National Review---Don't let Gays Marry Because....

[roquat]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 3:19pm

I went to the website of fascist far-right rag "National Review" to see how they were handling post-election blues. There was lots of "just wait until 2008" and predicting the end of the world, along with crowing over the gay-marriage bans. But another gay marriage article caught my eye--a reaction to the New Jersey ruling. The author argued (for quite awhile) that letting gays marry would eventually depopulate the world (!!!). To paraphrase--"The government may not want to subsidize a legal union that by definition is non-procreative." Are they for real? Is this argument suggesting that gay men, if forbidden to marry each other, will be driven to seek out and impregnate women to keep the planet populated (and aren't we suffering from rather grim OVERpopulation right now?) How do people get so far from sense?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 3:25pm

They are also forgetting that gays are a MINORITY. To assume that the world would suddenly stop populating is to assume that either everyone is either a) gay or b) sterile. Idiot.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 3:27pm

...because of the wonderful things they does?

[whiskedaway]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 3:28pm

When they can't use their precious bible as a reason to speak against homosexuals, they have to come up with some sort of "logic." Which of course does not exist, so then we get reasons like that.

[Kringas]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 3:31pm

I'm fine with that, so long as marriage for non-procreating straight people is banned as well.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 3:33pm

Wait a minute, you mean I have to give-up the two women we keep around for procreation? Damn.....

[DayDreamer]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 3:37pm

Not to mention that when gays do have children, it's because they really want to raise a family, unlike some straight people that procreate just because...

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 4:26pm

That is absurd. Obviously underpopulation is a problem now. Kevin Federline is on the loose again now, so I'm sure he'll be impregnating multiple lovely ladies any day now and we can all rest easy that the U.S. is in safe hands.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 5:13pm

it's even more inane given the recent discussions about the ramifications of our reaching 300,000,000 in this country and getting to 400,000,000 sooner than later.

[tagiunagi]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 5:30pm

If that's the argument used, then why not ban infertile straight couples from marrying? Heck, let's ban all post-menopausal women from getting married. After all, women are baby-popping machines.

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 5:34pm

Hell, No!

Gay men should marry straight women, have a few kids and get "massages" on the side.

[Kringas]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 5:50pm

Even better, why not just abolish all civil marriage? Let it remain a religious institution and keep the government out of it completely.

[actor]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 10:02pm

This makes no sense - gays should be able to get married, it won't lead to a decrease in population growth. The gays that would marry other gays wouldn't get married to women and have kids anyway. Therefore, how does being married and being unable to have kids make a difference?

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 10:16pm

As I've said before, if they are so worried about the sanctity of marriage, they should make Adultery punishable by stoning, and Divorce punishable by death.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 10:17pm

Not to mention that when gays do have children, it's because they really want to raise a family, unlike some straight people that procreate just because...

...they were never taught proper sex education in school.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 10:21pm

I was thinking bigger welfare check....

[Zyla]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 10:24pm

Good point, skittles!

Regarding the "National Review" and the far-right - does anyone think they actually believe the, well, crap that they spew out; or are they consciously making up ridiculous 'arguments' against an issue that they irrationally hate?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 10:29pm

I've always said they should protect marriage buy outlawing divorce.

I'd like to buy some popcorn and watch THAT movie.

Posted: 11/12/06 at 7:11pm

Why should it be banned for straight people Kringas? That's the 'right way' of doing things. Sorry if you don't want to hear it.

Posted: 11/12/06 at 7:16pm

Tell that to Christie Brinkley Pal when her husband couldn't control himself, moron that he is. You actually expect her to stay married to that jerk? Along with Reese Witherspoon's husband.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 7:27pm

Once again, RT is speaking out of his @$$...........

[Donald Duck]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 7:56pm

"Why should it be banned for straight people Kringas? That's the 'right way' of doing things. Sorry if you don't want to hear it."


Well i belive jesus sucked di*k on the cross. Sorry if you don't want to hear it.

I am so sick of hearing these f*cktard christians spitting crap out of their mouths like its fact.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 8:03pm

So what you said is OK right?

RT is wrong but so are you

2 wrongs do not make a right

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 8:04pm

RT go to the "Carol Channing Homophobe?" thread and read. What's wrong with you RT?


Updated On: 11/12/06 at 08:04 PM

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 8:09pm

RT nobody likes you. Thats the right way to think of you. Sorry if you don't want to hear it.