« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
11/12/2007
Two sides fighting for marriage, one of whom is lying
When listening to our opposition address the issue of marriage equality, it can almost sound as if they are schizophrenic inhabitants of an alternate plane of reality. Take this, two of five questions that were recently posed to Family Research Council's Tom McClusky (pic.) by a writer with Focus on the Family:
1. Why is marriage so important?
Health and wealth and sexual fulfillment — in each of these categories, married couples always report immense advantages over individuals who remain single or even couples who might decide to live together.
Marriage is a sacrament. It's one of the only sacraments that two people enter into equally.
...
5. We seem to be at a defining point in history regarding marriage. Where are we headed?
After the Massachusetts decision (to legalize same-sex "marriage"), you saw a lot of people wake up, and you saw a flurry of activity in the states, with marriage amendments being passed in a number of states. Since then, it's started to die out a little. The American people are very supportive of marriage being between one man and one woman. More people need to wake up; otherwise, marriage could be lost.
There is a revitalization happening, and there are a number of state legislators who are talking about divorce-reform laws and covenant-marriage laws that strengthen marriage. The more positive we can do for marriage while fighting the negative, the better.
Marriage will always be around, as far as I'm concerned, as a religious institution. Once governments stop believing that marriage between one man and one woman contributes to society — which it does greatly — that society doesn't have much longer to last.
And questions 2-4, which you can read at the link below, also involve Mr. McClusky giving reasons why same-sex marriage should be banned to the fullest degree in order to ensure societal well-being. So what we have is a man who is saying that marriage is the brass ring, the ultimate goal for all mortals. He is saying it encourages stability, and that its participants reap all sorts of rewards. But then, in the very next breath, he rails off the reasons why gay people should be kept from even having the option of entering into such unions. From such dual messages, the reader has no choice but to assume that Mr. McClusky (a) doesn't consider gay people deserving of the same "Health and wealth and sexual fulfillment" as their hetero counterparts, (b) thinks gay people are so cool that they don't need marriage to ensure their stability, or (c) doesn't consider gay people to be a reality at all, and thus doesn't even think of them as part of the world's spectrum. We'll let you decide which it is.
The problem lies -- and we do mean LIES -- in the way folks like Mr. McClusky have phrased their anti-gay marriage campaigns. They have meticulously fostered this bizarre and childish illusion that "marriage" is the concept for which they are fighting, with marriage equality (the concept for which gays are fighting) the time bomb that is waiting to rip apart the institution. They of course do this so that they can make it seem as if they are the ones who are "under attack" rather than the ones who are holding the weapons in this "culture war" battle. But in taking such a stance, they come across like spoiled six-year-olds who say that they hit their little brother not because they're bullish brats in need of reeling in, but rather because their brother's mere existence has stymied their ability to pretend that he doesn't exist. Just like such a child realizes that their mother will more readily punish them for unwarranted and mean-spirited attacks, the "pro-family" movement is fully aware that history will punish them for holding discriminatory, intolerant views. So they desperately cling to these silly semantic games in order to stave off the cruel effects of historical remembrance for as long as they possibly can.
But guess what? It ain't gonna work! Just like we would all laugh if someone today told us that the anti-suffragists of the early 21st century were "pro-voting" or that the segregationists of the 1950's were "pro-unity," future generations will look back on the far right's anti-gay marriage campaigns with the same head-shaking, disbelieving snicker. As they experience equality and accept gay marriage for what it is -- MARRIAGE -- future Americans will look back and wonder how such a bizarre line of logic was able to ever catch hold with such a large portion of this nation's inhabitants. And sadly, they'll also wonder why so many potential straight allies stood around silently and let these cruel and unjust attacks go on largely unacknowledged, while the gay community desperately tried to connect the dots for society at large.
Hey, society: It's time to stand up and make a difference! If you are TRULY pro-marriage, you need to step up and raise your voice above those who want you to think that they are! And if you're not in favor of marriage equality, then you at least need to have the spine to speak the truth behind your short-sighted nuptial definitions!
Friday Five: Tom McClusky [FOF CitizenLink]
Your thoughts
"Marriage is a sacrament. It's one of the only sacraments that two people enter into equally."
Of course, for thousands of years Judeo-Christian marriage was about the woman becoming, in the eyes of the law, the man's property and forfeiting all her legal rights.
Why does FRC hate traditional marriage?!?
Posted by: KipEsquire | Nov 12, 2007 10:33:13 AM
In number 5, he states the old threat that "if people don't wake up, marriage will be lost", but then also says he believes marriage will always be around. Its our nation that will be lost. He needs to make up his mind.
But when I read statements such as his, I'd like to respond the way my children did when they were small. By a simple stream of the question "Why?". A few consecutive "why's?" and the emptiness of his threats will be revealed.
For example "Once governments stop believing that marriage between one man and one woman contributes to society — which it does greatly — that society doesn't have much longer to last." I agree that marriage between one man and one woman contributes greatly to society. I also believe that marriage between two men or two women would contribute greatly, but the question here is "why would it destroy our society"? A couple of consecutive why's would show that he has no idea. There is no logical progression, no mechanism that he knows of that this could happen.
He might site scripture and the judgement of God, but even with Sodom, God clearly destroyed it because of its neglect of the poor (Ezekiel 16:49-50), not giving homosexuals the same rights as straight people. In fact, over and over again, we see God threaten and follow through on destroying nations because of how they treated the poor, the sick, and the alien. Something Mr. McClusky's favorite politicians have a pretty poor track record on.
Posted by: Steve - Geneva, IL | Nov 12, 2007 4:29:41 PM
I have never seen an explanation of what would happen to marriage if gays were allowed to wed. What exactly is it that frightens heterosexuals about same-sex marriage? Are they all homophobic, worrying about whether or not they have homosexual tendencies? I just don't get what drives them. My uncle was a huge homophobe, and I always wondered if he had had an experience in the locker room growing up where he just might have been attracted to another male, and he was ashamed because society says it is shameful. I would love to hear from another homophobe.
Posted by: Jan Cox | May 6, 2008 3:45:02 PM
I might be just a dumb "breeder" funeral director, however, I believe that a gay or lesbian couple lacks the necessary parts to follow the guidelines of human nature and evolution.My theological opinions aside, a penis and an anus cannot reproduce. Besides I don't see straight couples holding "straight pride parades" or flaunting their sexuality just to gain attention. Just remember gays and lesbians, if it wasn't for us breeders you people wouldn't exist.
Posted by: mortuaryman | Jul 13, 2008 8:34:25 PM
Mortuaryman: Your comments that liken a couple's ability to reproduce with their worthiness? Well they will go undignified. Nobody is saying that the order of society is or should be 100% filled with gays; we're only saying that a portion of it realistically IS.
However, to the "straight pride parade" thing, I do want to say:
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2008/07/were-here-were.html
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 13, 2008 8:56:18 PM
comments powered by Disqus
