Staver: Marriage is Great, So Equality Must Be Denied

Because what’s the point of having something good if we can’t also deny it to people we don’t like.

“Natural marriage.” There’s just so much wrong with wingnuts using that phrase.

1. Not all animals are monogamous, and humans in particular have been polygamous for much of our history, so the wingnut “one man, one woman” thing seems more of a recent cultural shift (in the large scope of history) and often comes with whitewashing the Biblical polygyny. We’re just pushing for a culture that acknowledges there are other options.

2. In a species as plastic and diverse as humans, variation is natural, not homogeneity. Hetero relationships are the most popular type, and have been the primary means of reproduction, but that doesn’t mean we should force people who are uninterested in the opposite sex to hetero-marry against their will. We don’t need everyone to reproduce to sustain the species, so we shouldn’t create an artificial expectation of reproduction.

3. What’s more natural than two people who love each other wanting to spend their lives together and have their relationship acknowledged by society?

I’m surprised that no one has brought up Roy Zimmerman.

He put it perfectly in http://www.royzimmerman.com/lyrics/faulty_defenders.html

“This is all created within the context of natural marriage between one man and one woman.”

Actually, is this not demonstrably wrong? Actual studies (omg facts!) have shown that children of homosexual parents fare no different than children of heterosexual parents. The only real difference is when there’s only one parent instead of two. So.. never mind the rhetoric, never mind the obviously bigoted nature of his argument… his facts alone are wrong. Case closed.

If the concern really was for the “family” and for “children” — and if they really believed that the true, best purpose of marriage was to foster the upbringing of children in stable homes — then you’d see at least some of these so-called pro-marriage advocates asking that homosexual couples consider adopting, fostering, or having their own children if they really want to be allowed to marry.

With privilege comes responsibility. Marriage is primarily for nurturing children. Thus, the only gay people who deserve marriage would be ones who expressly want to use it to make a home for children, and will put it in writing and be bound by it.

Somebody would be making that argument.

As far as I can tell, not one single person getting all dewy eyed over how kiddies-need-married-parents has suggested a compromise of “well, okay — gay marriage if there are children involved, but not otherwise.” Nary a single one has even considered this small concession or approached the issue from this angle.

Yet another way to tell that they are full of shit.

“Nothing will define the future of America more than the court’s decision on marriage.”

Or the loss of our drinking water from fracking or loss of amazing amounts of national wealth from agriculture due to global climate change…. I could go on for a while.

The Lorax:

Actually, is this not demonstrably wrong? Actual studies (omg facts!) have shown that children of homosexual parents fare no different than children of heterosexual parents.

Here are two, linked to from the New Scientist:

Compared with a group of control adolescents born to heterosexual parents with similar educational and financial backgrounds, the children of lesbian couples scored better on academic and social tests and lower on measures of rule-breaking and aggression. A previous study of same-sex parenting, based on long-term health data, also found no difference in the health of children in either group.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19014-children-of-lesbian-parents-do-better-than-their-peers.html

But those don’t count, because bible.

Thriving societies need healthy children who grow up into responsible citizens. Healthy children require committed parents who will sacrifice their own desires for the well-being of their children. This is all created within the context of natural marriage between one man and one woman.

Now if you’ll just make a coherent argument for why allowing gay people to get married will have any effect at all on what you call “natural marriage,” you might have some credibility.

I suspect there’s an ultrasonic message encoded in “committed parents who will sacrifice their own desires.” Because everybody in Wingnuttopia knows that LGBTQ folk are hedonists who divide their time between having ghey secks and attending/throwing wild parties featuring ghey sex. Won’t somebody please think of the children?