12 reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Mystech, Mar 29, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    I found the following posted on another forum that I visit, where it was posted by someone also claiming to have read it somewhere and found it amusing (though giving no direct source). I found it to be too amusing to pass up. I made a few minor spelling and formatting changes from the original.

    <b>12 Reasons why gay people should not be allowed to marry!</b>

    1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

    2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

    3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

    4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

    5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

    6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

    7. 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 one religion in America.

    8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

    9. 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.

    10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

    11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer life-spans.

    12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Pannozzo - "My Story"

    Is it okay if I take this one seriously in my own right? Normally I would be on the floor laughing, but this topic arises as a nexus of events reveals itself and I haven't even begun to fathom what it is I'm supposed to learn.

    Let me preface this by saying that this is what I get when I disconnect myself from the part of the world I'm most comfortable with. Also, let me please note that the issue of HIV has never really struck close to me. Yes, I've known people with HIV, and at least one of them surprised me recently when I heard a random conversation about him and stuck my nose in to say, rather bluntly, "He's not dead?" Of course, that was followed by the customary, embarrassed, "But ... but ... I thought ...." And one of the best teachers I had allegedly died of AIDS, but this episode has been curiously hidden from me. Wait a minute ... I have the net ... hmm ... he's famous enough to be noted as "late" among florists, but ....

    It was one of those things where you were told, months after the fact, that someone you knew was dead. And you were told it was of cancer. And then you heard that he was alive. And then you heard he was dying of AIDS. And we all knew he was gay, and at that time the stereotype still prevailed that gay and dying must equal AIDS.

    So please understand that this random moment is, for reasons I hope to make somewhat tangible, the damned closest this disease has struck. (Before that? Honestly? It was a cartoon character; that's hard to explain, I know, but he got obits and front-page coverage in the Washington Post and other majors when he died. He changed the face of AIDS for thousands, if not millions. For many of us, it was the first face we could put to the disease.)

    But I hadn't been paying attention; the news is old now. But it is in the wake of finally getting around to buying Styx's 2003 album Cyclorama that I had cause to wonder why Glen Burtnik was playing bass.

    Styx was my first favorite rock and roll band. Hooked by Robotos, I quickly plunged past that, and went wild with it for years. (It would be, in essence, "grunge" that started chasing certain bands out of my heavy rotation.) For those that chuckle at the notion of Styx, I laugh with you over "Lorelei," smile with Tommy when he says, "I just couldn't write songs about robots," and am willing to bet that there's a number of songs you don't know or don't know are Styx. It is, for instance, a spiritual moment when reality caught up to me and realized that not only did Brian Wilson drop by the studio, but he dropped by specifically to lay backup vocals for a 40-second reprise (26 years after the fact) of Styx's "best song ever," which was also an announcement that, in case anyone doubted it, Styx was officially Tommy's band. (We always knew.)

    To avoid turning this into a record review, all I can say is these are the songs that I hum; these are the songs that I know. These songs were among the soundtracks to my dreams at night.

    In a live version of "Too Much Time on My Hands," Tommy casually refers to his drummer as a cue--"John Panozzo." We were all saddened by John's death when we learned of it. Judging by the gasp, several thousand of us learned of John's passing when his brother, Chuck Panozzo, nearly reduced himself to tears toward the end of the show several years ago by noting that this was only the second drummer he had ever played beside in his professional career. The house, accordingly, wept.

    Chuck ... he's the bass player in Styx. Or at least he was. He's credited on Cyclorama, and even included in the band photo. But he's in semi-retirement or full retirement now. And here I turn to his website:
    Just for time frame, this is during the 1970s that Chuck Panazzo told his brother and sister he was gay. All told, the reaction could obviously have been worse, but still:
    I'm not going to sit here and ask if a more tolerant world would have helped Chuck, and subsequently Richard, avoid HIV. It's not something we can know.

    But I will say this: Nobody should have to live in the closet for fifty years. Nobody should have to bury their mother and their best friend of 22 years from the shadows of the closet.

    I can't be angry for his troubles. Chuck doesn't seem to have time to be angry, and hell, it's his life. If I love him as much as it feels like, then I ought to take the cue from him.

    But if you can forgive me for taking this topic gravely seriously, it's just one of those moments. I wasn't paying attention. I had no idea.

    When I'm talking to a practicing or professional bass player about music, and that musician understands what I'm telling (as opposed to asking) him, it is in extremely large part due to Chuck Pannozzo. It wasn't spectacular, but he was part of a rhythm section that knew what it was about, and whose band struck my first firm, individual musical passion and pop-culture identity. It's not a matter of mere celebrity, or the frustration of finding something beautiful like Stevie Ray only to lose it inside a year. This strikes, literally, as close to home and heart as it can. This is a man whose work has provided me deep comfort and affecting knowledge.

    Would Chuck and Richard have married if they could? Without sarcasm, I apologize that I simply don't feel like writing him and asking. Maybe it'll pop up on a FAQ somewhere, but as much as I'd like to know, it's just not my business.

    But to someone's twelve reasons why homosexuals should not be married, I offer one powerful reason why they should:
    So to those who would insist on a second-class citizenry to hold in contempt, I must insist that you hide your true character from the world for half a century, and then tell me how you feel about the issue.

    In 1983 or thereabout, Pannozzo's bandmate James Young wrote a cryptic song that left many of us wondering about his fancy parachute pants and blue eyeshadow:
    Lastly, I apologize for the massive post. But when I say a nexus of events arises, I mean that I write this as I'm mulling these various issues. I just found out.

    And, apparently, this is how I feel about it. Imagine that.

    Note on Edit: I had, initially, included the link at the end of the first quote from Chuck Pannozzo's site, but in revising that quote, I ended up leaving out the link altogether. My apologies for the oversight. The page in question can be found at http://chuckpanozzo.com/mystory.htm
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2004
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. immane1 Registered Senior Member

    Lastly, I apologize for the massive post.

    You should. I find myself usually only reading the 1st and last few sentences of your average post.

    3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

    Since I am lazy and am going home soon, I will only respond to one of these. I don't know ANY straight parents who hope their kids grow up gay. I don't like the idea of queers raising children. Simply put, the children see their 2 mommies or 2 daddies kissing each other and are told this is ok. Then the kid kisses one of his/her same sex friends, because it's ok right? Or maybe instead of kissing, they play doctor, or worse. Kids already have way too much to confuse their little heads these days. They don't need this on top.
    I do realize this is a complicated issue though. Maybe we should just shoot all gays and be done with it. I know this would make dsdsds happy!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. ScrollMaker I Make Scrolls Registered Senior Member

    A valid opinion that I would disagree with...

    I'm going to have to agree with you on this one. When a five year old girl kisses another five year old girl it's something we have to worry about because it means they're gay and could have a serious relationship. Just like when a boy raised by straight parents plays dress-up with his six year old friends. He's obviously gay.

    Because having gay parents makes you a nymphomaniac... I guess that means if a kid saw their straight parents kissing, they would also want to "play doctor or worse".

    [sarcasm]Or maybe we should just shoot all the Muslims because the mideast is such a problem and be done with it.[/sarcasm]

    PS Edit: tiassa, if your post doesn't fit onto a single screen you might want to consider shortening it.
  8. SwedishFish Conspirator Registered Senior Member

    haha. kids play doctor with their friends. it happens. it's a learning experience, not in the least bit sexual, and it has zip to do with seeing adults kissing. we've all done it and most commonly with members of the same sex because whether i want to admit it or not kids tend to make friends of the same sex more often than of the opposite. i played doctor with several girl friends and one boy friend when i was little. it's just because they're curious.
    if you don't know any yet, hi. i'd love to have a gay daughter. seriously. according to psychologists and sociologists, two women have the happiest and longest lasting relationships of any gender combination. one man and one woman are the least happy. i want my kids to be happy.
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    I might. I might also consider stuffing my computer up my ass in such a circumstance.

