Skip to content

I’m A California Doctor, I Mean, Massachussets Parent, I Mean A Storm Is Gay. Fuck.

April 9, 2009

Andrew Sullivan posts some hilarious-if-it-weren’t-so-true leaked auditions to the sappy anti-gay marriage political spot now airing nationally and circulating over the internet in response to the recent Iowa Supreme Court decision to overturn the state’s gay marriage ban.

They couldn’t find any actual victims of pink fascism?

from The Daily Dish

I agree with his sentiment – obviously most advertisement endorsements use hired actors, (I remember when I saw Clarissa’s dad claim to be a dentist for a Aquafresh commercial a while back) but since the advertisment is arguing the specious claim that somehow heterosexual marriages are threatened by gay unions, I believe the public has the right to expect real examples here.

This is why, besides the productivity gains while screwin’ around at work, the Internet is a net gain for society.

Reader challenge — here’s all I’m asking for: a non-paranoid or slippery slope fallacy-based argument why gay marriage does direct harm to any existing or future heterosexual marriage.  I’ll take silence as a sign that a.) none exists or (more likely) b.) I have no readers.

2 Comments leave one →
  1. jlaskie permalink
    April 11, 2009 2:40 pm

    i can’t answer your questions about “direct harm” to heterosexual marriage per se, but i can say this:

    spanning the centuries, marriage in all cultures has always been between a man and a woman, regardless of the social acceptability regarding homosexual behavior or the lack thereof. “freedom to love whomever we choose” has little, if anything, to do with the purpose of marriage…which is, above anything else, procreation and the union of families (economically and otherwise) to encourage societal growth…isn’t that a big part of the government’s job, after all? to make sure our society thrives? the family unit, whether we like to admit it or not in our individualistic society, is the very basis of our culture, and it always has been. the very etymology of the word “marriage,” with implications of “impregnating,” reflects this…to allow two men or two women to take part in this institution makes no sense whatsoever, because, by definition, they can’t achieve the intended goals. we can bring up all kinds of exceptions (people basic child-bearing age, sterility, etc), but when it comes down to it, those things are irrelevant because we’re talking about principles here–this is the stuff laws are made of.

    i think the biggest trouble arises because of the rights that have come to be associated with marriage, especially when it comes to things like medical decisions. maybe we should consider, then, not altering the definition of marriage, but making room for this new kind of “contract” between people…civil unions have their shortcomings, but perhaps that idea is in the right direction?


  1. Concerning Chicken Little (Gay Marriage Part Deux) « Generalissimo

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

%d bloggers like this: