John Doe says, "Homosexual couples never reproduce."

Philo: The way the "John Doe”s here trash the dignity of the many loving, married, gay couples — and this is exactly how someone feels being on the end of racist rants from racists — demonstrates that some people just have no shame.

John Doe: Wow, Philo, I guess I’ll have to return that right back to you: Being called racist just for pointing out the f***** obvious about human biology makes me feel like you’re guilty not just of a racist rant, but that you’re the equivalent of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Inquisition, the Crusades, Pol Pot, and Abu Ghraib, all rolled into one. So in the contest of who can use the most hysterical rhetoric, I win.

The curiosity called Culture11 (Beta), and its editors' blog The Confabulum in particular, has one¹ redeeming grace: It has well-written sitting ducks that do act as prompts for one's own posts (this one, case in point).

Volumes (literally) have been written responding to the very lengthy Re: Lots of Flawed Arguments About Gay Marriage². Somewhere in the middle of this — What prompts "straight" people to write pages and pages on why gay people should be denied marriage? — I wrote what I wrote in the above quote. I think I was being precise in my mere single sentence. (The turd in gay-punching punchbowl?) It will go on, ad infinitum, it seems. Some tidbits (Me, Philo):

Later, John Doe says, "Homosexual couples never reproduce."

(Philo) Now anyone with an au courant clue knows this to be empirically untrue: "Because 'male' stem cells can become both eggs and sperm, this technique [(Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Gametes)] might even allow two men to have a baby together that is 50% genetically related to both of them." — Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics (2008), 17:1:7-14 (or "Voila. Two Daddies!")

John Doe also says, "Do any of the proponents of gay 'marriage' — especially those who are patting themselves on the back for being more hysterical, I mean, more intelligent than Joe Carter — have an answer to this question: Why should the state care about privileging anyone’s orgasms?"

(Philo) First, those in a gay relationship or marriage have more than themselves alone to get a pat on the back, and second, all this talk about orgasms³: Is is really what we have all come to?

Duck soup.
____________________
¹ perhaps more than one, but I can't think of another one right now

² or as I call it, Married ... With Children.

³ paraphrasing the American — and lesbian — writer Gertrude Stein (1874-1946):   An orgasm, is an orgasm, is an orgasm, is an orgasm.

*      *      *

Previously, on Married ... With Children:
(John Doe) … There’s only one possible answer: The sexual pair of Jack and Jill — unlike the relationships of mentors, friends, roommates, siblings, and (yes) gay sexual relationships — ALONE has the possibility of creating babies out of that very relationship itself. And the only conceivable interest the state has here is in making sure that Jack and Jill take care of their kids.

(Philo) Sounds either like some screwy liberetarian tripe, or some screed from Nazi Germany.

Governments have an interest in the well-being of its citizens, and the mutual benefits of marriage to its partners — obvious to anyone who knows about marriage — with or without children, are of significant interest as well.

...

Another thing to remember: the opponents of marriage equality have the law, morality, and history against them. (So spending so much time writing paragraphs and paragraphs defending heterosexual-only marriage is a huge waste of time — but, of course, it is a holiday time for many.)

It was almost exactly 100 years from the 14th amendment (1868) to Loving v. Virginia (1967). It was 9 years from Jerry Falwell's (now famous) sermon at Thomas Road Baptist Church to that same point. (He "apologized" for that sermon about 15 years later.)