You-Have-Got-To-Be-Kidding Arguments For Gay Marriage



Until the pro-Gay Marriage advocates came along, I thought the pro-aborts had cornered the market on ludicrous sophistry to support evil.  However in some ways advocates of the lust that can’t shut up about itself have surpassed them.  Matt Archbold at National Catholic Register counts the ways:

7) My son is gay!

This argument has been used most famously by Senator Rob Portman but many  others have used it as well in order to “evolve” on this issue. This argument  for gay marriage makes me wonder if they didn’t realize the existence of actual  gay people until their own son just couldn’t quit the Glee Marathon.

Now, this may come as a shock to some parents but it’s possible that a child  can make choices that the rest of Western civilization doesn’t have to bend its  collective knee to.

Imagine this same argument by the parents of Lindsey Lohan because we’d all  have to be for the legalization of drugs, okaying kleptomania, and approving of  driving over photographers.


6) If marriage is for pro-creation, then old people who can’t have kids  shouldn’t be allowed to be married.

Wow. What did old people do to you? I mean, I agree that it should be  illegal for old people to kiss in public but come on, let them marry, if only to  prevent them from dating.

This argument was proffered by none other than Supreme Court Justice Elena  Kagan who asked, “Suppose a State said that, ‘Because we think that the focus of  marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage  licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55.’ Would  that be constitutional?”

Every time I read or hear the Harvard educated Kagan speak I think of  dolphins because everyone tells me dolphins are really smart but there’s no  actual evidence of them saying or doing anything smart.

But let’s be fair here. Major props to the liberal justice for finally tying  her job to interpreting the Constitution. You just know Justice Breyer slipped  her a note asking, “What’s this strange constitution thingie you speak of?”

But the fact that some married people can’t have babies doesn’t negate the  existence of marriage anymore than it negates the existence of babies. Hey,  that’s kinda’ weird because babies are another thing the Supreme Court likes to  negate the existence of.


5) The Bible doesn’t say that engaging in homosexual acts is a sin!!!

Uhm. Well, it kinda’ does. A lot. The words “abomination” and “detestable”  come up and there’s that little thing about not inheriting the kingdom of God.  Saying the Bible doesn’t disapprove of homosexual acts is like saying Woody  Allen movies don’t include whining. They kinda’ do. A lot.

But let’s just pretend for a moment it’s true that the Bible doesn’t  specifically say homosexual acts are a sin. The Bible doesn’t go into detail  about lots of bad stuff. The Bible doesn’t mention “Girls” on HBO or Nicholas  Cage’s movie role selections, but I am pretty sure those are bad too.


4) Jesus was gay.

This one’s always interesting because many of the same people who say Jesus  never really existed also say He was gay. That dichotomy would be deemed  miraculous but they don’t actually believe in miracles.

Just this week, radio host Don “Help, I’m starting to look like the  melting-face Nazi from Indiana Jones” Imus recently foisted this argument for  gay marriage on liberal political analyst Kirsten Powers who at least had the  smarts to distance herself from it like a normal person might do when confronted  with a person whose face was melting.

According to news reports, Imus said to Powers:

“You know there’s a Gospel of Judas floating around,” he said.

“There were hundreds of gospels written, only four made it into the [Bible].  There was the Gospel of Thomas, Mary had a gospel, they all had a gospel. But  Judas — there’s some indication there that Jesus may have been gay.”

OK since when did we all start listening to Judas anyway?

Anyway let me get this straight. They’re saying Jesus was gay? Jesus, who  was willing to suffer and die for the Truth was in the closet? That doesn’t  really make sense, does it?

Go here to read the rest.  Two of the major problems of our time are that too many people have been propagandized rather than educated in their formative years so they are ill-prepared to recognize shoddy arguments, and too many of the remainder who know better lack the spines to speak out.  Ignorance and lack of courage have killed many a civilization and we are now seeing whether we can kill ours using these same tools.



Share With Friends

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.


  1. Wow! Judas took out time from stealing from the Apostolic purse and betraying Jesus (for 30 pieces of silver the price of a man) to write a . . . What need has a Christian of anything that Judas would have written?

    Imus is my “go to guy” for matters of booze, dope, faith, and morals.

    Recently, one of them fat, ugly women on the SCOTUS threw up that 55 years old malarkey. I already had no respect for her.

    Here’s how to talk, if you must, to an idiotic, moral moron. Bless their hearts! Play, at max. volume, a tape or CD of hilarious, uncontrollable laughter. And, drink heavily.

  2. Saint Paul also explains that practicing homosexuals “will not inherit the kingdom of God”:

    Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminates {malakoi}, nor homosexuals {arsenokoitai}, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).

    The words translated as “effeminates” and “homosexuals” are often omitted in modern Bible translations and replaced with the single word “perverts,” even though two separate words appear in the Greek text of Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians. One might understand why the man I met in Fort Worth believed that “homosexuality was not condemned in the Bible,” since many English versions actually hide the term under pretence of translation. The two Greek words used by Paul in this passage are malakoi and arsenokoitai. The word malakoi is sometimes translated effeminates and the word arsenokoitai is translated as homosexuals.

  3. Tom, the two Greek words you bring up were used by St. Paul to underscore the fact that homosexuality is wrongful behavior at both ends. In other words, he was saying that both the active and passive, or dominant and submissive partners are wrong, and that neither role constitutes OK sexuality. That was the idea, because at Corinth there was a lot of sexual promiscuity. So he didn’t want the submissive partner, for instance, to think it was OK as long as he wasn’t active, or vice versa. So the Bible is very clear that all forms of homosexuality are sinful. No homosexual practice can be considered an option for a Christian entering the kingdom of heaven. Some people have tried to say that St. Paul was merely against homosexual relationships that were unequal or forced, but he was actually against all of them, as were Jews since time immemorial. Nothing changed regarding that. While Christianity grew more liberal in many otehr ways, it maintained a very conservative sexual stance regarding fornication, divorce, and homoseuxality. THis was all to uphold, as Jesus did, the creational intent of God.

  4. As one who has a family member who is a practicing homosexual, I certainly understand how difficult is has to be for Senator Portman. Perhaps, unless one has such an experience, it is impossible to appreciate how hard that really is and the almost instinctual tendency to defend their loved ones and succumb to condoning such a lifestyle. About twenty years ago, I thought the same thing Portman does now. Of course, I don’t think that now. Coming to terms with Church teaching on this subject as well as her teaching on sexual morality provided a strong push to look at human nature that made defending such a lifestyle impossible. But it was no easy or overnight thing to be sure.

    That being said, Senator Portman does himself, the American body politic, and his son no good by changing his conviction on this matter. To change our convictions like this on someone else’s account is a sure way to hurt them.

    The same look at the natural law provokes the question of what gives rise to same sex attractions. Behavioral scientists who have expertise in this matter and wish to look at it in a truly scientific way point the easily understandable fact that same sex attraction arises from a sexual and gender identity disorder. I am convinced it would do us all well to take some time to familiarize ourselves with how same sex attractions develop. For starters, you can check out NARTH, which stands for National Assocciation on Research and Theray of Homosexuality:


    Another problem I think our side has is how easily we not only allow but adopt the euphemisms the other side uses to describe something they know as well as we do is not good. Like the use of the phrase “pro-choice” to describe those who are pro-abortion (or pro-abortion rights if you will), the use of the word “gay”, the actual meaning of which has nothing to do with sexual orientation whatsoever, to describe homosexuality is another sterling example. As moral theolgian the late-Msgr. William B. Smith used to say. “All social engineering begins with verbal engineering.”

    This is something just about everyone on the left clearly understands and almost no one on the right does. But if we are to make any real headway in the culture war, we had better start understanding this damned quick and act accordingly.

Comments are closed.