There is no good reason to not allow gay marriage. And I mean full on MARRIAGE, not this civil union ‘let’s just call it something else so we don’t offend’ bullshit. To those who are offended, let me examine every crap argument I’ve heard as to why gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed and then respond.

1. The *insert religious book here* says homosexuality is a sin, therefore we cannot condone it.

Maybe the *religious book* does say that. The *religious book* also says various other things such as; it’s ok to own and beat slaves, that we should stone adulterers to death, that rape is cool bro, large scale murder of non-believers is fine … many abhorrent things you don’t agree with. “But it’s an old book written thousands of years ago, of course it contains these uncivilized things,” you say? YES you are right, so why have you chosen to ignore all that other crap and yet hold on to the idea that homosexuality is still wrong when you admit that everything else has changed? Unless you are willing to follow EVERY SINGLE RULE in the *religious book*, you have no right to pick and choose which ones suit you, otherwise your whole religion is invalid. Be nice, and we’ll let you keep picking and choosing as long as you no longer believe the one about homosexuals. Keeping slaves is fine.

2. Homosexual marriage threatens family values

This is actually a version of the above argument in disguise. But let’s pretend religion has nothing to do with it, and they’re still only representing the stereotypical nuclear family with angelic children called ‘Billy’ and ‘Barbara’ where the mother stays home to raise the kids and cooks the best darn brownies in the neighbourhood, by golly! What about single parent families? Families with a parent or child with a disability? Families without children? Divorced families?  Nope, if the family couldn’t be in an ad for laundry powder, that’s not a REAL family. Come on, there is no such thing as ‘family values’ because ever single family is different and no family has ‘got it right’. The diversity is the beauty. So let’s add another type of family to that mix.

I’ve also heard a similar argument that homosexual marriage diminishes or redefines the meaning of heterosexual marriage. As Whoopie Goldberg puts it (yes shame this quote is from the View, in response to the argument that gay people should get ‘civil unions’ not ‘marriage’) “Why do you care what I call my relationship?” At the end Joy Behar says, “If I marry a woman, what is that to you?”  Gay people getting married has no impact on the definition or meaning of your own marriage for other people to have these same rights as you.

3. Children raised by homosexuals might turn out gay.

A) Err….homosexuals are already allowed to raise children so…marriage kind of has nothing to do with it.

B) What the hell is wrong with that?

C) Children of STRAIGHT parents turn out gay, so I guess no one should breed!

4. Children raised by homosexuals might turn be ill-adjusted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

Boom.

And also to further illustrate this awesome dude’s point

http://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/family-dynamics/types-of-families/pages/Gay-and-Lesbian-Parents.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token

Second Boom.

Children raised by gay parents show no difference in any facet of their lives to other children. The only thing they may be affected by is that their parentage may marginalize them in a society that doesn’t accept gay marriage. This would stop if gay marriage was legalized and accepted.

5. Homosexuality is unnatural

Actually, it’s not! Several animal species exhibit homosexual behaviour, various primates being one example. I don’t know why we have to look at animal behaviour to see that something is ok (I’m not sure if we’re allowed to have sex….oh the dogs are doing it? So can we!!!), but ok whatever. So we see that homosexuality is not unnatural

No, Artemiss you dumbass, homosexuality is against the natural order, these animals aren’t exclusively homosexual, they still breed!

Right you are about the breeding thing! So you’re saying that those who cannot or choose not to breed shouldn’t be allowed to get married? Didn’t think so.  And if you are, then good luck trying to remove rights from a fairly large group of people. Rather than removing rights, shouldn’t we try to be more inclusive?

6. Marriage is traditionally a Christian tradition and we should respect their right to dictate what it means.

Firstly that’s a load of crap because people get married in every culture/religion. Secondly, Christmas and Easter are traditionally Christian (the names, not the celebrations, I’m aware of the summer solstice etc) yet we don’t exclude anyone from partaking in that celebration. That’s because it has evolved so far beyond being a solely religious celebration and it is now just an awesome excuse to eat stuff and get fat. Isn’t that essentially what marriage is?

If we decide to uphold that marriage is a Christian tradition (which it isn’t, but let’s pretend), that would mean that non-Christians would no longer be allowed to marry. Or we’d have to call it something else. And that’s just an unnecessary tedium we don’t need to go through because, like Christmas, it has evolved beyond a religious celebration and is now a cultural one.

7. Marriage has always traditionally been between a man and a woman

Yes, and at one point, marriage was traditionally unable to be reversed. But divorce happened. And then doggy marriages happened. A good googling of ‘Pet weddings’ sadly proves this.

We have seen that we really have already butchered the ‘sanctity’ of marriage well and truly, so if our freaking DOGS can get married, maybe it’s time to just be cool and accept that traditional marriage ideals have already been turned on their heads.

Marriage and tradition are entirely human-made constructs. We (humans) made marriage up, we’ve adopted it into daily life, we have the power to change its meaning!

8. I have no issue with homosexual people being together, I just think we should call gay marriage something other than ‘marriage’, it’s just a semantics issue for me.

Firstly, if you think that your ‘semantics’ issue is worth more than the ‘equal rights of others’ issue, then I think you should go die in a fire.

Does that mean that we should call marriage something else for any other group that is ‘different’. That would get confusing! Why don’t we just call the act of getting married GETTING MARRIED so we don’t have to remember a billion different terms?

If you really had no issue with homosexual people being together then you’d have no issue with them being able to access the same rights as you. Besides, words change their meaning all the time, quite appropriately ‘gay’ is one example of this.

9. I just don’t like it

That doesn’t give you a right to dictate what others can and can’t do, particularly when what they’re doing doesn’t affect you in any way. What if I don’t like red flowers? Not because I have some weird neurological aversion to them, I just don’t like them. Does that mean we don’t allow people to grow red flowers in their gardens, even in the back garden where I can’t see them? If you don’t like something, but it doesn’t actually impinge on your life in ANY fathomable way then you can shut up now, thank you.

Those are all the reasons I can think of that I’ve heard against gay marriage and why every single one of them is not worth a moment of consideration. The simple fact of not allowing gays to get married is that it is discrimination. We are denying one group of people a legal right that we allow everybody else, based on their sexuality. None of the above arguments justify this.

Subtle discrimination is occurring all the time and it is harder to identify and combat. Here we have a blatant legal discrimination that we could fix so easily and yet our leaders do nothing and people still think that denying gay people rights is somehow justifiable. It isn’t.  Do unto others, fool.

Advertisements