Stupid Arguments Against Gay Marriage

Since California oficially became the second state to allow gay marriage, there have been a shitstorm of crazies spreading their fundy craziness all over the place.

Here's one of the best (and by the best, I mean the most hilariously retarded) arguments against gay marriage.

From www.drumwaster.com

Yesterday, a judicial panel of seven judges voted 4-3 to ignore the definition of marriage given in existing black-letter law by finding a “fundamental right” that has gone hitherto unnoticed for a century and a half. The last time this issue came up was Proposition 22, which passed by more than 20 points (61-39), yet those unelected judges ignore that to create a “compelling state interest” in gay marriage. (Which neatly sidesteps the utter lack of legal precedent, as well as the need to actually have any written laws supporting the judges as they attempt to arrive at their various decisions.)

Funny… wouldn’t there be a “compelling state interest” in one man-one woman marriages? After all, that is proven to be the most stable form of family, as well as being self-sufficient in creating future generations (something same-sex couples simply cannot do).

First of all, having a compelling state interest in gay marriage does not proclude having a compelling state interest in heterosexual marriage. And allowing gay marriage does not undermine heterosexual marriage. To assume that is to assume that gays who can't marry are thinking, "Gee, if I can't marry a man, I guess I'll turn straight and marry some chick!" Or that straights are thinking, "Aw, geez, now that gays are marrying, I don't wanna anymore. Nothing is worth the effort unless it is something that gays are specifically banned from doing."

By the way, there are people who really believe that allowing gay marriage will endanger heterosexual marriage because heteros will see it as "something gays do."

Case in point, "Crazy Larry" Auster,

Well, it has the effect of devaluing marriage. Men often don't want to get married, the social incentives, the prestige of marriage, need to be there if marriage is to happen. If you turn marriage in a soulless union of two "partners," no longer focused on the forming of a family and the raising of children, but on the convenience of the two "partners," you've stripped marriage of its specialness, the sense of joining something larger than yourself. Also, you've turned marriage into something which is based on a homosexual paradigm, which is not exactly going to increase its attraction to heterosexual men. So in that sense it would tend to make marriage less appealing.

Permanence and Perfection

Traditionally, the idea of perfection implied permanence, especially in the case of God. To be perfect, one must have permanence. Permanence itself has been long sought as something desirable. This is, however, a strange pursuit because of the impermanence of the human soul. The soul is always changing, and even things deemed “good” are regarded as less so if they go unchanged while those observing it do change. Even if someone does not change their tastes, things they once found desirable become less so if they don't go through some form of improvement.

It is for this reason that permanence should not be considered a desirable quality in things for which people strive. Plato saw the impermanence of material or worldly things as a symptom of their imperfection, and Buddhists see the impermanence of material things as a reason why desire brings suffering. It's based on the assumption that everything that we desire inevitably dies, degrades or somehow lets us down. However, even if they stay the same, our desires are less and less satisfied with it over time. One reason for this is that having things is not as satisfying as attaining them. Getting a PhD or a gold medal is always more exhilirating than any time afterword when you look at that degree in its frame or that medal in your trophy case.

The greatest good, given human psychology, is therefore a constant, but unpredictable series of improvements. No matter how good you have it, you will not stay happy in stasis. Constant attainment is truly the greatest good for a human being, not some static state of “perfection” that allows no improvement.

The improvement one undergoes must also give one the feeling that it is a result of ones own efforts most of the time. That's not to say that the occasional event of accidentally falling into some wonderful circumstance won't be satisfying, but if one never has the feeling of personal accomplishment, no amount of dumb luck will bring you fulfillment.

Volitional Mortality

A common criticism of extropianism and transhumanism is that its goal is immortality. Even if this were possible, who'd want to live forever, right?

I don't think anybody who's alive today knows whether they will want to continue living after they'reseveral hundred years old. That's not the point. We seek life extension not so we can live forever, necessarily, but rather so we can live as long as we see fit.

Knee-Jerk Anti-Cloning Rhetoric

Opposition to human cloning is nearly ubiquitous wherever cloning is discussed. Oddly enough, there are few reasons given for the opposition. Perhaps there are valid reasons to oppose human cloning, but if there are, you don’t hear those reasons discussed. The only discussion one hears is the statement that human cloning must be banned followed by nodding and applause.
Am I the only one asking why? What is the problem with cloning someone? Essentially your just making that person an identical twin sibling. Why is that so objectionable? Is there a fear that the clone will be regarded as inferior to the person from whom they are cloned? If so, why? If the two are genetically identical, why would a person and his clone be thought of as any different from a person and his twin? Why would anyone even think of granting the clone fewer right or liberties?

Are people worried about having their identity stolen? Clones, like any other child would have to be issued birth certificates with their own identification numbers and so forth, and they would likely be a great deal younger than the person from whom they were cloned, so there would be little chance of mistaken identity. Even if there were a chance of that, there is a far greater chance of it occurring between twins, but you don’t hear about twins separated by adoption stealing each others’ identities.

What other possible objection could there be? Are people worried about deformities or other medical issues? In that case cloning should be restricted until it meets the necessary standard of any medical or reproductive technology about to undergo human trials, but that’s not a reason to ban it outright.

Mitt Romney: Pure Class

Canadian Identity

The only time I've ever heard Canadian identity be described is in terms of contrast with the United States. Canadians have always been described as "exactly like Americans except for X, Y, and Z." The X, Y, and Z are the only place you will find anything approximating "Canadian culture."