Anti-gay GOP youth and their creepy fascination with nuts & bolts

I’d been meaning to read this NYT article about “young opponents of gay marriage” for a while now – it came out March 20 – but I just never got to it until today. Then I read it.

And I laughed.

A lot.

The piece shows how clueless even young Republican leaders are to where America is trending, and where even the majority of young people in their own party are at.  A number of the people in this story either work for the religious right, or work for the Heritage Foundation, “the” GOP think tank for coming up with future policy.  Until the Republican party purges itself of the bigots that permeate its think tanks, its allies and its leadership, things are going to get any better for the GOP electorally.

Now for a few fun quotes from the story, which show not just how hateful anti-gay Republicans are, but why they’re losing the battle over gay civil rights:

“Even if we are doomed, and I’m totally naïve, I think it’s important that I do this work anyway.” Eric Teetsel, 29, the executive director of the Manhattan Declaration

In addition to being awfully LOL-worthy, the Times article is interesting in that it shows quite clearly at least one reason why the anti-gay-marriage folks are losing so badly. In addition to being on the wrong side of history, which is never helpful, their messaging is just lousy.

Check this out, from the Heritage Foundation’s anti-gay activist in resident, Ryan Anderson (I wrote about a recent gay-bashing piece Ryan Anderson wrote for CNN the other day).  This is the succinct, clear, easy-to understand soundbite that Anderson uses to explain why he’s against marriage equality for gay couples:

“In redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, what you’re doing is you’re excluding the norm of sexual complementarity,” said Mr. Anderson, the Heritage Foundation fellow. “Once you exclude that norm, the three other norms — which are monogamy, sexual exclusivity and permanency — become optional as well.”

Nut and screw via Shutterstock

Nut and bolt via Shutterstock

I speak English. Learned it from birth. And am told I’m pretty good at the language.  And I have no idea what that paragraph means.  Sexual complementarity?  I can only guess that Anderson is using the old “the stick fits in the hole” argument that anti-gay Republicans like to think is “proof” that gay couples are unnatural.

But hey, you know what happens when you “ass-u-me,” so I did some googling on “sexual complementarity,” and what do you know, it IS a term of art among the haters. Let me share a little bit of their explanation of what the term means:

Man and woman together exemplify the actual embodiment of the universal principles of masculine and feminine. A single-sex relationship simply cannot have this embodiment. A man’s and a woman’s bodies—who they are as persons—come together each as male or female, and so by its very nature the union between a man and woman is unlike any other relationship.

I have no idea what he’s talking about.  But search a little further, and you’ll find out that I was right – it’s about sticks fitting into holes. Here’s a lovely Catholic priest explaining how “pipe fittings” work:

One does not even have to believe in God to see that there is a natural design in the bodies of man and woman. The male and female reproductive systems are fully complementary. This is so recognized in our culture that even certain pipe fittings are called male and female, because of the way they are designed to fit together. Male and female body parts are naturally designed for the continuation of the human race. Without getting into all the gory details a man’s body is not designed by nature for the reception of another man. Certain body parts were designed not for sex, but for the elimination of waste. Unnatural acts result in trauma and a variety of sexually transmitted diseases.

Yup, its about holes.

Two screws via Shutterstock

Two screws via Shutterstock

I’ve always found it somewhat disgusting the way far-right Republican men view wives as nothing more than a birthing machine.  It’s dehumanizing, it’s sexualizing, and its entire devoid of the notion of love.

And while loveless marriages were fine in the old country, where women were treated only a tad better than slaves, and you needed lots of male babies to keep the farm going, in the modern world, where we’re just shy of 7 billion people living on the earth, this whole procreation thing has become a bit less important (though, there’s an argument to be made that in some countries, especially in western Europe, the birth rates are failing to make up for the aging population).

In a different piece, Anderson further explains the importance of basing marriage on sexual complementarity:

Once one jettisons sexual complementarity—the bodies of men and women go together—what principle can one offer to limit civil marriage to monogamous couples? For that is the only way to answer the charge that withholding a “fundamental right” from even just one multiple-partner household isn’t a grave injustice.”

Multiple nuts and screws via Shutterstock

Multiple nuts and bolts via Shutterstock

You can always identify a Republican bigot by their invocation of either polygamy, pedophilia or incest.   The problem is that their little argument never really works.  Let’s assume, arguendo, that Anderson is right – that the most important factor to consider in deciding who should be permitted to marry whom is sexual complementarity.  Then what principle can Anderson offer to limit civil marriage to two people?  Why not polygamy – so long as you have a deal where the guys do the girls, and the girls do the guys?  Why not incest?  And why not animal sex, so long as you keep it opposite-gender animal sex?  So long as all the holes fit together, it’s okay according to these folks, right?

If haters like Anderson want to play the polygamy game, let’s play it.  Because their ludicrous love-less arguments for marriage are just as much a defense of polygamy, incest, and pedophilia as any argument for marriage equality.

And then, of course, they come back to “the children.”  More from the NYT:

The result, proponents of traditional marriage say, would be further rises in divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births.

“When you de-link marriage from childbearing, you then have to increase the complexity of that relationship,” said Caitlin Seery, 25, the director of programs for the Love and Fidelity Network, which works with college groups to advocate traditional marriage.

Multiple nuts via Shutterstock

Multiple nuts via Shutterstock

First off, how does letting gay people marry and form stable family relationships cause more divorce and more out of wedlock births?  That doesn’t even make any sense?  If we’re talking gay people, per se more of them are going to be married if we legalize marriage. And if she’s talking about straight people, then she’s suggesting that she plans on divorcing her husband and becoming a lesbian if gay marriage is legalized, and I suspect she wouldn’t dare admit that.  So what’s her point?  She doesn’t have one.

As I’ve wrote a few weeks ago, if it’s only about child-bearing, then the natural next step is legalizing polygamy.

Imagine a kid having 3 parents.  That’s potentially three incomes to help that child thrive.  Or even better, two incomes and one full-time parent – what kids gets that?  Or even better, one really good income and two full-time parents – no kid gets that.  And what if a parent gets sick and dies, you’ve still got two left!  Or a parent goes to prison, same thing.  Or one parent divorces and leaves, the kid still has two left.  The list is endless of the benefits to the child, under George, Girgis and Anderson’s reasoning, of having the largest number of polyamorous parents as possible.

And if you have multiple husbands and wives in a heterosexual marriage, you up the chance for childbirth, since the potential for one spouse being infertile is vitiated by the additional spouses of the same gender all mating (and why not use the animal terminology since that is, after all, what George, Girgis and Anderson think of marriage, it’s only about sex).

And why not take their logic one step further.  If we’re really concerned about mankind not disappearing from this earth, which a number of religious right gay haters have argued, because (they say) permitting gay marriage will somehow cause straight people to all become gay and stop procreating, then why not outlaw marriage all together and just encourage everyone to have sex with as many people as possible, so that the maximal numbers of babies are born, thus ensuring that mankind survives?

If anything, anti-gay bigots are actually presenting the ultimate argument for free love.  If Republican gay-haters are going to make arguments about polygamy then they need to face the polygamist in their own harem.

And now a word about rusty screws.  If marriage is all about procreation, then why aren’t we banning “gray marriage,” aka, old-people marriage? To quote the video below (you must watch it’s hysterical), “God made Adam and Even, not Adam and Edith.”

It’s a point that Supreme Court Justice Kagan raised last week during the Supreme Court arguments on Prop 8:

COOPER: The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples.

Rusty nut and screw via Shutterstock.

Rusty nut and bolt via Shutterstock.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, Mr. Cooper, suppose a state said that, “Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55.” Would that be constitutional?

COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

KAGAN: Because that’s the same state interest, I would think, you know: If you are over the age of 55, you don’t help us serve the government’s interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?

COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both parties to the couple are infertile, and —

KAGAN: No, really, because if the couple — I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.

Even Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kenny on Fox News admitted that the procreation argument is kind of bs. They also note that the religious right pretty much has no argument as to why gay marriage is “harmful”.

Another Heritage anti-gay weighs in:

“If you take the longer view of history — I’m not talking just 15 years, I’m talking 40 years or even 100 years — I can’t help but think that the uniqueness of man-woman marriage will be adjudicated over time,” said Andrew T. Walker, 27, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

From your mouth to the RNC’s ears.

f we can just keep people like Andrew Walker and Ryan Anderson working at the Heritage Foundation, and helping to craft GOP policy for the future, the Democrats should be able to become the permanent majority party in this country for the next – oh – 100 years.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

76 Responses to “Anti-gay GOP youth and their creepy fascination with nuts & bolts”

  1. pappyvet says:

    Claiming that the Earth is only 6000 years old as well as the many ,many,, quotes of pure hatred that the wingnuts have stated is much more out of the norm

  2. karmanot says:

    It has been done before: The Lebensborn Program.

  3. BeccaM says:

    Well of course — parents and grandparents are entitled to that special dispensation.

    On the other hand, you’d be amazed how many gay and lesbian couples are now being asked the same question by their parents and grandparents. Maybe not the ‘breeding’ per se, but more along the lines of “so when can we expect some new grandkids to spoil?”

  4. wmforr says:

    They will continue to insist that Gawd invented marriage. Despite all evidence to the contrary. How many of them even know that the Church didn’t perform weddings unit the Middle Ages, saying it was a civil affair?

  5. wmforr says:

    As far as Church doctrine stops trying to tell the Civil government what to do, I don’t give a flying fork what it is.

  6. wmforr says:

    Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to
    each man. Now, wouldn’t that necessitate the abandonment of the
    so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were
    Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a
    sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add
    that since each man will be required to do prodigious…service along
    these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual
    characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

  7. wmforr says:

    That question is only asked by the parents and grandparents of the bride and groom. Endlessly. To establish their investment in the grandparent market.

  8. wmforr says:

    When Cooper says,

    COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it
    is very rare that both parties to the couple are infertile, and —

    and the laughter begins–hey, Sarah laughed at God’s suggestion and then he made her pregnant at 90, so it must happen all the time–even Kagen didn’t remark on his seeming ignorance of the fact that you can’t make a baby if only one partner is fertile. Unless he’s suggesting adultery.

  9. Craig A. FOx says:

    Not to be tacky, but——-why doesn’t anyone mention that the same stick fits into more than 1 hole–and isn’t it curious how Nature, or God, or evolution, has managed to create holes in the back that perfectly fit the male stick.

  10. olandp says:

    If their “God” didn’t want anyone to have the butt sex, why does it feel so good? I just think that those people from The Heritage Foundation aren’t doing it right. They should bruah uo on their Savage Love.

  11. zorbear says:

    I think the far right religious nuts refer to it as slaves, farm animals, wives, and other property…

  12. Mato says:

    I don’t understand now what the meaning of normal relationship now between everyone on this day. The day was change and now many thing could say normal. But is the real normal is on the first step is relationship between woman and men and other relationship I couldn’t tell is that still normal or not. The meaning of normal it self just getting bias.

  13. Badgerite says:

    Marriage equality is not harmful. It certainly doesn’t cause heterosexual divorce or unwed teen mothers. I would like to see them make the cause and effect connection on that one. The actual effect of marriage equality would be to expand the number of people in the community who are married in the traditional sense of two people who love each other and form a family unit. With or without kids. That strikes me as a positive good. Just saw David Boise on Charlie Rose. He was excellent!

  14. speakingtruthtoimmorality says:

    You know what would be really nifty — if a gay man and lesbian woman just had sex and created a child. No invasive IVF technology needed. Seriously, if gay men and lesbians want to have children so badly, why don’t they just do it naturally. A lot less expensive and certainly cleaner and healthier. “Anal sex is not a family value.”

  15. speakingtruthtoimmorality says:

    “Certain body parts were designed not for sex, but for the elimination of waste.”

    That’s a true statement. You can have anal sex for all eternity and it won’t create a life. But it will eventually create serious health issues. It doesn’t take a lot of smarts to understand that you don’t smear shit on your “body parts.”

  16. judybrowni says:

    They ignore basic — obvious –, facts in their “nuts and bolts” argument.

    “Certain body parts were designed not for sex, but for the elimination of waste.” Umm, except for the penis, which was “designed” both for sex and the elimination of waste. Duh.

    “Unnatural acts result in trauma and a variety of sexually transmitted diseases.” As can your so-called “natural acts” — so what’s your point, Dillard?

  17. karmanot says:

    And they are probably argyle socks in pastel colors to match his bow tie.

  18. karmanot says:

    Sorry sweet pea but here, gay is normal.

  19. BeccaM says:

    He’s just sad because the hot gay guys won’t hit on him, like they always do in his secret tube-sock fantasies.

  20. TuxedoCartman says:

    You go to a political blog specializing in gay issues, and then complain about all the gay stories? Do you visit bathhouses, or perhaps certain rainbow-attired bars, and complain about all the gay men hitting on you? Heh… you remind me of an Onion article (and how sad is it that reality does that way too often these days?),10861/

  21. TuxedoCartman says:

    Ah, conservatives. I’m not so sure about the bolts, but you have to give them… they’re nuts! (Get it? HA!!! Grammar joke for the win!)

  22. Bose says:

    Hey John…

    I hadn’t seen the video…


  23. BeccaM says:

    It’s also why the Ten Commandments lumps wives in along with property, slaves, and farm animals when it comes to the ‘coveting’ prohibitions.

  24. BeccaM says:

    Every time something like this comes up, I can’t help but think of the following exchange:

    Dr. Strangelove: “Mr. President, I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy at the bottom of some of our deeper mineshafts. The radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep. And in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided.”

    President Merkin Muffley: “How long would you have to stay down there?”

    “I would think that uh possibly one hundred years.”

    “You mean, people could actually stay down there for a hundred years?”

    “It would not be difficult mein Fuhrer! Nuclear reactors could, heh… I’m sorry. Mr. President. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plantlife. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would
    have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country. But I would guess… that ah, dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided.”

    “Well I… I would hate to have to decide who stays up and who goes down.”

    “Well, that would not be necessary Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would bemuch time, and little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.”

    (later on…)

    General Buck Turgidson: “Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn’t that necessitate the abandonment of the so called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?”

    Dr S: “Regrettably, yes.But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race.I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious…service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature”

  25. BeccaM says:

    Thank you, Dr. Gonzo. ;-)

  26. karmanot says:

    “Pope Francis is dragging the church forward kicking and screaming into the 19th century.” Make that the 14th century and you’re on.

  27. MyrddinWilt says:

    And don’ forget that the men tended to be killing each other off in wars. In many cases the purpose of the war being more or less to thin the herd and make more females available per remaining male.

    If a population is on the edge of survival, the most efficient arrangement in one male services many females and the surplus males are killed off.

  28. BeccaM says:

    As I said in another comment, I don’t give a damn whether the Catholic Church says my marriage is real or not — because having been raised Catholic, I already know the catechism is any marriage not performed within the Church isn’t considered ‘spiritually real’.

    The only part I care about is whether they will acknowledge and respect the civil legality of our marriages.

  29. MyrddinWilt says:

    Oh take a look at the shift in the position of the Catholic Church following the election of Pope Francis. Their new position is essentially, ‘don’t get too upset about our refusal to recognize same sex marriage, remember that we don’t recognize second marriages of straights who were divorced.’ And that is believe it or not, an improvement on their earlier position of describing said second marriages as bigamy.

    Now I am not for a moment suggesting that Francis is going to change church doctrine on any of these issues but the cardinals who elected him knew what they were getting: A Pope who would stop demanding that they make this type of issue the primary focus of church campaigns.

    Washing women’s feet last week might sound like something trivial, which of course it is. But the fact that he did so can be read as a signal that Francis is not going to be continuing the ex-Pope’s jihad against the nuns.

    Pope Francis is dragging the church forward kicking and screaming into the 19th century.

  30. “…is how they are reducing human existence to be equal to that of biologically-driven animals.”

    It never lasts, though–the appeal to nature, that is. “Sex and marriage are only meant for propagation of the species. It’s a biological fact of nature!” “But what about instances from nature of homosexual behavior?” “What, you think we should behave like ANIMALS?!?”

  31. I guess that underlying such comments is a gauzy picture of comfortable domesticity that looks, well, something like this:

    Breadwinner Dad ventures forth into the world while Caretaker Mom stays at home to look after little Tommy and keep the house clean. (As if such a cozy arrangement were even possible any more with wages being what they are!) I suspect there’s a “devil makes work for idle hands” notion lurking in this, too. If there’s no little Tommy to keep Mom’s days occupied who knows what mischief she might get up to >_>

  32. MyrddinWilt says:

    I think it is part of a strategy. The GOP is a party of money, not principle. It exists for one reason only and that is to make money for the people who run the machine. Rove and Norquist both made tens of millions personally off the last election and so did many others lower down in the pyramid.

