The Worst Argument for SSM?


We've seem some pretty silly ones, but this one probably takes the cake:

The lowest temperature this year was minus 22 in January, while on Tuesday, the high was 103 -- a range of 125 degrees. We Minnesotans take that incredible diversity in stride like few other places in the world.

Can't the state that tolerates these temperature differences also embrace a wide range of marriage types? Passing a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to heterosexual unions would be like passing an amendment restricting the weather to 68 degrees and sunny.

Both amendments would be futile and would undermine what makes Minnesota one of the most special places on Earth: our diversity in all things. --Robert Alberti in the Star Tribune


  1. Nicholas
    Posted June 10, 2011 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    ...Says Robert Alberti just before taking another drag on his blunt because he's starting to lose the buzz.

  2. Barb
    Posted June 10, 2011 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    The writer is almost there - he just needs to take the next step and claim that SSM will fix global warming.

  3. Donna
    Posted June 10, 2011 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    It's not about the "weather". it's about "whether" a Man & a Man or a Women & a Women should be able to marry if they live in the state of Mn. Now here's my thought. " If God didn't make a Man & a Man or a Women & a Women to come together in the bed of marriage in the way he made a man and women with male and female anatomy to come together, then they should not be able to marry"!!
    Why can't "they" figure it out that there parts don't fit together!!

  4. Little man
    Posted June 10, 2011 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    Maybe try Mars. The range of daily temperatures is truly extreme (and "special), to the point of being unsuitable for life, and therefore the next generation.

  5. Posted June 10, 2011 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    That wins the current "worst argument" slot by proving, once again, that same sex marriage advocates have no definition for the term analogy.

    Before this, the worst I'd seen was an attempt to explain why we should legislate that there are no rational differences between men and women (except, of course, when the differences suit the gay agenda).

  6. Posted June 10, 2011 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

    I don't get why they want it so open. If marriage is nothing more than consenting adults entering into a contract then polygamy and incest are legal. In Canada, where homosexual marriage is legal, polygamy is being lobbied, and the argument is that there is no legal distinction. This extends into every facet of sexuality. In CO if a man 'feels' like a woman, he can use the woman's restroom, and it is illegal for a father to stand in front of a public restroom and prevent a man from entering while his daughter is in there. Because, apparently, someone's personal feelings of gender trump my rights to physical privacy. I will fight that one to the death. It is the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender movement; they all want all the rights, not just same sex marriage. I do not want my children to attend school and be taught that, "You might have been born a little boy, but you could actually be a little girl, and that's OK!" Legalizing homosexual marriage accepts all forms of sexuality as being legitimate and protected. I do not want my children taught in schools and by society that they could be a different gender or that SM sex is normal, that whatever they feel like doing is natural and good.

  7. John Noe
    Posted June 11, 2011 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    They get more desperate and ludicrous at the moment.

  8. Combatvet
    Posted June 11, 2011 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    Euripides- besides sexual characteristics, what are the differences between men and women?

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.