BIG WHOOP! (Doonesbury on gay marriage)

[nostamj]

[unblock]

1. i've been saying this for a long time: they want gays to be promiscuous

why else would they won't to keep gays from entering an institution of monogamy?

[nostamj]

2. it's hard to be depicted as a 'selfish hedonist'

if you're in an LTR...

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. ummm... allowing marriage for same sex couples won't stop promiscuity

And many straight people, I know a few myself, live very promiscuous lifestyles and are also married. There's nothing in the marriage vows that require, and certainly no legal instruments available to enforce monogamy within a marriage.

A marriage can only be created or dissolved, and therefore marriage has no impact on the existence, rise or fall of promiscuity.

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[nostamj]

6. of course, but that's hardly the point...

the right conveys de facto 'moral superiority' to ANY heterosexual couple regardless of how they actually behave, and the inverse is true for ANY homosexual relationship, legally 'coupled' or not.

[AntiCoup2K4]

5. It serves their propaganda

A few years ago, a right wing hate group (not Phelps, but one with actual political ties)released a propaganda film which implied that the "average homosexual" had thousands of sexual partners.

If a bunch of gays started getting married, they could no longer scare "middle America" with such fearmongering bullshit. And as far as I know, both Wilt Chamberlain and Gene Simmons are straight. (the only ones who have bragged about thousands of sexual conquests, to my knowledge)

[progressivebydesign]

4. Have we forgotten the first priority of conservatives? It's not morality..

. it's MONEY. They don't want gay couples recognized as married, because they fear that it will translate into claiming "married" on the tax forms, then they'd have to change the tax rules to make sure that being married wasn't financially beneficial.. but then they'd piss off the hetero married taxpayers. It's all about money... companies don't want to pay for benefits for more spouses, the gov't would be forced to do the same...

It makes for a sensationalist election year hot-button.. yes.. but it all boils down to money. Always.

[Protected]

7. If they're truly worried about the "sanctity of marriage"

then they had better ban divorce as well!

[LeftCoast]

8. That and birth control are next on the agenda...