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 »

04/25/2013

NOM writes another blog post, another misrepresentation (but I repeat myself)

by Jeremy Hooper

Check this one. I'm snipping the whole post because you need it all for context:

Screen Shot 2013-04-25 At 5.55.12 Pm
[NOM Blog]

Okay, let's start at the beginning: the idea of a stunt surrounding a wedding. Does NOM really want to go down that road? I mean, we live in a world where men and women go on several different television shows in hopes that their televised dating will culminate in a marriage proposal. We have a whole culture surrounding the commerce side of weddings and the "Bridezillas" who eat it all up. Vegas is a long-held pop culture cliché, shorthand for the quickie wedding. And so on and so forth. I don't need to put a date on it to know that the concept of a gimmicky, marketable, or otherwise campy wedding is a pretty darn old and pretty darn heterosexual one.

But that out of the way, let's now look at the last three lines made up of the final line of the quoted text and NOM's closing couplet. What the condom company spokesperson says is that "this wedding is just another vehicle to get the word out about safe sex." Operative word there is "this." He didn't say marriage in general is "just another vehicle" for safe sex promotion—he, someone who speaks for this particular company and this particular event, said this wedding is a vehicle for this purpose. Major distinction.

But look at how the NOM writer skews it. He or she changes what the spokesperson said so that it sounds like he was saying "the institution of marriage" itself is a condom ad. That's not at all what the spokesperson said, and readers can see that by just moving their eyes a few centimeters upward. But NOM hubris is now at the point to where they don't even seem to care when the misrepresentation is right in front out everyone's face. The NOM contingent is so used to telling us what is supposedly so that they don't even seem to notice when what is actually so is right there on the very same page.

This org, folks. Yikes.

***

**I should also add, as a side note, that yes, marriage kind of is a good advertisement for safe sex. In fact, that's something we advocates have often said: that social conservatives who throw all kinds of stones and stereotypes at gay "behavior" should be marriage equality's biggest champions. If they want to encourage monogamy and lifetime love, equal marriage is a pretty good thing to promote.

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