A motto!
Category: Humor
Posted on: August 29, 2006 1:12 PM, by PZ Myers
Now if only this were on a bumper sticker…
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Search this blog
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
(Complete listing)Those in the media deciding what information to give us are in the top 5% of our income structure.
Recent Posts
- Another classic quote mine
- Usher syndrome part IV: Clinical management and research directions
- In case you were wondering…
- PZ's Galápagos Adventure
- Compare and Contrast
- Protecting the Right of Conscience?
- What year is it, anyway?
- Evolve: Sex
- To the clever dicks who think they are annoying me
- Another significant poll that will change the universe
A Taste of Pharyngula
(Complete listing)Modeling metazoan cell lineages
Anencephaly and right-wing moralizers
A quick reply to some of the arguments made recently
Recent Comments
- travc on PZ's Galápagos Adventure
- Wowbagger on Another classic quote mine
- bastion on Another classic quote mine
- Josh K on Another classic quote mine
- Craig on Compare and Contrast
- bastion on Another classic quote mine
- BeccaTheCyborg on In case you were wondering…
- Ray Mills on Another classic quote mine
- travc on Another classic quote mine
- bastion on PZ's Galápagos Adventure
Archives
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
(Complete listing)Other Information
Subscribe via Email
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« The apostate kidney | Main | If you get this, you're a geek »
Comments
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.
Posted by: Stephen Erickson | August 29, 2006 1:21 PM
This looks like a job for Cafepress?
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | August 29, 2006 1:23 PM
Alas, squid/automaton marriage is legal only in Japan...
(not that there is anything wrong with that)
Posted by: Brian Dewhirst | August 29, 2006 1:33 PM
There's a place here which makes T-shirts, cheap. That is SO going on one.
Posted by: luna_the_cat | August 29, 2006 1:42 PM
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.
Posted by: pough | August 29, 2006 2:06 PM
I am sorry but I have to know - how many honks do you get per day?
Posted by: Peter Z. | August 29, 2006 2:35 PM
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?
Posted by: Sanguinity | August 29, 2006 2:43 PM
If you can change the traditional meaning of marriage when it suits you, why not science.
Posted by: Emanuel Goldstein | August 29, 2006 2:44 PM
So is that the traditional marriages represented by Saul, David and Solomon?
Posted by: Darkling | August 29, 2006 2:58 PM
>
Darkling, you mean a menage a trois, with all guys?
Posted by: Richard Harris | August 29, 2006 3:09 PM
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?
Posted by: Richard Harris | August 29, 2006 3:21 PM
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.
Posted by: Darkling | August 29, 2006 3:22 PM
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!
Posted by: Richard Harris | August 29, 2006 3:51 PM
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)
Posted by: Alex | August 29, 2006 3:58 PM
We're not changing the 'traditional' meaning of marriage. We're just leaving it rotting in the past, and using a newer, better definition.
Posted by: stogoe | August 29, 2006 3:59 PM
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.
Posted by: Dan | August 29, 2006 4:03 PM
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.
Posted by: Alex | August 29, 2006 4:11 PM
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.
Posted by: Alon Levy | August 29, 2006 4:12 PM
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).
Posted by: Darkling | August 29, 2006 4:21 PM
Hey, let us not forget Ada and Eve!
Posted by: JackGoff | August 29, 2006 4:33 PM
Darkling, Richard was being facetious. There should be a /sarcasm tag that makes it obvious for everyone, I know, but wev.
Posted by: JackGoff | August 29, 2006 4:35 PM
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!
Posted by: RavenT | August 29, 2006 4:42 PM
Is Emanuel Goldstein working to fill the vacuum left by the departure of Jason?
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 29, 2006 4:42 PM
I couldn't help myself...
Posted by: jpf | August 29, 2006 4:59 PM
Okay, guys, i was just being facetious in an anti-religious manner.
Posted by: Richard Harris | August 29, 2006 5:26 PM
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.
Posted by: tintenfisch | August 29, 2006 5:50 PM
Not only that, but also in the US men are for some reason likelier to be atheists than women.
Posted by: Alon Levy | August 29, 2006 6:01 PM
Well...
Posted by: Greco | August 29, 2006 6:36 PM
Totally self-indulgent (and self-serving) but...
If they mated....
Posted by: jpf | August 29, 2006 7:06 PM
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?
Posted by: RavenT | August 29, 2006 8:44 PM
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...
Posted by: Daniel Martin | August 29, 2006 10:44 PM
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
Posted by: Kagehi | August 29, 2006 10:49 PM
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.
Posted by: RedMolly | August 30, 2006 12:38 AM
RedMolly: the article sounds juicy! How about a link?
Posted by: SteveInMI | August 30, 2006 1:29 AM
"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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: It feels good to be a troll. | August 30, 2006 8:11 AM
Steve... coming soon (well, in March, I hope) to a copy of Renaissance Magazine at a newsstand near you. :) Thanks for your interest!
Posted by: RedMolly | August 30, 2006 4:50 PM
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?
Posted by: Keith Douglas | August 30, 2006 8:41 PM
Hey, God created Adolf and Eva, not...umm....
Posted by: Mister Nice Guy | August 31, 2006 3:32 AM
u r a bunch of homos and can i have a sticker
Posted by: james | October 31, 2007 8:09 PM
Marrying someone of the same gender is totally the same as marrying someone of a different species!
Posted by: audrey | April 8, 2008 10:41 PM
audrey is an idiot.
Posted by: dennis | June 6, 2008 3:57 PM
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.
Posted by: dennis | June 6, 2008 4:01 PM