Ruth Institute’s Worst Marriage Argument Yet

I’ve heard some staggeringly stupid arguments against marriage equality, but this one from the Ruth Institute (formerly affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage) takes the cake. In this post by Jennifer Johnson, they’re actually claiming that allowing same-sex marriage is just like forbidding interracial marriage. They use this weird graphic:

interracial-marriage-ban

And here’s the actual argument:

The interracial marriage ban enforced the separation of men from women, based on race. It used marriage policy to keep the sexes away from each other, in certain instances. Same sex marriage is doing something similar. It does not enforce a separation, but it does endorse and foster a separation of men from women, based on sexual orientation. It is using marriage policy to encourage the sexes to separate from each other, in certain instances.

Uh, Jennifer…you do realize that some men don’t want to be with women and some women don’t want to be with men, don’t you? Rather, they want to be with members of the same gender. And whether they can get married or not, they’re still going to be gay, no matter how much you pray about it. Allowing them to marry their same-sex partners is not going to divide a single man from a single woman who isn’t already divided from them (okay, maybe the Bachmanns), at least in the relationship sense, already because they’re gay. Seriously, the sheer idiocy of these arguments is astounding.

"So the Illuminati are more powerful than God, but if people just pray a little ..."

Taylor: The Illuminati Sent the Hurricanes ..."
"Eh, I'm not sure I would even go to "wrong". Perhaps inappropriate, rude, in poor ..."

Two More Accusers Step Forward in ..."
"The definitions of the terms are different in different countries. Some countries, it's assault. In ..."

Two More Accusers Step Forward in ..."
"Remember : when Alex Jones/Fox News/Jim Bakker/another wingnut tell that the Clinton run a pedophile ..."

Moore Controversy Shines Spotlight on Evangelical ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    But … but … they are not really gay, they are just sinners and sexually confused. If we just told them they can’t have sex except in a straight marriages they’d all go straight again just the way they were in the old days when married men and women never had gay relationships!

    Okay, I just sprained my brain trying to think like these people.

  • Chiroptera

    Actually, the anti-miscegenation laws were meant to force the races to be separate from one another. It was a race thing, not a man/woman thing.

  • chilidog99

    In their world it is better to be a gay man suffering through a sham straight marriage then to be gay and happy.

  • RickR

    I’d love to see them “argue” that in court.

  • Artor

    Wow. Even if I had no opinion on the subject, I would quickly fall into the pro-LGBT camp, just because of the quality of these arguments. If you can’t state your position without looking like a fucking moron, then maybe your position is moronic?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    You don’t understand. They are like, and stand with, all of the great Civil Rights leaders. George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, Bull Connor…

  • jws1

    I think it’s beginning to dawn on these people just how hideously evil their position, and therefore also they themselves, will be regarded in the future. Thus the need to steal the rhetoric of other people who actually did fight for freedom so as to seem like they had good intentions from the pov of folks in the future.

  • erichoug

    I just keep wondering why they care so much?

    Nobody is going to force their church to perform the ceremony and no-one is going to force their God to bless the marriage. So, why do they give a hairy rat’s ass about it?

    Really, there isn’t any argument that isn’t founded on pure bigotry.

  • Chiroptera

    Artor, #5:

    Heh. I’ve lost count of the number of times I have take a stand on a political or social issue not because of the good arguments for that position but because those against that position were incapable of making anything but the most ridiculous arguments.

  • Freodin

    How do they even come up with such nonsense?

    These arguments are so stupid that even a lobotomized vegetable can see through them. Do these people really sit down and think: “Hey, I have come up with a great idea to argue against gay marriage!” or are they just hoping that none of their followers will even get beyond the “gay people bad” spiel?

  • naturalcynic

    Notice the qualifier “…in certain instances…”. That kinda’ sorta’ makes it all better.

  • Chiroptera

    Speaking of keeping the sexes separate, isn’t it funny how it’s the homophobes who are making such a big issue out of maintaining sex-segregated bathrooms?

  • doublereed

    Wow, usually I think your titles of “Worst Arguments” are pretty silly, but honestly that may be the worst and weirdest I’ve ever heard.

    I guess someone has to make an even worse argument, because that’s how the GOP works nowadays.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1360322113 aaronbaker

    Some consolation, maybe, from all this craziness: it’s a mark of the general acceptance of interracial marriage that few of these wingers are denouncing it any more.

  • http://cheapsignals.blogspot.com Gretchen

    I see her point. The legalization of gay marriage endorses and fosters a separation of men from women based on sexual orientation, in exactly the same way that Chick-fil-A endorses and fosters a separation of people from hamburgers, based on a difference of meat.

    Down with chicken sandwiches! Burgers should be mandatory! All meat eaters should be allowed the equal freedom to eat only red meat!

  • http://florilegia.wordpress.com Ibis3, Let’s burn some bridges

    @erichoug

    It makes it more and more difficult to indoctrinate their children that God has ordained men to rule as husbands over women as broodmare wives till death dost them part and over children as property until they become rulers or the broodmares of other rulers, when society says marriage is a voluntary commitment chosen by equals of any gender and dissolved when one of the parties no longer consents. It’s also tied up with the idea that sex is harmless (if everyone is consenting), not sinful, and can be engaged in for pleasure, not just procreation. If society at large defines marriage in the latter fashion, that’s what their kids will be taught in school, on TV programming (even that geared to children), and by the culture of their peers. It undermines the whole moral system of the religious, which is based on authority rather than consequences and maximizing happiness and well-being.

  • http://Reallyawakeguy.blogspot.com somnus

    Bans on interracial marriage enforced a separation between people who want to be together . Just like gay marriage bans. There’s the analogy.

  • skinnercitycyclist

    You people are getting all snarky about this, but I well remember the days when anti-miscegenation laws were in effect, and that a white man who wanted to marry a black woman could not do so and had to go marry a white woman and that is how they used to keep men from women. Now it is getting all gay-marriaged and the Islamic atheists have an easier time keeping men and women separated, mixed but not stirred.

    They seem nice. They don’t want people to be lonely.

  • Randomfactor

    Oh, I dunno. I kinda think the chair argument would give it a run for its money.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/04/1318512/-OMG-NOM-Not-Even-I-Was-Prepared-For-This-Level-Of-Stupidity

    As to why they’re so hot under the collar about this…they don’t run government anymore. And they’re afraid the new people will treat them the same way the Christians treated others.

  • johnhodges

    See, it’s very simple. If gay marriage is legal, then people will stop getting hetero-married (either because they’d all prefer the alternative, or because het-marriage has “lost it’s meaning”), which means they will stop having children and the human race will die out.

    Or, maybe, if children ever hear that homosexuality exists, they’ll all catch it, so they won’t have children themselves and the human race will die out.

    Seriously, I suspect it’s really all about male supremacy. A gay or lesbian marriage is an equal marriage. If inequality exists in a LGBT marriage it is only because of the particular characteristics of the two people involved, not any kind of Universal Principle. So if society accepts gay marriage, it is then no longer accepting the principle that The Moral Fabric of the Universe requires male supremacy.

  • smrnda

    There’s a huge difference between mandating that people be separate (miscegenation laws) and allowing people freedom of association. Same sex marriage does not ban marriage between men and women, and men and women who want to get into marriages will be allowed to do so. Men and women are only ‘separate’ in the sense that as individuals, they can choose who to marry. They seem to get that the first case is enforced and the latter is not, but to argue that the latter is an issue is like someone saying that Jim Crow is the same as the existence of BET.