RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM to gay families: Your relationships are 'simply about adult sexual desires' » Maggie Gallagher's new gig » How do you even talk with a movement that insists we 'cannot coexist'? » Sen. Manchin picks odd way to (D-istinguish) himself » Photo: Before city council votes on nondiscrimination, Charlotte anti-LGBT activists frame us as 'Homo-Nazis' » AG Holder: 'Marriage equality is an idea whose time has come.' » Viciously anti-gay activist Scott Lively to help us show SCOTUS what animus looks like; thanks, doll! » Audio: NOM prez equates his anti-gay fight with defeating slavery, conquering 'evils that were occurring in the Roman empire' » SCOTUS deals another blow to NOM; more to surely come! » Federal judge strikes Nebraska's discriminatory marriage ban  

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

08/01/2014

Brian Brown apparently buying a new dinette set, misapplies purchase to marriage debate

by Jeremy Hooper

Unlike nearly half of our states, twenty-nine consecutive courts (and many before that), the federal government, and a growing majority of the American public, Brian Brown has taken upon himself to determine that a civil contract between two loving and committed adults can only be called a marriage if the union has the distribution of penises and vaginas that he finds proper. And now he will using dining furniture to make his point ob behalf of the discrimination to which he has pledged his career and legacy:

201408011423 Suppose you took a table and a chair and together referred to them both as chairs. In that instance, the two things really would be different—and by calling them the same thing, you would have made the term "chair" meaningless.

The point is this: the word "marriage" either means something or it does not. Isn't it only fair and just to ask first what it does mean before trying to decide to apply the term to something new?

Calling a table a chair does damage to the meaning of the word "chair"—and it does no service to our understanding of either tables or chairs. It is thus injurious to our wisdom and knowledge on three counts, and reduces our ability to reason at all.

So it goes with marriage. Calling something "marriage" that is not marriage damages our public notion of marriage, in multiple ways. It neither serves society as a whole, nor does it ultimately serve society's members because it reduces their ability to make any reasonable or legal distinctions. And so, when something else comes along purporting to be "marriage," no legal or moral rationale exists for drawing the line.

National Organization For Marriage president Brian Brown

Oh sit down, Brian.

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