That’s 77 places you’re wrong! Part 2

The bird represents 77 non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage, today’s source of premium lulz.

When we last left our heroes, they were treading perilously close to the conclusion that gay fathers are ok, because kids are pretty much fine without their moms. In this next section, they take it up a notch, starting with the heading: Redefining marriage marginalizes fathers.

Does someone has a sad?

38.When a child is born, a mother is always nearby. Fathers are intrinsically less connected to children than mothers. The essential purpose of man/woman marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to each other. Same sex marriage implies that the attachment of fathers to their children is irrelevant.

Paging Dr. Freud – the author’s got a bad case of the womb envy.

41. Once same sex marriage becomes legally and socially acceptable, more women will decide to raise children together. They will view this as easier than putting forth the effort of crossing the gender divide and cooperating with a man through marriage.

Dude, if no woman wants to marry you, maybe the problem isn’t with her lazy refusal to put up with your shit. Maybe…just maybe…you’re the problem.

42.In today’s climate, we can imagine people looking at two women raising children together and saying, “See, it is just as I have always thought: women don’t need a man. Children don’t really need fathers.” It is almost inconceivable that people would look at two men raising children together and conclude that children don’t need mothers.

We should oppose gay marriage because this dude feels inadequate and unnecessary. How bout no?

This next section is titled, “The Pandora’s Box of Artificial Reproduction.”

44. No one has a right to have a child. Children are not objects, to which other people have rights. Children are persons, with rights of their own.

So people cannot have rights to other people? That does contradict all those earlier reasons centered on “the rights of all children to affiliation with both parents” (#14, and basically reason 11-16). Consistency is not really this pamphlet’s thing.

Same Sex Marriage Redefines Marriage

53. Genderless marriage will drive out gendered marriage. Same sex marriage transforms marriage from a gender-based institution to a gender-neutral institution.

If “gendered marriage” is so awful that everyone will leap at the chance for a gender-neutral marriage, why are you defending it? God demands it? What’s the secular reason for imposing misery?

If enough judges say enough implausible things, people will lose respect for the law.

It sure ain’t implausible to me, and it’s really, really hard to see this as anything other than a thinly-veiled threat.

60. By the time the activists are finished, there will be nothing left but a government registry of friendships.

The horror!

69. Adoption currently exists to give children the parents they need, not to give adults the children they want.

Which is why adopted children are randomly assigned parents, regardless of the parents’ desire to adopt a child. That’s how it works, right?

71.The state will have to protect its creation of same-sex marriage. Man/woman marriage can sustain itself.
73. […]The Catholic Archdiocese of the District of Columbia stopped providing health insurance to all spouses, once same-sex marriage was created by the city council.

More creepy, thinly-veiled threats, I see. In other news, thousands of churches have closed their whites-only schools after integration was mandated by activist judges.

74. Governments will enforce the belief that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

How, exactly?

77. Same sex marriage constitutes a hostile takeover of civil society by the state.

The paranoia is almost comical. If you wear tinfoil on your head, the state can’t force you to love your gay neighbors.


About Yakamoz

What do other people have to say? "I think Yakamoz is a case study in bad behavior. She has tried to bully, threaten, and otherwise coerce people to concede her position. Even if it's for a good reason, her behavior has been egregious. People, especially men, have been sympathetic with her position. In return, she has not expressed any gratitude for men listening and supporting her, and taken a hostile tone to any man--and only men--that disagree with her in the slightest way. They've been trying to show they care, she's been trying to show she doesn't. And you know what? It has poisoned the discussion. I'm sure men are scared to speak, less they feel the wrath of hurricane Yakamoz, and I doubt any women feel the same because of her behavior."
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to That’s 77 places you’re wrong! Part 2

  1. R says:

    38) “fathers are intrinsically less connected to their children”… actually, no. unless the kids’ mom has a restraining order on you, nothing’s preventing you from being there for them.

    44) “no one has a right to have a child”- so we can prescribe their access to reproductive health and adoption services at will! (but that doesn’t constitute a hostile takeover of civil society by the state, no sir!)

    53) the comfortable sliding between “sex” and “gender” in this pamphlet is telling. y’know, fuck gender-no-conforming straight people while we’re at it…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s