see!

  24. Well if you ARE a christian, then your ultimate goal in life should be to become more like Jesus. And Jesus is accepting of EVERYONE! Blacks, whites, latinos, EVERYONE!

Comments are closed.