I never do this. I never go through someone else's post and take it apart element by element, but this is such an egregious example of being ideologically blinded, cherrypicking information, specious arguments, lame reasoning, and every other intellectual sin that I can think of that I can't let it pass.
This is GayPatriot on same-sex marriage.
As the result of this posting yesterday and the comments that followed, I would like to take this opportunity to re-state my personal position on “gay marriage.” It pretty much comes close to the comments of Matty here, and Michigan-Matt here.
I personally oppose intruding on the religious institution of marriage via court mandates or legislation.
I think most people probably agree. That has not been the argument, unless you are a totally credulous clown who actually believes people like Donald Wildmon and James Dobson. The debate has been about the civil institution of marriage. I don't know of anyone (or perhaps I should say "anyone else") who is dim enough to believe that anyone seriously wants to intrude on others' religious beliefs (except, of course, the aforementioned stalwarts of American liberty and their fellow Christianists). GayPatriot and his readers also have, in my recollection, a notable deficiency in drawing a distinction between their own religious beliefs and civil law. (Yeah, I got into it in his comments section once before on that very issue.)
One of the main reasons, aside from intruding on religion, is that I have never once, during the entire gay marriage debate, heard anyone say they favor it due to wanting a covenant with God and their partner.. or frankly because of love.
Where does he think this whole thing started? The economic aspects have always been a subsidiary argument, simply because it's impossible to quantify or find an objective standard for discrimination without recourse to illustrations of "harm." The lack of benefits for same-sex families is one of the ways that the arguments can be presented in a legal framework. (In fact, the decision in the Massachusetts case, which I've forgotten the official name of, was based in large measure on discrimination against the children of the plaintiffs, as illustrated by just those criteria.) Aside from that, most of the arguments I've heard from people actually involved in the court cases have revolved around love and the social validation of their relationship as committed partners. That is the basis for the whole push for hospital visitation rights, power to make life decisions, and the rest. As for a covenant with God, we don't need the courts or legislatures to validate that, now do we want that validation in that sphere -- that's between the individuals and their gods, as it has always been.
I should note, in passing, that "love" as a motivation for marriage is a late arrival -- maybe nineteenth century? Certainly no earlier. "Traditional" marriages were arranged, involved property transfers in one direction or the other, and were -- surprise! -- basically economic and political arrangements.
The entire gay marriage debate has come down to this: We want financial benefits. That is a legitimate argument for civil unions, which I and the President support.
That's simply not true. That is a blatant case of cherrypicking. And frankly, I'm surprised that he can make the statement that the President supports anything -- it really depends on who he's talking to, or had we forgotten that?
But it is a very selfish and love-less reason to support gay “marriage” as Gryph describes here.
"Gays and lesbians don’t want “gay marriage”, what we want is traditional monogamous marriage. It’s people such as yourself that attach all the labels to it. The facts are that we have families and children to take care of just like straight people. So we should have benefits of marriage to help us shoulder those responsibilities like everyone else. So quit hiding simple prejudice behind pseudo-intellectual word games."
Me, me, me, me, me. That’s the problem with the American gay communities’ stance on gay marriage. “It is all about me.” Guess what folks, real marriage is not “all about me.” It is all about a covenant between God, you and your spouse. Until the language of the debate from our side moves to talking about love, commitment and covenant — and less about financial gain and selfishness — we will continue to lose. Straight Americans know what marriage is about. We, by and large, haven’t figured it out yet. No one in the straight world gets married in a serious relationship only in order to improve their financial situation on April 15. That is the only argument we seem to bring to the table.
Man. This one is just full of problems. Notice how an argument based on legal and social support for families is miraculaously revealed to be "all about me." The quote he includes has nothing to do with his argument, and in fact is diametrically opposed. And yet somehow he equates protecting one's children with self-gratification, which simply eludes me. Did he actually read what he was quoting? It's things like this that make me wonder why anyone pays attention to this site. (And it's worth noting that it was brought up in the comments section that straight couples do, in fact, get married to improve their financial situation.)
Finally, much has been made by our friend Andrew about this public exchange between a 16-year old Virginian and US Senator George Allen over the issue of gay marriage. Says the teen,
"I never dreamed of the day when I would reach a political debate on a human rights issue based on civil liberty and the foundations of our great country with a Senator, former Virginia Governor, and a potential candidate for the Republican Presidency. Senator George Allen (R-Virginia), held a public hearing in Culpeper this evening."
If you haven’t, please read the whole posting. I agree that this young man was very courageous and professional in the way he handled himself and I applaud him for it. But it reinforced my mystification at the argument that gay marriage is a “civil right.” Huh? Andrew loves citing this over and over. But aside from saying your tax refund would be higher under “marriage”…. no one has yet explained (to me) how withholding marriage (Gryph’s definition) is “trampling on my civil rights.”
The remark I left in in the comments for this post was to check the Supreme Court's opinion in Loving vs Virginia, which struck down miscegenation laws. The Court held that marriage to the person of one's choice was a fundamental right and the state, absent an objectively compelling interest, could not interfere. It's not like it's a radically new concept -- Loving was decided in the 1960s. (And yes, I linked to the same post.)
Sorry folks, I don’t see it and I think it demeans true civil rights infringement such as senseless gay bashings in Blue State cities such as San Francisco, Philadelphia and New York City where most seem to take place.
As someone else pointed out in the comments to this post, most Africans are killed in Africa. 'Nuff said? There's an obvious agenda (read "chip on the shoulder") here that doesn't bear comment. The idea of gay bashing being a "true" civil rights infringement while denial of equality under the law is not is another one I just can't fathom, quite aside from being simply wrong: gay bashing is a crime, known officially as assault. Civil rights is not a legal argument in that case. Denial of equal rights under the law is a civil rights issue, since the government is doing it. Duh.
I’m sure there is much more to be said in my “re-re-clarification”… but I figured this was a good start to get the moonbats a’jumpin!
Somehow, the use of the term "moonbats" to designate "other" in this context is hilarious.
I don't really pass by GayPatriot very often. After reading this post, I remember why.
I've been accumulating a new batch of blogs, etc. for another post on SSM. I guess it's about time. Look for it.
2 comments:
I find it very offensive that the right wing persists in labelling heterosexual marriages as "traditional" in their current form, since heterosexual marriage has obviously evolved over the years, as you point out, from a primarily economic arrangement to an emotion-based decision. And I find it even more offensive that the right wing continues to drag religion into the discussion. Heterosexual marriage has always, in European cultures, been a civil arrangement which could be, but wasn't necessarily required to be, blessed by religious figures. The conflation of civil and religious officiants in republican Rome is sometimes cited as "proof" that marriage is a religious "covenant" but in fact when Roman priests officiated at marriage ceremonies they acting in their civil capacity. And it is well known, though widely ignored, that the Christian church in its various incarnations did bless same-sex unions from its very beginning until the fifteenth century. The Christianists can hide behind their rhetoric but the few who have studied their own tradition and history must know the story they are presenting is a lie. I'm no fan of marriage in any form, but if heterosexuals are permitted by civil law to marry I believe there is no good reason, and there are many bad reasons, gay people should be barred from exercising the same civil right.
Look, you have to understand that the anti-marriage wingers are what the Greeks used to call "sophists," just like the creationists -- good at debating tricks, not so strong on building solid arguments that have any bearing on the real world. It's sort of symptomatic of the dumbing of America that they don't get laughed out of the room, but I guess it's just an axiom that most people would rather have their thinking done for them.
And remember, the Christianists are cherrypicking scripture as much as they cherrypick anything else.
Post a Comment