RECENT  POSTS:  » No, you really don't seem to know what tyranny is, Jerry Cox » Vatican's #Humanum event meant to paint gay families as 'evil' and 'obscene,' admits invited guest » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years  

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

08/22/2013

My marriage is not a 'bad consequence,' Ryan T. Anderson!

by Jeremy Hooper

I am so sick of heterosexual people telling me that my ten-year-going-on-life, monogamous, committed marriage is some sort of consequence of heterosexuals' "bad" behavior. Here's unmarried and Catholic-driven Heritage Foundation staffer Ryan T. Anderson doing just that:

201308220932"It’s also the fact that the past 40 years have been a nightmare for marriage in general. Same-sex marriage is only plausible in a world that has already done so much damage to marriage and human sexuality. The elimination of the male-female aspect of marriage follows the sexual revolution’s train of bad consequences: pornography, non-marital sex, extramarital sex, non-marital childbearing, divorce and so on. Young people don’t hear arguments in favor of the conjugal view of marriage, and they haven’t seen it lived out."

—Ryan T. Anderson, speaking to the Knights of Columbus

Only in a debate as topsy-turvy, deliberately muddied, and purposely delegitimizing as our modern marriage debate could an idea like this even begin to take hold. The folks on Anderson's side of this issue (almost all of them, like Anderson, motivated by personal faith) have worked so hard to turn same-sex couples' loving into committed unions into a kind of weapon that's doing harm to others that no one really bats an idea when we hear a social conservative equating gay people's freedom to marry with things that they consider to be detriments to the institution. We roll our eyes, grown, and push back against the flawed reason, but we aren't surprised to hear it come out of their mouths. This has been their game since the start. Rather than position same-sex couples' marriages alongside their logical counterparts (i.e. opposite-sex couples' marriages) they have spent years insisting—INSISTING!—that our loving unions are instead more like affairs and divorce.

The fact that I even have to dignify young Anderson's claim that my marriage is some sort of byproduct of heterosexuals' own marital behavior is itself deeply offensive. But that he says this sh*t, for a job, as part of a political movement that seeks, as its ultimate dream goal, my forced divorce from my husband? That is downright disturbing. Chilling, even.

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