SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” HUMOR

The Memorial Day weekend humor fest continues.  This time the subject is same-sex marriage.  

We rightfully expect the wisdom of restraint from judges, but judges are human.  So sometimes judges exercise their passions.  Thus as Brian Fairrington notes below (from here), four judges in California decided to conduct some daring legal exploration on their own.  These judges decided to equate same-sex “marriage” with traditional marriage.

 

Are same-sex “marriage” and traditional marriage equivalent? 

To be funny, humor has to contain an element of truth. Sometimes, however, the author of a cartoon does not see the truth.   Nonetheless, even when the cartoonist misses the truth, his cartoons may still teach us.

Such is the case above (from here).  What Steve Benson wants us to believe is that four judges in California equalized the scales of justice.  Because Benson forgets a certain aspect of reality, what the picture portrays is not what he intended. 

Is it wholly beyond our imaginations to add a few panels to Benson’s cartoon?  What will happen as time passes?  What will happen to those scale of justice?  Will a same-sex “marriage” ever bear any fruit of its own? 

As Chuck Asay notes here (see below), same-sex “marriage” is a dead end.

Same-sex “marriage” is not marriage; it is an exercise in frivolity.  At best, a same-sex union can produce entertainment.  

Because there are no children, a same-sex “marriage” protects no one. What same-sex “marriage” does is provide the government’s sanction on a peculiar sexual relationship that tends to be both mentally and physically harmful to the participants. 

About these ads

About Citizen Tom

I am just an average citizen interested in promoting informed participation in the political process.
This entry was posted in culture, Humor, political cartoons. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” HUMOR

  1. Teri B. says:

    What do you care?

    I will NEVER understand how a party who is SUPPOSED to be about individual rights and freedom and the smallest possible amount of government interference therewith, wants to get so darn involved in people’s personal, private relationships.

    You guys are lost in space. Figure out what the heck you stand for before you start preaching to others what they’re supposed to stand for.

    Gay is the new oppressed population, just like women, blacks, are still trying to overcome . . and oh yeah, I forgot, y’all hate undocumented immigrants too – cause a piece of freakin’ paper makes a human being’s value and “self-evident,” “unalienable,” with which they were ndowed by their Creator, so much more valid.

    Whatever. Every time I read your blog I feel sad about the human race, and the future of this once great democracy.

  2. Citizen Tom says:

    Teri, let’s consider the question. “What do you care?” And let’s put it in context. “Gay is the new oppressed population, just like women, blacks, are still trying to overcome . .” What do I care? I do not like being sued just because I think same-sex “marriage” is government endorsed fornication.

    Let’s put your question in its proper place. Why do you insist that I care?

    When government protects the rights of people, then it acts in its proper role. None of us have a right to marry. When people marry, they acknowledge their responsibility for the children that may conceivably result from their sexual union. The legal process of marriage has to with the government’s responsibility to protect the rights of children. What has that to with same-sex “marriage”?

    In a society where so many think abortion is okay, I suppose I should not be surprised that these same people do not believe marriage is about children. Nonetheless, I am pleased that when you read my blog you feel sad about the human race, and the future of this once great democracy — even if it is still for the wrong reason. Given what you believe, you should feel emotionally disturbed.

  3. christopher shy says:

    why would someone want to go through the hassle of trying to marry another person of the same sex when they could not get married and pretend they where it almost seems like there trying to gain attention by saying hey were gay and we want you to know it ok that’s cool but i don’t really care and i’ll be real with you i’am getting tired of hearing about this crap ever time i listen to mr. hannity ever evening with my granpal who cares your gay no one does just stop trying to justictifie it

  4. Vicky says:

    Homosexual marriage isnt about attentin grabbing, there are legal benifits that come with marriage. Things that heterosexual couples take for granted. If gay people arent allowed to get married, no matter how long they had been living as a couple, they would not be allowed to give medical consent for their partner if they were incapable of doing so for themselves. This is just one example of thr rights that homosexual couples who arent allowed to marry will be denied.
    If we are going to say, let them just live togather and pretend to be married, wel then heterosexual people should do the same. Why have marriage at all, if living togther “pretending to be married” is sufficient????

  5. Citizen Tom says:

    Vicky – The vast majority of the legal benefits that come with marriage exist to protect children. When the government succeeds in strengthening the family unit, the citizenry has fewer neglected children to worry about.

    The benefits that you mentioned can be obtained by other means. A lawyer can prepare the paperwork and the “couple” can sign it. Such agreements are usually referred to as domestic partnerships. Some states have also used the term “domestic partnerships” as a substitute for the expression “civil union”. To obscure the issue and their scheming, lawyers do like to play with language.

  6. kgotthardt says:

    Does VA have “domestic partnerships”?

  7. Citizen Tom says:

    kgotthardt – Same sex “couples” can obtain most of the socalled benefits of marriage without marrage. They just have to be willing to use an internet search engine (see here) and talk to a lawyer.

    I don’t know anything about this legal firm (see here), but here is an example. Legal services are like anything else. Before choosing a lawyer, it is wise to shop around. It also helps to check credentials.

  8. GymnastQueen says:

    ” Same sex “couples” can obtain most of the socalled benefits of marriage without marrage. ”

    “Most” is the operative word. Everyone should have to right to marry and gain all the same benefits. And if marriage is all about the children, what about the hetero couples who don’t want children, or physically cannot have them? Should they not be allow to marry either?

  9. Citizen Tom says:

    GymnastQueen – “Children” have far more relevance than benefits. Society has interest in protecting the rights of children. Hence government protects the rights of children.

    Politicians confuse matters by trying to buy votes with benefits. Nonetheless, the traditional “benefits” of marriage exist to help establish paternity, secure the family structure and provide a safe place for children to grow.

    Because same-sex “marriage” has nothing to do with children, the notion of same-sex “marriage farcical. The fact this notion is taken seriously is a measure of how confused we have become.

  10. GymnastQueen says:

    What ancient time warp did you just step out of?
    Maybe “traditional” marriage used to be about children, but now, not so much. Which, in that case, should mean that everyone, including the LGBT community, should be allow to marry whomever they wish.

  11. Old Fashion Liberal says:

    GymnastQueen – “Should” is such a nice word. If I want something, then what I want “should” be as I want it just because I want it. Is that that way it works?

    Marriage “should” not be about children. Just because you want it so, marriage “should” be about blissful happiness. Children, the little brats, “should” not need special legal protections. But do they? Are the children important at all.

    Same-sex relationships “should” be healthy, but are they anything of the sort?

  12. Dale says:

    Here’s the bottom line: until about 10-20 years ago, no one in the history of the human race questioned its definition–it was simply a “given”. Furthermore, no one assumed that their group had the right to insist on a change to the definition. It was always a legitimized relationship between a man and a woman. In some cultures the man had more than one of these legitimized relationships. In most modern cultures, that relationship can be severed, many times with legal recourse and remedy.

    What has never been at issue, however, is what the notion of “marriage” entails. To start mucking around with other pseudo-definitions of marriage is to open it up to all sorts of crazy interpretations. For example, if the definition of marriage can be changed, then why don’t we allow a woman to marry her goat? Or a man to marry his house? As absurd as that may sound, it must be considered, due to the fact that no one ever thought themselves to be in a position to change the definition that has been handed down through generations of families, and through nature? In the end, rather than being a term that can be applied broadly, it would, rather, become a term that means absolutely nothing at all (outside the confines of religious observance).

    So what about those benefits? As pointed out, the marriage license is simply an alternate form of assuring medical consent–so this is not a real issue.

    So what is a real issue? Well–how about taxes? Sometimes couples get tax breaks (and sometimes they don’t–ever heard of the “marriage penalty”?) In any case, as a true libertarian-leaning citizen, my vote would be to do away with all forms of tax discrimination. Want to give a tax break or tax credit? Great–give it equally to everyone! They’re too high anyway. (Tax breaks for kids should stay intact, because–trust me–the amount of that credit comes nowhere near the actual cost of rearing the child.)

    So in the end we would end up not thinking ourselves as being so wise as to screw with a definition that has stood for eons. Also, those that marry would have similar benefits as those who do not–which is already largely provided for under the law. And the *very few* remaining issues that don’t seem “fair”? Well… life isn’t fair. I’m sure there are some advantages to not being married, as well, that may seem unfair to those who are married.

    Whatever we do, let us not be so haughty as to consider ourselves wiser than all the generations who came before us, and assume that we suddenly are endowed with some special right to change an institution whose meaning has always been so well understood and accepted that it did not require the human race to apply some form of written definition.

  13. lneely says:

    Dale, you’re appealing to tradition. You can’t assume that everything that gets passed down the line is a good thing. Sometimes, traditional “wisdom” is nothing more than ignorant prejudices passed down through the generations.

    Believe it or not, sometimes we are wiser than the generations that preceded us.

  14. lneely says:

    Many are quick to invoke the tradition of marriage, citing that it never came into question before, so why is it now? The problem with that argument is exactly that!

    Tradition can’t answer our questions because same sex union is historically unprecedented. In fact, most nations adhering to certain traditions still execute or imprison their homosexuals. To invoke tradition on this matter seems practically the same as asking the question, “They (societies who punish or otherwise shun homosexuality) certainly aren’t questioning the definition of marriage, so why should we?” That’s a recognizable absurdity. On the other hand, simply because it is unprecedented, to concern ourselves about the potential consequences of such a thing in our society is only being responsible.

    All in all, Tom is right. We are confused, but it’s because neither side is willing to be up front and honest…

  15. Citizen Tom says:

    Ineely – Homosexuality is probably as old as the human race. What is unprecedented is the demand to treat same-sex relationships as we treat heterosexual relationships. If nothing has changed except this demand, people have every right to point to tradition. If it ain’t broke, why fix it.

    What is broke? What has changed? In the past, parents and churches dominated the education of children. Now children are educated in government-run schools and by the mass media. Politicians run the public schools. Corporate CEOs interested in providing an audience for advertisers run the mass media. Since we allowed these these people to educate children, has the values and standards of our nation improved? I think most people would express doubt.

    What we know for certain is that the nuclear family has grown far less stable. That being the case, we would do well to fall back on tradition for a definition of the family.

  16. lneely says:

    “If it ain’t broke, why fix it,” is the wrong question. Rather, what we should be asking — especially when our families are falling apart and more and more children are turned over to state custody and foster families — is, “If it could work, why not try it?” Of course, a gay couple can be just as dysfunctional and abusive as any straight couple, but that’s not really the point. The point is that there are potentially good and stable families that are being prevented by law for what seems to be little or no good reason other than the appeal to tradition.

    Family units have indeed grown much less stable as society has progressed, but the problem isn’t the arrangement of the family members. Instead it’s the overall devaluing of the family in our society. The primary reason I’m unconvinced that a traditional family arrangement is the only one likely to succeed is because there are too many variables unaccounted for. These include: poverty, infidelity, substance abuse, domestic violence, interactions between parent(s) and children, the list goes on. Families are complicated organisms.

    On the other hand, I do think it would be a good thing lean on tradition, but I don’t speak of same tradition to which you refer. The one of which I speak is that of interaction between family members. For example, sitting down at the table to eat every night, or a family game night, or some sort of ritual that allows — nay, forces — everyone to get together and bond with each other! Something to make everyone to turn off the TVs, computers, and cell phones, and snap out of their spellbound, hazy stupor if only for a little while.

  17. Old Fashion Liberal says:

    lneely – We do not have any good and stable families being prevented by law. The law does not create families. The law merely affirms the responsibilities of parents towards each other and their progeny.

    Families do not exist to affirm sexual relationships. Families exist to rear up children to be healthy and responsible adults. Because only heterosexual couples can give birth to children, the law recognizes this sexual union and no other.

    Government exists to protect the rights of people, including children; it does not exist to sanctify so-called adult entertainment.

  18. lneely says:

    OFL: If you were speaking in terms of what ought to be, I might be agreeing with you a lot more than I do. However, we are speaking with respect to what is.

    If the law doesn’t create families, as you claim, then how do you explain the concept of “legal custody?” The fact is, the law sometimes does create families, and they’re usually formed from the shattered remains of those that failed; that is, the law acts to protect the rights of children from the selfish morons who gave birth to them. Somehow, that leads me to believe your assertion that the validity of a family is somehow linked to a sexual relationship which can produce children is not only absurd, but also fantastical and strange.

    The world which you describe — where the biological parents always successfully rear a family of several children — is hunky dory and all, but it is an idealistic world which is contrary to reality.

  19. Old Fashion Liberal says:

    Legal custody. Ah — the exception. What do they say about rules and exceptions? Does not the exception prove the rule? Nevertheless, legal custody does not create a family nor does it create a marriage. Legal custody merely makes someone responsible for a child; it establishes parameters whereby the parties involved are given the opportunity to recover from unfortunate circumstances. Whether a family is created is up to the parties involved.

    What “ought” to be is a fantasy. We imagine how we might make the world better to suit our own preferences. What is better is to look at the world as it is and to do what works. What is better is to discover what works and to do that. For example, love works, but hate does not.

    Same-sex “marriage” does not work, but men and women have been marrying each other and raising children for as long we have any way of knowing.

    Will people form same-sex relationships? Will men and women have sexual relations, but no children. Yes, but only one of these two types of relationship has the potential to produce children. Because the rights of children need protection, children produce the need for government involvement.

  20. lneely says:

    I’m not saying that it “disproves the rule” at all. What I’m saying is that it seems that we’re legally barring responsible and upstanding gay singles and couples (in some states, anyway) from serving the purpose of a stable family to those who could use one — because they’re gay, or because it doesn’t fit the traditional definition of a family — while rewarding irresponsible cretins who have children that they cannot or will not properly raise.

    Perhaps I should make this clear: the marriage issue is only an afterthought to me. It isn’t a “human rights” issue, and to say so is being sanctimonious and completely disregarding the social and economic intentions of marriage. What seems to be important, rather, is whether or not a gay couple can feasibly serve the purpose of “family” to someone — an adopted child, or perhaps one produced via surrogate mother/father — and intuition says, “Yes, that’s possible.”

    Maybe I’m wrong about that?

  21. Old Fashion Liberal says:

    If I shoot someone, does that make it okay for you to shoot someone. Just because some cretins have responsibility for children, we are suppose to give more people who would make inadequate parents the job?

    Parents provide role models for their children. People are partly a product of their environment and the examples they see, partly a product of their genes and partly a product of who know what else. Considering the emphasis some homosexuals have put on their sexual orientation, don’t you think it odd they want to raise children? How could they possibly set an appropriate example? With respect to sexual relationships and the vast majority of children, a same-sex couple could not set anything but a confusing example at best.

  22. lneely says:

    I definitely see your point, but admittedly, my first thought was, “That’s awfully presumptuous.” Then again, maybe it’s true. Unfortunately, I’m too ignorant on the issue to go any further than that.

    OFL, always appreciate your insights. :)

  23. M. says:

    I don’t know anything about laws whatsoever. I just don’t get why it matters when someone wants to marry they can’t.

    I think the best thing to do is just create another thing like marriage. But i don’t know call it garriage. Something like that, saves the trouble to argue with old fashion people.

    I don’t get all that talk about children and bla bla bla. Isn’t it more sinful for straight couples not to have baby, when they are given the ability to? While the gay couple might adopt/save an orphan. And all that talk about man/woman marriage, whatever okay, if thy law is made to protect kids, why is the population of children dropping?

    I don’t get why some people keep talking about traditional marriage is a man and a woman. Well traditionally, we don’t have many things we have today.

  24. Correndell says:

    Well, I just took a quick skim and I realized two things.

    1: People are willing to spout out what they believe in a heartbeat, wether or not they actually know anything.

    2: Citizen Tom, you know your sh**.

    ‘Nuff Said.
    Well, ok, one last statement then. Just so any of you know, I aint reading after I post this, so if you want to make an insult, don’t worry, you won’t be hurting my feelings ;)

  25. lallariah says:

    If you are saying that same sex marriage can be… let’s say… replaced with domestic partnerships, and the same thing as gay marriage can be achieved with such partnerships, then why stop marriage?
    From what I understand, you are saying the legal aspects, such as medical care, can be achieved with a domestic partnership, or other legal document. what’s the big deal about giving the couple a nice little ceremony and rings and a legal document saying they are husband and husband, or wife and wife? I’m not sure if I misunderstand your meaning.
    Now onto the issue of children. Why should we ban two people from legally taking care of a child if they are indeed able to? Just because they are not able to create a child together doesn’t mean they can’t take care of one period. Imagine the children all over the world that would love to be adopted by a lesbian or gay couple in order to have shelter, or food, or even just people to love them.

    • Citizen Tom says:

      lallariah – Laws exist to force people to behave in certain ways, and marriage has a legal significance. When the law defines two people as married, it forces employers and others to accept their relationship. If two people of the same sex want to live together and have sex, it is their business. I cannot stop foolish people from trying to live out their perverse fantasies. My issue is not being forced to condone or participate in such vile foolishness. Because it is wrong, I don’t want any part of fornication.

      Are their desperate children? Yes. Is same-sex “marriage” about helping desperate children? You know it is not..

      By definition, a same-sex “couple” has nothing to do with producing or raising children. Children need both a father and a mother. That’s why it takes a man and a woman to produce a child. Because we learn from example, children also need proper role models. And while some heterosexual couples do not provide a good example, there is not way a homosexual “couple” is going to model an appropriate marriage.

Comments are closed.