“But it’s been this way for 5,000 years!,” says Tony.
No, Tony, it hasn’t. Lawrence O’Donnell points out that Perkins could debunk his own talking points about marriage simply by reading his “beloved Bible.”
[h/t Joe]
Lawrence O’Donnell Tears Apart Tony Perkins’ Fake “History” Of Marriage
28About the Author
Related Posts
This is not only very good, O”Donnell missed an opportunity.
Google “Christian polygamy in africa” and see what comes up.
The president of South Africa is a christian. he also has FOUR– count ‘em, FOUR– wives.
So let’s say there was an Adam & an Eve. They never had a marriage ceremony & were a man & a woman because there were only two persons. So then they are told by God to be fruitful & multiply. There is no incest at the time. So Adam & Eve produce children & not only do the children breed together but Adam has sex with his daughters, & Eve with her sons because why not? Nowhere does the Bible not say this happened. I mean, what the heck do they think be fruitful & multiply means after all? So much for one man and one woman.
Tony Perkins has has his a** handed to him on a platter so many times over the past couple of days that he must, by now, view it as more ubiquitous than Thanksgiving leftovers.
That was a thing of beauty. For future editions if they really want to get the “one man one woman for 5,000 years” crowd in a twist they could talk about how some societies have married their kids off to ghosts or even dogs to cement inter-family relations. That would put a crimp in claims that our marriages would be the catalysts for such things.
Absolutely amazing clip! Thanks for sharing this pointed, articulate argument against bigotry.
Mr. O’Donnell did a poor job.
He did make a good point that Mr. Perkins said that marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman here, and marriage supporters do state that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That being said, the actual claim by marriage supporters is that spouses have always been male and female throughout history, and so it follows that you have to have, at a bare minimum, one male and one female to have a marriage. So Mr. O’Donnell’s discussion of polygamy really has no bearing.
Secondly, he takes the Bible out of context. If he had fully quoted Exodus 21, we would have learned that…
1. If a man rejects a servant woman to be his wife, she is to be given her freedom.
2. If the man’s son wishes to marry this servant woman, she’s to be taken in as a family member and treated as a daughter.
3. If the man marries another woman instead of the servant woman, the girl is to receive food, clothing, and lodging.
Polygamy is not being promoted here. And the story of King Solomon and his wives is an historical narrative, and not a promotion of taking many wives, which is warned against in Deuteronomy 17:17.
Jerry, baby, you’re back. I’m still stalking you.
And thank you foradmitting that polygamy is not being promoted in the gay marriage debate.
“And thank you foradmitting that polygamy is not being promoted in the gay marriage debate.”
You are right, but there is an implicit point made that same-sex marriage activists need to address. That if marriage is not anything in particular but is merely defined by society in a way that the definition can change to meet changing conditions, then one cannot argue that marriage cannot include polygamous, incestuous, underage, bestial relationships. No one can even argue that marriage must be based on consent, because who are we to impose our own dogmatic definition of marriage upon others who don’t happen to conform to our narrow views of morality?
You would have a point if you didn’t mimic the same faulty “logic” used to oppress interracial relationships. The forces of bigotry never change tactics. They merely change targets. Thank you for proving this, Jeremiah.
Aulton, same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. One’s ethnic origin has no bearing on marriage. One’s own sex does. Also, laws against interracial marriage prevented the essential public purpose from being realized, bringing the sexes together, attaching them to each other and to their children. Same-sex marriage, like those laws, also prevents marriage’s core function from being fulfilled.
That’s not what people were arguing when interracial marriage was actually being debated Jeremiah. One of the bigot’s favorite arguments was that the races needed to be kept seperate lest the children of such unions suffer. But since such suffering would only be at the hands of bigots and since procreation is not and has never been a requirement for a civil marriage license, it was recongized as being nothing more than an excuse to discriminate just like it is now.
Also, what part of informed consent do you find confusing? So no there is no “implicite point” that we need to address. You discrimination activists are the only one who bring such things as reducto ad absurdum because you know you’re running out of excuses to continue legal discrimination against gay people. And some of those points make me seriously worry for the safety of your wives.
I love watching anti-Gay posters twist themselves into ever-tighter pretzels trying to justify their own personal animus and bigotry. It’s pretty damn funny, if I do say so myself.
Jerry dear. Really? the same tired arguments? No one is saying that marriage can or should be anything anyone wants it to be. That’s a right wing talking point, or your talking point.
Here’s the question,
If a man can marry a woman, why can’t he marry two or three? What does the answer to that question have to do with same sex marriage,
If a man can marry a woman, why can’t he marry a ten year old girl? what does the answer to that question have to do with same sex marriage?.
The Supreme Court used the natural tie of procreation in marriage as one of the basis for their decision on Loving v. Virginia, which overturned Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, so the purpose of marriage being unfulfilled was part of the argument against interracial marriage laws.
“No one is saying that marriage can or should be anything anyone wants it to be.”
Actually, they are. They define marriage as the union of two people (but why only two is never made clear) who commit to romantic partnership and domestic life, therefore essentially an emotional union, merely enhanced by whatever sexual activity partners find agreeable. Marriage, for them, is an invention of culture, like body piercing and tattoos, and can be anything culture defines it to be.
Jeremiah said “That being said, the actual claim by marriage supporters is that spouses have always been male and female throughout history, and so it follows that you have to have, at a bare minimum, one male and one female to have a marriage. So Mr. O’Donnell’s discussion of polygamy really has no bearing.”.
That’s not true at all. The actual claim by marriage opponents has ALWAYS been that marriage has been one man/one woman for all time. They make that statment to faslely claim this means marriage has never been changed and polygamous marriages are therefore disallowed. You contradict yourself here by later also claiming that marriage is defined as one man/one woman and therefore this disallows polygamous marriages.
You later say if one removes the one man/one woman restriction then polygamous marriages cannot be disallowed because if marriage is not one man/one woman, then it is “nothing in particular”. So, which is it, that to have a marriage you must have at a bare minimum one male and one female, or you must have only one man and one woman? You have no problem making contradictory arguments if they also oppose same sex marriage, that shows you are driven by animus, not logic.
Jeremiah said “That if marriage is not anything in particular but is merely defined by society in a way that the definition can change to meet changing conditions, then one cannot argue that marriage cannot include polygamous, incestuous, underage, bestial relationships.”.
Defining marriage as the union of two people IS defining marriage as something in particular so your argument is false from the very start. Marriage has always changed to meet changing conditions. At one time polygamous marriages were allowed, at one time marriage was a business contract whereby one man (a father) transferred his property (his daughter) to another man (her husband) – romantic love had nothing to do with it. The slippery slope argument is a classic example of a logical fallacy which you’d admit if you weren’t driven solely by animus to oppose marriage equality based on irrelevant technicalities.
There is nothing preventing society from defining marriage as the union of two people and saying those other kinds of marriages are disallowed and in fact that’s EXACTLY what’s happened around the world when marriage equality has been enacted. NO jurisdiction allowing same sex marriages has decided that means they can’t disallow polygamous, incestous, underatge or bestial marriages so once again your slippery slope argument is a lie.
Jeremiah said “No one can even argue that marriage must be based on consent, because who are we to impose our own dogmatic definition of marriage upon others who don’t happen to conform to our narrow views of morality?”.
If defining marriage as a union of two people means we can’t argue that marriage must be based on consent then it is also true that defining marriage as one man/one woman means we can’t argue that marriage must be based on consent – its nonsense in either case.
Who are we to argue that marriage must be based on consent? We are individuals that must compromise in order to get along with each other and maximize the benefit and minimize the harm to all in an equal fashion. It is your definition of marriage that is based on dogma, not progressive’s. The progressive definition of marriage is based on minimizing harm and maximizing benefit. Morality demands that people be able to give informed consent before they can marry, its about preventing exploitation and harm which is the basis for all morality. Morality demands that gays be allowed to marry, it does not require society to allow marriages that are exploitive and harmful by nature or in practice.
Jeremiah said “Aulton, same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. One’s ethnic origin has no bearing on marriage. One’s own sex does.”.
False. Bans on same sex and interacial marriage amount to the same thing – oppressing harmless innocent minorities to the detriment of society because of the animus of the majority. The gender of one’s spouse has no bearing on the success and value of a marriage just as the race of one’s spouse does not either.
Jeremiah said “Also, laws against interracial marriage prevented the essential public purpose from being realized, bringing the sexes together, attaching them to each other and to their children.”.
Laws against same sex marriage prevent the essential purpose from being realized, bringing people togehter, and attaching them to each other and their children. One third of same sex couples have children. Bigots like you always disingenously claim you oppose same sex marriage because you are concerned for children, but if that was true you’d be demanding that same sex couples be allowed to marry and give their children the benefits of married parents. You don’t give a damn about children, you hate children and want to harm them, your opposition to marriage equality is proof of that.
Jeremiah said “Same-sex marriage, like those laws, also prevents marriage’s core function from being fulfilled.”.
That’s a lie as you well know. The same sex couple down the street getting married in no way prevents opposite sex couples getting married and having children.
Jeremiah said “The Supreme Court used the natural tie of procreation in marriage as one of the basis for their decision on Loving v. Virginia, which overturned Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, so the purpose of marriage being unfulfilled was part of the argument against interracial marriage laws.”
That’s a lie. That marriage often involves procreation is irrelevent. The ruling never said that procreation was a requirement of marriage. It has never been and never will be. And if procreation were a concern one third of same sex couples have children but yet you couldn’t care less what harm comes to them by denying them married parents. No where does the law say couples who adopt are not parents, that they are not a family. Society has always recognized that the children of non-biological parents deserve the exact same protections and rights as the children of biological parents. That both parents in a same sex couple may not be the child’s biological parent is irrelevant, a just, fair, and caring society MUST give them the same protection of marriage it gives to opposite sex couples.
Ben said “No one is saying that marriage can or should be anything anyone wants it to be.”
Jeremiah said “Actually, they are.”.
NO, they AREN’T. The unions same sex couples want enshrined in law is NOT anything anyone wants it to be. It is NOT polygamous, incestuous, bestial, or underage marriages.
Jeremiah said “They define marriage as the union of two people (but why only two is never made clear) who commit to romantic partnership and domestic life, therefore essentially an emotional union, merely enhanced by whatever sexual activity partners find agreeable.”.
You’ve defined marriage as a miniumum of one male and one female. You’ve accepted polygamous marriages and if opposite sex is the only requirement as you stress, why not one man and his daughter, one woman and a 4 year old boy, one man and a female horse?
Jeremiah said “Marriage, for them, is an invention of culture, like body piercing and tattoos, and can be anything culture defines it to be.”.
I don’t think you’re really that stupid, you’re just blinded by bigotry. OF COURSE marriage is an invention of culture – you don’t see marriage in the animal kingdom. And OF COURSE marriage can be anything culture defines it to be, but we are not trying to define it as ANYTHING. We are defining it based on equality, the minimization of harm, the maximization of benefit and for the good of society. You are defining it on the basis of oppressing gays. You are a bigot out to harm society.
Jerry ,dear. you’ve managed to avoid answering my two (or four, depending on how you count them) simple questions.
Please do.
Marriage is not about procreation. People choose to procreate within marriage or outside of marriage. It is a completely separate decision in the modern world. Some people marry and decide they don’t want children. Others want children but are infertile – yet their marriages remain intact.
Human beings are not viruses with the single minded purpose of replication. Life and love encompass so much more than reproduction. It often seems that fundies are obsessed with baby making. Which is odd, because the failed economic ideas they support often condemn these new babies to lives of poverty.
Finally, if marriage is about reproduction, how do fundies plan on imposing this arbitrary standard on heterosexual couples? Are they suggesting a fundie Nanny State where big government asks couples how many babies they plan to produce? If the couples tell the government regulators they don’t want kids will they be forbiden from marrying?
How odd the procreation argument only comes up when debating gay marriage. It seems our opponents are hypocritical, insincere, and trafficking in bigotry by enshrining a double standard into the law.
I will try to keep this short, Priya Lynn.
The claim is that from the dawn of civilization, marriage has always been between men and women, and though there have been variations on the theme does not mean there has been no theme. In other words, the one core feature of marriage that makes it distinct from any other relationship is that spouses have always been male and female.
“NO jurisdiction allowing same sex marriages has decided that means they can’t disallow polygamous, incestous, underatge or bestial marriages so once again your slippery slope argument is a lie.”
