RECENT  POSTS:  » GLAAD: Questions we'd like reporters to ask at the Values Voter Summit » HA! Robert Oscar Lopez mentions me in truly bizarre amicus brief to 5th Circuit » Gay man realizes he shouldn't have entered an opposite-sex union—so no same-sex marriage for anyone?! » Your daily 'Gay Gestapo' moment with the American Family Association's senior analyst » Scott Lively equates accurately noting his public record with inciting murder » Audio: Mark Regnerus doesn't think marriage equality has 'a lot of gas left' » Friday: NOM president shares the bill with 'ex-gay' activists » Today in 'um, yeah, obviously': Stunt marriages not confined to opposite-sex partnerships » Video: Brian Brown's fellow panelist gives insight into Moscow panel's extreme views on homosexuality, marriage » Video: TN man condemns gays with Leviticus billboards; oddly allows local Red Lobsters to remain open  

« 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