His arguments are a hodge-podge of Christianist talking points, are completely logic free. Let's do a quick demolition:
According to Moody, one of the main reasons for marriage is for a man and a woman to bear children.
Actually, according to the Catholic Church, one of the main reasons for marriage -- actually, the reason for marriage -- is for a man and woman to bear children. As it happens, that's not really strongly corrected to reality, considering the number of married couples who either cannot have children or elect not to have children.
He asserts same-sex couples are physically unable to produce children and must therefore adopt. According to Moody, every same-sex marriage has a net child capacity of zero, meaning each same-sex married couple does not contribute to their community's population as would a heterosexual couple.
Wrong. About a quarter of same-sex couples are raising children, and of those, an increasing number are raising their own children, either from previous marriages or through sperm donors or surrogates. Once again, class: we're gay, we're not sterile.
They may adopt, but this does not equate to producing their own children, according to Moody.
Let's insult everyone while were at it. And "does not equate" according to what standard?
Do you get the idea that this guy's "arguments" are out there in Neverneverland someplace?
He's fixated on biological parents, too:
Moody said that by allowing same-sex marriage in the state, the methods for handling court cases involving biological parents and their children is now thrown out the window because with same-sex couples, one or both of the individuals may not be the child's biological parents and could be linked by nothing but an adoption certificate.
If I recall correctly, under the law an adopted child is fully equivalent to a biological child. This argument is pure garbage.
It's a whole page of bullshit. Amanda Beland, who wrote the article, is to be credited for actually performing journalism -- if you click through and actually read it (which will either raise your blood pressure or give you a good laugh), you'll note that she is careful to keep her distance from this diatribe. She does nail him on the religious basis for repeal, sort of:
Moody's argument in favor of repealing same-sex marriage in the state remained relatively free of faith and morality based assertions, though he did admit those beliefs were still very much rooted within the foundation of the repealment of the same sex-marriage law in New Hampshire and across the nation.
However, she does fall down on this one:
However, many states, some considered even more liberal than New Hampshire, have repealed the law when given the chance, most notably, he said, Maine.
Umm -- California, anyone? Prop 8? In a campaign funded by -- yep, "religious" organizations. Where that repeal is being challenged in federal court on the basis of Constitutional Equal Protection guarantees. (Which should have happened in Maine, and should also happen in New Hampshire if repeal goes through.)
Oh, and in case no one pointed it out -- another fail on the part of the reporter -- Cornerstone Policy Research Center is spearheading the repeal effort in New Hampshire. Jeremy Hooper has some interesting information on its connections. That should have been noted in the article.
So do you think we can describe Scott Moody as a tool of the Christianist anti-gay right? Thought so.
And the promised antidote: read this letter from an adopted boy to his two dads. You're going to get all sniffly.
And if that doesn't clue you into how hollow and hateful Scott Moody's "arguments" are, nothing will.
No comments:
Post a Comment