RECENT  POSTS:  » GOP pollster Luntz to Heritage Foundation's Anderson: 'Gay marriage is harmless' » Read: Federal court judge rules against Colorado's discriminatory marriage ban » You guys, will you please pipe down so Sen. Rubio can dismantle your deserved freedoms? » 'Mask is coming off' LGBTs, says man who vowed to export and/or criminalize LGBTs » Exxon, infamous holdout on fair and decent employment protections, could be running out of options » Oregon baker who refused same-sex wedding cake bakes for 'ex-gay' org » PFOX rebrands; into group play, seemingly » Audio: Listen to this ADF spinmeister and his anti-gay spin » Report: US District judge won't deny justice to gay Coloradans; might delay it, though » AFA to POTUS: End your 'love affair with homosexuality,' give anti-gay Christians entitlement instead  

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

11/19/2009

No, Allan, it's your side's tired talking points that are truly sterile!

by Jeremy Hooper

Speaking about the high possibility that the District of Columbias will soon approve marriage equality, professional "pro-family" personality Allan Carlson says the following:

"[Marriage is] where the future comes from. It's where future citizens come from," he said. "Same-sex marriage, by definition, can't do that. It is, by definition, sterile."
D.C. Election Board Refuses to Allow Marriage Vote [CitizenLink]

Okay, let's think about this for a second. Of all of the components that make up a same-sex marriage, it is inability to reproduce that Mr. Carlson says is the "definition." Not love. Not 200911190936commitment. Not the civil rights and benefits conferred to the couple. Not companionship. Not equality. Not legal attachment to your family (which, of course, does often include children). Mr. Carlson overlooks all of these far more definitive elements and instead defines gay couples with the word "sterile."

How offensive is this? Honestly. Not only in terms of the way it diminishes our role within the human fabric, but also in the way it completely sidesteps the actuality of civil marriage equality and instead addresses a non-required component. Last time we checked, reproduction is not a requirement to obtain a civil marriage license. But even though the non-kid-mandated civil marriage license is 100% what this conversation should be about, our opposition sidesteps the issues at hand by turning to the ancillary matter of how best to create and steward the next generations. Never mind that this is a world that is in no danger of a population crisis. Never mind that there are countless hetero couples who either cannot or chose to not reproduce. Never mind that countless same-sex couples already do have and raise children, with or without marriage equality. To our organized opposition, none of these facts are of even slight concern. The only thing that matters is their own selfish desire to micromanage society.

Regardless of your opinion on stroller-pushing gays, the idea of defining same-sex civil marriages by their ability/desire to change a diaper is unfathomably extraneous. It makes about as much sense as basing one's right to obtain a drivers license on their desire to obtain a pine tree air freshener.

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


Your thoughts

So I suppose that once the woman in a heterosexual marriage hits menopause, they ought to get a divorce and the man should get himself a younger wife, who can still reproduce?

Lets make hetero's get a Certificate of Fertility before they're allowed to get married while we're at it.

Posted by: Mark | Nov 19, 2009 10:17:05 AM

When I saw where the majority of the debate was going on this issue: procreation, I got together with my friends who are part of a non parent's group called No Kidding.
It was founded by a Canadian man who saw the stigma attached to those who chose to not have children and built an international support network for them.

Most of the No Kidders are married, but many are singles. No Kidding does not endorse or participate in any political endorsement, but many of my friends in the group are DEEPLY offended by the direction the marriage equality opponents have taken their argument.
And who wouldn't be?
First of all, it presumes that those without children are otherwise worthless to society at large and the integrity of marriage. A few have said, if you can't have children, why should the state bother to support you?

It also presumes that those without children live in a bubble of non support of society in other ways directly or indirectly that helps children or their parents.

We carry most of the tax burden.

We put in more hours at work because we don't have to leave early or take time off to care for children.

Many of us are in caring professions such as nursing, school teaching, or we are excellent aunts and uncles and godparents to those children in our own families.

Many non parents love children and that it's assumed we don't and are selfish is also a prejudiced and unfair indictment.

And as Jeremy says, it's not like there is a SHORTAGE of babies or sources to having them.
Even AGAINST nature's intentions that IVF industries have done.

So, this insane prejudice that requires ONLY procreation as the impetus of marriage for all adults is wrongheaded and whoever keeps saying it, asserting it and so on as if us non parents don't do our share can go FU*K themselves!

Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Nov 19, 2009 3:56:39 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails