How To Explain Gay Rights To A Total Moron

Posted by Christopher Welch on Dec 12, 2011 in Learnable | 48 comments

We are totally loving this infographic today. Have you ever tried to explain gay rights to someone who insisted on compared gay marriage to beastiality? Necrophilia? Marrying inanimate objects?

If I hear one more fundamentalist on television utter the words “If we allow gay marriage, isn’t it a matter of time before we have people marrying horses?” Hey, if we can walk down the aisle with a thoroughbred, isn’t it just a matter of time before we’re catapulting babies into the river, have drive through abortion clinics and teaching about gay porn in schools? America – this is what keeps old white people from sleeping at night.

Enjoy the step by step instructions for handling small minded, homophobic types below. Do your best to tune out the rampant typos. Enjoy!

How’d you like them apples?

http://www.facebook.com/lancifer.m Lancifer Miller

6 words:

Love. It. Posted. On. My. Facebook!
http://www.facebook.com/giuliojams Giulio Rocco Pellegrini

Now do one for racism.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000410104466 Laura Gutleben

What Lancifer said…
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001003614127 Angela Stanczak

Toaster? Really?

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1456382165 Skip Mclearen

When I lived in Oklahoma people tried to tell me that if we allowed gay marriage then we would eventually have to allow people to marry inanimate objects such as toasters,cars and ect. It’s not far fetched. People are ignorant.

Gay Shark

OMG I love this
http://www.facebook.com/people/Jay-Lauderdale/100003136419986 Jay Lauderdale

I love this – yet what it fails to bring up is that although the church may not have a say in the matter, the gov’t decision (including anyone against same sex marriage) is based upon certain peoples religious beliefs. While the church has no say in the heterosexual marriage, it offers it’s blessing and support to it – unlike that of same sex couples which they actively try to stop. Therefore religion is governing the country. Still, unconstitutional is unconstitutional and hopefully this simplifies it for people so that we don’t have to use sock puppets next to explain things. And P.S. I used my toaster every day.

http://www.facebook.com/joylin.hall Joylin Hall

I interpreted the statements about the Church’s lack of influence in the matter as an intentional jab at what you’re saying, really. They pointed out that the Church has no LEGAL say in the legality of straight marriage, and in the exact same words, pointed out that it has no legal say in the legality of gay marriage. The implication, to me, was that there is clearly a difference between these two, namely that the Church still influences the legality of gay marriage, but not directly, and that it shouldn’t.

http://twitter.com/Thunderclap Michael™

While true, we all know that is very simplistic. And what happens when we get self aware toasters?

Anonymous

They called themselves Cylon, show some respect !

http://twitter.com/alexitomacias Alets Macias

There is a difference between “it’s” (contraction of “it is”), and “its” (possessive adjective). Correct spelling doesn’t hurt anybody!

http://www.facebook.com/people/Jay-Lauderdale/100003136419986 Jay Lauderdale

Yes – I’m well aware of that fact. I was typing fast. I have a life, things to do, and don’t sit around looking to be the Internet Autocorrect Police. IT’S kind of annoying when others do that.
Now if you will excuse me, my toaster is calling.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3J4TGV26CGG33ZKDJWR7EPJSIA C

I have to take issue with your disregard of grammar. I do not know if you intend to be taken seriously or not, but your response to the person pointing out an error indicates a flippant attitude. What passes for today as journalism is shameful, and you should strive to set a good example to stop the degrading of literacy, hire a proofreader if you can not be bothered.

http://www.facebook.com/joylin.hall Joylin Hall

I agree with you, but you used a comma splice in your last sentence.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000656714730 Jens Sch

I agree. Also, for that matter, it would not hurt to not unnecessarily add commas into sentences where they aren’t needed.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SVCZMRLDDV6RVQYG3FSPBJCZHI Eddie

Jens….that sentence is full of issues…not hurt to not unnecessarily add commas…I think that is a triple negative. It is funny to see others correcting sentences, yet they have sentence issues of their own. Further, I see no reason to correct other’s sentences because it does nothing to further your own interest.

http://profiles.google.com/cmclauthlin Christa Cannon McLauthlin

Great explanation! Check spelling and grammar and then I’ll share.
http://www.facebook.com/finmagik Alexandra Moore

I love this
Raya Zaman

*its citizens

Stephen Pierce

Great post but note that it is “inequality” and not “unequality”.

Raya Zaman

Haha just because you were corrected doesn’t mean it was implied that you do not have a life, nor does it imply that the corrector in question does not have a life either. And I don’t think it’s annoying when people correct each other, as I’m sure you do the same.
Anonymous

So…
Where does that leave teh Mormons?
They “marry” dead people.

Anonymous

…No…we don’t…
1. To whoever is going to mention polygamy: mormons don’t practice it anymore, and haven’t since the 1800s.
2. Those who do practice modern polygamy do not expect or receive legal benefits or recognition for plural marriages. It is a religious and sexual practice to which they have a right so long as they are not abusing children, or forcibly coercing anyone into sexual or religious acts. But, when it is between consenting adults, you have no more right to enforce your own moral code on them, than they have on you.
3. Mormons do sometimes perform a religious ceremony in which they “seal” the souls of two dead people who were married in life, by proxy. (I know it sounds culty and am not denying that objectively it is very weird, but look at some other religions – we all believe in some weird stuff). They don’t claim to be “in love” with dead people, nor do they claim any legal benefit or recognition for that union. They don’t even claim that the people for whom they are performing the ceremony necessarily accept it. It’s essentially a very non-traditional interpretation of the scripture “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” that if the souls of two people are to be bound eternally, the marriage, or sealing for it must take place on Earth, even if its by proxy. Also note, this is usually only done for the ancestors of those performing the ordinance, or with permission from their family. Don’t hate. Emphasis on its purely religious function. We don’t expect anything from the government to support that, and in fact, don’t publish it in detail, because it is so easy to misinterpret.
4. I am not a polygamist (I personally consider it morally reprehensible). I am not a lesbian. I am a Mormon. I like Jesus. And somewhat in the hope that my personal decisions will be left out of the public forum so long as they are not harmful, and mostly out of the belief that God is much more about love, in all its forms, I support gay marriage.

Jennifer Schradeya

Hey, thanks for sharing this! That was really interesting stuff I had no idea about. I don’t know exactly why, but I thought that was a really cool post.

And thank you for being one of the good guys. I know a few other religious people who just believe what their faith dictates, try to do good and to be good, and don’t try to force their beliefs on others. Sadly, they are few indeed, and too many others give genuinely nice people – like yourself and my sister for example – a really bad name. I am from Texas, though, so I know a lot of the really crazy evangelicals…

It’s sad that it’s such a rare sentiment these days that god IS more about love than fear, hate, and control. I’m not a religious or spiritual person myself, but I have a ton of respect for those for whom faith is a personal relationship and a standard by which to live – rather than a weapon or a reason to try and control other people’s lives.

My friends and family who are the former rather than latter are actually the most pleasant, kindest, and *happiest* people I know!
Anonymous

you LIKE Jesus? Why don’t you LOVE Him?

http://twitter.com/lysana Brenda Daverin

Aside from the title being ableist and erasing of non-gays who want to marry same-sex partners, such as bisexuals, I like the graphic.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1443795670 Joey Lopez

this is AWESOME, but this person needs to look up the term “tracking” as it relates to typography. just sayin’
Pingback: How To Explain Gay Rights To A Total Moron | Buretuto's Blog
Anonymous

This is Steve, Jane, Mary, and Amy. They are adults capable of making their own decisions. If you met them on the street, you would assume they could get married. The United States government doesn’t recognize them as a legal group and denies them certain benefits. The Church has zero say in this matter. The U.S. is denying its citizens the same rights it grants to other citizens. That is unconstitutional.

This is Cody. He is twelve. He earns a paycheck and pays taxes. He is not allowed to vote and yet he is governed by laws that he has no say in. He is wondering about the idea of democracy, and no taxation without representation, and not being given the same rights as other citizens even though he is a citizen.

I agree with your premise, but if you are going to make an argument, be ready to defend it on all accounts, my friend.

A.Stephenson

Just to make a point here,

A. I was not aware a child as young as 12 was able to work legally in the United States, most (possibly all) other Western countries would call that child labour.

B. Childeren under the age of 18 are incapable of making informed decisions as a general rule. While there is some debate in this matter, namely the commonwealth construct of gillick competence for matters relating to health, and ultimately the minor is simply making decions which are still executed through his or her legal guardian, and since guardians cannot vote for minors, gillick competence does not apply. The fact of the matter is that age of majority is one of several requirements for voting, and income is not. since Cody does not meet all of the requirements, he is unable to vote.

C. Polyamourous marriages are not the same as biparty marriages. While, in my opinion they do deserve equal recognition, they must nessicarily be governed by different laws. When Canada introduced same sex marriage, all they did (in very simple terms) was strike out gender pronouns, nothing else had to be changed. In a polyamourous marriage, several important questions have to be answered:

-Which individuals is one party married to? Is everybody intermarried, or is it possible to just marry one or two members of the group.
-How will medical decisions be made in the event of incapacity? is one person designated as the primary spouse for legal decision making?
-How will birth certificates be arranged? Will the biologial parents be named only, will every person in the group be listed, or will only those married to the biological parents be named?
-How will divorce work? if person A wants to divorce, can they divorce only some of their intermarried spouses, what property are they entitled to? If person A divorces person B, and person B is also married to person C, who is not married to person A, is person A entitled to property from person B since this would negativly impact person C?

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1465973376 Tiffany Wilson

Rather than giving into the usual rebuttals that surround the concept of polyamorous marriage, you presented a very clear and intelligent point.
Anonymous

There are child actors who work and make a salary.

Candace Barr

They’re still not considered consenting adults. A baby is born a citizen, but until said child reaches the legal age of majority, he or she is not legally allowed to vote, enter into a contract, and myriad other things.

There are already laws to keep children from getting married based on the criterion of legal age of consent. So unless some 16-year-old wants to get married to someone of the same sex and gets mom and dad to sign off on it, gay marriage is not going to affect an adult’s ability to marry a minor any more than allowing interracial marriage did.

http://www.facebook.com/todd.klopfer Todd Klopfer

Great job explaining the problems with polygamy. I hate when people use the “what next are we going to allow polygamy” argument. I think, “sure why not”? Now I see some good reasons why not.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YKNMNICXFJGUNWVIRGEAMD63ME BrandonM

Children are not capable of entering into a binding legal contract, which is what marriage is from the federal government’s standpoint. There are already age of consent laws, just as there are laws governing the age at which a minor can drive, buy alcohol, enter a strip club, etc. A law can simply assert the gender and sexual preference of the applicants cannot be a factor in the granting of a marriage license. No law legalizing gay marriage is suddenly going to make it legal for a twelve-year-old to buy cigarettes, or gamble in a casino, or purchase a firearm. (Actually, I’m not sure about the firearm, I wouldn’t put it past the lunatics in the NRA.)

And earning a paycheck and paying taxes doesn’t make you a citizen, nor does wondering about democracy equate to maturity. In case you hadn’t noticed that Bush and the seven years of a Republican House, Senate, and Supreme Court wondered about democracy plenty of times, and didn’t do a thing about immigration reform. Plenty of non-citizens are paying taxes, even if only sales taxes.

If Cody is twelve and earns enough to have to pay taxes, he must be on TV or in the movies (that is, presuming we don’t have a President Gingrich; I can’t imagine that with the debt and deficit concerns, he means to lose all those wages’ tax revenues when he replaces all the adult janitors with inner-city kids). Cody’s contracts were signed by a legal guardian because while it is not legal for him to sign his own contracts, it is legal for a twelve-year-old to have certain types of contracts signed for them by a legal guardian. However, even when that happens, he doesn’t have equal rights to the adults on the set. He is limited in the number of hours and how late he can work. It is mandatory that the producers furnish him with a tutor on the set, and that he study a certain number of hours of various subjects each week with that tutor. Alternatively, he spends a certain number of days completing work at a place like NYC’s Professional Children’s School. He has to have a chaperone on set and location and on the job or off, he is subject to all the other legal rights and restrictions as any other twelve-year-old.

As to taxation without representation, his guardian is his representative and that guardian has representation, and part of the point of said guardian, as with any child’s parent or guardian, is that that individual has the responsibility to exercise his civic duties looking out not only for said individual but the known, presumed and possible interests of their child when exercising their right to vote for said representation. If a grandparent passes away and leaves money and investments or a home or business to a child, it most likely goes into a trust for the child, and the child’s minor status doesn’t allow him to escape paying the requisite taxes on the inheritance and any dividends or capital gains. The same is true if an adult gives a sizable cash gift to a child. Taxation without representation is a concept for full adult citizens, as is marriage.

There are also legal limits to how much of a child’s earnings the guardian is allowed to spend, so the child doesn’t grow up and find out the parent paid themselves managerial fees and made bad investments and the child doesn’t have a penny left.

Laws, then, you see, are many, but far from being there to inhibit our freedom, the point of them is to ensure that there is a fair and reasonable balance of freedom among us, with no one person’s freedom unduly abridging another person’s freedom.

http://www.tonyjalicea.com Tony J. Alicea

Let’s take religion out of the discussion for a minute (it doesn’t really need to be in the discussion anyways).

I see this more of a definition issue. If marriage is defined legally as the union between a husband (man) and wife (female), then it cannot be unconstitutional to deny a homosexual couple this right.

So the argument for gay marriage should be more about changing the definition of marriage, rather than arguing for “rights” or “equality”.

If the definition of marriage is legally changed, then it becomes a human rights issue.

Until then, everyone is arguing about the wrong thing.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Amber-Marie-Schnell/1143995607 Amber Marie Schnell

I imagine that it would fall in the same boat as the constitution formerly defining black people as a fraction of a person.

http://www.tonyjalicea.com Tony J. Alicea

Great example. My point is to start at the beginning. Everything else obfuscates the issue. Everyone has to start at the same place to get anywhere in the discussion.

Otherwise you get these asinine arguments about marrying toasters.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1401926012 EarthBound Misfit

lifting this for my facebok <3
Anonymous

Still dosn’t explain Polygamy, and the doors it opens to polygamy. Hi I am adam I am a man capable of making my own decisions… Hi I am evelyn, Stacey, and Heather, and we are all capable of making our own decisions… So we would all like to be married to the same man. Check mate.

http://www.facebook.com/todd.klopfer Todd Klopfer

Above someone stated why polygamy if legalized would cause a new set of problems that gay marriage does not. Why do individuals care how many people you marry? As long as all spouses have the ability to consent who cares?

http://www.facebook.com/tussey1 Judi Tussey

Hey, what’s that about old white people?
Pingback: Como explicar direitos LGBT a pessoas com discursos estúpidos « Manjerona: Travestismo homologado
http://www.facebook.com/alanbrizan Alan Brizan

Smokers have the right to smoke but not everywhere to protect the rights of the majority of society that cant tolerate smoke. Nudists have a right to live naked but not everywhere to protect the rights of those that feel safer with a clothed environment. Since marriage is practiced everywhere to accept gay marriage is to accept the gay lifestyle everywhere. Smokers and nudists acknowledge that their lifestyle may not be comfortable to all but gays do not. Society accepts in general the idea of two men living happily together in a committed lifelong loving relationship with legal protection. Where things go sour is in the right to use of the word “marriage” a word very much defined in the Bible, the Koran, Bhavagad Gita and many other traditional books of worship. Tough sell! Marriage is not only a human rights issue but a social issue too. My opinion is that gays should have the rights of marriage but not the right to redefine “marriage”. Please dont call me a moron because i have a different point of view. Because that would make you just as much a bigot as Bible Freaks shouting “if you dont believe what i say you will burn in HELL!”.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000856820211 Michael Turci

Got that Rick Santorum? Or do you still not know the difference between a consenting adult and an inanimate object?
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YKNMNICXFJGUNWVIRGEAMD63ME BrandonM

I own it, you own it, he OWNS it.

You must have a friend who aced English and can give a quick read on his lunch break to something as brilliant as this. This should be required reading for middle schoolers, American citizenship tests, and candidacy filings for public office. You should put it on T-shirts and posters for dorm rooms. Heck, it should be in the subway next to the map, and on the wall of restaurants like the choking victim poster. But make the corrections first. (And “inequality” is preferable usage to “unequality”.) But I’m not saying this to be a dick, truly, this is making the rounds on blogs and stuff…polish it up and make a buck and get famous and spread the word!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Bob-Amsel/1450316715 Bob Amsel

It’s nicely done, except that you haven’t covered polygamy, which one stupid person, Rick Santorum, loves to use as his favorite example. (But in Santorum’s case, he’s not too stupid since he’s intentionally making an illusion to Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather and his multiple wives.)
https://www.facebook.com/kylzunk david michael jones

I’ve never met a toaster I could love.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1070910100 Jd Dembski

Awww, I feel kinda sorry for the toaster. But, yeah, this pic is going up whenever I come across ppl freaking out about marriage equality for same sexes
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002716010948 Spectra Says

I would be down to share this if it wasn’t for the grammatical mistakes. I love the points being made, but the typos leave close-minded people a reason to ignore the message and dwell on semantics. I would say its worth taking a minute or two to redo it so that your point is made clearly AND intelligently. Kill them with knowledge.

Tags

How To Explain Gay Rights To A Total Moron

Pages

Tags

How To Explain Gay Rights To A Total Moron

Yo Categories

Pages