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: 52
Submitted By: M.M.
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Brenz

Wow. I never thought I'd hear the "marriage less special for us" argument from Parks & Recreation verbatim.

You just argued perfectly against your own opening statement.

11/25/2009 4:31:04 AM

Titania

From a single mother who is doing a better job than many married parents: STFU.

11/25/2009 5:01:16 AM

Sylvana

"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."

The words husband and wife allready have no meaning especially with the high number of divorces, futher more husband and wife are just sex specific variants of the word "spouse".

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

Given that there are children brought up by single parents (those evil sinners) and people who adopt, mother and father really are just words. Adopted children in particular will call their adoped parents mother because those emotionally attached people are more like a mother than whoever grunted them out.

"Gender would become nothing."

I wish, sadly you know nothing about gender and its complexities especially those outside of your preconcieved gender roles and binary world view.

11/25/2009 5:09:16 AM

CJ

Not really seeing the problem here with any of these things.

Although the gender stuff is kinda stupid. I think we all agree that gender differences exist. A lot of us realize that there are also people who don't fit neatly into either of the "normal" categories. There are people who physically don't fit, and there are people whose inside gender self-perception doesn't fit the outside trappings at all.

All of that aside--I don't get how, just because there are real differences between men & women, that it necessarily follows that the one "needs" the other. Personally, I like having a man around, but I don't "need" one. I'd be in pretty sad shape if I did.

11/25/2009 5:49:36 AM

The L

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

So how is that a bad thing?

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

This wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing either. Biological parents aren't the only ones who have an effect on children's worldviews and personalities, so why pretend they are? "It takes a village," after all.

"Gender would become nothing."

Again, I fail to see how this is a problem. Most people will still prefer to be heterosexual, they will reproduce, and humanity will live on. I would prefer that homosexuals and bisexuals not be discriminated against by this heterosexual majority.

11/25/2009 5:50:27 AM

Orion

Words often mean little to children. "Mom" and "dad" are often assigned by kids to people not even biologically related. Ultimately they are only words, their concepts ultimately bend to the will of society and popular usage.

11/25/2009 6:26:07 AM

Mister Spak

So how is that a threat to anything? Other than extremist fundies that is?

11/25/2009 6:45:27 AM

Misty

"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."

I... Fail to see the problem in there. The principles you point out are bullshit, really...

11/25/2009 6:49:32 AM

MK

"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. "

Good question. You might ask that of Jacob, or King David or King Solomon... you know, any of the men from the OT that had multiple wives.


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

You should really try looking at modern family arrangements. You'll frequently find numerous families in which the bio mom and bio dad aren't the only "parental figures" in the family - and often, one or both aren't even there.

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

A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.

11/25/2009 8:23:20 AM

LDM

@Mister Spak

It's a threat to them having to face the fact that they have no one but themselves to blame if their marriage fails.


11/25/2009 8:30:06 AM

nutbunny

"Marriage would become merely an emotional relationship that is flexible enough to include any grouping of loving adults"
Go polyamory, WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

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

"The same-sex proposition cannot tolerate the idea that any real, deep and necessary differences exist between the sexes"
To be true, your comment would necessitate me to not give a fuck that my man has boobs. I definitely would give a fuck.
You are wrong.

"If real differences did exist, then men would need women and women would need men"
There are real differences between you and I.
Funny, I don't need you.

11/25/2009 9:53:05 AM

GodotIsWaiting4U

Correct, a heterosexual marriage will be no better or worse than a homosexual one.

Yes, why NOT three or five or seventeen? As long as all of them consent, I don't see the issue. Besides, polygamy is supported by your holy book. Most people don't WANT to be polygamous, though, so that won't be much of an issue.

Why CAN'T parenthood consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids? What's WRONG with that? There are people with foster parents who technically have four parents: their biological parents and the people who are actually raising them.

You're wrong on the gender bit. There ARE real, deep differences between the sexes, biological and psychological. A lot of the psychological differences amount to social conditioning, but the fact remains that there are clear and obvious biological differences that cannot be changed.

11/25/2009 10:01:26 AM

Horsefeathers

"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:"

Bullshit.

"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."

Uh, it actually used to be that way you ignorant jackass. Marriage was one man and as many women as he could afford to support and any mistresses/prostitutes/concubines on the side as he had time for.

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

You appear to think this is some sort of point in your favor.

"Gender would become nothing."

This is just stupid.

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

You mean other than the obvious biological ones?

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

What the fuck are you talking about now?

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

Uh, we do. For reproduction. Or weren't you aware of this?

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

Perhaps you should read them. You might learn something.

11/25/2009 10:17:14 AM

Me

All of that sounds just lovely to me. I don't see the problem.

11/25/2009 10:31:52 AM

Swede

You don't have to be married to raise a family, you know. Over here lots of people never get married, or wait several years (and children) to "tie the knot".

Lots of children grow up in abusive families containing one mother and one father. For these children their true family might include an uncle or a neighbor or some adult in school, or the parents of a friend. The words "mother" and "father" does not necessarily mean "loving adult".

All families ought to consist of several people; the couple, their parents, their friends, their neighbors. A family is a group of persons you care about, regardless of legal ties or blod relations. I love my two "sisters-in-law" equally, even tough only one really is "in-law". My older younger brother has not married his significant other.

Damn, you people (english-speaking folks, I mean) really need to create a short name for someone you live with more or less permanently. We have a word, hey, we even have laws about how property will be divided if the couple split up. (Everything aquired for joint usage should be devided up, including cars and homes.)

I thougt the big difference between the sexes WAS different body parts (ie genitals and size of breasts). In other words, we are more alike than we are different. I'm 40 years old, and I was taught that the difference was basically the genitals. Those papers started coming home a looooong time ago, dear. If the subject is even interesting enough for a paper, that is.

11/25/2009 11:05:13 AM

Sulis

just because no one has said it yet...

OH NOES! TEH CHAYNGE...IT BUUURNS!!

11/25/2009 11:32:05 AM

ironknee

I can live with it, extended marriages might be fun

11/25/2009 12:15:51 PM

agentCDE

Call me crazy, but, uh, I'm having a very hard time seeing any of this as explicitly bad. Except the massive slippery slope fallacy, but that's a given.

11/25/2009 12:18:46 PM

ConCat

Roy Zimmerman's "Defenders of Marriage" popped into my head.

11/25/2009 3:04:57 PM

Dr. Shrinker

@ Troy who is masquerading as Swede

"Don't worry about who God is yet or even if He exists,"

I don't

"...just realize the universe needs a cause and can't come from nothing."

Why not? What makes you such an expert? And, for the thousandth time why should we apply this notion to the universe and not to your god?

"Let me know if you have reached that point yet."

Don't patronize me Troy.

"If you were to find a cause for radioactive decay or whatever, you would still say something else could happen all by itself."

And you point here is...? I mean, science always provides you with more questions to be answered. Religion may provide final answers, but they are meaningless answers, so why bother?

"Are you like a 3 year old?"

I said don't patronize me.

"There is observably proven trillions of causes in nature and no hard evidence something (in nature) comes from that which does not exist."

That doesn;t prove god. It only means that there are more questions to be answered. An inquisitive mind embraces this fact. I dull mind hides its face in the corner and screams for an easy answer. that is all your god is, an easy answer to soothe your fears.

"Why shut your mind down to this fact?"

See my above response and tell me who is shutting their mind.

"Why don't you like fact-based overwhelming preponderance of evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt?"

I do, that is why I reject your god. Your god is a supernatural entity and thus incapable of being examined by natural evidence.

"e.g. throwing a baseball. Try it out, throw a baseball."

And that would prove what now?

"Why do you need to know all things to know if the universe requires a cause?"

Who the @#$! said that?

"That's stupid."

I agree. Why did you bring it up?

"Stop avoiding the question. Only God could know all things."

Why should I assume that god exists? Your screed begins by telling me not to think about him.

"You make yourself out to be God then."

Your god does not exist. if I am wrong, then show me your god.

"How obnoxious and pompous!"

But spamming this stupid screed on every thread you can find isn't? You've got some weird ideas of those words mean.

"You don't care about logic do you?"

Do you even know what that word "Logic" means? Your screed does not suggest that you do.

11/25/2009 5:23:37 PM

Tempus

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.

Congratulations on finally admitting that there is a physical, biological component to transsexuality and homosexuality. If you weren't such an asshat, I'd actually be almost proud of you.

11/26/2009 1:56:29 PM

ecoline

"Gay activists are not asking for just one homosexual marriage..."
True. Surprisingly, they want each and every homosexual couple to be afforded their rights as an individual.

"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."
I dunno 'bout the "policy" part, but yah, that sounds about right. Why's yous getting your panties in a bunch over that?

"That policy would turn some very important principles upside down."
This'll be good.

"Marriage would become merely an emotional relationship that is flexible enough to include any grouping of loving adults."
Wait. Weren't we talking about same-sex parenting? That has NOTHING, zero, zip, zilch to do with polyamourous relationships, let alone marriages.
NON SEQUITUR.

"If it is fair for two men or two women to marry, why not three, or five, or 17?"
Alright, joining you in your little derail.
Activists are clamouring for the same rights you have, sweetums. Nothing extra. For the above, you should be knocking on the door of the poly activists - who exist, surely, but have very little to do with the issue at hand.

"The terms “husband” and “wife” would become merely words with no meaning."
Noooo... they would hold the same legal meaning they do now. Only difference being, you could have a wife&wife or a husband&husband.

"Parenthood would consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids."
No. It would require a biological bond or legal adoption - as it does now. By the by, prohibiting same-sex marriage won't affect children being raised in same-sex households, as I'm sure you're aware, no?

" “Mother” and “father” would become only words."
Then what are they now? Farts? Cupcakes?

"Gender would become nothing."
That *would* be nice, but again - no. Gender as a biological fact would remain as it ever was. I really don't understand how that would change with some unrelated paperwork.

"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)."
Oh, you meant gender ROLES? You mean, you'd hate not to be able to have your woman-servant any longer. Yah, I can see that. Poor you.
But here, I think you're addressing feminists, not gay activists.

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

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

11/26/2009 2:06:20 PM

GigaGuess

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.”
Just like Anti-Gay Marriage folks frequently trot their families out expounding how gay marriage will irreparably harm their children, in some vague, indeterminate way. Your point? Of course we're not asking for "one" marriage, we're asking for the institution of marriage to be inclusive of all relationships.

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.
Because it's not. Any more than saying two parents are inherently better than one, solely on the merit of there being two.

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.

As opposed to it being a contract to bind two people legally? I mean, if you claim that it is invariably a sacred union, and all that, I will be forced to bing up Vegas marriages, marriages of convenience, gold-diggers, immigration marriages...

If it is fair for two men or two women to marry, why not three, or five, or 17?
Why indeed? So long as all are in agreement, and none are being mistreated...where are the issues, aside from a few sticky legal points, like inheritance?

The terms “husband” and “wife” would become merely words with no meaning.
Geder specific titles to a married person. I don't see that changing.

Parenthood would consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids.
So...you're against adoption then? And Step-Parents?

“Mother” and “father” would become only words.
Right, gotcha.

Gender would become nothing. The same-sex proposition cannot tolerate the idea that any real, deep and necessary differences exist between the sexes.
No, we just feel that denying us rights for no other reason than you find us icky is repugnant.

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.
So if we needed each other, then why are we wired to not desire them? I mean, surely you aren't insinuating that we VOLUNTARILY choose to live a life of scorn and ridicule, are you?

Our children would learn that sexual differences are like mere personality types.
Oh? And how is that not so?

Wait until your kids start bringing those papers home from school.
What, that hating people for no reason other than disagreeing with them is wrong? Whodathunk.

11/26/2009 2:46:48 PM

Antichrist

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.
Again, how the hell does this threaten your marriage?

Marriage would become merely an emotional relationship that is flexible enough to include any grouping of loving adults.
Again, how the hell does this threaten your marriage?

Parenthood would consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids. “Mother” and “father” would become only words.
Again, how the hell does this threaten your marriage?

Gender would become nothing.
Again, how the hell does this threaten your marriage?

Get the message?

11/26/2009 11:58:37 PM



Well, apart from a social contract, it is, or should be ALL of the above. So, what's the problem?

11/27/2009 2:44:43 AM
1 2 3