![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
whogeekOk, so I was reading some of df_chipz older posts and ran across one that mentions some article about gay marriage being harmful to heterosexual marriage.* My first thought was "Oh boy. Here we go again with the whole Gay Marriage desecrates the sanctity of Heterosexual marriage." Which is total bull. Because if you're gay, you're gay. If you're not, you're straight, so go fuck whoever you damn well please.
So I open it, being the silly person I am, and nearly throw my laptop across the room at the first "Reason" the "article" lists. Ok, first off, the language is really out there and over the top, so even I'm having trouble understanding, when my language skills are at a level where even most legalese makes some sense. So now, I'm going to translate these "Top Ten Ways Gay Marriage Law Hurts Heterosexuals and their Families" (And yes, they did use all that extraneous capitalization.)
Reason 1: Same-sex marriage law doesn’t stipulate or insinuate that adult partners are agreeing to raise children together and therefore robs married heterosexual women and their children of crucial economic protections against spousal abandonment.
Translation: Same-sex couples aren't agreeing to have kids(by surrogate or adoption) so married het women with children who are abandoned by their husbands won't get money/tax refunds for raising her child/children in a single parent home.
Response: What? That makes absolutely no sense. Tax refunds for single parent homes(which do exist) don't change because "Oh, you've got married neighbors without kids." Whatthefuck kind of sense does that make? None. Not even if the couple next door is a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple. Your neighbors economic status has no bearing on your economic status and any tax breaks you receive.
Reason 2: Same-sex marriage law doesn’t stipulate that adult partners must stay together for any duration of time and therefore places spouses and children at grave economic risk of destitution should one partner grow bored and seek to exit the agreement.
Translation: Same-sex marriage doesn't say that the couple must remain a couple, so if one "gets bored" and leaves, the spouse and any kids they have will end up being poor.
Response: What the hell? That happens to married HETEROSEXUAL couples all the time. That's why divorce proceedings and alimony and child support payments exist: to ensure the financial stability of the parent who remains with the child/children. Hell, some divorces have times when the spouse paying child support isn't contributing to the child's welfare, and the parent with custody does end up destitue trying to make sure the kid/kids are going to have a better life.
Reason 3: Same-sex marriage law doesn’t severely penalize a spouse who tries to exit the contract and thus offers no dependable legal recourse or protections for the spouse and children now struggling to survive without the committed help of the departing spouse.
Translation: Same-sex marriages that go down the toilet don't have the same legal actions to make sure that the partner leaving the marriage will continue to support the family's well being. So, the partner and kid/kids left behind will end up starving on the streets because they don't have two incomes.
Response: Hello, money management skills. There are single parent families where the other parent is dead, or the second parent isn't known, and those parents can, more often than not, stretch the money so the kid will be well off. And there are community groups that offer services to such families, specifically in such cases. There are even single income families with kids where the second parent stays at home, and they manage.
Now, around this point, I come to the realization that all of these reasons involve money problems, and revolve around the couple having kids. And so that brings us to:
Reason 4: Same sex marriage law is fundamentally unequal, unfair, and unjust, for homosexuals receive equal perks from the state though they do not provide the state with an equal number of citizens and related 24/7 childcare services.
Translation: Homosexual couples get the same tax breaks and services from the state even though they aren't churning out babies and caring for those babies all the time.
Response: Oh, so just because people get married, they have to produce more little people. Right. So people who get married old, or who are infertile, or who decide not to have kids shouldn't be allowed to marry? I mean of course we need more people to crowd the schools and the orphanages and the foster care system and the adoption networks. Yeah. Right. I mean, come on, the population is already increasing fast enough. At least if gay people marry and decide they want kids they can adopt.
Reason 5: Same sex marriage law creates injustice in adoption services, for it institutionalizes gender discrimination and deprives children of their natural expected right have both a mother and a father.
Translation: Same sex marriage laws lets two married men or two married women adopt, and if they do that the kids won't have a mom and a dad, and the adopting couple will be looking for either a boy or a girl, and not just "a child."
Response: Oh, and single parents who adopt or who are divorced or are raising a child on their own isn't depriving their child/children of a mom and a dad. Oh, and the whole gender discrimination thing? Hate to say it to you, but adopting couples are usually looking for a certain gender, a certain age, a certain look when they go to adopt, and not just "A child." It's not like going to adopt a dog or a cat from the pound.
Reason 6: Same sex marriage law leads to gay sex indoctrination of young children in taxpayer funded public schools.
Translation: Teachers in same sex marriages will teach young children all about gay sex and teach the children to be open-minded/gay.
Response: Really? Does that mean that teachers in heterosexual marriages teach young children all about sex between a man and a woman? And is open-mindedness a bad thing now? And gayness is not taught, or a disease that is passed from person to person. Being gai is just being gay.
Reason 7: Same sex marriage law marginalizes and stigmatizes religious groups and removes the right of religious charities to deliver the services required by their faith communities.
Translation: Same sex marriage law will require religious groups to allow homosexuals to take part in all the services they provide, even if their religion is against homosexuality.
Response: **steps onto religious soap box** Ahem. ... In the indicated link, the charity group is catholic. Catholocism is a branch of Christianity, and one of Christ's main teachings was to accept everyone. He went as far as healing lepers(leprosy was believed to be punishment for sin), dining with sinners(Zacheus the tax collector's greed was a sin, and Jesus went to his house), allowing a sinner to wash his feet with her tears and hair, and allowing a woman to sit at his feet to hear his teachings, rather than helping her sister prepare a meal. Even if homosexuality is a sin, I believe Jesus would still accept homosexuals as children of God, and as sharing His love with each other and the world. **steps off religious soap box**
Reason 8: Same sex marriage law permits self-interested spouses to leave the contract for any reason, typically at great economic harm to the faithful, socially responsible spouse.
Translation: Same sex marriage laws would not be legally binding, and so if one wanted to leave the relationship, that person could, withoug any repercussions except on the remaining partner.
Response: Wait, didn't I already respond to this? Ah yes. Reason number 2. Although that one included children in the poverty equation. Alright, well, if they want it again here I go again, with a twist. If the couple is marrying under a law, by signing a contract, that contract is legally binding. That means that it is legally binding, and there would be legal consequences for exiting the relationship without a divorce or some sort of nullifying action.
Reason 9: Once we call gay love “marriage,” we destroy marriage as a cultural ideal, rip down the staus of child bearing, and thwart the development of the culture of marriage which takes an effort to maintain.
Translation: Marriage is a culturally significant union between a man and a woman, a reason to create more children in the world, and allowing gay marriage will destroy this culturally significant act.
Response: If it's culturally significant, why do we allow marriages that last for only a few hours/days/weeks where the participants have no intention of remaining in the relationship. If the only reason to marry is to pass on a person's genetic materieal and produce more children, then why let older people marry, or infertile couples, or couples who never plan to have children? If the significance of marriage is being destroyed by gay marriage, then what does a heterosexual marriage that ends within hours/days/weeks do to the significance?
Reason 10: Same sex marriage law legally and logically opens the door for polygamy, polyandry, and any group of cohabiting individuals that requests “marriage” legal status and benefits.
Translation: Legalizing gay marriage will make other groups of "alternative lifestyle" families push for legal recognition as married groups, and all the legal, social and financial benifits the marriage gives to a couple.
Response: Didn't they say the same thing about allowing marriage between blacks and whites? Or at least something similar? Yeah, I'm pretty sure they did. Did it actually come to anything? No.
Oh, and each "reason" is copied straight from the page, spelling/grammar mistakes, links and all. The full article is found here:
http://marriagenews.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/how-gay-marriage-hurts-heterosexuals/
So I open it, being the silly person I am, and nearly throw my laptop across the room at the first "Reason" the "article" lists. Ok, first off, the language is really out there and over the top, so even I'm having trouble understanding, when my language skills are at a level where even most legalese makes some sense. So now, I'm going to translate these "Top Ten Ways Gay Marriage Law Hurts Heterosexuals and their Families" (And yes, they did use all that extraneous capitalization.)
Reason 1: Same-sex marriage law doesn’t stipulate or insinuate that adult partners are agreeing to raise children together and therefore robs married heterosexual women and their children of crucial economic protections against spousal abandonment.
Translation: Same-sex couples aren't agreeing to have kids(by surrogate or adoption) so married het women with children who are abandoned by their husbands won't get money/tax refunds for raising her child/children in a single parent home.
Response: What? That makes absolutely no sense. Tax refunds for single parent homes(which do exist) don't change because "Oh, you've got married neighbors without kids." Whatthefuck kind of sense does that make? None. Not even if the couple next door is a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple. Your neighbors economic status has no bearing on your economic status and any tax breaks you receive.
Reason 2: Same-sex marriage law doesn’t stipulate that adult partners must stay together for any duration of time and therefore places spouses and children at grave economic risk of destitution should one partner grow bored and seek to exit the agreement.
Translation: Same-sex marriage doesn't say that the couple must remain a couple, so if one "gets bored" and leaves, the spouse and any kids they have will end up being poor.
Response: What the hell? That happens to married HETEROSEXUAL couples all the time. That's why divorce proceedings and alimony and child support payments exist: to ensure the financial stability of the parent who remains with the child/children. Hell, some divorces have times when the spouse paying child support isn't contributing to the child's welfare, and the parent with custody does end up destitue trying to make sure the kid/kids are going to have a better life.
Reason 3: Same-sex marriage law doesn’t severely penalize a spouse who tries to exit the contract and thus offers no dependable legal recourse or protections for the spouse and children now struggling to survive without the committed help of the departing spouse.
Translation: Same-sex marriages that go down the toilet don't have the same legal actions to make sure that the partner leaving the marriage will continue to support the family's well being. So, the partner and kid/kids left behind will end up starving on the streets because they don't have two incomes.
Response: Hello, money management skills. There are single parent families where the other parent is dead, or the second parent isn't known, and those parents can, more often than not, stretch the money so the kid will be well off. And there are community groups that offer services to such families, specifically in such cases. There are even single income families with kids where the second parent stays at home, and they manage.
Now, around this point, I come to the realization that all of these reasons involve money problems, and revolve around the couple having kids. And so that brings us to:
Reason 4: Same sex marriage law is fundamentally unequal, unfair, and unjust, for homosexuals receive equal perks from the state though they do not provide the state with an equal number of citizens and related 24/7 childcare services.
Translation: Homosexual couples get the same tax breaks and services from the state even though they aren't churning out babies and caring for those babies all the time.
Response: Oh, so just because people get married, they have to produce more little people. Right. So people who get married old, or who are infertile, or who decide not to have kids shouldn't be allowed to marry? I mean of course we need more people to crowd the schools and the orphanages and the foster care system and the adoption networks. Yeah. Right. I mean, come on, the population is already increasing fast enough. At least if gay people marry and decide they want kids they can adopt.
Reason 5: Same sex marriage law creates injustice in adoption services, for it institutionalizes gender discrimination and deprives children of their natural expected right have both a mother and a father.
Translation: Same sex marriage laws lets two married men or two married women adopt, and if they do that the kids won't have a mom and a dad, and the adopting couple will be looking for either a boy or a girl, and not just "a child."
Response: Oh, and single parents who adopt or who are divorced or are raising a child on their own isn't depriving their child/children of a mom and a dad. Oh, and the whole gender discrimination thing? Hate to say it to you, but adopting couples are usually looking for a certain gender, a certain age, a certain look when they go to adopt, and not just "A child." It's not like going to adopt a dog or a cat from the pound.
Reason 6: Same sex marriage law leads to gay sex indoctrination of young children in taxpayer funded public schools.
Translation: Teachers in same sex marriages will teach young children all about gay sex and teach the children to be open-minded/gay.
Response: Really? Does that mean that teachers in heterosexual marriages teach young children all about sex between a man and a woman? And is open-mindedness a bad thing now? And gayness is not taught, or a disease that is passed from person to person. Being gai is just being gay.
Reason 7: Same sex marriage law marginalizes and stigmatizes religious groups and removes the right of religious charities to deliver the services required by their faith communities.
Translation: Same sex marriage law will require religious groups to allow homosexuals to take part in all the services they provide, even if their religion is against homosexuality.
Response: **steps onto religious soap box** Ahem. ... In the indicated link, the charity group is catholic. Catholocism is a branch of Christianity, and one of Christ's main teachings was to accept everyone. He went as far as healing lepers(leprosy was believed to be punishment for sin), dining with sinners(Zacheus the tax collector's greed was a sin, and Jesus went to his house), allowing a sinner to wash his feet with her tears and hair, and allowing a woman to sit at his feet to hear his teachings, rather than helping her sister prepare a meal. Even if homosexuality is a sin, I believe Jesus would still accept homosexuals as children of God, and as sharing His love with each other and the world. **steps off religious soap box**
Reason 8: Same sex marriage law permits self-interested spouses to leave the contract for any reason, typically at great economic harm to the faithful, socially responsible spouse.
Translation: Same sex marriage laws would not be legally binding, and so if one wanted to leave the relationship, that person could, withoug any repercussions except on the remaining partner.
Response: Wait, didn't I already respond to this? Ah yes. Reason number 2. Although that one included children in the poverty equation. Alright, well, if they want it again here I go again, with a twist. If the couple is marrying under a law, by signing a contract, that contract is legally binding. That means that it is legally binding, and there would be legal consequences for exiting the relationship without a divorce or some sort of nullifying action.
Reason 9: Once we call gay love “marriage,” we destroy marriage as a cultural ideal, rip down the staus of child bearing, and thwart the development of the culture of marriage which takes an effort to maintain.
Translation: Marriage is a culturally significant union between a man and a woman, a reason to create more children in the world, and allowing gay marriage will destroy this culturally significant act.
Response: If it's culturally significant, why do we allow marriages that last for only a few hours/days/weeks where the participants have no intention of remaining in the relationship. If the only reason to marry is to pass on a person's genetic materieal and produce more children, then why let older people marry, or infertile couples, or couples who never plan to have children? If the significance of marriage is being destroyed by gay marriage, then what does a heterosexual marriage that ends within hours/days/weeks do to the significance?
Reason 10: Same sex marriage law legally and logically opens the door for polygamy, polyandry, and any group of cohabiting individuals that requests “marriage” legal status and benefits.
Translation: Legalizing gay marriage will make other groups of "alternative lifestyle" families push for legal recognition as married groups, and all the legal, social and financial benifits the marriage gives to a couple.
Response: Didn't they say the same thing about allowing marriage between blacks and whites? Or at least something similar? Yeah, I'm pretty sure they did. Did it actually come to anything? No.
Oh, and each "reason" is copied straight from the page, spelling/grammar mistakes, links and all. The full article is found here:
http://marriagenews.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/how-gay-marriage-hurts-heterosexuals/
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Sep. 20th, 2009 02:47 am (UTC)That one comment to my post about it that said 'it's not worth getting angry about it'. If it was just about fandom, then yeah, I would agree ... but this is real people we're talking about here, very real people who are hurt by the hatred and ignorance of people who write articles like that.
Perhaps our consolation is that intelligent, decent human beings know how to read and recognize stupid insanity when they see it.
P.S. Hello! I do believe this is the first time we've talked. Nice to meet ya.
no subject
Date: Sep. 26th, 2009 02:54 pm (UTC)P.S. Indeed. It is very nice to meet you... not that I haven't been lurking for a while. ^_^
no subject
Date: Nov. 17th, 2009 01:05 am (UTC)I fail to see that two people with the same plumbing getting married is more of a threat to the sanctity of the institution than say, Britney Spears' first 55-hour marriage. Given that the het divorce rate is hovering around 50% for first marriages and worse for remarriages (especially with stepkids involved), I really don't think that gays and lesbians could possibly do a whole lot worse.
The "divorced gays won't provide for their exes/children"--ask any divorced parent whose ex is late/missing with the child support on a regular basis and they'll tell you that walking out on financial obligations happens plenty in het relationships too.