Video: Freedom to Marry vs. Justification to Discriminate
Earlier this week, we told you about an initiative in Washington that would turn the common argument that "marriage is about children" on its head, by requiring that heterosexual couples DO procreate in order to keep their marriage intact. Well, here's more on the conversation-starting proposal from Freedom to Marry's Evan Wolfson, and more attempts to justify discrimination from the Family Research Council's Charmaine Yoest:
And of course those studies to which Ms. Yoest refers can be found in the Junk Science section of your library, right next to Convenient Things For Conservative Talking Heads To Vaguely State Monthly. Of course if you'd rather look at some ACTUAL, non-Paul Cameron-based findings on the topic of gay parenting, you can just go here, or here, or here, or here, or here. Of course the FRC would just call our examples biased, as they try and do here, where they use their own biases and biased researchers to try and discredit gay-positive studies (**An example of one of their many flaws: They state that monogamous gay couples "engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than did those without a steady partner" and that "most "unsafe" sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships. They then try to link monogamous, "unsafe" intercourse with disease by saying "anal intercourse has been linked with a host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS," as if it is the condom-less sex itself that causes disease, not THE OUTSIDE INTRODUCTION OF DISEASE!!!!)
But whatever -- people are slowly catching on to thing those of us on this side of the issue have always known, which is that they will say almost anything to justify their gay bias! Initiatives like the inspired Washington proposal will only help America connect the dots.
Marriage? Babies Required! [YouTube]
**Oh, and to see how Ms. Yoest's father spins her appearance, go read: Charmaine on MSNBC: Homosexuals Advance Breakup of Childless Families. Simply unreal!
The only reason their "disease" rhetoric is even moderately successful is because they do not discuss (and nobody thinks about) all of the same things that accompany heterosexual intercourse.
STDs are no less prevalent among heterosexuals. One could make straight sex sound really nasty if all one talked about was the diseases that are common to it.
Posted by: Dash | Feb 8, 2007 1:12:12 PM
I was actually pleasantly surprised by how civilised and polite both sides were during that interview. It was obvious the hostess favoured the FRC lass, but at least it wasn't as bad as some of the other interviews, and both sides actually let each other talk (mostly), even if the lass didn't exactly listen to what Evan was saying.
With any luck, the politeness levels of debates will continue to rise until people actually start hearing what is being said... When that happens, propaganda initiatives like the Washington one will no longer be required to get the point across.
Posted by: El | Feb 8, 2007 4:27:32 PM
Not only are the arguments employed by that woman completely devoid of substantiation and evidence, but it offensive to adoptive parents and children. My parents have raised eight children, five of which are adopted (including myself), and we all turned out equally well - we are all happy and healthy. To accuse my (straight) parents of being incapable of properly rearing me or my siblings is only another token of ignorance to add to their worth. Congrats, FRC, you've not only offended same-sex couples, but you've offended adoptive families as well.
Posted by: Karanis | Feb 8, 2007 4:42:47 PM
That woman seemed kinda creepy to me. Knowing what I know about the kind of "research" she was mentioning, I couldn't help but wonder if she wasn't either oblivious to the truth, or horribly evil. I hope she was just oblivious, but if so, I feel bad for her...she could be plunged into an abyss of guilt at any moment. And the only thing that separates her from that guilt is the thin tissue of mindless trust in manipulative people like Dobson.
Posted by: Lesley | Feb 8, 2007 5:10:03 PM
What really irks me about this is the way the host allowed Yeost to interrupt Wolfson and then allowed her to get in the last word with her claim that there is research showing kids are better off with both parents without letting Wolfson respond. So what happens is that she gets the last unchallenged word. Typical.
Posted by: Clay | Feb 10, 2007 12:22:27 PMcomments powered by Disqus