So marriage supporters are pointing out that same-sex marriage activists are acting arbitrarily. Like Judge Walker of California. He stated that marriage being one man and woman “unconstitutionally burden(s) the fundamental right to marry, without explaining why he drew the line at that limitation and not at any others. It was disingenuous to strike Prop. 8 down based on the idea that it’s burdening the right to marry if Judge Walker is going to retain the other limitations.
“…then it is also true that defining marriage as one man/one woman means we can’t argue that marriage must be based on consent – its nonsense in either case.”
No, because marriage supporters are not arguing that marriage is a social convention that can be defined at will.
“Morality demands that gays be allowed to marry…”
Morality is not about doing what is right for you. It’s about doing what is right. And you cannot appeal to an objective moral standard of equality while ignoring the objective moral standard of marriage.
“Bans on same sex and interacial marriage amount to the same thing – oppressing harmless innocent minorities to the detriment of society because of the animus of the majority.”
False. The bans on interracial marriage prevented the essential public purpose of marriage from being fulfilled, which (again) is attaching fathers and mothers to each other and to their children. A same-sex marriage, as with anti-miscegenation laws, also prevents the purpose of marriage being fulfilled.
“…if that was true you’d be demanding that same sex couples be allowed to marry and give their children the benefits of married parents. You don’t give a damn about children, you hate children and want to harm them…”
Any children being raised in a single-gender couple home comes from a choice made by adults to place children in an environment which is sterile to produce them and lacks the qualities of a dual-gender home. Since these adults choose to deliberately place children in an environment which is neither legally nor financially protected, they should be prepared to endure the consequences of their decision and not place the burden of their personal decision back on society. People of character take responsibility for their decisions. That being said, I have the utmost compassion for children being raised in such a home, and we as members of society should help with the needs of these children without promoting the narcissistic decisions of their caregivers. A compassionate and moral society comes to the aid of motherless or fatherless children and never purposefully creates motherless or fatherless families…which occurs in every same-sex marriage.
“The same sex couple down the street getting married in no way prevents opposite sex couples getting married and having children.”
You are using equivocal language here. There is marriage or there is same-sex marriage. They are not the same thing, i.e., they are mutually exclusive. So the dual-gender can enter a marriage with intrinsic value or they can enter a marriage which value changes with the wind. They cannot do both.
And thank you for raising some interesting points. You offered some very reasonable challenges.
And if you decide to reply, I’ll let you have the last word.
And rereading what I wrote, I noticed I should have proofread it before posting. Apologies for any errors in punctuation, spelling, etc.
No Jeremiah. The claim is that from the dawn of civilization marriage has always been ONE man and ONE woman. That is objectively a lie which you are now moving the goalposts in order to escape in typical bigot fashion.
Discrimination advocates such as yourself are acting arbitrarily. Walker struck down Prop 8 because of the unequal burden it placed on gay people specifically and because that burden was placed for no other reason than the animus of certain people.
Discrimination advocates such as yourself are arguing only that gay people are inferior and that the law needs to treat us as such. That is your only argument.
Doing right means not hurting people. Since the only purpose of restricting marriage rights is to hurt a group of people, your discriminatory stance is objectively wrong. There is no “objective morality” of marriage, especially in light of its many objectively wrong variations like men being able to legally rape their wives.
When your fellow bigots were arguing that the races needed to be kept seperate, one of their arguments was that they needed to prevent the suffering they would inflict on the children of such unions. And procreation can not be the “public purpose” of marriage since it is not and has never been a requirement. The purpose of the interracial marriage bans was to keep a minority “in it’s place”. That is the exact same reason you support bans on gay marriage, no matter what excuses you make to justify it.
What qualities does an opposite sex couple have that a same-sex couple does not? Same-sex couples are not placing the “burden of their decision” back on society. That is being done by bigots like you who insist that those families need to be denied legal protections. If you weren’t so determined to discriminate against families that don’t match your myopic ideal, they would be able to care for their families themselves. As always, you child-murdering bigots have only yourselves to blame for the problems you try to lay at our feet.
You have no compassion for the children of gay couples. If you had any compassion, you would be working to give them the same legal protections as their peers. Instead you do everything in your power to hurt them and seperate them from their parents. It is not narcissistic to open our homes to the children you throw away like so much trash. It is your narcissism that created these children’s needs in the first place and it is your narcissism that continues to hurt them as we do everything in our power to give them the love and care they need. You are hurting families.
The ability of a same-sex couple to get a legal marriage license and the legal benefits that go with it in no way impedes the ability of an opposite-sex couple to do the same, so they are in no way mutually-exclusive. If you are so insecure in your marriage that denying it to others is the only way to find value in it, than that is your shortcoming to deal with, not ours.
The challanges we bring up are the reason you will continue to lie and do everything in your power to hurt people just so you can justify your bigotry.
Jeremiah said “The claim is that from the dawn of civilization, marriage has always been between men and women, and though there have been variations on the theme does not mean there has been no theme. In other words, the one core feature of marriage that makes it distinct from any other relationship is that spouses have always been male and female.”
That’s not true. Mankind has exsited in its present form for 200,000 years and we only have written history going back 7000 years or so. We don’t know what marriage was like for the vast majority of human civilization. As well there have always been intermittent same sex marriages throughout history in a variety of cultures, including at one time in the Catholic church several hundred years ago. And none of this changes the fact that you said “marriage has always been the marriage of at least one male and one female”. You keep trying to blame same sex marriage for destroying the rationale for opposing polygamy but you have admitted yourself you never had a rationale for opposing polygamy at any time given your male/female definition of marriage.
I said “NO jurisdiction allowing same sex marriages has decided that means they can’t disallow polygamous, incestous, underatge or bestial marriages so once again your slippery slope argument is a lie.”
Jeremiah said “So marriage supporters are pointing out that same-sex marriage activists are acting arbitrarily. Like Judge Walker of California. He stated that marriage being one man and woman “unconstitutionally burden(s) the fundamental right to marry, without explaining why he drew the line at that limitation and not at any others. It was disingenuous to strike Prop. 8 down based on the idea that it’s burdening the right to marry if Judge Walker is going to retain the other limitations.”.
No, its not arbitrary. There are societal benefits to allowing gays to marry and no societal harm. Gays and Judge Walker are under no obligation to argue for or against polygamy and the like, that is not our issue, our point is solely that its unjust to deny gays the right to marry, that is the only case we have to make. If you want to justify opposing other kinds of marriages by all means do so, but “because we don’t let gays marry” is not a justification for banning polygamy and the like. I can make the case that those other kinds of marriage you mention are harmful in nature or in practice, but I’m under no obligation to justify opposition to polygamy or incestuous marriages in order to make the case that its unjust to deny gays the right to marry.
I said “…then it is also true that defining marriage as one man/one woman means we can’t argue that marriage must be based on consent – its nonsense in either case.”
Jermiah said “No, because marriage supporters are not arguing that marriage is a social convention that can be defined at will.”.
Yes you are. You’ve both argued that marriage is the union of at least one man and one woman and that marriage is the union of only one man and one woman. It is a social convention and you are defining it at will. Whether or not you admit that is irrelevant.
I said “Morality demands that gays be allowed to marry…”
Jermiah said “Morality is not about doing what is right for you.”.
That’s where you’re wrong. Morality is “Do whatever you want but harm no one.”
Jeremiah said “It’s about doing what is right.”
Same sex mariage harms no one and is therefore by definition “right”. Opposing loving committed gay marriages is harmful and by defintion is “wrong”:.
Jeremiah said “And you cannot appeal to an objective moral standard of equality while ignoring the objective moral standard of marriage.”.
The objective moral standard of marriage is based on harm and benefit. Gays marrying harms no one and denying them marriage harms gays. I am not ignoring the objective moral standard of marriage, you are.
I said “Bans on same sex and interacial marriage amount to the same thing – oppressing harmless innocent minorities to the detriment of society because of the animus of the majority.”
Jeremiah said “False. The bans on interracial marriage prevented the essential public purpose of marriage from being fulfilled, which (again) is attaching fathers and mothers to each other and to their children. A same-sex marriage, as with anti-miscegenation laws, also prevents the purpose of marriage being fulfilled”.
No what I said was true – you’re a liar. The same sex couple down the street marrying in no way interferes with .”attaching fathers and mothers to each other and to their children.”. Denying gays the right to marriage is what interferes with attaching parents to each other and to their children. Once again you hypocritically seek to deny to gays and their children what you claim is essential to heterosexuals and their children – that is grossly immoral.
I said “…if that was true you’d be demanding that same sex couples be allowed to marry and give their children the benefits of married parents. You don’t give a damn about children, you hate children and want to harm them…”
Jeremiah said “Any children being raised in a single-gender couple home comes from a choice made by adults to place children in an environment which is sterile to produce them and lacks the qualities of a dual-gender home.”.
Many heterosexual couples place children in an environment that couldn’t produce them, but of course you’re not arguing that adoptive parents should be disadvantaged under the law because you know as a matter of morality the children of non-biological parents are just as valuable as the children of biological parents, of course except when it comes to gays. Dozens and dozens, if not hundreds of studies show children of same sex parents do just as well, if not better than the children of heteroesexual parents. Your insinuation that the children of gay parents are deprived has no basis in fact and is driven solely by animus.
Jeremiah said “Since these adults choose to deliberately place children in an environment which is neither legally nor financially protected, they should be prepared to endure the consequences of their decision and not place the burden of their personal decision back on society. People of character take responsibility for their decisions.”
People of character desire giving the same legal and financial protection to all parents in order to benefit all children. Marrying same sex couples does not burden society, it benefits society just as it benefits them. That’s in everyone’s interest and no person of character would oppose that.
Jeremiah said “That being said, I have the utmost compassion for children being raised in such a home…”.
You obviously DO NOT. if you did you’d be demanding aht their parents have the right to marry and give them the benfits of attaching their parents to them and each other.
Jermiah said “…and we as members of society should help with the needs of these children without promoting the narcissistic decisions of their caregivers.”.
If having children is narcisistic then all heterosexual parents are narcisistic and we shouldn’t support their decisions either. You can’t have it both ways and falsely claim its self-sacrificing for heterosexuals to have children but not for gays. I’ve helped raise children, its hell, so don’t give me any of this hatefilled B.S. about gay parents being narcisistic. Unlike heterosexuals gays don’t have children as a consequence of reckless self-indulgent sex undertaken with no concern for the children that might result.
Jeremiah said “A compassionate and moral society comes to the aid of motherless or fatherless children and never purposefully creates motherless or fatherless families…which occurs in every same-sex marriage.”.
Dozens and dozens, if not hundreds of studies of same sex parents show the children of same sex parents do just as well, if not better than the children of heterosexuals. Same sex couples often adopt the special needs and minority children that are the product of reckless heterosexuals who shun such children. It is in societies best interest to have gays raising children and to provide the same support for them they give to heterosexual families.
I said “The same sex couple down the street getting married in no way prevents opposite sex couples getting married and having children.”
You are using equivocal language here. There is marriage or there is same-sex marriage. They are not the same thing, i.e., they are mutually exclusive. So the dual-gender can enter a marriage with intrinsic value or they can enter a marriage which value changes with the wind. They cannot do both.”.
That’s like saying there are male humans and female humans, we shouldnt’ give them equal rights, they are not the same thing, they are mutually exclusive. I’m different from a male, or a black female, but in essence we are all the same and that is true for both heterosexual and same sex marriages – the difference is irrelevant, rights must be the same. Allowing gays to marry in no way affects the marriage of heterosexuals. There marriage will be just as male/femal after the gay couple down the street marries as it was before.
Well, I am a man of my word, so as I wrote before, I will not add anymore. Just wanted to lay out some of the arguments for the protection of marriage.
Thank you for responding.
No Jeremiah, you have not laid down the arguments for “protecting marriage” because nothing you do actually “protects” marriage. You’re just running away now because you know that we see the excuses you make for your attempts to hurt us.
“Protection” of marriage. Why is that more important to people than protection of human rights?
Is it too much to hope Jeremiah’s not ever going to post again?
Probably. My money says he’ll cry to his fellow bigots for a while about how mean we were to him before coming back and starting the cycle all over again.
Jeremiah said “Just wanted to lay out some of the arguments for the protection of marriage.”.
Then why didn’t you do that? All you did was attack marriage with an intent to destroy it.