Why Do You Want to Ruin This Couple’s Marriage?

You atheists and your sodomaniacal ways… look at what you would do to this sweet family if your wishes came true and gay marriage was legalized:

Someone call the waaambulance.

(via WWJTD)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • http://www.facebook.com/stanrferguson Stan Ferguson

    That’s easily the most compelling argument against gay marriage I have heard to date. I mean, who’s going to love their child? The gays? That’s just madness. Gays can’t even reproduce, how could they love a child?
    Where do I donate to the Coalition of People Whose Lives Are Ruined Whenever Other People Are Treated Equally? They need all the monies.
    (just in case, because you never know, I am not being serious–the video’s a joke, too).

  • Wendy

    I just want them to hate their children

  • ortcutt

    It’s going to be really hard to explain to our grandchildren that there were actually people who thought that marriage equality was going to destroy society.

    • cma

      Actually, that won’t be a problem, because gay marriage will destroy society long before we have grandchildren :)

      • coyotenose

        And then only the survivalists and mutants will have marriage. Thanks a LOT, gays!

        • OregoniAn

          Yeah.. Friggin’ GAY mutants!…

    • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

      Unfortunately, it won’t be that difficult. After all, we already have examples of the exact same sort of reasoning, within our own recent history. The target of this primitive thinking, just a few decades ago, was interracial marriage. Look at what’s being said now about gay marriage, and what was said about interracial marriage, and you’ll find it’s virtually the same.

      • pRinzler

        But if we allowed interracial marriage, and now we’re going to allow gay marriage, what’s to stop us from legalizing murder?

        [/ChristianThought]

        • Bubba Tarandfeathered

          Or worse off Atheists marrying fundies

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            Atheists can’t get married. Marriage is a Jewish tradition.

            (Actual statement to me from someone on FB to explain what he thought was so funny about the idea that I thought I was married)

            • ortcutt

              Underneath all of the anti-marriage-equality rhetoric is a deep hostility to civil marriage.

              • Emmet

                Rubbish. The Catholic Church recognises the value in any marriage, sacramental or not.

                • TheBlackCat13

                  So says the person who doesn’t want the state involved in marriage.

                • ememt

                  What? You misunderstand me: I very much want the State involved in marriage. However, I don’t think “involved with” is synonymous with “redefining”.

                • Carmelita Spats

                  Liar. The Catholic Church considers Catholics who marry outside the church to be in mortal sin and they are denied the sacraments. The Catholic church teaches that if you get married outside the church and call yourself Catholic, then you are a fornicator…same as gay couples. The RCC wants to meddle in something that THEY DO NOT BELIEVE which is civil marriage!!! Mexican history can attest to this as the church fought against CIVIL marriage in Mexico in the 19th century…. See Also: Juarez, Benito; Reform Laws.

                • emmet

                  Catholics have to be married in the Church, sure. However, read what I wrote: the Church still recognises the value in their marriage – ie, the committment, love and building of a family. And she recognises and values this in any marriage.

                • Dezzydez

                  But if it is a gay family raising children, screw them. They do not need the stability and benefits that come from civil marriage. Right emmet? Your concern for families only goes so far to families headed by a straight couples.

                • Emmet

                  Exactly. At least, as far as the state recognising it as marriage. I’m all for legal benefits for gay couples – hospital visiting, inheritances etc – I just don’t think those should be called “marriage”.

                • Dezzydez

                  You don’t care about children like you say then. Got it. Children from gay parents are not equal to children from straight parents according to your logic.

      • TheBlackCat13

        But that is exactly the problem, it is hard for young adults today to understand that interracial marriage was banned in their parents’ time.

      • Emmet

        Not really. People arguing for the ban on interracial marriage to be overturned didn’t ask for marriage to be redefined: those arguing for “gay marriage” do. Can you see the difference?

        • TheBlackCat13

          Of course they were trying to get it redefined. In any meaningful sense, the ban on interracial marriage was part of the legal, religious, and cultural definition of marriage. That definition was changed. Now they want to make a similar sort of change again.

        • coyotenose

          Check your history. The bigots back then were using the exact same arguments that the bigots today are using. Hell, there was a video on here not that long ago where a pastor made a speech before a city council that was apparently against gay marriage, to approval from the audience… until he revealed that he was quoting verbatim a speech against interracial marriage from the 1950′s.

        • Duke OfOmnium

          There is probably nothing more risible and pathetic than the appeal to definition. We are the masters of definition, not they of us. What a tiny mind one must have, that one fails to realize that definitions must change as the words they define change. We once defined “jury” as “twelve good men and true”; but when juries were obliged to change, so did the definition.

          • Emmet

            Surely the definition of a jury is something like “a group of people, peers of the accused, who judge a trial case”? Whether it’s made up of men only or not is not part of the definition of what a jury actually is.
            If we were to decide that a jury should be made up of just one person though, or made up of policemen, that’s changing the definition: and so the word “jury”, instead of meaning something, means nothing.
            “Marriage” means “the union of one man and one woman”, or it means nothing, because it can be redefined to mean whatever we want it to mean. Such a word is useless, and I wonder why we want to give the State the right to redefine words into meaninglessness.

            • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

              You’re missing the point. “Jury” used to be only white men who owned land. Much like “voter”. Both have changed over time, so that now you don’t have to be white, own land or male to vote or sit on a jury.

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          In 1971 CA replaced gender specific pronouns with gender neutral, so marriage became “a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.”

          It wasn’t until 1977 that

          Assembly Bill No. 607 was proposed and later passed to “prohibit persons of the same sex from entering lawful marriage.” The act amended the Civil Code to define marriage as “a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.”

          I’ll grant that most people assumed that marriage was only between a man an a woman, but the actual change in definition came from the people who want to make sure same sex couples can’t get married.

          The state is involved in marriage because the state has an interest in the rights and obligations that go with marriage. Being able to inherit wealth. Being able to combine income for the sake of taxation. etc etc etc.

          The question is, what interest does the state have in preventing two otherwise eligible people from marriage simply because of their gender? The answer is none.

        • Dezzydez

          No we are not redefining marriage. It has always included straight, gay, group, and polygamy marriages. The only ones who want to redefine marriage is people like you who are ignorant enough to think marriage has only one definition and never did any research on it.

          • Emmet

            I think the suggestion that *legal marriage* – what we’re discussing – has always included gay, group, and polygam[ous] unions is the ignorant statement here.
            Sure, call whatever union you want to “marriage” in your own house or out in public – go ahead. My objection is to the State saying that those unions should be fostered and supported on a par with marriage – marriage between one man and one woman, which is good for society in a way that other unions aren’t.

            • Tyrrlin Flamestrike

              “marriage between one man and one woman, which is good for society in a way that other unions aren’t.”

              Oh? How are these other marriages not good for society? I’ve seen plenty of “one man and one woman” marriages that were *terrible* for society, not to mention the families involved in said marriage. I also personally know a gay couple who is a *wonderful* example of loving partnership.

            • Dezzydez

              A simple google search of the history of marriage shows you are the ignorant one. You do not own the term marriage. In this country marriage is civil contract as such gay americans are have the right to it. You want the government to support your discrimination. What is good for society is treating it’s citizens equally.

              • Emmet

                I don’t claim to own the term “marriage”. The institution of marriage pre-dates both the Church and the State.
                Again, marriage is more than a mere legal contract: it’s something the State gets involved in because stable marriages = stable society = natural way of producing and nurturing children.

                • Dezzydez

                  Wrong again. Procreation is not required for marriage. Old couples, sterile couples, and couples that do not want children can marry. Besides gays can use in invitro and surrogates like straights can. Unless you consider invitro, surrogate, and adopted children not real children. Gay couples are raising children also. Shouldn’t they have stable marriages also to nurture and raise their children or do those children mean nothing to you? So your argument fails. Do you have anything else besides the fact you think gays are icky?

                • Emmet

                  How does calling a gay rleationship “marriage” make it any more stable? You’re missing the point.

                • Dezzydez

                  For the children of same sex parents, a lot. It shows that their family is equal to families headed by opposite sex parents. Why do you not want that for children?

        • Mogg

          Not really. In my country (Australia), the definition of marriage had to be amended in 2004 by conservatives to specifically exclude same-sex marriage. It didn’t before then.

    • http://twitter.com/mywall mywall

      Not really. You only need to point out that some people choose to be dickheads and then list it of an example of such.

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      I find it really hard to explain to myself that as recently as 1990, a majority of Americans didn’t approve of so called ‘interracial’ marriage.

  • Katwise

    Sodomaniacal?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Hemant Mehta

      I made it up.

      • Kitsume

        That’s some admirable creativity at work. Nice one.

  • http://fractalheretic.blogspot.com/ Fractal Heretic

    We actually did legalize gay marriage here in Washington a few months ago, and I gotta say it was pretty anti-climactic.

    • ReadsInTrees

      Yes, it was legalized here in Maine a couple of months ago, and I have yet to find my own “traditional marriage” crumbling into ruin. Maybe we have to wait until wedding season to be sure….

      • David Starner

        Gay marriage is like thiotimoline; it makes traditional marriages break up years before it gets started. If we weren’t starting gay marriages now, we wouldn’t have had the divorce rate start rising in the 1960s.

    • Stev84

      The thing with “the sky will fall arguments” is that you can paint a threat of some undefined nature and exploit people’s fear of the unknown. They aren’t arguing that society will crumble right now, but at some unspecified point in the future. And when it doesn’t they just push it further ahead.

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    This is excellent. I love it. Especially the WTF look on the little girl as she shifts her eyes back and forth when Daddy says, “Let’s just hope it doesn’t come to that.” Hilarious!

    Not to distract from this but to add to the fun, here’s a whimsical little post I wrote back in 2008 on this same absurd fear:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/05/15/honey-and-sweetheart/

    • coyotenose

      The little girl’s face when she’s being hugged is completely priceless.

      • Reginald Selkirk

        Won’t somebody think of the children?

