All of this brings up a strange inconsistency to the opponents of same-sex marriage. Their ends — every child gets a mom and a dad — are strangely mismatched to their means — prohibit same-sex marriage. It’s sort of like banning bad moustaches to stop pornography. Perhaps there’s some vague association, but that’s about it.
Jason Kuznicki, “Means, Ends and Same-Sex Marriage”.
On the plus side, that would finally rid us of Ray Comfort.
(Kuznicki is one of the bloggers at the libertarian blog The One Best Way …. (No, Really!), the reincarnation of Positive Liberty.)
I’m not convinced that IS their goal. I don’t see the anti-gay marriage folks also being big proponents of adoption reform. In fact, as the news streams through my semi-conscious mind, I hear less and less attempt at justification for the anti-same-sex marriage position. They know their arguments are weak, they don’t want gays to have any rights, period.
Exactly – the welfare of kids is almost never the REAL goal of these holier-than-thou types who weep “think of the children” at any opportunity. This is just an easy way to beat reason back a bit with emotion.
Uuuhh, whats that smell ;-)
Just kidding :-P
Yep. They bitch and whine about “the children,” but never fucking adopt. Or, if they DO adopt, all they want is a healthy, Anglo newborn.
I never really knew what their “true” reasoning behind their bias was (besides the bible), and when I heard this one I ended up thinking the same thing. I grew up with just a Mom and I have to say, I would much rather have 2 than one. Really, it’s just two people to care for you instead of one.
I’ve heard a lot of “worries” that this might “turn a child gay”, but I’m sure everyone on here knows how silly that idea is.
A coworker of mine once replied to this “it’ll turn the child gay!” with a “even if it does, so what? Being gay isn’t wrong or a crime”. I find it a pertinent comment.
I would agree that is the proper response. I usually say something similar, but am confronted with a response (if not awkward silence) like “It’s unnatural!”, “It’s immoral.” or one of my favourites, “But then they will live a life of persecution and pain!” (or somthing like that). I’ve mainly heard these from Christians I know, but a few have come from stubborn older folks I’ve known.
I’m not really sure if that last one is ironic or not, seeing as the person thinking there is something wrong with it is also part of the group of persecutors.
Yeah, it’s wrong because it suffers pain and persecution because it’s wrong because it suffers pain and persecution because…
Irony.
Last year before the gay pride parade in jerusalem an extreme right religious group announced that they are going to prevent the parade by any means, including the use of violence, and then one of their leaders appealed to the court to have it order the police to revoke the permit for the parade on the grounds that it may lead to violence.
This is also my response to those who claim gay people don’t deserve rights because it’s a choice.
A. All evidence suggest that it’s not a choice.
B. Even if it is a choice, what the F*ck gave you the idea that it’s in any way shape or form any of your F*cking business.
C. Even if it is a choice, why do you think your choice is better?
I’ve heard the “It’ll turn a kid gay” argument and rebut it with the logic that if that was true, then straight couples would never raise gay children. Then they like to claim homosexuals are child molesters. I rebut that with the fact that most convicted child molesters are self-identified as heterosexual males, even the molesters that abuse boys. Then they like to say, “it’s not natural”, to which I reply that with the advent of motion-sensitive cameras, all kinds of wildlife have been caught engaging in homosexual behavior ON FILM. Then they claim that marriage should remain traditional as God intended, so I rebut with the Bible…..which has multiple marriage, forced marriage, slave marriage, concubinage, AND marriage between men (I Samuel Chapter 18). When they claim it’s a choice, I then ask them to consider if they would choose to be homosexual in a small southern town where they are likely to be subject to ridicule, humiliation, degradation, violence and possibly death. Then they pull out the “slippery slope” argument saying that if you allow gay marriage then soon you have to allow people to marry children or animals to which I say, “that’s what they said would happen when mixed race marriage was made legal in the US.”
Christians actively and passionately loathe me because I not only know their precious holy book better than they do, but I’m able to employ it along with simple logic and reasoning to shoot down all their hateful illusions. Well, that and the fact that I’m blatantly not a Christian and don’t give a rat’s little fuzzy gray hindparts about their hellfire and brimstone.
Well argued, but sadly, I doubt that you have changed very many people’s minds. It’s an emotional issue, not a rational one.
In the end, it’s all about dictating what other people do with their naughty bits.
As a proof of my assertion, I will use the example of my own religious background, which argued just as hard against any form of sex that was not vaginal intercourse as they did against homosexuality.
And it had to be vaginal intercourse that produced babies. Sex was to make babies, not simply for a woman’s enjoyment. (Don’t believe it? Notice how the USA’s mores have changed to support single mothers; sex is OK for women as long as they produced a baby. Not OK for a woman to use abortion, RU-486, or even contraception.)
Thank you! The change in attitude toward unwed mothers should be brought up every time the religious start yapping about eternal values. When I was young, the wealthy Catholics sent their knocked-up daughters away for long vacations, the poor and the Protestants had abortions.
While it is true that there are some hideous moustaches in PornoLand, banning them is not the answer. Let us try faith, prayer, and the laying on of hands to end this menace to our society. After all, the wearing of a moustache is a a CHOICE…well, except perhaps for my great-aunt Helga.
Besides, there are a few more important things to ban, namely:
Comb-overs.
Socks with sandals.
Badminton rioting.
Cream soda.
Puritans.
Someone once said that a Puritan is a person who lives in constant, abject fear that someone, somewhere, is having a good time. Life seems to me so precious, and love in all its forms so rare, that fretting over having neighbors whose parts happen to match, rather than vice versa…is such a waste. One might even be tempted to call such small-mindedness a “sin.”
Oh…and Mullets. My (imaginary) God !!! Can somebody please ban the Mullet???
What’s badminton rioting? Why ban cream soda?
DM…badminton rioting was meant as an oxymoron, as in “Amish troublemakers,” “rap music,” or “elegant polyester.” Cream soda simply because the idea of vanilla soda is disgusting, lol. I am a firm believer in the idea that everyone is entitled to my opinion!
Surely Lucifer himself wears a mullet, so I am afraid I do have to stand firm on that one.
Business in the front, party in the back! That does sound like the devil’s haircut.
NO! It’s not true! My lord Satan is not a redneck!
Thanks for reminding me of Satan and Saddam from the Southpark movie.
Ah, unless it’s ORANGE CREAM SODA… then it’s just awesome.
It is so true. People are nosy and judgmental, like they have no lives or something. One of the things I almost find unavoidable is celebrity gossip… I know things I don’t want to know, and sometimes when I see a headline I can’t believe is “newsworthy” at all, I am tempted to look at the article for the comments of people who actually care — mostly I am curious who the heck cares! I make myself a little sick this way. I don’t really know who these celebrities are or mostly if they used to be famous, why they still have stories about them, and what stupid things people have to say in the comments because they actually get off on this stuff. Disclosure — my sick curiosity to the entertainment news is primarily to see if anyone famous has died because I hardly turn on the tv anymore. For some reason, I care about this one stupid portion of celebrity, and that’s probably something else I shouldn’t care about.
I don’t know why it’s so popular to care what anyone else is doing or what they think, especially if it’s so trivial. Who cares who anyone has sex with? What kinds of people think it’s their business to judge them or stop them from having a good time? Why is religion so protected as a way of life that you cannot even confront someone who judges, hates, and protests the private activities of others based on some really silly beliefs? Why are they allowed to use these beliefs to be hurtful to others, but we have to be tolerant of their beliefs, tiptoe around them, not call it what it is?
Don’t forget — religion is a choice, hate is a choice. If they want to think homosexuality is also a choice, I don’t know what bearing that should have on anything or why they think that is a valid criticism when they can’t stand it being used against them. When two men or two women love each other, it is beautiful because love is beautiful. When they want to raise a child together, that is beautiful, because children who are wanted and loved is a beautiful thing. If the two men or two women just want to have some casual boink-type action, that’s also beautiful. Anyone who cares too much why any two (or more) people want to get naked together for a little while does not have to join them if they object to the terms! We do not force them to be what they are not or participate in sexual intercourse that they personally do not like to do.
Kodie! You’re back!
Personally, I think marraige should only be for traditional man/woman/bearing kids. After the kids reach 18 years old the marriage should be dissolved. Definately after a woman goes through menopause and absolutely no marriages for couples that can not conceive, adopt or are older than 50! That does however mean that a lebian and a gay man CAN get married if she is pregnant and they need not be stoned to death for their iniquities……go figure.
A word for those who seem to need it…..GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT! IT IS CONTRARY TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND HAPPINESS!
Waaaaahahahahahahahahaha! Banning Ray Comfort… mmmpphhhh *snerk*
Bad moustaches? He must still be watching porn on his betamax.
I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization of their position.
Most anti-gay marriage advocates (those not pursuing an explicitly religious objective) believe gay marriage will undermine traditional marriage which they consider the lynchpin of our society.
If god is so derned set against families that don’t have one father and one mother, why does he call away many young parents? And why doesn’t god just “seal the womb” of any woman not in a “traditional” marriage? If he could seal Sarai’s womb for eighty years (wife and also half sister of Abram, a normal traditional biblical marriage), he should be able to do it for anyone. Another bone to pick…I have fundy friend whose daughter has several miscarriages. Surely a sign from god? No, can’t be…in addition to copious hours of prayer, they are spending thousands of dollars for fertility drugs. Surely there aren’t any orphaned or abandoned children that she could offer her care to? Oh, or maybe no healthy white, newborn children…
Yeah, that’s something that annoys me to no end. People rail against homosexuals adopting, at the same time they spend whatever it takes to get a baby of their own – rather than, y’know, adopting as the gays want to.