Home / General / Today In Opposition to Same Sex Marriage Lacking Any Rational Basis

Today In Opposition to Same Sex Marriage Lacking Any Rational Basis

Comments
/
/
/
686 Views

It will allow things that are already possible to be possible:

Sue Everhart, chairwoman of the Georgia Republican Party, told the Marietta Daily Journal in a story published Saturday that once gay nuptials are legally permitted, there will be nothing to stop a straight person from exploiting the system in order to claim marital benefits.

“You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow,” Everhart said. “Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.”

Yes, clearly the sacred institution of matrimony should be reserved to gay people who enter opposite-sex marriages solely in order to receive benefits.

It seems worth noting at this point that I once knew someone who got a paper marriage so that he could be eligible for larger amounts of financial aid for college. Oddly, nothing about existing marriage laws prevented this from happening.

…More.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • sharculese

    Ya, I saw that movie, too.*

    *I didn’t actually see that movie. I do have some standards.

    • Bitter Scribe

      So you’re too good for Adam Sandler?

      • NonyNony

        I’ll put up with Adam Sandler, especially if he’s paired up with Drew Barrymore as a love interest. But don’t expect me to lay out good money to see Kevin James do his schtick – especially if Leah Remini isn’t around to do the heavy lifting of providing actually comedy.

      • spencer

        Yes.

        Though I think this can truthfully be said about most people.

        • djw

          Yeah, I mean, I’m not too good for a worthwhile movie with Adam Sandler in it (Punch Drunk Love, Funny People) but I would like to think we’re all too good for ‘generic shitty Adam Sandler vehicle.’ Chuck and Larry doesn’t come close to passing the “would you rather stare at a blank wall for two hours” test.

        • DrDick

          I can honestly say that I have never seen an Adam Sandler movie and fully intend to maintain that streak.

          • Happy Gilmore is actually good.
            End of list.

            • marijane

              Awww, no love for Billy Madison?

  • c u n d gulag

    While I don’t think the evidence supports the idea that the Universe is infinite, I do suspect that Conservative stupidity is.

    • BlueLoom

      +1

    • Loud Liberal

      I’ve long said that “conservatism is institutionalized stupidity.”

      • c u n d gulag

        The sad thing is, it’s no longer “institutionalized,” since the inmates are now running asylum.

        • Loud Liberal

          Actually, I don’t conflate conservatives with republican politicians.

          The way I see it is that there are only two kinds of republicans: (1) idiots, and (2) crooks. The crooks are the pimps masquerading as representatives of the people like: Paul Ryans, John Boners and Mitch McConnells, their corporate paymasters and their propagandists. They are not conservative in any sense of the word. The idiots are the conservatives who, having no idea what the crooks really stand for, uwittingly vote for the pimps for the corporatocracy.

  • Joe

    It’s like corporate welfare. Only certain people get to game the system. The right sort.

  • Michael

    Even better–I went to college with a person who had an NROTC scholarship, but after a few months realized he couldn’t spend almost a decade in the closet, the way NROTC & a naval commission would require, but also couldn’t afford to go to college without the NROTC scholarship.

    Luckily, there was another 1st year gay woman in NROTC in the same position. So, they dropped NROTC for being gay, got married, and got a much better FAFSA deal, and could stay in school. HOLINESS!

  • NonyNony

    So wait – her objection is to marriages of convenience? But only if they’re same-sex marriages of convenience? Opposite-sex marriages of convenience are still totally okay?

    And anyway isn’t the solution to her problem to just decouple those kinds of benefits from the institution of marriage altogether? If everyone had decent health insurance, nobody would even think of this as an option.

    • Kurzleg

      The thing is, I doubt it ever occurred to this person that straight couples could game the system. I’m sure to her that it’s self-evident that legal gay marriage opens a fresh can of worms.

      • Loud Liberal

        I’d be willing to bet that “this person” has gamed the system herself. She’s not an idiot. She’s a gamer who knows how to game conservative stupidity.

        Okay, maybe she really is an idiot.

      • Downpuppy

        Getting married to share insurance benefits is absolutely routine. Marriage has always been about money & security. Usually about children & love, but those are options.

        In conservative logic, forcing people to get married so they won’t be tossed into the sewer if they get sick is valid promotion of (hetero) marriage.

        • Alan in SF

          It’s humiliating that gay fraudsters who want to fraudulently get benefits have to fraudulently marry someone of the opposite sex, instead of being able to fraudulently marry anyone they don’t love.

    • catclub

      I entertained the thought that this was an April Fools Conservative argument against SSM. But who am I kidding.

    • Malaclypse

      And anyway isn’t the solution to her problem to just decouple those kinds of benefits from the institution of marriage altogether? If everyone had decent health insurance, nobody would even think of this as an option.

      So, a dozen or so years ago, I had a housemate that developed cancer while uninsured and unemployed. That’s a powerfully bad combination. You know the bullshit idea that the uninsured can simply get free care in Emergency Rooms? Try and get a combination of chemo and radiation therapy out of an Emergency Room. Go ahead – I’ll wait. And good luck getting a job with benefits after you have cancer.

      So, I tried to game the system. MA did not then have gay marriage, so I tried to get domestic partner benefits. My employer didn’t offer them.

      Not long after that, my ability to keep the situation stable failed, and my friend ended up homeless, and for all I know quite possibly dead.

      Sue Everhart thinks that means the system worked.

      • Karen

        That is truly horrible. Good for you for trying and for not becoming utterly and hopelessly cynical after that experience.

      • Origami Isopod

        Shit. I’m really sorry. Like Karen said, good for you for having at least tried.

    • djangermats

      Is there any meaningful sense in which conservatism isn’t just about wanting more people to die?

      • Lego My Eggo

        No.

        This has been another edition of Obvious Answers to Rhetorical Questions.

      • Sweetums

        they don’t want unborn babies to die . . . until after they’re born.

      • Shakezula

        Not just die, but die in abject misery!

        • Karen

          And cause extra added suffering for their parents and other loved ones.

          • Shakezula

            Who can then be told it is all their fault for doing something that vexed infantile bearded sky dude and/or the Ghost of Ayn Rand.

            • STH

              Yeah, I think it’s less about wanting people to die and more about feeling superior and punishing people who are perceived to be inferior–sluts, fags, uppity coloreds, etc.

  • penpen

    I admire the efficiency of a wingnut rant that manages to incorporate shots at public employees with cushy jobs and “wonderful health plans”, gay marriage, and moochers seeking “free rides” simultaneously.

    • Argument as Pu-Pu Platter.

      Well, except for the part about being appetizing.

      • NonyNony

        More of a poo-poo platter argument.

        • Scott Lemieux

          A “TGI Friday’s” argument? I’m always amazed that they can’t even make it look appetizing on the tee vee.

        • Shakezula

          I think the phrase we’re looking for is shit sandwich.

          • Bill Murray

            where’d they print that? you can’t print that

  • Speak Truth

    I have no doubt that homosexuals will be granted the legal right to marry in the near future.

    That being said, I’m not sure how many homosexuals really *want* to be married. It appears that the issue is not so much the legal recognition, but more likely it’s about forcing society’s approval.

    When homosexuals gain the legal right to marry, the half of this nation that do not approve of what they do now will not magically change their minds.

    It will be, indeed, a hollow victory.

    • sharculese

      Jenny, there was never any doubt in anyone mind that you wouldn’t continue to screech and throw a fit about the mean, evil gays.

      • sharculese

        But seriously “Gay people may get their rights, but it doesn’t count so long as I can continue being an infant about it?” Do you realize how lame that sounds?

        • Uncle Kvetch

          They’re so cute when they’re desperate. I’m gonna give the troll a cookie on this one: he’s crossed over from the ridiculous to the sublime. “What’s the use in finally gaining access to all the rights and privileges that hetero couples take for granted, if some anonymous reactionary fucknozzle can still say mean things about me on a blog?”

          Hat’s off to you, Mr. Troll. And a happy April Fool’s Day, for obvious reasons.

    • The “half of this nation that do not approve” was something like 60% last year, and 80% five years ago. By next year, that “half” will be more like 45% or 40%. And in five years, you may not be able to salvage the magic 27% for that “half.”

      Hollow victory indeed. The civilized majority of the nation is weeping into our victory taquitos.

    • Cody

      the half of this nation that do not approve of what they do now will not magically change their minds

      In the words of the internet, zero fucks will be given.

      A lot of white people didn’t approve of black people being able to use the same facilities as white people, but changing the law to not discriminate against a certain segment of society is important.

    • Sly

      When homosexuals gain the legal right to marry, the half of this nation that do not approve of what they do now will not magically change their minds.

      They just won’t be able to do jack shit about it.

    • Shakezula

      This ri’chere is why allegedly liberal creatures like that Bloix thing irritate the living crap out of me. “Your victory parade, let me piss on it” isn’t just a shitty way of thinking, is a shitty and conservative way of thinking.

  • Kurzleg

    At the risk of stating the obvious, I’ll just put this here.

    • Cody

      How about we just remove government benefits for getting married, that would seem to fix her problem.

      • JKTHs

        That would help teh deficit for sure

  • Uncle Ebeneezer

    I have a friend who is married but lives separately from her husband (they just like it that way.) They love each other and the marriage is totally legit afaik. But they could just as easily be doing it all for the tax refund or shared insurance benefits etc. I guess that means heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry. There’s just way too much potential for people taking advantage of the system.

    • Illustrative Personal Anecdote

      Disagree, allow them to marry. But unless they cohabitate and suffer the toil and tedium of domestic slavery… No tax breaks or insurance bennies accrue!!

      • Breadbaker

        And their underwear must be worn on the outside, so we can check.

        • spencer

          And all citizens under sixteen years old ….. are now sixteen years old!

  • catclub

    ” I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal.”

    An accidentally true statement. And on so many levels of unreal and abuse.

  • zombie gert frobe

    “Lord, I’m going to get in trouble over this, but it is not natural for two women or two men to be married,” Everhart said. “If it was natural, they would have the equipment to have a sexual relationship.”

    WTF? I thought it was pretty clear that they are having sexual relationships. Lots and lots and lots.

    • Hogan

      From the Wonderella Twitter feed:

      What if it WAS Adam and Steve? I mean that was a long-ass time ago.

    • Halloween Jack

      Everhart is apparently not aware of all internet traditions, such as the one that would show them exactly (in just about every conceivable variation) how same sex couples use their equipment.

  • Speak Truth

    @ sharculese,

    I simply said that none of the negative attitudes will magically disappear.

    The same people will feel the same way. If abortion were to change legal status, would your mind be changed in any way?

    The ability for homosexuals to legally marry will not change things much, one way or the other.

    If you think it will, then lay out your thoughts instead of simply screeching and attacking your perceived enemies (windmills).

    • Malaclypse

      The ability for homosexuals to legally marry will not change things much, one way or the other.

      Shorter Jennie: If I ignore how much public opinion has already changed, I can continue to believe that most people will always be as angry, bitter, and bigoted as I am.

      • cer

        Maybe there is some truth to Jenny’s temper tantrum. At this point the granting of the legal right of marriage is unlikely to lead to a major shift in public opinion. On the other hand, the sustained political and legal campaign that has brought GLBT families into increased public visibility and has forced same-sex marriage opponents to make increasingly ridiculous arguments has massively shifted public opinion and eventually the material benefits of marriage will accompany that shift. But keeping voicing that bigotry! It is working quite well for us.

        • STH

          I think we’re going to see attitudes continue to shift, simply because gay people will get married and bigots will see them living ordinary lives and hellfire not raining down on all of us. Approval of gay marriage is going to snowball, because the more it happens, the more ordinary it will seem. That’s what’s got the bigots all wound up–they know they’ve lost this one and it’s becoming clearer every day.

    • sharculese

      No, I get your argument. It’s just that it reeks of desperation. Nobody cares if you continue to be a creep, Jenny. You’re not important and it’s about all we expect out of you.

    • catclub

      “I simply said that none of the negative attitudes will magically disappear.”

      This is why there are no differences in views of SSM between young and old people. They never change!

      So you are saying that time and death are not magic. Good to know.

      • djw

        Attitudes toward gay people are changing, but it’s about a generational shift, rather than magic. SO THERE.

        • Speak Truth

          Not because of the ability of marriage.

          And that’s my point. The rest of all of this is a strawman…and not a very good one, either.

          It also appears that no one can discuss this rationally without being demonized…unless they agree with your opinions. Pretty small minded of you. It’s as if no one else’s opinion can be legitimate unless it’s also your opinion.

          Sad….and you call the right ‘bigoted’. You should look in that mirror (if you can).

          • sharculese

            Sad….and you call the right ‘bigoted’.

            Yeah, it’s like you support legislation to marginalize whole classes of people or something.

          • NonyNony

            It also appears that no one can discuss this rationally without being demonized…unless they agree with your opinions.

            Wait – is that “you’re being intolerant of my intolerance proves that you liberals are hypocrites”?

            BINGO!

            Who do I need to show this Troll Bingo card to to claim my prize around here?

            • sharculese

              The version of Jenny that thinks he can construct coherent arguments has always been my favorite.

            • “NonyNony, Mr. Soros, line 1.”

          • Anonymous

            no one can discuss this rationally without being demonized

            That is because no one, including you, has yet provided any rational arguments against gay marriage. All of the arguments against it are grounded in bigotry. Bigots deserve to be demonized.

            This all seems very simple. Don’t know why it’s so hard to understand.

            • NonyNony

              Yes. The fundamental problem that those making the “you’re intolerant of my intolerance” argument always make is that they don’t understand that I am not demonizing them. By making that argument they’re outing themselves as a “demon” (or horrible human being if you’d prefer) – I don’t have to do anything but stand there and let them out themselves.

              (Not that Pancake Guy around here is doing anything but trolling for responses. As is clear when he goes to pathetic arguments like “you’re being intolerant of my intolerance” and “gay people don’t really want to get married anyway”…)

          • sibusisodan

            It’s as if no one else’s opinion can be legitimate unless it’s also your opinion.

            Confusing several things here, of course. Plenty of opinions are legimitately held – in that they’re what the holder honestly thinks about a topic.

            But we don’t organise ourselves on the basis of ‘I have an opinion and therefore you should all agree with it.’ We work out the best opinion to follow by going through the arguments for and against it, as honestly as we’re able.

            So, feel free to present the rational argument why the state should not do this thing. Then we can discuss them.

          • spencer

            It also appears that no one can discuss this rationally without being demonized…unless they agree with your opinions. Pretty small minded of you. It’s as if no one else’s opinion can be legitimate unless it’s also your opinion.

            No, it’s because people who don’t agree with us are bigots. Not because we’re so awesome and special, but because we’re right.

    • delurking

      “The ability for homosexuals to legally marry will not change things much, one way or the other.”

      Well, you know, except for the gay people who will now be able to get married.

    • Mike L.

      The ability for homosexuals to legally marry… would allow them to legally marry. And enjoy the legal and social benefits, etc. Which is all that really matters. It would improve people’s lives. This isn’t about winning arguments or sticking it to social conservatives.

      • Anonymous

        This isn’t about winning arguments or sticking it to social conservatives.

        Sticking it to social conservatives is just an added perk.

        • Uncle Kvetch

          Sticking it to social conservatives is just an added perk.

          Mmmm, Schade — my favorite flavor of Freude!

      • spencer

        This isn’t about winning arguments or sticking it to social conservatives.

        I think you’ve hit on the problem here – the actions of people like JenBob are motivated primarily by sticking it to liberals, and they simply can’t imagine that someone might have other reasons for doing something.

        • sharculese

          see e.g. any thread about problems in academia

          • spencer

            Exactly.

    • Halloween Jack

      There’s nothing magic about it, genius. SSM is legalized; the locals realize that their own marriages are just as happy or miserable as they were before; they answer those polls a little bit differently next time. No hoodoo (or rocket science) involved.

  • howard

    i’m still not sure what has made public opinion move so fast on this issue (although the age stratification on it, shown wonderfully in this graph from a few years ago, clearly has something to do with it), but i can’t help but note that the right would have been much better off had it taken a line 10-15 years ago that said “marriage is a religious institution and civil union is a societal institution and we accept both as deserving of the same legal protections and benefits.”

    that, of course, would have required there to have been some actual conservatives on the right….

    • howard

      sorry, here’s the graph i mentioned.

    • NonyNony

      i’m still not sure what has made public opinion move so fast on this issue

      It seems fairly clear to me that a giant part of the fast movement of public opinion was the decision in the 80s by the gay community to encourage people to come out of the closet. Once you know that some family member or friend from High School is gay, it’s a lot harder to maintain that whole “all gays are evil sex fiends trolling bathrooms for sex and trying to turn our kids gay” myth that the older generation seems to cling to.

      This is one advantage that the gay and lesbian community has over the black community – the “randomness” of who is gay. Bigots can avoid ever knowing a black person, but it’s hard to live in such a bubble that you never find out that a person that you like is gay after you already decide that they’re good people.

      • Uncle Kvetch

        It seems fairly clear to me that a giant part of the fast movement of public opinion was the decision in the 80s by the gay community to encourage people to come out of the closet.

        Emphatically agreed, with the qualification that people like Harvey Milk were already hammering on the importance of coming out, and living out, in the 70s. Otherwise, spot-on: the importance of more and more people encountering LGBT folk in their lives and interacting with them as “everyday people” really can’t be overstated.

        • Karen

          And we have to credit the guys in the 70’s with getting the laws changed enough so that coming out of the closet didn’t mean losing your job or being evicted. The older guys had to make it reasonably safe to come out first, before asking ordinary people to do so. Requiring martyrdom isn’t a good move for a growing movement.

          • Although, of course, it is still legal in most states to fire or evict someone for being gay.

        • NonyNony

          Yes – this is very true. My bias is showing in that living in the Midwest it seems like it was only in the 80s that the move to “come out of the closet” really hit my cultural radar, and I keep forgetting to adjust that starting point back into the 70s when that movement was starting out on the coasts.

          But yes – that really should read “70s” rather than “80s”.

      • MAJeff

        It’s even older than the 1980s. “Coming out” was a strategy that the earlier liberationists used. What changed in the 1980s was, quite simply, AIDS. It became impossible for a lot of folks to stay closeted. Additionally, while there were plenty of assholish families who stole property out from under surviving partners, those issues also brought concerns with regard to the legal status of marriage to the forefront as well. (Add the late-80s lesbian baby boom, and you’ve got another set of related family-law issues becoming more prominent, aside from the custody struggles that had been more prominent up to that time.)

        • Uncle Kvetch

          What changed in the 1980s was, quite simply, AIDS.

          Yes — definitely a big factor.

    • Lego My Eggo

      What moves public opinion on any issue is to get people to think about it. On any given issue, you have two entrenched factions who are not going to change their minds, but between them is a spectrum inhabited by people who haven’t really thought about the issue, typically because they have little information and the issue doesn’t affect them directly. Their initial position is anchored very loosely, because it’s the product of buying into stereotypes or peer attitudes or other social influences and not because of actual information or reasoning. Get the information and the argument out there, and sometimes you can get these people to change their minds.

    • Shakezula

      The Ellen Effect.

      • JoyfulA

        Yes, and my 90-y-o mother went from, shocked, “How can you say such a thing about those two nice ladies at church? Living together is just less expensive for two women and their children” to two years later, bragging, “We have the nicest lesbian couple at our church!”

    • Tybalt

      “I’m still not sure what has made public opinion move so fast on this issue”

      It is, almost without a doubt, the extensive public discussion about it. People have moved fast because they have come to realize that this makes sense.

      • Anonymous

        I think this is definitely one aspect. For a lot of people, the idea of “gay marriage” probably induces a “does not compute” response when they initially think about it. They’re not bigots, but it’s just something that hadn’t existed at all before so it didn’t make sense in the framework of how things were. But once you start talking about it, pointing out that it’s not harmful to anyone, and in fact the lack of it does harm real people in very real ways, they realize, oh, okay, I should support this.

        And I also wouldn’t discount the influence of shame on some people. There is probably a subset of people who do truly believe gay marriage is wrong, but also care very much what other people think of them, and don’t want to be called bigots. And they don’t want to be on the wrong side of history even they disagree with it.

    • CJColucci

      While I never had anything against same-sex marriage, I used to think of myself as a hard-nosed political realist and thought the important thing was to get some kind of off-the-shelf legal status for same-sex couples that was functionally equivalent to marriage. I thought there was a deal to be made along these lines and encouraged my gay friends to take it.
      But I was wrong. It takes two to make a deal, and nobody from the other side would take this one. So now they’re getting full-blown marriage instead. Serves the bastards right.

  • Big Straight Al

    “If it was natural, they would have the equipment to have a sexual relationship.”

    Does she know where her own clitoris is? It seems to me (from a male point of view) that if we were meant to have (only) missionary position PIV sex, the perianal region of a man would be a lot less sensitive and the clitoris would be located in a slightly different place … i.e. we straights do not have the equipment to have a sexual relationship that involves only doing stuff that you can’t do in a same sex relationship.

    *

    Anyway, I guess her argument is (or would be if she was capable of making it) that there are certain social barriers to friendships between sexes that would make it more likely that you’d have a same-sex friend you’d be willing to shack up with just for benefits than to have an opposite sex friend. Or at least that if you are straight (as 90% of us are), if you were married to an opposite sex friend for benefits, you probably would end up getting, well, “benefits”, which would make it a “real” marriage anyway. Alas, in my experience, just living with a member of the opposite sex doesn’t make them want to sleep with you (instead you get the “I love you … like a brother” treatment) no matter how hawt and secksy you find them.

    • catclub

      You had me up until “no matter how hawt and secksy you find them.”

      Shouldn’t it be: “no matter how hawt and secksy you (know you) are.”

    • Speak Truth

      While she may have not been able to articulate her position eloquently, she has a point.

      Homosexuality is simply a defective libido…for whatever reason. Doesn’t mean that they aren’t people or that they’re evil. Just means they’re not complete….just like those who suffer from Body Integrity Syndrome. They, too, don’t “fit the mold” and behave differently.

      Hey, let ’em marry.

      Welcome to the fray!!

      • Sweetums

        We’re gonna need more pancakes.

      • Teacherboy

        Really, no one is going to touch this one? “Homosexuality is simply a defective libido”? I have so many jokes/comments that it clogged my brain and now I’m just sitting here, staring at my computer.

        • Malaclypse

          Speak Carbon Jennie isn’t worth the bother, when we have Dagneychester downthread getting God’s Panties all twisted up.

        • NonyNony

          Naw. When Kid Pancake is talking about his/her defective libido via projection it’s best to just stroll right on by and let the obvious ones pass without comment.

      • NBarnes

        ‘defective libido’

        Nope, no bigotry here. Just keep movin’, folks. Dunno what you lie-berals are talking about.

      • DrDick

        No, there is nothing wrong with homosexual libidos (or anything else. There is something profoundly wrong with conservatives, however, who are clearly moral and mental defectives.

  • Anonymous

    The only marriage arrangement that would really be open to large-scale fraud is polygamy. The real limitation on “fake” marriage is not a requirement for opposite-sex participants, but the zero-sum nature of the arrangement – if you marry one person, you aren’t allowed to marry anyone else. Most people aren’t going to marry someone just for the benefits because it would keep them from marrying the person they actually want to be married to. (Not to mention all the other aspects of the “responsibilities” part of the marriage equation, like the fact that you may have to give them money if you do ever divorce.)

  • cpinva

    bear in mind, she’s a former banker, and a tea partier. she knows how to get those government benefits, she just has no idea where they actually come from. she thinks it was the “good bank bailout fairy”.

    45 years after Loving v VA, there are many people still violently opposed to “micegenation”, and we care because, exactly?

    • Shakezula

      Well, they care because Barack Obama. A small and particularly deluded portion believe they’d have a shot at Heidi Klum except Seal. But in the sane parts of the universe, there is a definite fucks given deficit.

  • Sly

    The Debate Before the Supreme Court on Marriage Equality, the Shorter Version.

    WINGNUT: “Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. We shall argue that same-sex couples should not be allowed to get married because gay people are icky…”

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: “Counsel, advancing the notion that ‘gay people are icky’ is not a legitimate governmental interest.”

    WINGNUT: “Well… I… uh… (shuffles papers) wait a minute… I might have something else in here…. Procreation! Yeah, that’s it! Regulating procreation! And ensuring uniformity among the states! Any of that… uh… make sense to you folks?”

    JUSTICES BREYER, GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN (in unison): “No.”

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: “Maybe. I’ll have to wring my hands over it for a while.”

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “Probably, but I may need an massively oversimplified analogy to fully convince me.”

    JUSTICE ALITO: “And could you throw in some fallacious appeals to tradition?”

    JUSTICE SCALIA: “You had me at gay people being icky.”

    JUSTICE THOMAS: “….”

    • Shakezula

      +1

    • bexley

      Not sure if anyone has posted this slightly longer shorter before but it’s brilliant.

  • Joshua

    There is nothing homosexuals can do to damage, cheapen, delegetimize, or debase the institution of marriage that heterosexuals have not done millions if not billions of times. I feel like all these arguments against SSM needs to contend with that simple fact.

    • Karen

      If I had been Ted Olson, my entire presentation at the court against Prop 8 and DOMA would have been a picture of Kim Kardashian and whoever she was married to for three weeks.

      • mds

        Eh, I think a photo of Newt Gingrich in one hand and a photo of Rush Limbaugh in the other would have worked at least as well. It’s not like Kim Kardashian has been a policymaker, or a pre-eminent spokesperson for the Right.

        • Karen

          i didn’t want to be too gross for the court. Kardashian is trivial; the other two are terrifying.

      • Warren Terra

        Three weeks? Pikers. Britney Spears was married to someone for about a day, wasn’t she?

        • Joshua

          Yea, Jason Alexander. Not the Seinfeld guy, although that would’ve made it far better. Or worse.

    • Yes. Frankly, I expect marriage as an institution to get a huge boost in popularity from SSM, at least in the short term. In the long term, we’re all dead.

  • Chesternut

    The profanation of marriage is not a mere matter of front page photos of men kissing. It began with the destruction of the family. Sodomite marriage is only one small stop on a tour that includes rising divorce rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by young adults.

    • MAJeff

      blah blah blah blah blah

      • Uncle Kvetch

        photos of men kissing

        Ever notice that it’s always about the dudes? What’s a lesbian gotta do to get a her fair share of brimstone?

        • Malaclypse

          Not be hot.

        • Anonymous

          photos of men kissing

          Ever notice that it’s always about the dudes?

          Also, that the bigots sure spend a LOT of time looking at pictures of men kissing. They seem to spend more time thinking about gay sex than actual gay dudes do.

        • Phoenix_rising

          In my experience, exceed 120 pounds of body weight. Per lesbian, or a total of 240 lbs per couple distributed in whatever pattern. Height is not a factor.

          YMMV.

    • Glenn

      What, no love for miscegenation? The abandonment of coverture?

    • Malaclypse

      Sodomite marriage is only one small stop on a tour that includes rising divorce rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by young adults.

      Sodomite marriage is so powerful a cause that it was able to cause social changes that occurred well before it existed.

      I blame Satan, obviously.

      • VCarlson

        This, and I happen to believe that “falling birth rates” is A Good Thing, especially if we continue to do nothing/not enough about climate change. Even without climate change, we’re gonna run out of liveable planet sooner or later, and I’m afraid it’ll be sooner.

        • sparks

          It’s baked in now, so even doing everything in our power today would mean the population still needs to be lower, and will be whether we like it or not. I expect mass death will be the means. How it happens, now that’s still up in the air.

      • Sodomite marriage is so powerful a cause

        It’s a powerful cause and a killer band name!

    • DrDick

      rising divorce rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by young adults.

      No, that is caused by capitalism disembedding labor from its social matrix in order to more effectively exploit it. As to the whole nature of marriage thing, you are clearly wrong, as it was not even a sacrament in your reactionary Paulist Church until the 1500s. Homosexuality is completely natural and found in every animal species (from bugs to people) for which we have adequate data. What is completely unnatural and a total perversion is celibacy.

      • Woodrowfan

        I disagree, I can think of several people for whom celibacy would be the natural choice. Douthat for example. Or the Virgin Ben. John Hawkins. Or that chubby chipmunk at Breitbart that keeps attacking Obama’s daughters. All of them were clearly born to not ever have sex with another living being. Or the undead either.

        • DrDick

          While I agree that would be the ideal outcome, it would not be by their own choice and is still an unnatural act, having absolutely no animal analog.

  • Chesternut

    Homosexual marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the destruction of marriage between men and women.

    That is a thing that many men and women of one generation understand but have trouble conveying to another generation for whom marriage has already largely been destroyed.

    • Anonymous

      it is about the destruction of marriage between men and women.

      This is why Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been legal for longer than anywhere else in the country, has the lowest (heterosexual) divorce rate in the country.

      Wait, what?

    • sharculese

      If marriage is really so fragile that allowing it to include gay people will destroy it, then it was never worth saving to begin with

    • Sweetums

      Well then, give it a shot. Please explain to me how the simple act of my dad marrying another man will destroy your marriage. Wait, lemme guess, you’re divorced? How many times?

    • Shakezula

      Did you hear millions of marriages crying out in terror before they were suddenly silenced? Like lambs?

    • PSP

      Another one worried about his wife leaving him for another woman.

      • Origami Isopod

        More likely worried that he won’t want to stay married to his wife if it becomes legal for him to set up house with some sweet, sweet man-ass.

    • DrDick

      That is the most insane thing you have said yet (a daunting task). Same sex marriage will have absolutely no effect on opposite sex marriage, anymore than interracial marriage destroyed same race marriage.

    • Chet Manly

      Even if you accept your claim for the sake of argument, which nobody here goes, traditional marriage is far, far more damaged by people like Newt Gingrich or John McCain who think “in sickness and in health” means kick your wife to the curb at the first sign of health problems.

      But for some odd reason the same people who claim to be against gay marriage because of a principled support for traditional marriage make presidential candidates out of pieces of trash like Gingrich and McCain.

      In the future, when you wonder why liberals call conservatives bigots, you might want to reflect on the fact that your side goes to extraordinary lengths like constitutional amendments to keep rights away from gays because of some theoretical damage to marriage and simultaneously supports politicians who have done actual, demonstrable damage to the institution of marriage.

  • Uncle Kvetch

    Homosexual marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the destruction of marriage between men and women.

    Our two trolls are so different, and yet so very much the same: It has to be about them. It can never not be about them.

    They must be such fun at parties.

    • Glenn

      Well, you know, I think it’s time for us sodomites to admit that our Evil Plot to Destroy Marriage has finally been exposed. Someone must have snuck on to our listserve, dammit.

      • NonyNony

        I like how gay folks want to destroy marriage by, you know, increasing the number of people who are married.

        • Glenn

          That’s what makes it so perfect. No one expects it!

          And we would have gotten away with it to, if it weren’t for these meddling trolls.

    • elm

      They must be such fun at parties.

      I think we both know the flaw in that theory.

  • Chesternut

    Homosexual marriage was never the issue. It was always marriage.

    It’s not about equality in front of the law, neither, since sodomites and lesbians can obtain it via CIVIL UNION.

    No. It’s only about the destruction of the family, by eroding by desecrating the institution of marriage, which is ontologically heterosexual, so as to promote fertility and an enduring covenant between a man and a women until death.

    Once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the destruction and profanation of marriage will be complete.

    • MAJeff

      Don’t eat the acid pancakes!

    • sharculese

      It’s not about equality in front of the law, neither, since sodomites and lesbians can obtain it via CIVIL UNION.

      Are you really such a hateful cretin you don’t get why gay people aren’t satisfied with being second-class citizens?

      • sharculese

        Also too your god is still a petty coward.

        • spencer

          This can never be said too many times.

          • sharculese

            I remind him like every time he posts, just in case.

            • spencer

              I like your style, sharculese.

              • Malaclypse

                So say we all.

      • MAJeff

        And, in most places even those segregatory structures don’t exist.

        • Uncle Kvetch

          But he said “ontological,” so he wins. I am powerless in the face of people using big words when they don’t know what they mean!

          • Malaclypse

            Perhaps, but phenomenologically, he hasn’t a leg to stand upon.

            • mds

              phenomenologically

              Do-DOOO-do-do-do.

              • Sweetums

                oh thanks, now that’s gonna be stuck in my head for the rest of the day.

                Do-do-do-doo.

                • Uncle Kvetch

                  Do-DOOO-do-do-do

                  This is an Internet tradition of which I am unaware. Little help?

                • sibusisodan

                  Little help?

                  Here you go. Central syllables can be replaced with homophones as appropriate (phenomena, Annuminas…).

                  do-DOO-do-do-do

                • Uncle Kvetch

                  Thanks. Don’t I feel silly now.

          • Scott Lemieux

            So many people use “ontological” when they seem to mean “tautological.”

            • NonyNony

              Actually I find that many people use “ontological” when they seem to mean “I’m going to overwhelm you with bullshit words that I don’t actually know the meaning of but that sound like something George Will would write, and everyone knows he’s smart”.

              • Pseudonym

                That’s how George Will uses it too.

            • Sev

              I for one would definitely prefer that the logic be taut before I step out onto it, topologically speaking.

            • UserGoogol

              I think “ontological” is the right word, it’s just a stupid concept. Instead of merely claiming that marriage is heterosexual as a matter of linguistics, Chester is claiming that there is some metaphysical essence which makes heterosexuality the only proper form of marriage. (The difference between analytic versus synthetic truth, I guess.)

              Of course, that’s stupid and wrong. The idea that there is a platonic ideal of marriage from which gay marriage is an unacceptable deviation depends on all sorts of claims which are unprovable at best and just plain wrong at worst.

      • NonyNony

        Are you really such a hateful cretin you don’t get why gay people aren’t satisfied with being second-class citizens?

        Yes probably.

      • Chesternut

        How could they be second-class citizens if they are equals in fron of the law?

        • Anonymous

          The next time someone uses “begging the question” to mean “raising the question” I’m going to point them to this comment.

        • Malaclypse
          • Chesternut

            I was referring to civil union ; homosexuals can be recognized as partners in front of the Law in because of “civil union”, and thus enjoy the same right, as per the government, as married couples.

            • MAJeff

              Ah, segregation.

            • Anonymous

              Well, except they’re not the same rights. Nor are they uniformly offered or recognized in all states.

            • sharculese

              Interesting enough, the opinion of the current government is that this is the Opposite of True.

            • sharculese

              And if marriages and civil unions are already the same thing, why are you being such a colossal baby about just calling it marriage?

              • Anonymous

                That, right there, is the tell – gives it away that he doesn’t actually believe they’re the same.

              • Chesternut

                They are not the same at all.

                Civil union is the recognition of a couple by the Law, by Caesar.

                Whereas marriage is a sacrosanct institution; it is recognized as a civil union by Caesar, but it first and foremost a sacrament between a man and a woman performed in front of GOD.

                • sharculese

                  Nope sorry no it isn’t. Just as with abortion, you don’t get to change what words mean just because you aren’t getting your way.

                • MAJeff

                  bzzzzzzzzt

                • Anonymous

                  Holy shit, we are still being ruled by Caesar? Where have I been the last couple thousand years?

                  Also, apparently civil marriages performed by non-religious officiants are invalid now? I am learning SO much today.

                • Chesternut

                  Caesar is an icon of sovereign power, of the state apparatus.

                • Anonymous

                  Actually, Caesar is a salad.

                • sharculese

                  Dagney do you fantasize about being thrown to the lions when you touch yourself?

                • Malaclypse

                  So, we can add “does not know what civil unions actually legally accomplish” to the long, long list of things Dagneychester does not know.

                • spencer

                  You do know that marriage wasn’t a sacrament until something like the 15th or 16th century, right?

                  So if it’s so essential to mankind’s relationship with Gawd, why did the church wait so long before, y’know, recognizing it’s extra-specialness?

                • NonyNony

                  Wait – you mean to tell me that your GOD is constrained by laws that are passed by the US government? That the US government could somehow “force” your god to recognize a same-sex marriage?

                  That is some weak-assed god right there Chestnuts. How insecure do you need to be to worship a deity that has to respond to an act of Congress or a decision passed by the Supreme Court?

                • sharculese

                  Plus he’s busy helping all those receivers score touchdowns.

                • NonyNony

                  Plus he’s busy helping all those receivers score touchdowns.

                  I think Congress should pass a law to stop Chester’s god from helping those teams. Really I’m not sure why anyone would put up with that kind of blatant cheating, even if it is coming from some insecure deity like Chester’s god.

                • Malaclypse

                  I think Congress should pass a law to stop Chester’s god from helping those teams

                  Do you know why the sky is blue and white? Because Dagney’s god likes Penn State child molesters.

                • DrDick

                  Marriage is always, everywhere, an exclusively civil institution. It was not even a sacrament until the 1500s.

                • Pseudonym

                  So what is remarriage after divorce?

                • Bill Murray

                  the triumph of hope over experience

        • sharculese

          Separate but equal was never actually equal, although I’m sure you’re gung-ho to go back to that, too.

          • Chesternut

            Seriously, why are homosexualists pushing for homosexual “marriage” when they already have civil union?

            • Anonymous

              Because they’re not the same. Do you not know how to read?

            • MAJeff

              Because we want to get married. It’s really not that hard.

              • Chesternut

                Why do you want to get married? Why are you not satisfied with equality as per the Law of the State? Why do you want the sanction of a religious institution?

                • Glenn

                  ah, there we go, I knew that old bait-and-switch would drop at some point.

                • Anonymous

                  Civil marriage laws have nothing to do with religion. Good lord, you are stupid.

                • sharculese

                  Why are you not satisfied with equality as per the Law of the State?

                  Because it’s not equality and you know it, or else you wouldn’t be going on about it.

                  Why do you want the sanction of a religious institution?

                  Nobody is doing that. Your church can go on being as hateful and backward as it wants. This is about the civil side of marriage, which exists no matter how much you want to pretend it doesnt, and how you’re no longer going to be able to demean it with your bigotry.

                • Chesternut

                  Civil marriage laws have nothing to do with religion.

                  Err, marriage is a religous institution. Civil “union” is not; it relates to the state apparatus. Marriage is a ceremony performed in front of God, not the State — albeit the State will recognize it as a form of civil union.

                • MAJeff

                  Damn, you are stupid aren’t you.

                  Religion has nothing to do with marriage. None of your flailing will change that. it is a social institution, not a religious one. One need not have any religious beliefs or affiliation to be married, yes married.

                • sharculese

                  Err, marriage is a religous institution. Civil “union” is not; it relates to the state apparatus. Marriage is a ceremony performed in front of God, not the State — albeit the State will recognize it as a form of civil union

                  I recognize that you badly want this to be the case, but it isn’t, it hasn’t been so in forever and ever, and you need to just deal with it. Society decides what words mean, not you.

                • Chesternut

                  One need not have any religious beliefs or affiliation to be married, yes married.

                  I disagree; the concept of marriage relates exclusively to a woman and a man; AND it is a SACRAMENT.

                  But let’s agree to disagree on that. Now: Why do you want to call your homosexual, non-religious ceremony “marriage” rather than civil union?

                • sharculese

                  Why do you want to call your homosexual, non-religious ceremony “marriage” rather than civil union?

                  The more important question is why you seem to be obsessing over it.

                • Malaclypse

                  I disagree; the concept of marriage relates exclusively to a woman and a man; AND it is a SACRAMENT.

                  You can keep the SACRAMENT. But you can’t prevent others from having the rights.

                • MAJeff

                  AND it is a SACRAMENT.

                  Who the fuck cares? A civil marriage has nothing to do with your silly-ass sacrament.

                • VCarlson

                  Actually, a number of religious institutions would be happy, nay, delighted, to sanction homosexual marriage, but the State (aka “Caesar”) won’t let them, thereby trampling on their religious freedom.

                • djw

                  Why do you want to call your homosexual, non-religious ceremony “marriage” rather than civil union?

                  Funny, both the same sex marriage ceremonies I’ve attended took place in a Christian Church, with a religious ceremony performed by the ordained minister of that Church, and the full blessing and recognition of the congregation.

                • NonyNony

                  Marriage is a ceremony performed in front of God, not the State — albeit the State will recognize it as a form of civil union.

                  And this is why on my tax forms from the IRS I have to mark “Civil Unioned, Filing Jointly” when my wife and I file my taxes.

                • Chesternut

                  A civil marriage has nothing to do with your silly-ass sacrament.

                  So why not call it a civil *union* then?

                  Generally, a sacrament is a promess made in exchange of something; and it involves a becoming homo-sacer if ones renegates on that promess.

                • MAJeff

                  Because it is a marriage. A civil union is a separate legal institution. They are not the same. A marriage is what we shall have, access to the social institution. Your silly-ass sacrament is meaningless.

                • sharculese

                  So why not call it a civil *union* then?

                  Why should we? And bear in mind ‘it offends my particular sensibilities, which aren’t actually anyone’s business but mine’ isn’t a very good answer.

                • Chesternut

                  Because it is a marriage. A civil union is a separate legal institution. They are not the same.

                  In your own views, what are the differences?

                • sharculese

                  Civil unions were a week compromise used back before full marriage equality was acceptable, it was always clear that they were less than marriage, otherwise they would have just let them use the word marriage, and why you’re still upset about them using the word marriage.

                  If you need any other basic facts about reality you need explained?

                • Anonymous

                  In your own views, what are the differences?

                  Since you’ve already demonstrated that you don’t even understand what marriage, as it is presently practiced, IS, what is the point of trying to explain to you how it differs from something else?

                • Hogan

                  Why do you want to call your homosexual, non-religious ceremony “marriage” rather than civil union?

                  Why do you want to call your cannibalistic death-cult rituals a “religion”?

                • Malaclypse

                  In your own views, what are the differences?

                  1) different tax treatment
                  2) different fringe benefits like health insurance
                  3) different legal rights, most especially survivor benefits
                  4) different likelihood of being accepted across state lines

                  That’s off the top of my head. A lawyer could add to that.

                • brenda

                  Why do you want the sanction of a religious institution?

                  Why do you want to prevent religious institutions that are supportive of same sex marriage from acting according to their beliefs?

                • slavdude

                  Oh, I see, civil unions for same-sex couples are legal in all 50 states and the U.S. territories, and are enshrined in federal law too.

                  Wow, you learn something new every day….

                • DrDick

                  Marriage is NOT a religious institution.

                • Pseudonym

                  Marriage is not a sacrament. The vast majority of marriages are already nonsacramental.

              • Anonymous

                marriage is a religous institution.

                Repeating this doesn’t make it true. Every day people get married by judges and justices of the peace and their best friends who get “ordained” over the internet and are empowered by the state to marry people. NONE of these are religious ceremonies and the people involved end just as married as anyone who gets married in your bigoted church.

                • DrDick

                  Marriage is only sanctified in a minority of cultures in the world and is normally a purely civil arrangement. Even here it is preeminently a civil arrangement since you are only married if you get a civil license, regardless of any god bothering.

              • sharculese

                Should be ‘are there’

            • sharculese

              Because they object to having their lives defined by small-minded fascists like you?

    • Glenn

      Wait, lesbians aren’t sodomites too?

      • Shakezula

        Yep, but only after they contract Sodomy Cooties from gay men (so contagious you can get them from listening to Elton John). This is also why any spongeworthy str8 person regularly fails to engage in copulatory activities designed to create offspring.

        To which I say: Thank you gay men with sodomy cooties!

        • Bill Murray

          wasn’t sodomy cooties part of the original title for Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy?

      • NonyNony

        Someone doesn’t know the actual definition of “sodomy”.

      • mds

        No, they’re the gomorrists.

    • Shakezula

      Once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman

      Massive tell is massive.

      Seriously folks, I’ve seen better spoof trolls on LOLcats. I demand the staff audition some new trolls. Perhaps even make it into a contest like American Idle. Too bad Green Day has a lock on American Idiot.

      • Jordan

        I might watch a show called American Idle.

        At least when I wasn’t doing anything else :)

    • CJColucci

      It’s not about equality in front of the law, neither, since sodomites and lesbians can obtain it via CIVIL UNION.

      You say that now, when we’re about to shove gay marriage down your throat, but where was your side when there was a possible deal to be made along those lines?

      • Uncle Kvetch

        You say that now, when we’re about to shove gay marriage down your throat, but where was your side when there was a possible deal to be made along those lines?

        No no, it’s different now. If there were a real possibility of establishing federally recognized same-sex civil unions in all 50 states right now, identical to marriage in every respect but the name, you can be sure that Walnuts here would be enthusiastically supportive.

        Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve just received an email from a gentleman in Nigeria that demands my immediate attention. Cha-ching!

    • DrDick

      Marriage is now and has always been a civil institution concerned with the apportioning of legal rights and privileges, not a religious one. It was not even a sacrament in your church until the 1500s.

  • Shakezula

    Dear Jesus, please make “Fake Gay Marriage” the next conservative battle cry in their increasingly desperate fight against equal marriage rights. Amen.

    Other than that, I think it worth noting the keyboard abuse committed by admittedly feeble trolls here is impossible to distinguish from pie hole vomitus of an official of the GOP.

    Could this be the fabled Wingnut Event Horizon?

  • Chesternut

    I rather enjoy being the worst person in the world. And I am NOT a goat molester, so stop saying that.

    • Mickey?

    • MAJeff

      I’ll wait for verification from the goat.

    • TribalistMeathead

      “Baaaa” means “Baaaa”

  • This has been one of the most wonderfully funny comment threads. Thank you all for beating the stuffing out of the trolls so hilariously.

  • Big Straight Al

    Marriages, even religiously performed straight marriages, are necessarily sacraments?

    Wasn’t the US founded in large parts by Protestants (some of whom were rather anti-Catholic) who didn’t view <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_sacraments#Matrimony&quot; marriage as a sacrament?

  • Big Straight Al

    I dunno if my previous comment (flagged for moderation) will go through, but in case it does (with the oopsie in my html) here it is again:

    Marriages, even religiously performed straight marriages, are necessarily sacraments?

    Wasn’t the US founded in large parts by Protestants (some of whom were rather anti-Catholic) who didn’t view marriage as a sacrament?

    • Woodrowfan

      that scream you heard was a rightie being confronted with a fact, sort of like Dracula facing the dawn.

  • March 27, 2013

    Dear Sirs:

    Countries around the world are in a process of accelerated transition from heterosexual societies to homosexual societies. The groups that defend gay rights have successfully sparked a revolution that within 15 to 20 years is transforming society in the world from heterosexuals to homosexuals. Already several U.S. states have legalized gay marriage and the same thing has happened in other countries. It’s a matter of a few years for all other states end up doing the same thing as in the other countries.

    It is the duty of all persons in the United States to organize to get into a fight against the spread of homosexual behavior in the country and worldwide. To be able to doing so effectively, you have to equip yourself with the necessary scientific knowledge that will allow you to successfully combat gay marriage law at the level of the courts, the legislature and government.

    The scientific sociological theory that you need to successfully combat the advance of homosexual behavior in the courts and in the legislature can be get in the following Internet address:

    HomosexualCountries.com

    In this internet address you can get the sociological and psychological theory needed to support in the courts, in the legislature and in the government in general the reasons to oppose the legalization of gay marriage.

    From now I warn you that the information provided on the site employs a terminology that may be very hard for religious people and even for lay people not accustomed to the objective language. However, it is a term that reflects the rigor of scientific methodology and legal terminology that is used and is required in court. That’s why I warn you not to scandalize for the information provided and carefully read and study. That information is the scientific theory that is needed to win lawsuits in the courts for the repeal of gay marriage. These are not the moral Biblical order reasons that religious groups have taken to the courts and the Legislature for the past 15 to 20 years to oppose of the acceptance of homosexual behavior and gay marriage. These are scientific reason to oppose to the acceptance of homosexual behavior and gay marriage. Neither the judiciary nor the legislature, nor the executive accept religious moral arguments in its decision making. It is for this reason that despite the protests, marches, and religious and moral arguments that religious and secular groups have made over the last 15 to 20 years, pro-gay groups continue winning victories and making progress of their claims in court, the legislature and the government in general. State institutions accept only scientific arguments that may come from the field of sociology or psychology or biology or natural sciences.

    Therefore it becomes a duty of every citizen in the United States armed with scientific knowledge to enable him to effectively combat the legalization of gay marriage in the courts, in the legislature and in the government in general. It is that knowledge which will allow social organizations against the legalization of gay marriage make progress and achieve successes at the level of the government institutions mentioned above. It is that knowledge which will allow social organizations to recuperate the lost ground in the last 15-20 years. It is in this way that you can prevent the widespread of homosexuality as behavior. This is how you can effectively achieve the moral objective of avoiding society’s transition towards homosexuality.

    The secular social and the religious organizations must be prepared with the intellectual tools necessary to fight the legalization of gay marriage. State institutions do not accept religious arguments and moral arguments. That is a reality that has to face both secular social and religious organizations. However, they can present to these state institutions the scientific reasons to oppose the legalization of gay marriage and thereby demonstrate that moral or religious arguments can be based also from the scientific perspective, which is what they accept.

    Here we offer you the letter I wrote to the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States. I am sure that the judges should not pay attention to the letter that an insignificant citizen wrote to them. However, if you help me with your support to petition the Supreme Court and the lawyers who carry the case to the Supreme Court to read and answer this letter, then they may do so.

    March 20, 2013

    Judges Of The Supreme Court Of The United States

    Dear judges:

    There is a new psycho-sociological theory on homosexuality which establishes that homosexual conduct, as well as the heterosexual, is learn from existing social values in the culture about heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior.

    The Theory of Homosexuality by Cultural Learning is a psycho-sociological theory on homosexuality. According to this theory, homosexual conduct learning depends on the not holding of the anti-gay values in people. That is, homosexual conduct learning depends on the uninstallation in the psyche of the people of the values that established that homosexual conduct is bad or negative. As a result, according to this theory, the systematic removal in the persons of these anti-gay values by the institutions of the State has the effect of induce and encourage homosexual behavior in the society in the long term. The details of this theory can be seen in the Internet address:

    HomosexualCountries.com

    If this theory is correct, then the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the laws of the legislature to criminalize public expressions against homosexual behavior and, accordingly, to criminalize the possession of anti-gay values, have the effect of promoting homosexuality in society in so far as they uninstall these values in people. The same applies to laws that legalize homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage. These laws have the effect of setting new values in the culture of the peoples in the sense that homosexual conduct is acceptable, correct or good. These values are contrary to the traditional values of the culture which state that homosexual conduct is unacceptable, incorrect or bad.

    Until today the decisions of the Supreme Court, as well as those of the legislature and the Executive, in the field of creating laws and regulations that criminalize public expressions against homosexuality, are based on the premise that homosexual behavior has a single biological origin. That is, it is presumed that homosexual conduct is just innate and that cannot be learned as an element of the culture. As a result, it is presumed that homosexuals are a minority group.

    If the assertion of this new sociological theory is correct, in the sense that homosexual behavior is learned and can be encouraged as an aspect of the culture of the peoples, then the people who practice homosexuality cannot be considered as a minority group. In addition to the previous conclusion there is another conclusion that arises. If this theory it is correct, in the sense that the homosexual behavior can learn and be transmitted as a custom of the culture, then the legislation and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States that criminalize in the persons the holdings of valued against homosexual behavior has the effect of encouraging in the society the gradual transition from an heterosexual society to a homosexual society.

    If this theory is correct, and describes reality, within the term of 80 to 100 years, that is for the year 2112, the American society will have undergone a transition from a heterosexual to an homosexual society where more than 30% of its population will be homosexual.

    I invite you and your colleagues to examine this theory and to exchange ideas.

    Without further,

    Cordially,

    Walter H. Bruckman
    Department of social sciences
    University of Puerto Rico
    Cayey campus
    [email protected]

    The secular and religious leadership of this country should be organized to combat the spread of homosexual behavior. This should be a patriotic mandate for the first and divine for the seconds. It is through your specific actions that the country will avoid the transition toward homosexuality and the Lord will do his will on the evolutionary destiny of the United States.

    I appreciate you write me to the email I provide at the end of the letter and help me to organize a meeting of lay and religious leaders in order to plan a campaign to overturn the law and the new jurisprudence that legalizes and legitimizes gay marriage.

    Without further,

    Cordially,

    Walter H. Bruckman
    Department of social sciences
    University of Puerto Rico
    Cayey Campus
    [email protected]

    • Hogan

      Would it astonish you to learn that UPR Cayey has neither a department of social sciences nor anyone named Bruckman on the faculty? You could have knocked me over with a cricket bat, or a 32-inch pipe wrench.

      • Malaclypse
        • Hogan

          Huh. My bad.

          • Malaclypse

            I had the same belief when I saw the yahoo account.

            It doesn’t change the fact that Random Internet Crank is an Internet Crank. It just means he is an employed Internet Crank, much like The Donalde.

It is main inner container footer text