RECENT  POSTS:  » Conservative proposes new way for vendors to tell gay customers they don't care for them » NOM versus David Koch » Anti-equality baseball player calls reporter 'a prick' for asking about his anti-equality advocacy » Audio: Josh Duggar defends discrimination, invalidates own point » Audio: AFA's Fischer names 'homosexual agenda' as 'greatest threat to liberty' in American history » Audio: AFA Radio caller calls for executing gays; FRC-employed host doesn't even challenge him, much less condemn » NOM president's other organization is 'in trouble' (his words) too » FRC prays to take LGBT Americans out of nondiscrimination law » In lieu of typing 'Look how desperate we are' over and over again, NOM president wrote this instead » I'll remind you that FRC also compared our marriages to human-horse unions  

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

11/28/2007

Complexity her movement's kryptonite, Segelstein puts it simply

by Jeremy Hooper

Today on the American Family Association's One News Now website, a citizen by the name of Marcia Segelstein has written a commentary on why marriage inequality is the "moral" and "traditional" choice. And while we could pick apart all of Ms. Segelstein's tired, frequently recited talking points, we really only need to look at one of her article's setup lines to address our feelings about her entire outlook. In it, she says:

"Put simply, marriage is the cooperative union of a man and a woman whose primary goal is to have and to raise children."

And honestly, this tells us all we need to know about the subsequent logic. Because presenting marriage as nothing more than a vehicle to raise children is about as "simply put" as you can get. It paints the system in which the government confers rights and benefits to couples as one that is deserved only by those tax-paying couples who happen to be heterosexual and fertile. Despite the "pro-family" movement's own claims that marriage comes with all sorts of health and financial benefits, they are turning around and saying that those joyous rewards should be extended only to those whose biological truths facilitate penis-vagina sex and at least one conception thereof.

Simple is the way Ms. Segelstein's movement likes to put things. It's just easier. Never mind that marriage has not, in fact, always been about the loving and monogamous, voluntarily union of two heterosexuals. Never mind that unless all heterosexuals are closet cases whose sexuality is held in place only because queers can't get hitched, then no opposite-sex couple has one thing to fear about gay marriage. It's far more conducive to their situation to present nuptials as if they have existed for all of eternity in only one state, and to present gays as militants who are attacking society, God, and the tossing of bouquets.

To read the whole of Ms. Segelstein's thoughts:

Perspectives: The battle for marriage [ONN]

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails