This is known as a Tu Quoque fallacy.
I'm not speaking to the in/validity of her underlying whatever. I'm speaking to this form of logical fallacy.
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2025
1051 points (99.4% liked)
Political Humor
1347 readers
692 users here now
Welcome to Political Humor!
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other.
- No harassment.
- No sexism, racism or bigotry.
- All arguments should be made in good faith.
- No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
- All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
- No bots, spam or self-promotion.
- If you want to run a bot, ask first.
- Site wide rules apply.
- Have fun.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If we're being pedantic, you're approaching the fallacy fallacy, which is when you dismiss a point for being argued with a fallacy instead of addressing the point, and this isn't saying anything about the argument she's making. It's just pointing out hypocrisy. So no fallacy fallacy and no ad hominem.
No one has said gay marriage should be legal because this woman's a hypocrite, or that she's wrong because of that.
At best this is an insult. It's not even libel because it's just the truth.
Further, questioning the character of the person making the argument isn't always invalid. It's not a solid argument in it's entirety but "I find her argument uncompelling because her behavior is inconsistent with a belief in her own argument, and furthermore her behavior casts doubt as to her credibility and reliability as a good faith participant in this discussion".
It's not that her argument is wrong because of her past, it's that it's not worth consideration.
Still looks like Benjamin Franklin to me.
Who looked at her and said “I wanna marry that!”
Her again? I thought I'd heard the last of Kim Davis
Didn’t she also get pregnant while having an affair? I don’t think the sanctity of marriage is all that important to her.
LMFAO why is it ALWAYS a wild ride with these people
Davis has been married four times to three husbands
Her third husband is the biological father of the twins, the children being conceived while Davis was still married to her first husband. The twins were adopted by Davis's current husband, Joe Davis, who was also her second husband; the couple initially divorced in 2006 but later remarried
Davis says she experienced a religious awakening in 2011, following her mother-in-law's dying wish that she attend church.[13] Since then Davis has identified herself as a Christian, belonging to the Apostolic Pentecostal movement,[199] which favors what they describe as a literal interpretation of the Bible.[200] She worships three times a week[201] at the Solid Rock Apostolic Church near Morehead.[13][202] Following her conversion, Davis let her hair grow long, stopped wearing makeup and jewelry, and began wearing skirts and dresses that fall below the knee, in keeping with Apostolic Pentecostal tenets regarding outward holiness and modest dress.[98][202] She also held a weekly Bible study for female inmates at the local jail.[13][202] In an interview in January 2016, Davis said that she believed that "we are living in end times."[203] Davis also expressed her view that the Bible is infallible.[203]
these people are simply fucking nutjobs, absolute messes
Solid rock apostolic church.
Pretty sure the bible says do not worship in houses of stone with idols of wood or stone that cannot taste or smell.
Gotem
Regarding the state, marriage should be all or nothing. Consenting adults should be able to marry whomever and however many they wish or no one can get married. Personally, I don’t think the government should be involved in marriage at all. I would rather see some other options or protections put in place (if they don’t exist already) for couples who choose to become serious but do not wish to “make it legal.”
I already told my wife that she was it. We got married because her family is traditional and we got tax breaks.
The tax breaks are nice, if I’d known how good they’d be, I’d have married my best friend years ago and just gotten divorced when we found our current wives.
IMO "marriage" shouldn't be a legal thing at all. It's between you and your marriage partner/s. The legal/government aspect should be limited to forming legal partnerships with whomever you want to do so for taxes/healthcare/property/etc.
I mean, that's just fining a different word to describe what the government already does.
I don't know that I need the government to use a different word than the rest of society for an arrangement just because some people have a special ritual around it.
A government marriage is required for recognition by the government, and a (whatever religion or group) marriage is required for recognition by (whatever religion or group).
It's not that one should stop using the word or the other has a more legitimate claim, it's just different things in the same category.
It's not what the government already does at all. I can't get a government "marriage" to my 3 housemates so we can all enjoy tax advantages and share medical benefits with each other and whatever else married people do that for. 2 of us could pair up but there'd be an odd man out.
I meant more the legal partnerships aspect than the specifics of who it grants it to. Also, in some areas you can get a marriage between multiple people.
Marriage is the word for the non-business personal binding that you speak of.
You're saying they should open the doors to that to everyone in whatever organization they see fit, which I agree with.
You're also saying they should use a different word for it, which I don't. Religion doesn't own the concept of marriage.
May as well say that we're deciding that religion can't perform marriages anymore. You can have the same party and ceremony, but it's just a Catholic/Jewish/Hindu/etc union. If you want to get married you need to go down to the courthouse.
Personally I don't give a shit what it's called. Calling the legal aspect something else would shut down the resistance from the religious whackjobs that are hung up on the word marriage and the fact that it doesn't fit whatever their religions definition of it is.
Eh, they don't get to win. I care what it's called because that's the word for it in English. Letting them win means that they'll just advance to saying that the government shouldn't be encouraging what they disagree with.
When people proposed "civil unions" as the alternative to gay marriage it shut up exactly zero of the nut jobs. When gay marriage was legalized they started arguing about how you can't force them to make cakes.
Appeasement doesn't work. Get petty and make the nutters defend everything they've got twisted around in their heads. Care about the word if for no other reason than it makes them pissy.
And she's ugly on the outside. Anyways, where's the Epstein tapes you orange child fucker.
load more comments
(5 replies)
She needs to ban same sex marriage because she knows her current husband would leave her for a better man.
I know that guy. It's always funny to me when those memes pop up.
Is he single?
Ha, i don't know. I haven't seen him in a minute.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I do not think that word mean what you think it means...
Lol, "sanctity", coming from this person 🤣
No MAGAs should be speaking about the sanctity of anything until they jettison all the pedo rapists from their party and prosecute them.
Lol, I know right?
Somehow they believe in a secret ring of child molestors and cannibals, when the actual child molestors are in plain sight in front of them 🙄
I mean, if anyone is eating babies it's Trump, to maintain his healthy orange glow.
They're not religious, they're authoritarian. They want a list of rules they agree with and the justification to use violence against anyone who doesn't confirm to their norms.
For most of human history that was a very successful strategy, and likely why were the only surviving branch of our family tree
If we're going to fight them (and we don't have a choice now), it's worth the short moment to understand how they think.
She's gay. That's what this all boils down to, she's a closeted homosexual. No one can convince me otherwise.
Because it ALWAYS ends like that. Anyone who is anti-abortion? probably had a few. Protect the kids from drag queens, sex games, porn? is a pedophile. Someone who is tooth and nail anti-LGBTQ? they're always in the closet.
A dude I grew up with was FURIOUSLY homophobic. We watched the movie Big Daddy, everyone loved it but him. “Nah, I’m leaving. I can’t stand that queer shit. The movie would have been just fine without it.”
In his 20s he lost his damn mind. He wouldn’t watch television, terrified that he’d have to see something gay. He shut down completely, stopped hanging out with people.
Well, he met a girl in an online game, they got married. A gay dude moved into their neighborhood, wife came home and caught him blowing the dude.
Now he’s out of the closet.
He said it was exhausting always feeling like he was going to be outed. You could seriously make him leave a party by just mentioning something about gay people. He’d get super pissed, make a scene, then leave.
I remember him fighting a friend for making a joke (maybe he wasn’t joking) about them having a sexual encounter. I mean, it was brutal. Held him down at my front door choking him screaming, “you tell the goddamn truth! I ain’t never touched you removed!”
I laughed at him when he came in my store with his boyfriend. I said, “Dude, you fucking haaaaated gay people.”
He replied, “nah man, I fucking hated myself.”
That is sad. Just fucking sad.
He probably got brought up by very conservative parents. It's always the parents that fuxk up their kids the most.
Yep. His dad was a preacher and I never seen his mom wear anything but dresses that looked like they were pulled from a museum.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to folks like him, we all find our own way and some have a more direct path than others, but I do get frustrated how a lot of gay folks like that center themselves in their stories. They may have hated themselves most, but they hated the rest of us too, they may have been targeting themselves, but they hurt the rest of us too. They get big and loud when they're homophobic, but when they accept themselves many get small and quiet, when they've got some karma to work back.
He said it was exhausting always feeling like he was going to be outed.
This is definitely something that feels all too common with queer people. I know it's certainly how I felt before coming out as trans, to where I'd want to share memes with my friend group but constantly policed myself worrying that somehow it would "tip them off" somehow. I was in a weird place of being extremely invested in trans issues while also being pretty transphobic at times, basically so no one would think I was so interested because I was trans or anything.
It definitely all led to a lot of tension and anger and a very poor state of mental health overall, and just fucking sucked having to put on such a shitty persona all the time to try and hide my true self.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Marriage is a religious act. It should be banned from all government documents. Domestic partnership should replace all mentions of marriage in government documents and licenses can exist if they are giving tax incentives to have partnerships. If you want to get married and have a wedding and what not that's between the people and their beliefs, not our government. So have a wedding and file for a domestic partnership
The government should not care who you have feelings for, nor should they monitor it. If it is religious prerogative to dictate who should be allowed to be happy with who, then all religious ties must be striped from governing bodies as it is inherently anti the happiness of the people. Which for the U.S., is a direct violation of ones right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
Marriage isn't (just) a religius act. It's a civil one.
Marriage didn't start as religious. Rather, it was appropriated by religion. That's mostly a product of the fact that for a large part of recent(ish) history states had official religions which served to keep the population docile. We seem to have returned to that ideal as of recently as well.
The difference between "marriage" and "domestic partnership" when domestic partherships as such were introduced was the fact that for marriage you had to get married (i.e. go to the wedding registrar and get yourselves on the list), as opposed to domestic partnerships which were meant as a "marriage without marriage". In ages long past, bastard children had no rights of inheritance. That changed and they were treated equal. Domestic partherships likewise allowed spouses the "benefits" of marriage such as tax breaks, divorces, domestic violence protection/suits, etc.
Today, for some odd reason, you have to file for domestic partnership. That's like requiring children file for citizenship. Sure, you do have to report the child as born, but if someone finds out they should have citizenship according to the rules, after a bit of bureaucracy they should have it. It's an automatic process. You don't enter a civil partnership by filing for one. When a spouse sues the other the courts decide whether their relationship constitutes a partnership. So it's a status aforded automatically, not unlike citizenship (until Trump trumps that, at least).
Again, religions don't own a monopoly on marriage. States have been marrying people quite literally since time immemorial. They've been conflated with religion because then there used to be a state-enforced official religion, which the US (and many other places) seem to have returned to.
What we should do is treat marriages as secular. Religions have their visions of marriage. Why shouldn't the state have its own?
Treat marriage as what it is: a registered domestic partnership with the appropriate name of "marriage".
If you want to legally get married, go to the registrar and register.
If you want to get married in your religion of choice, great! Go to their version of priests. Civil recognition of the marriage may or may not be automatic, and there are a few ways how that might be done.
TLDR: Religion has no monopoly on the word or concept of "marriage", as it predates all of them. Just look at roman marriages - done before Christianity was even a thing.
Everything you said here I replied to elsewhere. But tldr; Romans didn't get married, the term was Conubium, or Coniugium.
And if you were talking about the institution of marriage it was Matrimonium, which surrounded the aspect of women as mothers.
The term marriage did not exist yet showing that the term marriage does not matter. Choosing a word over the health/safety and happiness of the common person is pointless.
Terms change, and if it's for a good reason we should change them. The oldest current governing body is only ~250 years old. Christians have been claiming the term marriage for far longer than that.
Why would you care that they called it a civil union or anything else if the rights were the same? Why should people be persecuted to uphold such, it's all frivolous. Change the term in government documents, and let people have whatever ceremonies they want and exclude who they want from their ceremonies.
Conserving "Tradition" is an inability to grow.
Marriage predates all modern religions. I see no reason to cede it to tyrannical puritans.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(27 replies)
that woman is kim davis, she has been fighting her refusal to give gay couple a marriage certificate for 10years, after the story first broke like 10years ago, she was initially sanctioned, but the 1st trump administration has emboldened her, and she is suing again and again, and bankrolled by far right groups. Now she is, through a right wing group bankrolling her, to overturn the scotus ruling over this.
In her defense, her fourth marriage is straight, while my only marriage is gay /s
She's almost certainly a child molester herself. Extreme Christian views are a pretty safe giveaway.
I truly wonder what will happen with my marriage if this comes to pass. We got married before I had a legal name and gender change, and they generally don’t reissue marriage certificates for name changes, so I still have the old one that is ‘straight’ on paper. Will we still be married if SCOTUS kills gay marriage? Will we be married only if nobody finds out I transitioned? Will filing our taxes as a couple flag our marriage? And I’m sure a bunch of other shit I haven’t even realized I need to worry about yet.
load more comments
(1 replies)
You gotta understand her position. If the gays keep getting married, they'll run out of marriages and she wont be able to have a fifth.
Yeah she's a conservative.
Don't worry. Even if this shitty person gets this through, we're all doomed anyway.
I try to find the silver lining in all things. Also, gallows humor. I hate the world. Luckily, I love myself.
I hope she gets hit by a bus before this shit gets any further though.
I hope she gets hit by a bus before this shit gets any further though.
I didn't think Kentucky had public transit
load more comments
(2 replies)
I wanna know what dumbasses married this vile bitch. Fuckin hell man.
load more comments
(2 replies)
So many people I’ve known had said to me in the last cycle that this wouldn’t happen. So so many. I tried to tell them. It still wasn’t enough. They didn’t believe me and now here we are.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›