(no subject)
I'm tired of stupid people making arguments against gay marriage.
1. But my religion says...
nice as that is, this isn't a theocracy and your religion has no rights concerning the creation of laws. In a democracy, the majority rules; however, minority rights are guaranteed. If the government pulls a Laurier, however, it will end up that your church/temple/mosque/synagogue won't have to recognize gay marriage if they don't want to.
2. EEEEWWWWWWWWW
I'm going to ask Nizkor.org to put another item on their list of logical fallacies: "Argument from EWWW OMG LIKE TOTALLY GROSS."
Just because I don't want to see your fat jiggly hairy ass bobbing up and down as you screw whomever doesn't mean I need to make laws against it.
3. But it will destroy the 6000 years of sanctity of marriage/Marriage. Marriage is an unchanged institution for thousands of years, is under attack.
This, loves, is called "Appeal to Tradition." Basically, since everyone's been accepting something for however many years, it's good/better/whatever.
Now.
Galileo was put under house arrest for saying things we now know to be true. Crazy things, like the earth isn't the centre of the universe.
Yeah.
Just because for hundreds of thousands of years humanity thought that the Earth was flat and that everything revolved around them, doesn't mean that it was good to keep that idea just because it was traditional.
The Galileo thing also works as a good example against things like "Appeal to Popularity" (well, everyone else says it must be false!) and "Appeal to Authority" (God/the Church tells me it's not true, so...)
Secondly, marriage has not been unchanged for 6000 years.
Solomon had more wives and concubines than I could count.
Men could marry 12 year olds.
Arranged marriages.
Ban on interracial marriages.
The good old biblical, "Hey, we just conquered the city and she's a virgin! Sweet! *carries off virgin to become his wife*" and "You want to marry my daughter? OK. Pay up." ways of getting married.
4. Well, they CHOOSE to be that way!
Just like you choose to be heterosexual! In fact, I'm sure you could switch and choose to be homosexual! C'mon, test this theory out by fucking that guy!
No?
Why not?
I thought people could become ex-gays...
Hm.
5. Well, it's not natural...
Which is exactly why you have penguins having gay relationships for life, and proof of gay relationships back to ancient Greece.
and besides, this is known as the "Naturalistic Fallacy." Just because most animals don't, doesn't mean we should act like most animals by giving up your technology and tossing faeces at each other.
6. Anyone who says that a child should have both a mother and a father has very, VERY loose ideas on gender. Gender is how you behave/feel, usually compared to the fixed societal gender roles (masculine, feminine, androgyne).
My dad is the femmiest male I know. My mum is the butchest woman I know (personality-wise for both of them.)
Saying that, "Oh, well, children need to learn about gender" pisses me off for that reason, and because I hate the idea of gender roles. But I digress.
Any other effects you cite about gay children must be cited, and must not come from the AFA or any similar association, but from a scientist. Published in a scientific/sociologist and academic magazine. And thoroughly debated. Mainly because I want to see if there's any ends to the sentences you happened to leave out, such as... "predominantly caused by the treatment of children at school because of their gay parents..." just like I am searching for those studies at various universities.
Secondly: they can have children. it's called adoption or sperm bank, or even surrogate mums, just like how a lot of heterosexuals get kiddums.
7. Rape, dog-fucking and sheep-banging, oh my!
Lessee. The good ol' slippery slope argument.
Point the 1st:
No, it cannot lead to bestiality-style marriages between a man and his dog, because last time I checked, dogs have no legal standing to sign a marriage license.
Point the 2nd:
Scalia, you incompetent moron, masturbation is already legal, and I'm guessing 95% of adult humans have done it/does it, too. (that's another thing to find a paper on!) As is fornication.
8. "It's special rights-- they can always marry a member of the opposite sex!"
...*sigh.*
And finally, the infamous "I'm going to ignore the issue of transsexuals for now" argument.
1. But my religion says...
nice as that is, this isn't a theocracy and your religion has no rights concerning the creation of laws. In a democracy, the majority rules; however, minority rights are guaranteed. If the government pulls a Laurier, however, it will end up that your church/temple/mosque/synagogue won't have to recognize gay marriage if they don't want to.
2. EEEEWWWWWWWWW
I'm going to ask Nizkor.org to put another item on their list of logical fallacies: "Argument from EWWW OMG LIKE TOTALLY GROSS."
Just because I don't want to see your fat jiggly hairy ass bobbing up and down as you screw whomever doesn't mean I need to make laws against it.
3. But it will destroy the 6000 years of sanctity of marriage/Marriage. Marriage is an unchanged institution for thousands of years, is under attack.
This, loves, is called "Appeal to Tradition." Basically, since everyone's been accepting something for however many years, it's good/better/whatever.
Now.
Galileo was put under house arrest for saying things we now know to be true. Crazy things, like the earth isn't the centre of the universe.
Yeah.
Just because for hundreds of thousands of years humanity thought that the Earth was flat and that everything revolved around them, doesn't mean that it was good to keep that idea just because it was traditional.
The Galileo thing also works as a good example against things like "Appeal to Popularity" (well, everyone else says it must be false!) and "Appeal to Authority" (God/the Church tells me it's not true, so...)
Secondly, marriage has not been unchanged for 6000 years.
Solomon had more wives and concubines than I could count.
Men could marry 12 year olds.
Arranged marriages.
Ban on interracial marriages.
The good old biblical, "Hey, we just conquered the city and she's a virgin! Sweet! *carries off virgin to become his wife*" and "You want to marry my daughter? OK. Pay up." ways of getting married.
4. Well, they CHOOSE to be that way!
Just like you choose to be heterosexual! In fact, I'm sure you could switch and choose to be homosexual! C'mon, test this theory out by fucking that guy!
No?
Why not?
I thought people could become ex-gays...
Hm.
5. Well, it's not natural...
Which is exactly why you have penguins having gay relationships for life, and proof of gay relationships back to ancient Greece.
and besides, this is known as the "Naturalistic Fallacy." Just because most animals don't, doesn't mean we should act like most animals by giving up your technology and tossing faeces at each other.
6. Anyone who says that a child should have both a mother and a father has very, VERY loose ideas on gender. Gender is how you behave/feel, usually compared to the fixed societal gender roles (masculine, feminine, androgyne).
My dad is the femmiest male I know. My mum is the butchest woman I know (personality-wise for both of them.)
Saying that, "Oh, well, children need to learn about gender" pisses me off for that reason, and because I hate the idea of gender roles. But I digress.
Any other effects you cite about gay children must be cited, and must not come from the AFA or any similar association, but from a scientist. Published in a scientific/sociologist and academic magazine. And thoroughly debated. Mainly because I want to see if there's any ends to the sentences you happened to leave out, such as... "predominantly caused by the treatment of children at school because of their gay parents..." just like I am searching for those studies at various universities.
Secondly: they can have children. it's called adoption or sperm bank, or even surrogate mums, just like how a lot of heterosexuals get kiddums.
7. Rape, dog-fucking and sheep-banging, oh my!
Lessee. The good ol' slippery slope argument.
Point the 1st:
No, it cannot lead to bestiality-style marriages between a man and his dog, because last time I checked, dogs have no legal standing to sign a marriage license.
Point the 2nd:
Scalia, you incompetent moron, masturbation is already legal, and I'm guessing 95% of adult humans have done it/does it, too. (that's another thing to find a paper on!) As is fornication.
8. "It's special rights-- they can always marry a member of the opposite sex!"
...*sigh.*
And finally, the infamous "I'm going to ignore the issue of transsexuals for now" argument.