I checked my email today and noticed a message from Courage Campaign about a hateful homophobic ad recently put out by the National Organization for Marriage. The ad uses shameless scare tactics and basically no logic to push it's message of hate:
According to the Courage Campaign, this ad is showing on televisions across the US and is shown up to eight times a day in California, where the Courage Campaign is based. To combat the efforts of the National Organization for Marriage, the Courage Campaign is asking for donations to fund training for marriage equality activists in California. If you would like to donate, you can do so here. I'm not affiliated with the Courage Campaign, so I cannot vouch for them, but I know that they have done good work in the past (getting together names to send to Obama in support of specific legislation, etc).
Anyway, I'd like to know what else we could do to combat the hate being spewed by this National Organization for Marriage advertisement, both in California and out. I want to deter them, but don't know the best way to go about it.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Same-sex Marriage in VT and IA Backlash: Hate Speech Ad Full of Scare Tactics.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12977
lulz @ "rainbow coalition".
And it's a rainbow coalition of people of every creed and colour, too. How very inclusive of NOM. See, they can't possibly be predujiced! Especially with such lovely background music.
/eyeroll
True to form, there's no actual exposition of just what teh gayz homosexual agenda involves. Vague mention of rights being taken away and (please dear god!) won't someone think of the children. Fecktards.
As to your question, Jenniedvm, about how to deter them, I don't know. Keep getting the word out about just how vacuous the position of the homophobes are, lacking as is it does any sense of rational argument.
People that support organisations like NOM like to present themselves as loving and caring; good honest folk who just want the best for society. It's a charade. They are filled with hate, which is why they can't do any better than the vague accusations and recriminations they present in the ad above.
Predujiced? o_0 I mean prejudiced.
Granting someone rights does not take away the rights and freedoms of others. If you don't want your kids learning that "gay marriage is okay" (I type that with bile in the back of my throat) then you have the right to remove them from sex ed classes and teach them your homophobia at home.
There's a storm coming? What, and they're going to void your het-marriages and force you into a same-sex one? how evil! Oh wait... that's what they're trying to do to "the gays" in California.
Here's my surprise that commenting is disabled on the video. They are forcing their beliefs on a whole section of the population, which is what they are claiming is the "darkness" spreading across the US. The hypocrisy in that ad is palatable.
P.S. Gay marriage is legal in Canada and has been for quite a few years. Just a heads up that we have yet to disintegrate into chaos and devil-worship.
Bleh.
Yeah... preaching to the choir here, I know. But I couldn't say this on the actual video.
Truth! No where is anyone forced to put their kids into public school.
And on that point, I don't really remember any elementary school discussions about homosexuality. I remember "everybody's families are different" discussions but that was about it, and that was good enough for me at that age.
... Come on people.. there was dodgeball to be played!!!!
I don't know, this isn't a very class conscious argument. Not every family can afford private school tuition, nor can every family afford to have a least one parent stay at home to homeschool children.
BUT I agree with an above poster who said they can teach them their homophobia at home.
You know it's bad when one sees tolerance as infringing on their rights.
We had a lot of discussions about same sex marriage, etc in school. I didn't know so many people were against it until I started coming online.
I still don't understand how these people thinks it will harm THEIR marriage. I'm surprised they're not trying to make divorce illegal or create 20 year jail terms for adultery if they're so worried about the term"marriage" being devalued.
"If you don't want your kids learning that "gay marriage is okay" then you have the right to remove them from sex ed classes and teach them your homophobia at home."
Actually, in Massachusetts, some schools have curriculum aimed at teaching elementary school students about different family structures and tolerance. So they have books that include families with same sex parents, and there was this one book about a prince who didn't want to marry a princess. The 1st Circuit ruled that parents didn't have a right to prior notice and the ability to opt out.
That was an awesome victory for the gay rights movement. Massachusetts schools WERE teaching students that gay marriage is okay, and that's great. And it makes complete sense because gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts and Massachusetts students SHOULD be taught values consistent with state laws.
Unfortunately, the homophobic people latched on to it with "oh noes! I can't prevent schools from teaching my children tolerance!"
Schools should teach tolerance, and parents shouldn't be able to opt them out of it.
I totally agree.
One of the things that really creeps me out about the ultra-conservative homophobia mindset is the instrumentalization of children: the idea that any children they have are simply their property and that their proper use is as ideological warriors.
So while I understand the logic behind telling them they can pull their children out of school, because then marriage equality is simply not an issue for them, I can't help but wonder if it's appropriate to suggest giving license to parents to sequester their children from society and deny them exposure to any alternate beliefs, simply to convert them into their... well, cult. It does seem a bit like it's crossing that line between being a guardian and being an owner.
As much as I really want to nod my head at this sentiment, I'm still squirming over the idea of a government that interfers so much in the lives of it's people, that it forces "ideology" on students.
I only term it as such because if the roles were reversed and a government had the right to force my child to be indoctrinated with fundie right-wing BS, I would be so many levels of irate. Yes, I believe tolerance is right, yes I believe that kids should be taught that being gay is not deviant or abhorrant. But I just can't get behind the use of force. It seems akin to removing the "freedom of religion" clause from the constitution. (freedom of religion... so long as it's my religion, ya know?)
Sure, I feel for the kids who are raised in those intolerant environments (like those babies that got named after Adolf Hitler? Wow.)... but society is varied and we have to accept that some people think differently. Otherwise, we're setting a very dangerous precendent that could easily blow up in our faces.
@ PunchbuggyGrean But even in Mass... can't parents still home school if they're so opposed?
Exactly!
"can't parents still home school if they're so opposed?"
Yes, or private school.
But I think it is important for state public schools to instill in it's pupils the values of that state. I'm not talking about the values of the teacher, or the values of the school board, but the values of the state that have been codified into law. It makes complete sense for a Massachusetts public school to teach its future citizens that gay marriage is ok, because in Massachusetts, gay marriage is legal.
It's part of the role of a public school to prepare its students for citizenship. That's why they are FUNDED by the state and why public education is a right guaranteed by many state constitutions.
Public schools should also instill in their students American values like equality. Equality isn't an American value because X media pundit says so, or Y politician says so, but because the Constitution says so. Tolerance is essential for equality, so I definitely think it is acceptable, and even necessary, for public schools to instill tolerance.
Um, I do have to disagree here, and while it may partially be because you're using scary words like "values of the state," I just think on principal that it's circular to suggest that the legal system should dictate the values of the citizenry when it is in fact supposed to be informed *by* the values of the citizenry.
State laws are a reflection of the values of the citizenry. Public schools should be able to teach future citizens those values for them to be functioning members of society.
The reason schools are funded by the state isn't that the state is just nice, it's because schools serve the function of creating the next generation of a functioning society.
State laws are a reflection of the values of the citizenry
Ideally this would be true. As it currently stands, our laws tend to be a reflection of the lobby groups and corporate representatives who write and lobby for them, and who finance the campaigns of the politicians.
That is sadly true.
=(
I'm currently writing a paper about Constitutional rights and public schools, so I could debate this all day. If we are talking in terms of what a public school is allowed to do, then this is the best quote from the Supreme Court:
One of "the objectives of public education is the inculcation of fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system."
I understand where you're coming from, but I still have some issues with the approach.
My question regarding religious freedom here is "religious freedom for whom?" While I don't debate the importance of raising a child to understand certain values, especially those that must be grasped at an early developmental stage, at what point does restricting the information your child receives interfere with their ability to be self-determining or to decide their own stance on their beliefs and values?
We already put limits on the behavior of parents to some extent -- you can't beat your children or deprive them of food -- the question becomes then does it count as abuse to remove your children from the public sphere entirely to ensure they grow up only with the beliefs you want them to have, regardless of how damaging this may be to them?
My sheltered, religious upbringing seriously impacted my ability to interact normally for many years. I missed out on many of the formative growing-up experiences that other people take for granted. I had to grow up very quickly, and very unpleasantly in my early twenties. I know other people in the same situation who are nearing or in their thirties and still have no idea how to participate in society. I believe the prospect of sequestering children or maintaining tight controls on the information they receive for long periods of time is abusive and in serious violation of the kinds of freedoms we are trying to protect.
