Maxiavelli: Arguments of Gays Opposing Gay "Marriage"

Dante & Virgil in Inferno - William Adolphe Bouguereau
It may sound surprising but there are actually gay people who oppose same-sex "marriage".

Their principal argument is:

"Marriage is between a man and a woman and that's the best environment for children"

Tell that to politicians who seemed to have forgotten that fact and, contrary to democratic principles, rushed into passing bills without consulting the electorate directly...I just hope that, in the end, they are not setting up the gay community with these political steps.

Please find bellow the arguments of gay individuals who oppose gay "marriage":

"It's demonstrably not the same as heterosexual marriage - the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn't the same." -- Jonathan Soroff, US

"We're not going to procreate as a couple and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions (..) I'm not going to walk down the aisle to Mendelssohn wearing white in a church and throw a bouquet and do the first dance" -- idem

"I'm not concerned about whether I can get married but whether I will die in the street at the hands of homophobes." -- Legba Carrefour, US

"We already have gay marriage — it’s called civil partnership. Why can’t Mr Cameron just leave it there?" -- Andrew Pierce, UK

"We've got marriage, it's called a civil partnership and I rejoice in the fact that people like me who are different from straight people can do something they can't. I relish that." -- idem

"Gay marriage is in fact a threat, but not to families or straight marriage. It’s another nail in the coffin of outwardly acceptable gay sexual freedom." -- Blog Gays Against Gay Marriage

"This [gay marriage] has transcended mere legal equality and the convenience of standard-form contracts and crossed into ceremonial jealously." -- idem 

"I am now speaking out against same-sex marriage. By the way, I am gay. (..) In developing their goals for policy and law, politicians often look no further than the next election cycle. They’re concerned about votes. Supporting same-sex marriage now looks like a winner for them." -- Doug Mainwaring , US

"Same-sex marriage will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it. (..) Same-sex marriage will (..), [deprive] children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment." -- idem

"Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither 'progressive' nor 'conservative' legislation. It is 'regressive' legislation." -- idem

"This isn't a priority for the gay community, which has already won equal rights with civil partnerships," -- Labour MP Ben Bradshaw, UK

Maxiavelli wonders how many other gay individuals share these views and yet are being silence by opportunistic politicians...

Comments

  1. Olá Max!

    I didn't know that there were Gay people against gay marriage, wow! These are very strong arguments and I agree with most of them, but the harm is done!
    What are your thoughts on Obama's visit to Africa and him telling them to legalise homosexuality?

    Today I learned something new, Max!

    tchau

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Olá Celeste :D!

      Every coin has two sides.
      President Obama's visit to Africa was interesting because finally the US is paying closer attention to the continent. As for his message regarding homosexuality: African leaders, as much as they'd like to change things, they must respect the public opinion (who do not view homosexuality with good eyes) and the US must respect that. Like Senegal's president said "We are not ready yet but that doesn't mean that we are homophobic".

      Celeste, thank you so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
    2. I didn't like Obama's interference in African internal affairs, to tell you the truth. But I guess the minute we accept American aid funds (for security, for all sorts of things) we have to suck it up! Thanks for answering my question, Max!

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. Hi Anonynous :D!

      It is, isn't it? Thanks for dropping by.

      Cheers

      Delete
  3. I don't understand how gay marriage can be an entrapment for gays. Besides, how do I know that these folks are really gay? For all I know they can be right wingers passing as gays to support their cause!
    Anyway, our cause is being widely accepted around the world and we will even succeed in Africa, eventually!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Celia :D!

      They will be registered.
      Well, I suggest you contact those people and verify whether they are gay or not by yourself.

      Celia, thank you ever so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  4. what can i say??? besides this also being a sort of "establishment"....i dont agree withe same sex marriage (as i dont agree with general corruption....), but i understand that this may attempt some groups freedom, and respect to choices. If the democracy prevails, then laws should be approved accordingly to a majority wish...but it really doesn't work like that, does it?

    All the best Max
    Gallardo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ciao Gallardo :D!

      I understand where you are coming from. I don't agree with the corruption of the definition of "marriage" either, but that's what we have right now.