    The hate plank has never been about principle, its just a way to get their voters to the polls. Now that many of their voters are older and in many cases deader, it does not work as well. Public opinion has shifted further and faster on marriage equality than anyone predicted. And now it is a liability.

    So the problem for the money men is how to disengage. So now they have taken the leash of their whackiest and weirdest fringe lunatics and told them that it is now OK to say all the stupidest and most hateful things they like. Send little Ricky Santorum back off into battle, bring back Bill Donahue, send out all the no hopers and yesterday men to make the case against marriage equality in terms that allows the real powers in the party to repudiate their cause with a minimum of cost.

    The GOP is an amazing creation, even when it is possibly doing something right it manages to do so in a way that merely sickens and disgusts reasonable people even more.

  33. UncleBucky says:

    Well, then if that’s the way you’re going to play, you’ve just screwd yourself! :D HAH! :*

  34. I think you’re losing the thread of your argument here…

  35. And when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

  36. JamesInCA says:

    Stev84 – I think she was mixing up her anti-gay talking points with her anti-polygamy talking points.

    It’s an easy mistake to make when none of it makes logical sense to begin with.

  37. BeccaM says:

    Go back in human civilization, and polygamy was pretty much the norm early on. Powerful males using their alpha status to breed with as many females as possible. Power initially defined as physical strength, then the ability to provide protein meat, and then much later on as defined by social status and personal wealth.

    With each step, moving further away from biological imperative and more towards arbitrary social definitions and rules.

    From an evolutionary standpoint, biological polygamy actually makes sense. The “fittest” males have the most children. But from a long-term societal standpoint, from the sociological aspect, it doesn’t work well in practice — because you end up with a whole bunch of un-mated, discontented males, and no single male can withstand the wrath of 10 or 20 others. The system only works in the long term if there are unequal numbers of males and females, and we humans didn’t go that route. Apparently agriculture (18k years BCE) was key in equalizing the numbers of males vs females.

    Still, as near as I can tell from my study of paleolithic history, pair-bonding didn’t really become the norm until human culture advanced well beyond the patriarchal tribal structure, with the rise of new systems of self-government beyond the strong-man chief model. A detail I find interesting was how the primitive Abrahamaic cultures continued practicing institutionalized polygamy even as other nations such as Greece and the Roman Empire were well on the way to generally monogamous practices, and much of that because the social imperatives were overriding the biological ones. (I know… slaves and all, but they did have different concepts as to who was entitled to full rights as a citizen and who wasn’t.)

  38. Ryan says:

    They are a good example of the danger of caring about winning an argument rather than caring about what is right or true. In their dogged opposition to letting gays and lesbians marry, they have hollowed out their understanding of marriage, women, and even men.

  39. nolaredhead says:

    Since “christians”didn’t invent marriage, why do THEY get to define it?

  40. Yeah, because life isn’t supposed to be complicated, especially marriage. That’s why wives aren’t supposed to speak, ever, lest things get “complicated.”

  41. I was using their own terminology against them ;-) He’s clearly a religious right clone.

  42. Stev84 says:

    I don’t even see how that makes a relationship more complicated

  43. emjayay says:

    I think the whole legal polyamy thing is all worked out in Middle Eastern countries. Rule of thumb: men get everything.

  44. emjayay says:

    No, no, no, the women have the nut and men have the bolt. Also men have the nuts, but that’s something different.

  45. emjayay says:

    We also breathe, eat, swallow, and talk with the same parts. We’re quite multifunctional. Actually, if you were intelligently designing people from scratch, you wouldn’t choose to do it that way.

  46. emjayay says:

    “anti-gay activist in resident”?
    The thing about having relatively too many old people around because of current lower birth rates (plus of course modern heath care) that in some cases are below the replacement rate: it’s something that is going to happen that countries just have to deal with, not encourage breeding or immigration to make up for. It’s a temporary consequence of something positive. Declining populations everywhere? That would be great. Bring it on. The world population is several times too high already.

  47. JamesInCA says:

    I have to call out another of my favorite emerging, if less popular, stupid memes: Complexity.

    “When you de-link marriage from childbearing, you then have to increase the complexity of that relationship,” said Caitlin Seery….

    Well, good gracious! If it’s *COMPLICATED* we couldn’t POSSIBLY accommodate it in the law, now could we? Because the legal system is just absolutely unequipped to deal with anything COMPLICATED.

  48. John Masters says:

    To be clear Slappy, the christofacists believe in a patriarchal version of, well, everything. So in their minds, polygamy is pretty easy to figure out. The men get multiple wives who are subservient and loyal to them, and them alone. The women in the relationship wouldn’t have any actual rights, so in their world view, your concerns wouldn’t even exist.

  49. John Masters says:

    I like taking the discussion back to polygamy. Those scientist who actually study these kinds of things (biologists, sociologists, etc. people not really welcome in Republican circles) will tell you the true natural order is one man and multiple women…especially if procreation is the prime directive. A single couple, at best, is able to have about 1.1 children per year. Now why is that? It’s not because a male (on average) makes sperm only once every 10-11 months. Obviously, it’s because once a female is pregnant, she’s out of the rotation for about 10-11 months. So, if one man has, say 11 “wives,” and plans correctly, he can be fathering a child every month. Heck, if he has 20 or so, he can be fathering two children a month. So, as I said, if the prime directive is procreation, then polygamy is the answer. Thus it was for many years in the early days of homo sapiens.

    Oh, and let’s not forget people have a limited period of fertility. Why are we wasting all those years of fertility from about 12-17 or so. We need to get these young folks married as soon as possible else the human race is doomed. (For those Bible-belt states who already have the top teen birth rates in the world…well, obviously, I’m not talking to you, you’ve already figured it out.)

  50. karmanot says:

    I just bolted from action!

  51. karmanot says:

    What really explodes the bigots heads is the possibility of isolating the cluster of genomes for gay disposition. It conflicts with their life begins at blastocyst mentality.

  52. BlueIdaho says:

    Gay Jay, you would feel so much better if you just came out already.

  53. nicho says:

    Bigotry is the name of religion. Religion is all about “us” vs. “them.” It wasn’t that long ago that so-called Christians were hanging each other, burning each other alive, and disemboweling each other in public for being “them” rather than “us.”

  54. Stratplayer says:

    Have any of these people noticed that the penis is far more frequently employed in the “elimination of waste” than in any other capacity? The “Intelligent Designer” seems to have no problem with such shared functionality.

  55. nicho says:

    With enough time — flaky

  56. nicho says:

    Homophobia is weird. Get normal!

  57. fwilms says:

    Lately, I’m hearing this 3 norms: monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanency thing. First, what is the difference between monogamy and sexual exclusivity?—but anyway. I could maybe have some respect for these people and maybe believe that they don’t simply hate gays, if they were fighting just as hard for these norms? Where’s the movement to disallow divorce? Where’s the movement to create laws barring sex outside of marriage and put people in jail who engage in it? I don’t know of any organizations working for those so-called important norms of marriage, so I have to conclude that it’s all BS and they just plain hate us. (Same as the procreation argument: no movements to require couples to be fertile, or to annul marriages that produce no children within 5 years.) It’s so obvious they are grasping at straws to try to justify bigotry—-and bigotry in the name of religion stinks just as bad.

  58. Gay Jay says:

    I am so damn sick of all these GAY stories. Gay is NOT ‘Gay” but weird. Get normal.

  59. BeccaM says:

    It is a rather paternalistic argument, isn’t it?

    As I’ve mentioned in other comments before, I look forward to the day when IVF technology advances to the point where gay and lesbian couples can have genetically-shared biological children. The bigots’ heads are gonna explode.

  60. Justin Young says:

    Stop screwing around.

  61. BeccaM says:

    In reality, their version of gender-compliant marriage is to serve and support a patriarchy. Scratch the surface of those opposed to same-sex marriage equality, and you’ll likely find someone who believes, consciously or unconsciously, that women should stay at home, be pregnant as often as possible, and raise a brood of offspring.

    I’ve begun thinking it’s no accident they’re now tying marriage to breeding — and are the same people who are adamantly against contraception and abortion. Maybe ‘barefoot and pregnant’ was the rationale all along.

  62. karmanot says:

    What does that put silver plate?

  63. karmanot says:

    This is driving me nuts….er, oh, never mind.

  64. Stev84 says:

    I really want straight people to call them out on how insulting all that crap is to them

    Especially what they are arguing in the Prop8 and DOMA cases, that straight people only need to get married because they can get pregnant accidentally and that they need to be “channeled”

  65. BeccaM says:

    Fortunately it’s ridiculous enough that even many of their supporters are likely to say, “Wait, what–?!”

  66. BeccaM says:

    True enough. The whole ‘tradition’ thing is fuzzy enough to be accepted, but anybody with a handful of neurons capable of critical thinking knows the ‘breeders only’ argument is absurd.

  67. Indigo says:

    The procreation argument is all the Fertility Cult Churches have. There is nothing else in their realm.

  68. BeccaM says:

    What I find hilarious in this recent — and patently ridiculous — “marriage is only for breeders” argument that’s become the latest meme/fad for the anti-gay bigots is how they are reducing human existence to be equal to that of biologically-driven animals. Apparently, we’re all nothing more than rutting beasts needing to be farmed.

    Oh, they like to sugar-coat it and still talk about spiritual bonds, tradition, and sacred commitment. Now they’ve added how biological children are presumed to be in a superior family situation than any other family structure. (Actually, that last bit begins to air the whiff of bio-elitist bigotry at the heart of their position, that children not currently being raised by their biological parents are, in some irrevocable way, damaged. An assertion made without a single shred of proof…or logic.)

    In the real world, we know it’s not about having babies, because marriage licenses are not and never have been denied on the basis of the answer to the questions, “Are both of you capable of breeding? And do you promise to begin doing so as soon as the ink is dry on the license?”

  69. S1AMER says:

    Actually, I love it when they talk this way.

    Let’s face it: The crazier their arguments against us become, the more allies we win. Normal people with real functioning brains recognize their arguments for the desperation-driven nonsense they are. And that works for us.

  70. slappymagoo says:

    I always felt the “nut and bolt” argument was a pro-promiscuity argument. Who wants to get married only to learn one’s nut is too big or small for a woman’s bolt?

    On another note, I’ve made the following argument previously about polygamy. I’m sure there’s a counterargument but no one’s offered it yet.

    Religious institutions don’t perform marriages, they perform wedding ceremonies. In America, a marriage is validated and made legal by the state, which basically means a marriage is a contract between two people to be joint partners in life, sharing their problems and profits, their home, their stuff, and if they have them, their children.

    To add polygamy into this contract is to alter the contract into perhaps untenable ways. If my wife and I allow another wife into the mix, is Wife 2 marrying both of us, or just me? Is she an equal partner or a junior partner? If I have a kid with Wife 1 is Wife 2 considered a parent with all the rights implied in case there is a divorce? And if there IS a divorce between Wife 2 and me but she still loves Wife 1, can she remain remarried or get remarried to her, perhaps with a Husband 2 that Wife 1 is not married to at all (unless she wants to be, independent of her marriage to me), and how does that shake out with the property Wife 2 amassed with Wife 1 and me?

    Which is why from a legal standpoint, polygamy will not be legal. It’s why, when a person is found out to be a polygamist (in the “port in every storm” variety, not the sister wives variety), the courts just usually say the first marriage is the only legal one, because everything else is too damned messy to figure out.

    Whereas gay marriage is the same as “marriage.” 2 people love each other and pledge their lives and their fidelity and their fates and their fortunes to each other. Any other comparison is invalid.

  71. Bose says:

    I liked Dan Savage’s comment, “This is the last argument that they have – that straight people suck.” (

    The whole “complementarity” bit smacks of enforced gender stereotypes, men needing to be “real” men and women “real” women, or else the mere concept of family collapses and dies.

  72. Naja pallida says:

    Even Mitt Romney was married in a civil ceremony before he was married in the Mormon temple. So maybe they do the real thing, and then get the nuts and bolts explained to them later in secret.

  73. nicho says:

    For right wingers, marriage is only about sex, which is a fundamental redefinition of marriage. I have never been to an opposite-sex wedding ceremony that even mentioned — let alone emphasized — sexual practices. Maybe the Mormons do, but their wedding ceremomies are super-secret rituals that not even all Mormons can witness — so maybe they get into the nuts and bolts of coitus (as Sheldon Cooper would say).

  74. GZeus says:

    Nuts and bolts is funny. But welding two similar metals makes a much stronger bond.

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS