Yesterday, I wrote a post about the National Organization for Marriage helping to peddle some hogwash written by syndicated columnist Michael McManus. The piece, Why One Should Oppose Gay Marriage, was full of the usual anti-gay distortions and misdirections.
In one passage, McManus claimed that gay marriage was a bad idea because of the so-called promiscuity of gay men. To accomplish this, he compared two studies. However, the studies in question were decades apart (1978 and 1997) and talked about two different dynamics - i.e. single gay men vs. married heterosexual couples.
And in another passage, he freely cited the bad research of one John R. Diggs, even going so far as pulling out the "gays have a short lifespan" lie.
The point of my column was to show the duplicity of the National Organization for Marriage. At the same time the organization tries to pass itself off as a so-called "defender of marriage," it is openly pushing homophobic propaganda.
However, as a sidebar, I took the liberty of emailing McManus. McManus, by the way, heads a group called Marriage Savers. The organization supposedly devises ways for heterosexual couples to have successful marriages.
Let's hope McManus is more successful at this than he is at explaining his mess. The following is a short email exchange I had with him:
What's with these so-called "protect marriage" types anyway? They seem to be always throwing all sorts of erroneous arguments against gay marriage against the wall and expecting everyone to go for the one which may stick while ignoring their other inaccuracies; inaccuracies which always tends to refute their entire premise.
It's almost as if these folks think that they not only have a divine right to choose who gets married, but also a divine right to have their distortions ignored.
Sorry but no one has that right, especially those who are always implying that their beliefs places them on the right hand of God.
In one passage, McManus claimed that gay marriage was a bad idea because of the so-called promiscuity of gay men. To accomplish this, he compared two studies. However, the studies in question were decades apart (1978 and 1997) and talked about two different dynamics - i.e. single gay men vs. married heterosexual couples.
And in another passage, he freely cited the bad research of one John R. Diggs, even going so far as pulling out the "gays have a short lifespan" lie.
The point of my column was to show the duplicity of the National Organization for Marriage. At the same time the organization tries to pass itself off as a so-called "defender of marriage," it is openly pushing homophobic propaganda.
However, as a sidebar, I took the liberty of emailing McManus. McManus, by the way, heads a group called Marriage Savers. The organization supposedly devises ways for heterosexual couples to have successful marriages.
Let's hope McManus is more successful at this than he is at explaining his mess. The following is a short email exchange I had with him:
Me - Dear Mr. McManus, I know that you think you are operating in the body of Christ, but lies and deception have no place in the body of Christ. See to yourself before you condemn members of the lgbt community. Editor's note - I also attached my entire post pointing out the errors in his piece.
McManus - Dear Sir:
I notice you did not question my data that homosexuals are really not interested in marriage. How do you explain the fact there have been only 5,000 gay marriages in Mass. after more than 5 years, many of which were from out-of-state gays, as I understand it. But even if all were from Mass. that is only about 10% of the gay population.
Why should the nature of marriage, as practiced for 5,000 years, be changed for such a tiny sliver of people, who are not even interested in fidelity? Or marriage?
Strangely enough, McManus didn't get back with me on this point.
Me - The reason why I didn't question your Massachusetts information is because your other citations were so flawed that I didn't bother. If you are citing other studies in an inaccurate manner, then how can anyone have any credibility in what you said regarding Massachusetts?
That being the case, would you care to address the flaws which I found in your piece, particularly you making a comparison of married heterosexual couples vs. unmarried gay men from two different studies decades apart?
What's with these so-called "protect marriage" types anyway? They seem to be always throwing all sorts of erroneous arguments against gay marriage against the wall and expecting everyone to go for the one which may stick while ignoring their other inaccuracies; inaccuracies which always tends to refute their entire premise.
It's almost as if these folks think that they not only have a divine right to choose who gets married, but also a divine right to have their distortions ignored.
Sorry but no one has that right, especially those who are always implying that their beliefs places them on the right hand of God.
2 comments:
I was motivated, for some reason, to look at this guy's numbers regarding married gay couples in Massachusetts (I'm a MA resident, have been all my life).
Now, Mr. McManus has used bad numbers in every part of his argument. In fact, there are currently reported at least 8100 same sex marriages having been performed in MA. A lot different from his number of 5000, humm?
So, we cannot, and do not discredit the number of straight marriages in any state which are entered into by out of state or out of country couples, now do we? Doesn't Vegas count all those marriages? Are they all Vegans? :)
You get my point.
So, if we have more than 10% of gay residents getting married, that's not all that different from straight people. I have three brothers, and two of us are gay. We two gay twins (yes, we're twins, fraternal) are the only two of the siblings to be in long term committed relationships. My brother lives in Illinois, where he may not marry his partner, and I'm planning to marry in 2014, when my partner is eligible to convert his green card to full citizenship. We're playing it safe, since nobody can seem to answer questions definitively on what might happen if a green card holder should enter into a same sex marriage with a US citizen. Maybe it's okay, but nobody could point to a precedent which would make it worth taking the risk.
I have three step sisters, all straight, only one of whom is married.
In my family, it seems, gay people are equal to straight people in marriage statistics, or soon will be. And will mention that the two step sisters who were married before, got divorced too.
So, where does McAnus come off all high and mighty about gay people not getting marriage rights because we haven't got the numbers to back it up? Let him try being gay and married in MA sometime. I love living here, but it's not without its challenges, as everywhere else. Will my employer extend benefits without a fight? Will my landlord give me the stinkeye when my partner moves in? Will I be able to obtain health insurance from my partner's employer on the family plan, even though it's the law, the boss is a conservative Republican, and they always find a way to get around the law if they really want to ( it's a bad economy, you haven't worked here long enough, etc. ) ?
Being married anywhere is a public matter, it outs you, whether you like it or not. There are lots of problems with being married and gay that don't exist for straight people. What about federal recognition? I will have to lie on my tax form when we get married, or tell the truth and attach a statement that I'm actually married, but filing as single, cause, yada yada, thanks very much DOMA. It's not the simplest thing in the world to be left in the middle somehow. I can understand how some people just wouldn't want to go there.
Marriage is a right, an equal right, but not always the easiest path.
Forgive me for rambling a bit, but these bigots just make such offhand assumptions, it really burns my toast!
Regarding his comment about the small percentage of gays in Massachusetts getting married: The fact that 8,000+ couples have gotten married, proves how little impact same-sex marriage has had on the populous. Why ban something that effects virtually no one? What about the number of interracial couples that marry? Country-wide it's a very small percentage. Yet that doesn't mean that interracial marriage should be banned because a fraction of society partakes in it.
Should citizens that don't participate in voting during elections, lose their civil right to vote? Of course not. What is the usual turnout, 1/3 or 1/4 of the populous?
Post a Comment