Cognitive dissonance: Oppose gay-marriage because children of unmarried couples fare less than from married couples....

One of the main arguments against gay marriage that we hear over and over again is that it is bad for the children raised by same-sex couples. Well, opposing same-sex marriage is not going to change that those children are raised by same-sex couples, whether their parents are married or not.

When pressed why it is bad for the children, the argument often is comparatively, namely that children living in unmarried families, like single mothers, unmarried co-habiting parents, step-parents, etc fare less good than children from happy married couples.

Every time I hear this argument, I am stunned by the inane stupidity of the argument. This argument is the prime argument to promote same-sex marriage. Because if their parents would be allowed to marry, the children should be better of? Not?

Well, if you press them on the details, what you find out is that they try to link two arguments. One is the one I just described, the second is that a child needs a father and a mother, and the link they want to make is that same-sex couples can never offer a mother and a father, and thus need to be compared to the unmarried and single parents trying to raise kids.

Unfortunately, the second argument has already been shot down by social science research, which shows that children raised by functional same-sex couples are equally or even better off than children of married heterosexual couples.

if we combine these, allowing same-sex parents to marry is actually going to help their children. Maybe that is where they are afraid for..... Maybe they are afraid to look incompetent because the kids of the gays are actually doing better......

Will the same-sex marriages haters risk a ruling that will affect the whole nation?

Today, the ruling on the prop 8 trial will be announced. The same-sex marriage haters have already filed a motion for a stay of the decision pending appeal if the case is going to be ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Based on the specifics of the motion wording, you can bet it is a win for US!

So, appeal. The current ruling ONLY affects California, and leaves the rest of the country out of the loop. A loss at the appeal court would widen this to a loss for a whole range of states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. and of course, if they appeal it to the US supreme court, it would affect the whole nation.

So, if they want to slow down how many states (have to) recognize same-sex marriages, they would be far better of to not appeal and give away California. Why? There case was a disaster. At the appeals court, they cannot bring new arguments. So, the case will be decided pretty much based on what is now on the record. And that record is, well, shitty at least. Maybe better to qualify it as non-existing.

So, what would be the alternative? Let it stand. Throw California under the train and move on. Because this means that if another gay couple in one of the other states of the union finally wants to be treated as a full citizen, they have to start their own case. With their own lawyer, their own witnesses etc. And this gives the haters one MAJOR opportunity. Time to prepare themselves better. To have real experts. And maybe they will be lucky to find a judge who is more activist and willing to impose his own conservative dogma on the case.

Of course, some day, some case will reach the US supreme court. It can be sooner if they appeal now, or maybe later if they take the loss of one state and try to build a more solid case in the next court battle. The later would be a better strategy, because it they get more favorable evidence into the records, they actually will have a higher change of winning when they finally reach the US supreme court.

But rest assured, they won't be this smart. If their performance at the trial is a indicator, they are so convinced they are right that they are willing to risk it all, just to be right! You almost would think they are actually in favor of same-sex marriage.

And because of that, we have to thank them for helping our cause. So, please, file an appeal and help us to finally ride this country of a grave injustice!

Marriage and Gay Reality Check

Someone can only control you if you let them to. If we gays and lesbians hide away, that is what they want. They do not want to see us, and that is why they try to deny us access to as much as possible. But if we look at it, does it really change reality?

So, a reality check about gay and lesbians:

1. We exist. Whether we can marry or not, we exist and your children will hear about us. Weather you like it or not. because we exist. Unless you patrol EVERYTHING your children hear, read and see. Yeah, that is right, you home-school them, transport them in a blinded car to and from church and the parents of friends have to go through a solid vetting process so that the tender souls of your first born is not affected by knowing about those evil homosexuals.
   
2. We have sex. Does anybody really think you can prevent people from having sex. We have sex, and even when the sodomy laws where in place, sodomy occurred. And better, lesbians could just fuck each other anyway, and they do not commit sodomy in the first place. And yes, we know that you really would like to have that threesome with us, but sorry, you first have to chop of your dick before I even start contemplating whether I have you in my bed.
   
3. We have relationships. Duh. Ever tried to tell your kid they cannot see their boyfriend because you don't like him? Did it work? Really, you checked when she was at school, hanging out with friends etc? Yes, you did? Whow, I am sure you think you are a good parent. I think you are a despot.
   
4. We live together. Duh again.
5. We have children. Really, it is not that difficult to score some sperm somewhere, and in the worst case scenario, I think I could manage to get laid by a guy in a different city. Okay, I need a drink or 5 (2make me tipsy, 3rather drunk, 4 I about pass out, and 5, he can have fun) but heck, father unknown (I was to drunk) and me happy. And the child, s/he will have two of the most awesome mommies in the world. Unlike those from fighting, abusing, divorced, alcoholic, addicted and/or absent heterosexual parents. They should be happy if they have one parent to take care of them.
6. We marry. Well, maybe not legally in the state we are living in, but we marry anyway. Legally in either another state or country, and religiously in any church that doesn't follow your particular brand of hateful interpretation.

So, what happens when you are successful in forcing a gay or lesbian to play heterosexual? Get this:

1. We exist. That we live a lie in a heterosexual prison called a 'loving' marriage does not change the fact we exist.
   
2. We have sex. Only when we really have to, and using some tricks so that we do not want to kill ourselves immediately after you are done. We might try to make a list of groceries we have to get later at walmart, or think about the cute blond chick at work that accidentally rubbed my hand and made us wet between the legs when we were waiting for her to be done with the copier, or think about the muscled construction worker at the corner of the street how he takes you from behind on a role of electric wire, etc. etc. etc. You get the gist, we won't be there with you, we will be there where we feel better than with having sex with you. But heck, I guess you won't care as long as you can fuck someone without having to pay for it.
   
3. We have relationships. Really, why do people cheat within a relationship? Guess? Because they do not get what they need? Well, that is one of the reasons. Think. Think harder, think harder what happens when someone is gay and forced to enjoy heterosexual torture? You get it. Just think about all those conservative 'heterosexual' men who were caught with a guy..... Just think what they were doing with those gays.... huh guys.
   
4. We live together. You got us there. Darn.
   
5. We have children. Of course, the heterosexual marching orders include that you have a child. Or two. Or three. And with a bit of luck, we only need one time sex for each child. But the best of all, we get to spread our GAY GENES! Thank you for helping us to pass on those gay genes! I know, you think that it is a choice, and as long as that you think that, we get to spread our genes. So, please, you think it is choice, and we spread the genes. Sounds like a good deal to me! At least, if we have to endure hetero sex, it is at least not for nothing.
   
6. We marry. And we are sooo happy. NOT. But thank to those men and women who have been carefully brainwashed with the idea that homosexuality can be cured if they are willing to marry one and help them overcome their abomination, we marry. And I know, you do not care if those selfless heterosexual souls get hurt sooner or later when their partner whon is really gay and not heterosexual cannot longer stand the heterosexual prison marriage and leaves her for a homosexual partner. Really, if you after 20 years of a love free, sex-free, passion-free marriage think he does not have passion, love etc, just wait till he does not have to deny himself any more. And please, no complaints please, you did it for God and Country. He will reward you in heaven. Isn't that wonderful.

Have a nice day!

Gay revolution

I have been following the federal court case against the Californian Proposition 8 that define marriage as between a man and a woman only. The more I hear about it, the more it get clear to me that it is not just prop8 that is at trial, it is homosexuality itself that is at trial.

"Protecting California Children"! Which California children? Those well adjusted kids with gay parents against their own parents? Who will have their mummies or daddies anyway, regardless whether their parents are married? Really, those kids are only negatively affected by it. But heck, those kids do not count. Because they are losers anyway because they have gay parent. No, it is not to protect those children, it is to prevent children from being exposed to alternatives of their parents heterosexual marriage. Because "Oh My God", TRADITIONAL marriage is under fire. (I will go into the canard of the so-called "traditional marriage" another time)

But really, ultimately, they do not want their kids to know that we exist. Because this is not the only way homosexuality has to be removed from sight. For example, they do not want homosexuality be mentioned in sex-ed. Homosexuality is a choice, and you can fix them (like a dog). etc etc Effectively, they want us out of sight, so that they can bread their next generation of bigotry and prejudice.

I think it is time that the gays stop hiding. The more they try to push us out of sight by denying us fundamental rights, the more visible we should become. Really, once they get that providing us with our fundamental rights is the best way to minimize their exposure to us, they will be at the front lines lobbying for it. So, we have to become more visible, and this means adopting the tactics of the anti-abortion and anti-gay crowd who are so in your face about their message. I really think it would not be a bad idea to go with groups of gays and demonstrate in front of especially fundamentalist schools during pick-up of the kids, same with fundamentalist churches, etc. Expose them to our existence. In short, No More Mister Nice Gay.

Gay marriage cost money!?!?!?

What the fuck! The retards of the GOP in the form of their token-black has found a new way to get support for their anti-gay message. It would cost money if gay-marriage would be legalized. True, but heterosexual marriage already costs money when your employee is married. So, what they are saying is effectively that it is okay if you have to pay for a heterosexual's partner, but not for a homosexual's partner. Really, they are actively promoting that the inequality is kept in place! They are actively promoting the discrimination of gay people over hetero-normative people!

PS. maybe we can use it as a argument to hire more gays, because they are cheaper.....

Opposing gay marriage to protect the children?

One frequent heard argument to object to gay marriage is that it is better for the children. lets assume for the moment that it is indeed true, despite that it is clearly not. Is a ban on gay marriage actually having an effect on where those children grow up? Not at all? The only difference is that they have two parents who are not married and have no rights, but for the rest, they will have two fathers or two mothers regardless. So, why oppose gay marriage if prohibiting gay marriage does not have an effect on where the children grow up?

California supreme court: Marriage is just a word

Marriage for gay couples seems to be ended in California, but it seems that the justices take hat VERY narrowly, namely meaning just the word marriage. They pretty much explicitly say that gays should have the same rights, and that no form of discrimination is allowed. Or as justice Kennard, one of the two swing voters indicated:

She reminded lawyers that the "core" part of last year's marriage ruling required the state to give sexual orientation the same constitutional protection as race and gender.

Proposition 8 "hasn't destroyed equal protection," Kennard said.

So, here we go again, do we want the same rights, or do we want the same term? I think the gay movement in this country is loosing ground by requiring that we get the same term and the same rights, because much of the opposition has to do with the term. Many religious people see marriage as a sacred term, and just for that purpose, they object to it. So, by choosing for equal rights, and give the term marriage to the religious for the time being, we can improve dramatically in our rights. As soon as we have our rights, we can argue that the term marriage should be taken out of the legal system because it is a violation of the separation between church and state, but that is a fight we can fight later.

It is time that someone asks for the same rights from the Californian government without wanting to use the word marriage, and see what the justices of the supreme court rule. One willing municipality (San Francisco?) who make a move towards and it might be quickly enough resolved. As long as we want to have rights to the word Marriage, we are loosing this battle. (Now I duck and run for the anger this provokes from my fellow gay activists)

Does Biology rules out Gay Marriage?

Gay marriage is a hot button in the US. Where I come from, the Netherlands, it is not any more and even the CDA now considers is something not to be fought any more. Anyway, the US is making head ways, now that a third state (Connecticut, after Massachusetts and California) legalized gay marriages.

Some people opposing gay marriage use biology to argue that the traditional marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. They argue that “It takes a man and a woman to create children and thus create a family”. And that therefore, marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. Unfortunately for them, they only would be right if, and only if, marriage was a biological phenomenon, which of course, it is not. Marriage is just a social construct, nothing more.

But besides that marriage is a social construct, using biology in this way is oversimplifying what biology actually tells us. Using biology in the way it is used against gay marriage ignores the large variation that biology shows. It for example assumes that you only have man and woman, ignoring that there are a substantial number of intersex people. During development of the foetus, many biological processes have to line up perfectly to get the proper sex-determination. if anything goes wrong, because of genetics or environment, some of the characteristics typical for a man or a woman will be skewered and defining whether the person is a man or a woman becomes a legal nightmare.

For example, in Texas, the state's 4th Court of Appeals in San Antonio, ruled that a man is defined by his chromosomes. This results in that same-sex couples, of which one is transsexual, can legally marry (with the cravat that it is considered illegal in the rest of Texas). Thus just illustrates that using biology to define a social construct as marriage is anything but build on the most shaky grounds.

But I think the argument is made this way because it avoids the insertion of overt religious arguments into something that should be free of religion. We have to expose the argument for what it is, a thinly veiled argument to insert religion into the legal system.