Homosexuality is a bad thing

Apparently produced originally by the Gator Gay-Straight Alliance of the University of Florida

Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.
Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
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.
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.
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.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
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.
Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
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.
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.

Tags: homosexuality

15 members like this

< Previous Post

Comment by Mallory on June 3, 2011 at 4:42pm: I had reposted this from somewhere years ago. Just as funny and to-the-point as before.

Comment by Wassabi on June 3, 2011 at 5:02pm: this is great! i'm translating this into hebrew!

Comment by Sarah on June 3, 2011 at 5:10pm: I love this!

Comment by MikeLong on June 4, 2011 at 8:08am: Is there any good reason for the State to play any part whatsoever in marriage outside of legal contract enforcement? Whether the marital contract is between a man and a woman or among 5 straight women, 3 gay men, and a bi-sexual midget, how consenting adults wish to structure their households should be no one's business but those directly involved. The idea of polygamy seems to meet with disfavor regardless of a person's political leanings. Assuming all parties are truly consenting, why is that?

There could easily be a "default" contract dealing with all legal matters in more usual varieties of marriage and any more esoteric unions (like the silliness above) would need custom contracts. What other involvement is required by the State? Why isn't free marriage part and parcel of free thinking?

Comment by Steve on June 4, 2011 at 8:23am: Polygamy isn't really a problem in a moral sense. Polyamory works very well for some people.

The problems are two-fold (though those are hardly the reasons why it is illegal):

1.) Traditionally, polygamy is deeply misogynistic, especially when justified by religion and religious customs. It's just one man collecting as many women as he can. At best there are requirements that he can really afford to keep them or require consent by the other wives - and that can be coorced.

2.) It's a legal mess if you want to account for all common or even possible permutations in poly-relationships. Marriage laws are written with two people in mind. That's why same-sex marriage is a non-issue. Just make it gender neutral. But if you add more people to it, you create all sorts of issues that aren't even foreseeable.

I can see maybe coming to some sort of notarized private contract between the parties, but dealing with polygamy in law is impossible except for the patriarchal setup you see in Islam or history.

But I always have to laugh at all the Christians who go on about "traditional marriage". Biblical marriage is clearly polygamy. The modern concept of marriage is at most 150 years old.

Comment by Doubting Thomas on June 4, 2011 at 10:05am: I love this dude, funny as his avatar

Comment by Justin Humphrey on June 4, 2011 at 1:45pm: Totally just posted this on my facebook.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

RSS

Welcome to
Think Atheist

Get Started Now
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

What's new today

1	France has strict gun laws. Why didn’t that save Charlie Hebdo victims?
2	You think there's a multiverse?
3	Remember our discussion about the baker who turned down gay business?
4	Has ISIS finally done something that that might start WW3?
5	Sunday School January 25th 2015
6	Mini post: That weird question, "How are you doing?"
7	Perfect Irony
8	Fruit of the Womb (Loss Edition)
9	Who didn't see this coming? :(
10	Planets