RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » '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'  

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

10/17/2012

The National Organization for [forced, 'natural' reproduction]

by Jeremy Hooper

Thomas Peters heads up the National Organization For Marriage's long-gestating "Next Generation For Marriage" project. That being the case, it's pertinent for all to know that if we are to follow young Thomas' thoughts to their logical end, it's more than just same-sex couples who should fear what NOM has planned for this phase two operation:

Screen Shot 2012-10-17 At 4.24.44 Pm
[SOURCE]

Okay, so first—if you're familiar with Twitter, I encourage to read the replies to Thomas' tweet. His supporters are saying things like "bestiality is natural too," working overtime to go after the idea that homosexuality is both natural and acceptable rather than what seems to be Thomas' larger point about reproduction. The feedback really gives you insight into what the NOM Cultural Director's rhetoric cultivates among his supporters, intended or not.

But that aside, I can't help but marvel at the continued attempt to position reproduction as the Achilles Heel by which NOM will ultimately "win" this war. In a world where reproduction is a wholly non-required element of the civil marriage contract, this attempt to define a couple's marital worth by how many kids they produce from the union of their gametes is beyond the realm of even logical fallacy. I'm sure that most people who give even have a thought to the reality of marriage as it exists rather than the talking points about marriage that the NOM have little to no trouble understanding that the government's recognition of a couple's "I do-ing" does not hinge on said couple's procreative need and/or ability. And I'm also pretty confident that if the NOM crowd overplays this more-than-fallacious hand in the dictatorial way that people like Thomas seem to be itching to do, they are only going to turn off a greater number of heterosexuals who are starting to see just how overreaching (and startling) the far-right's dictums are getting.

Pagebreak-163

*Want to support this site and its mission? You can purchase or download Jeremy's book here (no reproductive mandate attached).

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