I’ve seen many loonytune arguments against marriage equality (including those by Catholic bishops), but this takes the cake. If the bishops’ arguments are on “the outer fringes of Crazytown”, these guys are way out in the exurbs.
By their reasoning, calls for same-sex marriage have nothing to do with equality, and still less to do with love and commitment. From their perspective, lesbians will shack up together, but continue to have sex with men - to entrap the innocent suckers into impregnating them, thus becoming liable for hefty child-support payments to those crafty, scheming women (who will also be pulling in government handouts). It’s all a feminist plot, in collusion with acquiescent government, to hand over control and money to the feminists. This collusion with government is then described as a form of polygamy - two women, plus government. (No, really).
Feminist “marriage” is a three-way contract between two women and government. Most women will have children, and few women can afford or will go to the length of using artificial insemination to get pregnant. Government is the automatic third party collecting “child support” entitlements for children borne in these marriages.
Children will be borne of extramarital affairs backed by welfare guarantees and child support entitlements. Feminist marriages are automatically entitled with many entitled, tax-free, governmental income sources for having children.
Feminist marriage is a marriage between any two women and the welfare state. It constitutes a powerful feminist takeover of marriage by government, and places the National Organization for Women in the position of dictating government policy as a matter of “feminist Constitutional rights”.
And the gay men, starved for real sex, will continue to go out and fuck women, creating hordes of illegitimate children, in a deliberate attempt to create a male underclass, to siphon off government welfare payments. (No, I can’t unravel the reasoning, either). Here’s the text.
Male-Male marriages: Marriages between two men are designed to be a “marital underclass”. In most cases, these men will become “fathers” without consent. Women in feminist marriages will not mention they stopped using birth control. Male-male marriages will be forced to pay child support to feminist marriages and become economically-enslaved to them. The taxpayer will be forced to pay for child support men cannot afford to pay, as occurs in out existing welfare state.
Male-male marriages cannot reproduce naturally (a primary factor in Constitutional case law). They can acquire children only by artificial means, and at great expense, by adoption or renting a womb. Most men in these marriages will still have regular sexual encounters with women.
Are these guys serious, or is it some kind of unseasonal April Fool’s Joke?
No, wait, perhaps this is truly seasonal, after all. If this new outfit campaigning against same - sex marriage can only get enough coverage for their turkeys, perhaps they can discredit the entire case against. Then we’ll all have something for which we can be truly thankful.
Have a great Thanksgiving, all you guys stateside.
(H/t to Right Wing Watch)
Related articles
- Talking Marriage Equality this Holiday Season (thewildreed.blogspot.com)
- VIDEO: Maggie Gallagher on how to serve up hate, bigotry at the Thanksgiving table (queerlandia.com)
- Catholic Bishops, Gay Marriage: “the Outer Fringes of Crazy Town” (queeringthechurch.com)
I could not agree with you more. It is amazing what these anti-equality Christians will come out with.
OK having worked for Child Support Enforcement, I’ve heard very similar accusations from men who resent state enforced child support. I’m actually surprised this argument took so long to surface.
It’s one of the reasons I mention abortion is a male issue as well as a female issue. None of the specious reasoning in this article changes until heterosexual male society is willing to admit male orgasm implies responsibility for more than personal pleasure. That some women are more than capable of seeing sme men as idiot sperm donors is just the way the male sex game has always been played. This ain’t anything new.
Until men understand they aren’t entitled to orgasm just because they are men, all kind of issues are in play. I have no pity for stupid selfish blind men or the manipulative women who play on that blindness. In too many respects they were meant for each other. The question is will each of them atone for their blindness, and no this has very little to do with LGBT questions.
Terry, excellent commentary. Sad to say, it appears not all the turkeys are on Thanksgiving tables these days! Some of them walk around proudly in the halls of power.
We can see the same nonsense about the consequences of legalising gay marriage in the barking mad statements made in Scotland by the Archbishop of Glasgow, Mario Conti, who’s written to every parish urging all Catholics to oppose the proposed gay marriage law and distributed 200,000 campaign postcards to parishioners to sign and and mail to the public consultation.
He’s trying to create a national panic about dire consequences, saying “It will act to create larger divisions in society and could lead in the future, as we have seen in some of the legislation to
date, to gross allegations of discrimination.”
He’s loses his grip on reality in a severe attack of Gay Marriage Anxiety Syndrome:
“There will be other consequences in law, and social policies stemming from it which need to be taken into account, for example housing provision, social security entitlements and the legitimate expectations of families for support in having and bringing up children on whom the future of society depends, and for which society should make provision.”
His statement seems to say that allowing gays to marry will lead to an
uncontrolled outbreak of homeless destitute children, as if the existing
legal right to gay civil partnerships works like a contraceptive that
will suddenly fail after gay marriage.
People can see through all this nonsense. The
Director of the Equality Network, Tim Hopkins, points out “Amongst
Catholics in Scotland, 57% support same-sex marriages and only 25% oppose it, and there were similar sorts of ratios for the other faiths as well.”
The Scottish bishops’ response is offensive - just as some US bishops have been. In marked contrast though have been those of England and Wales, notably the response from Archbishop Vincent Nichols, which deserve to be read very carefully.
I’m busy right now on an extended post on the sanity and dignity he has shown - and the emphasis on equality, with explicit recognition of some value in civil partnerships.