Why I Oppose Gay Marriage

11Nov08

It’s clear to me that eventually men will be able to marry men and women will be able to marry women in all of the United States, it’s just not clear exactly when. It’s just that I am not very excited about the prospect. In fact, even being homosexual, I actually oppose gay marriage. Not only that — I oppose it as a gay person.

I am most annoyed by straight people’s calls for it. These people who postpone their own marriages until same-sex couples can be married are just being abysmally silly. Their gay friends must love the drama of it all. I have been noticing more discussion of this lately, and now with the passing of Proposition 8 in California and the lesser known Proposition 2 in Florida, both of which enacted a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, the outrage has reached a crescendo. Finally, Keith Olbermann forced my hand — I can no longer keep silent on the issue of gay marriage and why it is stupid, awful, and undesirable.

I don’t understand the reasoning behind the suggestion that civil unions or some other marriage equivalent, with all the benefits of traditional legal marriage, are somehow not good enough. Olbermann seems to be saying that it is only the exact legal label applied to heterosexual unions — actual “marriage” — that will do. But why? What is the reason that it’s not good enough? Allow me to put my Freud hat on.

For gay supporters of marriage, this may be an attempt to force society to recognize and, well, love their love. It’s a way to make up for the rejection many of them felt by their hick Christian families, or their meathead peers in school as a child. The fact is, they will hate you even more if you are allowed to get married. Now, I don’t deny that it is hilarious and delightful to make bible beaters uncomfortable — the idea of a religious government official forced to legally refer to two men as “husbands” puts a smile on my vindictive face — but inflicting pain on one’s enemies alone is not reason to call for gay marriage.

Gays want to be accepted by society broadly. Usually they demand that they are accepted as they are, and that society’s expectations morph to accommodate their lifestyles. But in rejecting civil unions as insufficient, they are revealing their hand — they don’t just want acceptance as they are, they want to mimic heterosexuals. Instead of being, to paraphrase from the last century, “different but equal,” they actually want to take part in the identical goofily baroque sacraments as the straights they often ridicule. Why in this instance would homosexuals want to be just like heterosexuals? Are you loud and proud or not? You’re queer — get used to it.

A straight friend noted that gays insist on being married in courthouses, and not merely churches, many thousands of which will and do marry same-sex couples. After decades of fighting the state, it seems homosexuals have now made it their god.

The way I see it, rings and ceremonies are for females, so they can show off to their female friends, and so their female mothers can show off to their female friends and relatives. You know what I want? A TAX BREAK. That’s what would make me misty-eyed. I don’t need anyone to morally “recognize” or “celebrate” my partnership.

Indeed, it seems to me that liberals shouldn’t be so fast to agitate for gay marriage — after all, it often (but not always) comes with tax benefits, aka, tax BREAKS, the evil boogeyman of the economically ignorant liberal mainstream. Considering how much more in taxes homosexuals pay due to their generally higher incomes when compared with heterosexuals, gay marriage might actually endanger the ability of the groups who hate our guts to get food stamps. Oh, what a dilemma! Warm-fuzzy feeling from same-sex marriage or warm-fuzzy feeling from lazy bums getting free shit?

Actually, all relationship-based tax breaks should be abolished. Then we can end school taxes. If you have kids, YOU pay to educate them. If you can’t afford it, don’t have kids. If you were too irresponsible to use birth control or too religious to have an abortion, you deserve to be poor. Really, if you’re that irresponsible, your kids are unlikely to turn out very much better with a crappy public education. Either way, it is none of my business or responsibility to educate something that gushed forth from someone else’s innards. But I digress.

In closing, nobody needs state-recognized marriage for any reason at all. All the arrangements of marriage can be duplicated with contracts, and you do not have to choose the one-size-fits-all bundle that marriage forces upon couples. Even if gay couples do want that bundle, civil unions with the exact same provisions as legal marriage should be good enough for those not so desperate for society’s moral approval.

I do not need the state to recognize my love, thanks Keith. Now I’d like at least all heterosexuals, if not their loudmouth gay friends, to shut the hell up on the matter. It does not impress me that you have compassion for gay people; I simply do not think you are a mouthbreathing dingbat for finding anything at all wrong with homosexual behavior. That’s the expected default, get it? Now stop trying to force your oppressive, frilly, and boring traditional institutions meant to ensure monogamy on my hot, promiscuous, anonymous gay sex.



29 Responses to “Why I Oppose Gay Marriage”

  1. 1 macsnafu

    Well, I’m not gay, but I’ve got to agree with you. Nobody needs state recognition of marriage unless they’re trying to get special tax breaks or privileges that they can’t get otherwise. Get the government out of the marriage business!

  2. 2 Wesley

    “The fact is, they will hate you even more if you are allowed to get married.”

    That may be true, but the same could be said of inter-racial marriages when they became legal. Of course, initially there was resentment towards it, but acceptance grew over time. Should no form of civil rights be sought after because they piss some people off?

    “the idea of a religious government official forced to legally refer to two men as “husbands” puts a smile on my vindictive face but inflicting pain on one’s enemies alone is not reason to call for gay marriage.”

    Government officials, whether religious or not, are supposed to represent all citizens, not just the ones they like. If they are the enemy, then there is a problem. I don’t imagine many want to get married to to “stick it to the man.”

    “they actually want to take part in the identical goofily baroque sacraments as the straights they often ridicule.”

    Perhaps, but if I think something you want to do is goofy and pointless, does that give me the right to prevent you from doing it?

    “After decades of fighting the state, it seems homosexuals have now made it their god.”

    That’s a completely ridiculous statement; no god is necessary for marriage. And you are attacking them for using secular means rather then trying to force people who don’t agree to marry them? You’re really reaching.

    “I don’t need anyone to morally “recognize” or “celebrate” my partnership.”

    All people have the need to feel accepted. Just because you have convinced yourself you don’t, doesn’t mean others should feel ashamed of wanting a little acceptance. If you’re opposed to marriage in general, then you shouldn’t be writing about why you’re against “Gay Marriage”. The only reason you did is to get attention.

    “If you were too irresponsible to use birth control or too religious to have an abortion, you deserve to be poor.”

    How very convenient of you to condemn people for problems you don’t have to worry about. I guess I’m safe in assuming you don’t use protection for all of your “hot, promiscuous, anonymous gay sex.” So if you get AIDS I guess you deserve it, and hope you don’t expect the state to pay for your meds.

    • 3 Kyle

      First off, I just wanted to comment on your reply because I believe you are being just as ridiculous as you believe this blogger is. Retaliating to arguments with such first grade answers such as “you just did this to get attention” and “you’re really reaching” puts you in the same position of those who oppose you.
      Second, I want to reply to your comment of “no god is necessary for marriage.” Now, I don’t know if you’re a Christian (or believe in any religion for that matter), but that is exactly what marriage is! Marriage is the union of a man and woman through God. It creates a bond between the three that is holy. For you to say that God is not involved makes you ignorant and proves to me that you do not know the facts and beliefs of those who want to protect the idea of marriage.
      Third, though this isn’t the most compelling argument, I still had to say something about it. If something is goofy and pointless, it is true that no one has the right to stop you from doing it, but why would you want to do it in the first place? If it is, in fact, goofy and pointless, why else would you do it other than “to get attention” as you so proudly accused him of earlier?

      Now, I’m not gonna sit here and argue about gay marriage all day because there are many convincing arguments for both sides. And I’m not saying I agree with everything this blogger had to say (though I do agree with most), but shit man, please try to recognize sarcasm and understand when someone is joking (yea, I’m talking about the last sentence).

  3. All the arrangements of marriage can be duplicated with contracts, and you do not have to choose the one-size-fits-all bundle that marriage forces upon couples.

    Not quite right. There are a number of assumptions and benefits that the law presumes of married people that it does not presume for unmarried people, regardless of how many contracts they sign. A civil union of equal rights and privileges is probably just as good here. But really, if they’re going to get everything that pertains to marriage, why not just call it what it is?

    As for one-size-fits-all, the marriage contract is a default contract which can be altered numerous ways through pre- and post-nuptial agreements. The one size is the default size in case you didn’t bother to spell out exactly what you meant by “marriage” (and few people do).

    The last line is solid fucking gold.

  4. Wonderful! I get so tired of people jumping on the gay marriage bandwagon without a thought. I’m gay and have no desire to get married, not because I’m a lout, but because I understand that marriage is a religious institution, not a legal one. (And should be.) Religions may define marriage however they like, it is not for the government to decide. I believe many gay people simply don’t have the inner confidence in themselves or their relationships and that leads to these thin-skinned whining matches about being “equal”.

    Neither I nor my boyfriend are out to prove anything. Accept us, or don’t. We won’t step on you if you don’t step on us. =)

    My proposal is this: Scrap marriage in the USA entirely. If the government wants to offer benefits to committed couples, then civil unions for all, gay, straight, whatever. (If you were married under the old system, you’re grandfathered in.) Now, if you want a marriage, speak to your priest, pastor, preacher, etc.
    The legal and the religious must be separated.
    I don’t want equal rights defined as *any* group being given special powers or extra compensating measures. This goes for all civil rights.

  5. 6 Doug

    To Wesley: “Government officials, whether religious or not, are supposed to represent all citizens, not just the ones they like. If they are the enemy, then there is a problem. I don’t imagine many want to get married to to “stick it to the man.””

