Marriage May Be Destroyed. Film at 11.

Marriage May Be Destroyed. Film at 11. December 13, 2012

The Worldnutdaily delivers another of their famously ridiculous headlines on the Supreme Court’s decision to hear two cases involving marriage equality:

Amazing how allowing gay people will “destroy marriage” without having any effect whatsoever on any actual marriages.

"Trump's enemies are so powerful, powerful, powerful that when they totally rigged the election against ..."

Theologian Hot Water Over Racist Ideas
"Glad to see you posting again ... I was worried ..."

Denton Administrator Fired Being Recording Using ..."
"Wait . . . really?Where's the safety glasses?"

Theologian Hot Water Over Racist Ideas
"Welcome back, Ed. It's good to be reading you again. Stay well."

Denton Administrator Fired Being Recording Using ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • busterggi

    Relax nutters – there are still people getting married your way in Islamic countries.

  • Excellent. I look forward to the destruction of marriage. There, I said it.

  • roggg

    I blame Neil Patrick Harris. He’s so freakin’ awesome that prohibition against gay marriage is the only thing keeping heterosexuality alive at all. You know I’m right.

  • And then once we have destroyed marriage we shall DESTROY LUNCH!

  • Moggie

    If marriage is “the very essence of our society”, where does that leave unmarried citizens? Are they not real Americans?

  • baal

    I’m somewhat interested in a larger question. Given that the WND creates an atmosphere of normalcy for wrong ideas (my marriage isn’t shiny if gays (thoooooose people) can do it too); is there an effective strategy for limiting the pollution? Clearly blogging here and elsewhere means that at least part of the population is ‘innoculated.’ I get the impression, however, that we’re not quite enough. At the very least, the right wing bias in polling organizations (gallup seems to be the goto one for regular media) seems to be the default and with the polls ‘blessing’ the MSM are happy enough to use the biased numbers. Maddow does bring some of this out and’s entire raison d’etre is exposing the bias. Are there other effective routes for limiting the harms of these lies?

  • unbound

    Wasn’t marriage already destroyed because of interracial marriage?

  • @roggg, #3:


  • Doug Little

    So they have already admitted defeat then, good to know.

  • thalwen

    Oh no! Not our essence! They’re coming for our precious bodily fluids!

  • And then once we have destroyed marriage we shall DESTROY LUNCH!

    Can you wait ’till I’ve finished my sandwich, please?

  • jba55

    @3 Too true.

    @4 Now that’s just going too far! Unless you replace it with brunch. Mmm, bacon and mimosas.

    As to the post, I thought that the rule of law was the essence of society. I mean, without that it’s just chaos. And I’m talking actual chaos not “some people are doing things I don’t like” chaos.

  • Just wait until wingnuts discover NPH’s Puppet Dreams. Marriage doesn’t stand a chance!

  • Ichthyic

    I always rewatch Lewis Black’s take on this whenever I see “marriage destroyed!” as a headline…

    scroll to about 3:40.

    …”and another American family is destroyed!”

  • Ichthyic

    Are there other effective routes for limiting the harms of these lies?

    no, and here’s why:

    -you’ve probably noticed that evidentiary argument does little to sway those who already posses irrational ideas (you can’t use reason to argue someone out of a position that reason did not get them into). Ever tried arguing with a creationist?

    -most people who buy into the arguments of places like WND, have already been convinced of these arguments by “trusted sources” of information, usually pastors or direct peers, and those “trusted sources” have also told them which “news” feeds that they can “trust”.

    so, what to do?

    swallow the bullet. you will NOT change the positions these people have without first changing the messages their trusted authorities give them. That means BUYING their loyalty to the message you want them to give out.

    you want real change in America? you have to buy these sources just like the Koch Brothers, just like Rupert Murdoch, and control the message that goes out.

    IMO, Altemeyer was exactly right in his observations that a large percentage of all populations possess authoritarian personalities, and since this group are the ones typically directly influenced by “trusted authorities”, and typically vote as a single power block, all you have to do to create change is the same thing the Neocons did starting with Nixon’s Southern Strategy, but simply change the message to a ‘safe and sane’ one instead.

    sorry, but even if it sounds slimy and underhanded, I see no other way.

  • thebookofdave

    @Moggie #5

    No. They are not real persons.

  • uzza

    Ichthyic @ 15

    Ok. How?