      "If the democracy prevails, then laws should be approved accordingly to a majority wish...but it really doesn't work like that, does it?"

      No, it doesn't (unfortunately).

      Gallardo, thank you ever so much for your comment :D. Always a pleasure.

      Cheers

      Delete
  5. In my opinion, same sex marriage is merely an attempt to normalize homosexual relations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi D! :D

      They are "normalised" already, in a way...the problem is politicians (and their derivatives) doing things without asking the people directly.

      D, thank you ever so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  6. This article is a salad of bad arguments, and non sequiturs. Seems like a cover for hostility to equality, using the bad ideas of others as 'emperor's new clothes'.
    "Marriage is between a man and a woman and that's the best environment for children"

    Except all of the studies done on same-sex parents show that their children flourish and are as well adjusted as those raised by straight parents.

    "Gay marriage is in fact a threat, but not to families or straight marriage. It’s another nail in the coffin of outwardly acceptable gay sexual freedom."

    So, all that sexual freedom goes back in the box, once marriage equality becomes a reality? Whoever wrote this is not paying attention to the gay scenes in Amsterdam or Toronto.

    "I'm not concerned about whether I can get married but whether I will die in the street at the hands of homophobes."

    False opposition argument. Which societies are likely to be less homophobic? Ones with marriage equality, or the Russias and Ugandas of the planet?


    "We already have gay marriage — it’s called civil partnership. Why can’t Mr Cameron just leave it there?"

    Separate is never equal in law.

    "Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither 'progressive' nor 'conservative' legislation. It is 'regressive' legislation."

    This is barely an argument, it is a paranoid version of the slippery slope. If a society unravels because of marriage equality, it should be measurable in the societies where it has been law for over a decade.
    Lazy article, aggregating bad arguments, and hoping that people will believe them because they were made by gay people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Max :D!

      Welcome.

      Well, what it seems not always is.
      The intention behind this collection of quotes is to show the other side of the Gay Marriage debate (which doesn't have as much as coverage as the "Yeah" side does). Perhaps we should apologise for making you uncomfortable...but we won't. Nevertheless, we welcome your opinion.

      "Except all of the studies done on same-sex parents show that their children flourish and are as well adjusted as those raised by straight parents."

      I do not doubt it.

      You just got here (to this blog) so I understand that you do not know what I think about this issue.

      "So, all that sexual freedom goes back in the box, once marriage equality becomes a reality? Whoever wrote this is not paying attention to the gay scenes in Amsterdam or Toronto."

      Perhaps this gay individual doesn't support such "gay scenes in Amsterdam or Toronto"...who knows? But I do know he is entitled to his opinion; just like you do.

      "False opposition argument. Which societies are likely to be less homophobic? Ones with marriage equality, or the Russias and Ugandas of the planet?"

      And you make another false argument; because in countries like Portugal (before gay "marriage" was legalised) homosexuals lived in safety and in peace. Whereas in America, where many states legalised this sort of union, gays are still attacked for what they are. This so-called "marriage equality" is not a guarantee to personal safety (of gay people).

      "Separate is never equal in law."

      Context: in the UK, by law, gays can have civil unions but heterosexuals cannot. And now, gays can marry, just like heterosexuals; yet the latter remain prevented from having civil unions. There is no equality, under the law, when it suits lawmakers.

      The article served its purpose: it led you to share your "liberal" ideas. I commend you for it. But you hardly introduced proper arguments yourself...you sounded quite hysterical; but we will not apologise for having presented a different side to the same coin.

      Max, thank you ever so much for your input. I hope you visit more :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
    2. Max Krzyzanowski, the only hostile thing here is you! This compilation of quotes taught people like me that there is a different side to this issue - one that the liberal mainstream media refuses to give voice to! You do not have to agree with any of us here but don't be rude cause it makes you look stupid!
      Sorry, Max Coutinho...but you were too polite and people like this don't understand that kind of language!

