Deflating quack arguments against gay marriage

Sometimes quacks, loudmouths, teabaggers, religious bigots and zealots offer up an array of really dumb and stupid reasons why they oppose gay marriage. Let's, once again, explore (or in this case explode) these:

1. The Slipper Slope Argument - They say that if we allow gay marriage we are going to have to allow incest marriage, child marriage, bestial marriage and the like.

Counter: First laugh in their face for this flawed, awfully stupid excuse of an argument. Let them know that they themselves (as in the right wing teabaggers) do in deed reject slippery slope arguments when it comes to their very own pet issues. Tell them that if incest must be allowed in order to legalize gay marriage then the same concept must be true for something like the second amendment (which teabaggers get a raging boner over), meaning that the incest argument is as valid as saying that in allowing assault rifles we must also allow nuclear weapons. Once they balk at you for daring to "go after me guns!" ask them why is the slippery slope argument only applicable to gay marriage and nothing else? If they still look at you like they are looking at a periodic table tell them this: oh do you believe that just because we legalize Christianity in this country does that mean we then must legalize child sacrifice being that it is very deeply held religious belief for some creepy cults out there? Come on think about. They know that this slippery slope argument is a dopey way to even begin the debate against gay marriage. It is only meant to fear-monger people into equating gay marriage to other "perversions" like boning your mom's sweet vagina.

The above counter can obliterate all teabaggers out of the anti-gay waters like a Somali pirate boat. And thus anymore arguments coming from them are to be taken with a grain of salt... but just in case they might throw these other wrenches:

2. The Polygamy Argument - what about Polygamists and their "marriage equality?"

Counter: In this argument the teabaggers rely on, again, trying to equate gay marriage to a totally different thing. If we are talking about "equality" then why is Polygamy even in the picture? Since straights are not allowed to engage in polygamy and gays want equal rights that straights have, why is Polygamy even in our minds? Teabagger airheads need to realize that polygamy is about numbers not gender. You usually marry someone you are sexually attracted to, and for gays that someone is of the same sex. Lifting the barrier on gender does not necessarily mean lifting the barrier on the number of people that can marry all at once. Just like when barriers due to religion were taken down it didn't lead to a bunch of polygamists getting hitched on A&E. Nor when when a black man was allowed to marry a white woman was there a "risk" to allowing polygamists to be blessed by the county clerk. And the same will be when the barrier based on gender will be knocked down. Polygamists will be, once again, disappointed and wedding guests will be pleased to know that only one wedding gift will be enough per wedding.

And here's the kicker by the way: Polygamy is by far a religious practice. 99% of Polygamists engage in such activity due to deeply held religious beliefs. And so we can find it hilarious when teabaggers were fuming with rage when a federal judge struck down criminal sanctions against Utah Polygamists because it was violation of their First Amendment rights to "freedom of religion" - as in they were exercising their religious beliefs and wanted an exemption from the anti-polygamy laws. The polygamists argue that these laws are a burden against their seriously held religious beliefs. Sound familiar to you Arizona teabaggers?

By now your anti-gay Evangelist teabagger friends might have their heads spinning. Hold their heads tight as there is more:

3. Gays can't have kids Argument - duh, moron.

Counter: So what's the point? The premise of this argument is duplicitous if not down right fraudulent. Because the insinuation here is that married couples have children, while knowing full well that in reality many don't. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who chose not to have kids, and there are some who cannot. Yet these couples enjoy the privileges of marriage anyway. If the "must pop out kids" rule is really even a rule, or even a societal imposition then the laws would reflect that in trying to skirt these heterosexual couples from getting married at all and "waste" society's time and resources on their fake "marriages."

4. They just want the word "marriage" Argument - They say that gays have rejected "their kind offer" of civil unions, which by the way, they have now come to embrace (even though no single teabagger state has ever even considered them, so the civil unions deal is just a meaningless ploy to stop gays in their tracks). They are saying that gays are just after a "word." This is popular with teabaggy libertarian dupes.

Counter: Well now, they have just ended the debate for themselves and you. They have conceded to a stupid idea that marriage is just a "word." If it is just a "word" then why even fight tooth and nail over it? Why are you even talking to me? Don't you have something better to do like shine your guns and make "Obama is a Socialist" signs and iron out Confederate flags for your next teabagger rally?

5. Gays will "devalue" marriage Argument - My favorite argument thus far because it is the most quacky one that I enjoy countering. Here they say that since gays are "promiscuous" they will devalue marriage.

Counter: Oh so that means that gay couples should not be allowed to eat out on Valentines day like heterosexual couples because it would "devalue" Valentines day? If we allow gay people to drive would that devalue driving? If we allow gays to eat would that devalue eating? And besides who really thinks that heterosexual couples are never engaging in promiscuous activity? Have you ever heard of "swinger parties?" Come on, get real.

Thought: It is true that men are more promiscuous than women because men are programmed to "spread their seed" and many people deal with this brain wiring in different ways - some control their urges for fidelity to their spouses, and though that can be admired, as it should, let's not forget that couples who are not monogamous yet are still able to stick together should also be admired too. If couples are able to deal with their sexual urges in a calm adult fashion and mutually agree on certain parameters they must have a lot of will power and trust, especially since jealousy tends to rear its ugly head in these circumstances. It is the premise of marriage that couples stay together through thick and thin and must be able to "work out" their issues. Emphasis on "work."

6. Gays don't need marriage Argument - A clever argument I say. But still mostly bullshit nonetheless.

Counter: First off, who the fuck are you to tell gays what they don't or do need? Fine, lets take "what you do/don't need' argument and lets just say that teabaggers don't need guns. They can defend themselves with knives and that is enough. Oh-oh. Crazy teabagger might now think you are from the "guvment, tryin' to take me guns away!" He then pops out his handy "pocket Constitution" booklet he bought from Glenn Beck and recite to you the second amendment (that's if he can actually read). It is his right goddamit! You queers need to understand that!

Yes, but the argument that is posed by the teabaggers is not that if something is a right or not, but whether or not it is "needed." And many good arguments can be made about how guns are "not needed" - just like there are arguments saying that "marriage is not needed" - heck you can make a case on how its not even needed for heteros either. Yet the teabagger does make a clear (if he's not yelling) and legal argument about why he has right to own guns based on the constitution. And gays, of course, are also making the same type of argument on gay marriage. It is not about whether or not marriage is "needed" but whether or not gays "have a constitutional right" to marriage just like if gun totting teabaggers have a "constitutional right" to own guns, irregardless if they are needed or not.

By now your teabbager friend is shaking his legs and pointing his precious shinny rifle to his head knowing that he has lost the debate. Hopefully he pulls the trigger. But these teabaggers are not that brave aren't they? We know the reason why they carry guns in a fully visible fashion and why they are so eager to tell us how teh gays are destroying all the "holy" of fat ass 'merica, because, much like their asinine arguments against gay marriage, they try to look rough on the outside because inside they are totally weak and hallow.