Why support Proposition 8 and ban gay-marriage? Read on...

1. Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.

2. Homosexuals cannot procreate and procreation is the fundamental basis for marriage. Homosexuals cannot have children and therefore do not have any intrinsic or instinctive motivation to perpetuate the bond of matrimony. They cannot possibly understand the love a parent has for a child, and therefore could not possibly understand the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is the foundation of society because it promotes responsible procreation.

3. Validation of same-sex unions by calling them "marriages" erodes the institution of marriage. It "neuters" marriage, rendering it ineffective as a bastion of monogamy, commitment, and family values.

4. Homosexuals should not seek the special privilege to be married because they are already permitted to have civil unions and domestic partnerships, which confer equal legal rights.

5. Homosexuals cannot complain that they do not have a legal right to marry, for they are free to legally marry anyone of the opposite sex.

6. If we confer the right to marry on homosexuals, many Christian organizations will face legal sanction for refusing to perform same-sex marriages or for arranging adoptions by same-sex couples, because homosexual relationships are proscribed by their faith.

The above are the crazy-ass, pseudo logical, myopic, bigoted arguments that keep getting hashed and rehashed and rerehashed by Prop H8ers. They never come up with anything new. All their arguments are variations on these themes, and all go around and around in circles without ever really making any true sense. They can never offer any salient counter arguments when the crazy inconsistencies of their mantras are pointed out. If I come across any other new arguments, I'll be sure to post them. But for now, let me just start picking these mindless statements apart.

1. Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.

What bothers me about this statement is that it assumes that there is one absolute and universal (sound familiar?) definition of marriage. Ideas about marriage have changed though the eons to reflect changing attitudes towards family, religion, relationships, and living standards. Anyone who has taken History 101 can tell you that.

Before the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, federal law refrained from defining marriage, leaving it up to each state. That would seem to indicate to me that law makers were fully cognizant that social attitudes towards what constitutes a marriage varied so widely across the nation as to be undefinable by the law.

When people say to me that marriage has been traditionally defined as being between one man and one woman "since time immemorial" that makes me wonder how they know. I suppose it's because God only speaks to them. As far as I can tell, such a restrictive legal definition only appears in the Defense of Marriage Act which wasn't passed until 1996.

Many European countries have same-sex marriage: including Austria, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain. Our closest neighbors, the Canadians, have same-sex marriage. So does South Africa. And although Israel does not, it recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other countries.

Almost all European countries have recognized same-sex unions in one legal form or another, but there is definitely a push to arrive at some kind of common marriage legislation that would be inclusive of gays and lesbians.

2. Homosexuals cannot procreate and procreation is the fundamental basis for marriage. Homosexuals cannot have children and therefore do not have any intrinsic or instinctive motivation to perpetuate the bond of matrimony. They cannot possibly understand the love a parent has for a child, and therefore could not possibly understand the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is the foundation of society because it promotes responsible procreation.

The idiocy of the above argument is that it conveniently plays down other crucial factors in modern marriage which can and do often exist in the absence of offspring. Commitment, dedication, mutual support, affirmation by friends and family, can and do exist between couples who choose to, or are unable to, have children. In my mind, the reduction of marriage into an institution with the narrow purpose of preserving the act of procreation is the very kind of erosion of marriage that Prop H8ers are seeking to prevent.

When I point out that by this argument, infertile heterosexuals, and heterosexuals who vow never to have children, should also be precluded from marriage, Prop H8ers have no reply. It just wafts by them like so much vapor. It seems as if their eyes just glaze over this ridiculous contradiction in their thinking, seeing only what they want to see.

3. Validation of same-sex unions by calling them "marriages" erodes the institution of marriage. It "neuters" marriage, rendering it ineffective as a bastion of monogamy, commitment, and family values.

This argument is so wrong on so many levels. First of all, how does the validation of same-sex unions nullify or invalidate heterosexual unions? No one is proposing to replace marriage in general with same-sex marriage. The idea is to expand the legal definition of marriage to better reflect the general trend in society: validation of gays and lesbians as full human beings capable of the same range of emotions, the same capacity for joy and sorrow, as any human being. This is so obviously a scare tactic employed by far right fundamentalist nut jobs. But why would any heterosexual couple, secure in their marriage, confident about the sanctity of their union, have anything to fear from the validation of a same-sex couple whose lives have absolutely nothing to do with them? It's a blatant case of "You can't be as happy as I because that would make me feel less special."

