Pharyngula

A motto!

Now if only this were on a bumper sticker…

i-5666b1fe6fca39fbe90544f56b3bc3ee-trad_marriage.gif

Comments

  1. #1 Stephen Erickson
    August 29, 2006

    Now if only this were on a bumper sticker…

    Laser printer sticker sheet, finish with a couple coats of Krylon Crystal Clear, affix to rear bumper, Bob’s your uncle.

  2. #2 Rick @ shrimp and grits
    August 29, 2006

    This looks like a job for Cafepress?

  3. #3 Brian Dewhirst
    August 29, 2006

    Alas, squid/automaton marriage is legal only in Japan…

    (not that there is anything wrong with that)

  4. #4 luna_the_cat
    August 29, 2006

    There’s a place here which makes T-shirts, cheap. That is SO going on one.

  5. #5 pough
    August 29, 2006

    I could make you one, if you want it. Good ol’ Cafe Press! I already made the “honk if you’re the stupidest person on the face of the planet” bumper sticker.

  6. #6 Peter Z.
    August 29, 2006

    I am sorry but I have to know – how many honks do you get per day?

  7. #7 Sanguinity
    August 29, 2006

    Not to be the fuddy-duddy, but before setting it up on CafePress yourselves, you might want to find out who owns the image. It appears to be Dave Lartigue, but I can’t tell for sure. He already has a CafePress site set up for it, although no t-shirts. But maybe if someone asks?

  8. #8 Emanuel Goldstein
    August 29, 2006

    If you can change the traditional meaning of marriage when it suits you, why not science.

  9. #9 Darkling
    August 29, 2006

    So is that the traditional marriages represented by Saul, David and Solomon?

  10. #10 Richard Harris
    August 29, 2006

    < <...traditional marriages represented by Saul, David and Solomon? >>

    Darkling, you mean a menage a trois, with all guys?

  11. #11 Richard Harris
    August 29, 2006

    Emanuel Goldstein, marriage itself is not a social construct, (although it may seem like it, sometimes), it is a social arrangement, & therefore it, & its meanings, (which are social constructs), are amenable to change. Science is also not a social construct. The scientific method is useful in determining objective reality.

    Does that help you?

  12. #12 Darkling
    August 29, 2006

    I suppose my word usage could have been better.
    Oppps.

    Saul and his many wives.
    David and his many wives.
    Solomon and his many wives.

  13. #13 Richard Harris
    August 29, 2006

    Jeeez, Darkling, does the holy book say that’s okay? If it does, then it must be, eh? And do you notice how it devalues women? Biblical literalists would just love this, eh. (I figure they’re mostly men – the folks who make most noise about it mostly are).

    Too bad the womenfolk don’t see through the religious crap!

  14. #14 Alex
    August 29, 2006

    Wait, I’ve got Goldstein’s next response:

    God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

    (truthfully speaking, you know, I really can’t back that up. The part about God I mean)

  15. #15 stogoe
    August 29, 2006

    We’re not changing the ‘traditional’ meaning of marriage. We’re just leaving it rotting in the past, and using a newer, better definition.

  16. #16 Dan
    August 29, 2006

    If you can change the traditional meaning of marriage when it suits you, why not science.

    The “traditional meaning of marriage” has changed dramatically just in the last two centuries, to say nothing of the last two millenia. Usage determines meaning, not the other way around.

    So first, you have to be very specific about exactly what “traditional marriage” is supposed to entail, why we should consider it “traditional” in the first place, and most importantly, why that “tradition” is inherently good and worthy of respect. If you can’t do the first or the second, then you have no benchmark from which to measure any alleged change, and therefore no real grounds on which to complain about it. If you can’t do the last, then you have no grounds on which to enforce it on the rest of society.

    The answer to your real question ought to be obvious, though. There is quite a profound ideological difference between expanding the definition of marriage and shrinking the definition of science.

    Now answer me this question: Why do you care if two men (or two women) you don’t even know are allowed to get married?

    Again, be specific. Make a pie chart, if you have to.

  17. #17 Alex
    August 29, 2006

    We should all stop obfuscating and tell Emanuel the truth. Emanuel, we want to destroy marriage and religion. The great legions of scientists have great complex plans to force everyone to deny God and smite the Holy Bible. We hate you because you are better than us and want to be your ruler. Destroying marriage and forcing everyone to worship science is the first part of our plan. It’s very complicated. Wheels within wheels.

  18. #18 Alon Levy
    August 29, 2006

    I respect tradition. When I see a woman I like, I hit her on the head with my club and drag her to my cave to rape her.

  19. #19 Darkling
    August 29, 2006

    Richard Harris:
    Jeeez, Darkling, does the holy book say that’s okay? If it does, then it must be, eh?

