?

Log in

No account? Create an account
the girl with violets in her lap [userpic]

July 14th, 2006 (01:08 pm)
morose
Tags:

current mood: srsly

Gay couples don't deserve the right to get married because they are... better parents than straight couples?

Excerpt:

[T]he New York court also put forth another argument, sometimes called the “reckless procreation” rationale. “Heterosexual intercourse,” the plurality opinion stated, “has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.” Gays become parents, the opinion said, in a variety of ways, including adoption and artificial insemination, “but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse.”

Consequently, “the Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples... the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.”

...

Wow! Did you hear what the New York Supreme Court said, folks? They said it's not that gays aren't good enough to get married, it's that STRAIGHTS aren't good enough to NOT get married!

No one could ever accuse them of homophobia now.

::headdesk:: Seriously, people. Stop trying to play both sides of the fence, placating both the radical righties and your own uneasy feelings around homosexuality by keeping gay marriage illegal while pretending that you're totally absolutely 100% a-okay with gay people. You're not fooling anyone.

Comments

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:57 pm (UTC)
biflash

Exactly!

but then, I amuse myself with responding to the peole who say "but then the polygamists will want to marry" with "what's wrong with polyamory?" :)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 06:05 pm (UTC)

Yeah. That, and I oppose bestiality on grounds of cruelty to animals, not sexual perversion.

It takes all kinds.

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 08:31 pm (UTC)

Me, too; we've already got laws to protect animals and children from abuse. other than that, whatever consenting adults want to do is none of my business.

"It takes all kinds."

I wish everyone thought like you. Instead of "all kinds" including people like Santorum. :)


(....and thinking of Santorum reminds me, for absolutely no reason, that last night's Daily Show established how you can have a political discussion and still stick to your One Safe Topic! The subtitle for the Novak interview on HANNITY and (colmes) was - "Snakes on a Plame"!!!)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 06:18 pm (UTC)
blow me

"what's wrong with polyamory?"

The only downside I can see is potentially more housework. But there would be enough sexual favours to bargain for that I would never have to do the dishes again! ;)

Reposted so I could use a sexier icon.

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 08:33 pm (UTC)

I do so love your icons - that one is great!

And I figure, more people theoretically provides more hands for housework than hands to dirty the house, done right. :)

46 Read Comments