The problem that some people have with marriage equality is probably because assumptions they make as to why gay folks want to get married.
And leave it to organizations like the National Organization for Marriage to exploit those assumptions like in the following:
According to NOM:
First of all, what's wrong with debating marriage? Most importantly, however, the creator of this chart is making many unfair assumptions as to why gays want to get married? He/she makes it seem that gay couples have no idea of commitment or loyalty to each other and that we view marriage as a toy for something like sexual gratification.
It's a huge contradiction to reality. Gays and lesbians wouldn't be fighting so hard for the right to marry if we viewed it as a hedonistic thrill.
And then there is the subject of same-sex families:
The saddest thing about the way some folks attempt to demonize marriage equality is how they deliberately omit any discussions of these families.
It's as if they don't want these families to exist. Or think that these families are so irrelevant that they don't deserve a mention.
And leave it to organizations like the National Organization for Marriage to exploit those assumptions like in the following:
A lay Catholic in California put together a graphic showing why debating marriage can be "fraught with peril" -- it also underscores how central to society the meaning and definition of marriage is.
First of all, what's wrong with debating marriage? Most importantly, however, the creator of this chart is making many unfair assumptions as to why gays want to get married? He/she makes it seem that gay couples have no idea of commitment or loyalty to each other and that we view marriage as a toy for something like sexual gratification.
It's a huge contradiction to reality. Gays and lesbians wouldn't be fighting so hard for the right to marry if we viewed it as a hedonistic thrill.
And then there is the subject of same-sex families:
The saddest thing about the way some folks attempt to demonize marriage equality is how they deliberately omit any discussions of these families.
It's as if they don't want these families to exist. Or think that these families are so irrelevant that they don't deserve a mention.
7 comments:
You think they're omitting the families for a reason and you're right. The reason is, they don't believe that they're a real family. Obviously, you took the child away from at least part of their real family, if not their full real family. Family isn't what we think it is, according to them. It's all about biology, not realizing that there are a lot of people who have claimed a family that has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with love and support, me being one of them.
@BlackTsunami
when I saw that graphic the other day I had a similar thought,,,what person wrote this? and what was their intent. The fact that NOM was crowing about it made it important for me to look at the intent of the author.
I went to the authors site and immediately saw a Benedictine coat of arms and pretty much figured this guy was anti-gay.
Then I started to actually read some of the articles posted by this man.
What I found are a bunch of very neutral stances and some very pro-gay marriage positive thoughts.
Now to be frank, the site cannot be called "pro-gay" by any stretch, but the articles really seemed to be framed to actually get the reader to engage in thought and conversation about their own stances on the issues he address.
To look at the stances they were taught by the church and see if they really apply the way the haters want them to.
The blogger writes things like, everyone's life is full of sin so who am I to judge someone elses life?
also:
since everyone has sin in their life do I have an right to judge the sin in other peoples life? Do I have the right to confront them about their sin?
He paraphrases Matthew 7:5 (You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.)
He speaks about the another writer named "leah" who apparently blogs on the issue of religion and SSM in a pro-gay fashion.
I don't think your conclusion is correct that "He/she makes it seem that gay couples have no idea of commitment or loyalty to each other and that we view marriage as a toy for something like sexual gratification." I think that the NOMbies as usual have twisted and perverted reality to generate attention and distribute misinformation.
The writings I read on his side seem to be at worst neutral on the issue of SSM and at best pro-equality.
I think you may be viewing the graphic not understanding the form it uses. (I am positive that NOM is clueless about its intent)
It reads to me that each of the branches of that tree are equally valid answers the questions posed up the "trunk".
Marriage is:
a committed loving relationship:
between:
lasting until:
for:
with:
yielding:
and involving:
each of those answers is valid if you take the "log out of your eye".
Now I have not read everything on his site and cannot say that there are not articles that are less neutral or that are actually anti-gay. If there are please post the links to those articles.
Otherwise, please go read his writings and rethink your conclusion about the authors intent.
Here are a few of the articles I suggest you read
http://www.foothills.wjduquette.com/blog/archives/2717
http://www.foothills.wjduquette.com/blog/archives/2720
http://www.foothills.wjduquette.com/blog/archives/2723
http://www.foothills.wjduquette.com/blog/archives/2735
Debating marriage is fraught with peril? I suppose that's true when NOM eventually loses this fight, and will have to find a new way to bilk people (and religious organizations) out of their money.
Oddly enough, I have no doubt that a lot of straight couples have chosen a variety of things from that list. Newt Gingrich, no doubt, believes that marriage is lasting until it's no longer fun or no longer healthy -- since he dumped one wife while she was dealing with cancer in the hospital. If anything, this points out that NOM's simplistic and narrow-focused version of marriage can't possibly apply to everyone; and that marriage encompasses a variety of benefits that have nothing to do with repopulating the species.
@ JT1962
I believe another reason, at least for the "higher ups?" (1.e. NOM, FRC, etc), is that, if they bring to light of SS families, there's a chance some of their flock may get too curious, and do something the Religious Right dreads: actual research. Even to bring up SS families to merely degrade them is still acknowledging them. So the best thing to do is to just keep quiet, and focus on homosexuals by themselves.
if you look at the divorce rate and the way straights have treated marriage for centuries, including the holier-than-thou pushers of 'traditional' family, many do treat marriage as merely a tool for sexual gratification. that aspect is pure projection and envy at the perceived freedom we gay persons have as having no responsibility to society at large. all while they (the straight couples im addressing here) completely disregard their own role to society or become hypocrites about it.
Don't worry about the 'human's who tell you it isn't right for gays to raise children, worry about the God you'll have to face at Judgment who laid down these 'laws' in the first place. When 'He' says NO, He means it and can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt why it's WRONG and has proof to back it up, but sadly folks like yourself and others could care less, especially when His Truth is staring us right in the face.
Someone who really does care about the gays, straights, and in between and so does God/Jesus too.
That's all well and good but remember you are talking about YOUR definition of God. My God does not say that gay parenting is wrong. Nor does he say that homosexuality is wrong (btw if I wanted to nitpick, I could easily point out that nowhere in the Bible is there an admonition against same-sex families). You underscore the problem. You have every right to believe what you want, but you don't have the right to dictate what makes a family to other people based on your personal beliefs.
Post a Comment