I'm sure people are going to be arguing about this column in great nuance, but I thought for an immediate response I'd hastily and broadly re-post something originally posted on a friend's Facebook profile. I don't know who wrote it originally, but kudos to the (very sarcastic) writer:

*

I know this list doesn't differentiate between 'wrong' and 'something the government has a right to prevent,' but neither does anyone who argues against gay marriage :-).

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Translation: wingnuts think gay sex is icky. Give us a break. PS: few things are more fun than watching the GOP fulminate and carp and make neat hand-made signs at Fox News tea parties.

NO real arguments being made for gay marriage except for "wha, approve of my lifestyle"? None?

Cuz gee, I thought you made a pretty good one yourself:

Marriage established a mechanism for the training and upbringing of children and provided for the disposition of familial assets in ways that protected the property rights of those who had a share in creating the assets in the first place.

Acknowledging the status and privilege that marriage bestows on heterosexual couples makes a pretty convincing argument that there's something meaningful that gay couples are being denied, besides just the thrill of societal approval, when they are denied legal marriage.

Or at least, our traditional understanding of it. Whenever I hear people say "2000 year tradition", I can't help but sigh. You're about 1500 years off, folks.

I don't expect Wingnut, who is an apologist for the worst aspects of social conservatism and has proven that more than once in his few articles here, to worry about this, any more than he's worried about logic in the other situations. He's more of a fan of the pretzel shape he's contorting his mind into to wrap it around these antiquated ideas.

Hey, why not cut to the chase and just have the "wingnut" explain why conservatives hate America so much? Why are they constantly willing to sacrifice our freedoms, take rights away from whomever they can and vote against their own best interest? Why do wingnuts favor letting the very wealthy screw us all and hurt the country while doing it?

Get rid of this crap, and Paglia too while you're at it. Conservatives have enough venues without giving them another here.

Before this thread becomes a flame war, let me see if I can sum up the author's arguments. I'd love to hear some rational, convincing counter-arguments to these points that I can use in discussions with conservatives.

Conservatives oppose gay marriage because:

1. Male/female monogamy has a long successful tradition in our society, and historically (perhaps still) protects the rights of children and sometimes women.

2. If gay marriage becomes legalized, churches and individuals who refuse to participate in the cermemonies may face legal and financial penalties. Precedent for this already exists.

3. By legalzing gay marriage, the state (as represented by a few judges) is essentially coercing people into accepting it and dealing with it. Legality should be decided by direct polling, not judicial decree.

"...forcing other people to accept how they live, to validate the lives they have made for themselves..."

What if this argument were applied against, oh say, Jews or vegetarians, or golfers? Bigoted much? How come, when applied to gays, we're supposed to accept it?

The Wingnut recycles all the familiar, fallacious arguments to explain why conservatives are opposed to gay marriage. This is not a states' rights issue. The gays are not try to force gay marriage down any throats. Marriage as a legal entity is defined by the government, it does not exist in spite of the government, and so the government can define it any chooses. No one one wants to force any religion to change their practices, despite his dire warnings (an dnotice he fails to give single concrete example of a ruling that owuld force churches to marry gays; simple reason - there aren't any). The Catholic church is currently free not to marry divorced people. It would be free to refuse to marry gay people if gay marriage were legalized. And his canard about "unelected judges" is prevarication of the worst sort. Most states judges are elected. The judges are just doing what they are elected to do, namely decide whether legislation is consistent with a state's constitution and the federal constitution. Finally, now that the Vermont legislature has ratified gay marriage, is he going to rail against "activist" legislatures. Finally, this hooey about "respecting" traditions masks the fact that traditions are often not desirable and as a result are constantly changing. It was traditional until not too long ago to believe that inter-racial marriages were wrong. I suspect the Wingnut doesn't believe that, but if he were a "conservative" in 1962 he certainly would. If these are the best arguments the conservatives have against gay marriage, there cause is well and truly morally bankrupt.