Sunday, May 23, 2004
Fly Me To The Moon
Someone should gather together all the various analogies used in anti-gay rhetoric. It's quite telling of the lack of actual argument they have when their fall-back position is such as Andrea Lafferty's short little tennis skirt v. cleats argument.
Last night HeraldTribune.com published a story covering yesterday's rally in Sacramento for opponents of gay marriage. Among the speakers were Alan Keyes in person, and Gary Bauer by cellphone held to a microphone. Keyes apparently relied on the procreation argument, but presented it in space age language:
"To say it's between a man and a woman doesn't discriminate against same-sex couples anymore than it would be discrimination for the government to say I can't offer to fly people to the moon without benefit of a rocket ship," Keyes said. "And being as how I'm not physically equipped to fly to the moon, telling me I can't carry passengers there is not discrimination, it's common sense."
Okay, maybe this analogy would work if we were talking about debate over a law that stated that two people of the same sex cannot get pregnant by having sex with each other. Anything beyond that and it really falls short. And as with every other procreation based argument, this law would also apply to opposite sex couples in which one is sterile or in which the woman has entered menopause. What of opposite sex couples who choose adoption for any number of reasons, such as the skirt lady herself, Andrea Lafferty? She and her husband, Jim Lafferty, are adoptive parents. Why is this a more acceptable form of child-rearing than a gay couple who adopts?
I saw another article last week in which the man being interviewed echoed one of the talking points posted on Probe Ministries website:
"Arbitrarily granting a marriage license to a same-sex couple doesn't constitute marriage. It is a counterfeit of true marriage. It is like trying to tape two same-sex electrical plugs together to form an electrical current."
Another of Probe Ministries' (and let's talk about their name, by the way. What's up with that?) talking points is that gay marriage devalues opposite sex marriage:
"Giving same-sex couples the right to marry devalues true marriage. Imagine if at the next awards ceremony, everyone received an award. Would anyone value the award if everyone received one?"
Pretty much all straight couples can get married - does that mean that it's not special and no one really wants to? Maybe there should be some sort of test everyone should take before receiving a marriage license, to make sure that only the "special" couples get them. Perhaps a short quiz on the U.S. Constitution, with particular attention to the 14th Amendment? Or perhaps on rocket science? Alan Keyes would ace that one.
|
Last night HeraldTribune.com published a story covering yesterday's rally in Sacramento for opponents of gay marriage. Among the speakers were Alan Keyes in person, and Gary Bauer by cellphone held to a microphone. Keyes apparently relied on the procreation argument, but presented it in space age language:
"To say it's between a man and a woman doesn't discriminate against same-sex couples anymore than it would be discrimination for the government to say I can't offer to fly people to the moon without benefit of a rocket ship," Keyes said. "And being as how I'm not physically equipped to fly to the moon, telling me I can't carry passengers there is not discrimination, it's common sense."
Okay, maybe this analogy would work if we were talking about debate over a law that stated that two people of the same sex cannot get pregnant by having sex with each other. Anything beyond that and it really falls short. And as with every other procreation based argument, this law would also apply to opposite sex couples in which one is sterile or in which the woman has entered menopause. What of opposite sex couples who choose adoption for any number of reasons, such as the skirt lady herself, Andrea Lafferty? She and her husband, Jim Lafferty, are adoptive parents. Why is this a more acceptable form of child-rearing than a gay couple who adopts?
I saw another article last week in which the man being interviewed echoed one of the talking points posted on Probe Ministries website:
"Arbitrarily granting a marriage license to a same-sex couple doesn't constitute marriage. It is a counterfeit of true marriage. It is like trying to tape two same-sex electrical plugs together to form an electrical current."
Another of Probe Ministries' (and let's talk about their name, by the way. What's up with that?) talking points is that gay marriage devalues opposite sex marriage:
"Giving same-sex couples the right to marry devalues true marriage. Imagine if at the next awards ceremony, everyone received an award. Would anyone value the award if everyone received one?"
Pretty much all straight couples can get married - does that mean that it's not special and no one really wants to? Maybe there should be some sort of test everyone should take before receiving a marriage license, to make sure that only the "special" couples get them. Perhaps a short quiz on the U.S. Constitution, with particular attention to the 14th Amendment? Or perhaps on rocket science? Alan Keyes would ace that one.
|
Posted by Rogueslayer at 8:50 AM 
