How Conservatives Argue Against Gay Marriage.

Share Button

Here are snippets of conversations with certain Conservatives arguing against same sex marriage:

Ned starts out:

“Marriage does not exist to produce children; that has been done since time immemorial regardless of marriage status. Marriage exists to encourage people to raise and support the children they produce. It is not a means to regulate procreation; it is a means to manage the natural output of procreation. Society privileges it and subsidizes it because it creates a natural cost-sharing model in which those who procreate bear a significant portion of the cost and resources required for raising the children produced — versus single or no parenthood, in which case the community (state) must absorb the full cost of raising the children produced.

Marriage makes sense for heterosexuals because it provides an ideal environment for managing, raising, and supporting the natural outgrowth of heterosexual activity. But since homosexual activity does not produce the same natural output, there is no reason to treat it similarly or for society to subsidize it or otherwise promote it.

In short, there is really no public good or public value provided by gay-sex marriage. Why, then, should society fund it or subsidize it?”

Marriage should remain one man one woman because it’s tradition:

Through most of those 6,000 years, there was an understanding between men and women; men’s access to Mr. Fuzzy was contingent upon men providing women with shelter, support, social status and responsibility for any offspring that resulted. Then came the ‘Sexual Revolution,’ where women were taught that they were somehow oppressed for wanting something tangible in return for access to their assets. Men were absolved of the responsibility for taking care of the women they slept with, and women were told if they took a pill it would all work out. Because modern society, you see, knew so much better than all of that “outdated” and “unequal” dogma that previous generations believed in.

So, how well has this worked out for women, children, men, and society in general? Women’s sexual leverage over men has diminished to almost nothing, men are no longer expected to raise the children they sire, minority family structures have collapsed entirely and non-minority structures are increasingly rickety, men have become juvenlized.

And the conversation eventually devolved to this accusation:

If you don’t want your child to be labeled a bastard, Sonic, don’t go have irresponsible sex outside of marriage. Using what will happen to the child you produce to avoid consequences for your actions is nothing more than the most blatant and obvious hostage-taking, and shows exactly how little regard you have for the child in the first place.

And frankly, given that you’re pro-choice, you have exactly zero problem with killing a child based on “decisions/actions his or her parents made, decisions which the child had no control over”.

Never mind that I don’t have a child, bastard or not. And then there’s this:

And all you are doing is making pathetic excuses, Sonic. The reason a child is born a bastard is because two adults chose to be irresponsible. The blood is on their hands, the stigma is on their heads. They chose to put a child through this. They engaged in the activity that brought it. And you don’t want to hold them responsible, just as you want to make sure they can treat the child just like an STD.

You want benefits [marriage] without responsibility, commitment, or consequences, Sonic. That’s all it is.

As you can see, this exercise is quite pointless. I did it so you won’t have to.

PS. I missed this gem.

I asked of Vic (names changed to protect everybody btw):

Do you think Ned is more likely to cheat because he is gay?….Do you think I’m more likely to cheat because I’m gay?

I got this answer:

Yes to both.

Except that wasn’t Vic answering… That was Ned!

I forgot to mention. These are gay conservatives.