Bizarre Signs at ‘Pro-Marriage’ Rally

There’s a battle going on in Minnesota over marriage equality and the bigots were out in force at the state capitol on March 7 to reveal just how inane their position is for the world to see. This sign just leaves me shaking my head.

Photo by Jake Loesch
Photo by Jake Loesch

First of all, homosexuality is already legal. Marriage equality is not about whether homosexuality is legal or not. And where the hell did that claim about killing children come from? There were also a lot of these signs around:

Photo by John Croman
Photo by John Croman

Uh, what? Do they think that if gay people are allowed to marry, schools will stop teaching how babies are made? Just weird.

""It's a gun!" Bang, bang, bang, bang!"

Milwaukee Settles Racial Targeting Suit for ..."
"You guys do know, though, right, that there's an elephant in the room? Y'know, those ..."

Mueller Indicts 12 Russian Agents for ..."
"The thin intellectual upper crust is not quite finished with the Ronnie Reagan 'Bedtime for ..."

Trump’s Feigned Powerlessness Against Russian Interference
"This is a job for Harry Callahan."

Judge to Trump: You Broke It, ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • iknklast

    On that second sign, it also refers, I have no doubt, to the lesser value of man/woman marriages that do not generate children. My husband and I did not have children; our marriage is as real, as vibrant, and as good as those that did.

  • dmcclean

    “7 to 9x more children” than what?

    :shakes head:

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Is that just a trick of the lighting, or is our new friend in that upper picture wearing a tasteful stud earring?

  • @iknklast #1 – The sole purpose of marriage is procreation, after all. At least, that was the ruling of the Washington Supreme Court in 2006 when it upheld the state’s Denial of Marriage Act.

  • savagemutt

    The first sign is accurate. But seven to nine times zero is still zero.

  • Jim

    Savagemutt – humanities major here, but isn’t it x times 0 equals 1?

    I believe that stat come from Nick Griffin and is based on pure voodoo. Well, and the fact that lesbian couples will most likely have children via infertility methods, which have higher rates of failure than natural conception. It’s still a monumentally stupid argument.

  • There was a nut job at the hearing yesterday making the claim that AIDS is caused when sperm enters the bloodstream through anal sex. He babbled about some kind of enzyme in sperm that when it reacts with the blood, causes AIDS. So:

    Sperm + Blood + Anal Sex = AIDS

    Anyway, his claim was that if gay marriage was legalized, more people would get AIDS. He apparently believes that two uninflected people can get AIDS just by having anal sex*. Maybe the guy with the first sign is affiliated with him. Because, as we all know, if gay marriage is legalized, more kids will try it and therefore, get AIDS.

    *Once again, I’m left wondering why anti-gay bigots are so obsessed with the mechanics of anal sex.

  • doublereed

    Wow, that first image is… impressive.

  • bcmystery

    Off-topic, but AIEEEEEEEEEEE tiny font attack!

  • The Lorax

    Argh! The stupid! It burns! HISSSS!!!

  • yankonamac

    I’m pretty sure woman plus man equals woman and man. Any blending of the two would also have to involve scalpels and string, and I don’t see those included in the pictogram.

    The biggest puzzler is how adamant these kooks are about how monogamous, heteronormative, lie-back-and-think-of-the-Pope shagging is the only way to make babies, but then they also make bizarre claims that a 12 year old had a spontaneous pregnancy two thousand years ago, the result of which then went on to save the world by being executed for blasphemy.

    “Don’t lie to children” indeed.

  • @d.c.wilson #7 – Never mind the fact that HIV has been proven to be the causative agent for AIDS, and never mind the fact that, on a global scale, HIV/AIDS is overwhelmingly a heterosexual disease, or that 10% of the people living with HIV/AIDS are children under the age of 15. But then, reality has never been these people’s strong point.

  • Taz

    Jim –

    Savagemutt – humanities major here, but isn’t it x times 0 equals 1?

    Are you thinking x to the 0th power? That would be 1 for x not equal to 0.

  • unbound

    @#3 – Pretty sure it is just a trick of lighting.

    @#6 – Any number times zero is zero. You are probably thinking of any number (except zero) raised to the power of zero is equal to one.

    I think the only appropriate response to the signs was already providing in a movie long ago here.

