Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

“Marriage Is Not About Love,” Says Catholic Nutjob Bill Donohue

douche-weekEach week, Queerty picks one blowhard, hypocrite, airhead, sanctimonious prick or other enemy of all that is queer to be the Douche of the Week. 

Of all the ridiculous reasons we’ve heard religious nutjobs give to justify their opposition to same-sex marriage, this one may be the worst. In an interview with Current TV’s John Fugelsang, current president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Bill Donohue, claimed the “idea of two men getting married is one of the most bizarre ideas in human history” because “marriage is not about love.”

But what, exactly, does Bill Donohue think marriage is all about? Babies, of course! “The whole purpose of marriage is to make a family,” he says. “It’s not about making people happy, it’s not about love.” He still believes sterile heterosexuals have the right to be married, though, claiming they’re still “anatomically equipped” for children.

Though he claims to loosely support civil unions, Donohue believes the idea of same-sex marriage is bizarre namely because he can’t think of “a single society in the history of the world…that would ever entertain this.” Perhaps he had fallen asleep during history class, or conveniently forgot about the same-sex pederasty unions in Ancient Greece, the lesbian wedding ceremonies of China’s ancient Ming dynasty, or the fact that thirteen of the first fourteen Roman Emperors were believed to be homosexual, two of whom were legally wed to other men.

Aside from marriage equality, another “absolutely bizarre” concept he can’t seem to grasp is marriage between two people that love each other. For Donohue, marriage should be treated strictly as an “act of duty,” or, a union between two people uninterested in each other for the purpose of creating children that can also marry people they don’t care for, and so on. He claims there are psychological and emotional advantages to having both a mother and a father, but isn’t it more psychologically damaging for children to be raised by two heterosexual people that hate each other than two homosexual people in love?

Hey Bill, how do you feel about marriage between two douchebags? Because honey, you are a Grade-A DOUCHE.

On:           Apr 12, 2013
Tagged: , , , , ,
    • 2eo

      christianity isn’t supposed to be about fucking children, but the catholic heirarchy have made a damn rampant fist of it.

      Apr 12, 2013 at 1:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • betrthanu84

      @2eo: Oh, but those Catholics do love fucking children!
      Nyuck nyuck nyuck…

      Apr 12, 2013 at 1:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jackpapa

      So to Bill Donahue, marriage is not about love or happiness or even mutual support.

      It nust be strictly about creating children who will grow up to be choir boys and alter boys and prey for the pedophiles who lead his church.

      Who’s recruiting now?

      Apr 12, 2013 at 3:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • LubbockGayMale

      Let’s see, how can we come across as idiots?!?!?! What else works besides claiming marriage is all about procreation!!!! Forget tax policy, civil rights, etc, etc. How soon before the law is changed so that newlyweds must produce offspring within a year, or the marriage is annulled????

      Idiots all!

      Apr 12, 2013 at 3:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hillers

      Thanks for the clarity on the issua, ya worthless tub of crap!

      Apr 12, 2013 at 3:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam

      It’s fun to watch the desperate contortions they go into to try to defend being bigots.

      Come on Bill, now tell me the one about how an all male celibate organization with a history of raping children gets to define marriage!

      Apr 12, 2013 at 3:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mpwaite

      this guy is a DOUCHE!! Marriage is NOT about love.. LOL!!

      Apr 12, 2013 at 3:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MK Ultra

      The thing that Donahue and his miserable kind don’t understand or, more likely, actively ignore is that marriage in this country is not defined by the church or the subjective opinion of church followers.
      It’s a government contract and as far as I know in the legal contract of marriage, there has never been a condition of procreation.
      It’s funny, how only after we in the LGBT community wanted marriage did it become “a sanctity”, and suddenly it’s only for procreation. Before that, marriage was used and abused by the very ones now calling it “sanctity”, and procreation seemed to be way down on the list of reasons why.

      Apr 12, 2013 at 3:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Victor_in_PA

      It’s barely worth the effort of saying anything about his comments because they’ve been proven over and over that they’re just plain wrong. Anyone knows that you don’t have to have a marriage license to have a child so obviously, that’s not what marriage is about. You have children from sex, not from getting married. It’s not even about love because just having a piece of paper does not MAKE you love someone. You love someone whether or not a piece of paper exists. It’s about being able to be with the one you love and not have to pay more money to the government because of it. It’s about being able to be with the one you love during a hospital stay. It’s about not having everything taken from you when your partner dies because you have no legal claim because you’re not married. It’s about equality. It’s about fairness. And, it’s about the ability to make our own futures without being oppressed by religious fundamentalists.

      Apr 12, 2013 at 4:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DonW

      I see he’s right on message with the talking points: blame the child abuse scandal on the gays, blame the child abuse scandal on the gays…

      You are divorced, you d*uchebag, and that is expressly forbidden in the New Testament dozens of times, way more than the alleged mentions of homosexuality. So STFU, hypocrite.

      Apr 12, 2013 at 4:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TrekBear

      Historically, he’s right – marriage was a property contract transferring ownership of a daughter to her husband-to-be for some consideration (a dowry or other arrangement). I doubt he seriously wants to go back to that arrangement.

      Apr 12, 2013 at 4:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DarkZephyr

      UGH to think in my naive youth, I once respected this man.

      I will say however, that I wish Queerty had not used examples of “same-sex pederasty unions” as an example of historical same sex marriages.

      Apr 12, 2013 at 5:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MarvelUs

      Following Bill Donohue’s logic, if marriage isn’t about love, then Catholicism isn’t about religion, and love isn’t about sex. Ergo, he should have no problem with gay marriage, because we believe marriage is about love and that people of the same-sex have equal rights to love and marriage.

      Apr 12, 2013 at 5:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David

      I think he has a valid point. If we allow people who love each other to marry, then next you know people will want to love animals and children; people will want to love a whole lot of other people at once; love will be pushed upon us all and erode traditional values. Love will destroy America!

      Apr 12, 2013 at 6:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 2eo

      @David: Didn’t you threaten to kill yourself last time you were laughed off the forum.

      Please try again. And keep doing so until success. I can guarantee you will not be missed.

      Apr 12, 2013 at 6:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David

      @2eo: Huh? I think you have me confused with someone else. I am new to this forum and have never considered killing myself. If you couldn’t tell, my post is toungue-in-cheek sarcasm. Why would you want me to kill myself?

      Apr 12, 2013 at 6:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eddie Jr

      We need more Mahers and less Donohues.

      Apr 12, 2013 at 6:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 2eo

      @David: It seems my API interpreting software popped up and told me you were someone totally different. Apologies.

      I shall bollock facebook for not bothering to refresh their information.

      Apr 12, 2013 at 6:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David

      @2eo: I’m gay. I’m a writer. I’m an activist. I do what I can in the fight for equality, and write frequently for the Advocate. My post was meant to be sarcastically humorous — it seems I may have failed at that attempt.

      Apr 12, 2013 at 6:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David

      @2eo: I understand. Thanks. I’ll admit there are people who wish I would indeed kill myself, but most of them are right-wing, Tea Party-like whackos. :-)

      Apr 12, 2013 at 6:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles175

      He says that there was no gay marriage throughout the history of the world. There was for many thousands of years in the north American and African continents prior to Europeans bringing Christianity to these lands.

      Apr 12, 2013 at 10:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kieran

      If Hollywood were looking to cast someone to play the bigoted, homophobic spokesman representing a Catholic group in a movie, they couldn’t pick a bigger doofus than this Bill Donohue creep.

      Fat, ugly, abrasive, arrogant, obnoxious, pig-headed…..no wonder the media puts him on the air whenever this attention hungry media whore shows up. He makes Catholics look bad.

      Apr 12, 2013 at 10:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alfa

      @TrekBear: Yes, that is correct, and for many marriage is NOT about love. Heteros don’t have to be in love to get married, nor do they have to promise to procreate. However, according to Roman Catholic Church doctrine, SEXUAL RELATIONS are about procreation. And now that homosexuals are doing everything possible to assimilate into the heterosocial (marriage=being monogamous, having kids, etc.), the heteros begin to tell us that we’re not wanted no matter how much we mimic them. Marriage is a failed paradigm to mimic, but since the heteros have proven to be unsuccessful at it, perhaps it’s time to give the homos a stab at it now.

      Apr 13, 2013 at 4:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DarkZephyr

      @Alfa: Mimic? I am not trying to “mimic” anyone in my desire to be wedded to the man I love.

      Apr 13, 2013 at 5:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DOFEK

      No “Marriage Is Not About Love” it`s about HEAT fucking Catholic. AdamHomo

      Apr 13, 2013 at 5:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Billysees

      @Cam: 6

      “It’s fun to watch the desperate contortions they go into to try to defend being bigots.”

      How true that is.

      It’s a non stop dog and pony show by public figure bigots hoping the Court hears their words.

      Hypocritical feasts of mockery they are.

      Apr 13, 2013 at 6:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Billysees

      I should have written —

      “It’s a non stop dog and pony show by public figures hoping the Court hears their words of nonsense and thinks it is wisdom.”

      Apr 13, 2013 at 6:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Volvoguy

      Have you ever heard anybody that can twist words around like this fucking idiot.
      Marriage is not about love, oh please, gay or straight would you stay with somebody
      your not in love with for years.
      It about taking care of someone that you care about, not about spitting out kids that is world is so
      overcrowded anyway.
      One thing Donahue is getting older and his kind won’t be around much longer, silence is golden.

      Apr 13, 2013 at 7:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kevininbuffalo

      When he says that marriage isn’t about love perhaps he’s thinking of his own failed marriage. Can you imagine being married to Bill Donohue? Yuck.

      Apr 13, 2013 at 9:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jackpapa

      @David: I could tell it was saecasm David.

      Apr 13, 2013 at 9:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jackpapa


      Apr 13, 2013 at 9:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caliban

      OK, first off, uber-Catholic Bill Donohue is divorced, so who is he to tell ANYONE what the Catholic view of anything is when he can’t even follow the dictates of his own religion.

      Second, the “Catholic League” is Bill Donohue and his trusty fax machine. That’s it. So WTF is he doing on TV as if he’s the head of some vast organization? OK, I suppose of you count the voices in his head he’s got quite a following but otherwise, no. Wasn’t it Satan in the bible who said “We are Legion.” Yeah, well so is Bill Donohue.

      Though historically he may be correct about marriage not being about love (in fact that’s the real reason priests can’t marry- the church didn’t want to lose any of that luscious, luscious MONEY or other holdings to heirs), I don’t recall any modern wedding ending with “I now pronounce you stud and broodmare” or starting with “Your bank accounts I do hereby join.”

      So in other words, the only way Bill Donohue could be a bigger piece of shit is if he starts gluing turds all over himself.

      Apr 13, 2013 at 9:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Raquel Santiago

      so a gay family/married couple cannot have children? He shouldnt even open his mouth. Anyone got duct tape.

      Apr 13, 2013 at 3:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tomron

      @David: No David- your attempt at humor and sarcasm was right on, was good, and was readily understood. It’s 2eo who totally missed the point, and used a lame excuse having nothing to do with his denseness.

      Apr 14, 2013 at 4:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tomron

      The name of Donohue’s organization includes “civil rights”, which makes the name the biggest oxymoron possible. I have read his consistently negative writings on many subjects other than gay issues, and he’s consistently bitter and crude and on the wrong side of civil rights yet alone civility.

      Apr 14, 2013 at 4:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.