10 reasons...

[Shredderbeam]

I found this last night, and I found it to be delightfully amusing.

Note - The following is satire.

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans â„¢ 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 Britany 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.

Discuss and so forth.

 

[mage3158]

Those statements are so wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin!

 

[Shredderbeam]

It's called satire, my friend.

 

[dpunk]

LMAO! Man I love to hear sarcasm of that level. Who really has a problem with gay marriage anymore that isn't a religious freak, or over the age of 60?

 

[Bottledanger]

lol that is sooo true!!!!!!! =P (sarcasm)

 

[foolish child]

thats kinda true and kinda not true in ways..

 

[Atomic]

Haha, smartly written. Love satire.

Ben Elton anyone?

 

[Macroman]

Gay's as it is are already ruining the society, with all the political Correctness crap.

At the theme park near me they chaneged the Fairy penguin ride name to the Penguin ride just because "fairy" offended the gay's.

I agree with all of those reasons

 

[Eric]

Nice lulz. Well gtg last day of school, ill post when I'm back

 

[Atomic]

I agree with all of those reasons.

Wow... Just... Wow.

It seems my words have been lost in the depths of your idiocy.

It is one deep, deep hole.

 

[Osmosis]

Wow... Just... Wow.

It seems my words have been lost in the depths of your idiocy.

It is one deep, deep hole.

it appears it's still deepening, and we are still falling.

 

[Vendetta]

Gah. I can't stand people who complain about being homosexual, transgender, bisexual or anything. It isn't someones choice.

What I Can't stay more is someone who will say "I don't mind homosexuals as long as they stay away from me" which is still insulting, possibly even more than saying you don't like them, because you think there is something wrong with them.

 

[Seyton]

LOL. For some reason this reminds me of G. Bush. Maybe this is how he thinks?

 

[kingnick0694]

My brother used to work for a lesbian... it was kind of akward... But i don't really care what they do.

 

[Cruel__Machine]

Being gay is not natural. Real Americans â„¢ always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

A play on definitions that proves nothing. You're using the definition "existing in or produced by nature" while the first statement uses the definition "in accordance with nature".

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

You messed up the word this time, not just the definition...
This isn't "satire", it's "idiocy".

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.

100% true. But it won't start with marriage of course (and the legality of a marriage contract is irrelevant). People will first want acceptance of there sexual relationship with their pets/partners in the same fashion as homos.

Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

No one said straight people didn't also contribute to the destruction.
I've read about "drive-thu" marriages in Vegas where you can get married quickly without even getting in your car. Both are degradating..

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

This saying that a gay influence on a child would have the same effect as a lack of one?
I can guarantee that a child is more likely to become gay if they have gay parents.

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.

The perspective is screwed up. That'd be a statement about why that individual believes homosexuality is wrong, not about why you should believe it.
Like if someone said "Chocolate tastes bad." If they're stating it from their personal perspective, it could be a completely true statement. Much like a statement of opinion, but not entirely.

The statements I failed to comment on were satirizations of statements that, by themselves, were laughable. And I've never heard any sane person make those statements.

 

[Shredderbeam]

A play on definitions that proves nothing. You're using the definition "existing in or produced by nature" while the first statement uses the definition "in accordance with nature".

The fact of the matter is that people do unnatural things. That's just how it is.

You messed up the word this time, not just the definition...
This isn't "satire", it's "idiocy".

No, it's actually satire.

100% true. But it won't start with marriage of course (and the legality of a marriage contract is irrelevant). People will first want acceptance of there sexual relationship with their pets/partners in the same fashion as homos.

Yet that is based upon the Slippery Slope logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy

No one said straight people didn't also contribute to the destruction.
I've read about "drive-thu" marriages in Vegas where you can get married quickly without even getting in your car. Both are degradating..

I don't see how homosexuals contribute to the "destruction".

The perspective is screwed up. That'd be a statement about why that individual believes homosexuality is wrong, not about why you should believe it.
Like if someone said "Chocolate tastes bad." If they're stating it from their personal perspective, it could be a completely true statement. Much like a statement of opinion, but not entirely.

Is this not the position that the religious right takes towards same-sex marriage?

Same-sex marriage does not affect other people. If they want to marry, why not let them? There are those who protest on religious grounds, but you cannot force your personal beliefs onto others.

 

[Cruel__Machine]

The fact of the matter is that people do unnatural things. That's just how it is.

Depending on which of the many definitions of "unnatural" you're using.

No, it's actually satire.

Nope. I call the direct comparison of distinctly unrelated attributes to be idiocy.
People can become gay given the right influence. People cannot become tall in the same manner.
There is nothing satirical, sarcastic, or witty about it. It's just plain stupid.

Yet that is based upon the Slippery Slope logical fallacy.

True, it's my opinion. I know it's completely possible not to occur.
But if I were a betting man...

I don't see how homosexuals contribute to the "destruction".

People who want marriage to have any hint of religious meaning are out of luck.
I don't care if gays have the same standings and legalities as married couples, but it's against the very definition of "marriage," rendering "same-sax marriage" an oxymoron.

Is this not the position that the religious right takes towards same-sex marriage?

Of course it is. I agree with it even (except I would say "it is not supported by God" rather than "religion". Since I follow God, not "religion").
But the given satirization implies that the statement is inferring that one should believe the same as they do because of the statement.

Same-sex marriage does not affect other people. If they want to marry, why not let them?

I think religions deserve some sanctity. Else people can just emulate religious services and make a mockery of them. It's just disrespectful.
Gays need to make their own ceremony and not call it "marriage".

There are those who protest on religious grounds, but you cannot force your personal beliefs onto others.

Of course you can. You make it a law. The country has pushed it's personal belief that murder is wrong on me for the entirety of my life. Every law is based on (or resulting from another law that is based on) a belief.

 

[the_wippit]

lol well honestly gay ppl kinda creep me out sometimes...i think that gay ppl shouldnt be married but just my opinion =\

 

[Shredderbeam]

Depending on which of the many definitions of "unnatural" you're using.

I would define "unnatural" to be "not natural; purposely going against what nature intended". By that definition, we do plenty of unnatural things.

People who want marriage to have any hint of religious meaning are out of luck.
I don't care if gays have the same standings and legalities as married couples, but it's against the very definition of "marriage," rendering "same-sax marriage" an oxymoron.

They can attach religious meaning to their own marriages.

Marriage, historically, has not been religious. It has been a way to control women, and to obtain a dowry.

Yes, it goes against the current definition of marriage, but all you have to do is change the definition, and that argument collapses.

I think religions deserve some sanctity. Else people can just emulate religious services and make a mockery of them. It's just disrespectful.
Gays need to make their own ceremony and not call it "marriage".

Who cares if some religious fundamentalists are upset that their sanctity has been damaged? The religions don't need to condone same-sex marriage, as the marriage that homosexuals are looking for is a LEGAL marriage, by the state, with no religion involved whatsoever.

Of course you can. You make it a law. The country has pushed it's personal belief that murder is wrong on me for the entirety of my life. Every law is based on (or resulting from another law that is based on) a belief.

Murder is different. It actually affects other people. Same-sex marriage doesn't, unless you count the sanctity of their marriage being destroyed, which is perhaps the most feeble argument ever.

 

[RuneManLikesMetal]

haha