RECENT  POSTS:  » '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' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way » On Rivka, Robert and their dirty, self-victimizing, anti-intellectual blame game » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out » But your subjective view of 'real' marriage is factually irrelevant, Ryan » Flip Benham (yes, their dad) reportedly protesting outside NC weddings  

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

02/28/2012

USCCB won't acknowledge 'gay marriage' or 'same-sex marriage'; but will they still send a gift?

by Jeremy Hooper

The USSCB is actually right in saying we don't need modifiers like "gay" or "same-sex" when referring to certain people's marriages. But unfortunately, the USCCB's reasoning is much different from my own:

The terms “same-sex marriage” and “gay marriage” beg the question: What is marriage? Is it even possible for two persons of the same sex to be married? Using the terms “same-sex marriage” and “gay marriage” already presupposes (wrongly) that marriage comes in a variety of forms: “same-sex,” “opposite-sex,” “homosexual,” “heterosexual,” and so forth.
Put another way, the sexual difference and complementarity of husband and wife is not something that is added to a pre-existing thing called “marriage,” like you might add sprinkles to a sundae.
Why doesn’t this website use the terms “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage”? [USCCB's "Marriage Unique For A Reason" site]

Uhm, no. The reason we don't need the extra words is because the "marriage" label works just fine for all of us, thank you very much. The civil marriage sundae is the same, regardless of gender. That easy complimentarity is the reason why we don't need the sprinkles -- not because gays are themselves the frill, optional topping!

The thing is, this is a completely untenable position for the Catholics to take. If I were consulting the Catholic Church (don't worry, they could never meet my quote), I'd actually tell them to use "same-sex marriage" or "gay marriage," since it helps them foster the idea that we are different. I mean, they have to call us something, right? We married gay folk do exist, regardless of how hard they pray. Ignoring us altogether, with no sort of word or phrase of any kind, is only going to make them look silly in the long run. So one would think that they, the ones bold enough to claim that heterosexual marriage is "unique," would be hellbent on making our legal unions sound like an "other." Not Broadway, but off-Broadway; Not a marriage, but a gay marriage.

That they're instead being silly and acting like our marriages can be addressed through a system of grunts and/or hand gestures? It helps us, I'd argue.

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