Who Can Make The Most Hyperbolic Analogy About Marriage Non-Ruling?

There seems to be a competition going on between anti-gay bigots to see who can make the most ridiculous and hyperbolic analogy to what is going on with same-sex marriage. The deranged Linda Harvey’s entry into the contest: They’re stoning Christians!

The 1973 Roe v Wade high court will forever be stained with the blood of children on its collective hands.

The liberal majority in the 2014 Roberts court will now be labeled with the “C” word—for being cowards. These justices upended American civilization while standing on the sidelines.

Millions of voters in five states were assaulted in the public square, disenfranchised by this court’s decision to not overturn erroneous lower court rulings validating same sex “marriage.” Like Saul during the stoning of Stephen, they became bystanders, nodding their assent as terrible violence was committed.

Yeah, except there is no violence being committed. Other people that you don’t approve of are now allowed to get married. This does nothing whatsoever to you and has nothing to do with you. You aren’t being martyred, you’re just losing your ability to harm other people. It isn’t the same thing.

The good news is that this, like Roe, is sure to galvanize the conservative base on the issue of homosexuality like nothing has in decades.

Keep dreaming. A shrinking group of people will continue howling in outrage and be increasingly marginalized and ignored, just like the racists who opposed civil rights in the 50s and 60s.

But while we are mulling this over, we need to be honest. Our side could deploy better arguments, frankly. I respect those fighting the specific battle against recognition of same sex unions. Yet can’t we revisit the worth of more boldly proclaiming the whole truth, playing our two trump cards: the deviance of homosexual behavior and the lack of evidence for a “gay gene?”

We need a clear articulation of these points. State laws are being overturned based on a 14th amendment argument, which simply is irrelevant to marriage between people of the same sex. This argument depends on accepting homosexuality as innate, but there’s ample evidence this premise is not true. It’s immoral behavior not intrinsic to humans, and therefore not encompassed in the word “person” in the amendment language. A defense of this point in some fashion needs to be made by our legal advocates—if it’s not too late.

Wow. That’s what you call “better arguments”? Good luck with that.

"Oh Sarah, don't you realise that in the age of Trump you're barely an afterthought? ..."

Palin’s Pointless Appeal
"Well, that could have happened too. Lord knows its possible"

Palin’s Pointless Appeal
"The "questions at hand" are whatever I want them to be.Spoken like a True Christian, ..."

Lively: Gay Judges Can’t Be Impartial
"Psst Sarah - a word in your shell-like about the Streisand Effect..."

Palin’s Pointless Appeal

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Jared James

    While this is a respectable entry, with its hysterical assertion than millions of people were publicly beaten up by the Supremes’ insistence that settled law is settled law, there is plenty of room for more derangement to pile up in the next response. We still haven’t heard from Kevin Swanson or Mark Savage, or half a dozen other real experts in hyperbolic bigotry.

  • Doug Little

    This argument depends on accepting homosexuality as innate, but there’s ample evidence this premise is not true

    Please continue. What evidence is that of which you speak?

  • cottonnero

    Ample evidence. Not good evidence, but ample evidence.

  • cptdoom

    Um, Linda, those arguments have been tried, and failed. During the Prop 8 trial, the opponents of LGBT equality tried the “it’s not genetic” argument and the plaintiffs trounced them in their questioning of the “experts” in “e-gay” treatment. As for the “it’s immoral” or “it’s icky” arguments, Lawrence v. Texas pretty much trounced those as well. Try again.

  • matty1

    I’m going to repeat this again. If being gay is a completely free choice then discrimination against gays is exactly like discrimination against Christians. If you think one is acceptable the other must also be.

  • Synfandel

    The ample evidence that the premise is not true probably runs something like this:

    1. My church group once badgered and frightened a gay person into saying that he chose to be gay.

    2. I’m not gay, but I sometimes think about what it would be like. So it must be something that I could choose.

    3. I knew a girl in college who slept with another girl and later married a man.

    4. Gay people are icky and I wish they would stop being gay. So I have to believe that they can.

    What more ample evidence could you ask for?

  • John Pieret

    This argument depends on accepting homosexuality as innate, but there’s ample evidence this premise is not true.

    There is far more evidence that religious belief is not innate, in the form of all the people who keep changing religions, leaving religion altogether and/or becoming atheists (far more than people who claim, unbelievably, that they are ex-gays) . Therefore, as Matty1 says, if you are right, Linda, Christians are not covered by equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment either.

  • scienceavenger

    But while we are mulling this over, we need to be honest.

    Indeed. You look pretty silly claiming the moral high ground while constantly lying about your opponents, their positions, the evidence, gay people, history…

  • John Pieret

    But while we are mulling this over, we need to be honest.

    That would be a refreshing change but, based on the above, it is not likely to happen soon.

  • Chiroptera

    This argument depends on accepting homosexuality as innate, but there’s ample evidence this premise is not true.

    Actually, this is not true. “Innateness” may be important to some, but as pointed out above, the argument for accepting that gay people have rights is very similar to the argument that Christians have rights.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Perhaps someone could point me to where the 14th Amendment says anything about “innate” as a qualifier for “equal.” I can’t seem to find it.

  • http://tailotherat.blogspot.com namowal

    No (known) gay gene?

    They haven’t nailed down a “left handed” gene either, but nobody thinks left handed people choose to use the “wrong” hand.

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

    namowal “They haven’t nailed down a “left handed” gene either, but nobody thinks left handed people choose to use the “wrong” hand.”

    NOBODYS TRYING TO RAM THEIR LATERAL DIVISIONS DOWN OUR THROATS!!! NOT EVEN THOSE DIRTY AMBISINISTERS!!! THEY KNOW THEIR PLACE!!!

  • dingojack

    ‘When you have law on your side pound the law, when you have facts on your side pound the facts, when you have neither, pound the table‘.

    The whole ‘innate’ red herring is merely ‘pounding the table’ to mask the fact that they’ve got no logically sound argument.

    Keep pounding boys — increasingly few are buying your pathetic attempt at ‘argument’!

    Dingo

  • pocketnerd

    Thus Spake ZaraLinda Harvey:

    The liberal majority in the 2014 Roberts court will now be labeled with the “C” word—for being cowards.

    So four hardcore neoconservative party-liners, one neoconservative party-liner with civil libertarian leanings, two centrist liberals-bordering-on-paleoconservative, and two moderate liberals constitute a “liberal majority”? Conservative math at its finest!

    Thus Spake ZaraEd Brayton:

    A shrinking group of people will continue howling in outrage and be increasingly marginalized and ignored, just like the racists who opposed civil rights in the 50s and 60s.

    … except that “shrinking group of people” is now firmly in control of the Republican Party and has been since the 1980s. The bigots didn’t give up the war on civil rights — they just continued it with plausible-deniability dogwhistles. “N*****, n*****, n*****!” has been replaced by “Welfare queens, urban superpredators, knockout game!” And “Don’t let the sun set on you here, boy” has been replaced with “stand your ground” laws and summary executions by the police.

  • weaver

    “But while we are mulling this over, we need to be honest. Our side could deploy better arguments, frankly. I respect those fighting the specific battle against recognition of same sex unions. Yet can’t we revisit the worth of more boldly proclaiming the whole truth, playing our two trump cards: the deviance of homosexual behavior and the lack of evidence for a “gay gene?”

    Oh, so NOW they think genetics is important!

    But when it comes to things like evidence for common descent, evolution, etc., those scientists don’t know what they’re talking about.

  • Cuttlefish

    To paraphrase Horton…

    The lesson the bigots are learning today–

    A person’s a person, no matter how gay

  • http://www.twitter.com/jablair51 Ouabache

    Corporations are persons but homosexuals aren’t? Conservatives don’t make no sense.

  • Michael Heath

    Conservative Christian Linda Harvey states:

    But while we are mulling this over, we need to be honest.

    I’ve yet to encounter even one conservative Christian who was honest.

    I also disagree that conservative Christians “need to be honest”. If they were honest their religious denominations would quickly become extinct.

    I hope they do become honest, but to do so would require abandoning their faith given the falsehoods and contradictions demanded of those who assert an inerrant Bible. And far more damaging, those assertions that stand on faith alone could no longer be presented as if they were true, as they are now: in sermons, testimony, religion, and dogma. That alone would could cause these sects to implode into oblivion. Thus they will continue to all lie.