does this anti-gay marriage argument make any sense?

[ButterflyBlood]

http://www.allianceformarriage.org/site/PageServer?pagename=usatoday

I'd like to find even one feminist who'd agree with this load of crap.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. load of crap!

gay marriage = polygamy= CRAP

:puke:

[meegbear]

2. Nope

I like this line : I say "reluctant" because my wife and I (like Fauntroy and the other folks at AFM) are not "gay bashers" or "polygamy beaters."

Earlier they "sympathize with homosexuals ....". So, do they sympathize with polygamists? They say they're not polygamy beaters.

[grannylib]

3. incredibly twisted 'logic' and no, as a feminist I don't buy it for a sec

[kiahzero]

4. Somebody can't think of corollarys....

If "gay marriage" implies that women are superfluous, it also implies that men are superfluous, since lesbians will be getting married as well. If both genders are superfluous, then neither is superfluous. Therefore, the whole house of cards falls to pieces.

[IronLionZion]

5. pure bullshit

but a lot of people in this country are full of shit

[SheilaT]

6. It's also a short step

from this sort of reasoning to saying that the essential purpose of marriage is to have children, and so any marriage that does not include having children isn't a valid one.

So sorry, but heterosexual couples who choose not to procreate, or who find themselves unable to do so --whether because of age or medical condition -- all those are as married as those who turn out a baby every year.

What's going to be real interesting is when a same sex couple who got married or had a civil union created in one state, then moves to another and sues to get the same benefits. I think the Civil Rights/Equal Protection argument is totally valid, and that gay men and women are entitled to every single benefit I, as a heterosexual, am entitle to.


Divorce laws may need to be tweaked a bit. And of course, no religious organization is required to perform weddings, just as some denominations won't marry a believer to a non-believer. That's absolutely their prerogative. But a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic (as an example) in a civil ceremony or any non-Catholic religious ceremony, is still married.

[historian]

7. more distractions

Its just a slimy way for chimp to distract people from reality and to put the fundies pants on fire. Even if it was seriously a proposal to be an amendment it would take years and they know it.
slimy revolting leeches

[Az]

8. Um, it seems to assume

the only ones getting married are guys. Its actually a cute little twist in argument style. He winds up arguing that women are a full part of the marriage as if it needed to be stated. Almost suggesting that women need men's permission to be full members in the marriage. Of course he completely ignores the fact that there are lesbians getting married too. This is a tub of crap.