      Delete
    3. Celeste,

      Being polite doesn't hurt. Besides, Max K wasn't rude, he was just expressing his opinion.
      And yes, people understand politeness very well :)

      Cheers

      Delete
    4. "Seems like a cover for hostility to equality, using the bad ideas of others as 'emperor's new clothes'." - why are others' ideas bad, Krzyzanowski? Just because they go against what you believe in?
      As for the rest of this guys's diatribe, in the spirit of this quote post, I will quote Lenny Hannah:

      "os comentadores – casca grossa - que se escondem atrás do seu computador para dizer barbaridades são os danos colaterais da infestação do establishment pela populace."

      (translation: rude commenters who hide behind their computer to talk [crap] are the collateral damage of the infestation of common people the establishment has suffered)

      Delete
  7. What I dig the most about this blog, besides the articles in it, is the comments area. I dig Celia and Ana Antunes, two opposites that entertain me but I never not even in my wildest dreams expected to find Lord Vader vs Obi-Wan Kenobi..two Max's in the same article, how neat is that?
    Lord Max Krzyzanowsk Vader, there isn't any marriage equality not matter how governments undemocratically try to shove it down our throats. Gays are not equal to straights period, but hey I respect (you?) them as long as they do not rub their homosexuality on my face. What's the matter? You didn't like the idea that Gays may not agree with the Gay movement? Booboo....
    Max Obi-Wan Coutinho, next time kick his damn bored ass...why do you want your light sabre for? Welcome back, we missed you. Celia was starting to bore me to death with her commie talk :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Adam :D!

      Thank you, it is great to be back - I missed you guys as well :D.

      The comments section is awesome, isn't? *high 5*
      LOL LOL LOL "Lord Max Krzyzanowski Vader (...) Max Obi-Wan Coutinho" LOL LOL LOL that was a good one! You guys slay me.

      This blog welcomes any sort of comment: for or against whatever is published here. As long as people are not rude or vulgar; they can say whatever comes to their mind. That has been my policy since the beginning of this project and, I would like to keep it that way...all right :)?

      Adam, thank you ever so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  8. This is a rather difficult subject; one that I have been avoiding to address for far too long, I'd say. I do not believe in equality, of any sort; but if society is going to hypocritical about it then I suggest that they properly be so: allow heterosexuals to have civil partnerships, if it is equality that we are indeed looking for. Only, I suspect, that is not what we are looking for; we are seeking a complete perversion and distortion of values. Politicians are becoming an abhorrent class of people; something must be done!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Bernard :D!

      It IS a very sensitive subject indeed.
      You are absolutely right: if we are going to lie to ourselves about equality, then do it properly and avoid discriminating heterosexuals (because it will certainly backlash eventually).
      Are you proposing a revolution, Bernie? :)

      Bernard, thank you ever so much for your comment :D. You were missed.

      Cheers

      Delete
  9. Replies
    1. Hi Anonymous :D!

      Thank you for having dropped by :D. But before leaving I will tell you what I told Delirious:

      "They are "normalised" already, in a way...the problem is politicians (and their derivatives) doing things without asking the people directly."

      Cheers

      Delete
  10. A sensitive subject where many people have opposing views, just like politics and religion.

    Happy blogging, Max! ;o)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Abelle :D!

      So true, my dear.

      Thank you ever so much for having dropped by :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  11. It bothers me when gay rights groups compare their right to "marry" to the rights of blacks and coloreds and whites of marrying in the 60's, in America. It is so ridiculous and I don't think they listen to the absurdities they say. No, I am not a religious person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anonymous :D!

      You have raised an interesting question. Indeed, it is not the same thing at all. But Gay Rights Groups will say anything to allure the minorities.
      LOL even if you were a religious person you were still entitled to voice your opinion :).

      Anonymous, thank you so much for your input; you brought a different point of discussion to the table :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  12. "This [gay marriage] has transcended mere legal equality and the convenience of standard-form contracts and crossed into ceremonial jealously." - I couldn't agree more.
    Ok, gays must have the same social, civil whatever you wanna call it, rights as we do but I think gay activists are starting to extrapolate. Come on, Russia bans homosexuality right? It managed to host the winter olympics and now gay activists are crying because they will have to respect Russia's laws? I don't see them having the same reaction when they travel to Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries that ban homosexuality!
    Gay activists have double-standards and it will backlash! Who is funding them and with what purpose? I know a lot of gays and they just want to be left alone, they don't need this sort of attention!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ana :D!

      You have a point. If they do not like Russian laws then they shouldn't go there.
      And yes, you are absolutely right about the double standards in relation to Arab nations: it is incredible. Did you see any feminist group or LGBT group protesting in the streets to support that woman who was raped in the UAE and jailed for it? No...but they will if a 5-year-old Palestinian (practising to be a terrorist) is caught throwing rocks at people (and vehicles)...

      Good question. Yes, most gays just want to live their lives and be left alone.

      Ana, thank you ever so much for your great comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  13. Well I guess 'Marriage' is a much broader term and in this regard I would love to stay orthodox for the very fact that we should not encourage something un-natural, which may lead to broader complications in the way of life and our society is structured. Modernity and liberalism should not be equated in the same vein. If two guys want to stay together discreetly, let them do it but not make a hullabaloo about it. I guess they try to demonstrate something being cool with it and for politicians who has a knack of poking their noses in each and every thing should think hundred times before demonstrating something, which otherwise they wont encourage if it comes to their own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Kalyan :D!

      Indeed, indeed.

      "Modernity and liberalism should not be equated in the same vein."

      I utterly agree with you.

      You know it, K. And that is why many begin to think that eventually this whole thing will backlash. But oh well, politicians "know" it best...they want us to suppose.

      Kalyan, thank you ever so much for your fab comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  14. Max, I do like your collection very much.

    Since I have had extensive conversations with modernist theologians - and they are the ones who own gay marriage - I will offer up their rebuttal on their behalf:

    1. Every gay relationship is faithful and monogamous. They all live with countless gay friends and can attest to this as a fact that they have witnessed in every single one of their gay acquaintances.

    2. There has never been a faithful monogamous, heterosexual relationship. Even Adam's wife, Eve, was involved in the oldest profession.

    Therefore, gay marriage really is mandatory. A direct corollary, however, is that heterosexuals should be banned from marrying or attempting to engage in monogamous relationships.

    Think about it: If all the gay priests in the catholic church were forced to marry, then all the child molestation problems would disappear. Poof!

    But I should confess that I am not a modernist and I have some doubts about their analysis. I will also note that it is a "hate crime" to disagree with them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Looney :D!

      I am glad you liked it *bowing*.

      1. Not true (as many gays will tell you and confirm). Well, they do not know all the gays in the world; I'd bet they don't even know all the gays in their country...so, this argument is preposterous.

      2. Never been a faithful monogamous, heterosexual relationship...I would beg to differ (and I am so not alone in this one). LOL LOL come on...Eve was a prostitute? Pray, where did they find evidence of this?
      Baseless argument.

      I can only imagine what went through your mind lol *nodding*.

      Are you telling me that those modern theologians actually suggested that there is a comparison between paedophilia and homosexuality?

      LOL ah, Looney you kill me! LOL LOL
      Judging by the reaction of some folks, yeah...it is a "hate crime" to disagree with them lol *nodding*...the whole world has gone bonkers.

      Looney, thank you ever so much for your great comment :D. Loved it.

      Cheers



      Delete
    2. :)

      Yes, their argument was embellished a bit by dragging Eve into it. Also, the modernist theologians will deny any connection between male homosexuality and pederasty until they are dead. Of course, the classical pagan writers all had an exactly opposite view.

      I gave the modernist theologians an argument that took me way beyond "hate". I pointed out that because they argued that all homosexuals are monogamous, and gays are known to the highest rates of STD infection of any people grouping, then according to their theories, the only way gays could be infected was if God were punishing them supernaturally. Unlike modernist theologians, I believe that there is a simple scientific explanation.

      Delete
    3. Looney,

      LOL ah, it was embellished...you got me there :). But I wouldn't be surprised if you had actually heard such sort of argument, because people are capable of saying anything *nodding*.
      Oh I see, it seems like it is convenient for certain groups to ignore historical facts - denial?

      :O You told them that on their face? Kudos! Needless for me to say that I agree with you - the facts corroborate your argument.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers