RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » 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'  

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

08/24/2006

Warning: Holes in 'pro-fam' logic appear to be getting bigger

by Jeremy Hooper

In a story on the much-debated California bills that seek to eliminate gay bias in schools and other state programs and activitiies. Focus on the Family's Mona Passignano today says to WorldNetDaily:

"If you're a Christian, it's got to be alarming. If you are not a Christian, it's got to be alarming," she said. "Because what comes next?

"
Is someone going to say, 'You can't drive a red car, that's the color of heterosexuals. You have to drive a purple car?"

Yes, because that's EXACTLY the same thing. "Schools can't discriminate against gays, thus encouraging equality and safety for homosexual students" -- why, who can't see the parallels between that sentiment and government-mandated car colors? Six of one, half a dozen of the other!

::sigh::

Worldnet then goes on to say of Passignano:

She said she explains the nuances that could become law by referencing "Nazi Germany."

"
It's just a historical fact, but you could make Germans feel bad every time you say Nazi Germany," she said. "The (California) bills say you can't say anything negative."

Hmm, possibly -- oh, except for the fact that this logic is completely flawed in every sense of the word! "Nazi Germany" is a term for the period between 1933 and 1945 when the National Socialist German Workers, or NAZI, party, was in control of the country. It's a historical reference to an undeniable time. While mentions of Nazi Germany might invoke negative feelings for those who lived or were affected by unsavory developments during this time, the reference is in no way discriminatory. In a gay context, you could even extend the Nazi Germany teaching to include a discussion on gays who were killed in the Holocaust. Again, not discriminatory -- it happened. Now, if a teacher were to say on the first day of school that she was going to run her classroom like Nazi Germany and those who don't fit her societal ideal will be ostracized or worse -- then yes, a "Nazi Germany" reference would not be acceptable in that context, even now. But in the case of historical discussion -- "Nazi Germany" is kosher.

The California bills in question merely seek to eliminate BIAS, not mentions of negativity. All of history's ills, missteps, dictators, and miscreants will still be open for discussion. Harvey Milk's assassination, Anita Bryant's hurtful campaigns, AIDS, Matthew Shepard's murder, soul-numbing attempts to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage -- all invoke emotions for gay people, but they're not discriminatory. "You're a dirty fag" -- DISCRIMINATORY. "You're a bigoted Jesus-freak" -- ALSO DISCRIMINATORY. Surely we can at least all agree that neither have a place in our schools.

Dobson: Tell Arnold to halt 'gay' agenda [WorldNetDaily]

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