Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 67765

Q. But how does someone’s homosexual “marriage” threaten everyone else’s families?

A. Gay activists are not asking for just one homosexual marriage, even though they often personalize it by saying, “Don’t you interfere with my family and I won’t interfere with yours.” What the activists want is a new national policy saying that no longer is a mom and a dad any better than two moms or two dads. That policy would turn some very important principles upside down:

Marriage would become merely an emotional relationship that is flexible enough to include any grouping of loving adults. If it is fair for two men or two women to marry, why not three, or five, or 17? The terms “husband” and “wife” would become merely words with no meaning.

Parenthood would consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids. “Mother” and “father” would become only words.

Gender would become nothing. The same-sex proposition cannot tolerate the idea that any real, deep and necessary differences exist between the sexes. It must rest on a “Mister Potato Head theory” of gender difference (same core, just interchangeable body parts). If real differences did exist, then men would need women and women would need men. Our children would learn that sexual differences are like mere personality types. Wait until your kids start bringing those papers home from school.

Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman, MySpace 63 Comments [11/24/2009 7:25:23 PM]
Fundie Index: 51
Submitted By: M.M.
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Wehpudicabok

There was not a single true statement in that entire post. Although personally I wish the part about gender were true (even though it isn't).

11/24/2009 7:31:12 PM

Dr. Shrinker

Uh, yeah, you want to answer the question now?

11/24/2009 7:44:51 PM

szena

You're basing your argument entirely on your views about parenting. How does prohibiting gay marriage prevent gays from raising children?

11/24/2009 7:51:01 PM

Doubting Thomas

Look how slippery that slope is after you greased it up.

Seriously, two gay people getting married will cheapen the institution of marriage worse than people who constantly get married and divorced, or people who sleep around on their spouses?

11/24/2009 8:08:08 PM

RPJ

I fail to see how any of that is a bad thing. Except for those of you who like to force people to live narrow lives according to stereotypes, of course.

11/24/2009 8:18:10 PM

WMDKitty

Yeah, because a parent is totally defined by their gender and genetic relationship to the child....

11/24/2009 8:28:05 PM

Thinking Allowed

Q. But how does someone’s homosexual “marriage” threaten everyone else’s families?

A. Gay activists are not asking for just one homosexual marriage, even though they often personalize it by saying, “Don’t you interfere with my family and I won’t interfere with yours.” What the activists want is a new national policy saying that no longer is a mom and a dad any better than two moms or two dads. That policy would turn some very important principles upside down:


Um, no. They don't want special rights like the heterosexual couples have. They want the same rights.

Marriage would become merely an emotional relationship that is flexible enough to include any grouping of loving adults. If it is fair for two men or two women to marry, why not three, or five, or 17? The terms “husband” and “wife” would become merely words with no meaning.

Remind me again what group has the highest divorce rate? Oh yeah, you guys.

Parenthood would consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids. “Mother” and “father” would become only words.

...and the problem here is...? If that is the case, then there's an absolute guarantee that the child will be raised in a very loving home.

Gender would become nothing. The same-sex proposition cannot tolerate the idea that any real, deep and necessary differences exist between the sexes.

4 states in the U.S. at the moment recognise same-sex marriage. n Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont, marriages for same sex couples are legal and currently performed. In New Hampshire, same-sex marriages will begin on January 1, 2010. New York and the District of Columbia do not grant but recognize legal out-of-state same-sex marriages. Total, 6 states and the U.S. capitol at the very least recognize same-sex marriage. Another worthy note, staring on January 1, 2010 California will recognize legal same sex marriages performed outside the state. So much for Proposition 8.

It must rest on a “Mister Potato Head theory” of gender difference (same core, just interchangeable body parts). If real differences did exist, then men would need women and women would need men. Our children would learn that sexual differences are like mere personality types. Wait until your kids start bringing those papers home from school.

Citation needed please.

11/24/2009 8:42:47 PM

Old Viking

You haven't explained why a mom and a dad is better than two moms or two dads.

11/24/2009 8:50:27 PM

refuter of fundy vermin

As usual...everything this fundy says...IS A LIE.

11/24/2009 9:10:09 PM

The Jamo

Unless your god said something about what a "family" should consist of, I don't really think you have a solid argument. And even if your god did say something about it, we still don't really have to listen to anything that prick is saying. A family is where you're loved, appreciated and cared for. Whether it consists of all men, all women or any mixture of both is completely immaterial.

