I found this list on BW.org there was no attribution as he found it somewhere else. I thought it was very pertinent to this site and concisely addresses the most common arguments against gay marriage in a very funny way.
- Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
- Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
- 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.
- 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.
- Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
- 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.
- Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
- 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.
- Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
- 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.
* Update 10/25/2007 8:00pm ~ William *
We have discovered where this list possibly originated from. At least it is the oldest version so far of the dozens of versions we have found. The list has changed and improved a lot in 3 years. Everyone should go and see the original here. If anyone can validate this as the origin please let us know. Same if you have an earlier version. Thanks to everyone who has commented, keep it up.
Add Comment![[Digg]](../../../wp-includes/images/digg.gif){kind=small}
![[Technorati]](../../../wp-includes/images/technorati.gif){kind=small}
![[del.icio.us]](./../../wp-includes/images/delicious.gif){kind=small}
![[Reddit]](./../../wp-includes/images/reddit.gif){kind=small}
![[StumbleUpon]](./../../wp-includes/images/stumbleupon.gif){kind=small}
![[Furl]](./../../wp-includes/images/furl.gif){kind=small}
![[Blinklist]](./../../wp-includes/images/blinklist.gif){kind=small}
![[Newsvine]](./../../wp-includes/images/newsvine.gif){kind=small}
2007-10-25 08:53:09
You missed the point, this is satirical and mocks your arguments for being against gay marriage. Congratulations, you’ve been had!
2007-10-25 09:02:58
Hello Forever,
We are in no way against gay marriage. We posted this because of its satirical nature. We support equal rights for all and gay marriage is something that we champion pretty vocally.
WWJV4? is designed to point out that many of the beliefs that christians are supporting as Jesus’ teachings are nothing more than ignorant hate.
I apologize if we came across in anyway as unsupportive of gay rights because that is certainly not the case.
Thanks for your comment,
Summer
2007-10-25 09:58:46
You are AWESOME!
2007-10-25 11:52:49
Thank you.
2007-10-25 13:43:18
Ummm…I’m pretty sure that forever’s comment might fall under the irony umbrella. Let’s crank up our satire detectors folks.
2007-10-25 11:27:01
I knew people had to have more justifications in disliking gays…
2007-10-25 12:26:12
#11. Gay marriage is icky and uncomfortable for “decent” people. Therefore it should be outlawed just like porn, scary movies, most TV news coverage, almost every CSI episode and many books.
I am pretty strongly opinionated about a lot of things. I usually wait until I have really had time to consider the points before I establish those opinions. This post just made up my mind on gay marriage. Thanks for the insight.
2007-10-25 12:31:12
Right On!!
2007-10-25 12:33:52
Though it may satire, the message is clear. The author is trying to convince the large majority that their morals are invalid. The very fact that we have a baseline for what is and what is not moral is clear that we all believe that the mass has the ability to determine right from wrong. If we really do believe that, then there is a standard, and that standard is overwhelming teaches us that we are to love one another, even when we do things that break the standard. Without condemning the person, we should still hold to the moral baseline and if things are wrong, whether or not to the person committing the act or to those around them, then we must call them back to truth; in love. Homosexual realtionships are immoral and unnatural and we all know it.
2007-10-25 13:02:40
Since when has the mass had the ability to tell right from wrong? We’re fighting a bullshit war in Iraq because the masses couldn’t tell right from wrong. We sell guns at Wal-mart because the masses can’t tell right from wrong. 75% of America believe in some loony tunes fairytales from 2000 years ago. In case you couldn’t tell, I’m referencing Christianity. It’s the reason people are so scared of gay people in this country. They point to some line in a book and say “being gay is wrong!”. Except it’s fucking genetic. Being gay is not a choice. Nobody would choose to have to live in fear, fear of being ostracized by their family and society. Get a clue buddy.
2007-10-25 15:31:50
I spent approximately three years reading research papers and talking with homosexuals, and I have concluded that there are three categories of homosexuals.
