Homofascists Sure Like to Attack Christians and Abuse Black History

Apparently, Twitter user Lithobolos ‏@Lithobolos didn't think my longtime pen pal could handle disagreeing with me himself, so he decided to jump in with the standard homofascist marriage neutering talking points, and most recently tweeted this out, along with a picture of two men (I think they're men - I guess we're not supposed to assume these days) kissing.

Weird people like @PlayfulWalrus find the best deal of these two getting married offensive. #lgbt #tcot #uniteblue

Notice that it was not written in response form, and along with the hashtags, is an obvious plea for help from fellow fascists.


The discussion was about whether people like bakers, florists, and photographers should be forced (at gunpoint, ultimately) to either participate in an event that mocks there sincerely held convictions, one of the most enduring & widely held convictions in human history - that marriage unites a bride and groom - or be forced out of a business.


Is it really "weird" of me to support liberty over fascism? To support the First Amendment rights of business owners? The arguments I have been making are not about whether I'm personally offended. It is about freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and free markets.



Let's look at some other gems from @Lithobolos. He tried to equate brideless or groomless "marriage" with "interracial" marriage. Trying to equate marriage neutering with civil rights might be emotionally effective, and it totally makes sense when you consider that what you choose to do with your genitals is JUST LIKE being black! Everyone remembers that gay people were taken by force by the thousands from their homes in perilous ocean voyages and then systematically enslaved and treated as property rather than human beings, and how for decades after they were freed, they were denied the vote, forcibly segregated, and tortured & lynched in public spectacles with the whole town, including children, cheering and posing for pictures. I remember that. Don't you???

Let's get real. Not one of the Founding Fathers who wrote and adopted our Constitution, not a single great historical religious leader, not one of the great historical moral or civil rights leaders ever indicated that there was a right to have a brideless or groomless pairing recognized by law as marriage – not Frederick Douglass, not Susan B. Anthony, not Gandhi, not Martin Luther King, Jr. – none. Not a single President of the United States up until Obama announced a change in his mind had ever said a marriage exists without a bride or without a groom. Those who understand that marriage unites the sexes are in good company.

The attempt to portray "sexual orientation" as the same as "race" falls flat. Nobody wonders, when a baby is born, if that baby will be black or not.

Seriously, here's an example:

@PlayfulWalrus People have long standing conviction races shouldn't mix. They even made it illegal!

This is actually a very different matter than bans on interracial marriage. See here and here.

Although he fails to comprehend the differences, this line of reasoning has been effectively obliterated by me and by others. See here, here, here, and here. It a nutshell, no major, longstanding religious tradition bans "interracial" marriage, in contrast to the universal recognition that the bride+groom union is different and beneficial for society. Bans on "interracial" marriage were about perpetuating segregation, the bride+groom union is about perpetuating integration. Bans on "interracial" marriage denied the freedom of association; forcing a business owner to participate in an event that violates their conscience also denies the freedom of association, as well as freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Some states had bans on "interracial" marriage; every culture and country recognized only the bride+groom union as marriage until extremely recently, when a relatively small number of countries have bowed down to the activists (even the self-identified Christian churches that are performing "wedding" ceremonies  for brideless or groomless couples now could  have done the same 30, 40, 50 years ago in many places without breaking in any laws, yet they didn't - why not?). Skin color is irrelevant to marriage; sex in inherent to marriage.

@PlayfulWalrus 1st amendment, as in if I have a view of religion where being gay is okay I can get married.

Nobody is stopping anyone from having a ceremony. That a baker, florist, or photographer opts out does not prevent going to another business, and even if another business is not found, the ceremony can still be conducted.

@PlayfulWalrus Laws against cohabitation are unconstitutional, so that's another point in my favor.

He failed to grasp the point. In the past, when an "interracial" couple was banned from marriage, they could be prevented from living together. Today, even where brideless or groomless couples can't get a state license, nobody is stopping them from living together. There's a world of difference.

@Lithobolos I know you want to pretend it is the same, but it isn't.

@PlayfulWalrus It is, the same biblical arguments made in 1950 are being made now. No reason to ban them other than your opinion of god.

First, this discussion was not about a ban. It was about forcing a business owner to participate in an event. Religion is relevant because of the business owner's sincerely held and mainstream religious conviction. There is no requirement that their religion be approved by @Lithobolos or anyone else.


Secondly, many different religious and secular arguments are being made in defense of the bride+groom requirement in state licenses. It is an entirely reasonable thing to do. See this secular Facebook group. See this gay group, too.


There are many reasons why someone may support retaining the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing. One need not hate homosexual people, nor disapprove of homosexual behavior to support the bride+groom requirement. However, in this particular case, we are talking about participating in an event, not about trying to restore bride+groom requirements to state laws. nor refusing to serve people.

Finally, if an argument was incorrectly used on the past, it does not mean it isn't correctly applied to something else today. For example:

"Don't touch that door handle, it will burn you."

That might not have been true. Assuming it wasn't the case, it doesn't mean that the lit stove won't burn you, either.

@PlayfulWalrus Actually many Jews had major rules against marrying non Jews, you can't ignore the past 300 years.

Who is ignoring history? He appears to be confusing Judaism as a practiced religion with Jewish designation by birth.

@PlayfulWalrus Interracial marriage was taboo since the foundation of the country. Iron Age mythology isn't the basis of modern rights.