11/24/2009 9:19:19 PM

Sasha

Of course gay people understand gender differences; that's why gay men like men and lesbians like women. And preventing gay marriage in no way prevents gay parenting.

I fail to see any explanation here for why homosexual marriage is a bad idea. Wanna try again?

11/24/2009 9:25:29 PM

Rallymodeller

Um, not seeing an issue here. All of your arguments against same-sex marriage are far more valid arguments for same-sex (or group) marriage and ending gender-discriminatory practices.

Principles and social mores change over time; that much is certain. Up until WWII, in several US states, it was illegal for Jews to marry gentiles. Sterilization of the mentally disabled was also the norm. Debtor's Prison was commonplace. Women didn't have voting rights in the US until early in the Twentieth Century. In fact, the framers of the US Constitution intended the vote to be given only to landowners. These things are now seen as almost barbaric, but in their times were seen as normal and often necessary.

Some time soon, "alternative" family arrangements will be common as well, as people adjust to the new baseline, and all you bigots will find something else to bitch about.

11/24/2009 9:28:59 PM



"Marriage would become merely an emotional relationship that is flexible enough to include any grouping of loving adults. If it is fair for two men or two women to marry, why not three, or five, or 17? The terms “husband” and “wife” would become merely words with no meaning."

And the problem with this is? I find it difficult enough to have a relationship with one other individual, but that is just me. I know of several "marriages" where there are three people and everything works out really well. Who is to say what the "right" number of people in a marriage should be other than the one's in the marriage?

"Parenthood would consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids. “Mother” and “father” would become only words."

Again, the problem with this is? Maybe if we broke down gender rolls we would be far better in society. Let each person decide what they are good at and are happy doing, and society as a whole would be better.

"Gender would become nothing. The same-sex proposition cannot tolerate the idea that any real, deep and necessary differences exist between the sexes. It must rest on a “Mister Potato Head theory” of gender difference (same core, just interchangeable body parts). If real differences did exist, then men would need women and women would need men. Our children would learn that sexual differences are like mere personality types. Wait until your kids start bringing those papers home from school."

While there are some real differences between genders (as a friend of mine used to say, men can pee around corners and women can't), most of those differences are just constructs of society, and really not beneficial in a modern society.

11/24/2009 9:30:46 PM

Zoo

"Gender would become nothing."

And what the hell is wrong with that? People should be who they are, not who other people want them to be.

"It must rest on a “Mister Potato Head theory” of gender difference"

I really don't think so, otherwise, perhaps, by your theory I should be a lesbian. Gender doesn't fall neatly into two groups, and which sex you're attracted to is not determined by gender.

"Parenthood would consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids."

How exactly is this different from kids being raised by their grandparents, their older siblings, their aunts/uncles, a foster family, a group home, etc., etc., etc.?

11/24/2009 10:32:36 PM

Steal this user-name, Troy. I friggin' dare you. *smirk*

"A. Gay activists are not asking for just one homosexual marriage, even though they often personalize it by saying, 'Don’t you interfere with my family and I won’t interfere with yours.' What the activists want is a new national policy saying that no longer is a mom and a dad any better than two moms or two dads. That policy would turn some very important principles upside down:"

You haven't answered the question. Try again, please, without changing the subject.

"Marriage would become merely an emotional relationship that is flexible enough to include any grouping of loving adults."

Actually, it already is. The only real question is whether or not the participants in any given marriage are equally flexible (I am, but I'm firmly in the minority here).

"If it is fair for two men or two women to marry, why not three, or five, or 17?"

First, slippery-slope fallacy. Second, you're comparing apples and oranges, as it were. What we who support marriage equality are asking is: why is it so right for these two adults to get married (points to a man and woman) but so wrong for these two adults (points to a pair of men), or for these two adults (points to a pair of women)?

All that having been said, why not let more than 2 people marry each other? As long as they're all adults, and they're all fine with the arrangement, there should be no problem, should there? Hell, even your precious Bible condones such marriages.

The terms 'husband' and 'wife' would become merely words with no meaning."

And your point is....?

"Parenthood would consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids. 'Mother' and 'father' would become only words."

And your point is....?

"Gender would become nothing. The same-sex proposition cannot tolerate the idea that any real, deep and necessary differences exist between the sexes."

Just like the marriage-euality opposition can't tolerate the idea that physical gender, gender roles, or sexuality are nowhere nearly as fixed and immutable as they say they are. Oh, but you've got your precious Bible backing you up, so that doesn't count against you, does it? *smirk*

"It must rest on a 'Mister Potato Head theory' of gender difference (same core, just interchangeable body parts)."

Clearly, this person has never seen any of the anime, nor read any of the manga, of Ghost In the Shell. This "Mr. Potato Head theorem" of interchangable bodies has been around for quite a bit longer than the recent fight for marriage equality.

"If real differences did exist, then men would need women and women would need men."

Three words, numbskull: in vitro fertilization.

"Our children would learn that sexual differences are like mere personality types. Wait until your kids start bringing those papers home from school."

Actually, I have no desire to beget any offspring. *pauses for you to gasp and grab a cross with which to try to ward me off* I'd rather wait until your kids start bringing those papers home, if only to watch your face turn as purple as Motoko Kusanagi's hair. *wicked grin*

11/24/2009 10:32:38 PM

CitationGranted

“Mister Potato Head theory”? Kind of like the same bullshit core of fundie logic with the interchangeable parts of the rules you choose? (Now you can marry non-virgins and eat meat of fridays etc etc?)

Why do you think the call it "HOMOsexuality"? Because we love the SAME gender... so how would that cause any issues with gender boundaries? Your bible's definition of gender is what is warped though. "Women are tools to be raped, beaten and whateverthefuckelse" is kind of silly.

11/24/2009 10:46:56 PM

CitationGranted

Google Chrome makes double posts?
Sorry about that.

11/24/2009 10:53:06 PM

louislois

Them thar Fundies is lyin' fer Jesus.

11/24/2009 11:08:45 PM

The Bad News

Bad news: husband, wife, mother, and father are merely words with meaning assigned by the society that uses them.

11/24/2009 11:12:39 PM

Thejebusfire

What the activists want is a new national policy saying that no longer is a mom and a dad any better than two moms or two dads.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Marriage would become merely an emotional relationship that is flexible enough to include any grouping of loving adults. If it is fair for two men or two women to marry, why not three, or five, or 17? The terms “husband” and “wife” would become merely words with no meaning.

First off, what does that have to do with the question?
Second, try not to kill yourself falling down that slippery slope.

Parenthood would consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids. “Mother” and “father” would become only words.

You do know that a lot of straight couples don't raise their own children either.

The same-sex proposition cannot tolerate the idea that any real, deep and necessary differences exist between the sexes.

Just because you're attracted to a person of the same sex, doesn't mean you hate the opposite sex. Does it make you a racist if your wife is the same race as you? No. Understand?

If real differences did exist, then men would need women and women would need men. Our children would learn that sexual differences are like mere personality types. Wait until your kids start bringing those papers home from school.

:facepalm:

11/24/2009 11:29:43 PM

misshani

"why not three, or five, or 17?"

For one thing, the legal logistics would be a nightmare. When one partner dies, who decides how their estate gets split up between the others, for example. If there's a divorce, where do the kids go? Which of the multiple partners can make life and death decisions for you?

Could also have something to do with the religious history of polygamy, starting way before the Old Testament. One man and several women was fine, because women were treated like property, rather than equals. Which made the legalities simpler, I suppose, but it's sort of against basic human rights.

Marriage HAS evolved since then. Thank goodness.

So have the ideals of parenthood. It's no longer about breeding your own workers for the farm. It really is about "emotionally attached people who care for kids". They don't even need to be their biological kids anymore, thanks to adoption. You want to do away with that as well?

"The same-sex proposition cannot tolerate the idea that any real, deep and necessary differences exist between the sexes."

Differences which have historically been useful for justifying the inequality and dehumanization of women? I don't see anything wrong with abandoning that assumption.

11/25/2009 12:06:56 AM

aaa

Slippery slope is not good for your argument.

11/25/2009 12:32:41 AM

LDM

True love doesn't require labels.

11/25/2009 1:07:31 AM

werewolf

Wow, you didn't answer the question. Amazing! And you used so many words, too. Bravo!

11/25/2009 1:53:40 AM

Clown

I like that argument for two reasons:

1) It didn't answer the original question.

and

2) Can be defeated with a single sentence:
"And all that would be bad, why exactly?"

11/25/2009 2:57:25 AM
1 2 3