Is this seriously the only excuses gay-bashers have?

Not sure if anyone has posted this before but:
:sarcasm:
12 Reasons Why Homosexuals Shouldn't Marry

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. 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.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. 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.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer life spans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Just zapped it off to my email list.... thanks.

getting a degree in computer engineering, but I plan on taking plenty of argument based research and professional writing classes on the side. The reason I point this out? I intend to punch holes into that 1st reason on the list within the next few years. It's bullshit.

Homosexuality IS natural, just not as common as hetero and bisexuality in nature. The definitions of the words "nature" and "natural" for the writing I plan to do on it will be based on a Webster's unabridged dictionary. Screw the legal definition. They still define natural totally wrong. Natural is what is found in nature, not mankind's screwed up definition of it.

And homosexuality IS found in nature. Just pay attention to where all the tree pollen goes next time you wash your car. Think maybe some might have gotten on the other male trees in the area?

I could go on and on about this, but I just wanted to point out how right you are to point out that they are wrong wrong wrong to claim that one first and foremost.

BTW, I loved the other points as well. Nice post. :)

I'm not hetero :P

(someone else wrote this)

is pretty spurious. Human (or even animal) sexuality isn't defined by which way the wind is blowing, and people of any sexual persuasion could arguably be justified in being offended by the suggestion.

Every human being eats thousands of particles of dead human skin by accident every day. Does this mean cannibalism is the norm?

I'm not pushing the "homosexuality is a choice" angle, but to suggest that it's utterly random - and that, by your analogy, one can be engaged in homosexual activity without even knowing it - doesn't make much sense. Trees don't feel desire (and even if they did, they have no control over where their pollen blows), and certainly as far as humans are concerned, desire is an essential factor in sexuality.

The first time I heard about it was in classic work with greylag geese - I think it was one of Conrad Lorenz's studies, but I'd have to check. I remember reading how the writer observed a pair of wild male geese who went through all the courtship rituals and mated with each other year after year. They stayed together faithfully for many years (until death), were fully bonded, and neither showed any interest in female geese.

There has been more work done with rams. Turns out that 6-10% range-bred rams prefer other rams and are uninterested in ewes and this is a phenomenon long known to farmers.

This is no surprise - after all, anyone with more than half a brain already KNOWS it's natural. But it is pleasant to imagine the scene, after much more field work has been done, when "Ooooo, it's unnatural" might be rebutted with "actually, what's unnatural is strictly heterosexually oriented populations."

I don't know much about FEMALE homosexuality in nature, though I do wonder about the bonobos ("pygmy chimpanzees," though they are not chimpanzees but another species). This delightful species is very different from the other apes, in that they literally "make love, not war." Everything goes and is enjoyed, and female sexual play is very common. In this species, unlike chimpanzees, infants are not killed and there are not "tribal" wars. There is definitely bisexuality in this species-- I wonder what's been found for homosexuality. Of all species on earth, they are the most like us in many ways. They even use more sexual positions - like humans - than the other apes do.

Ron Reagan said, and Joe Scarborough agreed, that basically the only reason people have given for being against gay rights is "I don't like it and I'm going to vote against it because it gives me the creeps." And that no one has made an intelligent defense of their position.

Jefferson said that Democracy is a tool with which 51% of the population enslaves the other 49%, and it's very rarely as evident as it is on the issue of civil rights. "There's more us of, and you're different, so balls to you."

That's pretty much it.

Years ago I wrote a scathing rebuttle of the 12 so called big excuses they use to prevent us from marrying, for a Web site I used to run. Unfortunately I no longer have that article, or the Web sie, otherwise I would post it here.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

I would love to be an inch or two taller!

and is intended to make fun of people who gay-bash.

I'm e-mailing this to some friends of mine.

I came up with one.

It is extremely lame, but it's the only argument I could think of that doesn't invoke "morality" or "religion."

If gay marriage is legalized, health insurance providers may be required to cover pre-natal care for two women at the same time. Actuarial charts would need to be adjusted.

So, technically, actuarials are the only people in the whole universe who would have a stake in banning gay marriage.

Insurance companies wouldn't necessarily LOSE MONEY in the deal. They'd just have to adjust their rates accordingly and continue to turn profits.

It's just that their actuarial departments will have to put in a few extra hours sorting it out.

All those "Christian" and "Pro-Family" groups have no legal standing to appear in court and demand that gay people are not entitled to marriage equality.

The only people with a legitimate interest in banning gay marriage are a handful of accountants who may be required to put in a few hours of overtime at the office.

Like I said, it's an extremely lame argument, but it's the only one I could think of that doesn't invoke an invisible man in the sky that wants to tell us what to do.

And in the end, even the insurance companies will win when they unveil a "new product" for offering insurance to same-sex couples that will be sold to them using very focused cost-effective marketing.