I borrowed this image years ago from Myra M. F. Thanks Myra!
NEW!More satirical pro-gay marriage messages (found here and here):
Comments 25
Sociological Images » RHETORICAL STRATEGY IN THE GAY MARRIAGE DEBATE — October 24, 2008
[...] few anti-gay marriage types would actually be in favor of returning marriage to one in which women were property that can’t contract, vote, testify in court, own anything, and have no rights to their own [...]
meneame.net — November 5, 2008
Matrimonio tradicional: un hombre, una adolescente por 8 vacas (humor) (eng)...
Varios eslóganes norteamericanos que se burlan de los defensores del matrimonio tradicional (aunque han ganado sus referendum en California)...
Framing Change » Sociological Images — August 11, 2009
[...] The ads reveal how ideas related to change (this time the promise of modernity) can be mobilized strategically (this time for marketing purposes). Here is another great example related to gay marriage. [...]
Bobby — August 12, 2009
Why would want all the wives, when you can just have girlfriends or Mistresses.
Nicholas — August 12, 2009
extreme views on the subject
sarcasmface — August 13, 2009
I am worth at LEAST nine cows. Maybe ten.
moo face — August 14, 2009
moooooooooooooooo
NotBuyingIt — August 14, 2009
Sociological images encourages people to exercise and develop their sociological imaginations to exploit juvenile bleeding-edge mindshare. For our next trick, sociological images will show us how to synthesize next-generation communities into mindless drones staring out into nothingness.
whaaaa? — September 20, 2009
The best part is that you conservative posters just. don't. get. the. satire.
Nick — September 21, 2009
I get the satire the truth is that many liberals believe that we conservatives wish to go backwards to "those days"
Nick — October 20, 2009
Actually my daughter is gay and married and as for Conservatism, my view is not of social action but for keeping within Constitutional boundaries given to our Government. I truthfully don't care who is allowed to get married because I don't believe the statistics of marriage will change and that 50% of marriages will still end in divorce whether straight or gay. The truth is that if our government spent less time trying to force social agendas and more on fixing actual problems within their scope things would run a little more smoothly, I'm also against them holding hearings about baseball and steroids.
The Daily Show on Nostalgia » Sociological Images — January 8, 2010
[...] you answer these questions depends on when, exactly, in history you’re talking about. (See here for some humorous [...]
Sars — January 16, 2010
Nick 7:17 pm on September 21, 2009 | # | Reply
I get the satire the truth is that many liberals believe that we conservatives wish to go backwards to “those days”
*
Thaddeus 9:05 am on October 20, 2009 | # | Reply
–I get the satire the truth is that many liberals believe that we conservatives wish to go backwards to “those days”–
Um…you just showed that you DON’T get the satire.
The “many liberals” you speak of don’t at all think that you wish to go backwards.
The point is that our culture is constantly evolving and that trying to deny gays the right to marry by saying that it isn’t “traditional” isn’t a valid argument.
--- Jesus Effing Christ I cannot stop laughing right now!!!!!
NBart — January 17, 2010
Apparently the truth of social issues keeping people divided and therefore said people unable to see the truth about the actual undertakings of our government is wholly misunderstood by many. Too many of us focus on the minor issues and don't see the big picture or changes made by the Government that are in our best interest only the part that we don't like or that we want. Funny how a liberal government in many states haven't been able to push through an Gay Marriage Agenda and there is uproar or if the bill has passed there is an uproar; yet when the same government raise taxes, takes money from schools and health care and no one seems to care because it's business as usual. Don't look behind the curtain. Will someone also please show me something other than a religious document that defines marriage as something other than between a man and a woman? Therefore defining the "traditional" as biblical maybe the gay rights movement should use a separation of church and state guideline even though that isn't specified in the Constitution. As for satire and sarcasm I am very versed in it's many forms I just thought that this was a site for differing opinions to discuss those opinions instead of being sarcastic and rude to each other, I was wrong.
Are you sure you support gay marriage? « The Computer Wore Menace Shoes — January 18, 2010
[...] perhaps, despite their staunch opposition, supporters of traditional marriage have been leaving out an important reason why gays should not have the same rights as everyone [...]
pennywise — March 24, 2010
Marriage was Instituted by the LORD, CREATOR GOD ALMIGHTY. HAVING CREATED MAN, Then FASHIONING THE FEMALE FROM HIS CREATION. AND GIVING HER A FEMALE to THE MAN the MALE. MAN NOR the WOMAN HAD no PART in THE WILL of OUR LORD, Just think IF not for THE MIRACLE of HIS CREATING and FASHIONING THE FEMALE FROM ADAM the MALE. CALLED IMAGE OF GOD. FROM HIS SIDE, "RIB" Where then WOULD ANY OF US have BEEN HERE to THIS DAY.. THERE would never have been any mankind that would be called THE FAMILY of GOD let alone any Male Female Man or Woman NOR WOULD there be any Children Called BOY or GIRL. Unless you and all would like to Deny there are SUCH as MALES and FEMALES and BABY BOYS and BABY GIRLS that all can be Witness to TODAY. THANK GOD FOR THE REALITY OF MANKIND MALES AND FEMALES AND CHILDREN... TO US namely BABIES.
The last I heard It still takes a MALE SEED Called "SPERM" to FERTILIZE the EGG called "OVUM" Of the female Woman.
Til døden / viljen skiller oss ad « Marijanaraznovic's Blog — September 29, 2010
No one seems to understand "traditional" marriage. First of all, traditions are different all over the world. Just because your version equates heterosexual marriage as slavery doesn't mean you're right.
To those who especially put down Christian views:
“Eve was not taken out of Adam's head to top him, neither out of his feet to be trampled on by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected by him, and near his heart to be loved by him.”
Rand — April 22, 2012
The message “Defend Traditional Marriage! ONE man, ONE
teenage girl, for 8 cows…” is good satire but may risk a kind of progressive balkanization
by equating bridewealth with slavery (http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-the-family.cfm?renderforprint=1). The (often misleading) linkage of bridewealth
exchange to women’s unfreedom has become a common justification for neo-colonial
intervention in Africa south of the Sahara.
Sociological Images encourages people to exercise and develop their sociological imaginations with discussions of compelling visuals that span the breadth of sociological inquiry. Read more…
Comments 25
Sociological Images » RHETORICAL STRATEGY IN THE GAY MARRIAGE DEBATE — October 24, 2008
[...] few anti-gay marriage types would actually be in favor of returning marriage to one in which women were property that can’t contract, vote, testify in court, own anything, and have no rights to their own [...]
meneame.net — November 5, 2008
Matrimonio tradicional: un hombre, una adolescente por 8 vacas (humor) (eng)...
Varios eslóganes norteamericanos que se burlan de los defensores del matrimonio tradicional (aunque han ganado sus referendum en California)...
Framing Change » Sociological Images — August 11, 2009
[...] The ads reveal how ideas related to change (this time the promise of modernity) can be mobilized strategically (this time for marketing purposes). Here is another great example related to gay marriage. [...]
Bobby — August 12, 2009
Why would want all the wives, when you can just have girlfriends or Mistresses.
Nicholas — August 12, 2009
extreme views on the subject
sarcasmface — August 13, 2009
I am worth at LEAST nine cows. Maybe ten.
moo face — August 14, 2009
moooooooooooooooo
NotBuyingIt — August 14, 2009
Sociological images encourages people to exercise and develop their sociological imaginations to exploit juvenile bleeding-edge mindshare. For our next trick, sociological images will show us how to synthesize next-generation communities into mindless drones staring out into nothingness.
whaaaa? — September 20, 2009
The best part is that you conservative posters just. don't. get. the. satire.
Nick — September 21, 2009
I get the satire the truth is that many liberals believe that we conservatives wish to go backwards to "those days"
Nick — October 20, 2009
Actually my daughter is gay and married and as for Conservatism, my view is not of social action but for keeping within Constitutional boundaries given to our Government. I truthfully don't care who is allowed to get married because I don't believe the statistics of marriage will change and that 50% of marriages will still end in divorce whether straight or gay. The truth is that if our government spent less time trying to force social agendas and more on fixing actual problems within their scope things would run a little more smoothly, I'm also against them holding hearings about baseball and steroids.
The Daily Show on Nostalgia » Sociological Images — January 8, 2010
[...] you answer these questions depends on when, exactly, in history you’re talking about. (See here for some humorous [...]
Sars — January 16, 2010
Nick 7:17 pm on September 21, 2009 | # | Reply
I get the satire the truth is that many liberals believe that we conservatives wish to go backwards to “those days”
*
Thaddeus 9:05 am on October 20, 2009 | # | Reply
–I get the satire the truth is that many liberals believe that we conservatives wish to go backwards to “those days”–
Um…you just showed that you DON’T get the satire.
The “many liberals” you speak of don’t at all think that you wish to go backwards.
The point is that our culture is constantly evolving and that trying to deny gays the right to marry by saying that it isn’t “traditional” isn’t a valid argument.
--- Jesus Effing Christ I cannot stop laughing right now!!!!!
NBart — January 17, 2010
Apparently the truth of social issues keeping people divided and therefore said people unable to see the truth about the actual undertakings of our government is wholly misunderstood by many. Too many of us focus on the minor issues and don't see the big picture or changes made by the Government that are in our best interest only the part that we don't like or that we want. Funny how a liberal government in many states haven't been able to push through an Gay Marriage Agenda and there is uproar or if the bill has passed there is an uproar; yet when the same government raise taxes, takes money from schools and health care and no one seems to care because it's business as usual. Don't look behind the curtain. Will someone also please show me something other than a religious document that defines marriage as something other than between a man and a woman? Therefore defining the "traditional" as biblical maybe the gay rights movement should use a separation of church and state guideline even though that isn't specified in the Constitution. As for satire and sarcasm I am very versed in it's many forms I just thought that this was a site for differing opinions to discuss those opinions instead of being sarcastic and rude to each other, I was wrong.
Are you sure you support gay marriage? « The Computer Wore Menace Shoes — January 18, 2010
[...] perhaps, despite their staunch opposition, supporters of traditional marriage have been leaving out an important reason why gays should not have the same rights as everyone [...]
pennywise — March 24, 2010
Marriage was Instituted by the LORD, CREATOR GOD ALMIGHTY. HAVING CREATED MAN, Then FASHIONING THE FEMALE FROM HIS CREATION. AND GIVING HER A FEMALE to THE MAN the MALE. MAN NOR the WOMAN HAD no PART in THE WILL of OUR LORD, Just think IF not for THE MIRACLE of HIS CREATING and FASHIONING THE FEMALE FROM ADAM the MALE. CALLED IMAGE OF GOD. FROM HIS SIDE, "RIB" Where then WOULD ANY OF US have BEEN HERE to THIS DAY.. THERE would never have been any mankind that would be called THE FAMILY of GOD let alone any Male Female Man or Woman NOR WOULD there be any Children Called BOY or GIRL. Unless you and all would like to Deny there are SUCH as MALES and FEMALES and BABY BOYS and BABY GIRLS that all can be Witness to TODAY. THANK GOD FOR THE REALITY OF MANKIND MALES AND FEMALES AND CHILDREN... TO US namely BABIES.
The last I heard It still takes a MALE SEED Called "SPERM" to FERTILIZE the EGG called "OVUM" Of the female Woman.
Til døden / viljen skiller oss ad « Marijanaraznovic's Blog — September 29, 2010
[...] (http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/05/18/in-honor-of-california-ruling-that-same-sex-couples-...) [...]
Blix — July 14, 2011
No one seems to understand "traditional" marriage. First of all, traditions are different all over the world. Just because your version equates heterosexual marriage as slavery doesn't mean you're right.
To those who especially put down Christian views:
“Eve was not taken out of Adam's head to top him, neither out of his feet to be trampled on by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected by him, and near his heart to be loved by him.”
Rand — April 22, 2012
The message “Defend Traditional Marriage! ONE man, ONE
teenage girl, for 8 cows…” is good satire but may risk a kind of progressive balkanization
by equating bridewealth with slavery (http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-the-family.cfm?renderforprint=1). The (often misleading) linkage of bridewealth
exchange to women’s unfreedom has become a common justification for neo-colonial
intervention in Africa south of the Sahara.