Thursday, April 26, 2012

NOM - Same-sex households and their children don't matter

Whether it meant to or not, the National Organization for Marriage just demonstrated how ugly they are when it comes to children living in same-sex households:

This what NOM's blog says about the matter:

Kalley Yanta of the Minnesota Marriage Minute explains why marriage should not be redefined because some same-sex couples are raising children:
"Very few same-sex couples are raising children. According to the Williams Institute, only 22% of same-sex couples are raising children. Many if not most of those couples involve children from a previous heterosexual relationship. The census bureau shows only 0.55% of all U.S. households are households of same-sex couples. Only 0.12% of U.S. households are same-sex couples raising children."
Yanta sums up the coldness of NOM's anti-marriage equality campaign beginning at 1:14 with this statement:

"Why should the definition of marriage that has served us so well be redefined for the 99.88 percent of households in order to accommodate the desires of the 0.12 percent?"

First let's get that question out of the way. Protecting same-sex families in no way redefines the marriages of heterosexual families. Nor does protecting same-sex families cause harm to heterosexual families.

I'm just struck by the basic callousness of Yanta's statement. I refuse to argue whether or not her points are accurate because it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many percentages of same-sex families raising children exist in America. Shouldn't these families be treated equally as heterosexual families?

Not according to Yanta and definitely not according to NOM. To hear them, since same-sex families are not as numerous as large as heterosexual families, they don't deserve protection under the law.

To Yanta and NOM, these families and their children don't matter. It's a contradiction of the statements  made by former NOM head Maggie Gallagher during a Congressional hearing last year. Remember when she said that "there are some gay people who are wonderful parents."

So Gallagher thinks that gays make wonderful parents, but according to her organization, they don't deserve protections for their partners and especially their children.

Is this the new Christian ethic in which we value families not by the love and support they give, but by the number of them exist?

It's an ugly thing to ponder, especially when one remembers the Biblical story of the lost sheep. According to the Gospels of Matthew (18:12–14) and Luke (15:3–7), Jesus told a story of a shepherd who left his flock to find one lost sheep because he cared about that one lost sheep as much as he cared about those 99 others.

The shepherd did not say "forget that sheep. It's just one and I have 99 others." No, the shepherd looked for that sheep until he found it.

The point is that we all have value, not by the number of us who may exist, but because we exist, period.

And that's a value which needs to be upheld. It doesn't matter how many same-sex families raising children exists in this country. They count just as much as heterosexual families raising children. And they should be treated with the same amount of fairness because it is the right thing to do.

A truly ethical and Christian organization would know this. But what does NOM know about true Christianity and true ethics?

No matter how much NOM tries to deceive us, the organization's mask seem to always fall off, showing its true ugly face.

Bookmark and Share


thom said...

By their logic, since Jews in America constitute at least as small a minority, if not smaller, than the LGBT community, then the government should stop allowing Jews to marry. It's perhaps the most idiotic argument I've yet heard them make, and that's given their already very high bar for idiocy.

Unknown said...

The National Organization for Marriage is a criminal organization.

Just ask the people of Maine and California

Kat said...

Yanta, I can tell you never took a statistics class in your life! Also, I think the 0.12% you were talking about is your common sense percentage. I am all for having an opinion, but you are stating numbers that are way off on the actual statistics of LBGT men and woman and how many of these couples are raising children; and yes we do count! Stop trying to redefine marriage and families to fit your cookie "cutter little" mind.

Cline Architects said...

Thank you for the reminder of the story of the good shepherd.

Green-eyed people should not have the right to buy eyeglasses since they are only 1-2% of the world's population. Right?

Tor said...

Thanks for the reminder of the story of the good shepherd.

Green-eyed people should not be allowed to buy eyeglasses, as they represent only 1-2% of the world's population. Right?

Anonymous said...

I wonder when NOM will start putting left-handed people in concentration camps.

-Karly the Psychic Corgi

PJB863 said...

You guys are making me nervous! I'm left-handed and green-eyed....

Xaratherus said...

Note that comments on the Youtube video have been disabled. I won't even bother trying to post my opinion on NOM's blog anymore; after having over 80 comments censored despite absolutely no violation of NOM's blog's posted community guidelines, I have stopped bothering to comment there.

It is the censorship here, both by NOM and by the Minnesota for Marriage group, that is important to note. Their rhetoric cannot stand close scrutiny, nor can it stand in a fair debate, thus they simply cannot allow it.

The last time that I checked, the Constitution guaranteed its rights to all United States citizens - not just the ones who make up some sort of majority of the population. The hateful idiocy of the idea that gay families do not deserve equality under the law simply because they make up a small segment of the family population is sickening - more so when you realize that it underlines the idea that these bigots do not care a single bit about families, AT ALL, but only in enforcing their own theocratic agenda.

Kathy Knowles said...

they are scraping the bottom of the barrel for their arguments. They have to officially agree that lgbt families exist so now they have argue that there are too few to worry about?? Huh?
They are just getting more ridiculous all the time