No sooner did President Obama come out in favor of redefining marriage as did left-wing writers such as Victoria Coats at the Huffington Post (and doubtless, other places as well) start writing about what they want to happen next if they succeed in redefining marriage, for instance, redefining what marriage is for straight couples as well (and that's just a start!):
"...assimilation into an institution also means assimilation into a particular notion of what's normative and acceptable. Enter: The "Just Like You!" Plea. At the end of the day, inclusion still conforms to a perceived norm, and in doing so, marginalizes other preferences, experiences, and expressions. People in gay relationships (not queer! that's a bad word) just want to buy a house with a picket fence and have 2.5 kids like their mythical heterosexual brothers and sisters. They just want to "raise a family" and take turns walking the dog and emulate the anachronistic norm of patriarchal, economically productive homes. Right? ... No? Okay, so in that case, can we stop pretending like everyone is the same? (And while we're at it can we stop pretending as though "opposite" and "same" sex are in any way accurate or adequate?)
Progressive legislation and equal recognition need not be rallied for on the grounds that all LGBTQ couples are wealthy, white, able-bodied, cis male monogatrons who are "just like you, but gay." Challenging this homo-normative narrative entails acknowledging that the hetero-normative illusion it claims to be "just like" is also a fallacy and furthermore unnecessary as a means for comparison. Do we all have to identify as straight, gay or lesbian, or perform an intelligible gender, or be in "incredibly committed monogamous relationships" to deserve the multiple economic and legal privileges currently provided through marriage?
... "Homosexuality" is not any more natural than "heterosexuality," and, in fact, neither should be conceived as constituting some kind of fixed, continuous entity that can satisfactorily encompass intimate human activity since the beginning of time. After all, it's been only relatively recently that marriage has become marginally less prejudicial than it's been at times in the past, and not long before that was the discursive binary of hetero/homosexuality popularized, so there is absolutely no reason to invoke "nature" here, nor is there a need to concretize acts of sex and intimacy into identity, and identity into institution."
For those who would redefine marriage, nothing will ever be enough.
13 Comments
Hey everyone, Pride is right around the corner so head to Target for a Pride Tee Shirt or two. The charitable arm of Target is partnered with the Washington, D.C.-based Family Equality Council, which supports lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families. They're 100 percent committed to the goal of families being respected in all communities including parents who happen to be LGBT. This is just a continuation of that support."
http://www.target.com/c/ways-to-shop-pride/-/N-56ep7#?lnk=sr_rd_pride
We all know people like this...psycho with a typewriter.
And while progressives smash their way through one institution after another, leaving nothing but weckage and heartache in their wake, real marriages will continue to provide stability, autonomy, and shelter from the storms in life, to those with foresight enough to form and maintain them.
Ah amorality. That is what fuel's the liberal movement.
"If it feels good, do it".
Hey Pete,
Don't forget to ware protection; evrybody knows these hootanannys of yours represent your once a year chance to rub your junk against all of the loves of your life.
Proverbs 16:18
Pride goes before destruction, and haughtiness before a fall.
As usual, Randy has penis on his mind. And wear is spelled wear.
This is in line with another article featured on the NOM Blog, where a feminist was upset about how the arguments for ssm seem to glamorize marriage—which she considers an evil institution.
Many family diversity proponents are getting teed off by the ssm debate. They don’t want the conversation to go in the way of uplifting marriage as a valuable institution, and conforming LGBTs into the mold of traditional America. I don’t think they have to worry about that too much, considering that: 1) marriage continues to decline in places with ssm; 2) LGBTs have low marriage participation rates and high divorce rates in places with ssm; and 3) we’re not even sure if they *truly* intended to conform to the ideals of marriage in the first place, considering that many share the “open secret” of a lack of sexual exclusivity in their relationships.
Nevertheless, despite the sheer lack of evidence supporting the claim that ssm will strengthen marriage, or stabilize homosexual unions, Victoria is a little perturbed by this push for ssm, and the way the debate is being framed. She is part of the silent, but radical (and influential), segment of the marriage redefinition movement that is not really seeking “equality” for same-sex relationships, but trying to gain legal benefits and social status for the panoply of arrangements that people choose to enter.
This article must be hard for some SSMers to read. First, Victoria says what OvercameSSA (formerly known as Resist) has repeatedly noted on this blog: homosexuals are attempting to redefine marriage to imitate heterosexuals. Even if they don’t really *want* to imitate heterosexuals, but are merely pretending in order to advance their agenda, the language does come off as an admiration for the lives of their “mythical heterosexual brothers and sisters” (Victoria’s words).
Second, surely Victoria’s demand for *all* relationships to be recognized deflates the balloons of many SSMers who believe that homosexual unions are so special that they alone deserve a place on the pedestal of marriage with the conjugal union. But what can one say? She’s in line with the SSM advocates in academia who don’t want to stop at ssm because it continues to designate who’s “in” and who’s “out.” And, needless to say, the restrictions on marriage are totally arbitrary once one dispenses of the opposite-sex criteria.
Victoria linked up to the “Beyond Gay Marriage” statement. It seems that many in the ssm crowd are becoming more open about their goals for decimating the institution of marriage. Sure, they’ve written about it in academic journals, but now their plans are being promoted on HuffPo. (As if they needed help in losing at the ballot box.)
Excellent, Ash
Great post, Ash. You know it's interesting that when we talk about the definition of marriage here, we neglect two important elements that I believe nearly all people would agree are essential:
1. That marriage is a lifetime union; and
2. That marriage requires sexual exclusivity
I will be sure to mention these going forward, especially because of the fact that many so-called SS"Marriages" do not have a sexual exclusivity requirement. If people knew that homosexuals want to redefine marriage to get rid of the sexual exclusivity requirement, I think they'd re-think whether so-called SS"M" is a good idea.
Huh what? Was that even written in English? Did it actually have any real-world meaning, or was it just academic babble from ivory-tower types who've never actually experienced reality without the aid of drugs?
NOM,
With your DumpStarbucks campaign and FRC's video "The Problem With Same-Sex Marriage", both of which were much needed, I hope you will join forces to follow these campaigns up with a video campaign that educates the public as to the other active supporters of ssm within Corporate America. I'm confident many of these will come as a surprise to the vast majority of Americans who would prefer not to support them if only they were aware as to what they are supporting with their "dollar votes".
Such a campaign added to the mix will help the American populace vote note only at the ballot box, but also vote with their wallets -- not just at Starbucks, but throughout Corporate America where the overall impact might eventually reach a point of critical mass whereby companies will have to take notice.
For a list of such companies to include in addition to Starbucks, consult with poster #1 above who has already graciously provided one such company to be mentioned in said campaign.
Much prayer and doing penance for the sins that offend God will help to change hearts and souls to God. god instituted Marriage. He will help us, if we live virtuous lives.
Marriage has been continually redefined through history as cultures mature. The slippery slope argument is a shallow approach to explain why something shouldn't be allowed. Marriage is just taking that next step again.