And that's what I'm talking about here when I say parents may be "crossing that line between being a guardian and being an owner." The conservative opinion on issues like diversity or sex education typically represents how parents feel. Notably absent from the discussion is anyone representing the feelings of those whose future is being decided. I feel like everyone is thinking about the children but no one is actually thinking about the children.
"Otherwise, we're setting a very dangerous precedent that could easily blow up in our faces."
And I think by making values which we instill into public school children those which are codified by law or contained in a state or the federal constitution avoids that problem.
I support gay marriage but the 1st right in this country is Freedom of Speech & of Religion. Parents should have the right to opt children out of these classes.
But what would the limits be? Could parents who didn't believe in evolution take their kids out of science classes? Or parents who thought blacks were inferior take their kids out of history classes civil rights movement? People have a right to practice their religion, but that doesn't include preventing their children from hearing things contradictory to their religion. And not sure how free speech comes in, because it's not limiting anyone's speech.
There were kids in my high school who opted out of the evolution lessons in my public high school. They had to do a special project/paper on another topic if they or their parents chose not to study evolution. I think it was only one girl in my biology section who did so, but the option was there.
This site has a debunking of their claims (I haven't checked the accuracy).
http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/10314/national-organization-for-marriages-new-tactic-fearmongering-without-using-the-word-religion
I saw this as I'm subscribed to hrcmedia's videos. But I can't figure out what that woman meant by "I'm the doctor who has to choose between my faith and my job." What, does she refuse to treat gay people? Because I'm sure Jesus wouldn't support that.
See the link I posted above. It says:
"The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California, determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief"
In other words, it violates California's anti-discrimination laws to refuse to treat lesbians, whether or not gay marriage is legal in California. So first of all she's trying to defend her right to discriminate against others, and second of all it isn't even about an impending gay marriage law, its about anti-discrimination laws already on the books.
The only halfway decent convoluted reason I could come up with for the doctor comment was that she'd have to let spouses of gay marriages see their partner after a serious accident or respect their wishes when it comes to medical proxy. She'd have to let someone's partner make medical decisions on their behalf if the person can't do it for themselves due to accident or illness. Of course, the fact that she views this as a problem or a reason to quit her job is horrible and hateful and utterly ridiculous, but what else can you expect from NOM?
It could also apply to homosexuals receiving fertility treatment.
It's actually much easier for women to be artificially inseminated, than it is for men to find a surrogate and have them artificially inseminated with their sperm. At least in Virginia.
I know this isn't particularly helpful, but I just can't see their name without thinking "NOM NOM NOM," as in, their campaign has about as much intellectual rigor as a lolcat.
HAHAHAH that comment is amazingly funny.
anyway, this video is ridiculous. I love the reference to rainbows. Are they so ignorant that they don't realize that the rainbow is a symbol for gay people?
This ad reminds me that there really are stupid, hateful, illogical, STUPID people around, and that ruins my day. How the fuck does a gay or lesbian couples' right to marry impact these morons' lives? And that "doctor" can go right to hell.
Agreed. They have no leg to stand on. They're being discriminatory and infringing on the rights of homosexual people in love, and yet they're accusing same-sex marriage of doing to them what they are doing to homosexual couples (restrict their choices and lifestyle, etc). It's absurd.
Halfway through, I thought this was an SNL sketch. Its terrifying that this is real.
I'm SO confused about this commercial. I don't understand what they're event trying to say. Gay marriage takes away the rights of hetero couples? HOW.
"....and I am afraid." BAHAHA
With the storm clouds and narration like that, I'm inclined to think that these organizations picture Gay Marriage as the monster from Night on Bald Mountain.
If that's that case they should have used the music too.
I think we should donate all our old blankies to these people. They really need them now.
What is really scary about these kind of ads is that they appropriate empowering language such as "choice" to scare people... example: the girl saying "I will have no choice". I don't understand, why won't you have a choice? How does legalizing gay marriage take away your choice? That girl should be concerned about all those people she is listening to, they will take her choice away. Oh, and how is that woman's freedom taken away by gay marriage? Can someone explain this to me.. what kind of people listen to this, and think it is rational? Well I know what kind of people, but you just cannot be a rational human being and believe in all of this scare tactics, and creepy messages.
There's a storm gathering...
The clouds are dark, the wind is strong...
