Well, alright, I assume it's more of a counterargument. Call it what you will, I could really care less.
Anyways, I would like to write to you, oh humble individual to whom has taken the sweet time to read this (thank you for the support), a few arguments from www.nogaymarriage.com and counter them, on the spot, to the best of my ability. I hope you enjoy.
"The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock."
First of all, I'd like to state how marriage is an institution created by humans. Yes, initially to ensure the continuation of the human race, as to guarantee the existence of a future generation, and to promote family values and bondage, but in this day and age, it's moved passed that whole 'human guarantee' to a point where it's obvious enough that, married or not, humans are going to breed with each other. The human race is going nowhere for a very, very long time, so the right-wingers and conservative Christians should really have no worries in any regard save maybe their precious Jesus apparently stating that being gay is bad somewhere in the Bible (which, by the way, I'd like pointed out to me, because although I haven't looked, I believe that, during the days of underlying white-supremacy in the South, plenty of Southerners stated that the Bible said blacks were bad, or at the least inferior; and as far as I know, nowhere in the Bible does it say anything of such nature, leading me to discredit the existence of such an anti-gay statement anywhere throughout the Christian Holy Book).
Humanity has gone far past a point in our population figures that we need any surefire guarantee to keep our species alive, and, as I said prior, married or not, people are going to have sex, and they are going to have children. So, yes God, that ones covered. Our existence is all fine and dandy, so there's really nothing to worry about.
As for the 'family values,' the only family values that are dying are the family values which tied a woman to the home all day, while the man went out and ensured the family had enough income to survive off of. Gay people would like to be able to adopt children too, if you right-wingers weren't listening; so it's not like children are at a lack for love.
"the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock"-- wait a second. Say that again? 'where half of today's children are born out of wedlock,' only half? So, it's not like you can be arguing that, somehow, gays are able to produce offspring, let alone when they're not yet married, because that's, well, impossible. That brings me to the only logical conclusion, that the other 50% are born to unmarried straight couples. Hm. Well, that hardly seems as if it's the gays destroying your 'institution of marriage,' so much as it is your straights who don't seem to want to be wed. I don't understand what the gays have to do with this argument at all, actually.
"It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes."
Yea, that doesn't sound to me like it's the gays fault. I'd talk to the straighties before I started pinning it on the homos, if I were you.
"Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several "moms" and "dads," perhaps six or eight "grandparents," and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (as millions do in other countries all over the world today). Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation."
Once again, that would be the fault of the straight couples refusing to get married, or at the least, refusing to follow the whole 'until death do us part' section of the life-long agreement; and once again, this has nothing to do with the gays. It has more to do with a changing global society.
"where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (as millions do in other countries all over the world today)." Ok, last time I checked, the reason people are on the streets, and/or in foster homes worldwide, once again, has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GAYS. Unless you are somehow stating that the gays are at fault for the Somalian governments lack of public funding, or that they're somehow at fault for the perpetual state of war suffered throughout the Congo, or for that matter, the earthquake in Haiti; and also, last time I checked, as far as I'm aware, none of the above listed countries support gay marriage, or even gay relationships in general, so if they were working on anyone's side, it would be on the side of the right-wingers. Once again, you can hardly blame that on the gays, as they'd like it to be the other way around.
"The apostle Paul described a similar society in Romans 1, which addressed the epidemic of homosexuality that was rampant in the ancient world and especially in Rome at that time. He wrote, "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (v. 29-31, NIV)."
Well, despite all of Rome's apparent 'checks-and-balances' against their 'gay menace,' the Roman Empire still fell; and I don't recall the history books telling me that it was some gay rebellion that caused it. I believe it was a successive series of barbarian invasions from practically every angle imaginable that led to the Empires fall. So, once again, I don't see why you would blame it on the gays.
Oh! Right, did I forget? How silly of me! He's an apostle! Obviously a voice to be heard! A voice of notoriety!
Honestly. The only thing a guy like him has to do to become any sort of credible voice to the religious right, is to make a stupid statement like that. He doesn't need a set of credible prerequisites, because that's what the religious right does. After years of unsuccessfully making it's argument against the gays, an authority-figure amongst their ranks stands up and says this sort of thing to a crowd, and the right is quick to turn on its heel to face the indifferents and left-wingers of the world and say, "Yeah, what he said."
"It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will be devastating to children."
Yeah, ok, whatever.
No comments:
Post a Comment