Worst anti gay arguments
The Worst Argument Ever Made Against Same-sex attracted Marriage
I won’t cover the ball here, so here it is: Gay people should not be able to acquire married because Pocahontas married John Rolfe.
This argument was actually made in federal court Tuesday, before the judges of the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia. They were hearing a challenge to Virginia’s ban on lgbtq+ marriage. The argument is hands-down the worst argument ever offered against homosexual marriage.
To be sure, it’s a crowded field in this dubious competition. The history of queer marriage litigation is replete with repulsive, awful, nonsensical arguments from states trying to come up with principled excuses for bigotry. For instance, just this week Kentucky defended its ban on same-sex marriage by saying that denying gay people the right to wedding leads to more stable birth rates. (Yes, you decipher that correctly.) And there’s long been the argument, position forward without laughter, that banning queer marriage is necessary because straight people can’t control themselves and thus require a responsible way to raise all those children they will have as a result of all that negligent sex they have.
But
Here are the wildest arguments against marriage equality
Next week, the justices of the Supreme Court will hear arguments for and against marriage equality. But hundreds of people have already tried to help the justices produce up their collective thought by filing amicus briefs, which are "friend of the court" documents that offer unsolicited advice or information about the issues at stake in the case. Some of the briefs against national recognition of same-sex marriage get lovely creative — from arguing that it would lead to nearly a million abortions to claiming it would destroy the economy.
Just about anyone can file this kind of brief, and just about anyone has. There are well-established activism groups, and there are solo citizens who proclaim their qualifications as being married for 45 years, or being a “commercial property owner and citizen” who is “directly impacted by surrounding neighbors’ actions.”
RELATED: Huckabee: Homosexual marriage will lead to ‘criminalization of Christianity’
Plenty of anti-marriage equality briefs emphasis on states’ rights to limit marriage and when courts should overrule ballot measures, or the historic scope of the 14th Amendment’s due process and
Bad Arguments Against Gay Marriage
Abstract
This article claims that three common arguments against same-sex attracted marriage - the definitional, procreation, and slippery-slope arguments - are quite terrible, the worst of the lot. The definitional argument asserts that marriage just is the union of one man and one woman, and that the definition alone is a sufficient defense against claims for gay marriage. The procreation argument claims that marriage's central public purpose is to encourage procreation, and so the exclusion of same-sex couples is justified. The slippery-slope argument claims that the acceptance of same-sex marriage logically entails the acceptance of other public policy changes - notably the acceptance of polygamy - that would themselves be terrible, independent of whether queer marriage is bad. While each argument has some appeal, and each has adherents both inside and outside the legal academy, each is badly flawed as a matter of logic, experience, politics, or some combination of the three. The article suggests that in the interest of focusing on the most important concerns about gay marriage, commentators should move on to other arguments against it that seem stronger and thus
Michigansaysthat they don't want to let gay people become married because that would be demeaning to lgbtq+ people. Kentucky says that their marriage ban isn't discriminatory, since LGBTs are free to get straight-married. Ohio wants to maintain its marriage ban out of concern for the people who voted for it. And Tennessee is just fixated on sex.
Four states will own to defend their marriage bans before the U.S. Supreme Court this month, and all four are still scrambling to figure out exactly how they're going to pull that off. They filed a series of briefs with the court last week that are full of weird claims and arguments that just don't construct sense. Kentucky says that its marriage ban doesn't discriminate, since gay couples are still free to marry someone of the opposite sex. This is exactly the same argument that was used to justify bans on interracial marriage, and it's essentially saying: "You're free to do whatever you need, as long as you actually do something else."
Michigan's brief is even crazier. They say that gaining marriage equality through a court order, rather than a popular vote, would be demeaning to queer couples. So, thanks, Michigan, for your concern.
The Nation's Worst Anti-LGBTQ State Commandment Goes Into Impact in Mississippi
A harmful Mississippi declare law allowing the use of religion as a justification for discrimination against LGBTQ Mississippians at work, school and in their communities goes into influence October 10. H.B. 1523, deceptively titled the “Protecting Liberty of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act,” is by far the most sweeping and devastating declare law to be enacted against LGBTQ people in the country.
Under this commandment, almost any individual or organization could justify discrimination against LGBTQ people, free mothers, unwed couples, and others. Taxpayer funded faith-based organizations could: refuse to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples for provision of critical services including emergency shelter; refuse children in depend on of loving homes placement with LGBTQ families including the child’s own family member; and decline to sell or rent a for-profit home to an LGBTQ person -- even if the organization receives government funding. It would also give foster families the liberty to subject an LGBTQ child to the dangerous perform of “conversion therapy,” and sub