It doesn't matter if he wants to mock the Bible (although I challenge him and other Bible mockers to read some challenging material). The Constitution should be recognized as giving business owners the option of opting out private events that violate the conscience of the owner. However, how old something is doesn't determine whether or not it is true.

@Lithobolos Wrong. These businesses served gay people. They declined to participate in an event. Big difference.

@PlayfulWalrus They sell a service, such as photographer etc. You can't discriminate as a business.

Actually, we allow businesses to discriminate over which events they will participate in all of the time.

@Lithobolos Claims of "rights" have been used to own people as property. That doesn't mean there are no legitimate claims to actual rights.

@PlayfulWalrus You have to show how those rights logical follow the golden rule, human dignity, reason etc. Marriage equality does.

I wonder where that is written? Neutering marriage is not a right. Bride+groom is marriage equality.

@PlayfulWalrus Actually the Groom+many brides was common in the old testament. So was slavery and war crimes.

Notice what he tried to do there? He wants to deny someone their Constitutional freedoms because the Bible records various  forms of slavery and what he calls "war crimes" (under which laws were they crimes, I wonder?) and polygamy - which, by the way, still had marriage as bride+groom. The Bible describes (records) many things that are not endorsed in the Bible as the right thing to do.


It isn't like these business owners have come up with some novel idea. Even in societies where homosexual behavior was publicly accepted, even expected and celebrated, marriage involved uniting the two sexes. That marriage neutering advocates can cite isolated incidents where rogues united a few same-sex couples in a ceremony no more indicates that a same-sex coupling has historically been recognized as marriage than the incidents of women "marrying" themselves demonstrates that marriage only requires one person, or someone "marrying" the Eiffel Tower means that human-building unions have been recognized as "marriage".

Marriage as a sacred union between a bride and groom is not some fringe idea. It is a religious conviction that spans history and is found around the world. It isn't like these business owners woke up one day and decided they wanted to stick it people who identify as homosexual. They have happily served such people, but drawn the line at participating in an event that violates their conscience. There's a difference between behavior and people. Rather than tolerating such diversity and freedom of religion, rather than going to a business owner who will enthusiastically participate in their events, activists are literally hunting people down to make examples of them and/or drive them out of business. How insecure can people be that they insist everyone must cheer their personal lives? This is just one of the predicted harms of neutering marriage.


Recognizing and valuing the difference between marriage and other voluntary associations is something that need not be based on Christianity. Just look all over the world, and all throughout history. Someone can based their conviction on biology alone. There are non-religious arguments against neutering marriage:

1) Men and women are different. Even most of the people who try to deny this demonstrate that they understand this to be true. After all, if men and women were not different, all, or at least three, of the terms in "LGBT" would have no meaning.

2) The pairing of a man and a woman is different than the pairing of two men or two women. It is the only kind of pairing that is able to naturally produce new citizens (who, unlike the adults, do not consent to the relationship), even if not all do. This alone is enough to give the state more interest in the pairing of a man and a woman.

3) Men and women are different in personal relationships. If that difference matters enough to someone in picking a lover, how can it not matter when it comes to the parent-child relationship?

4) State licensing of bride+groom pairings provides children with a role model, guardian, and bonding partner from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society, legally bound to each other as well as the children; generally, this is good for children.

5) It is constitutional, moral, common, and necessary to treat different kinds of relationships differently.

6) One need not believe homosexual behavior, relationships, or people to be harmful, sinful, or inferior to accept any or all of #1-5.

All laws discriminate and impose some form of morality. Marriage neutering advocates discriminate, too, and they often struggle to explain the basis for their discrimination. These business owners who are convinced that they shouldn't participate in brideless or groomless "weddings" are not making up the basis of their objection. They are citing sources that are available for anyone to read and study for themselves, sources that have been around for thousands of years. Literally from the first book of the Bible to the last, marriage is presented as something sacred that unites a bride and groom. You will not find the same when it comes to an insistence that a union can only be allowed or honored as marriage if the participants are the same "race". (The Bible doesn't even deal with race as it is talked about in the last few hundred years. If you want some material that sees humanity as various races instead of one and says some races are inferior to others, grab some Darwin or his buddy Huxley.)

The government should, and can, and does, discriminate between different kinds of voluntary associations. Bride+groom requirements in state licenses DO provide equal rights. One need not be religious at all to recognize the truth of these things. Nor does someone need to be religious to see a marriage as a special thing uniting a bride and groom. However, when someone has a religious objection to participating in a brideless or groomless "wedding", that is protected under the Constitution and our laws and courts should support that. It should also be a matter of common decency, but some of these activists will literally stop at nothing to impose themselves on everyone. They used to insist we stay out of their bedrooms, now they demand we celebrate their ceremonies.

These business owners are not forcing anyone to comply with their beliefs. They are exercising their freedom of association, freedom of enterprise, and freedom of religion. The state authorities are now trying to force these people to comply with their beliefs. Usually, I'm not using religion to note the obvious difference between men and women, and thus marriage from brideless or groomless pairings, nor do I use religion in recognizing a floral shop owner should have the freedom of association and their freedom of religion.

For further reading:

Playing Dumb About the Traditional Family
A Tough Standard For Human Behavior
Same-sex "Marriage" - Reviewing the Basics
Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant