Hetero missteps = homo wedding rings, and other theories conducive to Maggie’s ambitions

Yes, in the following nugget, Maggie Gallagher is quite undeniably suggesting that same-sex marriages could only take root in a world where human beings experience a “growing disconnect between sex, love, babies, mothers, fathers and marriage”:

Of course marriage is under deep challenge today from many sources, most of them heterosexual. Gay marriage would not be plausible except for the growing disconnect between sex, love, babies, mothers, fathers and marriage. In America, 40% of births are outside wedlock and perhaps 40% of first marriages end in divorce. For me, far from being a reason for us to accept gay unions as marriages, this emergency is the reason the foundational questions about the meaning and purpose of marriage raised by same-sex marriage are so important.” -Maggie Gallagher

For this and many other reasons why she is losing the debate by a very wide margin, go see the ongoing Maggie Gallagher vs. Evan Wolfson debate taking place on The Economist‘s website:

Economist Debates: Single-sex marriage

And don’t forget to vote!

***

*Frankly, we wouldn’t mind hearing the moderator ask Maggie about some of her less forthcoming views:

-8/9/10 on Janet Parshall’s radio program: Said that she sees homosexuality as “unfortunate”, and said that gays can “always control [their] behavior”

-6/30/2008 on “Catholic Answers Live”: Said that according to the Catholic faith, both gays and their supporters are committing “several kinds of sins.”

-5/14/2001, Maggie uses Dr. Robert Spitzer’s study in a way that goes against his own wishes and findings, calls homosexuality a “sexual dysfunction”:I believe there is rather powerful evidence that human beings are a two-sex species, designed for sexual rather than asexual reproduction. If this is true, then the absence of desire for the opposite sex represents, at a minimum, a sexual dysfunction much as impotence or infertility. Human beings seeking help in overcoming sexual dysfunctions deserve our respect and support (and may I mention, President Bush, more research dollars?).” [Source]

-3/20/2000, Maggie defends Dr. Laura:In a simple biological framework abstracted from all religion and morality, homosexuality is like infertility. It is a sexual disability preventing certain individuals from participating in the normal reproductive patterns of the human species.” [Source]

-2/2/2010: Said she initially found gay marriage to be one of a set of issues “so dumb you don’t have to talk about them.” [speech at Franciscan Univ]

-She can often be heard using language that discredits gay love, like the way she dismissively talks about “two dudes” wanting to get hitched or the way she laughs when gays are compared to domesticated birds.




Good As You

—  admin

Audio: Ya know, ‘normal’ families, like those where a hetero dad wages daily, unprovoked ‘culture war’ on his LGBT neighbors

6A00D8341C503453Ef013480E952A6970CGay soldiers painted as grenades lying in wait to destroy “normal” families? The word “so-called” used to denigrate loving couples? Monolithic rejection of an entire West Coast city’s values system?

Why it’s just another day at the office for Matt “one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love’” Barber:

( click to play)

*AUDIO SOURCE: Rogue Band of Homosexual Activists Chain Themselves to White House Fence Yet Again [Liberty Counsel]

Uhm, “even proponents don’t cite benefits — they simply say it’s about equality“? Well that’s essentially like saying “even accountants don’t cite 2 + 2 — they simply say 4.” Because in both instances, it’s the summation of the parts that leads to the solution — a solution that can be represented in shorthand terms.

Now if you’ll excuse us, Rice-A-Roni executives needs us at the secret “San Francisco-style social experimentation” lab. You did know that company is a front for the homosexual agenda, right?




Good As You

—  admin

Waters: Ban Hetero Divorce

JOHN WATERS ON COLBERT REPORT X390 (GRAB) | ADVOCATE.COMSpeaking Sunday at the North Louisiana Gay and Lesbian Film Festival,
famed director John Waters offered up a suggestion: ban heterosexual
divorce.
Advocate.com: Daily News

—  John Wright

Nat’l Review’s marriage case: Protecting sanctity of hetero superiority & entitlement

Cover Overlay 100920A new National Review editorial that Maggie Gallagher calls the “single best piece I’ve read on the subject” of same-sex marriage features lots of the usual, increasingly-rejected arguments about procreation and slippery slopes. It also works the same “they’re gonna call us bigots!” victimization routine that Maggie’s National Organization For Marriage has taken on as their number one strategy as of late (while, of course, not taking responsibility for the “why” of that possibility). So since the piece is an amalgamation of what we take on here, nugget by flawed nugget, every single day of the work week, we’re not gonna pick the whole darn thing apart in this post.

