(no subject)
Feb. 16th, 2004 09:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zana16Snagged from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
omichan
12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue 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 counrty. 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 suceed 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 lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
omichan12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue 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 counrty. 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 suceed 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 lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-17 02:38 am (UTC)all the opposition to gay marriage is stemming from prejudice and homophobia, i think, whether it's conscious or not. otherwise, there isn't a single rational argument that can be made against it, as far as I can see.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 04:36 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 04:42 am (UTC)Gay Rights
Date: 2004-02-17 03:13 am (UTC)When the Constitutional Convention reconvenes on March 11th Angus' vote could be vital to defeating the hate amendment. I've cut-n-pasted part of a story about the race from the AP. Anything you could do to help Angus- contributing / spreading the word to others - would be great. And thanks for the great post, I enjoyed reading it.
http://www.angusforsenate.org/help_out.html
Suburban Senate race could impact outcome of gay marriage debate
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/046/region/Suburban_Senate_race_could_imp:.shtml
By Jennifer Peter, Associated Press, 2/15/2004 16:44
BOSTON (AP) Last week's razor-thin margins at the constitutional convention on gay marriage have put a new focus on a suburban Senate race that could potentially add another gay-rights supporter to the Legislature before debate resumes March 11.
The contest, to be decided March 2, pits Republican state Rep. Scott Brown, who supports a constitutional ban on gay marriage, against Democrat Angus McQuilken, a strong opponent of any attempts to weaken a November court decision endorsing gay marriage.
If Brown wins entry to the 40-seat state Senate, there would be no direct impact on the constitutional convention, where he already had a vote as a House member.
McQuilken's presence at the convention, however, could potentially sway the balance of power in a deeply divided Legislature, which defeated one constitutional ban proposal by just two votes last week.
''You have a real distinct line here between Angus, who has said he is supportive of gay marriage and makes no excuses for his stand, and Scott Brown, who is in lockstep with the governor against civil unions and gay marriage,'' said Jane Lane, spokeswoman for the state Democratic Party.
If McQuilken were to prevail in the district, which had a strong history of electing Republicans until 1992, there is some question whether there would be time to certify the results before March 11. Doing it that quickly would be ''extraordinarily expedited,'' according to Secretary of State William Galvin.
The race for the Norfolk, Bristol and Middlesex seat is not the only factor that could change before the Legislature reconvenes.
Rep. Ronald Mariano, D-Quincy, who missed last week's debate because of cardiac catheterization surgery, will likely be on hand for the next round. While his office has declined to reveal how he would have voted on three amendments that were defeated this week, Mariano told The Patriot Ledger in early February, ''I'll probably vote to put the constitutional amendment on the ballot.''
Political observers also predict that legislative leaders, who support some kind of a ban on gay marriage, will be busy using the tools at their disposal the promise of plum committee assignments or the threat of a basement office space to lure lawmakers to their side.
[...]
The winner of the race will occupy the seat vacated earlier this year by Cheryl Jacques, an openly gay lawmaker who left her seat to lead the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington, DC-based gay-rights organization.
[....]
When the Legislature reconvenes, it will consider a fourth attempt to find the right mix of words one that will satisfy the moderates, who want some level of benefits for gay couples, without alienating conservatives, who may be reluctant to legalize civil unions as part of the constitutional process.
McQuilken, who was Jacques' longtime chief of staff, said he would have opposed each of the alternatives presented to lawmakers last week.
''Each had the same fundamental flaw,'' McQuilken said. ''They each fall short of providing full equality under the law. This is not an area where I'm looking for a compromise.''
Both candidates downplayed the role gay marriage would place in a race that has otherwise focused on public education, health care, housing and other budget issues.
''People were going to vote for me long before this issue came out, because of my record of reform,'' said Brown, who joined the House in 1999. ''Gay marriage is only one of a host of other issues that we're dealing with out here in our district.''
Re: Gay Rights
Date: 2004-02-17 06:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-17 04:02 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 04:55 am (UTC)