Other great marriage stickers you might want to consider:
"Marriage = Man + Female chattel" (circa 1700)
"Marriage = White man + White woman" (circa 1800)
"Marriage = Man + Woman of same race" (circa 1960)
The "slippery slope" argument is a common one, basically claiming that gay marriage is the beginning of a downward spiral towards incest, marrying children, marrying animals, the destruction of morality, the downfall of society, and ultimately, I assume, the total destruction of the universe. It goes without saying that the difference between a man marrying another man and a man marrying a dog or a 5-year-old is that neither the 5-year-old nor the dog can consent. The "slippery slope" logic is ridiculous and unfounded.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there is not one single way, spare idiotic complaints like "It's disgusting" or "It goes against my religion," that gay marriage will affect any one of us personally. I issue a challange to anyone here to name one way that gay marriage would affect you personally. Does it violate your privacy? Does it violate your fundamental rights? Does it, in some inconcievable way, physically harm you?
As for the "states' rights" argument, well, I think we're all familiar with what happened the last time the individual right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" took a back seat to states' rights to discriminate and undermine the rights of individuals as they please...
To date, every argument against gay marriage I've heard is pitiful, although, granted, sometimes humorous. It comes down to one simple principle: when two people love each other, they should be allowed the right to marry, plain and simple.
Let's play a little game. Read the following arguments from proponents of "traditional marriage" - some are in reference to the effects of a change in the tradition of marriage on children, others are general arguments:
1 -- "... children are faced with problems that tend to produce reactions of guilt, insecurity, anxiety, and emotional instability."
2 -- "Since [the child] cannot identify with both parents, the child feels resentment towards one or both parents."
3 -- "[Children] are healthier both emotionally and physically, even thirty years later, than those not so blessed by traditional parents."
4 -- "Identity is a lifelong process. The parents must provide secure role models with which the child can identify. More importantly, is the fact the parents must take these role model identities and unite them into a common perception to provide a consistent reinforcement of the child's values as a person in terms of sameness and continuity over time."
5 -- "The purity of public morals ... require that they should be kept distinct and separate... that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion."
6 -- "Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong."
Now, can you guess which of those arguments were made in opposition to interracial marriage and which were made in opposition to gay marriage?
If not, here's a quick reference:
Interracial marriage: 1, 2, 4, 5
Gay marriage: 3, 6
Wow, they're almost
completely indistinguishable, aren't they? Modern bigots don't even have the basic intelligence to come up with their own arguments, they're just using the ones their grandparents used against interracial marriage! The very same arguments were proven completely invalid once, and they will again. Just watch.
