|
 |
 |
 Thursday, June 01, 2006
SSM and Religious Liberty/A Reader Responds
[One reader's reaction to my column on Skip Childs, the Truro volunteer who was not reappointed to the Board of Fire Engineer because he signed a marriage petition. I can't say how representative this response is. I know he's not alone. Maggie] "Someone unfortunately sent me your article about the fireman in Massachussetts who signed a petition against gay marriage. It was one of the most offensive articles I have read in a long time. Not only was it smarmily sentimental in its depiction of "Skip" Childs (don't forget, Hitler was nice to dogs...) but it was overtly disingenuous in its depiction of the problem. If Mr Childs DID sign the petition, then he IS a bigot, even if he IS a volunteer fireman. I notice you didn't bother to mention the wording of the petition... THAT might have been good reporting. I also notice that the title of the piece forgets that it is just as much the PETITION which has created conflict between neighbours as gay marriage has. A little perspective might have been a welcome addition to your piece. You have the gall to pretend that Mr Child's reply to Mr Asher-Best's question was "conciliatory"...when in fact it demeans 27 years of love and accuses him of being a "special interest lobbier" rather than a loving husband. This insult is what YOU call "conciliatory"? I think you need to look the word up in a dictionary. While you're at it, try looking up "homophobic". You seem to suggest that there IS a difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, but (except for their sexual preferences) you don't even bother to explain what the difference is. They both love their spouses, they both argue like couples do, they both look after their spouse in sickness and in health, they both worry about the same kinds of problems...hell, the only difference that I can see is that the straight couple doesn't have to keep justifying their love to a bunch of bigots! . . ." 
 VOTE
|
||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|
'Tis sad that the absolutely most obvious difference between opposite sex couples and same sex couples (the opposite sex couple can create children) is totally overlooked by somebody who wants to be able to throw the "homophobe" label at somebody who says in effect, "hey if you can get it passed by popular vote I'll accept the outcome."
The total demonization that goes on by people such as your reader is scary.
Keep up the great work, Maggie. We have to be twice as smart, twice as thoughtful, and plan twice as well as the opposition because they don't play fair.
Actually, not all both-sex couples can create children. And currently, both-sex and same-sex couples have the exact same right to try to create children. It has been done in mice and is some experts think it is just a couple years away from being tried with humans. It does seem irrational to allow a couple to conceive together but not allow them to marry. Totally crazy, really.
John,
I wasn't saying that "science" can create children for the same sex or even opposite sex couples, I was saying that in and of themselves without aid or recourse to any scientific knowledge or artifice, the opposite sex couple can create a child, full stop. No qualifications, like some of them might be sterile, some of them might be impotent, none. It is assumed that those are the exceptions, NOT the rule.
Maggie , I thank you for your appreciation of the situation with (gay) human dignity, & the vitriol that wraps itself in the Stars & Stripes & clutches a Bible, while creating global damage to the lives of a segment of humanity. By that I mean the enabling & encouraging of attitudes of hatrewd & denigration. They often destroy psyches & self confidence such that many young people choose suicide rather than face the ridicule , discrimination , physical attacks and possible rejection by the 'cornerstones' of life; family & friends. The most telling example of the tragic effects of others beliefs on good & decent people not in lockstep with said doctrines comes from personal experience, if I may....
During the early years of the HIV/AIDS epidemic , the religious right successfully opposed funding for research into HIV & the development of treatment options.Ergo, fifty-six close friends were denied even a fighting chance at additional life.The treatments available today , that keep me alive , came too late for thousands on this continent . Even former Senator Jesse Helms , in his memoirs released last year , stated that the most significant regret of his political career was his decisions regarding AIDS.
smmtheory, you were saying that same-sex couples are different in that they can't create children. I am telling you, in case you weren't aware by now, that same-sex couples can create children, and they claim to have the exact same rights to try that any couple has.
It's true that both-sex couples are unique in that they might create children without assistance of science, but that's not what you were saying, and your point was based on incorrect and misleading information. When the correct facts are applied to your point, your point becomes an argument for gay marriage.
That is what I was saying John. If my point is an argument for "gay marriage", then maybe you can point out the evidence that semen mixed with semen or egg mixed with egg causes a child to be created. Until then, please refrain from playing the know-it-all and trying to "correct" my message.
Post a Comment
<< Home