First some people are genetically disposed to being gay. The Actual percentage is debatable, but within the animal kingdom 2% are homosexual.
The second type of homosexuals is environmental induced.
And finally, the third category is individuals that simply experiment and/or are open to various sexual activities.
By the way, I never attempt to determine what category someone falls into, nor to I judge their sexuality. However, I am annoyed with the idea of a single cause of homosexual which is political based. I think science should not be influenced by political groups, but it is.
2007-11-16 22:05:28
The American Psychological Association states that for most people, “sexual orientation is determined at an early age.” And I don’t know a single gay person (male or female) who is gay “by choice”.
Where is the evidence for your conclusions?
2007-10-25 18:51:35
KBall-
You are pointing to the same book and saying “this system of beliefs is wrong!” Not sure I see the difference.
If being gay is 100% genetic, how did homosexuality survive lo these millions of years…considering that although some lived mock hetero lives with beard-wives, homosexuals do not typically or naturally bear offspring? This is sounding combative but I really just want to know your take. Thanks!
~Matt
2007-10-25 17:48:43
Meaux: I see what you say there, and want to point out your whole reasoning seems to be that there is a moral standard the broad majority support.
Like the article mentions, broad majority notions change over time. They always have, and they always will. I can point out American independence, abolition of slavery and voting rights for everybody (except convicted felons..) as examples of things that have changed.
These things change for a reason, and that usually is because the society change the way it looks upon what is right, and what is unreasonable.
When you present the only argument for gay marriage that it breaks those morals standards everybody believes in, it seems kind of weak against this obviously satirical list.
Once the american majority happen to see it that way, it most likely will be that that moral standard you speak of will change. Britney ain’t helping your cause, and other changes in the society won’t help either.
2007-10-25 12:46:28
I am a happily married gay man. We both have children. They are straight and married with children. They accept our life together. We go to church, do not cheat or play around, pay our taxes, own property, own guns, both of us vote, have pets, and are very respected in our community. Whoever wrote this is as ignorant as the statements made.
2007-10-25 13:15:20
I just want to repeat that WWJV4.com completely supports equal rights for all and we are vocal in our support for same-sex marriage. This article is satire and is intended to shed some light on the common arguments Christian conservatives and others use to discriminate against others.
Timothy, you sound like you are living a wonderful life and I am very happy for you.
Thanks again,
Summer
2007-10-25 13:15:56
You know the list is satirical, right?
2007-10-25 14:01:22
This is a great piece of satire, I’m glad to see other Christians taking a stand for equality.
2007-10-25 17:18:57
Gays will never gonna love a woman…
Only a woman can make a man happy…
Gay people are full time depressive. This feeling will let them to earn money as much as they can. (Based on many true stories)
A gay disables millions of love seconds with a woman for life.
Gays are just like atheists…
They darken their life…
Torments will cover their body…
God will punish them…
You come to World, you live a life, and you die…
That’s all people. That’s all. You can laugh and underestimate everything. But you can’t escape from this reality. You’ll die. And God will punish you, me, us we.
A gay is the biggest loser on the earth… For today, for future… Gay for Loser!
Wake up my friend, this is not life you are living, you are dying in the shit.
2007-10-25 17:31:17
This comment almost got rejected. However, I allowed it as this is the view of many people, however ignorant and bigoted. WWJV4.com welcomes the view of all of our readers and ask that our commenters refrain from personal attacks or speech that will incite hatred or violence toward another person or group of people.
2007-10-25 20:56:36
More than any other comment, it sums up your point.
2007-10-30 18:25:54
I think I actually feel sorry for you dondo.
A happy gay atheist winner.
2007-10-26 07:44:30
The definition of Marriage for thousands of years, of nearly every society, has always been between a man and a woman. Thus expecting Americans to suddenly accept a new definition is unrealistic. And I think the polls reflect that in relationship to timelines.
What particular bothers me is that some gays use “Hate” and/or “Ignorant” to describe those that don’t agree with their agenda. This tactic actually hurts the gay movement.
By the way, I have not formed an opinion on gay marriage.
2007-10-26 12:15:00
I think you have formed an opinion on gay marriage, and you are against it. But your reason doesn’t make sense.
Just because gay people have been oppressed for thousands of years and have been unable to marry legally doesn’t make it right to deny them these basic human rights today, just like thousands of years of slavery and subjugation of women do not make those things acceptable. Stop following the status quo and wake up…there are people in this world different from you, and they deserve the same rights as you.
2007-10-26 13:04:06
As I have stated “I have not formed an opinion on gay marriage.”.
Unlike some people, I don’t always have an opinion. Normally I don’t have an opinion whenever I am still in the process of learning about a particular topic, whereas I don’t feel confident in my knowledge.
Your pressure to force me to have an opinion will not work. Nevertheless I appreciate your opinion.
2007-10-26 14:03:38
You say you don’t have an opinion when it is clear that you do, because the “facts” you cite are not as clear-cut as you would like them to be. The practice of polygamy endured for thousands of years, as did the practice of having concubines. This is far from the “one man, one woman” tradition you are citing.
People have had to accept new definitions of marriage in recent history: divorce is legal and rampant, and interracial marriages are no longer barred by anti-miscegenation laws. Your statement of “fact” is inaccurate, and by leaving out these points that conflict with your point of view on the topic, you are voicing your OPINION about the definition of marriage–you just don’t seem to realize that you are doing it. The definition has been changing as long as marriage has existed, and it should keep changing. And it will.
2007-10-26 15:08:12
I agree with Really? on this. It was only in recent history that women in a heterosexual marriage became more than just property and tools for procreation in the West. There is now the “starter” marriage, common law marriages, and other arrangements that are just part of the evolution of marriage.
Some ancient civilizations such as Sparta, Thera, and Rome had gay marriages that were legally recognized. Many others such as England, had forms of gay marriage that were not legally binding.
Everything evolves with time and it is way past time for all of our citizens to be given equal rights, that includes the right to marry whomever they want.
2007-10-26 15:22:28
The definition of marriage has always been between male and female, whether or not a man has multiple wives or vise-versa, or between men and women of various faiths, race or other distinguished attributes. This is not my opinion, but historical fact.
The legal definition of marriage of opposite genders is less restrictive now than in the past, as you denoted. However restrictions still exists, such as between a mother and her son.
Please understand I have NOT formed an opinion on gay marriage. This is primary because I want to understand the impact of children raised by gay couples (adoption is the issue). And by the way, I don’t want to hear anger over this issue. I am sure there are wonderful parents that are gay. But I want to do research on this issue before concluding.
However, I currently think gay couples should have most of the same rights and heterosexual couples enjoy. And perhaps someday gay marriage will be common. I think many straight people are still trying to understand the issues that are related to gay marriage.
Therefore, dialog is important. But attacking me by saying I have an opinion, when clearly I don’t, only causes me concern.
2007-10-26 15:35:31
Tom, the word marriage in the United States has always indicated a heterosexual union, however; this is not true for the majority of the world. There have been some version of gay marriages throughout history in Asia, Europe, North America (Native Americans), and Africa.
Here is a Wikipedia article that summarizes some of these although I encourage you to research further.
2007-10-28 22:25:29
Maybe you are right.
2007-10-29 18:01:42
I actually think Tom is leaning on for gay marriage by what he originally said.
I like the type of person I see from what Tom has written. He probably deep down DOES have his mind made up but it isn’t set in stone…
He is doing what most people SHOULD do… taking time before making their decision final.
Oh well…
I’m personally for gay marriage. I understand why some people aren’t. It is their free will (or predestined nature for those of you who are for predestination) to agree or disagree with something. I also understand that one reason I have heard of has nothing to do with the religious view of it but the TAXing situation of it.
