RECENT  POSTS:  » Apple CEO gives 'substantial' sum to HRC's southern state project; may or may not have used ApplePay » 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  

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

02/27/2012

NOM pushes 'cultural vandalism' claim; I say 'yes, please do!'

by Jeremy Hooper

On NOM Blog, the writer is pushing the former Archbishop of Canterbury's claim that same-sex marriage is a form of "cultural and theological vandalism":

Screen Shot 2012-02-27 At 11.28.56 Am
[NOM Blog]

It's really dumb of NOM to do this.

We are at a point in the debate now where most every American has had a chance to see a married same-sex couple. Whether it be in the media or closer to home, almost everyone has experience with the idea of two human beings of the same gender sealing their bond in love. At one time, the idea was much more theoretical. Now it is not. It is in our culture.

So now, when groups like NOM propagates phrases like "cultural vandalism," it's starting to sound nastier and nastier to more and more people. Vandalism is a term we use for things (homes, land, businesses). The instruments of vandalism are harsh (spray paint, rocks, baseball bats). By fostering this kind of term for a debate that's becoming more human by the day, NOM is willfully attaching its resistance movement to cold, uncaring, inhumane, misplaced rhetoric. For a debate as dependent on the so-called movable middle as this one, it's really doltish for the team that's already contending with claims of animus to further dehumanize their efforts.

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