“Gay marriage? Yeah, sure... That's cool. Wait... What? Dude, what are we talking about again? I was staring at large beefy dicks. By the way....I'M GAY!!!!!”
“What? Gay Marriage, tell me everything about it! No I'm not gay, how do you dare to say that! I'm just interested...”
Gay marriage is what some of us (especially in the United States) would call “a social issue” many more would ditch the euphemism and call it “a biblical abomination of biblical proportions!”; others still would call it pointless as in Iran there is so obviously no such thing as homosexuality.
- 1 Word Choice
- 2 Controversy
- 3 Arguments Against Gay Marriages
- 4 Legality and Legalization
- 5 See Also
Before we get down to the business of determining wither or not sodomisers and ugly women should be allowed to say “I do” (at separate venues of course, unless you're in Kansas) we must first decide on the correct terminology.
We have already seen ‘it’ described as a “social issue”. But, commonly, this was decided against largely for reasons of euphony. Imagine having to say over dinner “Will you have a social issue with me?”. To the couple at the table next to yours, it may sound like you are trying to orchestrate yet another episode of Jeremy Kyle (or other regional talk-show variations such as Oprah Winfrey or Talk Osama) which may lead to social tensions and riots.
For no other reason than sheer pedantry the terms “gay-marriage” and “homosexual-marriage” have been tossed out by the nation’s great thinkers. They say that these names are technically incorrect as the sexual orientations of the partners do not determine the nature of the marriage (for example a homosexual man married to a homosexual woman could not be considered a same-sex marriage).
The term equal marriage is used to show that within a "homosexual marriage" both partners are equal. Though this idea has been rejected by conservatives, as it is considered to be a mockery of heterosexual marriage where the woman is always subservient to the man. It is impossible for a same-sex marriage to be completely equal anyway as they can’t both wear the dress (or can they?). As a side note feminists have also tried to adopt this term when considering biblical marriage. However Christians applied the same logic and have denounced these Freedom mongers as trying to destroy the sanctity of God's "voluntary" prison (voluntary only by law, the un-written rule is that you find a husband you like or are married off to the highest bidder at 24).
The simple term “marriage” is the one that most frightens the traditional family values people as it is trying to destroy marriage. How it is destroying marriage as of yet is unclear but some would draw a parallel between same-sex marriage and the churches, registry offices and wives that were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
So from now on in this article we shall refer to same-sex unions as “not-marriage-but-not-just-casual-sex-either unions” (so as we don’t tread on anyone's toes).
Unlike religious controversy, the controversy over “not-marriage-but-not-just-casual-sex-either unions” runs deeper than simply the name. Almost everyone from militant homosexualists to those pedantic grammar Nazis have found something wrong with “not-marriage-but-not-just-casual-sex-either unions”.
Social arguments against “not-marriage-but-not-just-casual-sex-either unions”
"Well it’s just distgustin’ ain't it?" is quite a popular secular argument against “not-marriage-but-not-just-casual-sex-either unions”, however it is ultimately fallacious as it’s not ‘’just’’ disgusting but immoral as well. It is immoral because it makes other people feel sick when they think about it – and they can’t control their thoughts so it’s just not right!
One of the secular arguments is the argument from tradition, and that the basic family unit consists of: a man, whom will bring home the bacon; a woman, whom will cook the bacon; naturally conceived children, whom shall eat the bacon and the Negro whom lives under the stairs and is available to beat with an iron rod when he fails to scrub the word “Fascists” off the front door quickly enough. However, some people say, this argument is easily refuted by the fact that “traditionally” the sky has always been blue but is now turning a dirty shade of grey. Of course the family unit is something to be treasured. Sporadic beatings, rapes, murders and other, private, domestic crimes are the foundation for all civilised Western countries, without those people may vent their rage on just anybody and the society would collapse!
“If gays are allowed to “marry” and raise children how will the children know where babies come from?” is a very potent question posed, again, by tradition/family values groups. Some people would argue that this means we should improve sex education even though it has been proven that abstinence is the best course of action for all involved. But being raised by homosexuals may give the child the idea that they were born out back. Imagine growing up thinking that you were born of an anus! The mental scarring would be too much for most children and they would probably start brining guns to school and firing on anyone that called them a “little shit” (“I ain't little!” they may cry as they pull the trigger). Thus homosexual “not-marriage-but-not-just-casual-sex-either unions” increases gun crime.
Paedophiles, too, tend to hate the idea of “not-marriage-but-not-just-casual-sex-either unions” as when two members of the same sex try to procreate (as they are known to do) it is doomed to failure and thus there is less variety of candy for paedophiles. And let’s be fair, paedos hand out their fair share of candy. Gay people are in clear violation of the laws of the karmic circle.
Religious arguments against “not-marriage-but-not-just-casual-sex-either unions”
“I've been told that the bible tells me so”. Many of the illiterate, deep-southern arrogant Christians say that, because the incoherent word of God tells them that homosexuality is an abomination they cannot be allowed to have “not-marriage-but-not-just-casual-sex-either unions” as they may have seafood buffets at them! The reasoning is that all gays would get the not-marriage-but-not-just-casual-sex-either union on those satanic cruises and sea food would be easier and more convenient.
Anti-Quakers (a breakaway cult from the Quakers) on the other hand don't care about religious texts but they simply cannot tolerate the possibility that not-marriage-but-not-just-casual-sex-either unions could cause earthquakes. “Look.” They say “the San Andreas Fault is perilously unsteady as it is, strongly intimate gay sex could only make matters worse!”
Despite all the evidence Hindus don’t even recognise the true existence of homosexuals! So only in the strictest of senses are they against not-marriage-but-not-just-casual-sex-either unions; Hindus believe that all sinners are simply a figment of their imaginations and so when asked what they think of the proposal they simply shrug nonchalantly and wonder out-loud “What will I think of next?”
