- checking login information
Loading...Legalizing Gay Marriage Could Lead to Android Marriage Says Maryland Gay Marriage Foe
This week Maryland lawmakers heard testimony on a marriage equality bill that is currently being considered in the legislature. In a somewhat inventive argument against marriage equality, Robert Broadus, head of the newly formed anti-gay marriage group Protect Marriage Maryland, said at a packed, near seven-hour public Senate committee hearing, that the bill was “poison” and that it risked laying the groundwork for people marrying non-humans, among them androids.
From On Top Magazine:
Broadus began his remarks by saying the bill was “poison” and no amount of tweaking would make it acceptable.
He added that marriage was based on the idea that “individuals of the same species can reproduce.”
“This is why … people don’t marry with non-humans,” he said. “But also if you pass this bill you will set the groundwork that one day when artificial intelligence is that advanced, we will be considering whether or not people can marry their androids.”
Points for creativity. This is a variation on the usual “gay marriage will lead to legalized bestiality” meme and we all appreciate a fresh argument, no matter how contrived, desperate or absurd it is.
But in case you’ve jumped to the conclusion that Broadus is in any way anti-gay because of his a-slippery-slope-too-far argument, he has been quick to make it known that he’s not against gays – he even refrains from punching them when they hit on him, he says – it’s just that they’ve now got “so much power” they have to be curtailed.
Again from On Top Magazine:
“I’ve known plenty of gay people. I’ve hung out with gay people. I’ve been hit on by gay people,” Broadus said a YouTube clip uploaded before the hearing. “I don’t turn around and punch them. In school, if I saw the gay kid getting picked on, I stood up for the gay kid and tried to stop it.”
“The problem,” he explained, “is that they have gained so much power at this point in time.”
The rest of the video explains how Broadus believes that Maryland citizens are “clearly a people of faith” who oppose gay marriage and the “changing” of the “definition of marriage.”
Broadus also touches on the fact that there are now seven openly gay elected lawmakers in Maryland. While not necessarily indicating support for marriage equality itself, this would seem to suggest however that Maryland voters believe that those legislators will act properly on behalf of the people. Broadus doesn’t comment on this aspect, however.
Following the hearing, Democratic Senator James Brochin, previously against marriage equality, said that his position had shifted and he would support the bill, adding, “The demonization of gay families really bothers me. Are these families going to continue to be treated by the law as second class citizens?”
Brochin brings the number of votes up to 21. The measure will need 24 votes to pass the Senate. Several Democratic legislators remain undecided but advocates are hopeful that the numbers will be there when it comes time to vote whether persuaded by their arguments or by the offensive and sometimes bizzare arguments of marriage equality opponents.
Read more: anti-gay, civil rights, equal rights, gay marriage, gay rights, lgbt rights, maryland, protect marriage maryland
Photo used under the Creative Commons Attribution License, with thanks to br1dotcom.
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may
not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
Recent Comments from Causes
WAR SUCKS AND SO DO WEAPONS! I mean seriously. There are civilians in these wartorn countries. There…
To be fair, the task force says it's compiling an update, and allowing people to look at all the docs…
L&P I asked this before. If the demand has gone down so much, why does mass production (both meat…
meet our writers
187 comments
+ add your own"This is a variation on the usual “gay marriage will lead to legalized bestiality” meme and we all appreciate a fresh argument, no matter how contrived, desperate or absurd it is."
In fact, it is not absurd. It is a legitimate issue, or at least it will be in the decades to come. Its quite apparent that Steve W. is opposed - arbitrarily, I might add - to android marriage.
Broadus has gay friends, how modern of him. We ALL have gay friends, whether we know it or not. But his statement that "gays have so much power these days", don't make me laugh! They're in the news and talked about a lot, but POWER? That's why it's so easy to get married, and adopt children, get a job and a house, get elected, be free from torture and murder, not be screamed about in rightie religions. Oh, yes, POWER is great!
thanx and noted
@Michael G. ..."As an Independent scholar"
:D :D :D
In what exactly? Dare I ask you area of expertise, philosophy ,theology, and "Alternative" anything don't count.
Anybody with even a secondary understanding of history understands the reason the Roman empire fell is because it over extended it's self and outsourced it's security to the Visigoth.
As for YOUR culture and YOUR traditions, well they are in the process of getting tossed onto history's trash heap, I'm all for throwing in a few tires and setting the whole mess on fire,as it's not like we NEED pathetic peoples beleifs/hopes/dreams.
cont'd
**Does any SSM couple have to worry from the risks - such as cancer- or suffer from the side effects of family planning chemicals? None I ever heard of. Fair, equal? Not in my mind.**
-So because gay couples don't have to depend on artificial methods of contraception, they shouldn't be allowed to marry? My husband and I don't need contraceptives either - he's sterile, I'm menopausal. Should we not have been allowed to marry?
**Does any SSM couple have to worry from the risks - such as ectopic pregnancies and complications resulting from sterilization? None I ever heard of. Fair, equal? Not in my mind.**
-See accidental pregnancy response above.
**Does any SSM couple have to worry from the risks - such as psychological damage- or even go through an abortion? None I ever heard of. Fair, equal? Not in my mind.**
-So because children born to gay/lesbian couples are wanted, they shouldn't be allowed to marry?
**Does any SSM couple you ever heard of have an ILL-TIMED pregnancy? None I ever heard of, why would they. Fair, equal? Not in my mind.**
-See accidental pregnancy response above.
@MichaelG:
**Polyamory Marriage - sex with a group**
-Wouldn't be my choice of relationship (I'm bad enough with names as it is), but as long as everyone in the group is a consenting adult, why should it bother me if others do it?
**Polygamy and Polyandry Marriage – 2m/1w or 2w/1m**
-See response above.
**Pederasty – man/boy, woman/girl of state-by-state legal age (14+) marriage**
-Minors under sixteen can already enter into heterosexual marriages with parental consent in most states, so how would this be any different?
**Playboy Marriage – man marrying two women for more sex (ménage a trois**
-See polyamory response.
**Incestuous Marriage – brother/sister, mother/daughter, son/father, aunt/niece, uncle/nephew, etc.**
-I don't have the hots for my sister, my mom, or any of my aunts, but f you and your brother/dad/uncle, etc. want to get jiggy, go for it - as long as you're all consenting adults.
**Do any SSM couples have to fool around with family planning? None I ever heard of. You? Fair, equal? Not in my mind.**
-So because they can't accidentally get pregnant, they shouldn't be aloowed to marry?
**Does any SSM couple have to worry from the risks - such as cancer- or suffer from the side effects of family planning chemicals? None I ever heard of. Fair, equal? Not in my mind.**
-So because gay couples don't have to depend on artificial methods of contraception, they shouldn't be allowed to marry? My husband and I don't
@MichaelG:
**Polyamory Marriage - sex with a group**
-Wouldn't be my choice of relationship (I'm bad enough with names as it is), but as long as everyone in the group is a consenting adult, why should it bother me if others do it?
**Polygamy and Polyandry Marriage – 2m/1w or 2w/1m**
-See response above.
**Pederasty – man/boy, woman/girl of state-by-state legal age (14+) marriage**
-Minors under sixteen can already enter into heterosexual marriages with parental consent in most states, so how would this be any different?
**Playboy Marriage – man marrying two women for more sex (ménage a trois**
-See polyamory response.
**Incestuous Marriage – brother/sister, mother/daughter, son/father, aunt/niece, uncle/nephew, etc.**
-I don't have the hots for my sister, my mom, or any of my aunts, but f you and your brother/dad/uncle, etc. want to get jiggy, go for it - as long as you're all consenting adults.
**Do any SSM couples have to fool around with family planning? None I ever heard of. You? Fair, equal? Not in my mind.**
-So because they can't accidentally get pregnant, they shouldn't be aloowed to marry?
**Does any SSM couple have to worry from the risks - such as cancer- or suffer from the side effects of family planning chemicals? None I ever heard of. Fair, equal? Not in my mind.**
-So because gay couples don't have to depend on artificial methods of contraception, they shouldn't be allowed to marry? My husband and I don't
SSM appears to me as the debut of a gay married elite class. The same one that often justifies their genesis to heterosexual divorce and abortion rates.
Besides the above scenario, legalized SSM will open the door to marriage freedom. Sounds good until you define freedom to marry as the following kinds:
Polyamory Marriage - sex with a group
Polygamy and Polyandry Marriage – 2m/1w or 2w/1m
Pederasty – man/boy, woman/girl of state-by-state legal age (14+) marriage
Playboy Marriage – man marrying two women for more sex (ménage a trois)
Incestuous Marriage – brother/sister, mother/daughter, son/father, aunt/niece, uncle/nephew, etc.
This is my cultural viewpoint, and I know a lot of persons who support SSM will be disappointed, but I'm sorry, I don't make the cultural rules, I only support them for the long term so societies can continue their traditions without being unduly disturbed. The Roman Empire did not fall for no good reason. The same applies here.
As an Independent Scholar, I have reviewed other type of marriages and say no to all of them. I say no to SSM, and to support one man/one woman marriage only.
The Cultural Consequences of Marriage outside of One man/One woman
Much has been said of marriage outside of the traditional one man/one woman marriage, especially same sex marriage (SSM). However, you will read next to nothing about the consequences to the culture once SSM is legalized.
First of all, a cultural argument can be made that SSM violates the civil rights of heterosexual married couples. I ask these questions:
Do any SSM couples have to fool around with family planning? None I ever heard of. You? Fair, equal? Not in my mind.
Does any SSM couple have to worry from the risks - such as cancer- or suffer from the side effects of family planning chemicals? None I ever heard of. Fair, equal? Not in my mind.
Does any SSM couple have to worry from the risks - such as ectopic pregnancies and complications resulting from sterilization? None I ever heard of. Fair, equal? Not in my mind.
Does any SSM couple have to worry from the risks - such as psychological damage- or even go through an abortion? None I ever heard of. Fair, equal? Not in my mind.
Does any SSM couple you ever heard of have an ILL-TIMED pregnancy? None I ever heard of, why would they. Fair, equal? Not in my mind. That's a huge one, considering the majority of persons born on this planet may "technically" (or more so..) be in the category of ill-timed, unless one's conception may have originated in the minds of a SS couple.
SSM appears to me as the debut of a gay married elite class. Th
ROFLMAO....Really? Does he really think this makes ANY sense at all? First of all, there weren't androids running the streets last I checked. Second, if he's so concered, simply add on to the bill stating that marriage is between two adult human beings. This would rule out androids, animals, children, or whatever weird thought he has next. I swear some people simply want their 15 min in the spotlight. Well sir, you definitely have yours.
login to add your comment
use your care2 login
add your comment