Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

NOM (accidentally) argues for same-sex marriage

NOM Exposed Right-wing

A different version of this was cross-posted at Waking Up Now.

by Rob Tisinai

The Ruth Institute (NOM’s youth group) has a new money making scheme outreach project called, “”77 Non-religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage”:

This pamphlet offers 77 incontrovertible statements in support of Natural Marriage, all of which defend the premise without delving into ‘religious’ themes.

What a ludicrous straw-man title. By definition, people who believe in marriage equality support “Man/Woman” marriage exactly as much as same-sex marriage.  What part of “marriage equality” does NOM not understand?

The Ruth Institute is offering 25 of these pamphlets for just $20, plus $5 shipping and handling. I have opted not to take advantage of this deal.

But I have looked at their promotional excerpt:  based on reason 60 – By the time the activists are finished, there will be nothing left of marriage but a government registry of friendships – I do not believe the word incontrovertible means what they think it means.

Reasons 61 through 65, though, caught my eye because every one of them could be used to advocate banning adoption.

Just look. I’ve got the Ruth Institute’s language in the left column, and I’ve adapted it ever so slightly on the right.

Ban SSM Ban Adoption
Man/woman marriage is the institution that attaches mothers and fathers to their children. Same sex marriage transforms marriage into an institution that separates children from at least one of their parents Man/woman marriage is the institution that attaches mothers and fathers to their children. Adoption transforms marriage into an institution that separates children from at least one of their parents
Same sex marriage opens the door to children having more than 2 legal parents, as it has in Canada. Adoption opens the door to children having more than 2 legal parents, as it has in Canada.
Same sex marriage routinely places biological parents on the same legal footing with adults who have no genetic relationship to the child. Adoption routinely places biological parents on the same legal footing with adults who have no genetic relationship to the child.
Same sex marriage eliminates the legal principle that biology is the primary means of establishing parental rights and responsibilities. Adoption eliminates the legal principle that biology is the primary means of establishing parental rights and responsibilities.
Some other principle must take the place the biological principle. That principle will be the state assignment of parental rights and responsibilities. Some other principle must take the place the biological principle. That principle will be the state assignment of parental rights and responsibilities.

Actually, the Ban Adoption column rings truer than the Ban SSM column, to my ears at least.

Of course, NOM doesn’t want to ban adoption.  In fact, the pamphlet’s author, Jennifer Roback Morse, has an adopted child.  One possible explanation for this seeming hypocrisy is that Morse so needs to discriminate against us that she’s simply blind to the implications of her own thinking.  I wish we could do two things:

Point out that reality does not validate her thinking: These warnings about same-sex marriage apply equally to adoption, yet adoption hasn’t destroyed the American family – so your warnings have no real-world support.

Demand some intellectual integrity: Given the similarities to adoption in your SSM analysis, why do you support one and oppose the other?

Actually, as far as NOM’s attitude toward adoptive parents is concerned, I’m giving them way too much credit.  They have a long and offensive history of denigrating such families.  It turns out that this “77 Reasons” pamphlet continues that tradition.  Look at the other excerpt they have online.

The only way this makes sense – to the extent it makes sense at all – is if NOM’s definition of “parent” means “biological parent only.”  What happens to this piece when we acknowledge that adoptive parents count as parents, too?  Break it down:

Jennifer Roback Morse says… An adoptive parent would reply…
Look at marriage from the child’s point of view. Not every marriage produces children. But every child has parents. Tell that to children in foster care and institutions.
Every child is entitled to a relationship with both parents. Then let’s make sure children have parents, be they biological or adoptive.
Every child is entitled to know and be known by both parents. Um, that’s just a weaker version of your previous statement.
No child can possibly protect these entitlements on his or her own. Okay…
Adult society must protect the child’s right to affiliation with both parents. Okay…
Adult society must protect these rights through prevention of harm, not through restitution after the fact. Okay…what does this have to do with same-sex marriage?
Man/woman marriage is the institution adult society uses to proactively protect the rights of all children to affiliation with both parents. NO!  Marriage –  opposite sex and same-sex – is the institution society uses to create stable and safe families for kids.
Same sex marriage changes marriage from a child-centered institution to an adult-centered institution. Huh?  Didn’t you mean: Same-sex marriage allows more children to enjoy the benefits of having two loving parents.

See?  Once you acknowledge that adoptive parents are real parents, the whole line of reasoning turns into an argument for marriage equality.

Here’s the funny thing: NOM/Ruth is using these excerpts to show how fabulous the pamphlet is.  You can only wonder what a mess they made of the rest of it.

77 Comments

  • 1. Kathleen  |  November 15, 2010 at 2:25 am

  • 2. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 15, 2010 at 2:34 am

    Can't wait til you get them in the mail. I would love to see what you get for $25. Hope at least they include a Koozie.

  • 3. Ann S.  |  November 15, 2010 at 2:37 am

  • 4. Sagesse  |  November 15, 2010 at 2:41 am

    Getting tripped up in their ridiculously simplistic, anachronistic stereotypes.

  • 5. Ronnie  |  November 15, 2010 at 2:47 am

    Oh I just love how NOM, in attempt to disrespect, insult, offend, demean, & degrade LGBT people, couples & parents, inadvertently do the same to single parents, adoptive parents, foster parents, infertile/sterile or unable to carry a child to term, as well as those who opt out of having children &/or adopting but still get married with the mutually decided stipulation that the couple will never have children or adopt. They also insult those who are legal guardians such as aunts, uncles, grandparents, family friends, older siblings, or other family relations all of which can be single as well. NOM insults the mother & father who legally made their Gay relative guardian in case of their death because they see that family member as a suitable & qualified caretaker for their child.

    NOM never fails at insulting those who do not live their lives according to NOM's definitions & beliefs lock in step, or fit into their delusional fantasy word molds of what is considered, according to them, the "ideal"……

    Congratulations Ruth, for once again showing proof of your superiority complex & Fascist desire to fill the world with what & whom you consider to be the ideal of human anything & everything while degrading those who don't conform….2 thumbs ups…..<3…Ronnie

  • 6. Luke  |  November 15, 2010 at 2:49 am

    and yet when they are asked to prove that these things do happen, they cannot produce one shred of evidence that backs up their claims.

  • 7. atty79  |  November 15, 2010 at 2:52 am

    These arguments don't pass the smell test. Marriage is not the child-protection institution NOM/Ruth wants us to believe. The child-protection institution is the STATE.

    The state gives deference to biological parents in many cases, but by no means does the state care whether a child is born out of wedlock or within. The state cares about whether a child is being abused, whether the child is being nurtured and cared for and supported. If the state doesn't see that happened, it takes steps to remedy that by taking the child away or making the state become part of the everyday parenting of the child.

    The child's interests in knowing his biological parents (if any) takes a back seat to his safety and welfare. Period.

  • 8. Alan E.  |  November 15, 2010 at 3:32 am

    Been a busy weekend!

    It's funny that they argue these points, but the Ruth Institute is located in California. California law does not distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex couples when it comes to adoption and parenting. All of these are moot in California, and thankfully other states.

  • 9. anonygrl  |  November 15, 2010 at 3:56 am

    ABSOLUTELY.

    This is especially interesting in light of the recent study that says children in two parent opposite sex households are at a 26% risk of being abused. Children in a two parent lesbian households are at 0% risk.

    Hm.

  • 10. anonygrl  |  November 15, 2010 at 4:19 am

    I suppose my general response to all of this would be:

    Show me ONE case where the state decided to take a child away from their own good, loving, healthy biological family who wanted to keep them and had the resources to do so and gave them instead to a same sex couple to adopt.

    Just one.

    Show me one case where the state WOULD do such a thing, if it had the option? How about one case where they gave the child to an opposite sex couple?

    No? Not even one example?

    Because ALL the scenarios Ruth proposes in which a child is harmed by having same sex parents are predicated on that very simple premise. So until they can show one case where it has actually HAPPENED that way, there is no point in even considering their points.

  • 11. eDee  |  November 15, 2010 at 4:34 am

    Another great example of Christian absurdity – I can’t read the enter post for fear I may lose my last few remaining IQ points due to the lack of logic set forth by the pamphlet.

    {{The Ruth Institute is offering 25 of these pamphlets for just $20, plus $5 shipping and handling.}}
    I must remember this for my ChristZen faith! I never thought about selling pamphlets as a way to add funds to an organization. I’m DYING to see the copy right information on that pamphlet.

  • 12. Alan E.  |  November 15, 2010 at 4:43 am

    AFA is selling boxes of buttons for you to hand out at church or wherever to show that you know that the reason for the season is Christmas, not "holiday."

  • 13. Ann S.  |  November 15, 2010 at 4:46 am

    Everyone should know that axial tilt is the reason for the season. Is anyone selling those buttons??

  • 14. Regan DuCasse  |  November 15, 2010 at 4:51 am

    Well said Ronnie!
    They can write all the pamphlets they want. But until marriage is ONLY available to people who have or intend to have children, adoptive children ONLY available to married couples and divorce was ONLY for people who never produced any, discriminating against gay couples on the basis of this is against the law.

    After all, what they insist on, doesn't and cannot happen in the law.
    NO ONE is discriminated against in marriage based on CONJECTURE, that has yet to yield results and evidence backing up that conjecture.

    They treat the courts, legislatures and all other avenues of law as if the people charged with their interpretation are as stupid as the audience the Ruth Institute is talking to.

  • 15. Sagesse  |  November 15, 2010 at 4:56 am

    Spoil sport!

  • 16. Tracy  |  November 15, 2010 at 4:59 am

    I cannot have children (for health reasons). Suppose there is a single father interested in me. His wife was abusive to the him and the child. Would NOM (and Ms. Morse) force him to remarry his ex, because that is better for his handicapped daughter? Of course not. They are willing to make "exceptions" when it serves their purpose to do so.

    They (attempt to) APPEAR to espouse an ideology that would be better for society. But they would support MANY exceptions to that ideology, and thus, they betray their true motive — to micromanage (legislate?) the lives of all Americans according to their own moral (??) compass.

    They are poison to the very fabric that makes America great. Disgusting.

  • 17. fiona64  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:01 am

    One of the things that really bugs me is that, apparently, people who insist that "Jesus is the reason for the season" do not know the context of their religion very well.

    Lambing season, which is when shepherds watch their flocks by night, is in the *spring.*

    OTOH, Dec. 25 is the Feast of Mythras, the Persian/Zoroastrian deity … which is the date co-opted by Christianity to celebrate the birth of Yeshua. The Winter Solstice is Dec. 21 — celebrate with evergreens, BTW. There are numerous winter festivals rolled into the "reason for the season" — none of which are the actual birth of Yeshua, who was not (to rip off Kris Kristofferson) a Capricorn.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 18. Ann S.  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:06 am

    There you go with those pesky facts and history and stuff. Cut that out right now, missy!

  • 19. Tracy  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:21 am

    It is tragic that America should have been the world's leader in freedom, fairness and equality — and yet we are trailing Canada, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Belgium, Iceland, the Netherlands and Argentina with regard to SSM.

    If NOM et al. had their way, we would become a theocracy governed by the morals of the religious right. Ouch. I fear that's where we are headed.

    If that ever occurs, I'm moving to Sweden. Or maybe the Netherlands.

  • 20. Tracy  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:23 am

    And I venture to say, all *real* Americans would follow. !!!

  • 21. anonygrl  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:26 am

    I am SO making a button that reads "The Reason for the Season is Axial Tilt".

    Thank you Ann!!!

  • 22. anonygrl  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:32 am

    Unless you are male, Tracy, in which case, they would NOT make any exceptions for you and would want him to go back to an abusive ex wife rather than find peace and comfort and support and love with you.

  • 23. Anthony  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:35 am

    Perhaps he will opt not to take advantage of that deal… maybe.

  • 24. Ronnie  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:36 am

    http://www.towleroad.com/2010/11/breaking-13-vete

    BREAKING: 13 VETERANS AND DADT REPEAL ADVOCATES CHAIN THEMSELVES TO WHITE HOUSE FENCE, CALL FOR SENATE ACTION

    Thirteen gay rights advocates, veterans, and advocates for repeal of DADT are currently chained to the White House fence, calling for the U.S. Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and President Obama to make good on their promises to secure the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during the abbreviated, lame-duck session of Congress that started today.

    Refresh for updates, below…

    According to a press release from GetEQUAL:

    The 13 veterans and repeal advocates arrested today include:

    Five veterans (Lt. Dan Choi, Petty Officer Autumn Sandeen, Cpl. Evelyn Thomas, and Cadet Mara Boyd) who were arrested back in March during the GetEQUAL organized “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” act of civil disobedience at the White House fence demanding President Obama show leadership on repeal.
    Robin McGehee, co-founder and director of GetEQUAL, and Dan Fotou, action strategist for GetEQUAL.
    Former U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Miriam Ben-Shalom, who was discharged in 1976 for declaring and admitting she was a lesbian. She became the first-ever LGBT servicemember reinstated to her position in the U.S. Military, by a U.S. Federal District Court. On July 30th, 1993, Miriam and 26 other protesters were arrested at the White House fence for protesting then-President Bill Clinton’s broken promise to repeal the gay ban – instead signing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” bill into law.
    Former U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Justin Elzie who, in 1993, became the first Marine ever investigated and discharged under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. Elzie was also the first soldier to be discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to fight his discharge and win – resulting in his service as a Marine for four years as an openly gay man.
    Former U.S. Army Arabic Linguist Ian Finkenbinder, who was discharged from the Army in December 2004 after announcing to his superiors that he was gay. Finkenbinder is an Iraq war veteran and was about to return for a second tour of duty when he was discharged.
    U.S. Army Veteran and Repeal Advocate Rob Smith, who was deployed to both Iraq and Kuwait before being honorably discharged after deciding not to re-enlist in the U.S. Army due to the added pressure of living under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.
    Father Geoff Farrow, a Catholic priest who spoke out against the church’s official stance in support of California’s Proposition 8, removing the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Because of his courageous stance against Prop 8, Father Geoff Farrow was removed as pastor of St. Paul’s by his bishop and suspended as a priest.
    Scott Wooledge, a New York-based LGBT civil rights advocate and blogger who has written extensively on the movement to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” at Daily Kos and Pam's House Blend.
    Michael Bedwell, long-time LGBT civil rights advocate, close friend of Leonard Matlovich, and administrator of the site http://www.leonardmatlovich.com.

    (me) images on the other end of the link…… look Brian Brown…this is what a Civil Rights Movement looks like……<3…Ronnie

  • 25. Tracy  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:36 am

    Check it out:
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/15/gay.service.memb

  • 26. Ann S.  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:37 am

    I didn't come up with the idea, but I'm very fond of it.
    http://shop.cafepress.com/axial-tilt

  • 27. Anthony  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:37 am

    They are only insulting LGBT. No one else bothers to read their garbage.

  • 28. Ronnie  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:42 am

    2:18 pm – Dan Choi leads protesters in Pledge of Allegiance.

    Police have cleared the area. The activists are reportedly chanting "Barack Obama… Silent homophobia".

    2:29 pm – GetEqual tweets "Activists shout out their names as police watch from sidelines."

    <3…Ronnie

  • 29. Tracy  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:42 am

    Well said, anonygrl… what I consider ironic is this — when I was a kid, I was taught that the soul was separate from the body. I came to believe that the soul was genderless — i.e., true love transcended gender. I was taught that God had more interest in the soul than the body — hence, homosexual love was treasured by Him as much as heterosexual love. Because they are the same. Just LOVE. I was taught that God is LOVE.

    Where did I go wrong?

  • 30. Felyx  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:44 am

    Winter Solstice Baby!!! I am changing my middle name to Mythras and starting my own religion!!! Yeah!!!

  • 31. Kathleen  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:48 am

    Isn't that Rick Jacobs toward the end of the video?

  • 32. Anthony  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:49 am

    You went wrong in the part where you said 'homosexual' and 'treasured' in the same sentence without specifying which magical being you were *really* referencing.

  • 33. Tracy  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:53 am

    Magical being — perhaps. My God does not discriminate.

  • 34. Ronnie  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:53 am

    2:37 pm – GetEQual tweets "The 13 are yelling 'We want change!' to the White House while Secret Service moves in."

    <3…Ronnie

  • 35. Alan E.  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:53 am

    Yeah that was Rick. I would hope the exhibit travels to this coast. I would love to check it out. It makes my heart tear when I think of my gay friends in the military and the endless troubles they have to go through to hide their true selves.

  • 36. Buffy  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:54 am

    "Same sex marriage changes marriage from a child-centered institution to an adult-centered institution."

    This BS comes from the people who scream "Parental Rights!!!!" any time their little snowflakes might be exposed to science, Teh Gays, anything non-Christian, or truth-based sexuality education. It's not about the rights of the children with them, it's solely about their self-perceived right to control everything and everyone.

  • 37. Jus B  |  November 15, 2010 at 6:01 am

    Don't know if you guys have seen this one yet, but this young man's speech is fantastic.

    <a>Openly Gay Student Defends Teacher

    Happy Days!
    Jussy

  • 38. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 15, 2010 at 6:01 am

    Hmmmm….. CC needs to see if the Ruth inst. has a Tax LicenseReseller ID for california!

  • 39. Jus B  |  November 15, 2010 at 6:04 am

    Let try this again:

    Openly Gay Student Defends Teacher

  • 40. Ronnie  |  November 15, 2010 at 6:15 am

    2:38 pm – GetEQUAL tweets "Those on the fence are chanting 'President Obama, do the right thing!' while Secret Service give multiple warnings"

    Towleroad has learned that the handcuff locks have been super-glued, making arrest more difficult.

    <3….Ronnie

  • 41. Tracy  |  November 15, 2010 at 6:15 am

    I have never (personally) experienced bigotry — I am a heterosexual white female. OK, I work in a man's world (science/math), but whatever. I don't even know someone who has been a victim of bigotry. Frequently I wonder why I should even have a voice here.

    You are all amazing.

    I have to say, this website is critical. Your thoughts and dreams — though they may not be legally recognized — will make all the difference.

    I am so sorry. I'm sure I'm not alone in supporting your cause. Geez…this "cause" shouldn't even be necessary. We are Americans for God's sake…..I can't make a difference by myself. But for whatever it's worth, I am with you. I am with you all.

  • 42. Ronnie  |  November 15, 2010 at 6:25 am

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/15/gay-righ

    Huffington Post has video….Lt. Dan Choi giving a speech

    "Our message is very simple. We have served out country valiantly in defense of Freedom and Justice. Now it is time for our leaders to do the same." ~ Lt. Dan Choi

    (me) I am honored to have shaken that man's hand…..<3…Ronnie

  • 43. Ronnie  |  November 15, 2010 at 6:27 am

    sorry typo….. : / …Ronnie:

    “Our message is very simple. We have served our country valiantly in defense of Freedom and Justice. Now it is time for our leaders to do the same.” ~ Lt. Dan Choi

  • 44. fiona64  |  November 15, 2010 at 6:37 am

    Felix, I hate to break it to you … but those Zoroastrians are ahead of you on the Mythras thing. ;->

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 45. fiona64  |  November 15, 2010 at 6:39 am

    Hi, Tracy. You're lucky if you've never experienced gender discrimination. I surely have (I'm also a straight, white woman). Welcome to the fun; be sure to grab a cookie.

    Love from another ally,
    Fiona

  • 46. Tracy  |  November 15, 2010 at 6:54 am

    @Fiona — I have to admit that I have experienced my share of gender discrimination –I work for a national laboratory that was traditionally male… but I imagine that the impact of that is so much less painful than the discrimination faced by LGBT folks….but I will grab a cookie. :)

    Allies to the end!

    Best,
    Tracy

  • 47. JT1962  |  November 15, 2010 at 7:07 am

    Watched it a half hour ago on Facebook. What a great young man.

  • 48. JT1962  |  November 15, 2010 at 7:10 am

    I love how they (The Ruth Institute and NOM) have forgotten how many men became "biological" parents strictly because they were married to a woman who gave birth, yet was not the biological parent at all. I know of someone first hand who went through this. Everyone in the family, including the father listed on the birth certificate, knew that this other man was the actual father but he was never legally acknowledged because the law states that the husband is the father. It's only now that we have DNA tests that a man can legally claim paternity if not married to someone. And even now, it's ridiculously hard to accomplish.

  • 49. eDee  |  November 15, 2010 at 7:53 am

    Going to change my facebook image to this: http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm256/barefoot… Right before Christmas.

    Christmas is yet another point of contention in my life. How is it that it’s almost mandatory to celebrate Christmas, but stores are OPEN on the 4th of July?!?!?!? The BIRTH OF OUR NATION!

  • 50. Sean  |  November 15, 2010 at 8:07 am

    George Takei is my hero.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UACK93xF-FE

  • 51. JonT  |  November 15, 2010 at 8:11 am

  • 52. Michelle Evans  |  November 15, 2010 at 8:39 am

    Direct discrimination was something I never had to put up with–until I came out as a transgender female. Then, I have unfortunately found discrimination almost every single day of my life since.

    I have been refused service at places like a Smog Check station. I've been refused service at Universal Studios when trying to buy lunch. I've had little children follow me around and laugh at me. I had a man chase me through a parking lot in his pickup truck. I had a doctor try to "teach me a lesson" by withholding proper medication (which nearly cost me my life) because I was an abomination in her eyes. This list can go on and on and on…

  • 53. Ann S.  |  November 15, 2010 at 8:41 am

    Oh, Michelle. That's just horrible.

    {{{{{{hugs Michelle}}}}}}

  • 54. David in Houston  |  November 15, 2010 at 8:43 am

    Notice how they never actually answer the question, "But not all married couples have children. How can you say marriage is about the benefits to children?"

    They don't actually acknowledge that children aren't a legal requirement to getting married… or the fact the you don't have to get married to make a baby. Instead, they redirect the issue to children's rights. By doing so, they spit in the face of single-parent families, families with step-parents, families headed by grandparents, and every other conceivable family configuration that doesn't involve two-biological straight married parents. Just as long as gays can't marry, they don't care who else gets thrown under the bus. Which points out their utter hypocrisy. They're not trying to stop all those other families from existing, only gay people are the problem. Yet they seem to be at a loss as to why they're labeled homophobes. Hopefully I've answered their question.

  • 55. Michelle Evans  |  November 15, 2010 at 8:46 am

    I would like to post information about an event that will be happening here in Orange County (CA) this coming Saturday at 6:00 pm. It is our local Transgender Day of Remembrance, and will be held at The Center OC, 1605 N. Spurgeon, Santa Ana. Cherie and I will be amongst the speakers who will be talking about being trans and specifically about those in our community who have been murdered over the past year.

    I would invite my friends from the P8TT group to come join us if you are in the local area, and if not, there are events all across the nation and world. You can see more about the events, and find a local one, through the site at:
    http://www.transgenderdor.org/

    And here is a link to my own web site with info about last years event:
    http://www.mach25media.com/tdor09.html

    If anyone here needs any more info, please let me know.

  • 56. Michelle Evans  |  November 15, 2010 at 8:52 am

    To Ann (and all my other friends here, and especially to my wife, Cherie),

    THANK YOU ALL for being so wonderful!!

  • 57. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  November 15, 2010 at 9:13 am

    Not quite true, Anthony. There are plenty of us straight allies who also read their garbage and are insulted by it, especially those of us who have been single mothers or have adopted children.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 58. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  November 15, 2010 at 9:18 am

    Really, anonygirl, you don't expect them to apply facts and logic to their arguments do you.

    If they were so concerned about children, they'd be working to prevent child abuse (be it physical or emotional) and not working to deny tax-paying citizens the right they deserve.

    Sheryl Beckett, Mormon Mother

  • 59. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  November 15, 2010 at 9:20 am

    I think the point in considering their points is to be able to point out the flaws in their literature. To get people to really think about what is written. Once people start really thinking for themselves, they will see the fallacies.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 60. Richard A. Walter (s  |  November 15, 2010 at 9:21 am

    Well, as an adult who was adopted as a child, NOM and the Ruth Institute never fail to insult me through their rhetoric. Of course, they also manage to insult anyone who actually has any intelligence simply because their rhetoric is not only so full of hatred and bigotry, as well as lacking in even the most basic of critical thinking skills, but also because their rhetoric is so stupid that it isn't even humorous.

  • 61. Anthony  |  November 15, 2010 at 9:55 am

    UmHmm. I see. And what was the name of the straight heterosexual organization that you donate to that is striving so hard to publicize NOM?

    Seriously, you, as wonderful and supportive as you are, are not on the target list. Standing alongside as allies is indeed valuable and important, but doing so will not somehow alienate YOU from YOUR rights. Pardon my harshness if you can, and understand as a group, adoptees, adopting parents, etc. etc. are not viciously targeted as a group.

    I cannot say I feel your pain of insult. I am to busy tending to those who are being physically and financially harmed by direct hatred.

  • 62. Felyx  |  November 15, 2010 at 10:02 am

    I am reincarnating, thank-you.

    😛 Felyx

    I am thinking Apostles of Mythras, Church of Latter Day Zoroasters.

  • 63. Richard A. Walter (s  |  November 15, 2010 at 10:09 am

    Oh, really, Anthony? You truly believe that the only reason I was ever targeted by anyone for any physical, emotional, and other abuse was my sexual orientation? I also got verbally and physically assaulted for being adopted. Think about being called "bastard" by schoolmates, and when you tell them that you are not, the first thing out of their mouths is "How do you know? You were adopted." Do not let the pain of our struggle as LGBT Americans blind you to the level of insults we suffer for other reasons.

  • 64. bennett  |  November 15, 2010 at 10:30 am

    Every child has two biological parants. If their parants are married, well, thats just great! But if their parants divorce, (it could happen), then the child will no doubt be separated from one of their parants. If the parants remarry, then the child is going to have 2 biological parants and one or more step parants. This hold true whether the parants marry same sex partners or opposite sex partners. Even if the male divorcing spouse remarrys another woman (maybe his secretary, that has been know to happen too) the child will end up with the dreaded "two mommys". Unfortuantely in this scenario, the "two mommys" rarely get along. But, considering that divorces due to one partner being gay often results in the marriage disolving, (it was "unnatural" for them after all), but the friendship remaining, there is a often the happy result of the two mommys" actually get along!

    But I don't think this scenario serves their little smear campaign!

  • 65. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 15, 2010 at 10:37 am

    Well said Bennett. I agree with you wholly.

  • 66. fiona64  |  November 15, 2010 at 10:48 am

    Wow, Anthony. While I absolutely understand your anger, talking shit to your allies, some of whom (I include myself in this number) have indeed faced physical and financial harm for assisting you in your battle.

    I'll remember your words the next time I'm trying to decide whether to continue standing up to the bigoted homophobe who wants to beat me up in my own goddamned front yard for refusing to take down my No on 8 sign, or who cyberstalks me and publishes my personal information on a hate site and suggests that people come after me to kill me, okay?

  • 67. JonT  |  November 15, 2010 at 10:56 am

    Well, one – I think you are being unnecessarily hard on Sheryl.

    Second, I am not sure what you mean by being 'on the target list'. I spent most of my childhood in group homes and foster homes. Nobody at that time knew I was gay, but living in a group home *did* have a stigma attached to it.

    It wasn't exactly anything you could hide either (like being gay). When the class went on field trips, I often did not get to go since the state rarely paid for those. It was always obvious to the other students why I couldn't go. Rumors were always flying.

    There were students who did make fun of me for not living with my parents. There were students (and some teachers) who just assumed that if I were in a group home, it must be because I was a criminal or in some other way 'defective'.

    '…and understand as a group, adoptees, adopting parents, etc. etc. are not viciously targeted as a group.'

    You may have a point there – AFAIK there is no 'ban adoptees/adopters' organizations, but don't kid yourself that there isn't some stigma attached to growing up in 'non-traditional' environments.

    At one home I lived in, every 4 months like clockwork I'd come home from school and find that there was a nice big 'Notice of Public Hearing' sign planted on the front lawn of the house, informing the neighbors that yet another 'public hearing' had been called by some asshole who didn't like the idea of 'one of those group homes' near his house.

    And lay off of Sheryl please. I for one appreciate her stance, participation here, and her attempts to work within her church community for positive change from within. I see no reason to indulge in self-pity regarding who gets oppressed the most.

    Oppression is always wrong. I think we can all agree on that, can't we?

  • 68. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    Bennett, I got a chuckle out of the "But if their parents divorce, (it could happen). More appropriate would be (it happens all the time). And, there are many times where the child(ren) are better off with only 1 parent than with both biological parents. but then they don't want to discuss that either. What they want is their ideal world (everyone lives just the way they do and believes just the way they do).

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 69. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  November 15, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    I think you are forgetting that I have a gay son and these issues affect him directly, and therefore me. As a mother, I want my son to have the same rights I have. I do not want him being discriminated against for employment or any of the other ways that homosexuals are discriminated against. And I really don't like that I have to worry that he may encounter a homophobe who feels it is okay to due violence to a homosexual.

    That being said, I would be for equality even if he wasn't gay. I do admit that until I went online and found out all that a domestic partnership did not provide and all that had to be gone thru to get one, I didn't understand the importance of marriage as opposed to DPs.

    The fact that my church was so involved in Prop8 is very disheartening to me. Especially considering the discrimination (and violence) that my ancestors faced because of their religion, for us to turn around and discriminate against another group to try and deny them their civil rights is unacceptable to me. The church should not be involved in politics. All of this, however, does not change my faith. I'm just one of those darn liberals who thinks for herself and asks questions and checks out information.

    I do understand that any discrimination I've faced in my life (in my case, due to my weight) is nothing compared to what homosexuals have faced and will face for some time to come (even though laws may change, peoples attitudes and beliefs will not change so quickly).

    Also, if other straights who may be single or adoptive parents feel insulted by some of these statements, then they are less likely to be supportive of NOM and these other organizations. So, while we may not be targeted per se, they could be alienating potential supporters and homosexuals gaining more supporters.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 70. Ann S.  |  November 16, 2010 at 1:34 am

    Hear, hear, Sheryl!

  • 71. anonygrl  |  November 16, 2010 at 2:39 am

    That is easy, eDee… we are a nation of CAPITALISTS… so it would be sacrilege to close a store on our birthday.

    😛

  • 72. anonygrl  |  November 16, 2010 at 2:46 am

    What a lovely way to look at it, Tracy. Thanks for sharing. This gives me something very interesting to think about.

  • 73. Alan E.  |  November 16, 2010 at 5:16 am

    4th of July is the only day out of the year that there isn't any type of major league, "Big 4" sports game (baseball, hockey. basketball, football), If that's any consolation.

  • 74. BK  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    Wonderful article. Thank you for combating more of their lies!

  • 75. StevenJ  |  November 18, 2010 at 3:21 am

    Four in 10 say marriage is becoming obsolete – an interesting article on marriage!

  • 76. StevenJ  |  November 18, 2010 at 3:22 am

    Sorry – the link above embeds as the user name. Here is the link separated from the user name:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_declining_marriage

  • 77. car maintenance schedule&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 7:22 am

    Blog Browser…

    […]while the sites we link to below are completely unrelated to ours, we think they are worth a read, so have a look[…]…

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!