    It would have about as much communicative utility to do so.

    I know people wish that such human issues as sexuality could be as simple as our superstitions, but one thing I am not able to apologize for is the fact that reality isn't so obliging.

    If we really require such simplicity, there is always room to consider simply whacking off and not caring about anything.
  10. caffeine Registered Member

    Just because your gay does not mean your children will be gay. I think the real issue here is you are either disgusted of the thought of gays, or you simply want to rebel against something or belong to a group. I say let them marry if they want... Im not gay, but i do not care wether they wed or not and neither should anyone else. It is there decision. You say marriages should only be allowed if the people can produce babies... all i can say is what the hell... Marriages do not MEAN that you will produce babies, and there is no law stating that. Perhaps you should rethink what marriage really means. I think those saying gay marriage should be banned are ignorant idiots who need to be kicked in the face.
  11. Frisbinator Registered Senior Member

    Sorry pal be sarcastic all you want to, I do not think that we should honor a condition born out of emotional brokenness!
  12. Frisbinator Registered Senior Member

    And this is a scientific bulletin board bud! No more joking posts please or else I will report you.
  13. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    With 8 posts to his name Frisbinator must be an expert on how this board opperates. I also wonder what he thinks is particulary scientific about ethics morality and justice. I also don't think we should honor a condition born out of emotional brokenness! However on the subject of gay marriage, I do have to say I'm all for it.
  14. SwedishFish Conspirator Registered Senior Member

    well my 1500+ posts just got told. i shall fear being reported from now on.
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Mod Hat - "Joking Posts"

    Now folks, let's work and play nicely together. Or something. At any rate, I'm going to write this issue off to the arrival of a new sense of humor.

    (What? Didn't you notice?)
    Since the second contrasts so greatly with the first, I'm of the opinion that our newest friend has simply played his hand too subtly. Welcome, Frisbinator; it's no biggie ... sometimes the sensitive subjects cause people to look past the humor if it seems just absurd enough to take seriously.
  16. SwedishFish Conspirator Registered Senior Member

    thank goodness you're here. those of us who have been joking need to be reported to you asap. consider us all reported.

    i don't think s/he was joking, but way to put a nice spin on it.
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Mod Hat - Followup

    Maybe I'll recommend a few medals.
  18. Nebuchadnezzaar Registered Senior Member

    generalisations are always dangerous.

    psychologists and sociologists? what, all of them? or just a few. Do you think there would be people in those fields who might disagree? :bugeye:
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Some days are just too bizarre. More detail (and hopefully a transcript) as time passes.

    But MSNBC is droning at random in the back room; I think I froze earlier tonight when flipping through the channels and heard the phrases "executive privilege" and "future presidents" ... that's a different story.

    At any rate, Deborah Norville's show was on. And while I was back collecting laundry, trying for the third hour in a row to wake my partner--per her request--for a whole five minutes so she can make a phone call she wants to make ... whatever.

    Anyway, Norville was interviewing Tammy (Fae) Messner (Bakker) and her current husband, blah, blah, blah. I became transfixed when I heard Norville ask about why Tammy never got a cosmetics deal. (Nobody ever offered, can you imagine?) But that was enough because the next questions spilled over into something incredible.

    Norville asked about Tammy's association with gays--was it hard to reconcile, in today's political environment, with her Christian faith?

    And Tammy, who faces inoperable lung cancer, noted that a gay man (I missed his name) wanted to help her through what cancer treatments she tried. And here she began to cry--and said she would not apologize for her tears--and explained that after everything else came apart, it was the gay community, and not the Christian community that surrounded her with love and compassion. There is no issue to reconcile for her between gays and her faith.

    I ... yeah.

    And she even laughed at the classic SNL bit parodying her weeping during Jim's confessions before the public, and said she thought that was a great piece.

    Seemed worth mentioning. I'll try to dig up a transcript over the next couple days.
  20. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Well I'm afraid that regardless of their parent's sexuality, children are going to be prone to experiment a bit with their bodies as they begin to become aware of the differences between boys and girls, or just the relationships of adults as they vary from those with Children. I suppose we could spay and neuter our children to prevent this sort of behavior, but I think that would make more problems than it solves. Humans are curious by nature, and if such a large facet of our biological nature is left as taboo, not to be spoken of, then kids will figure it out eventually on their own. What does it matter who they experiment with? They'll figure out for themselves who they're attracted to and who they're not, and if they don't have an ingrained mental aversion to the possibility that they may be homosexual, then when they reach an age when they can really figure themselves out at least they won't drive themselves nuts with closeting and angsting and moping and all.

    Furthermore the issue of parents wanting their children to grow up gay or not is utterly irrelevant. Our parents can’t chose our sexuality for us any more than we can chose it ourselves. It’s certainly natural for a parent to be more comfortable knowing that their child is straight, because it’s generally a frame of reference that they are familiar with, and doesn’t go along with any baggage that they’re not already accustomed to. Homosexuality by contrast is something new and different that they’ll now have to deal with, or help their child deal with. I certainly can’t think that any genuinely loving parent would feel that it would be better to have not had a child than to have had a child that ended up gay. There are plenty of cases of parents abandoning their children because they are gay, but then I don’t consider these sorts of people to be mentally functioning human beings, so they don’t factor into my opinion on this issue.

    Congratulations Immane1, you're a asset to these sciforums, we've been needing another really good village idiot, and you wear the hat well. This is probably a cheap shot, but do remember that a lot of those queers are also armed themselves.

    I think you’ve all been a bit cruel to overlook, or simply try to brush aside this particular sentiment with snide remarks. From the meticulously reasoned view which Frisbinator has just shared with us, I think it’s safe to say that he’s coming at us with a fair bit of psychological training under his belt. Why else would he contradict every other credable psychological study of homosexuality done to date? To go against the grain of the APA like this shows clearly that this is a man with some guts, and the know how to get the message out right. His claim may sound a bit childish, ignorant or even childishly stupid to those of us who have far less training in psychology and sociology. I myself have only taken a modest few 300 level classes of that sort at my current University, and am by no means authoritative in the least on the subject, which is probably why it sounds to me like nothing but an unsupportable ascertain based upon no prior research or observations, but instead Frisbinator’s own initial homophobic “Ick” reflex.

    I admire you, Frisbinator, you’ve got the guts to really put yourself out there and let your message be heard louder than the words you use to send it.
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2004
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    I actually figured it was amateur night. That bit about shooting gays is one of those things that it's hard to actually stop and think someone is actually stupid enough to believe unless you're standing in front of them and can be convinced by their presentation that no, they're not actually joking.

    I'm trying to give people the benefit of the doubt these days. They can't possibly be that stupid.

    (And yes, that is my silly faith in humanity. We can only get so stupid if we expect to be taken seriously; I'm of the opinion that, all other considerations of village idiots aside, Immane1 does not wish to be taken seriously.)
  22. immane1 Registered Senior Member

    ding, ding, ding

    We have a winner! Every one here with the exception of Frisbee, knows damn well the statement about shooting gays was a joke. Hence the big fucking smile next to it. Duh? You all know that dsdsds has on numerous occasions has made his point using this outrageous statement.


    It's nice to see the very acceptance and tolerance you seek for your fellow gays is not extended by you. Instead, anyone who disagrees with you is a "village idiot". Nice.
  23. Dreamwalker Whatever Valued Senior Member

    I would like to meet the guy who thought those 12 reasons up. If he really means what he says,.... well..., I would not take his wellbeing as an important aspect of this meeting. But I suppose it is just a joke (I hope), alas, I know some people with very similar ideas.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page