Second of all, monogamy, commitment, and family values are by no means unique to heterosexual relationships. Nor are promiscuity, infidelity, and dysfunction unique to homosexual relationships. Prop H8ers are hypocrites to suggest that they have the corner on "family values." If straight people universally regard marriage with such reverence, then why is there so much divorce. Why is there a parade of straight politicians and so-called religious leaders caught having affairs? Do they seriously put the blame for their marital failings at the feet of gays and lesbians? Gays and lesbians have become the scape goats in this modern day Crusade against so-called immorality. The tendency of young people to have sex earlier and earlier, is an indicator of the failing morals of modern society, and for some reason, homosexuals are all to blame.

But even if I grant them that, how does banning gays and lesbians from declaring their commitment and dedication to monogamy through marriage, serve as an example for young people? If their complaint about gays and lesbians is that we are promiscuous, it should behoove them to encourage those of us who believe as they do in monogamy. But instead they would deprive us of that. Not only does that contradict their warnings to be monogamous, it also teaches that it is alright to discriminate against your fellow man. What shining role-models these Prop H8ers are!

4. Homosexuals should not seek the special privilege to be married because they are already permitted to have civil unions and domestic partnerships, which confer equal legal rights.

If civil unions and domestic partnerships were indeed completely equivalent to marriage, then why the distinct label? That's as ridiculous as saying that it isn't a duck but some other bird of the same name. If it looks like marriage, walks like marriage, talks like marriage, and tastes like marriage, then call it marriage.

But the fact, however, is that civil unions and domestic partnerships are NOT completely equivalent to marriage. Marriage enjoys sanction at the federal level. States are compelled by federal law to recognized marriages performed in other states even if their own local laws would not recognize that form of marriage. The same cannot be said of civil unions and other forms of legal same-sex unions. Most states don't even legal recognize same-sex unions at all. Federal law confers married couples 1,138 rights that it does not to civil unions or domestic partners. Those few states that legally recognize same sex unions, may grant rights similar to marriage on a state-wide level, but there is no legal guarantee that another state will honor those rights. So straight couples have access to rights to which gay couples do not. And these are not trivial rights. They include This is blatantly discriminatory and unconstitutional. The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 expressly permits individual states to discriminate in this manner, and in fact expressly prohibits the treatment of same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, thus establishing two classes of citizen: those who can enjoy the benefit of the rights conferred by legal marriage, and those who cannot.

Ironically, people in states that have legalized civil unions, would enjoy more rights outside the US than within. Although the UK has not legalized same-sex marriage, its Civil Partnership Bill expressly equates civil partnerships with marriage, with the exception of the name. And it expressly recognizes certain foreign unions as equivalent to civil partnerships. Of course gays and lesbians in the UK find it silly to call two things which are for all intents and purposes the same, by two separate names, and equate doing so with segregation or apartheid.

5. Homosexuals cannot complain that they do not have a legal right to marry, for they are free to legally marry anyone of the opposite sex.

This argument so exasperates me that I can't help but laugh. Are they serious? That's just stupid. Anyone who would pose this argument should really be declared unfit to procreate. Why would I marry someone of the opposite sex just to exercise my right to marry? So that I can squeeze a few more babies out to add to the population explosion? Because that is the criterion for marriage is it not: reproduction? Absolutely ludicrous.

6. If we confer the right to marry on homosexuals, many Christian organizations will face legal sanction for refusing to perform same-sex marriages or for arranging adoptions by same-sex couples, because homosexual relationships are proscribed by their faith.

GOOD, I say. I've been discriminated against enough by Christians. I think it's about time they got what they deserved. Christians may think that their religion puts them above the law, but it doesn't. Churches, and other Christian organizations are subject to the same laws of the land as everyone else. If they discriminate, they should be punished.