For most Iranian Moslems not-marriage-but-not-just-casual-sex-either unions aren’t a problem since queer studies professor Ahmadinejad (and supreme ruler of Iran) concluded at a press conference that there was no such thing as homosexuality. It is admittedly an amusing take on things as Christians for years have been saying it’s a sin but now Muslims are saying it’s not even real, gay sex is impossible and mutual masturbation doesn’t make you gay! (It actually makes you blind but that’s a different story).
"it's discrimination and unfair". This is an obvious truth. Not giving government money to a type of relationship just because it's more likely to be unstable is unconstitutional. Not only that, if you oppose it you are a homophobic Nazi. This doesn't apply to polygamy though. In fact, experts have concluded that there is a -50,000,000,000% chance of it leading to legalised polygamy.
It is also a well-known fact that it doesn't cheapen marriage, as evidenced by Sigmend Freud. In Europe everyone is so mature that they are mothers and fathers by the age of 13. Also, please keep in mind, that it has also not ever infringed on freedom of religion, nor stopped any freedom of speech, and I'm not just saying that so I can get out of prison on good "They r takin are freedom! It's a well established fact that “not-marriage-but-not-just-casual-sex-either unions” take away personal freedom, and that it's even a related matter. However, this is rejected by self-proclaimed experts because anyone who disagrees with it, even if they're gay, is a homophobe and racist, who will enslave your children and burn your crops.
Homosexualists and “The Nation of Homos” arguments against “not-marriage-but-not-just-casual-sex-either unions”
The Nation of Homos are, similarly to everyone else, against not-marriage-but-not-just-casual-sex-either unions but are so for very different reasons.
Like with the Nation of Islam wanted black/white separation in the 60’s black civil rights movement The Nation of Homos want complete separation of straights and gays. Some radical cells even wish to “lyke todally” kill all the straight people and take the world for themselves. The thought process behind the idea may not be too silly if you look at what new technology can do. Vaginal sex has become obsolete since in vitro fertilisation was invented and The Nation of Homos intends to exploit this fact to the fullest extent creating breeding factories and child-care warehouses. The reason? Well, it leaves more time for seal clubbing; touring around “Frisco” or Canal Street (or, in Iran, a nonexistent place filled with nonexistent people) and picking up random strangers and having casual sex with them. This is why The Nation of Homos oppose not-marriage-but-not-just-casual-sex-either unions; it is a huge threat to their ideal way of life.
Other Gay/Straight separationist groups simply wish to escape from the straight culture of marriage as it’s just a repulsive idea. ”Why would anyone do that? Really it’s sickening. People shouldn’t have that kind of thoughts inflicted on them at all!”
Arguments Against Gay Marriages
Opponents of Gay Marriage say "no", often citing the following principles:
- Other countries that have legalized gay marriage, such as The Netherlands, Denmark, Canada, Spain, New Zealand, Mars, and South Africa are clearly suffering God's wrath and social disintegration.
- Happy marriages are unholy.
- Marriage necessarily consists of three rings, namely the engagement ring, wedding ring and suffer-ring.
- The Bible says Adam should grieve, not have fun with Eve.
- Happy marriages might involve non-reproductive sex, thus denying women the warm, tickling sensation of childbirth.
- May lead to a gay divorce...
- Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
- Gay culture is a new fad created by the liberal media to undermine long-standing traditions. We know this is true because gay sex did not exist in ancient Greece and Rome.
- There are plenty of straight families looking to adopt, and every unwanted child already has a loving family. This is why foster care does not exist for many people.
- Conservatives know best how to create strong families. That is why it is not true that Texas and Mississippi have the highest teen birthrates, and Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire have the lowest. This is a myth spread by the liberal media.
- Marriage is a religious institution, defined by churches. This is why Atheists do not marry. Christians also never get a divorce.
- Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why our society has no single parents.
- Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only no religion in America.
- Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
- Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
- Gay marriage should be decided by the people and their elected representatives, not the courts. The framers checked the courts, which represent mainstream public opinion, with legislatures created to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Interference by courts in this matter is inappropriate, just as it has been every time the courts have tried to hold back legislatures pushing for civil rights.
- Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
- Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because "separate but equal" institutions are a good way to satisfy the demands of uppity minority groups.
- Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
- Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
- Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
- Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
Legality and Legalization
For some unknown reason, in the face of all the opposing evidence, the meme of homosexual marriage has spread throughout the world (particularly the western half) everybody’s doing it! Well except for the above mentioned groups and societies. Even the world leaders (George Dubya Bush and Tony Blair (pictured)) decided to give it a go and show their support for the movement (after all governments have to show their support for all members of the society they govern). However it hasn’t been working out too well: they never talk, or when they do its shouting; they hardly see each other and suspect one another of some illicit affair with an underage prostitute and appearing on Jeremy Kyle hasn’t solved any of these problems! Because of this many countries are now working on making gay divorce legal.
Gay Marriage is a controversial political issue in the United States of America. It poses the question, should a married couple actually be happy during the course of their marriage? Opponents of Gay Marriage say yes, often citing the following principles:
- The husband is always subservient to the wife or vice versa.
- Marriage is not meant to be enjoyed.
- Marriage exists to produce step-children.
- You should not be happy in the eyes of God.
- Spousal abuse
- Child abuse
- Financial difficulties
- Basing the marriage solely on horniness in the first three months.
- Inability to fool around.
- Lack of player status.
- The Ol' Ball and Chain
Could gay marriage be possible in the future? It's hard to say, as corrupt politicians on both sides of the issue have widely different views. One could say that gay marriage is indeed possible, but highly improbable. Many legal scholars believe that marrying the person you love, regardless of gender, is a basic human right.