And I am afraid...
Of stupid homophobic idiots.
I agree with Toni. That doctor line is bizarre. I almost thought for a second she was talking about abortion, due to some of the huge amount of pro-choice related articles on feministing, but then I reminded myself that this is a homophobic ad. O__o
I wonder if these actors at one point stopped what they were saying and questioned the lines that they were given. Is the economy so bad that they had no other jobs but this?
i always wonder how many starving actors are conflicted about accepting these kind of gigs?
First, how creepy to have smiley happy people with the storm clouds and lightening. Makes them look "cultish". But I digress.
I'm not quite sure how they make the argument that marriage equality will tell them how they have to live. Who falls for that crap?
Their website is sickening.
the Human Rights Campaign is trying to counter this. You can send a letter to Iowa state politicians and help out in other ways at their website:
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/next_prop_8/xn58ki84oj6nemmx?
Thank you so much for the link! But just so you know, the link you gave takes us directly to your account with the HRC. Here is the general link:
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/next_prop_8?rk=qpdKzQsaaUKiE
At least I think that's the general link.
In any case, thanks so much for letting Feministing know about this! :D
I recieved that in my e-mail and I sent it. I encourage everyone to do so.
Is it just me, or is it terrifically ironic that marriage, which is supposed to be such a "natural" thing, need so much defense by groups like these?
ha ha!!! A rainbow of people!
If straight people spent as much time worrying about their own marriage as they do worrying about gay marriage the divorce rate would be cut in half.
Campaigns against gay marriage which strive to "protect traditional marriage" are inherently flawed and contradictory. To explain this, please consider the following:
1. Christianity asserts that marriage is a covenant entered into by a man, a woman and God.
2. Given marriage is a covenant, it is reasonable to assume men and women seeking to enter a marriage union must be believers of the Christian faith.
3. The current legal definition of marriage does not require any proof of faith in order for a marriage to be recognized. (This would not be feasible as proof of faith would be nearly impossible to produce)
4. Thus, it is reasonable that Atheists could be married in a ceremony which does not recognize or involve God. To take this example to the extreme, said Atheists could be married whilst blaspheming God.
5. By recognizing marriages of non-believers the marriage covenant becomes nonexistent, and the "traditional" marriage is destroyed.
6. Cultural acceptance of marriage between a non-believing man and a non-believing woman demonstrates that the traditional definition of marriage is already warped from its original meaning.
7. The argument that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage then becomes null, as traditional marriage has already been destroyed.
Using the above logic, it seems that Christian groups who protest gay marriage should also protest and denounce marriages between non-believers. Failure to include faith as a criterion in determining what should be called a marriage and what should be called a civil union demonstrates society’s failure to protect traditional marriage. This failure, and lack of awareness of it, suggests that measures to prevent gay marriage are based more in moral disgust and visibility than faith.
Essentially: People need to wake up, pull their heads out of their asses and realize that using faith-based arguments to support anti-gay legislation is bogus. Arguing against marriage equality to protect traditional marriage is bullshit. The original definition of marriage has already been fundamentally altered by taking God out of the picture. Traditional marriage under the law is gone, so preservation of its existence cannot be used to support anti-gay legislation.
*NOTE: this is purely for the sake of argument and assumes traditional marriage is a Christian construct*
According to Center for Media and Democracy, NOM's president Maggie Gallagher was one of the Bush administration's "payola pundits":
http://www.prwatch.org/node/8329
In my opinion this commercial is hateful and unchristian.
I'm a straight, married woman and a feminist and I teach Sunday school.
And I find the idea that somehow two men who love each other and want to call one another husband diminishes my marriage or family in some way is LUDICRIS!
I want the government to get out of the marriage business altogether—gay, straight, poly whatever—so I can’t say that I support gay couples seeking the right to marry but I fully support the rights of all people who love each other and want to form a family, no matter the composition and certainly no matter what is happening in the bedrooms of consenting adults, to be treated equally by their government.
Anything else is just un-American.
SO I just dissected their site. If there was ever a case of miserable rhetorical propaganda, its on that page. It's main point was that the new law would force people to accept same-sex marriage. If there's one thing we as a feminist community know, it's that no law can make any person accept anything. The ONLY THING allowing same sex marriage does on a social level is require the RIGHTS of same sex couples to be honored. No one actually has to accept same sex marriage - if they want to be homophobic assholes, they can feel free to do that in their own homes. Same sex marriage has nothing to do with religion. It is so that (on a basic level) same sex couples can be at each other's side in death, share health insurance, and enjoy tax benefits. If any same sex couples want it for the announcement of their commitment type thing (I don't know how to phrase it) it does that too. I know this is kind of a hodge podge, but when I read a website written entirely by stupid people, I get a little flustered.
I just don't understand why schools should be saying anything about marriage at all. I know it's for the "democratic citizen", but it seems that children should be taught coursework that can be backed by empiricism and not ethics or philosophy (at least, not the way it seems most you want it to be taught). Evolution I can understand, but marriage? I really think that's going a bit far. Wanna talk about gay marriage? Talk about it in civics, when you get to that class, perhaps as a case study for court activism, or whatever. Want to talk about ethics and philosophy? Do it the right way, by presenting both sides of the argument and allow people to make the decision themselves. But no, you'd rather indoctrinate kids with whatever suits your fancy without giving serious thought to the other side; straight up ignorance.
I swear, you just can't stand the thought of you being wrong, that's why you call anti-gay marriage arguments stupid, irrational, religious. I want to make sure my kids don't get any BS shoved down their throat, and "the right to gay marriage" is in no way a scientific matter. It's based on arguments and reasons, purely philosophical, and it's absolute crap that someone who thinks they know what they are talking about could feed my kid some conclusion from a potentially unsound argument. It shouldn't be forced on anyone. "Oh, but that's the way to build a better society and have good citizens, so we should teach them this and if we don't they'll be damaged cause I was LOL" you say. Well, I could say the same thing about traditional marriage. That argument fails. This is precisely the reason why I don't want ethical and philosophical positions given as authority in public schools. 'Cause most of you couldn't argue your way out of your own shoes, let alone argue in an intellectually honest way.
And to the person above, you're pretty stupid yourself (I'm sorry, when I read a comment written entirely by a stupid person, I get a little flustered). It seems that by forcing public schools to teach that gay marriage is ok, it is indeed influencing and affecting impressionable minds; it is trying to make kids accept same-sex marriage.
Don't get me wrong, I think the ad is bullshit rhetoric. I hate it as much as anyone else in this blog. But they aren't the poster boys/girls for the anti-same-sex marriage campaign. You are trying to extend their views on to other people. It's just amazing how unreasonable a lot of you people are.
"but it seems that children should be taught coursework that can be backed by empiricism and not ethics or philosophy"
What do you propose we do in elementary school when the only thing that is being learned is reading and listening skills? What kind of books would you have them read? Darwinian theory??? The read books about families and friendships, being nice to people, morality.
This is a small excerpt from the Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum Framework:
"Under the Social and Emotional Health Strand, there is a Family Life component, which states:
Students will gain knowledge about the significance of the family on individuals and society, and will learn skills to support the family, balance work and family life, be an effective parent, and nurture the development of children.
The Learning Standard for elementary school grades under the Family Life component states that children should be able to “[d]escribe different types of families.”
In addition, the Social and Emotional Health Strand includes an Interpersonal Relationships component. That component provides:
Students will learn that relationships with others are an integral part of the human life experience and the factors that contribute to healthy interpersonal relationships, and will acquire skills to enhance and make many of these relationships more fulfilling through commitment and communication."
Is that really so horrible?
Is it really that horrible that a book about family that a first grader reads includes a family that has two mothers????
"And to the person above, you're pretty stupid yourself"
FUCK YOU
Anyway, all this ad hominem distracted from the points you brought up. I understand that kids won't be reading Marx's labor theory of value or anything. I just mean that kids should be given stories that reflect both sides of the debate, if we really are looking to be academically honest about the situation. Sure, it may seem like a platitude, but I just think that people have a valid concern about the way public schools would aim to normalize same-sex marriage.
You're calling HER logic ad hominem? You were the one calling her stupid.
Seriously, you can kiss my ass.
Muah ;)
HAHA, I get such a kick out of people like you. I didn't even say I was against same-sex marriage!
