How the FRC Equates LBGT Equality With Racial Segregation

Peter Sprigg, the Family Research Council spokesperson who once said he wants to deport gay people, is out with a new column that bizarrely equates marriage equality with racial segregation. As Alvin McEwen points out, this is one of the more bizarre and twisted arguments you’ll ever hear:

The clear purpose of the bans on interracial marriage was to build walls between two groups of people in society, blacks and whites. Such laws were designed to reinforce a system of racial segregation, keeping the races apart from one another.

In contrast, defining marriage as the union of male and female has exactly the opposite intent and effect. Rather than building walls between two classes of people, it creates a bridge across the most fundamental gap in humanity — the gap between male and female. Bridging the divide of the sexes by uniting men and women in marriage is common to all human civilizations, and serves the good of society.

Interracial marriage does not change the definition of marriage, and laws against interracial marriage had as their only purpose preserving a social system of racial segregation.

Homosexual “marriage,” on the other hand, changes the fundamental definition of the institution, and would form at least three segregated forms of marriage: male-only unions, female-only unions, and opposite-sex unions.

Uh, right. Because allowing people who aren’t currently allowed to marry get married, you’re segregating marriage. That is one seriously stupid argument.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • theguy

    At this point, they’re looking for any sophist excuse to accuse gay people of being evil. They’ll dress up nonsense as philosophy and say “We’re not haters: we’re sophisticated haters!”

    But, as you noted, allowing more people to get married isn’t segregation. Segregation in this case would be if only some willing adults were allowed to enter a gay marriage, but not others.

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

    You mock now, but if so-called “gay” so-called “marriage” is sanctified by the so-called “Supreme” so-called “Court”, then the next time you walk across a bridge there’ll be a man on the other side!

  • Synfandel

    Separate “bathrooms” change the fundamental definition of the institution, and form at least two segregated forms of bathroom: male-only bathrooms and female-only bathrooms.

    Rather than building walls between two classes of people, we should be creating a bridge across the most fundamental gap in humanity — the gap between male and female.

  • colnago80

    Re Modusoperandi @ #2

    ?

  • Michael Heath

    This is an expected argument from people that believe and claim childish, blind, and total submission to their supposed god is the only formula for freedom.

  • busterggi

    As per Synfandel but also locker rooms and showers – looks like Huckabee might get his chance to peek at naked underage girls yet.

  • zippythepinhead

    The solution is simple: ALL marriages from now on must reflect the racial and ethnic makeup of the country as a whole. Anything less is blatant discrimination. To keep it simple, marriages will now be between 50 men and 50 women, 62% white, 13% black, 5% asian, 18% hispanic, and the rest mixed race and/or gay.

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

    zippythepinhead, plus marriages must include the unwed.

  • Richard Smith

    But even interracial marriage forms at least three segregated forms of marriage: white-only unions, black-only unions, and mixed-race unions! And that’s only black and white…!

  • Hoosier X

    If the Sophistry Warehouse sold me such a bad argument, I would demand my money back.

    The FRC probably went to the Fallacy Hut, which is known for lower-quality rationalizations.

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

    Hoosier X, I prefer the Bullshit Barn.

  • moarscienceplz

    Uh, right. Because allowing people who aren’t currently allowed to marry get married, you’re segregating marriage.

    Yes, this must be prevented! Just because Aisha Tyler is married must not be allowed to become an excuse for her to not have sexy funtimes with me!

  • blf

    Eels will be using screwdrivers (sonic) and growing a TARDIS before this nutter’s argument makes any sense.

  • zevonsky72

    The clear purpose of the bans on interracial marriage was to build walls between two groups of people in society, blacks and whites. Such laws were designed to reinforce a system of racial segregation, keeping the races apart from one another.

    In contrast, defining marriage as the union of male and female has exactly the opposite intent and effect. Rather than building walls between two classes of people, it creates a bridge across the most fundamental gap in humanity — the gap between male and female.

    Surprise! Sprigg is being logically inconsistent here. He opposes same-sex marriage because those particular marriages do not “bridge” the “gap” between male and female. But he does not oppose people who choose to marry a spouse of the same race. Why not? Isn’t that in his book simply promoting segregation?

    These people don’t think very deeply, do they?

  • scienceavenger

    Rather than building walls between two classes of people, [marriage] creates a bridge across the most fundamental gap in humanity — the gap between male and female.

    Riiiiight, because males and females wanted nothing to do with each other prior to that.

  • Holms

    Homosexual “marriage,” on the other hand, changes the fundamental definition of the institution, and would form at least three segregated forms of marriage: male-only unions, female-only unions, and opposite-sex unions.

    This can easily be transposed into the race equivalent:

    “Same-race “marriage,” on the other hand, changes the fundamental definition of the institution, and would form at least three segregated forms of marriage: white-only unions, black-only unions, and interracial unions.”

    Funny how all three of these combinations can exist concurrently without any bullshit about them being ‘segregated forms of marriage’, but suddenly the logic flies out the window when we switch to gender.

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

    You can tell he’s trying to pull the ol’ Rovian Reverse Flop but his heart just isn’t in to it.

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    Hoosier X, I prefer the Bullshit Barn.

    You guys are nuts. You can download all that stuff for free now on the internet.

  • thebookofdave

    @sigurd jorsalfar #18

    You could try, but it would be a cheap imitation. Bullshit artists are a dime a dozen; some of them may even offer a realistic looking counterfeit for download. It might even fool the average person, but it still wouldn’t be authentic Bullshit®. Even if no one else were the wiser, you would still have to bear the shame of substandard bullshit. Have you forgotten about poor Peter Sprigg already?