Stoopid Arguments
Are stoopid

Using Biology, Not Religion, to Argue Against Same-Sex Marriage

Seeing this article online, I was intrigued. What possible argument is this? Well, the answer is a stoopid one.

Basically, they're basing their argument on biology, not religion. Hmm. Go on. Well, biologically speaking, it takes a man and a woman have kids and thus create a family. Marriage encourages a long-term relationship between a man and a woman as a framework for caring for their children. Studies show (their studies show) that kids are more apt to be screwed up if they're not raised by a mommy and a daddy.

I almost don't even know where to start here. First, don't even try to pass this off as a biological argument. The only biological fact here is the "it takes a man and a woman to procreate" bit. Assuming we're talking about humans, that is. Well, OK. But everything after that (basically, their argument) is non-biological based. Starting with the idea that the purpose of marriage is to have kids and that you can't be a family without them. Bullshit.

So by their argument, a man and a woman who decide that they will not have kids should not be allowed to marry?

And the "kids needing two opposite-sex parents" argument is just way too muddled in other issues. Like divorce. And the death of a parent. Single moms (or dads) because their partner ran out on them. I mean, there are just too many situations that lead to one-parent/non-traditional families that to single out gay marriage as the one to prohibit because of this? Asinine.

It also includes this gem of a quote: “How can you be a bigot when you’re looking out for society as a whole?"

Yes. Good point. You got me there.