    I thought that was the point of gay marriage. Sticking it to your man.

  6. 7 robert pacheco

    The vote against gay marriage in California came mostly from the black and hispanic communities. Where was the outrage from the mainstream gay advocacy? Why was there no protest in their “religious” institutions as in the storming of “white” churches et. al.? Just a thought. For the record, I am in strong opposition until proof is provided that homosexuality itself can be proven as biologically and physically viable.

    • 8 Ty

      With regards to viability, homosexuals have existed for as far back as history can be written. Why wouldn’t they continue to exist? Is that not enough proof for you?

      I mean, you don’t really think homosexuals are some sort of new phenomenon, do you? Homosexuals are perfectly capable of reproducing, should they choose to. Ever hear about a mother or a father who decides to come out of the closet after having children and being married for several years? How or why homosexuals exist is a completely different argument, and one that you might enjoy researching.

      You might find this interesting:

      http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200804/finding-the-switch

      (FYI: PsychologyToday.com is known as a credible source among the academic world)

      For the record, I’m in favor of gay marriage, but ONLY because the option should exist for the people who want it. On the more broader scope of things, I also agree with a previous commenter, Jak. I too believe that marriage is entirely a religious sanctimony and if a couple is seeking marriage, they should do so via the religious means of their choice. The government should issue universal civil unions for all couples seeking tax breaks (or benefits). In other words, there would be two options for couples: a religious ceremony, and/or a civil union that allows for tax breaks. I don’t think the people who choose marriage over civil unions should be treated any different just because they chose to be recognized under their god.

      What if you don’t believe in god? This is why mixing religion and legislature don’t work, and is the very reason why the future doesn’t look promising for “old-world” thinkers who believe religion has purpose in legislature. I feel like people will eventually (naturally?) evolve away from voting in favor for any religious based legislature. (Sort of got off topic a little bit – Sorry!)

  7. 9 Alicia

    Totally agree with Wesley. Especially about the birth control part.

  8. 10 Rose

    You know, not all gays are religion-opposing atheists. I happen to be a very religious Jewish lesbian, and I do not wish to get involved sexually with my partner until marriage. I’m not trying to force my views on others. I just want that option. I love my partner very much, but until we tie the knot, I can’t allow myself to sleep with her.

  9. 11 Len

    Very intelligent article. Bravo!

  10. 12 Daryl Lamont Jenkins

    As a large black gay man (over 300 pounds) I’m looking for another fat tub (as I liked to be called)!

    I want to marry another black gay man as soon as possible. Then we can go out and join the ARA as a couple.

    Sorry.

  11. 13 nicole

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with public education. i attended both private and public schools and the curriculum at the private school was much less challenging.

  12. 14 Anonymous

    I am also a homosexual male against same-sex “marriage.” My opposition to same-sex marriage stems mainly from my deep respect for traditional aesthetic values. Marriage, as an institution, was designed for heterosexual couples and as author Jack Donovan has pointed out “we have thousands of years of poetry and history and art and theater that conceptualize marriage as a romantic mating dance between a man and a woman.” Marriage has and always will be rooted in the male-female relationship and was never intended for homosexual couples. I am annoyed by the silly attempts of so many gay men and lesbians to imitate the nuclear family and in the process redefine a centuries old institution for their own selfish political ends.

    A recent story illustrates my point: Queen Sofia of Spain, a country where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2006, recently made comments criticizing the country’s new same-sex marriage law, saying: “If those people [gays and lesbians] want to live together, dress up like bride and groom and marry, they could have a right to do so, or not, depending on the law of their country, but they should not call this matrimony, because it isn’t.” Of course after she made these remarks gay activists in Spain went crazy, demanding that she immediately apologize to the gay community because her comments were “offensive.” Again, I am a homosexual male, and I find nothing offensive about her comments. I can find only truth in what she had to say. Gay men and lesbians may claim they are married and states may choose to recognize these marriages as legal, but there will always be people, those who balk at the notion of same-sex “marriage,” who will never truly consider these unions to be real marriages.

    In their efforts to redefine marriage, gay activist are doing more harm than good. The issue is slowing down prospects for real progress, such as civil unions legislation and the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The Republican Party’s recent strategy of using the issue to elect conservative politicians who support the religious right also demonstrates this point. Demands for same-sex “marriage” are only slowing chances for real progress.

  13. 15 Steven

    Thank GOD someone else gets it…

  14. 16 Joshua

    I’m surprised you’re competent enough to breathe. Do every gay person a favor and go back in the closet, moron.

  15. 17 mosha

    agreed! well said. finally someone i’ve heard with the same opinion on this.

