Untangling the Untaglable: an Exercise in Twisted Logic, Gay Hatin' Edition

As a stagehand, I would often wind up on "outs" where all the cable was in a tangled heap that we spaghetti monsters would spend hours unwinding. Cables would have "assholes" or odd kinky backwards twists, which were called the various names of former union Business Agents. So, I got used to untangling hopelessly entwined messes that no logic could explain.

And yet, I cannot for the life of me follow the logic from this wingnut:

They’re trying to redefine marriage. It’s a completely disordered relationship and when you have a disordered relationship, you don’t ever get order out of that. So I’m more than happy to take a ‘no’ vote on the issue of homosexual marriage. 

[...] 

I’m more than happy to stand up and take a courageous vote here on this issue because it’s the right thing to do. Essentially what they’re trying to do is not just redefine marriage, they’re trying to redefine society. They’re trying to weasel their way into acceptability so that they can then start to push their agenda down into the schools, because this gives them some sort of legitimacy. And we can’t allow that to happen. The rights to marriage… it’s really a natural right… 

It’s the natural right of the child to be with both parents, either in an adoptive nature or in a biological nature. To not have a mother and a father is really a disordered state for a child to grow up in and it really makes that child an object of desire rather than the result of a matrimony.

First find a straggling end of something coherent from State Rep. Jeanne Ives (R-Wheaton, Ill.) and pull. "Redefine marriage." That looks good. Let's give it a tug and see where it leads.

Click for the big version.

Yeah, it looks like we've been redefining marriage a lot since biblical days. Maybe we should keep up the good work, eh? So, that's a dead end. Next we find "redifine society." Rep. Jeanne Ives is from Illinois, where Lincoln was from. She's even in the same political party as Lincoln. I'd think she'd know a little about the redefinition of society that took place under that President. Perhaps Rep. Ives is familiar with Grace Wilbur Trout, a suffragette from Illinois who had a little to do with some societal redefinition. So, yeah, it seems society needs a good redefining from time to time. Or perhaps Ms. Trout disagrees with the 13th and 19th Amendments to the US Constitution? Either way, dead end.

So, the next frayed logical end to tug on (and I'm skipping "They’re trying to weasel their way into acceptability" because it just looks too ass-holier-than-thou) looks like this doozy:

"To not have a mother and a father is really a disordered state for a child to grow up in and it really makes that child an object of desire rather than the result of a matrimony."

Um, yeah, here's where I get lost. Right before this, she notes that adopting is cool. This somehow doesn't apply to a gay parent who might want to adopt the child they love. But if she really believes that not having a father and mother is disordered, and therefore makes the child an object of desire, then I'm guessing either she's a bullshitter who doesn't care what the truth is and is just talking out her ass, or she's actually not aware that many children grow up with only one parent for many reasons. Sometimes a parent dies. Does this mean the surviving parent "desires" that kid and doesn't actually love her? I'm honestly lost here. Maybe best to just walk away and leave that tangled mess there to collect dust along with the rest of the history she seems to love so much, because my best guess is that she's just a bullshitting bigot.