  • Phillip IV

    “Don’t go for cheap substitutes! The legalization of Homosexuality kills 7 to 9 times as many children as another comparable, brand-name legalization!”

    Yeah, no idea what that number is supposed to be about. I do fully agree with the sentiment on the other sign, though – “Don’t lie to children!”. Christianity would be gone within a generation, if everyone did that.

  • I don’t like children.

    I don’t favor killing them, but not causing them to exist is a plus.

  • eric

    I choose to think that the “7 to 9x” is a reference to homeopathy, and the person is arguing that legal homosexuality kills exactly one one-billionth of a single child (0.000000001 children). It doesn’t make much more sense, but hey, woo + crazy is more amusing than crazy alone.

  • Yeah, I bet clown number one thinks gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, and hence get AIDS and die.

    As for clown number two I wonder what the odd are that he believes various nonsense about birth control, or at the very least supports abstinence only sex ed, which often seems to contain much lying to children about reproduction.

  • Alverant

    @9 You too? Whew, I thought something was screwy (well screwier) with my browser.

  • didgen

    I thought the tiny font was me somehow not being able to read this morning.

  • Abby Normal

    I think that first sign holder is confused. Child sacrifices are part of Jewish weddings ceremonies. The gays just sodomize them.

  • I really don’t care one way or the other about guns, but wouldn’t increased availability of machines designed to cause death = more deaths? Rather than letting people spend the rest of their lives in peace without government-endorsed discrimination? Seems like a much better argument to me than “teh ghey will kill our children,” anyway.

    Unless he means that legalized homosexuality will lead to more rape/killing of children by roving bands of newly liberated homos driving through suburbs in black vans with tinted windows randomly grabbing our precious white children as they play baseball in a park or grab them out of churches where they are studying about Jeebus. And infect them with “the AIDS” by mixing their sperm with childrens’ “butt enzymes.”

  • eric

    I bet clown number one thinks gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, and hence get AIDS and die.

    That can’t be it, he’s talking about child deaths not gay partner deaths. He’d probably be fine with the latter.

    Here’s maybe two possibilities (both crazy, but there you go).

    1. If it were illegal, they’d screw people of the opposite sex and have children. By legalizing homosexuality, N children who would’ve been born, aren’t, which is the moral equivalent of killing them.

    2. If it wasn’t legal, there’d be no AIDS, and every woman who has ever died from AIDS would be alive and having 2.5 kids. So legalization killed those kids.

  • whirligig

    Now I want a similar sign, but the right side will be a monstrous giant with four arms, four legs, and two heads.

  • The second sign might lead a child to think that babies are born in restrooms.

  • I’m glad I wasn’t drinking something, Dr. X, because that would’ve made me snort it.

  • ArtK

    Dollars-to-donuts, if you asked the owner of the second sign about his/her opinion on sex education in the schools, the answer would be “no way, ever!”

  • I now want to make a bunch of other signs. Like….

    Sperm bank + woman = baby

    Man and woman, woman and woman, or man and man + adoption agency = baby

    Man and woman – baby = (happy) man and woman

  • baal

    The first picture looks like it’s from the Minnesota capital rotunda. I recommend visiting the building if you’re ever in the State. It’s really nice.

    A little as a year ago, the State Dems were deathly afraid of offering a SSM bill or roll back on the (R)’s ban on SSM. The (R)’s Constitutional amendment push, however, backfired by showing how great the support for SSM is in the State (and suddenly the Dems can float a bill). The issue is news currently since the bill made it out of committee and will get a floor vote in both chambers later this session.

  • caseloweraz

    Let’s be generous (i.e. play devil’s advocate) and imagine that the first sign means “If homosexual marriage is made legal, seven to nine times as many children will fail to be conceived.” (I read this as tantamount to “It will destroy the institution of marriage,” but leave that aside.)

    If 10 percent of the population is homosexual, and all of those individuals marry people who otherwise would marry heterosexuals and have children, it could lower the number of conceptions by around 26 percent at most. (I assume an average fertility rate of 2.6 children per couple.)

    The above is of course a very simplistic analysis. It ignores a number of factors. Perhaps the most important is the rate of spontaneous abortions. Wikipedia puts it at 25 to 50 percent; Rational wiki says 70 percent. So if the protestors really are concerned about lower birth rates, their first priority ought to be spontaneous abortions. But we know that’s not their real concern.

