RECENT  POSTS:  » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

01/09/2006

Hey FOF: The 'deal' with gay marriage is that it's right, just, and gonna happen

by Jeremy Hooper

Today via the website of Focus on the Family's Breakaway Magazine (presumably a reprint from the teen male-centric magazine itself), FOF's Glenn Stanton ask the question on everyone's mind:

Picture 3-65

Rather than just answer the question with a simple: "Oh, it's when two people of the same-sex choose to get hitched, seeing as how they should be entitled to the same sort of legal union protection as their hetero counterparts," Stanton instead proceeds to analyze some of the issues they see with such nuptials, managing to muddy the water in the process. We will now proceed to de-sully that filthy H2O and debunk some of Mr. S's claims.

They say:

Shouldn’t everyone have a right to marry? Every adult has a right to marry. But no one has a right to redefine marriage. Think of a group of friends who want to play soccer. Some believe that anyone should be able to use their hands to grab and handle the ball if they choose. They also want to do away with the goal nets and put up hoops that each team must put the ball through in order to score. Well, these few can change the rules, but they can’t call it soccer anymore. Changing the rules makes the game something else.

We reply:

Okay, no. If you want to use the aforementioned soccer metaphor, the only "rule" that would need to be changed in order to compare it to same-sex marriage would be the gender of the players. Following Mr. Stanton's logic, you would think the swarthy homos were seeking to have all unions refashioned as some new sort of sport, one that would rob heterosexuals of the wedding bashes they've come to know and tolerate. This is beyond duplicitous. The marriage game, in terms of love, commitment, and legalities, will be the same ball-kicking time we've all come to expect, just at the end of the match, the goalie and midfielder will go home together, where one will walk the dog while the other takes out the garbage. Next...

Heterosexuals get legal benefits from marriage. Why can’t we? There’s a very good reason. Let’s start by considering this question: Would too much natural marriage ever be harmful to society? Actually, social scientists tell us that too little marriage in any society is a serious problem. That’s because children need mothers and fathers, and marriage is the framework to make sure moms and dads care for the children they bring into the world.

Consider another question: Would too much same-sex marriage ever be a problem for society? Yes, it would be harmful if most people entered such relationships. That would make it difficult to reproduce the next generation of humanity, and too many children would intentionally be deprived of mothers or fathers.

You see, our government favors or rewards natural marriage with legal and tax benefits because natural marriage does something society needs. It provides the healthy framework for sexual activity and provides mothers and fathers for children. Same-sex marriage only serves the interests of adults and provides no necessary benefits for society
.

To which we say:

Again, no. Mr. Stanton says of gay marriage, "it would be harmful if most people entered such relationships," forgetting one little point -- not everyone wants to enter such partnerships. In fact, most do not. However, If they do want to enter such partnerships, then they sure as hell shouldn't be entering a fake marriage with someone of the opposite sex for any reason. That sort of union built on false pretense is outrageously selfish and ultimately leads to heartbreak for one or both of the parties.

As far as the legal and tax rewards go, such benefits are granted to wedded partnerships because these legally-bound commitments represent two adults who have joined together to hopefully better society in some way. Framing the government's rewarding of matrimony on the basis of child rearing is negated by the basic fact that reproduction is not a requirement for getting hitched. The government rewards the union, not the product that may or may not result from said partnership. What about those who are incapable? What abut those who simply don't want children?

Stanton presents two more questions and answers, one involving the old "pro-family" argument that children are incapable of being properly raised by same-sex parents, and the other framed around the notion that same-sex marriage would lead to more acceptance of homosexuality. Due to the fact that you likely stopped reading this super-long entry two paragraphs back, we won't get long-winded about these two points, and instead just say "bullsh*t, the evidence does not point to this" and "hopefully, homophobia has been around for far too long," respectively.

So what is the deal with same-sex marriage, FOF? Why it's a way for us to get an assload of free gifts, of course. Duh.

WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH SAME-SEX MARRIAGE? [FOF's 'Breakaway']

space gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails