Ben & Jerry’s Proves Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ is Not Marriage

Marriage brings together the uniquely different-but-same entities of male and female.

Chicago, USA - December 31, 2011: Ben + Jerry's sign on the kiosk store at Navy Pier in downtown Chicago. The ice cream company will not serve two scoops of the same flavor until Australia legalizes same-sex marriage.

By Michael Brown Published on May 25, 2017

 It certainly wasn’t their intent, but Ben and Jerry’s, the famous, specialty ice cream company, has given us further evidence that same-sex “marriage” is not marriage. How so?

The company, which has long been known for its left-wing activism, went one step further this week. As a headline in the Daily Mail announced, “Ben & Jerry’s BAN customers from ordering two scoops of the same ice cream until Australia legalises gay marriage.”

That’s right. If you want two scoops of New York Super Fudge Chocolate on your ice cream cone, you can’t have it. You’ll have to settle for just one scoop or mix in another flavor.

This is Ben and Jerry’s way of sending a message: “We believe love comes in all flavours.”

As they explained on their website: “Imagine heading down to your local Scoop Shop to order your favourite two scoops of Cookie Dough in a waffle cone,” the company wrote on its website.

But you find out you are not allowed … you’d be furious!

This doesn’t even begin to compare to how furious you would be if you were told you were not allowed to marry the person you love.

So we are banning two scoops of the same flavour and encouraging our fans to contact their MPs to tell them that the time has come make same sex marriage legal! Love comes in all flavours!

Regulating Scoops is a Slippery Slope

You might say, “Well, this sounds somewhat stupid, but how does it prove that same-sex marriage is not marriage?”

I’ll explain in a moment. But first, Ben and Jerry’s should realize they’re heading down a slippery slope.

After all, will they ban three-scoop cones of any flavor until Australia legalizes throuples? And will they ban one scoop of one flavor plus two scoops of another flavor until Australia legalizes polygamy? Hey, love is love, right? And if I have the right to marry the one I love, how about the ones I love? Why not?

The absurdities go on and on.

As my assistant Dylan asked after reading the Daily Mail article,

And perhaps there’s a current loophole (and bigotry) to their current position. What if some chocolate ice cream identifies as vanilla? (I mean, who are they to be so primitive as to label all chocolate ice cream chocolate just because that’s what society has done through the ages.) Can you then go ahead and get a scoop of chocolate and a scoop of trans-flavored (chocolate to vanilla) ice cream?

In all seriousness, I understand that Ben and Jerry’s is not comparing human beings to scoops of ice cream. The company is making a point and showing solidarity. They believe they are standing up for justice and equality. I get all that.

Still, the nature of their protest is self-refuting, demonstrating the point that same-sex “marriage” is not marriage at all.

Let me explain.

Mars + Mars

Let’s say that chocolate represents men and vanilla represents women. You take one scoop of chocolate and one scoop of vanilla and what do you get? Something new. Something distinct. A unique blend of the two flavors. Two entities that are different and yet similar now become one.

That is a picture of marriage, which is the unique blend of male and female, the unique union of two different and yet similar entities. Borrowing imagery from John Gray, marriage is the union of Mars + Venus.

Going back to ice cream, what happens if you get two scoops of chocolate or two scoops of vanilla? What do you end up with? More of the same. The same multiplied. No change in color or flavor. Nothing new created out of the union. You simply have Mars + Mars or Venus + Venus, which does not equal Mars + Venus.

Do you see the point?

A same-sex couple cannot demonstrate the fullness of marriage, because they are missing the essential components of marriage.

I’m sure gay couples will say that their union brings together very different parts and make them into one new, harmonious whole. But marriage is more than that (otherwise every friendship would be a marriage of sorts).

Marriage has always served the purpose of bringing together the uniquely different-but-same entities of male and female. Through the two of them becoming one, a new entity is created: a paired couple. And by design, that paired couple, biologically made for one another, can produce brand new life.

No same-sex couple in the world, however loving or committed they may be, can produce new life in this way. Nor can any same-sex couple demonstrate the fullness of marriage because it is missing the essential components of marriage: Not just two people, but one male and one female.

Quite unintentionally, Ben and Jerry’s has just reminded us of this reality. And while I do appreciate their zeal for cultural causes, maybe they should turn their attention to other pressing issues, like the health risks of obesity.

On second thought, they might not want to tackle that one at all.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Gary

    1. I don’t buy Ben & Jerry’s products. 2. Everyone should follow my example. 3. To say that marriage “should” be one thing or another implies a standard of what marriage should be. What standard are Ben and Jerry using to support their claim? And why is that the standard everyone should agree with?

  • Timothy Horton

    Marriage has always served the purpose of bringing together the uniquely different-but-same entities of male and female. Through the two of them becoming one, a new entity is created: a paired couple. And by design, that paired couple, biologically made for one another, can produce brand new life.

    Interesting that you think younger infertile hetero couples, or older hetero couples past child bearing age shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Will you be making an OP defending that “logic”?

    • It is not inconsistent for a Christian to argue that “infertile” heterosexual marriages are allowed. This is because multiple times in the Bible couples that were considered infertile by man, were miraculously given children by God. (E.g Abraham and Sarah, Elkhannah and Hannah, Zechariah and Elizabeth.) In essence, to God, there is no such thing as an infertile heterosexual couple.

      • Timothy Horton

        Then there’s no reason to consider infertility a barrier to same sex marriage either. An Omnipotent God could give a child to a same sex couple just as easily as He could to a hetero couple. Thanks for refuting Brown’s rather silly argument.

        • Assuming you have examples of same sex couples that God miraculously produced children for without any third party human involved, yes.

          • Timothy Horton

            Is your petty little God so weak he can’t use third parties to do his bidding? My God has no problems providing children to infertile couples of all stripes through adoption.

          • Even singles can adopt, so adoption doesn’t confer God’s approval of a couple in the same way.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Quite idiotic actually! Their little experiment disproves the point they’re trying to make. Eventually the mind of a liberal turns to mush – just like ice cream…

  • Timothy Horton

    I should point out that up until the 1700’s your Church considered it “moral” for a husband to divorce and dump a wife who couldn’t bear him children. In a time when women couldn’t vote, own land, or work in most jobs such actions often left the ex-wives destitute.

    Fortunately we’ve come a long way in 300 years and no longer consider having children to be a make-or-break proposition for marriage. Pity to see some religious fanatics think we should revert to the bad old days.

    • gordonhackman

      Stop trolling.

      • Timothy Horton

        Nothing intelligent to say as a rebuttal I see.

        • Jim Walker

          when are you going to a muslim forum to debate them Tim ?
          We all want your life more exciting as they are the pioneers in everything you opposed here !

          • Timothy Horton

            When will you stop espousing homophobic bigotry then Jim?

          • Jim Walker

            can a regular guy like me who endorses that a marriage is for a man and a woman be branded Homophobic?
            Only Bigots like to use the word Bigots on others.

          • Timothy Horton

            can a regular guy like me who endorses a marriage is for a man and a woman be branded Homophobic?

            When you try to force your opinion on others and deny them marriage rights instead of just living your own life, yes.

          • Kerry Sojka

            Timothy, will you please share with us your definition of marriage?

          • Jim Walker

            Tell this to a Muslim forum Tim and tell them to do the same.
            I say SSM is wrong. Can you say that Herero marriage is wrong?

      • Autrey Windle

        You might as well ask Niagra Falls to stop flowing. TH is the trolls troll for all seasons and all opinions completely anti-christian and anti-heterosexual and completely without factual merit. Hannah has the only right response to his kind.

        • Timothy Horton

          BAAAAA! BAAAA! goes the Windle sheep.

    • Hannah

      As usual, your beliefs on this matter have been duly noted.

      • Timothy Horton

        As usual nothing intelligent to say as a rebuttal I see.

        • Craig Roberts

          On the contrary, the most intelligent thing you can do sometimes is to keep your mouth shut and your opinion to yourself.

          • Timothy Horton

            Then you should practice what you preach.

          • Craig Roberts

            Sorry for the confusion. I was commending Hannah for her forbearance, not presuming to give you advice. Stay plucky!

          • Timothy Horton

            OK thanks, my bad.

    • Bryan

      Tim, I agree that divorcing your wife for not bearing children is reprehensible. In the context of history there was reason for it but that doesn’t make the reasons good or valid. Of course, the only other “moral” reason for divorce at the time was infidelity.
      That being said, what do you make of the fact that 300 years later, a married couple can divorce for any reason at all? If you believe it is wrong for a husband to divorce his wife for either’s infertility (you’re implication and one that I agree with you on), shouldn’t it be equally wrong for a husband to divorce his wife for the vaguely defined “irreconcilable differences”?

      • Timothy Horton

        shouldn’t it be equally wrong for a husband to divorce his wife for the vaguely defined “irreconcilable differences”?

        No. Why should it? Today we recognize the huge psychological and often physical harm that can come from staying in a bad marriage. There’s no good reason to force a person to stay in a harmful situation.

        • Bryan

          In the 1700’s it was considered bad for a husband to have no offspring to which to pass along his estate. Hence the reason it was “moral” divorce a wife who didn’t bear a child. In your earlier comment you implied that it was not moral for a husband to do that. I agree with that. However, my argument was that today’s no-fault divorce is equally not moral. Today a husband could divorce his wife because she can’t bear children or because she dyed her hair. A wife can divorce her husband because he’s overweight or lost a limb.
          I understand that you’re using infertility as the counterpoint to not allowing same-sex marriage. I’m also pointing out that using the past as you did to make your point is counterproductive because one can accomplish the same thing or worse today because of today’s laws. If you want to argue that infertility isn’t used to deny marriages in hetero-couples, then go ahead. But don’t imply that because the church was wrong about reasons for divorce in the past and our present laws allow even more reasons for divorce now, that that somehow justifies same-sex marriage. Stick to your argument without bashing something unrelated.

          • Timothy Horton

            Stick to your argument without bashing something unrelated.

            You brought up the topic with your question, not me.

          • Bryan

            That’s an interesting conjecture given that your original comment in this thread is as follows:

            “I should point out that up until the 1700’s your Church considered it “moral” for a husband to divorce and dump a wife who couldn’t bear him children. In a time when women couldn’t vote, own land, or work in most jobs such actions often left the ex-wives destitute.

            Fortunately we’ve come a long way in 300 years and no longer consider having children to be a make-or-break proposition for marriage. Pity to see some religious fanatics think we should revert to the bad old days.”

            It seems you brought up the consideration of “moral” divorce in the 1700’s. As I stated before, I really don’t mind the infertility argument. I disagree with it but it’s been rebutted by others and I’m not interested in getting into a comment war about whose God is bigger or some other nonsense. Maybe you and Gary should stage a contest to see whose God lights their alter on fire as Elijah did with the prophets of Baal.
            My purpose was to help you focus on your stronger argument rather than your weaker on.

          • Timothy Horton

            It seems you brought up the consideration of “moral” divorce in the 1700’s.

            Only to point out the ability to have children hasn’t been a reason to deny marriage for 300 years. Sorry if that rather obvious point sailed over your head.

  • Dant e

    I`m frustrated that I cannot negatively impact upon their finances as I have never purchased their product.

    • Gary

      Those of us who don’t buy their products do negatively impact their finances.

    • Jim Walker

      Yes me too…:<

  • Timothy Horton

    Going back to ice cream, what happens if you get two scoops of chocolate or two scoops of vanilla?
    Do you see the point?

    I see an incredibly stupid and non-applicable analogy. Unless you are marrying a clone of yourself every individual has unique experiences and perspectives to bring to a marriage. It’s not your place to judge what the value of that marriage will be.

    • Andy6M

      I think you’re missing his over all point – though each individual person is certainly different and brings their own “flavor” to any relationship, there is a uniqueness brought by the union of man and woman that is not present in the union of man and man or woman and woman. This is present on physical, emotional and spiritual levels. That is also why the particular ability/inability of some couples to reproduce does not invalidate the uniqueness and still separates it from the same sex union. I understand (maybe assume is the better word) that this paradigm is not one that you subscribe to. But it’s one that as a Christian I live by.

      • Timothy Horton

        there is a uniqueness brought by the union of man and woman that is not present in the union of man and man or woman and woman

        That is nothing but personal opinion and as such is not a valid reason to deny equal civil rights in marriage to same sex couples. It could just as easily be argued there is a uniqueness brought by the union of man and man or woman and woman that is not present in the union of man and woman.

        I understand (maybe assume is the better word) that this paradigm is not one that you subscribe to. But it’s one that as a Christian I live by

        If that makes you happy personally then more power to you. As I’ve said countless times – if you don’t like SS marriage then don’t have one. But don’t deny others the chance to experience marital oneness due to your personal beliefs.

        • Nobody Specific

          Nobodys Civil rights are violated by not permitting same sex marriage. Homosexuals (if that is anything other than a social construct) have just as much right to marry an opposite sex parter as heterosexual people do/did. The government in no way requires you be sexually attracted to your partner.

          • Timothy Horton

            That’s the same lame argument used by people who argued against legalizing interracial marriage 60 years ago. Blacks had the right to legally marry other Blacks, Asians could still legally marry other Asians.

            It failed miserably back then. What makes you think that stupidity will work now?

          • Parant

            Thinking different “races” exist is racist and wrong. One’s origins have barely any (practically no) effect on them, especially when it comes to reproduction/family/marriage.

            Thinking different sexes exist is common sense. We’re widely defined by our manhood/womanhood, especially when it comes to reproduction/family/marriage.

            Remember, marriage is there to keep the parents together for the sake of the child. A binding contract so that no father leaves his son or no mother is left unprotected and unsupported.

        • dchap

          “That is nothing but personal opinion…”

          A personal opinion that, coincidentally, most all of civilization has held (and for good reason) throughout history.

          “As I’ve said countless times – if you don’t like SS marriage then don’t have one.”

          That’s a selfish outlook. If you believe SSM is harmful to children (without exception it denies them either a father or mother), harmful to society, and harmful to those involved in the union, then it’s your obligation as a citizen to speak out because you care about the welfare of others (Obviously, you would disagree that it’s harmful and you are more than entitled to your viewpoint).

          But for those who believe it is harmful (and there is ample evidence to suggest it is), your advice is quite self-centered. Would you tell someone who believes that an adult having consensual sex with a minor is wrong, “Well, then don’t have sex with a minor”? Of course not. And NO, I’m not comparing SSM to pederasty…just illustrating a point.

          • Timothy Horton

            But for those who believe it is harmful (and there is ample evidence to suggest it is),
            There is zero</b. scientific evidence SSM is harmful to the couple, to other hetero marriages, or to society in general. This is however ample scientific evidence removing discrimination and prejudices against minorities such as the LBGT minority helps their mental and physical well being which benefits all of society.

          • dchap

            “There is zero”

            Ah, that statement is closer to personal opinion than is Andy’s 🙂

        • Jennifer Hartline

          It isn’t mere personal opinion, Timothy, it’s physically evident in our bodies. It’s built-in to the biology of the human person that male was created for female, and female for male. It’s obvious to any rational, honest person that the male and female bodies were created for physical union in a way that two males or two females never can achieve. There’s a very good reason for that. To pretend that reason doesn’t exist, or doesn’t matter, is willful blindness.

          • Timothy Horton

            First, humans weren’t ‘created”. We evolved from earlier species going back over 3.5 billion years.

            Second, marriage doesn’t require physical mating of any sort, just as reproducing doesn’t require marriage. The two things are independent of one another.

  • Christian Cowboy

    I don’t really care what Ben&Jerry does. I don’t eat their ice cream and they can use their company to make any statement they want.
    Unfortunately all companies are not free to do the same.

    • dchap

      The article doesn’t argue that they don’t have the right to make a statement. It argues that they’re statement undercuts itself and isn’t rational.

      They’re free to make their statement and Dr. Brown is free to disagree with and expose their statement as resting on faulty logic.

      • Christian Cowboy

        What is Baskin&Robbins says you can’t have two scopes until SSM is reversed by the Supreme Court?

        • dchap

          I would say, “What does ice cream scoops have to do with marriage?”

          • Christian Cowboy

            I agree but many would probably be screaming that they are bigoted because of their statement. I think we are in agreement – lets just enjoy our ice cream in peace.

          • dchap

            I can say amen to that 🙂

      • Andy Ryan

        How does the statement undercut itself? His argument is basically ‘Two of the same flavours of ice-cream is boring, therefore gay marriage is stupid’. How is that a good argument? People aren’t ice-creams.

    • rainsoul

      I’m happy Ben&Jerry are doing this. Now for sure I’m boycotting them, didn’t like their icecream because of all the crap ingredients (gmo, artificial flavors, etc) it has and now there’s another reason so I can convince my relative to never buy their icecream and I’m not tempted into eating it xD

      I hope Hagen daz doesn’t get into propaganda since I won’t boycott them ’cause their icecream is non-gmo and real, and the best tasting icecream.

      • Liz Litts

        Try Blue bell if they sell it in your area–beat s ben and jerry’s by a mile.

        • Autrey Windle

          AMEN!

        • Christian Cowboy

          Try the Birthday Cake flavor. Very Good!

  • Rob Jensen

    Trying to use this to reinforce the SSM is not marriage is really stupid. SSM is a marriage in the eyes of a growing number of governments. Time to move into the 21st century. But, the policy itself is also stupid.

    • Gary

      God does not consider ssm to be marriage. Maybe you should tell God its time He moved into the 21st century.

      • Timothy Horton

        God is not the problem. It’s his troglodyte followers who are incapable of learning or growing as people.

        • Gary

          God IS the problem. For you. God is the reason his followers won’t endorse homosexuality or ssm. And God is the one who is going to hold you accountable for the evil you have done. You’re in big trouble, with no way out.

          • Timothy Horton

            God IS the problem. For you

            My God loves everyone and has no problem allowing couples who love each other to marry. Pity your God is such a small, narrow-minded goober.

          • Gary

            Who is your god? What is its name? How do I contact it?

          • Timothy Horton

            God.

          • Gary

            When I refer to God, I’m talking about the God of the Bible. Obviously, you are talking about something else when you use the word god. So, tell me about your god. What’s its name? Where does it live?

          • Timothy Horton

            His name is God. He lives everywhere.

          • Gary

            No, the God that is everywhere is the God of the Bible. He is not your God. So who is? That’s what I am trying to find out.

          • Timothy Horton

            Sorry that’s my God. Yours has obviously been lying to you.

          • Gary

            Your God is the God of the Bible? That isn’t possible. You don’t agree with anything the God of the Bible ever did. You don’t agree with anything He has said. You don’t even believe he is real. There is no way the God of the Bible can be your god. Stop lying and try for once to tell the truth. Who is your god?

          • Timothy Horton

            My God is bigger than your petty little God. Why do you want to follow your little God when he lies to you so often?

          • Gary

            Since you refuse to answer, I’ll stop asking and answer the question myself. Your god is yourself.

          • Timothy Horton

            Since your petty little God is obviously yourself I’ll ignore your blithering. My God forgives you.

          • Gary

            The God of the Bible does NOT forgive you.

          • Timothy Horton

            Since you think yourself to be that God your blithering can be ignored. My God forgives you.

          • Gary

            I find it greatly satisfying to know you are going to Hell. And the sooner, the better.

          • Timothy Horton

            Still blithering to yourself. My God forgives you.

          • Liz Litts

            His name is False God that you made up in your head.

          • Phil Teichroew

            Start by calling out to Him! You swear by Him every day. John 1:1…Maybe start by reading His Word!?!

          • DR84

            What evidence is there that your God exists?

            I’m guessing none.

          • Phil Teichroew

            Start by reading Romans 1 & Hebrews 11, followed by 1 Corinthians 15. NO one will have an excuse that they didn’t know Him come Judgement Day! Hebrews 9:27…

          • Str8faith

            Your god is not God of all creation and eternal life. Your god allows them to marry but does not allow them to procreate. Sounds like your god is the god of extinction and deceit

          • eddiestardust

            2 guys or 2 gals can’t produce a child…it’s biology not anything else.

          • Timothy Horton

            Producing a child isn’t a requirement for marriage.

          • Timothy Horton

            Sure he is. He’s just a lot smarter than your petty bumbling God. My God knows not every member of a species has to reproduce to keep the species going.

          • Phil Teichroew

            How convoluted is that?

          • Andy Ryan

            “Your god allows them to marry but does not allow them to procreate”
            Lots of straight couples can’t procreate either – are you saying that’s God’s fault?

          • davidrev17

            Unfortunately, and perhaps eternally tragic for you Timothy, is the little “inconvenient truth,” that the “God” to whom you keep referring – is all-together one of whom you’ve deludedly created in YOUR own “fallen” image! And that fact, makes all the eternal difference in this world, for all of its specially-created inhabitants called Homo sapiens!

          • eddiestardust

            Biology is the problem, not God.

      • johndoe

        No gods needed for marriage. Not now…not ever.

        • Gary

          Why have marriage? If there is no God, then there is no morality. If there is no morality, there is no reason people should make vows to each other, and keep them. If “marriage” is just a legal contract about who gets the stuff left over when the “marriage” ends, that can all be taken care of without any vows.

        • Phil Teichroew

          Problem is, it’s an institution created by God in the beginning when He created EVERYTHING, including you!

      • Rob Jensen

        Religion can only be used for arguments reguarding places of worship/religious signifigence and some instances of job preformance (catholic school workers, the bakers, etc). Using religion as an argument for a government to not give gay people equal rights, won’t work.

        And if you’re only talking about this on a personal level, not everyone beleives in your interpretation of your god, so the post has extremely little weight to it.
        And don’t type “there is only one god” that’s not thinking rationally. There’s many different religions, and many different inerpretations of those religion. How else do you think we can have Catholics, Protestants, Seeks and AlQueda all at the same time???

        • Timothy Horton

          You have to understand that Gary is his own little God. Therefore Gary’s opinion = God’s opinion. To Gary only of course. 🙂

          • Rob Jensen

            Based on his other posts, it’s more like he can’t take people believing any other path than the one he does. My motto is, take your path and let the world do its own, without trying to stop others or spread hate speech.
            Unfortunatly, many people can’t move past their closed minded opinions. And I used to be like that, which is the really annoying part of that statement.

          • Gary

            I accept the Biblical definition of marriage. I’m not going to change my mind. That means I won’t accept any sort of “marriage” that does not meet the Biblical standard. I understand that others have different beliefs. I want the laws to agree with what I believe, just like everyone else does. You and Tim want the laws to agree with what you believe. But the laws can’t agree with all beliefs.

          • Rob Jensen

            Well that view isn’t going to work now. As I said, people are moving on and becoming more accepting of other ways of marriage. Soon, people will look at this and laugh at our stupidity of arguing why it shouldn’t happen.

          • Gary

            That’s their decision to make. But it has consequences.

          • Rob Jensen

            And each religious/personal belief has different consequences for everyone and different rewards for everyone. They cancel each other out. A christain will say they will be rewarded, where as a Muslim will be punished. The Muslim can turn around and say the exact same thing. It’s not worth it.

          • Gary

            It depends on what is true. Something isn’t true just because someone believes it is. Reality does not work that way.

          • Rob Jensen

            Yes, I agree with that post. US government saying SSM is a marriage does not mean your God says it’s a marriage and vice versa (close enough vice versa). I was arguing in that prior post, that the idea of saying “You will be doomed while I will be rewarded.” is worthless to mention as it can be turned on its head.

          • Gary

            Whether it is worthless depends on whether it is true or false. If it is false, then yes, it is worthless. If it is true, then it should be paid attention to.

          • Rob Jensen

            Well phrased like that, I can’t really respond with more untill it happens. Now, I’m sure you’ve got one more posts worth of things, so I’ll let you post it and wrap this up. I’m not “being a wimp” I just can’t think of anything else to type.

          • Phil Teichroew

            Yes, and the people back in the day of Sodom & Gomorrah moved right into their demise! A civilization that exceeds it’s wickedness quotient will find itself decimated & destroyed by it’s own EVIL desires & devices! God is NOT mocked! Galatians 6:7…

          • Rob Jensen

            Actually anyone can be mocked, the question is “Do they care?” Your god doesn’t care that I could mock him and why should he? I’m just one person. Tons of other people to reach out towards.

          • davidrev17

            Rob:

            So when the fully-Divine, yet fully-human Yeshua/Jesus of Nazareth (Israel’s Messiah) made the following universal declaration (i.e., absolute truth) – applicable & binding upon all people, in all places, and for all times; does that mean he’s met the standard found in the personal, thus incoherent subjective “absolute truth” universalized opinion you just stated?? Do tell, please…

            “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. But the gate is narrow, and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” (Matthew 7:13-14)

          • Rob Jensen

            That’s just one religion and one interpretation of a religion. The question really becomes do you believe in that interpretation of that religion or not. Many people do, I myself don’t as I’m an athiest.

          • davidrev17

            That went right over your head Rob; so it won’t do any good to spoon-feed you with some insight, as atheists live in the dark anyway. Thanks for sharing your opinions here on The Stream though!

          • Rob Jensen

            I fail to see that went over my head. The character you described, Yeshua/Jesus of Nazareth, is one religious figurehead. The quote you described is one application of a quote that leads to a certain religious belief. It’s just one quote, used for a certain purpose. That’s all it is. Not everyone racts the same to one quote the same way, or applies it the same way.

            Also, not all athiests detetest religious people. I used to, but not anymore. Although if they try and stop people from obtaining equal rights under the government and deliberutly put down other religious then issues come up. Simply saying “all athiests live in the dark” is not reflective of all athiests. No religion has different views on religion as well.

          • davidrev17

            Thanks for confirming the truth of my statement, in your obvious denial of such; as in, if it’s true, then it’s false. Have a very nice Memorial Day holiday Rob!

          • Rob Jensen

            So much for answering my question. I never said anything like “if it’s true, then it’s false.” That would mean I’m constantly changing my mind on a singular statement. I fail too see a confliction on my views towards religious people. I like that they have a religion that works for them. Trying to use that religion to stop other groups obtaining equal rights or saying other groups are evil, is a bad thing.

          • Phil Teichroew

            Despite however you choose to interpret it, those who know Christ are NOT part of a ‘religion’! It’s a relationship! Continuing all the way into Eternity!

        • Gary

          In the US, homosexuals have historically had the same rights in marriage that heterosexuals have had. The same rules for marriage applied to everyone.

          • Rob Jensen

            That argument is was used in Loving v Virgina and it didn’t work. Listen to the oral arguments yourself.

          • Gary

            I works for those who are willing to accept the same rules for everyone.

          • Rob Jensen

            Still, arguing that gay people had the same rules for marriage didn’t work for keeping the laws in place in the US. Nor did it work for triyng to stop interracial couples for marrying. That argument has no vertue at all. So no point in typing it.

          • Gary

            That is your opinion. I disagree with you.

          • Rob Jensen

            Now we’re getting somewhere.

          • Autrey Windle

            You are beginning to make me wish your parents had been gay and spared us your diatribes about hate and perversity.

          • Rob Jensen

            Perverse is a subjective word, you just don’t like it. Also, I didn’t say religious people are bad. SOME religious people are, mainly the ones who want to stop gay people from obtaining their rights and persecute other religions. Christain groups aren’t alone in that category, plently of Muslim and non religious groups also do these things.

            Religion is not a bad thing. Some religious people are.

          • Gary

            I would argue that “gay people” have always had all the rights to which they are entitled. If there was a right to marry someone of the same sex, then everyone would have that right. If such a right exists, it would be one granted by a human government. It would not be a right granted by the God of the Bible. And any right granted by a human government can be withdrawn by a human government.

          • JP

            How does one prove they are homosexual in public?

          • Andy Ryan

            Rob is right. Fifty years ago courts argued that interracial couples had the same right to marry someone of the same race as themselves, so they weren’t being discriminated against. The argument failed – it was a bad argument then and it’s a bad one now.

        • Your thinking is self-serving and illogical.

          • Rob Jensen

            It is not illogical to recognize that other religions and different interpretations of those religions exist. It’s a simple fact. AlQueda interprets the Koran different thena Sik’s do (misspelled them the first time). I’m looking at reality here.

          • Sgt Carver

            Sikhs read the Guru Granth Sahib not the Koran…. they are very different religions and have had violent conflicts. You should read about the partition of India, though that also included Hindus.

          • Rob Jensen

            It was just trying to show different religions exist and different interpretations exist. It’s hard for me to keep track sometimes, as I’m an athiest.

          • Sgt Carver

            That came across as harsher than I intended, so big oops from me. I’m an atheist too but I think it is important for us to understand the different religions if we are going to use them as examples, particularly if we are going to dismiss/compare them.

          • This reasoning involves an illogical assumption: “If they believe it, it must be true.”

            Therefore, your reasoning is still illogical. It is also self-serving.

          • Timothy Horton

            Your reasoning is still puerile and worthless.

          • Rob Jensen

            No it is not illogical to recognize that other religions and different interpretations of those religions exist in the slightest.
            The statement that “If they believe it, it must be true.” does not apply here. It is their religious belief and that is all. Saying that my statement is illogical means, you feel that there are not multiple branches of Christanity and other religions, which is simply not true. If religions only had one system, King Edward whoever, wouldn’t have created a split in the Christain church X number of centries ago.
            Religion is not a black and white thing.

          • Rob Jensen

            There is also a big difference between stating, a religious belief exists, and that “this religous belief is true”. Everyone has a different path for religion, but many of them mirror each other to a tee. Nothing illogical about that at all.

          • I stand by my statements: your reasoning is illogical and self-serving.

          • Timothy Horton

            Your interruptions are puerile and pointless.

        • Autrey Windle

          You better hope you are the only right person on the planet because that will be the last wrong thing you think on your way to not-heaven.

          • Rob Jensen

            Apparently you also missed the part of different beliefs and interpretations of those religions. Plus, as I said below, you do realize that the argument of “You will be doomed, while I will be rewarded” can be thrown right back at the one who said it. It’s a worthless argument.

        • JP

          How does a homosexual prove he is homosexual in public?

          • Timothy Horton

            Why would they ever be required to?

          • JP

            We know by sight what a man and a woman looks and also what the various races look like in public. So how am I to know what a homosexual looks like in public so as not to discriminate against? What are the signs I should look for and how does a homosexual prove he is a real homosexual and not a fake?

          • Timothy Horton

            So how am I to know what a homosexual looks like in public so as not to discriminate against?

            Easy. Just don’t discriminate against anyone in public and you’ve got it covered. That option never crossed your pointy little bigoted mind, did it?

          • Gary

            Discrimination is an unavoidable part of life. Even you discriminate against those you don’t like.

          • JP

            Anything can be taken as discrimination. So how do I know who is homosexual in public? After all, I don’t want to be a bigot.

          • Timothy Horton

            But you are a homophobic bigot. You confirm that with every post.

          • JP

            I think you are the bigot. You don’t want to answer my questions.

          • Rob Jensen

            They don’t. They prove they are ordinary people. You just accept that gay people exist and move on. Only way you get a fake homosexual is if they are actually straight and then admit it later. You’re making a big deal over something you don’t have to.

          • JP

            That is not good enough.Since a homosexual wants his homosexuality recognized in public there has to be a way for a person to know for sure they are homosexual in public. So how can I know a real homosexual from a fake one?

          • Timothy Horton

            Since a homosexual wants his homosexuality recognized in public

            The willful ignorance of these homophobic bigots never ceases to amaze. LGBT folks would love nothing better than to have their sexuality be ignored and totally irrelevant when being out in public. To not be discriminated against, or singled out and picked on, or denied services. But ignorant bigots can’t grasp the concept of equality for the minorities they hate.

          • Gary

            I’m not going to pretend that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals.

          • Timothy Horton

            Every LGBT person I’ve met in life has been a better person that you.

          • Gary

            That’s because you love evil and hate good.

          • JP

            Since homosexuals want their preferences to be public and respected its vitally important for people to be able to recognize by sight who the true homosexuals are.

          • Timothy Horton

            More lying for Jesus. You can’t deal with the facts so have to make up silly strawmen to fling your poo at, right?

          • Dave M.

            Come on Tim, LGBSTD folks throw their perverse sexuality in our faces every chance they get. Ever see a “pride” parade? Additionally, their perverse sexuality is the defining characteristic of the LGBSTD, they neither want it ignored nor deemed irrelevant; they want it flaunted and celebrated. However, they do want the HIV/AIDS and other STD rates ignored, so I will concede that.

          • Rob Jensen

            You are still making a big deal about nothing. People are gay, people are straight. Accept it and move on. It shouldn’t bother you anymore than the other stuff you described above. People don’t walk around with every single label applicable to them on their head. I don’t tell people, I have a phobia for a certain animal, I don’t tell people my ancestry, I don’t tell people what type of women I’m attracted to. Making a big deal about nothing.

        • margaret jaeger

          Governments are not devoid of religion, that’s a view from the American Civil Liberties Union, a communist foundation to saynthey are. If they have laws that also make declarations about behaviors,,they are founded on the laws of the beginning of mankind that were written in the Bible as coming from God…first. Laws of separation were deliberately misinterpreted by the ACLU when all side writings on that Constitutional law by Presidents and prominent politicians of the founding of our country all enforce the belief that this law means that Governments shall not interfere with the worship of the churches but never states anywhere that God’s laws will not be used as framework of laws or Constitutions. Those who don’t agree with that definition and protest, aren’t in favor of the framework from which laws were taken….God’s word of the Judeo-Christian Bible.

          • Rob Jensen

            Everyone borrowers laws from someone else. Nothing unusual there. And the ACLU is not a communist foundation. People are still overhyping communism from both sides of the political sprectrum. Communism is nothing to worry about these days, unless North Korea goes rogue, or China does something REALLY stupid.

          • donney149

            SHHH, Rob you are making yourself look bad.

        • Phil Teichroew

          ALL are lost! Romans 3:23…

          • Rob Jensen

            That’s keeping a closed mind and saying “All religion other than the one I follow is bad.” Not a good motto to have in today’s world. You’re actually doing religion more of a disservice than helping it out.

        • donney149

          Gay people have equal rights…they want special rights based on their sexual preference.

  • Gary

    When you boil it all down, the disagreement over marriage is theological. Some people accept God’s definition of marriage, and some don’t. Those that don’t will try to change what marriage is. And letting two men “marry” won’t be the last change.

    • eddiestardust

      Biology not Theology.

      • Gary

        The biology is certainly in agreement with Biblical theology.

      • Parant

        And marriage isn’t biology in human sense.

  • JP

    Homosexual “marriage” is a fake. Must have a husband and a wife to have a marriage. Only a man can be a husband and a woman a wife. 2 wives or 2 husbands don’t make a marriage. It is illogical.

    • Gary

      If it is two women, then neither one is the wife. A wife requires a husband. Without a husband there can be no wife. And a woman cannot be a husband. Same thing in reverse for two men.

      • JP

        Very good point. When someone claims to be same sex “married” I like to know who they think is supposedly the husband or wife in such cases. Get befuddled looks to outright cussing me out. I guess only bigots ask such questions.

        • Mark_Trail

          Men and their false gods had sex with anything that breathed and some things that didn’t before God called Abram out of Ur of the Chaldees, so, yes, marriage is a Biblical thing. If it wasn’t for Judaism and Catholicism, the revelation of God to man, we’d be everything and anything goes and this controversy over the definition of marriage wouldn’t be a controversy at all. We’d actually all be living sort of like Muslims do in respect to sexual morals and ethics today.

    • Phil Teichroew

      ‘Same-sex’ marriage is an oxymoron!

  • Howard Rosenbaum

    Yeah right. Ever since it was reported that Trump has twice the scoops as his guests on given occasions , the left has fallen all over themselves in their insane efforts to further delegitimatize this presidency. Ben & Jerry, inspired by Trumps “Hitlarian” like treatment of his dinner guests, seemingly have taken the ice cream scandal to a new & even more absurd level. Perhaps, if they keep up this kind of nonsense, their two scoop policy may turn into a no scoop reciprocity. Just ask Target & Kellogg’s how well their marketing strategy’s are doing for them ….

  • Mark_Trail

    Men had sex with anything that breathed and some things that didn’t before God called Abram out of Ur of the Chaldees, so, yes, marriage is a Biblical thing. If it wasn’t for Judaism and Catholicism, the revelation of God to man, we’d be everything goes and this controversy over the definition of marriage wouldn’t be a controversy at all. We’d actually all be living sort of like Muslims do in respect to sexual morals.

    • BetterYet

      Actually no. Even the most primitive of cultures have a common concept of marriage between a man and a women only. It could only really be part of our nature.

      • Mark_Trail

        Would that that were the case. History records many sexual arrangements were considered perfectly within the sphere of human expression of the sexual urge, and our current culture certainly reflects that. Billions of dollars per year are spent on porn as a means of sexual expression, for instance. The history of Judaism is fairly graphic in its depicting Israel as whoring after false gods of the flesh worshipped by the pagan nations around them, and we know what practices they perceived as normal. Sodom and Gomorrah, for example. The Greeks practiced male on male sexuality as a means of producing a fierce warrior class, similar to the Brown Shirts and Nazism did in the 20th Century. Abortion today is an example of our “Sexual Revolution (really reversion) Culture” worshipping sex and offering up the child to the false god of progressivism. The Gay Pride Movement is simply a reversion to pagan sexual practices. The Gay Pride Flag is simply a mockery of The Sign of the Covenant of God with the descendants of Noah, the rainbow. History really doesn’t provide us with any conclusion to be reached other than that man-woman marriage was elevated to its status as a sacred bond involving the True God and humankind through any passage other than Judaism and Christianity.

  • Liz Litts

    Good way to lose business—so let them shoot themselves in the foot. Glad I stopped buying their product long ago–oh by the way, how are they going to stop the people who buy it in the supermarket?

  • Jim Walker

    You cannot have 2 same flavors in a Cup!
    Magical Irony at its finest !

  • Emanuele Ciriachi

    What a load of rubbish. The benefits of marriage are not a consequence of “love”. Oy, what about three people that love one another then? This hedonist, egotistical definition of marriage is pure nonsense.

  • Mama Lawing

    Pitiful, overpriced, egotistical, bullying company. They make ice cream. Their product is not worth going against what God calls abomination.God give this company its just deserts, Woe unto those who call evil good. Their end will not be sweet.

  • Andy Ryan

    “But first, Ben and Jerry’s should realize they’re heading down a slippery slope. After all, will they ban three-scoop cones of any flavor until Australia legalizes throttles?”

    Might as well say that not including gay marriage as ‘proper marriage’ is a slippery slope to saying interracial couples can’t be married, or infertile (or post-menopausal) people can’t be married.

    “No same-sex couple in the world, however loving or committed they may be, can produce new life in this way”

    Neither can straight couples where one or both are infertile. By your argument any woman over the age of 55 can’t have a ‘real marriage’.

    • Dave M.

      Sorry Andy, concerning interracial couples, what does sin have to do with the color of ones skin?

      • Andy Ryan

        What does sin have to do with your gender?
        What does allowing gay marriage have to do with legalizing throttles?
        Fifty years ago people cited Christianity to argue against interracial marriage, now they do the same to argue against same sex marriage.

        • donney149

          Read the Bible…you’ll find your answers there.

          • Andy Ryan

            It talks about legalizing throttles in the bible? Can you give me chapter and verse?

  • Steve Rutz

    I am done with Ben and Jerry.

  • Kathy Rust

    For anyone who is not aware, the threesomes are already coming out.

    • I think they’ve always been there. Back in the 70s we called them “swingers.”

  • Gary

    Is it true what they say about Ben and Jerry?

  • QuestionMark666

    What have you got against polygamy anyway? That should be legal too.

    • The issue of polygamy was put to rest over 100 years ago, as a condition for Utah’s statehood.

      But that was then, and this is now. It is entirely conceivable that the constitutionality of polygamy is addressed by the Supreme Court … but it will have to be argued on its own merits. It has not more to do with Gay couples marrying than with Straight couples marrying. In fact, it actually have MORE to do with Straight marriage, since polygamists are almost invariably heterosexual.

      • QuestionMark666

        Could be any polyamorous amalgamation of consenting humans. Why should these secular contracts be limited to just two participants? And why the traditional imbalance of male led groups of wives, why not women led unions with 3 or 4 men. Biologically it is easier for one woman to enjoy 3 or 4 males than one man satisfying 3 or 4 women. Maybe 2 women and a half dozen studs is the most desireable confabulation for some. Like my ex used to say, “Di*ks are like potato chips, one is NEVER enough”

  • I understand that Michael Brown is not happy with Obergefell, but same-sex marriage IS indeed marriage as far as the law is concerned. And it has nothing to do with procreation, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for a marriage license. Even couples who are INCAPABLE of having sex are allowed to marry. So Michael Brown’s argument just falls apart.

    • Parant

      Marriage forms two different entities (one of every kind) together to create a family. It’s the best fit for a new human, a child. Infertility is unfortunate, but it’s a flaw that the couple cannot help by themselves. Often it’s simply not about who they chose to marry.

      We COULD ask, what purpose does marriage serve for infertile couples if they can’t have offsprings. Personally I’d answer that despite their infertility, they’re still otherwise perfectly suitable for raising someone else’s child because their union of both sexes, a man and a woman, is balanced and fulfilled.

    • Dave M.

      Dr. Brown is not making a “legal” argument, he is making an eternal one. You can worship at the altar of the Supreme Court all you want but Justice Kennedy will not be the one seated on the throne at judgment day.

    • donney149

      Dude, don’t let public opinion be your moral compass. You’ll end up sideways!

  • Jasmine

    So at this point can we sue them for not supplying us two scoops of the same flavour ice cream? You know, just like that gay couple did to that Christian baker in Colorado? We’d win, right?

Inspiration
When It Looks Like We’re Getting Nowhere
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us