    Note: I myself tend to feel a gradual reduction in world population, by attrition, would be the wisest policy.

  • bbgunn

    Gretchen @28

    Man and woman – baby = (happy) man and woman

    For my spouse and me, the correct formula is: man + woman – baby = man(happy) + woman(happy) + fulfilling life

  • kermit.

    Oooh! Let me try:

    Sign 1 – He thinks that if gay marriage is legalized, then hordes of young men who would never have otherwise thought of doing the dirty with other lads will go gay (since sin is so much more attractive than righteous living), marry, and die of AIDS. As for the numbers, the “source” of this information probably just made up some statistics; they always do. That. or laughably misunderstand them.


    Sign 2- He thinks sex education involves telling children that marriage leads to babies(1), therefore, if gays can marry but cannot have babies(2), then sex ed would be lying(3).

    (1) Yes, I know more is involved, but perhaps the sign holder does not.

    (2) Of course they can, in several ways, but this has not been explained to the sign holder, and it’s irrelevant anyway.

    (3) Decent sex ed doesn’t say what he thinks it says, and if it’s not decent, it’s already lying.

  • escuerd

    I can do one better. Here’s a testimony to the Minnesota legislature from an Uncle Mary who opposes marriage equality on the grounds that it might —among other things— “encourage more divorce among fragile mixed orientation marriages”.

    I.e., if gay people can marry same-sex partners, some that are currently in sham opposite-sex marriages might want to get divorced.

    I guess he would know. He’s a gaydar-pinging, self-identified bisexual is currently married to a woman, was raised by two lesbian mothers, and who seems to have a lot of issues with other LGBT people rooted in some combination of religion and personal resentment.

    Last year, Ed blogged about the release of some internal documents from NOM detailing their plan to hire an “outreach coordinator” to look for children of gay or lesbian parents willing to lend support to their talking points. Looks like this is what they dredged up.

    H/T JoeMyGod

  • Or Sign #1 meant to convey that if people weren’t gay, there would be more people having hetero sex resulting in more babies being conceived and born. So when Adam is getting it on with Steve instead of Eve, he’s not going his godly duty of impregnating women.

  • escuerd

    Here’s a link to Ed’s previous post on NOM’s leaked strategic documents in case anyone’s interested:

  • ArtK @ 27

    Dollars-to-donuts, if you asked the owner of the second sign about his/her opinion on sex education in the schools, the answer would be “no way, ever!”

    At the very least, he/she/it would want “abstinance only” sex-ed. There is no bigger lie than that.

  • I’ve tried adding a man and woman together. The sign lies. At low speeds all you get are two people very angry and confused about why you pushed them together, and at high speed all you get is a blood mess.

  • Thirty-six comments so far, and not one explanation for sign #1 that even sounds plausible. This must be a new record of reich-wing incoherence and not-even-wrong-ness.

  • zmidponk

    @Raging Bee, my attempt is that, if homosexuality is legalised (and they might not realise it actually is legal already – the current arguing is about homosexual marriage), there will be a lot more gay people willfully having sex, which, of course, does not result in a successful conception. This means that there is 7-9 times more incidents of sex which does not result in conception (you know, because if you let gay people do so, they simply strip off and have sex at the drop of a hat), and failing to conceive is the same as having an abortion, which is the same as killing kids.

  • John Hinkle

    Sign 1: The legalization of homosexuality would kill 7 to 9x more children…

    than the legalization of heterosexuality.

  • Taz

    Maybe it’s a threat.

  • My reading of the second sign is that when a man and a woman get together, a baby’s legs fall off.

  • matty1

    So the first aid room is in between the men’s and women’s toilets and the baby changing facilities are another two doors down. I’m not sure what room = symbolises probably some kind of store cupboard.

    Also lying to children is a basis of society, what would we do if things like “That’s a good drawing”, “You’re really smart” or even “Jesus loves you” were banned?

  • Doug Little

    Shouldn’t it be a picture of a stork = a picture of a baby for most of these fucking idiots.

  • I think the second one means that when you combine a dress with a pair of pants, you get a skort.

    I tiny white skort.

  • er. A tiny white … you know what I meant.

    (I swear it woulda been funny without that typo.)