Does Sam Harris Understand an Appeal to Authority? »« Pepper Spraying Cop Wants Compensation

PA Wingnut: Denial of Equality is ‘Just Discrimination’

The wingnuts are losing their minds over the clerk in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania issuing marriage licenses to gay couples (being done to give them standing for a lawsuit). One Christian right leader showed up to protest it and explained why it’s okay to discriminate against gay people:

“It’s not about love. It’s about children,” said Michael McMonagle, president of the Pro-Life Coalition. “There’s a thing called just discrimination. For example, should blind people be allowed to vote? Of course they should, because not being able to see has nothing to do with having the right to vote. Should blind people get a driver’s license? Of course not, because being able to see is essential to being able to drive.

“Heterosexuality is essential to the meaning of marriage. Civil government has an interest in producing future children. It’s utter arrogance to think that we can redefine the institution that has been the bedrock of all society throughout history.”

This argument is just…so…stupid. Even if were true that the government has an interest in producing future children, what the hell does that have to do with gay marriage? Do they think that if gay people aren’t allowed to get married they’ll just stop being gay and start pumping out kids with someone of the opposite sex instead? Are they really that clueless? Or is this just a pretext for their real reason for demanding discrimination against gay people, which is “that’s icky and God doesn’t like it”?

Comments

  1. Cuttlefish says

    My sister-in-law has two marriages under her belt (looking for a third!) and no children. My former neighbors, newly married (their state just allowed it) but long time partners, have raised a wonderful young man, despite the roadblocks thrown in their way. If civil government has an interest in producing future children, the evidence is clear that it should support same-sex marriage.

    The wingnut has me convinced.

  2. Randomfactor says

    There is such a thing as “just discrimination.” It it totally just to discriminate against opinions like this guy’s and prevent them from being implemented as policy.

  3. Chiroptera says

    Of all the wrong issues they could have chosen to be the poster child of their movement, they choose one that is both wrong and has no effect on their own lives? That’s pretty pathetic.

  4. Jim says

    Ed, the idea I’ve heard is that marriage is a protected class, and a class that is protected only because of the work it does of adding to the population of the country, and to the stability of the community. Homosexual marriage, it’s said, does neither of these things and so does not deserve protection (of course, it does both, but that’s arguing with facts, which is just silly and wrong).

  5. Trebuchet says

    I was reading “just’” as “merely” up until comment #3. Now it makes more sense.

    If it’s all and only about children, perhaps women should have to produce a positive pregnancy test before getting married.

  6. says

    Agreed with Trebuchet @6. Why do the ‘marriage is for babies!’ crowd never address the matter of medically sterile heterosexual people?

  7. scenario says

    My wife and I are the parents of two children. As the father of two adopted children I find that argument insulting. My kids are not second class because they are adopted as that argument implies.

  8. magistramarla says

    I think that I remember a scifi book, perhaps a Heinlein, where women had to prove they were fertile by being pregnant at the time of marriage.
    In that case it would be fun to be infertile – just think of all of the fun one would have trying to qualify for marriage!

  9. tubi says

    To pile on, as soon as these turds start protesting other marriages that cannot or will not produce children, then I will listen. I’ll still reject their arguments, but at least they would be internally consistent. For now, though, they are just hateful assholes.

    My mother remarried in her sixties, after having divorced my dad, who was gay. So the gay guy managed to produce two kids and the second marriage none (it couldn’t, of course, my mother’s uterus had gone vegan by then).

  10. skemono says

    Civil government has an interest in producing future children.

    Which is why some states allow you to marry your first cousin on the express condition that you cannot have children. Because it’s all about the children, you see!

  11. Abby Normal says

    Skemono @12,

    I’ve never heard of that and a quick search failed to turn up any info. Do you have a reference?

  12. dcsohl says

    But letting blind people vote imperils my own vote and makes it worth less! Because… because… mumblemumblemumble…

  13. Jim says

    @8 That argument is offensive, stupid and wrong – regrettably, these things do not seem sufficient to keep people from making it.

  14. hunter says

    “It’s not about love. It’s about children,”

    Two points:

    Start with a false premise, and you come to a false conclusion.

    Where has this guy been for the past hundred years?

  15. D. C. Sessions says

    Start with a false premise, and you come to a false conclusion.

    Water is half silicon and half uranium, therefore 2+2=4

  16. Synfandel says

    I think that I remember a scifi book, perhaps a Heinlein, where women had to prove they were fertile by being pregnant at the time of marriage.

    That was the practice among the Howard families in Heinlein’s Lazarus Long stories: Methuselah’s Children, Time Enough for Love, etc.. Those families are part of a hush-hush many-generations project to enhance longevity by selective breeding. Offspring of long-lived ancestors are offered as potential mates only other offspring of long-lived ancestors and conception has to happen to prove fertility before the two can marry.

  17. gingerbaker says

    Michael McMonagle, president of the Pro-Life Coalition, has made a great point. Marriage is all about procreation.

    Therefore, polygamy would be desirable for society. Much more potential for more and more babies.

    Surely newlyweds have obligations to society if they are to enjoy the many benefits of marriage. Procreation as often as the husband wishes should be mandatory. Forced impregnations, possibly using the blessing of in-vitro fertilization for women who are getting “behind schedule” getting their biscuits in the oven, will be required.

    Of course, abortion must be disallowed, as it contradicts the Prime Directive. All pregnancies must be continued through delivery, and all children must be taken by the married couple, or given the blessing of forced adoption to any married couple falling behind their baking schedule who may happen to refuse in-vitro fertilization.

    The age of majority will need to be reduced to correspond not with some amoral secular goal, but to align with the God-given grace of child-bearing, which is about twelve years of age. Old enough to walk to the grocery store, old enough to get “bred”.

    Sperm, being the precious resource it is, will have to be protected from wastage. Masturbation by men will have to be outlawed (though women can have a go whenever they please), and fellatio can no longer be tolerated by enlightened society, as it risks Illegal Sperm Wastage – a felony.

    Since a husband may not engage in Illegal Sperm Wastage, he must not be allowed to waste his sperm inside the womb of a wife who is already pregnant. Once pregnant, she must be disallowed from abetting Illegal Sperm Wastage, unless she is to help out the proper impregnation of another fertile wife, say, in a threesome.

    Obviously it is in society’s best interest that all married woman, whilst fertile and not impregnated, should nevertheless be as receptive to sexual relations around the clock as possible. Therefore, proscriptions against anything that can maximize the sexual receptiveness of unimpregnated wives must be abolished. Pornography for women must be encouraged, as well as lesbian sexual practices. Wives need to be as wet, willing, and warm as possible 24/7.

  18. John Horstman says

    Even if were true that the government has an interest in producing future children, what the hell does that have to do with gay marriage?

    Well, if you adopt the stance that, by default, the government should not be in the business of legislating marriage at all, then a state interest producing children actually has a lot to do with marriage, as it serves as the basis for legislating hetero marriage in the first place. Of course, the argument is bullshit in practice, because the state does not require that you procreate with someone in order to gain the legal status of marriage with that person.

  19. Doug Little says

    I’ve been married for twelve years and don’t have any kids. Furthermore we are not planning to have any at all. Does that make my marriage null and void? What a bunch of wankers.

  20. eric says

    “It’s not about love. It’s about children,”

    I feel sorry for your wife. And your kids. And probably even your dog.

  21. John Pieret says

    I was married to my late wife for 31 years, 10 months and 13 days (but who’s counting?) and we intentionally did not have children. If Mr. McMonagle would like to know what it is like to have a cane shoved up his ass, he can say my marriage wasn’t justified by our love and wasn’t valid because we didn’t have children … in my presence.

  22. bbgunn says

    @21 –

    Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Utah, and Wisconsin allow marriage between first cousins only when at least one of them is medically unable to reproduce, or there age makes it highly unlikely.

    I lived in rural west central Indiana for 3.5 years in the ’80s, and based on the illogical arguments I listened to and irrational behavior I witnessed there, I suspect some first cousins found a way around the infertility regs.

  23. Michael Heath says

    Ed rhetorically asks:

    . . . is this just a pretext for their real reason for demanding discrimination against gay people, which is “that’s icky and God doesn’t like it”?

    That’s just another reason. I think the underlying reason is they’re bigots who need to hate someone, where gays provide a big target. While the authoritarians-in-training won’t hate gays to the degree their ancestors did, I’m confident they’ll find another group to hate. The good news is that liberal democracy is winning in the long haul so that hatred can not be acted out as vilely as it was when Christians were able to impose their beliefs as law. Couple that to the explosion of information and our bigots continue to become ever less harmful; at least in terms of their bigotry.

  24. exdrone says

    gingerbaker @19,
    .
    “Now, wouldn’t that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship?”
    – General “Buck” Turgidson, Dr. Strangelove
    .
    “I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.”
    – Ambassador de Sadesky, Dr. Strangelove

  25. tuibguy says

    I want to know if this means that children already produced by gays are to be taken away from them and given to married Godly men and women who will raise the children proper.

Leave a Reply