Certain opponents of marriage equality (whom I won't give the time of day) are whining because lgbts don't want to continue to debate the idea.
When they say "debate," what they mean is yet again obscuring the issue and making themselves sound like the victims of a supposed intolerant gay community out to brand them as "bigots" simply because they portray themselves as believers in "traditional marriage."
It's a crock for two reasons. Number one - why should we continue this debate? We did everything the right way and won marriage equality fair and square via the courts. Why is the lgbt community always having to put ourselves in the position to justify our existence or our rights even after we won said rights"? It's an insult to our dignity.
Secondly, and most importantly, when opponents of marriage equality tend to talk about having a debate, they are always bragging on the number of folks who voted in referendums against marriage equality. However, they seem to never want to talk about why some of these folks voted the way they did.
It's less about "protecting traditional marriage," and more about being exploited by fear tactics implying about how gays want to corrupt children, like so:
So enough with the pity party. When opponents of marriage equality are ready to discuss the tactics they used to get voters on their side, I might be willing to entertain a debate.
Bear in mind, I said might.
When they say "debate," what they mean is yet again obscuring the issue and making themselves sound like the victims of a supposed intolerant gay community out to brand them as "bigots" simply because they portray themselves as believers in "traditional marriage."
It's a crock for two reasons. Number one - why should we continue this debate? We did everything the right way and won marriage equality fair and square via the courts. Why is the lgbt community always having to put ourselves in the position to justify our existence or our rights even after we won said rights"? It's an insult to our dignity.
Secondly, and most importantly, when opponents of marriage equality tend to talk about having a debate, they are always bragging on the number of folks who voted in referendums against marriage equality. However, they seem to never want to talk about why some of these folks voted the way they did.
It's less about "protecting traditional marriage," and more about being exploited by fear tactics implying about how gays want to corrupt children, like so:
So enough with the pity party. When opponents of marriage equality are ready to discuss the tactics they used to get voters on their side, I might be willing to entertain a debate.
Bear in mind, I said might.
3 comments:
This version of debate is a discussion in support of the opposition. Nothing more.
To paraphrase Ayn Rand, Truth rarely influences an opinion.
"Friends don't let friends read Ayn Rand" - Flannery O'Connor.
A little late, but, I did find that quote. I didn't have the words near correct, but the meaning is clear.
“Questions of truth do not enter into social issues." (Atlas Shrugged)
That is what our opponents are fighting; like arguing for a favorite sport player. Just leave us alone and most will melt into society like most players melt into a team; becoming part of the whole.
Post a Comment