In light of the Prop 8 fight here in California, I have a question....

[arbusto_baboso]

Have any of the anti-gay bigots EVER managed to give any of you a concrete reason (however erroneous) why same-sex marriage would threaten "traditional marriage"? Or do they just resort to the "slippery slope" argument (which still fails to explain how traditional marriage is threatened)?

I have to say, as a white heterosexual male who's been married 17 years, I fail to see how any of my LGBT brothas and sistas getting married to a person of their own orientation could hurt me in any way...

[Warpy]

1. Conservatives hate to change anything, especially an opinion,

even when it desperately needs to be changed. They have to be dragged, kicking and screaming all the way.

In addition, the smug little moralists see it as a mockery of "real" marriage, an inferior substitute at best and legalized sin at worst.

They're idiots, of course, who need to be voted down.

[arbusto_baboso]

3. Hell, my PARENTS were a mockery of real marriage...

I mean, when Dad comes home and gives Mom the clap, not once, but twice, it ain't really a "sacred institution" any more, is it?

[Turbineguy]

2. Are you kidding?

There's a gaggle of young men with well-defined bodies under colorful umbrellas gesticulating at the end of the drive threatening my marriage right now!

Hmmm... Just in case I'd better include one of these little darlings::sarcasm:

[stopbush]

4. Their "reasons" are religion-based, ergo they cannot be concrete

as religion is based on myth and fantasy.

[EFerrari]

5. Some of them say they don't want their kids to learn teh gay in kindergarten.

It makes you feel really sorry for kids stuck with these people as parents. :crazy:

[arbusto_baboso]

7. Especially any of those kids who happen to be gay....

I can't imagine being gay and growing up with fundie whack-job parents.

[DevonRex]

6. My relatives say that it somehow "devalues" their own marriages

if gays are allowed to marry. I always ask them how, and that's when the slippery slope argument comes up.

They don't see that it makes absolutely no sense.

Honestly, I think they're just the kind of "Christians" who think that they make themselves seem better by degrading other people. They love to point fingers and be judgmental.

It's pretty sickening.

[arbusto_baboso]

8. That's the "argument" I keep hearing.

It's almost as if, if they can't exclude other people in certain categories from doing it, then it isn't worth doing.

40 years ago, folks felt like that about interracial marriage, too.

[DevonRex]

10. Yes they did. And how good is "their" marriage if someone else's

marriage somehow devalues it? Are their vows dependent on what other people do? Is their god suddenly going to withdraw his blessing from their marriage if somebody, somewhere else gets married?

It's just the most stupid argument in the world. It points out their lack of commitment if it's too shaky to survive something a government does. It points out the weakness of their god if he takes back his blessing of them based on the actions of some strangers.

Go figure.

[Siyahamba]

9. "slippery slope"

Still no group marriages or interspecies marriages in Canada, four years after same-sex marriages were recognized.

People are still having children and opposite-sex couples are still getting married, as well.

[XemaSab]

11. They believe it's legalized sin

and that we as a society are condoning sin, and that by legalising gay marriage we're mocking a sacred institution that God ordained, and that God will punish a society that condones sin and mocks His sacred rituals.

But all this is WAAAAAY too crazy and fundie for them to say out loud, so they make vague noises about it undermining marriage.

I don't understand why the proponents don't make more out of the argument that marriage is both a sacred ritual and a legal convenience, and we have separation of church and state in this country, so the government should not be in the business of telling people which sacred rituals they can and can't perform, and the government's role should be entirely secular and pertaining to legal rights between couples.