RECENT  POSTS:  » 'WaPo' conservative columnist: 'Strident' marriage equality opponents have lost » If John Eastman's allowed to intervene in Oregon, I submit his endorsement of this very anti-gay book » I apparently can fly; cool, I've always wanted to! » Starving selves to stop others' happiness: Virginia edition » NOM-aligned organization claims God will soon punish us for pro-equality rulings » GLAAD: The rise of toxic terminology: Losing anti-LGBT movement turns to corrosive labeling » Founder of anti-gay Boy Scouts alternative links sexual orientation, adultery; earns merit badge in ill-intended comparisons » 'Playbill' to let the two previously unaware playgoers in on Broadway's love for gays » New record: Anti-gay activist Ralph Reed contradicts self in less than minute » Read: NOM's guide to pressuring lawmakers to ban marriages (while pretending you're doing something good and positive instead)  

« 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