OMG! Proof the Gays Want to Destroy Marriage!

The Illinois Family Institute is shouting from the rooftops that they finally have proof that the push for same-sex marriage is really a plot to destroy marriage completely because they found one lesbian activist who says that, while she supports marriage equality, she doesn’t think marriage should exist at all. They quote this from Masha Gessen:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

And they respond:

For quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to point out that the true agenda behind the homosexual demands organizations is not marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of marriage and uprooting traditional values from society.

OMG! Proof! Except, of course, it’s nothing of the sort. This is standard-issue tribalism. Everyone they disagree with is on the other side of the fence and they all believe the same things — whatever the most extreme person placed in that category believes. Every gay person must think exactly alike. Yes, there are gay people who think marriage should not exist. Guess what? There are straight people who think the same thing, but that isn’t an argument against letting straight people get married. And the fact that large numbers of gay people are rushing to get married when it’s made legal kinda proves that this is bullshit, doesn’t it?

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=597316935 ashleybell

    Is this gonna be a thing forever now? just a tiny cottage industry of homophobic losers mouthing off to god knows who?

  • Kevin Kehres

    @1…yes.

  • dhall

    A sample of one is all the proof certain people need too.

  • eric

    I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally…

    Because clear and transparent custody agreements are of value to all parties; the kid, the parents, and the government. Same goes for inheritance and end-of-life decision-making. Even with just two people these things can become knock-down fights. With more people, its reasonable to expect it to get worse. Now if you want to set up something like a trust, where you list everyone in a specific order (if Alice dies, Bob inherits her stuff and gets custody of her kid. If Bob dies, Charlene gets it. Ad infinitum), I’m okay with that. But I think there are perfectly good legal reasons why the law would want to designate one and only one “primary legal alternate” for each adult, rather than designating three or four co-equal adults. That’s just asking for confusion, lawsuits, and so on.

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

    And the fact that large numbers of gay people are rushing to get married when it’s made legal kinda proves that this is bullshit, doesn’t it?

    The Gays are a tongue, Homosexuality is cooties, and Gayhomoism is a lick. Hence, The Gays (who are “rushing to get married”) are, in effect, licking it so that us Normal Americans won’t want it, on account of the cooties that they got on it.

  • John Pieret

    Modus is right! The gays just want defenders of natural marriage to think of hot gayhomo sex every time they hear the word “marriage.” Then they won’t be able to get it up anymore and the marriages of defenders of natural marriage will all fall apart, everyone will become gay and the human species will die out!

    Such is the power of the gay!

  • vmanis1

    Hell, I know heterosexual men who have hired prostitutes. Not only that, I know some `married’ heterosexuals who have `open relationships’, or have re`married’ after divorce. That proves that this whole `Defence of Marriage’ thing is nothing more than a cover for sex orgies, bestiality, and necrophilia! </snark>

    See http://www.texasobserver.org/same-sex-marriage-drivers-license-dps/, in which a woman in a same-sex marriage must spend money to change her last name from Wilson to Wilson [sic] in order to get a driver’s licence.

  • Charles Knutson

    Does anyone complain about the Libertarians who would “destroy” marriage? 😉

    I’ve heard a number say that government shouldn’t have any say about marriage to begin with.

  • marcus

    John Pieret @ 6 “Such is the power of the gay!”

    Yes, if only that power could be used for good. Something like the pursuit of liberty and human rights or perhaps expanding the diversity of family and community. Oh… wait.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=730511544 billdaniels

    Slightly OT, but where do I sign up for the hot gayhomo sex? I’ve been trying to find it for almost 50 years. I’ve come close, but not close enough.

  • whheydt

    Re: eric @ #4…

    That’s why my wife and I established a family trust with clear lines of who controls it under a wide variety of contingencies. This was in the wake of paying a $11K legal bill for handling the completely clear and uncontested transfer of property as part of a will. All of the heirs agreed that the will was the will with no arguments. There was no one else with even a ghost of interest to try to contest it (and no one tried). Eleven fucking thousand dollars.

  • John Pieret

    marcus @ 9:

    Yeah, ain’t it as shame we to destroy marriage in order to save it?

  • http://kamakanui.zenfolio.com Kamaka

    @ billdaniels

    where do I sign up for the hot gayhomo sex?

    What backwater are you living in where there’s no nice gay leather bar?

  • Vicki, duly vaccinated tool of the feminist conspiracy

    Eric:

    The law handles that when it’s multiple children disagreeing about what their parent might want, or an unmarried adult’s divorced parents disagreeing about medical decisions in an emergency. And nobody decides whether to have lots of older or younger siblings; that’s forced upon us.

    That solving this might be difficult doesn’t mean we should give up and say it’s not worth trying. Heck, a solution for children with three or more parents might also be useful for the widow(er) with two or more children, and the unmarried person with no living parents but several siblings.

    Maybe set it up so that legally adding a third, fourth, etc., parent could be done only via paperwork that specified the order in which the parents had decision-making authority in case of a disagreement. Or do it by seniority-in-relationship: the person who has been a child’s parent the longest gets to decide. With any such system, I’d like adults to be able to sign something saying “if I am in an accident and my parents disagree on my care, do what $specific_parent wants.” Whether that’s because the child doesn’t even talk to the other, or just thinks that one parent has better judgment than the other, an adult should have that option. And that’s one that could be added without extending things so that a person could legally have three parents, or so that all my partners could legally be counted as related to me.

  • dingojack

    Vicki – yes but what if the accident (or illness) occurs suddenly and unexpectedly? Who is the legally default decision-maker if the person in question is intestate (so to speak)?

    Perhaps this would have to be declared at the time of the marriage, with the proviso it can be changed at any time after that (for any reason). This raises the question of could any one (or group) of parents challenge this decision?

    Perhaps a kind of Public Trustee could step in as an adjudicator in the case of disputes, with a remit to ensure the well being of the injured (or ill) person as a primary function and to act as an negotiator with all other interested parties as a secondary function. But this would have to be a fast paced and responsive service as medical care can get critical within a very short period of time.

    Dingo

  • dingojack

    D’Oh! Not a negotiator, but a mediator.

    Dingo

  • badgersdaughter

    Just pointing out the obvious here. That something is legally difficult does not mean it is morally unthinkable. Every time I see someone say “but it would be too difficult under current laws”, the discussion turns to possible ways to set up a workable legal framework. Where would we have been if someone said, “Oh, that’s all very well, but it would be too messy and unpredictable” to, say, impose laws on the use of motor vehicles?

  • eric

    Vicki;

    Maybe set it up so that legally adding a third, fourth, etc., parent could be done only via paperwork that specified the order in which the parents had decision-making authority in case of a disagreement.

    That is essentially what we have now, we just don’t call the extra arrangements ‘marriage.’ Marriage confers the ‘primary alternate’ status automatically to one adult, without any paperwork other than the marriage license being needed. If you want to arrange somethnig more complicated, you have go to a lawyer and set up a trust or other legal argeement.

    Whheydt @11 – yeah, I had a buddy go through that too when his dad died. He was the only heir, there was a will, there was nobody contesting anything, and yet it was still a huge labor and financial hassle.

  • dingojack

    Modusoperandi (#5) says: “Homosexuality is cooties, and Gayhomoism is a lick.”

    Oh I get it — Homos are cooty-licks. Do bears still shit in the woods though?

    😉 Dingo

  • jnorris

    Masha, Masha, Masha! You were not suppose to tell!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=730511544 billdaniels

    @Kamaka: I live in the wilderness that is known as downtown Los Angeles. Unfortunately my wild backroom sex days are long past.