  16. 18 mosha

    ps- AIDS, go watch the Strecker Memorandum on Aids or search “AIDS and the CIA” and find out how it was a Man Made Virus by the CIA to depopulate, and how the WHOLE EDUCATION ON AIDS/STD IS A SCAM. Find out, it’s time to KNOW the TRUTH OF IT!!!

    and for those who contracted the virus without ever having sex, or blood transfusions, then THIS INFORMATION WILL MAKE SENSE.

    yeah: AIDS / CIA / EUGENICS / HEPATITIS IMMUNIZATIONS
    those 4 words together on a GOOGLE SEARCH will get you the truth.

    and when you know: SPREAD THE INFORMATION!
    WE TAKE BACK OUR POWER!

  17. 19 Bob

    Americans Are Dramatic. Point Blank. If All Yall just let things be, The States would not be in the 1000 ft hole your already in. Closed minded , and to say when Bush was Pres . You guys got Screwed, but is Oboma doing better, No one knows…
    Anyways The Drama comes from people who complain about change. Not From The homos -_-*. Like I Said Americans = Dramatic pussies with guns =] <3

  18. I’m not gay but I agree with your post. In fact, I’m a Christian but I oppose any type of government-instituted “marriage.” If a couple – of whatever sexual orientation – is in love, they can make their own vows and live happily after. We don’t need a third party candidate (ie., the government) in marriage. I think government-instituted “marriage” should be boycotted altogether.

  19. 21 Guess what?

    You’re a faggit!

  20. 22 Brian

    Dude, Really?
    Shut up… I’m not against gay marriage but thats pathetic

  21. 23 bill

    Attacking the attacked does not make the situation better.

  22. 24 Marley

    So long as I can have sex with the couple who get married then marry all you want.

    The problem is not so much marriage I oppose to but the assumption we will all be STI free because we are monogamous. Such crap.

    Wesley you need to apologise to this blogger you have issues. I know this is three years late but I hope if you ever read this you have grown up.

  23. 25 Srsly?

    Seriously? If you are against something, you won’t do it, unless forced. If you are against gay marriage as a gay man/woman or a straight man/woman, you won’t get one. Just like abortion, if you are pro-life, you wont get one. Why do you think it is your right to deny others their rights, simply because you don’t agree with what they are trying to accomplish? It is NOT your right, and you should probably shut up now. No one is saying that by seeking the right to get married to a member of the same sex that we are looking to force all same sex couples to marry – if you don’t want to, you won’t, pretty simple. So stop presenting this as something that will force all people to behave in a certain way – the issue is having the right to choose to get married, and further, to finally be considered a part of society, not marginalized from it.

  24. 26 Gary47290

    Civil unions have been proven a failure, because separate is inherently unequal. only Civil marriage will treat same sex couples equally to opposite se, couples under the law.

  25. 27 Lezzie

    I am a lesbian and I agree with you wholeheartedly. I’ll take a tax break for a ‘civil union’ but I shouldn’t be in something called a ‘marriage’. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

  26. 28 Steve Rhodes

    I am confused. If gay men can marry – that doesn’t mean they have to marry. And if some gay men want to marry, who are you to tell them that they can’t?

    If you don’t want to marry, don’t. If you don’t want adopt kids, don’t. And if you don’t want any change to your ‘hot, promiscuous, anonymous gay sex’ then just don’t. But if guys do want to marry what gives you the right to stand in their way?

    And if you are going to argue that we are so ‘different’ that we must be denied civil and legal institutions that straight people have (and as a lawyer I can tell you categorically that marriage is a legal institution with no need for religious input whatsoever) then you had better be prepared to follow that argument where it leads – namely to many a religious lunatic denying us other rights because we have acknowledge that we are ‘different’ to the extent of justifying legal discrimination.

    And please explain your use of the following blatant sexism: “The way I see it, rings and ceremonies are for females, so they can show off to their female friends, and so their female mothers can show off to their female friends and relatives.”

    Straight people can marry. We can’t. We demand equality, so let us marry. If you don’t agree, get out of the way; we won’t be interfering in your sex life, so please stay out of ours.

  27. 29 Back on the Earth Plane

    Marriage equality is an attempt to put a white picket fence around a collective nightmare that everyone wants to forget.

    It used to be that LGBT communities empowered social activists, artists and writers.

    Yet decades of disease and memorials have elevated the esteem of doctors and lawyers and diminished the collective value accorded to the real life experiences of LGBT community members.

    What can you expect from professions that cultivate know-it-all attitudes, and arrogant foreclosures on discussion?

    Good luck trying to get the professional views of lawyers tempered by public self disclosure…often too much professional risk to go there.

    Moving forward, would you be interested in reading a piece by a high level marriage equality legal activist addressing how their professional agenda affects LGBT communities by displacing attention from other pressing issues?

    Good luck finding one.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: