Dumbest Pro- Prop 8 Argument?
I've written here before I've yet to hear one good argument against same- sex marriage- a possible exception being that some religious folks are worried their churches may be forced to perform same- sex marriages. This piece in Calwatchdog has to be the sorriest attempt to justify Prop 8 I've seen to date.
I've read it at least four times now and it just doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe it's just me? I'm surprised that all of the readers commenting say it makes complete sense and should be included in court arguments defending Prop 8.
I don't get it. The gist of the argument, as best I can tell, is that liberals should support Prop 8 because keeping marriage restricted to a man and woman protects women. The writer goes on to say that marriage came about historically to protect women from various threats. I think that's the first time I've read that.
Nowhere in the opinion, unless I missed something, did the writer explain how allowing two guys or two girls to get married threatens a guy and girl who want to get married since no one is suggesting that guy and girl can't still get married.
Nor do I understand, assuming that girl is getting married for some sort of protection, how a same- sex marriage would threaten that protection?
It seems to me this is an argument of desperation, if it's an argument at all.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 7:06 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Speaking for all Mormans:
Fuck you Fred
Speaking for all Mormans
Unlikely, since you misspelled Mormons.
You obviously overlook the #1 reason for discouraging any type of perverted behavior. Have a look at the sexually transmitted disease rates among homosexuals. It's pretty self explanatory. And in case you think allowing perverts to get married will change anything, you are wrong. A pervert is a pervert and no amount of "sanctity" the government or society vests them with, perverts will always be perverted and thus have much higher rates of disease. It is not accepted currently as an appropriate or civil form of behavior (outside of hollywood or SF) and is considered destructive to a healthy society.
4:22 misses his own point. If STDs in the gay community concern him (even though his STD claim is farcical, let's assume it's true for the sake of argument)... he should be wholeheartedly embracing marriage between two consenting same-gender adults. These unions are far more likely to be monogamous relationships and thus be fighting the spread of STDs.
So, I'm glad to have cleared that point up. 4:22 must support gay marriage now. Oh, wait, what's that? Sorry, I didn't realize you were making up excuses. You just unabashedly hate people who are different from yourself. It doesn't matter that your arguments are illogical and easily shot down. Hate is hate.
Wow, Fred. Hit a nerve with the homophobes. Good job!
Post a Comment
<< Home