"And to the person above, you're pretty stupid yourself"
"I get such a kick out of people like you"
Again, Fuck you.
"I was being ironic about the stupid part"
How the fuck does that even make sense?
Sorry that you're too stupid to figure it out (ok, sorry, I just couldn't resist trolling you further), but I was quoting the person above me directly to show that calling someone stupid is pretty much uncalled for all the time. It's intellectual cowardice and it just serves to make oneself feel better and discredit the arguments of the other side.
I do think that Maggie Gallagher brings up points that would be irrational to discard as bigotry. Does it make them right? No, but it does make them reason-based, and thus, warranting of a rational person's attention.
Wow. I thought these discussions were supposed to be civil. Calling someone "stupid" does not fall within this category. I'll tell you, I have engaged in many arguments with people whose positions were vastly different from mine (and in my view, rather ignorant), however I have never ever resorted to name calling. You can't convince someone of your own position with that tactic. Additionally, it is very hypocritical to make the statement about your opposition to calling anti-gay marriage arguments stupid and irrational only to then insult a poster by calling them stupid.
And no, I don't think that most us are unreasonable, especially gay folks like myself because we have had to deal with discrimination, alienation, and down right hatred for way too long. So of course we will express our outrage over this inequality and call out the bigotry where we see fit within these blogs. I think that it is totally acceptable to teach kids about diversity and tolerance in regards to our pluralistic society without "indoctrinating" them. It's not about forcing anything upon anyone, just a promotion of compassion and reasoning which is vastly important to being a contributing and positive member of society.
Yeah.
My above comment (for the record) was a reply to Roscoe.
I was being ironic about the stupid part.
I also never said I was against same-sex marriage, but it's telling of your irrationality how quick you are to defend your argument with appeals to compassion and emotion. Some would argue, and rightly so, that you can't be too compassionate in this world because someone will be there to fuck you over. Whether they are right is not in the scope of this post, suffice it to say that you're just trying to force your worldview on people.
Call them what you will, but just because you're gay isn't going to stop me from calling out bad arguments. Have homosexuals been oppressed for far too long? Duh, obviously, I'm not here to argue that. I'm here to argue whether anti-same-sex marriage arguments are bigoted or not. And, while I may not agree with them, I don't think they are; they are rationally grounded points of view. So, your being gay has nothing to do with the conversation, and, while thanks for telling me, I don't really care.
First off, tolerance is fine, but it does not include tolerance to institutions. The fact of the matter is that it IS forcing something on to those people, namely, a redefinition of marriage (whether justified or not) that they perceive to threaten the well-being of their children in the future. They feel that your views are being forced upon them, and that's legitimate. I think you are being unreasonable because you are calling these people bigots and irrational. I think the talking points page of their site presents a sober Q&A that is reasonable and is not rhetoric-heavy.
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.4475595/k.566A/Marriage_Talking_Points.htm
So, again, by presenting just one view of a philosophical argument, you are trying to indoctrinate these kids with your view without any comment on the validity or soundness of the argument or of any others. You are effectively stifling the amount of information children are receiving, specifically because this issue is not one of science, but of philosophy. And this kind of irrationality has no place in the an educative setting, particularly if it is of the public sort.
"your irrationality"
Your personal attacks are really uncalled for.
However, I think this is called for. You're an asshole.
Sweet, I'm an asshole. Where do we go from here?
I think the talking points page of their site presents a sober Q&A that is reasonable and is not rhetoric-heavy."
Let's take an example:
4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?” A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.” A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”People are harmed by losing their privilege to define marriage in a way that excludes others. I would not characterize this as reasonable.
“That is just not right.” I would characterize this as baseless rhetoric.
No one cares that these people “believe children need moms and dads.” This is more empty rhetoric. Attempts to enforce their ideal by imposing a discriminatory definition of marriage invite derision.
The fact of the matter is that it IS forcing something on to those people, namely, a redefinition of marriage (whether justified or not) that they perceive to threaten the well-being of their children in the future. They feel that your views are being forced upon them, and that's legitimate. I think you are being unreasonable because you are calling these people bigots and irrational.”
