Bil Browning

More fundie follies

Filed By Bil Browning | September 17, 2007 4:02 PM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Marriage Equality, Media, Politics
Tags: evangelical Christian, fundamentalists, indiana, Indiana Family Institute, LGBT civil rights, lies, marriage, right wing

Curt Smith, head of the Indiana Family Institute, blogs today about same-sex civil marriage and trots out the usual fundie talking points for the sheeple. After all these years of using the LGBT community as a fundraising tool, you'd think he'd be better at this. But, you know, in political circles Curt isn't known as the sharpest tool in the shed, if you know what I mean...

The assumption is that these two relationships are roughly equal and comparable, and that there's as compelling a state interest in regulating homosexual unions as in heterosexual marriage. In brief blog fashion, let me remind us of some of the very real differences:

  • Heterosexual marriages typically produce children (most of us marry, most marriages produce children). No homosexual union produces children. This is a dramatic biological distinction worthy of recognition in law.
  • Marriage (one woman, one man in a life-long monogamous bond known as wedlock) is the norm across cultures and across the centuries. Homosexual marriage has no historical or cultural antecedents. It is, in the words of one scholar, "a fragile artifact of the state." This is a significant sociological distinction appropriate to reflect in law.
  • The Judeo-Christian worldview at the heart of Western culture and so our legal and governmental systems (Ten Commandments, an "eye for an eye," the very concepts of mercy, justice and rehabilitation) promotes marriage and family while decrying other modes of sexuality -- homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, etc. This is an important cultutral/historical fact to reflect in our pursuit of the Good Society, or what the US Constitutions calls "a more perfect union."

Marriage isn't gay, and it never will be. Efforts to equate it with other sexual arrangement just put it in further disrepute at a time when we must build marriage up because of its essential biological, sociological and cultural contributions to a healthy society.

Doesn't it just make you want to pull your hair out for the simple lack of logic? Allow me to explain it to Curt in small words (we'll call it "blog style") so even he can understand.

  1. Not all heterosexual married couples have children. If kids are a requirement for marriage, you'd better start banning the elderly, the barren and those who just don't like the little buggers from getting hitched. You can explain to grandma why she's suddenly a second-class citizen. Oh, and we have kids too - just ask my daughter. Plus, there's adoption and artificial insemination too but apparently those don't count for "real" married people.
  2. "One woman, one man in a life-long monogamous bond" isn't the norm across the centuries, Curt. Read that Bible of yours. Polygamy was the norm then and for centuries. And monogamy? Have you ever looked outside your own head? If you think it was the norm, allow me to introduce you to a historical figure called Henry VIII among many, many others - including a good percentage of married heterosexuals today. It's called "cheating" and is one of the largest reasons for straight folks getting divorced.
  3. Those Judeo-Christian teachings allow for multiple wives, Curt. You're not advocating that are you? It also condemns shellfish and pork, but no one's trying to make an amendment banning Joe's Crab Shack or the local rib joint. Also, haven't you shaved recently? And surely you're not advocating "an eye for an eye" or is the law of the land just activist judges?

Feel free to chime in with your own refutations. But, you know, I doubt he's listening... Facts get in the way of propaganda and rhetoric.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

I think he has a point stumbled on something worth noting in the last paragraph:

Marriage isn't gay, and it never will be. Efforts to equate it with other sexual arrangement just put it in further disrepute at a time when we must build marriage up because of its essential biological, sociological and cultural contributions to a healthy society.

These people are on to something that I think we gays could notice: the reason people enter into marriage and want to stay married is because of the social cache the status of "married" carries. People want to be "married" so that they can feel better than others. Maybe not so much now, but a few decades ago? Sure.

And that's what these sorts, I think, are talking about. (I'm sure they're reading this and can correct me if I'm wrong.) We say "Our marriage doesn't hurt yours" and then make fun of their idea that their marriage is hurt if someone different has one, but they actually think that the whole reason to get married is just to be better than others who aren't. So when they say that marriage rates go down in countries that have legalized same-sex marriage, and we're like Huh? What are you smoking? because we don't get how they even see a connection, they actually believe that people won't believe that marriage is special if the gays can get married.

Hell, for me, that's just one more argument in favor of same-sex marriage. I just plain don't like exclusion just so that some people can feel better about themselves, so if queers marrying will queer marriage, sign me up!

(How's that for a refutation?)

Wait, so "biological distinction(s)" are now worthy of recognition in law? Isn't that pretty much how we got 3/5 of a person written into our constitution? Isn't that pretty much the same mentality that kept women from voting for over 125 years in our country? Do people really think like this or is it just a convenient argument in the here and now?

Tell me...What other "biological distinction(s)" are worthy of recognition by law. I don't know of any other laws that draw upon this kind of reasoning. Does anyone else?

This guy is so fucking stupid I bet he has to ask how to wipe his own ass. My god. If you're going to "remind us of some very real differences" here Curt, you probably don't want to use arguments so weak my 13 year old could shred you in the debate.

Well new legislative session coming down the pike with a governor who doesn't lead his own party one twit.... so guess what we'll start hearing about time after time after time..... They'll be attempting to embarrass the Democrats on the committee or maybe they'll trot out some homophobic companies for good measure.... expect another circus.