  • Emmet

    Sure.

    The “equal rights” argument for redefining marriage fails. Marriage isn’t a human right. All sorts of people are excluded from getting married – people already married; a man and his adult daughter (or son); three people etc etc.

    Tell me: why does the State get involved in marriage at all?

    • TheBlackCat13

      So you are saying we could deny gays drivers’ licenses because we deny other sorts of groups drivers’ licenses?

      Marriage has always been a state issue. It is a legal contract between two people, the very thing the state is supposed to handle. The question is why religion gets involved in a legal contract.

      • Emmet

        The first point is absurd: if having a driver’s licence is a human right then no-one should be barred from having one. If marriage is a human right then no-one should be barred from getting married – including those already married; a brother and sister; a man and two women; three men; a man and his daughter; and so on and so on.
        Those for the redefinition of marriage put forward lots of arguments – the human rights one fails right off the bat.

        • Dezzydez

          That is not an arguement against same-sex marriage. That is an arguement against incestous and plural marriage.

          • Emmet

            Um… no. It’s an argument against the rights-based arguments for same-sex marriage. Marriage is not, in fact, a human right. If that’s not obvious to you I don’t know what else to say.

            • Dezzydez

              Wrong again. Incest marriage deals with two related people. Polygamy deals with multiple people. Same sex marriage deals with two non related people of the same sex. Marriage is a right. The Loving case affirms that. Not sure what to say to a person that wants to treat other Americans as second class citizens. Seems like you would be against interracial marriage as well.

              • Emmet

                So what if incest marriage deals with two related people? If they love each other, what reason do you have to deny them the “right to marry”? (There are reasons, but you can’t use them, because of your insistence on that “right”.) So what if polygamy deals with more than two people – if they love each other, why shoudl the “right to marry” be restricted to just two people? Isn’t that discriminatory, bigoted, and diviisve?
                Logic – it’s a bugger, eh?

                • Emmet

                  You’ve had a lot to say but nothing of it about my points here – nor has anyone else answered them. Too hard to justify your own bigotry?

                • Emmet

                  That was to Dezzydez and to Anna, not to myself, as arrowed above :)

                • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

                  Bigotry? I’m not the one denying people rights. I’d never try to do to Catholic families what they try to do to mine.

                  In fact, I fully support the rights of Catholic couples to get married and raise children, and I think they should be treated exactly the same under the law as all other families. Just because I disagree with their religious beliefs does not mean that they should suffer stigma or legal inequality.

            • Dezzydez

              Yes it is. Loving vs. Virginia. Look it up.

    • Nox

      Anything you want to do which doesn’t harm others is a human right.

      Why should anyone have the right to interfere?

      And we’ve already redefined marriage many times. That’s why women now get a choice about getting married where before they were sold off as property (and in many places still are). We’ve gradually realized that “two people choosing to live as one” is a better definition than “a man purchasing a slave for reproductive purposes”. Within this better definition of marriage there is no reason to exclude gay people.

      • Emmet

        You realise you’re making an argument for the other team here don’t you? :)

        Your definition of marriage as “a man purchasing a slave for reproductive purposes” is a definition of marriage as “a union between a man and a woman” which has the potential to produce children. You prove that even with different societal and cultural influences on marriage, everyone still knew marriage was defined as a man and a woman getting together. The State got involved in those marriages (different to our more wholesome conception of marriage as being entered into out of love for the other person) for just that reason: it didn’t mind if they were “loveless” because they produced and nurtured children, civilised men and provided for women.
        A man and a woman – as equals, or woman as chattel – but still only one man one woman. One definition – the new definition is meaningless.

        • Eric

          And you realize you are supporting slavery because it has a better chance for reproduction? You really think that’s a better definition than simply including gays in the non slavery version of marriage we have already agreed upon in this country.

          There have also been numerous other definitions around the world. One man and as many women as he can afford, one woman and as many men as she could afford, any number of peoples and any other number of peoples.

          Also in case you didn’t notice the human species is clearly not going extinct anytime soon, so the obsession with reproduction opportunities is a little unfounded. Maybe when these rules were made up by bronze age nomads (who had no problem with polygyny at the time because it is much more efficient at increasing the population) it was different but not in the twenty first century.

          Definitions change, will change, have changed,and have not always fit into your monogamous hetero-normative box.

          • Emmet

            Sure. And what have been the most stable societies “around the world”? Would it be the ones that define marriage as being between one man and one woman? I think if you read your history again you’ll find that that’s the case.

            I don’t have any problem with being “hetero-normative”. That should be clear. I think that marriage (ie man and woman) should indeed be privileged over other relationships.

            Definitions “have changed and will change”? So tell me, would you be happy with legal marriage being redefined again to include unions of more than two people? Ten people “who love each other”- one man and nine wives, all married to each other? A man adopts his daughter out at birth, then meets her 20 years later, “falls in love” and wants to get married? Two brothers love each other and want to get married? Any problems with any of that? If so, why? If not… really?

            • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

              Argentina
              Belgium
              Canada
              Denmark
              Iceland
              Netherlands
              Norway
              Portugal
              South Africa
              Spain
              Sweden

              Unstable societies. Every one of ‘em.

              • Emmet

                I wasn’t clear – I was referring to polgamy, not gay “marriage” – asking what societies that encourage/support polygamy/polyamory are healthy and thriving. (I would take issue, anyway, with your comment that South Africa is stable.)

                Apart from that, your answer to the rest of my comment is what?

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  You have ignored most of what I’ve written over the last couple of days. I think the Moyers link I posted addresses everything you’ve said quite well. If you really care what I think you can just watch it. In the meantime I recognize that yours is not an opinion that is likely to change. And I think It’s pretty obvious where we’re headed, so I’m not all that concerned. You’ll get used to it and our grandkids will wonder what all the fuss was about.

                • Emmet

                  I got about five minutes into the video and found it same old same old. Any particular parts you’d recommend?

                  You’re right, my opinion isn’t going to change – just as yours isn’t going to change either, right?

                  Fact is, the level of debate about this issue is disconcerting. Precious little reason and logic and a whole of fluff about equality and rights and weak understandings of what love actually is.

                  It’s not a civil rights issue, it’s a quick and easy way for lazy thinkers to show how enlightened and progressive they (imagine they) are.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  You’re right, my opinion isn’t going to change – just as yours isn’t going to change either, right?

                  Well, that video changed my opinion. I used to be in favor of government getting out of ‘marriage’ and just have a legal status available to any couples, and let somebody else do the ceremony. Some churches could refuse to marry left-handed people to right-handed people, and somebody else could marry same sex couples.

                  I think mostly it was about the 10-12min mark. As they point out, even convicted felons have a right to be married. You can be on death row and get married. But it’s peppered throughout. As you say, “same old same old”. That aspect had an impact on me, but obviously I was a same sex marriage supporter before, I just thought the “government civil union/religious marriage” was a reasonable compromise before, but I moved away from that.

                  The reason it’s ‘same old same old’ is that the arguments have all been made. None of us has heard anything new here.

                  I’ve only seen one argument from your side that I consider ‘legitimate’ (but not strong enough) and that’s ‘community standards. There are some things that just bother us so much that we prohibit them. They don’t harm anyone else, but we still, as a community, decide that it’s just too disgusting. We’ve gotten past that with same sex acts, so I don’t see how it can possibly apply with same sex marriage.

                  We’ll go blue in the face arguing about whether marriage is a human right or not. But it doesn’t even need to be a human right! It just needs to be something conferred by the state. If the states gives out drivers licenses, then it has to have a reason to NOT give a particular person a drivers license. And there are plenty of reasons to not give a someone a drivers license.

                  And there are reasons to not let person A marry person B. But the fact that person A and person B are of the same sex just isn’t one of them. Making babies ‘naturally’ isn’t a requirement of marriage. Being able to have sex isn’t a requirement of marriage. Being able to live together or even touch each other isn’t a requirement of marriage. The fact that someone else might want to marry a duck isn’t one of them. Being potentially good parents isn’t even a requirement of marriage! Heck, you can murder your own kids, and the state will put you in prison, but they won’t force you to get a divorce. So even if the studies existed that you claim that children in same sex families didn’t do as well, that still wouldn’t be a legitimate reason to prohibit same sex marriage!

    • SarahHam

      Yeah, a lot of people gay and straight debate if the State even has a role to play at all, even though they want equality if the State isn’t going to stop legislating it, which the vast majority of people still want the state do.

      • SarahHam

        …That was a terrible sentence structure, but it conveys my thoughts.

        • AAA

          But it has some good rhyming to it.
          gay and straight
          debate
          if the State
          legislat(ing)
          Word.

        • Emmet

          Of course the State has a role in marriage – it recognises it as an institution that is essential for building a healthy, functional and stable society in the way it produces and nurtures children. That’s the only reason ithe State gets involved – otherwise it couldn’t care less who you love and how.

          • Dezzydez

            Wrong. Old couples, sterile couples, and couples that do not want children at all can get married. So reproduction is not a requirement for marriage. Plus gays can have children through natural means, invitro, and surrogates.

            • Emmet

              I never said it was a requrement – you’re misunderstanding me – perhaps I wasn’t clear.

              “gays can have children through natural means…”

              Do I need to comment on that or is that statement’s distance from reason apparent just as it is? Gays can’t have children naturally – surely natural reproduction is sexual intercourse between a man and a woman – anything else is “unnatural” in the sense that it needs a helping hand from a particular scientific process.

              Oh, I’m sorry, I just have to go and roll on the floor – your statement is one of *the* funniest things I’ve ever read on an atheist blog.

              • Dezzydez

                Are you really that stupid? Gays use natural means all the time. They still have the equipment to make a child with someone of the opposite sex. Not all gays have the money to use scientific means.

                • Emmet

                  The structure of your paragraph suggested that gay couples could have children together. If you don’t want people to find your comments funny, don’t write funny comments.

                  You’re also reading into my comments things that simply aren’t there.

                  I never said that children conceived other than through sex aren’t real children. Take a breath and read my comments again.

                • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

                  Just to clarify, lesbian couples do not need to use “scientific means” to create a child. It’s quite easy to self-inseminate at home, without involving sex, doctors, or any form of technology. All that’s needed is a syringe and some sperm. The first documented artificial insemination in humans took place in 1884, for goodness’ sake.

                  People like Emmet are often fixated on things being “unnatural.” Just like the Catholics, who invented their “natural law” belief to condemn birth control, donor insemination, in-vitro fertilization, and sex being for pleasure instead of procreation. They also continually claim that biological families are superior to non-biological ones, throwing not only LGBT families under the bus, but also single parents, stepfamilies, and heterosexual families formed by adoption, sperm/egg donation, and surrogacy.

                • Emmet

                  You’ve certainly put me in a box haven’t you? “People like Emmet” – because you know me, right, and are qualified to say what I’m like!?

                  I hear plenty of talk from atheists about celibacy being “unnatural” – next time you see that in a discussion I can rely on you to tell “people like that” to stop being fixated on things unnatural, right?

                • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

                  You’ve put yourself in that box, Emmet. I’m just going based on what you’ve said. I can tell from your comments that you’re a conservative Catholic. You’re not the first one who’s come here espousing these particular views, and I’m sure you won’t be the last. I mentioned “people like you” because you all make the same arguments. You have the same opinions, which are based on the same religious teachings.

                  If you disagree with the Vatican’s official stance on any of these issues, let me know, and I’ll revise my opinion. Otherwise, based on what you’ve said, it would seem that you are a Catholic who believes that heterosexual relationships are superior to homosexual ones, that alternate means of conception are immoral, and that children should be raised by opposite-sex instead of same-sex parents.

                  As far as celibacy is concerned, people should feel free to make that choice for themselves. There are people with aromantic and/or asexual orientations who choose to remain virgins or celibate for their entire lives, and that is natural for them. My only issue with celibacy is when people are guilted/shamed/forced/coerced into it.

                • Emmet

                  What about those who aren’t “aromantic and/or asexual” but who choose celibacy? Is that natural or unnatural, according to you?

                • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

                  According to me? I’m not appointing myself the judge of other people’s sexual choices. If there are those who feel celibacy is natural for them, and if they are making a free choice that gives them happiness and comfort, then I have no concern.

                  However, if they are told by outside forces that their sexual desires must not be fulfilled, that they must not fantasize, masturbate, or experience sexuality with a partner, and that they must forgo romantic and sexual love for their entire lives, then I feel sorry that they have been indoctrinated into believing terrible things.

                  Either way, though, their sexual lives are up to them. Even if forced celibacy is “unnatural,” people who are celibate deserve the same rights and respect as any other person, and should not face prejudice, social stigma, or laws that make their lives harder than those of the non-celibate population.

                • Emmet

                  Great. So I can count on you to defend priestly celibacy next time you see atheists saying it’s unnatural or wrong.

                • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

                  Who am I supposed to be defending it from? Atheists don’t want to outlaw celibacy. There are celibate people of many religious and non-religious backgrounds. I’m not aware of any efforts to enact laws against people who live celibate lives or any efforts to stigmatize them in society.

                  I think the Catholic church’s teachings on sexuality are poisonous, but adults are free to make their own sexual choices. If celibacy makes them happy and they have come to that opinion on their own, then I fully support that. However, I do not believe it is right to indoctrinate children into believing that there is something wrong with experiencing sexual pleasure.

                  Catholic priests are told that they are breaking their vow of chastity if they even masturbate. Fortunately, I’m sure most priests are far too sensible to wallow in guilt and feel the need to repent every time they bring themselves to orgasm, but it’s a sick system that takes an utterly harmless action and twists it into something evil.

                • Emmet

                  Most Catholic priests don’t take a vow of chastity. (Those in orders do.) See, you don’t even understand what you’re commenting on. You’re fighting against shadows.

                • Erp

                  My understanding is that chastity was expected for all (sex only within marriage). All priests who are in religious orders (not to be confused with holy orders which are deacon, priest, bishop) have taken vows of celibacy with chastity (no marriage, no sex). Almost all Latin rite Catholic priests even if not in religious orders have also taken vows of celibacy with chastity (the few exceptions are married Anglican priests or similar who have become Catholic and whom the Catholic church chooses to ordain as Catholic priests). Eastern Catholic priests who aren’t monks may wed before ordination but not after and they can’t remarry if widowed after ordination (and married priests can’t become bishops). All priests take vows of obedience. Those in religious orders in addition take vows of poverty.

                • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

                  Like Erp said, chastity is expected for Catholic priests. I’m baffled that you would try to claim otherwise.

                  2352 “By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”

                  2396 “Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are
                  masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.”

                  Masturbation is considered a sin. Not just Catholic priests, but all Catholics are supposed to confess that sin and repent. For generations, children and adolescents have been made to confess “impure” thoughts and actions. As I said before, this is a product of a sick, repressive system. Masturbation is natural and harms no one. Yet priests (who are not allowed to experience romantic relationships or explore their sexuality with a partner) are forbidden even the relief of masturbation.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  And of course it’s not just the Catholic Church. Although he’s relaxed a bit in recent years, the Dalai Lama has said that any sexual act for pleasure (even masturbation, or sex during daylight hours) is a sin. (Probably didn’t say ‘sin’, but close enough that I’m not going to go quote digging).

                • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

                  True. I’ve never understood why so many Western liberals seem enamored with the Dalai Lama. His sexual ethics are certainly on the conservative side.

                • Emmet

                  I think the attitudes of many non-Catholics towards sex and sexuality are poisonous – attitudes that say it’s OK to use another person for one’s own satisfaction; that sex about taking rather than giving; that in pornography women can be reduced from human persons with dignity to objects that are just “two hands and three holes” for men’s gratification – these are the poison that afflicts our society, and what the Church preaches against.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  So, in other words, the Catholic Church at least gets some things right? I think I’d add the RC Church’s recent (about 2 years) change of position on condoms with respect to preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa. That was a welcome change. If only they’d agree that is permissible to have an abortion to save the life of the mother (in particular when the fetus won’t survive anyway).

                • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

                  It’s interesting, though, that Emmet jumps right to exploitation. Of course everyone can agree that women (and men) should not be abused or exploited. What the Catholic church teaches goes far beyond that. The only reason they’re being taken to task is because they condemn all sexual relationships between unmarried people, even if those relationships are consensual, loving, and monogamous. They also condemn thoughts and actions that hurt no one, such as masturbation and contraception.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  And of course I doubt if either of us care whether asexual people have sex. It’s not about making people be different from who they are. It’s about institutional or cultural pressures trying to force people to be different from who they are.

                  (within the limits of who one is not damaging anyone else just to avoid a few common strawmen)

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  And of course I doubt if either of us care whether asexual people have sex. It’s not about making people be different from who they are. It’s about institutional or cultural pressures trying to force people to be different from who they are.

                  (within the limits of who one is not damaging anyone else just to avoid a few common strawmen)

                • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

                  Exactly. The Catholic church takes innocent children and indoctrinates them to believe that almost every expression of sexuality is bad. The guilt, shame, and repression that results isn’t natural. No one is born thinking that sex is wrong. They’re taught to feel that way by people who have authority over them, people they are told they must trust and whose wisdom they are supposed to accept.

                • prinzler

                  For the best history on this that I’ve seen, read “Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven,” Ranke-Heinemann. It’s a bit academic but it has all the gory details as to how incredibly messed up the Catholic church has been regarding sex.

                • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

                  I’ll look for it, thanks! It’s all so incredibly messed up, even for married couples. If someone is actually going to follow the rules, the only moral way for a man to have an orgasm is inside his wife’s vagina. That’s it. No oral, manual, or anal stimulation may end in orgasm for the husband. And if his wife cannot or does not want to have vaginal intercourse, no other sexual activity is allowed, period. No orgasms for either of them in that case. They must have a celibate marriage, with no masturbation to take the edge off. Sounds like a fun time (not).

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  Versus current medical advice that men ejaculate 5 times per week to avoid prostate cancer.

                • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

                  Which, of course, is totally incompatible with NFP as well. I didn’t even get into the absurdity of that. Not only are there all these restrictions on what type of sexual activity is permissible for married couples, they must also obsess about preventing pregnancy the “right” way. It would be almost comical, were it not for the people who take it seriously. If you lurk on the Catholic Answers forum, you can find plenty of posts from desperate adherents who feel forced (by the prison of their own indoctrination) to abstain from sexual activity with their spouses all or much of the time. These are educated people from the developed world, which makes it all the more tragic.

                  I also feel terrible for fundamentalist Catholic couples who don’t want to have children. There is absolutely no room in that worldview for them. They must spend the better part of their reproductive lives obsessing over charts, temperatures, and bodily checks, since no other solution is permissible. They’re not allowed to take permanent steps to block their fertility, the way any normal childfree couple would. And then there are the couples for whom it would be physically dangerous if the woman got pregnant. In case of an accidental conception, with no abortion allowed, the woman could very well lose her life. It’s just a sad, sad situation.

                • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

                  Good for you. You’re perfectly free to hold that opinion, and you’re perfectly free to conduct your sexual life in accordance with whatever principles you desire.

    • martinrc

      An adult daughter (or son) can already visit their father/mother in the hospital and make decisions medically and legally for them in an incapacitated state, as well as inheritance… so they already have a the same privileges that marriage would allow gay couples making the argument Emmet made moot.,

      • Stev84

        Exactly. Marriage is about creating legal ties between people who are not directly related.

        • Emmet

          Again, not the language of those shouting for “equality” and “love”. Let marriage be marriage, and work to create new legislation to safeguard the rights of gay couples.

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            I have no illusion you’ll take the time to watch this, and that’s fine. But for anyone else who thinks we need some other legislation to protect same sex rights (“separate but equal”), Ted Olson and David Boies argue that brilliantly.

            http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2010/06/whats_next_in_the_marriage_war.html

            (Watching again, I’m reminded that the satire in this piece isn’t far off what was actually being shown “There’s a storm gathering. The skies are dark, and the winds are strong. And I am afraid”)

      • Emmet

        So marriage therefore is not about legal rights for gay couples like hospital visiting (which, btw, I’m all for), which can be covered by other legislation than redefining marriage, but is simply and in the end about putting same-sex unions on a par with male-female unions. I mean, we can all be honest about that can’t we? Let’s not beat around the bush.
        I’d say that’s a bad thing – bad for society, bad for individuals – while you say it’s a good thing.
        I’d say it’s a massive and unprecedented social experiment, you’d say it’s progress, part of the grand march of humanity towards a more enlightened state.
        I fail to see what is enlightened about intentionally creating fatherless or motherless families.

        • Tyrrlin Flamestrike

          Huh, with the skyrocketing divorce rate, there are already a plethora of “fatherless” and “motherless” families… they’re called single-parent households. Is that good for society?

          And why does marriage *have* to end in children? I’m married without children, both of my paternal aunts are married without children. Marriage creates a family (of two consenting adults) out of unrelated persons, and grants them the rights of family in legal and civil matters.

          If you want to be restrictive and narrow-minded, fine. But allow the rest of society to progress without you.

          • Emmet

            No, “broken” families not good for society, by and large – I don’t think anyone can really disagree with that – thing is, they’re not intentionally created, are they? They’re not held up as something good, something to be fostered.

            And no, marriage doesn’t have to end in children – but it is a natural outcome in most cases. Every child ever born has a natural mum and dad – marriage is a unique union that can lead to procreation and it’s for that reason that the State gets involved.

            If marriage was simply about giving two unrelated people legal rights, what’s all this hoopla about love and equality and so on? Surely it’d be easier to simply enact legislation that gives gay couples the same rights as other couples, and save ourselves all the grief that’s going along with this battle? Obviously marriage is about more than what you’ve outlined here or this debate wouldn’t cause such division.

            Narrow-minded? If it makes you feel better to dish out the insults, go ahead. I’ve been called worse. Enjoy your progress – I’m not quite sure – none of us are – exactly into what brave new world your progressing will take you.

            • Dezzydez

              You want separate but equal solution that never worked when we used it during the jim crow era. The fact is marriage can and will include gays. Your marriage will not be affected, nor will society crumble. Many states and countries have legalized SSM and no catastrophes. You just want to treat gays as less than you. You are as bad as those who fought against interracial marriage.

              • Emmet

                No, I don’t hate gays, nor do I want to treat them as “less than me”.

                I want to say that marriage is one thing and loving, stable gay couples/families are another thing. I want to privilege marriage (ie, between a man and a woman) with the State supporting that institution over and above other kinds of relationship, with any necessary needs in those other relationships being catered for by other legislation. Either marriage means something or, redefined again and again, it means nothing.

                This, despite all the protestations to the contrary, is not bigotry or narrow-mindedness. It’s merely simply, reasonable, fact.

                • pRinzler

                  “Either marriage means something or, redefined again and again, it means nothing.”

                  Or its meaning changes, kinda like many, many, many other words. You know how language changes, right? All the time?

                • Emmet

                  Sure. How often does the government change the meaning of language though?

                • pRinzler

                  I dunno how often government changes words, do you? Off the top of my head, I could well see some technical, bureaucratic meaning of a word (IRS?) being defined by the government.

                  More importantly, why does it matter who or what entity changes the meaning of a word?

                • pRinzler

                  Oh, by the way, if gay marriage is instituted by a popular vote, then it’s really more accurate to say that the *people* changed the meaning of the word.

                  But, again, why does it matter who does this? Is the *word,* as distinct from the institution, really important?

            • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

              You’re a bigot, plain and simple. I have two mothers. My family is not broken, and I refuse to accept being treated as subpar because of what someone’s favorite ancient book says. My family deserves the exact same rights as any other family. My parents deserve the right to be legally married. All children of gay fathers and lesbian mothers deserve the right to have their families treated equally under the law. They do not deserve to be ignored, stigmatized, denied rights, and told that their families are inferior to heterosexual families.

              • Emmet

                That you say I’m a bigot doesn’t make it so.
                That you say that your parents deserve the right to be married doesn’t make it so either.

                There’s a failure here on the part of same-sex marriage advocates to explain exactly why marriage is a right (and if it is, exactly why there are so many restrictions on it and not everyone can take part in it), and exactly why the State should get involved in marriage in the first place.

                No-one deserves to be stigmatised or ignored or told they’re inferior. However, that’s not what I’m doing. I’m saying that same-sex unions are not marriage, and do not deserve to be promoted, supported and encouraged by the State. That you hear that as “You are inferior” is understandable, but it’s not reasonable. I don’t know what else to say.

                • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

                  Wow, it would seem that you’re completely out of touch with your own belief system if you’re seriously convinced that you’re not stigmatizing, ignoring, or telling same-sex couples that their relationships are inferior.
                  You just said they do not “deserve” (deserve!) to be promoted, supported or encouraged by the State, and then in the same breath you say you don’t think they’re inferior? If they’re not inferior, if they are equal to heterosexual relationships, then they deserve the exact same rights, benefits, and protections.
                  As for marriage being a right and explaining why the State should be involved, I can only say that either you’re feigning ignorance, or you haven’t read anything by marriage equality advocates. If you seriously have no knowledge on the subject, then educate yourself. Read a book. It seems clear to me, however, that if your religious opinions are not going to be changed by evidence or education, it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

    • Ibis3

      From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

      Article 16

      1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

      2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

      3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    • Glasofruix

      Tell me: why does the State get involved in marriage at all?

      Because it’s a legal contract that gives rights and obligations to people involved?

      • Emmet

        That’s not the language of same-sex marriage proponents, who talk a lot about love and equality.
        The State is interested in who you make long-term commitments to because there is the likelihood of children being produced from those commitments and the State is interested in the welfare of children and families – in the interests of maintaining a healthy and stable society.
        Individual rights and obligations are not the reason the State gets involved in marriage – other legislation can and does cover that – eg, as someone pointed out, visiting rights in hospitals for family members.

        • Dezzydez

          Then why do you advocate against gay marriage that would help children being raised by gay couples? Do you not care about them or they do not matter to you because they are being raised by gays?

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

            Of course he doesn’t care about children of gay couples. To religious people of this type, we’re unnatural and inferior. In their ideal world, we should not exist, and our parents should not have raised us. LGBT families don’t deserve the same rights or (more importantly) the same position in society and the same respect as heterosexual families.

            • Emmet

              Again, you’re putting words in my mouth. You’re a person, with all the dignity a human person deserves. No better or worse than any other human conceived any other way. Not unnantural or inferior. I’m sorry if anything I said gave the impression I think otherwise.

              However, you’re correct that I think your parents’ relationship doesn’t deserve to be equated with marriage.

              • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

                That makes it sound like you disagree with the former Pope, who used his Christmas message last year as an opportunity to tell the world that the existence of people like me are evidence of the erasure of human dignity.
                You don’t think my conception was unnatural or immoral? You don’t think that families headed by same-sex parents are inferior to those headed by married heterosexual ones? Based on your previous comments, I don’t believe that.
                It’s a convenient dodge to say that you don’t have anything against me as a person, but it’s obvious you think that my family is unnatural, that my conception was wrong, and that my parents’ relationship does not warrant the same respect or legitimacy as a heterosexual relationship.
                As you said, you don’t think it deserves to be “equated with marriage.” And based on that, I believe you are a bigot. To me, you’re no different from a person who opposes interracial marriage.

    • coyotenose

      Are you unable to grasp that gays engaging in marriage in the same way as straights is nothing like your “slippery slope” examples because you aren’t too bright, because you’re willfully ignorant, or because you’re dishonest?

      • Emmet

        Except that I didn’t make a slippery slope argument – I don’t see that redefining marriage will inevitably lead to further redefinitions.
        I said (read it again, carefully – did you misread it because you’re not too bright, because you’re willfully ignorant or because you’re dishonest?) that if we talk about marriage being a human right then it has to be a human right. If any two people who love each other have the right to get married, then any two people who love each other have the right to get married – including those already married, a father and daughter, two brothers… and why just two people? Why are we allowed to discriminate against three people who want to marry? What about their human right to marry?

        If you answer includes anything about the welfare of children, or “that’s gross”, or “that’s a taboo”, or “we’re not ready for that yet”, do I get to call you a bigot? Do I?

        • Dezzydez

          Then why aren’t you supporting incest and polygamy marriage since you are so worried about it? Start up an advocacy group and get that started.

    • Stev84

      Three people marrying happens a lot in your “holy” book

      • Emmet

        Sure. Your point is?

  • http://www.facebook.com/travis.myers.102977 Travis Myers

    “Somebody call the waaambulance.”

    Been watching Modern Family recently?

  • Tim

    Ahhhhhhhhhhh it’s funny cause none of that stuff is really gonna happen!

  • Michael Corry

    The problem with this ad is that right wing Americans are so stupid they will actually believe this – just look at some of the comments here.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ichuck7 Charles Chambers

    The writer knows this is satire, right?

  • Mike

    Whoa!!

    At first I thought this ad was serious.

    The couple is totally correct, though. The husband will be forced to report to the nearest gay bar for conversion training. LOL

  • deafstef

    Really, with the opposition the same sex marriage, snark is the only reasonable response, isn’t it? I love the confused look on the daughter’s face at the end!
    Can I make a plea for transcripts of videos when you post them? I have no hearing – sometimes its possible to lipread off the screen but more often than not this is not possible. This video is visually a good laugh, and there have been many others where the discussions look very interesting, and it is very frustrating not to be able to follow what is said.
    I realise transcribing is a lot of work, but I would imagine there are many people who cannot hear as well who would benefit from this.
    I love this blog – all power to your elbow, Hemant.
    Cheers, Steven