Prop 8 supports... What kind of ******** argument is this?

A bunch of conservative and religious organizations have united last year to pass Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to define marriage is between a man and a woman, thus making "same-sex marriages" illegal. There was a huge media blitz left and right, and in the end the Right won. But one wonders why are these people so anxious to 'save' it from the same-sex couples?

If you read their brochure, you can figure out where they're coming from:

[The following is translation of a real Chinese brochure passed out during Prop 8 mania. ]



---
Protect Sanctity of Marriage, Protect your children and grandchildren

Please vote yes on Proposition 8

Proposition 8 preserves the existing one man, one woman marriage
Proposition 8 protects majority's will, 61% believes marriage is between man and woman
Proposition 8 protects children from homophile's brainwashing in public school systems
Proposition 8 protects the children's growth to be sanctified by mother and father
Proposition 8 prevents decay of societal morals

This is your last chance to defend the institution of marriage! Vote!

On the backside...

Why should you support prop 8?

1) Prop 8 clearly states the historical definition of marriage: between one man and one woman

2) Same sex marriage is NOT a civil right

Civil right is to make sure people of different races are treated the same. Race is inherited and cannot be changed. However, science proves that homosexuality is a changeable "sexual preference". If "sexual preference" is raised to level of civil right, then statutory rape, beastiality, and marriage within family or polygamy should also be civil right and enjoy equal protection under law as well.

3) Same sex marriage is NOT marriage, and should not be treated equally

Traditional Marriage
One man one woman
Normal sexual relationship
Can result in childbirth naturally
Children learn from both parents

Same Sex Marriage
Two men or two women
Unnatural sexual relationship
No childbirth without interference
Lack of father or mother for child(ren)

4) Same sex marriage will deprive you of your rights and destroy next generation's proper views

a) In 2000 CA residents voted by margin of 61% "in defense of marriage" as defined between one man and one woman. Now four judges are imposing their will over the will of the people, forcing all CA residents and their children to accept same sex marriage.

b) legalizing same sex marriage will cause more teenagers to try homosexuality. Any speech against this will be marginalized as "homophobia" "hate speech", abrogating your free will to express yourselves.

c) children need both father and mother as role models. Same sex marriage deprives them of one or the other.

d) Religious organizations can be sued for issuing statements against same sex marriage.

e) In Massachusetts, where same sex marriage is legal, they have started teaching in Kindergarten that man can marry another man, depriving the rights of parents who are against same sex marriage.

5) European countries who allows same sex marriage have major moral corruption, as well as erosion of family values

a) Holland allowed same sex marriage in 2001, and have gone downhill. They legalized beastiality in 2006 (but banned it again in 2008). They made it legal to have sex at age of 12, and STD is rampant.

b) Sweden allowed same sex marriage in 1994. Now marriage within family (i.e. between brothers and sisters) is allowed. Marriage is worthless. 56% of babies are born out of wedlock.

c) Denmark allowed same sex marriage since 1989. In sex education DVD released by Dept of Education for middle school students, contents such as beastiality, threesome, homosexuality, are shown in living color. (DVD was later withdrawn) In 2006 a special brothel featuring beastiality opened.

Studies show that children brought up in same sex families will be 4 to 10 times more likely to be homosexual. Proposition 8 will add the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman to the CA Constitution, permanently protecting CA from the moral corruption that plagued Europe, saving our kids and allowing them to grow up properly.

---

Makes you wonder who are the real nutjobs: the religious right, or the gay left? But let's analyze the claims:


1) Proposition 8 preserves the existing one man, one woman marriage
===========================================

This states WHAT proposition does, but it doesn't say WHY it should be preserved.

I guess what they're saying is that allowing same-sex couples to marry would mess up the definition of "marriage", which has always been between a man and a woman. However, there are two problems with this "reason".

a) Is marriage really what it always been? People are getting married much much later nowadays, and many are simply having children out of wedlock, and are just cohabitating. Famous media couples are certainly popularizing the trend. And heck, Sex and the City have these older women frolicking without marriage. And plenty of single-parents today.

b) Why does something "that has always been" must "continue to be"? For a VERY LONG time, people believed that the world was flat, and Earth is the center of the universe. Yet eventually something changed people's minds, so "always been" became "no more". "Always been" is not a reason at all. It's an attitude, not logic.

So far, no reasonable reason (yet).


2) Same sex marriage is NOT a civil right
==========================

According to the prop 8 folks, same sex marriage is NOT a civil right because "homosexuality is a changeable 'sexual preference'", and thus, if you raise sexual preference to a civil right, beastiality and child porn and polygamy and other deviant acts can't be far behind.

That's ALMOST a cogent argument, until you look closer into its components.

a) homosexuality is a changeable sexual preference. I.E. it is curable

I don't doubt that some priests or preachers have CLAIMED to have CURED homosexuality of a few individuals. But what did they really do? Not even THEY can explain it. They act as if they just exorcised a demon out of the poor man. But it is NOT scientific. And studies are still out on what exactly IS sexuality and sexual preference. Just because you CLAIM science said so doesn't make it so, but let's leave that aside for the moment. let's call this particular reason "doubtful, but ok".

b) civil right is about race, which is permanent, but sexual preference can be changed

First, civil right is NOT just about race. Civil right is about equal treatment under law for almost any condition of the human variance, not just about race. Civil rights is also about gender and other things. That's why it's called CIVIL rights, not race rights or racial equality. Thus, this argument automatically fails in the comparison.

c) if homosexuality is a civil right, deviant sex will soon be a civil right as well

Except there are LAWS against polygamy and child porn and beastiality, and no amount of "civil rights" will change that. This is pure "fear-mongering".

Score's not looking good: one argument that really isn't, then false comparisons.

3) Same sex marriage is NOT marriage, and should not be treated equally
===============================================

They had a compare and contrast chart listing how the two are different. However, there is a problem in this argument, which is unstated, and is a regular propaganda trick: what they say is different from what they show.

They SAY same sex marriage is NOT marriage. They SHOW you same sex marriage is DIFFERENT from marriage in four ways.

The two do NOT necessarily go hand in hand. Let's take an extreme example:

MAN vs. GAY MAN

Man: prefers woman, cunnilingus, breasts

Gay man: prefers man, fellatio, anal sex

So according to Prop 8 logic, GAY MAN is NOT MAN.

Sorry, that doesn't wash.


4) Same sex marriage will deprive you of your rights and destroy next generation's proper views
=============================================================

Oh, I can see a problem already, but let's go along... Let's check their arguments...

Argument a) In 2000 CA residents voted by margin of 61% "in defense of marriage" as defined between one man and one woman. Now four judges are imposing their will over the will of the people, forcing all CA residents and their children to accept same sex marriage.

It may sound good in a democracy, but just because it is the majority's will does not make it RIGHT. If 75% of the population decided to pass a law that puts the other 25% to death, it is the people's will, but is it RIGHT?

Hitler's Germany passed laws to get rid of the Jews. It is the people's will alright. is it right?

People's will is not always right. Thus, claiming that something is right because it is people's will is a logical fallacy.

Argument b) legalizing same sex marriage will cause more teenagers to try homosexuality. Any speech against this will be marginalized as "homophobia" "hate speech", abrogating your free will to express yourselves.

Oh, great, chaining multiple baseless statements together, typical propaganda trick again.

i) legalizing same sex marriage will cause more teenagers to try homosexuality -- BULL****! Teenagers by then already KNOW what they want. Just TRY stuff once or twice is not going to turn them into instant homosexuals either. Homosexuality is NOT an addiction: try it and you'll be hooked. Yeah, right.

ii) speed against homosexuality and same-sex marriage will be relegated as hate speech. -- BULL****! Ever heard of the "Freedom of speech", which is part of bill of rights?

Argument c) children need both father and mother as role models. Same sex marriage deprives them of one or the other.

Baseless claim. Plenty of kids grew up just fine in single-parent households. BULL****!

And why aren't the religious after the single mothers and fathers? After all, they're single, should be easy to find someone to marry, right? Why not run a dating service for single parents instead of spending millions on those TV ads? Bet you millions spent on such a dating service would produce a lot more married couples than fighting off same-sex couples.

In other words, they spend tons of money defeating something that they can't prove to be harmful to children, instead of spending that money helping something they claim is BETTER for the children.

Thus, more BULL****!

Argument d) Religious organizations can be sued for issuing statements against same sex marriage.

More BULL****! Freedom of Speech! Freedom of Speech! Say it with me! It may not be PC, but it is legal! AND it's a rehash of argument b! If they have to resort to repetition to pump up their argument numbers, they must be really desperate!

Argument e) In Massachusetts, where same sex marriage is legal, they have started teaching in Kindergarten that man can marry another man, depriving the rights of parents who are against same sex marriage.

Wait, what does what happened in another state have anything to do with us? It's not even the same law, same language, and all that!

Let's see, are you claiming that unless Prop 8 passes, public schools MUST teach gay marriage (i.e. a princess can marry a princess) in even elementary schools? Oh, yes, you ARE! You air ads stating so. But what idiotic moronic teacher would teach that sort of stuff in elementary school? Our schools are already in such sucky shape (CA ranks 48 out of 50 in per capita student spending), and teachers teach that sort of BS that doesn't help any of the subject? The principal should fire his/her ***, no law needed. Leave the sex and marriage stuff to teenage sex ed.

And do you really need to ban gay-marriage to stop the teaching of sexuality and sexual choices in early schools? Of course not! That's like banning water in homes because it can be wasted on lawns. It's inappropriate response. And it's BULL****..


5) European countries who allows same sex marriage have major moral corruption, as well as erosion of family values
===========================================================

Oh, here we got to a good reason, at least if you like the religious angle: same-sex marriage is amoral based on religious grounds. I am not saying it's right, just that they consider that a good reason.

But is that a REASONABLE reason? No, because they went on the make a case out of bogus arguments, such as "if you allow same-sex marriage, soon beastiality and incest will be legalized". I mean, just look at the last part of the brochure I included above!

And these examples illustrate the danger of people's will. In those countries, those changes came about because people VOTED FOR THEM, not because some judges decide that those are rights people should have. Yet Prop 8 would like you to believe that people's will is right. After all, 61% of Californians support normal marriage.

In other words:, people's will can be used to justify things when it's things that they support, but ignored when it's about things they are against. Can you say HYPOCRITE?


SO HOW DID MARRIAGE CAME TO BE?
========================

Marriage is an ECONOMICAL ARRANGEMENT from the agrarian era. In a male dominated society, marriage is a way to protect land and wealth within the family. In fact, it's implied that both sides are expected to find outside lovers... as long as they are subtle about it... until the religious institutions decided that they want to make marriage very literal.

Just keep in mind that co-habitation and single-parenting are all invented by heterosexual couples. Oh, and divorce. It used to be that you can't get divorces, just annulments, and that basically means you never got married, it was a mistake. However, only the very rich can get an annulment... Usually by paying the church a lot of money.

And in the present day, the religious institution is STILL at it. Is it really about "morals", or is it more about conforming to their standards?


IN CONCLUSION
==========

Prop 8 proponents used bogus arguments to win their case in the court of public opinion. We have analyzed one such brochure, and we have dissected EVERY argument they have presented. Other than one argument which can be argued either way due to lack of supporting evidence, everything else can be categorized as BULL****!

If you can pick that many holes into their argument(s), makes you wonder how DID the gay marriage people managed to lose the fight?

So sorry, Prop 8 proponents. You manage to squeeze through Prop 8 by using fearmongering and pseudo-legit arguments that do NOT stand close-examination. In other words, you are using bull****. Californians do NOT enjoy being fooled. Once news get out, Prop 8's days are numbered.