We've got some bad news for you guys – gays are completely and utterly worthless. At least that's what Peter Sprigg says in an infuriating op-ed over at USA Today.
The Family Research Council policy Vice-President (pictured, looking a lot like Michael Savage) insists that states should not allow gay nuptials not only because "the legal and financial benefits of marriage are not an entitlement for every citizen regardless of lifestyle," but because we're simply not reproductive enough…
Sprigg spews:
Society gives "benefits" to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society. Therefore, when those who are not married, such as people in homosexual or cohabiting relationships, seek to receive such public benefits, they bear the burden of proof. They must show that such relationships benefit society (not just themselves) in the same way and to the same degree that authentic marriage between a man and a woman does.This is a burden they cannot meet. Only the union of a man and a woman can result in the natural reproduction that is essential literally to continue the human race. And research clearly demonstrates that married men and women — and children raised by their married, biological mother and father — are happier, healthier and more prosperous than people in any other living situation. These are the true benefits of marriage.
Actually, there's no research saying children raised by "breeders" will come out any better than their queer-raised counterparts. In fact, there's research saying the latter are just as well adjusted as any other kids. Oh well, facts have never suited Family Research Council and their nefarious policy.
PHOTOS: Rebel With a Cause (12)
· allancsn says: Wasn’t going to post again because of the 12 year olds – you’re all... »
· Todd says: Ha…this kid hooked is whole way through Butler University in Indianapolis! $40 got... »
Just How Much of Twilight’s $140M Box Office Will Go Toward Fighting Marriage? (14)
· *J_C* says: fell asleep when i rented the first movie twice, i gave it 2 chances, its a no go ill... »
“Step-fathers who have sex with their step-daughters don’t do it because of ‘heterosexuality’” (2)
· terrwill says: OH MY!! What a TOTAL SUPRISE!! This “study” was commissioned by the RC... »
· *J_C* says: huh………& #8230;……̷ 0;….. »
Kept From Her Dying Wife, Janice Langbehn Gets Her Hospital Apologies. Almost (1)
· terrwill says: Words can not describe the pain and suffering I wish upon that “social... »
If We Out D.C.’s Gay Catholic Priests, Will the Church Stop Railing Against Marriage? (31)
· 1EqualityUSA says: It’s a painful situation all around, on both sides. It has to work itself... »
So Lady Gaga Was Pretty Great at the AMAs. And Adam Lambert Was Pretty Terrible (77)
· The Artist says: The entire show lack luster. Janet performance seem lazy…midrange. Worst... »
· hardmannyc says: Romeo: I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. As I said, I’d never... »
British Churches Won’t Be Allowed to Ban Gay Employees. Would That Fly in America? (10)
· naghanenu says: Religious groups have every right to hire whom they please. It is not the govt... »
What a ridiculous loser Sprigg is. He creates his own criteria for the validity of marriage, and then tries to back up his own straw man.
There is no reason that the benefits to society need to be "in the same way and to the same degree" for every marriage. Marriage benefits society in many ways, other than children. And children exist outside of marriage. The whole argument is ludicrous. His only criteria for validity of marriage is reproduction, but he doesn't advocate for fertility tests for all people wishing to get married. Would he deny marriage rights to post-menopausal straight women?
And, yeah, whatever "research" he is talking about is clearly either non-existent or seriously flawed. Many studies show that kids do great with same sex parents.
I must say, I am happy to see so many smart and sensible responses/comments to this stupid op-ed on the USA Today website.
Well, here is the problem with saying "Only the union of a man and a woman can result in the natural reproduction that is essential literally to continue the human race." If the above mentioned statement were true, what if the union of a man and a woman can't reproduce because one or both of the persons involved are unable to reproduce, for example, because of medical reasons? That would make a lot of people "unfit" for society. Besides being stupid, the op-ed uses flawed logic.
So we are to accept that we must pay for benefits that we don't receive? I pay taxes to support schools, infrastructure, etc. and as a single person, I pay more than married couples in income tax. In fact, I end up with a whopping 55% of my gross (okay, some is for Medicare and Social Security) income! Did I miss the form for opting out of paying for the breeders' benefits? Is there some gay deduction I am not aware of that I can take? I think not, therefore I am entitled to the same benefits – no more, no less!