    Ummm, I thought I was arguing your point as well? The point that I was trying to make is that even within the bible, the traditional definition of marriage, one man and one woman did not apply by using examples of some notable characters, one of whoom is referred to as a man after god’s “own heart” (Acts 13:22).

  20. #20 JackGoff
    August 29, 2006

    Hey, let us not forget Ada and Eve!

  21. #21 JackGoff
    August 29, 2006

    Darkling, Richard was being facetious. There should be a /sarcasm tag that makes it obvious for everyone, I know, but wev.

  22. #22 RavenT
    August 29, 2006

    Even better, Darkling, David impregnated Bathsheba, and then sent her husband into a suicidal battle and arranged that there was no backup, so that he could then marry the new widow.

    But at least he wasn’t gay!

  23. #23 George Cauldron
    August 29, 2006

    Is Emanuel Goldstein working to fill the vacuum left by the departure of Jason?

  24. #24 jpf
    August 29, 2006
  25. #25 Richard Harris
    August 29, 2006

    Okay, guys, i was just being facetious in an anti-religious manner.

  26. #26 tintenfisch
    August 29, 2006

    Richard,

    In my experience, both genders are equally represented in the Bible-Literalist crowd. Sadly, ignorance and stupidity are not a sexually dimorphic traits.

    I do love that image, though.

  27. #27 Alon Levy
    August 29, 2006

    Not only that, but also in the US men are for some reason likelier to be atheists than women.

  28. #28 Greco
    August 29, 2006

    But at least he wasn’t gay!

    Well…

  29. #29 jpf
    August 29, 2006

    Totally self-indulgent (and self-serving) but…

    If they mated….

  30. #30 RavenT
    August 29, 2006

    Thanks, Greco :). I was just joking, because the anti-gay right declares gay and lesbian marriage and parenting inferior by definition, yet they’ll simultaneously overlook truly awful acts by straights (such as David’s having Uriah killed) in the name of traditional marriage and parenting. Somehow, those are always the exceptions, while gay and lesbians are considered unfit across the board, which is the mindset I was mocking.

    Although it’s not really funny, is it?

  31. #31 Daniel Martin
    August 29, 2006

    You know, around here you see occasionally those bumper stickers with a red background and white lettering saying:
    MARRIAGE = [man figure] + [woman figure]
    Where the figures are the standard icons you see on many restroom stalls. It makes me want to carry around either a red sharpie or a white-out pen, because either of those figures is easily alterable into the other…

  32. #32 Kagehi
    August 29, 2006

    I say we go for good old “victorian” traditional marriage. Arranged marriage, with free housing for the male/female mistress one or both memebers of the marriage have on the side. lol

  33. #33 RedMolly
    August 30, 2006

    Having just finished writing an article on the Renaissance-era definition of marriage and the few love-matched couples who dared flout that convention (and the terrible things that often happened to them), all I can say is… bring on the automa-cephalopod mixed marriages!

    Can’t possibly be any worse than “traditional” marriage for most of the last three-four millenia.

  34. #34 SteveInMI
    August 30, 2006

    RedMolly: the article sounds juicy! How about a link?

  35. #35 It feels good to be a troll.
    August 30, 2006

    “Marriage” changes, so does “science”.

    They are both constructs.

    Heck, Newton was a creationist.

    So what? Science has provided the fundies with the wmds to destroy civilization.

    What would they all do without each other?

    Bahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  36. #36 RedMolly
    August 30, 2006

    Steve… coming soon (well, in March, I hope) to a copy of Renaissance Magazine at a newsstand near you. 🙂 Thanks for your interest!

  37. #37 Keith Douglas
    August 30, 2006

    Richard Harris: Funny you should mention that. My father was openly wondering about that a while ago – why aren’t there more fundies who advocate polygamy?

    Alex: Wheels within wheels? Isn’t that from Ezekiel?

  38. #38 Mister Nice Guy
    August 31, 2006

    Hey, God created Adolf and Eva, not…umm….

  39. #39 james
    October 31, 2007

    u r a bunch of homos and can i have a sticker

  40. #40 audrey
    April 8, 2008

    Marrying someone of the same gender is totally the same as marrying someone of a different species!

  41. #41 dennis
    June 6, 2008

    audrey is an idiot.

  42. #42 dennis
    June 6, 2008

    I hope Audrey can find someone of her own species to mate with. Actually, on second thought, it would be best if she doesn’t reproduce at all.

    Let’s see, someone of my own species and sex, is just like doing it with a chicken or a cow? Maybe where she comes from banging animals is common, but in the blue states we frown on it.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.