Browse By

But You Expose Your Child to This? A Gay Marriage Argument That Makes No Sense

One of the main arguments for the passage of Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage in California last year was that we have to “protect children.” How horrible it would be, the line went, if America’s children asked their mommies and daddies whether men and women could marry and mommy and daddy responded “Yes”? What a horrid outcome, the line went, for children to be exposed to the idea of men loving men and women loving women! Passing proposition 8 in California, it was asserted, would “protect children from early exposure to homosexual interactions.”

The people who voted for Proposition 8 were disproportionately likely to take their families to church services; two of the biggest huge organizational supporters of Proposition 8 were the Roman Catholic Church and the fundamentalist Christian Focus on the Family. What do these three Jesus-based religious organizations expose children to?

They expose children to violence on a weekly basis.

Crucifixion torture image in Catholic Church

They expose children every week to graphic violent images of torture and death.

Station of the Cross Number Seven Coloring Book

Look, kids! A coloring book! Does anyone have a red crayon? Remember Station #7, St. Francis beseeches the little children, and remember that it’s all your fault: “Remember, compassionate soul, that your sins caused Jesus this painful fall.”

And then there’s the cannibalism:

Communion: Drink Blood, Eat Human Flesh

Some day when you’re big enough, Junior, you can drink the blood and eat the flesh just like Mommy and Daddy do! Won’t that be a special day? “The consummation of the Mass occurs in Holy Communion, where we eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ.”

Protect the children?

You expose your child to all this every week, and you’re complaining that some day maybe your kid might learn that some men love other men and some women love other women?

You want to include violent images in your religious worship rituals, go right ahead. It’s your right. But don’t come crying to me in the next breath about protecting the dear, tender, vulnerable, impressionable children from finding out that gay doesn’t just mean happy.

18 thoughts on “But You Expose Your Child to This? A Gay Marriage Argument That Makes No Sense”

  1. le pelerin says:

    Jim, you’ve been sheltered. Unless you grew up in the church or was around christians with minimal belief, you wouldn’t wince seeing the cricifix or call an unbloody sacrifice of the mass, cannibalism. You’re parroting fundalmentalisms from both extremes: left and right.

    1. Jim says:

      Because WHAT? Kids GOT USED TO IT, so that drinking the blood of Christ and eating his flesh no longer seemed like such a big deal.

      Hmm. Kids get used to ideas and don’t have a problem with things? You mean, they aren’t so incredibly fragile that they need to be protected from the notion that certain things exist?

      Like same-sex marriage?

      Or are you trying to tell me that torture, murder, drinking blood and eating flesh is a less bothersome idea than two women living together?

      1. le pelerin says:

        I’m not pitting homosexuallity and what people find normal against each other, rather showing you that people, like accient Jews didn’t think twice about sacrificing sheep to their God and catholics don’t think twice about hanging a crucifix in their house or on their front lawn. Check out the Cubans in Miami. They have memorials of important things that happened in salvation history, in their yards, and want to be reminded of it. That does not make their children violent, and you know that.

        Two women living together does not bother me. Hey, I lived with 3 other guys at one time!

        1. Jim says:

          Would you extend your conclusion to cover same-sex marriage?

          1. le pelerin says:

            Yes, people would not faint if same sex unions were the law, however bad law that would be, IMO. The problem is not the idea of same sex but the consequences. Marriage is not for the couple primarily but for the children. If societies didn’t think that, there would be no institution of marriage.

            The more self centered people become, the less people stay married or get married in the first place. Same sex unions are not ruining the institution of marriage but selfishness is.

          2. Jim says:

            So there should be a fertility test for marriage, then. Infertile heterosexuals getting married is so selfish.

          3. le pelerin says:

            Because couples are infertile does not make them selfish. However getting married with the intention of not having children is selfish. I wonder if those people in their old age have any regrets? I don’t know any couples infertile by choice who are old. I have friends who are married, no children by choice, seem to always be planning the next trip. Will they have any regrets once they’re in their old age? Have to wait and see. For ourselves we have to plan on how to get 2 kids off to soccer, 1 to band and making sure the 5 year old is happy. Oh, and I can’t forget my job. That the life we chose and we accept the sacrifices that come with it.

            Imagine if there wasn’t marriage, I might have 4 kids from 4 different women, the kids would be growing up without a male role model. I would be adding to the gang problem. That’s why marriage is important. Gay “marriage” is not.

          4. J. Clifford says:

            L.P., your comment is ignorant of the fact that same-sex couples often become married now with the intention of having children. In my larger circle of friends, I can think of four such couples within 5 seconds of consideration.

            Arguments such as these are so completely separate from the facts that they begin to seem like justifications for judgments made before the facts were considered.

          5. Jim says:

            If “getting married with the intention of not having children is selfish,” then couples who know they can’t have kids shouldn’t be allowed to get married according to your logic, correct? Because that, according to your logic, is why gay and lesbian couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry.


          6. J. Clifford says:

            It is the height of self-centeredness for people such as yourselves to deny other people legal equality simply because you have a personal distaste for them.

          7. ReMarker says:

            I concure. If it is OK for any then it should be OK for all. With some exceptions ofc. Example: handicapped parking.

            Marriage is to complex to have simple exceptions, as many of the comments reflect.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I know the hooror. How dare they teach those children hw to have everlasting life! How dare they teach children what the cost of their sin was! How dare they tell children the truth about the nature of God and what he sacraficed for us! It would make much more sense if they simplt let the kids burn in hell….

    1. F.G. Fitzer says:

      He sacrificed spelling?

      1. Jim says:

        Naw, just a leftover habit form the YHWH thing.

  3. Dave says:

    Where you aware that you used form instead of from when you were mocking his spelling?

    1. Jim says:

      ironee is ded.

  4. Me says:

    Spelling Nazis…when you can’t attack the arguement attacking the spelling….

    1. Jim says:

      Yeah, we’ve frog-marched many a vowel off to the OVENS!

      Anonymous doesn’t really have an argument, so there isn’t anything to respond to. You can’t “attack an argument” that doesn’t exist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!