Thursday, March 14, 2013

'NOM misrepresents child's testimony' and other Thursday midday news briefs

Let's look at the sad tackiness of the National Organization for Marriage:

Oh the poor baby, except for one thing:

And what makes it worse? In the words of a comment from where I gleaned NOM's tacky misrespresentation:

An additional thing that is incredibly deceptive about this is that when someone testifies before a legislative committee, typically it isn't a "give and take," it's a monologue by the person testifying. The committee is there to listen and let people have their say. The graphic makes it look like, oh, goodness, the lawmakers were left speechless by the perspicacity of this young child, whereas the reality of it was, they weren't there to ask OR answer questions. (Moreover, even if they were, one could hardly imagine that there would be lots of political capital in arguing with a pre-teen. It's pretty easy to see why this, almost certainly rhetorical, question would have been left alone.)

Misrepresenting a child's testimony. NOM is brazen and tacky, not to mention stupid. Did the organization think that no one would call it out on the lie?

In other news: 

‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill Could Prevent Counselors From Providing Mental Health Support - This ain't good, folks.

Tennessee Counseling Bill Would Let Student Psychologists Reject Gay Clients Without Punishment - And this just as bad.

24 Awesomely Creative Ways To Come Out Of The Closet - Okay this is funny and cute.


David said...

So we should assume that NOM believes that children being raised in single-parent homes (gay or straight) should be placed in straight two-parent homes, right? Otherwise, we might come to the conclusion that they're nothing but lying, sleazy, bigoted hypocrites, that exploit children in order to demonize gay people. They wouldn't want the public to think that, would they?

JT said...

Technically, unless she didn't say what they said she said or said it in a different context that they stripped away, they didn't misrepresent her testimony. They used a picture that was meant to tug at heartstrings.

I love how you jump in and fight the battles, but you need to fight the real ones and not create ones yourself. Otherwise, you've just done exactly what they did. And you're better than that.

Anonymous said...

Not necessarily true. I've drawn out a few legislators at hearings here in RI.

Rep. Edie Ajello - got her to admit to being an atheist. That was cool!

Sen. Paul V. Jabour - I got a nod of agreement from Jabour when I made the statement that "All of you have friends or relatives that are gay."

Which surprised me when Jabour said this at a candidate meet n' greet:

I see him all the time as his office is two doors down from where I live. So I see him at all the common places around here too.

Megaman_X said...

Not the first time these manipulative bastards used an image out of context.

BlackTsunami said...

JT, you are wrong. Her question was rhetorical, meaning it was not meant to be answered by the committee. But NOM made it seemed as if she directly asked this committe the question and they were unable to answer her - ie a SERIOUS misrepresentation of her testimony.

Anonymous said...

NOM sure strained hard on the stool to drop this floater out. Aside from what the blog itself says, I have two things to add.

1. NOM appears to imply with the image that heterosexual unions will be voided by the law, and that in every instance, the children will be seperated from one parent, both of which will be paired with same-sex partners.
2. Is NOM trying to put the issue so off to the side of reality that we start thinking the Committee will decide on whether to give legal rights to gay men OR lesbians, but somehow not both?