In a heterosexual marriage (now this is what I was told but I am not 100% it is still something to look into.) the woman and man get different tax breaks and such if their significant other dies. (Possibly in other ways but this is the one that was used to make it simple.) With two men together or two women the tax situation would be a little bit different… Now this seems like it has an easy solution but then again… there may be 1,000,000 legal hoops that have to be jumped through to do so.
Gah, well I might check up on this later but I have to go now.
2007-11-01 15:49:40
Great site!
2007-11-16 08:00:15
I honestly can’t believe you’re writing this rubbish. White people can’t marry black people!? You should really be ashamed of yourself. It’s funny how you ridicule gay persons, when they don’t do anything to you, whereas you are a racist bastard. You should look deep inside your mind and really think. Who is worse, a racist homophobic person such as yourself? or a homosexual. You really contradict yourself; you being such a god-loving christian, would now that the bible clearly states not to hate anyone. Gayness should not affect anyone because it is simply liking someone of the same sex. I honestly can’t believe some the world is still like this. Do you think abusing homosexuals is the answer. Again, I really can’t believe you would say such a thing.
Have a great life, or don’t, it doesn’t bother me.
2007-11-16 08:37:05
I would like to reiterate, again, that this list is satirical. WWJV4.com COMPLETELY supports same sex marriages. We believe in equal rights for everyone!
Also, on a personal note, I am not a Christian. This site is meant to examine the hypocrisies of today’s Christianity and we use the name of Jesus for that. The reason is that the biblical Jesus actually taught some really good things like forgiveness, love, and acceptance. The Church has certainly strayed FAR from those teachings.
I apologize if you were offended by this satirical list. Unfortunately these are real arguments, phrased somewhat differently :), but not from us, from the Religious Right, that is where your righteous outrage should be directed. Them and the politicians who continue to use the bigoted views of one ideology to persecute our citizens.
Thanks for reading and I hope this clears things up.
Summer
2007-11-25 17:42:17
its very American to be gay, so is not being a Christian.
2008-01-04 12:50:13
What a dumb statement: “its very American to be gay”
Your nationality should have no bearing on your sexual orientation, unless your orientation is selective.
Then your second statement “…so is not being a Christian”, shows intolerance.
2008-05-02 09:57:40
I think what they were trying to get at is that being “American” does not limit any other part of your identity. A gay atheist is just as “American” as a born again straight person.
2008-05-02 11:00:28
Your reply is your assumption … perhaps you are correct or maybe wrong.
Only the person that wrote that offensive statement really knows what they were thinking, or possibly they weren’t thinking.
2008-01-06 21:16:41
Depends on where you live
http://reclaimingtheology.blog.....d-not.html
2008-01-03 19:39:06
I’ve read some comments about the definition of marriage but there are many different meanings. Although I am not American, the concept is the same and if you look up marriage in the dictionary there is not one solid answer. Of course one definition is - the state or relationship of being husband and wife, however another definition is - a joining together; a union. And why should should two people who love each other not be allowed such a union and to have legal rights together?
Oh n really love the 10 reasons, very funny.
xxx
2008-01-06 21:15:28
Way off the mark.
http://reclaimingtheology.blog.....anada.html
2008-03-27 20:31:12
love it!!
2008-05-02 02:00:26
Check out Helen Fisher here http://thesciencenetwork.org/the-science-reader/
She has a few comments in passing on brain scans she did on gay subjects in love which, though not a significant sample size, show conclusively that they experience love in the exact same way as straights.
Science, it works bitches.
2008-05-02 08:16:27
I suppose this should not be surprising … nevertheless it should Not have any bearing on the Gay Marriage issue (either for or against). For instance, the numerous female teachers found having relationships with under-age male students most likely had the same/similar feelings of love that normal in-love adults couples(MF, MM, FF) have. Thus such under-age relationships in the US are illegal in most states.
Before you get upset, please note my above comment does not support gay marriage or oppose gay marriage. The purpose of my above statement is while the data is interesting it should not be a factor related to gay marriage.