We do, however, want to look at one particular segment that somewhat sums up the skewed mentality that underlies every last bit of our opposition’s marriage bias. Namely, this snip:

Same-sex marriage would introduce a new, less justifiable distinction into the law. This new version of marriage would exclude pairs of people who qualify for it in every way except for their lack of a sexual relationship. Elderly brothers who take care of each other; two friends who share a house and bills and even help raise a child after one loses a spouse: Why shouldn’t their relationships, too, be recognized by the government? The traditional conception of marriage holds that however valuable those relationships may be, the fact that they are not oriented toward procreation makes them non-marital. (Note that this is true even if those relationships involve caring for children: We do not treat a grandmother and widowed daughter raising a child together as married because their relationship is not part of an institution oriented toward procreation.) On what possible basis can the revisionists’ conception of marriage justify discriminating against couples simply because they do not have sex?

The Case for Marriage [Nat'l Review]

Sex. That’s where these opposition voices begin and end with us. Heterosexual married couples have love, commitment, companionship, shared goals and dreams, combined financial means, rights, privileges, tax breaks, PTA meetings, and entitlement to the easy marital currency that will be painlessly recognized in hospitals, courts, tax bureaus, and anywhere else where the one with whom a person has pledged a life commitment most comes into play. But gay couples? Well, we’re just friends who like to play with each others’ genitals, dontcha know? Like a pair of friends who are having so much fun exchanging orgasms that they decided to turn it into a permanent sleepover with their favorite bunkmate.

Now, these social conservatives have of course set up this heterosexual procreation argument because they think it’s the one thing we cannot refute. But marriage is not and has never been based around the ancillary component of children. Not fully. And nowhere else, other than in the confines of a politically-charged conversational contrivance like the one Nat’l Review‘s editors have proffered onto their partisan pages, would anyone debate that fact. Human beings the world over know what love and marriage is, and we all know it goes well beyond whether or not the couple (homo or hetero) chooses to invoke on a path filled with diaper changes and Dora The Explorer DVDs. We know that Harry and June, sixty and childless even after being married for forty years, are no less nuptially-bonded than a teenage couple who spend their honeymoon in the maternity ward. We know that Bob and Joe, Sigma Delta Beer Bong brothers and roommates, have much more than sex separating their relationship from friendship to loving union (and that one drunken sex session isn’t enough to change that, so stop worrying, Joe). We also know that marriage is one way that many committed couples choose to solidify this, the ultimate declaration that there’s more to this bond than just high fives and tenuous shared interests. And most importantly: We know that if one kind of couple within the known, scientifically-recognized spectrum of sexual orientation is included in the CIVIL system that we call marriage, than *ALL* couples who fit within this span are also to be included.

Oh, and some of us know that this is no longer a request: It is a demand!

***

*UPDATE: Now to be fair, Nat’l Review tries to blow off our beliefs by claiming that same-sex marriage advocates raise these three points:

The first is that law and society have always let infertile couples marry; why not treat same-sex couples the same way?



The second objection proponents of same-sex marriage raise is that the idea that marriage is importantly linked to procreation is outdated.



The third objection is that it is unfair to same-sex couples to tie marriage to procreation, as the traditional conception of marriage does.

The Case for Marriage [Nat'l Review]

And then they give the usual convenient reasons for why these points are supposedly faulty (hetero couples still have poss. of mating, the pregnancy connection is timeless, no animus is intended, etc.). But the problem? Well, in their strawman-like insistence on boiling down our arguments to three convenient claims, they fully overlook some of the more pertinent points that we raise. Points like:

(1) That civil marriage laws do not speak to the ancillary component of children AT ALL, so the only way for these personal arguments about acceptable reproduction to come into play is for the religious right to start working toward procreation amendments rather than gay marriage bans.

(2) That when it comes to marriage’s supposed “tradition” and history, our modern opponents have no leg to stand on when it comes to marriage supposedly being the thing that we know it to be today.

(3) That nothing same-sex couples do or do not do in terms of their freedom to marry changes any of these beliefs, opinions, or even truths about marriage as we have known it!

And there are others, of course. All building on the actual reality of the world. One where gay people are born. Where gay people give birth. Where gay people contribute to births. One where the only folks who are playing politics with procreation are the social conservatives who look at the unique role that gay people play in the life chain, then take it upon themselves to decide that this role is to our society’s collective detriment.

Perhaps it’s time they embark on a National Re-Review.




Good As You

—  John Wright