Quantcast

«

»

Sep 17 2012

NOM speaker explains his homosexuality/incest parallels: “Too much sameness”

Robert Gagnon, professor of theology and speaker for the National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute, recently explained one of his anti-gay arguments on Facebook:

When I compare homosexual practice to incest it is primarily to make the point that if we are opposed to the latter we should also be opposed to the former, since both involve a union of persons who are too much alike on a structural (formal, embodied) level: too much sameness as regards kinship (incest) or gender (homosexual practice), not enough complementary otherness.

Next up on the chopping block: marriages of white people, Christians, and partners who both prefer salty snacks over sweet. Not enough complementary otherness!

32 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)

    What degree of difference is required, then? Surely he is in favor of setting up a Department of Matrimonial Anthropometry, which will quantify the degree of structural similarity, allowing us once and for all to prevent men from marrying women who are too similar.

    Also, it’s news to me that two unrelated men are as alike as brother and sister.

  2. 2
    Nepenthe

    The real criterion for an acceptable relationship is banana preference. One person must like green (or at the very least, yellow, though it’s wrong to play for both teams!), one must like brown.

    Otherwise bananas are wasted!

    1. 2.1
      Rob

      In my experience that never works. The person who likes brown bananas never gets any because the person who like green bananas finishes them before they have a chance to get brown.

      1. rq

        Unless they buy a whole lot all at once and keep them in the sun. Seems to speed the colour-shift up a bit.

      2. postman

        I think your astute observation has put the banana theory out of bussiness. Welldone!

      3. Nepenthe

        I’m a green banana person, but don’t like bananas very much. Problem solved!

        It’s all about reigning in our natural, sinful banana gluttony.

      4. lexie

        A good friend of mine has discovered the solution to this, it is a permanent marker. When people buy bananas she writes her name on her appropriate share (depends on number of people in the house who like bananas). The not very ripe banana people are only allowed to eat un-named pieces of fruit. This works well providing you live with generally polite people.

    2. 2.2
      Musca Domestica

      But my boyfriend’s allergic to bananas… Does that make us a True Abomination?

      1. Nepenthe

        Indubitably. Hellfire for you!

        Hmm… I wonder what hellfire does for bananas. Hope it doesn’t make them brown faster.

    3. 2.3
      Ms. Daisy Cutter, General Manager for the Cleveland Steamers

      What does Ray Comfort have to say about this criterion?

  3. 3
    Avo, also nigelTheBold

    I’ll take “False Equivalencies” for $100.

    “You know what’s just like pizza? Cow pies. They’re both round.”

  4. 4
    smrnda

    Yeah, by this logic political conservative white Christians should not be permitted to marry. All said, it’s nice that the anti-GLBTQ crowd is grasping as straws, they’ve only got the most ludicrous arguments left. I’ve heard it before but phrased in more pretentious language of ‘homogeneous’ versus ‘heterogeneous.’

    I think this fits into the conservative marriage agenda though, where marriage ‘works’ because of the ‘men are from mars, women are from venus’ gender stereotypes (the man can’t cook or clean but the wife can do that, but she can’t handle the big decisions and needs a paycheck) and where bridging the gap between men and women makes marriage obsolete. I mean, it makes traditional marriage obsolete, but that’s kind of a good thing.

  5. 5
    hall-of-rage

    I’ve seriously heard the “diversity in marriage” argument so many times now, and I’m willing to bet that at least 95% of the people who say it are in all-white marriages.

  6. 6
    busterggi

    I’m taking this as Gagnon giving his support for bestiality.

    Can’t get much more different than a whole ‘nother species, household appliances excepted.

    1. 6.1
      Argle Bargle

      I’m in love with my washing machine. But we don’t get married because it hates me.

  7. 7
    Rob

    I wonder if these people would allow a male(born without genitals) marry a female(born without genitals)? It happens, it is rare but it does happen. So because they are so alike would they not allow them to be married? Or what if a male had an illness that required total removal of his genitals, would they allow him to marry a female even though their “private” areas are so similar? How can they boast about a “free” country yet want to prohibit peoples freedom to do what they want with other consenting adults?

    1. 7.1
      Myoo

      Or what if a male had an illness that required total removal of his genitals, would they allow him to marry a female even though their “private” areas are so similar?

      This is a pervasive notion that is very degrading to women. A vagina is not simply a lack of a penis and testicles, it is a complex organ in its own right.

      Also, males and females are not defined by their genitals.

      1. Myoo

        And I just applied something that is bad for people with vaginas as bad for women right before I said women aren’t defined by their genitals. I sincerely apologize for that.

    2. 7.2
      Rob

      Hi Rob

      Seeing as we’ve both chosen to use an incredibly common name to comment under, how can we differentiate? Is it possible to set custom avatars?

      1. Rob

        Never mind, sorted

  8. 8
    David Parnell

    Well I’m off to fuck an Emu… not even a mammal can’t get much different than this

  9. 9
    Stacy

    Well, that certainly is a contrived and groundless bit of rationalization for their position.

    both involve a union of persons who are too much alike on a structural (formal, embodied) level

    That sounds downright postmodern.

  10. 10
    Sam Waterburry

    Well, here’s what The Pope has to say about it all…..

  11. 11
    Ariane Fallenstein

    Good Stuff, do you currently have a flickr account?

  12. 12
    rilian

    So they’re opposed to things not because they’re wrong, but because they aren’t optimal for some goal that they have that others may not even share.

  13. 13
    F [is for failure to emerge]

    I wish these type would figure out just how well they could complement vacuum, and go marry some.

  14. 14
    jamesfrank

    Does this mean Mr. Gagnon supports relations between homosapiens and other species? I mean, if the basis of “sameness” and “difference” is that shallow, the species of the participants certainly must be a factor!

    Gay marriage really does lead to people advocating for beastiality… on the against gay marriage side.

  15. 15
    Anj

    Wasn’t the medieval papal directive that you could not be related within 7 generations?

    *checks calendar to see what century it is*

  16. 16
    Ace of Sevens

    Andwhat’s with adults marrying other adults? That’s sick!

  17. 17
    Dago Red

    When I compare theology to stupidity it is primarily to make the point that if we are opposed to the latter we should also be opposed to the former, since both involve a union of very foolish ideas that are too much alike on a comical (formal, embodied) level: too much sameness as regards to a complete lack of reason (stupidity) or babling incoherently (theology), way too much complementary foolishness.

  18. 18
    Pope Bandar bin Turtle

    Too much cow bell!

  19. 19
    uggs laarzen in nederland

    I am truly eager of watching comical video tutorials at youtube, and this videos is truly so comical, hehehhe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>