Taking away their privilege to define marriage narrowly does not harm them in any real way. Their ability to marry who they choose is not affected. Their perceived threats to the well-being of their children are erroneous. Their straight children will be unaffected. Their gay children will benefit.
Keeping the current definition of marriage (in 46 states, at last count) inflicts real harm on homosexuals.
Three cheers for Arium! Great post.
Anyone who can call these NOM people logical or rational with a straight face is either quite the comedian or completely deluded. NOM and people like them are the ones oppressing, NOT the ones being oppressed.
They (NOM and the like) are acting all attacked when others just want the same rights as they have. No one is trying to take away the right to heterosexual marriage, and if you want to poison your children's brains with homophobic hate speech, you can still do so at home. So basically, STFU, National Organization for Marriage.
And I just wanted to make it absolutely clear, because it's rather frustrating, that you being gay give you no more authority on this argument at all and does not, in any way, legitimize your views outright. Likewise for anyone saying the same thing about them being a woman and that men can't possibly understand, blah blah blah. If we are to believe that everyone is, in fact, equal, then me being a heterosexual male should have no bearing on the soundness of my arguments. You don't have some mystical connection to past homosexuals and it would make everyone better off if we all just recognized each other as people who can empathized. The homosexuals that were oppressed in the past were people; I'm a person, and just because I'm not gay doesn't mean I can't imagine or feel what they must have gone through any better or worse than you.
Look, all I was saying is that we can have a rational conversation without tearing into one another, which I might add, you cannot seem to do. So I will make this short, because I have no use for this kind of back and forth. I would not say that I understand the plight of African Americans or Native Americans and would not discredit their point of view in regards to something that AFFECTS them. So yes, my being gay has everything to do with my argument. Would you say that if someone were trying to reinstate Jim Crow Laws that they are not being intolerant or bigoted? Your logic is lacking, good sir. When we accept the hatred and intolerance (that's what this is) then it perpetuates the reasoning these people have to discriminate against us, see us as an other and a threat to society which inevitably dehumanizes us and can promote violence (which I have seen happen time and time again).
So don't tell me that I have no justification in making this argument because no, YOU don't know what it's like.... because these issues affect US, not you. Not that this means that you cannot have your point of view or express it (tactfully), but do not invalidate the experiences of others, whom you do not obviously understand. Maybe you should think about it and show a little more compassion yourself by laying off the attacks please. It really isn't very becoming or productive.
Thank you, and peace be with you.
Three fucking million thumbs up for Kelley Jean!
Haha. Christ on a cracker.
Clutch your pearls any tighter, NOMsters, and you'll break 'em. Then what will you use, within the holy confines of your God-ordained marriage, for anal beads later on?
Troll is gone! Sorry bout that folks!
Thanks. :)
Much appreciated. :)
This ad is receiving a fairly thorough video Fisk-ing on youtube.
I especially like the one where the commenter explains the particulars of the bigots and situations being personalized. The "California doctor" really means someone who wants to be able to withhold treatment for certain patients. The church being penalized by the government wants to discriminate against homosexuals and their use of a particular piece of real estate, but continue getting a government tax break on the property. Not nearly so flattering when you actually explain the details. "Gathering storm" indeed. Amazing what a little sunshine will do.
HOLY CRAP. WTF!!!!
First of all, I don't understand the point they are trying to make at all. What freedoms are being taken away from anyone?
I *CAN NOT* understand why married heterosexual couples think they are better than everyone and that they are entitled to things the rest of us are not. I'm straight, but I'm single, and I am SICK AND TIRED of heterosexual married couples claiming that they DESERVE the tax breaks, the benefits, the financial rewards, the government support and the DISCRIMINATION against everyone else.
What is so great about heterosexual marriage that it needs not only to be "protected" but also REWARDED, at everyone else's expense?
I would not say that I understand the plight of African Americans or Native Americans and would not discredit their point of view in regards to something that AFFECTS them. So yes,Dissertation my being gay has everything to do with my argument.Research Paper Would you say that if someone were trying to reinstate Jim Crow Laws that they are not being intolerant or bigoted? Your logic is lacking, good sir. Essay
but society is varied and we have to accept that some people think differently.Thesis Otherwise, we're setting a very dangerous precendent that could easily blow up in our faces.Term Paper