Connect with us

The Real Purpose Of Marriage: Sex, Not Love – America’s Right-Wing’s Ridiculous Anti-Marriage Equality Arguments

Published

on

I’ve been working to try to understand the recent arguments America’s Right Wing has been trying to make against marriage equality. If you have been following the reports from Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal trial that will determine the constitutionality of Proposition 8, or have read, “Gay People Cannot Be Allowed To Marry Because Straight People Cannot Be Trusted?,” my piece detailing the, dare I say, “ridiculous” arguments America’s Right Wing is using against same-sex marriage, you’ll know what I’m talking about. But even well before Prop 8, America’s conservatives have been actively involved in maintaining second-class citizenship for gay and lesbian Americans.

Whether you have or you haven’t been following along, let me share with you (even more of) the reasons why I say America’s Right Wing’s anti-marriage equality arguments are, indeed, ridiculous.

The Real Purpose Of Marriage: Sex, Not Love is the fifth and final part in our week-long series, America’s Right-Wing’s Ridiculous Anti-Marriage Equality Arguments.

Part Five: The Purpose Of Marriage

Another ridiculous and disturbing argument America’s Right Wing makes against same-sex marriage goes to the very core of how conservatives view the institution of marriage. Now, let me remind you that marriage has a long and, at times, by twenty-first century standards, inglorious history. Marriage in the past was used to united kingdoms, secure wealth, subjugate women and treat them as property (chattel,) and so on. (The Bible details many examples of this.) It is only in recent times that the concept of marriage has become about love, not money. Except for the anti-marriage equality folks on the Right, who still insist marriage is not about love, but about sex.

Specifically, and this is central to the argument used in the Prop 8 case, America’s Right Wing says that the primary purpose of the institution of marriage is to “channel” man’s natural desires into procreation. In “Hijacking the Marriage Debate,” at the National Review, Thomas Messner writes,

“Marriage is not fundamental to our ‘existence’ and ‘survival’ merely because it sometimes is marked by expressions of love, commitment, and respect. Marriage is fundamental to our existence and survival because it remains society’s best and most effective way of ordering sexual relations between men and women, encouraging procreation, and increasing the odds that a child will have the influence and support of both a mother and a father.”

Once again, this shows the ridiculousness and zero-sum mindedness of conservatives, like Messner.

What has gender or orientation have to do with the desire and ability to marry?

One of the essential questions surrounding state-sanctioning of marriage, (opposite-sex or same-sex marriage,) is, “Is it in the best interests of the state?” If the state has a vested interest in marriage, then it has a right to intercede and to regulate. (So lawmakers think.)

Is it in the state’s best interest to offer marriage only to opposite-sex couples? It is not.

Marriage does afford couples many benefits, including monogamy (should they choose,) financial and emotional stability, and societal acceptance, recognition, and support. Why should these ideals be limited to opposite-sex couples, when clearly it is to society’s benefit, and therefore, the state’s, to offer these to everyone?

(Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin published a piece on her blog yesterday titled, “Google to Pay Heterosexuals Less Than Homosexuals,” which exhibited the extreme arrogance and sense of entitlement America’s Right Wing, especially the “Tea Party,” has. It also displayed their extreme lack of desire to understand social issues, especially as they relate to non-traditional families. In, “Michelle Malkin: “Google to Pay Heterosexuals Less Than Homosexuals,” I write, “Yes, that’s right. America’s Right Wing, ever trolling to find ways to “prove” they are victims and the unfairly-treated majority, thinks now that because same-sex couples, who for, well, forever, have had to pay over a lifetime thousands upon thousands of dollars more in taxes than their opposite-sex married counterparts, are getting a “break” from beneficent corporations like Google, that it’s tantamount to discrimination against straights.”)

And again, the conservative dictum that only a mother and a father can raise a child comes to the fore. And we know — studies prove it, as does common sense, and millions of single parents and same-sex parent couples — that children can thrive in a variety of households, as long as love, not procreation, is the basis for the desire to be a family.

Sad, when you think about it, that the people who claim to be trying to “protect” marriage, see it as merely an institution to foster procreation.

So, the Right thinks that if gay marriage is legalized, children will be in trouble. Somehow, parents will give up their biological children automatically to same-sex couples, or, same-sex couples will come to straight households in the dead of night and, like Peter Pan, perhaps, convince children to fly away to NeverLand.

Additionally, the Right fears that if same-sex marriage is legalized, straight couples will cease to want to marry, and straight married couples will cease to want to have children.

We’re not going to steal children from same-sex couples, and we’re not going to stop having them or adopting them, regardless of the laws surrounding same-sex marriage. But laws that support same-sex marriage would serve to strengthen our families and protect children. Sadly, the Right is only concerned about protecting straight marriage and protecting children of straight parents.

Back in January, Nate Silver, founder of FiveThirtyEight.com (now a New York Times site,) published, “Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans.” He writes, “Over the past decade or so, divorce has gradually become more uncommon in the United States. Since 2003, however, the decline in divorce rates has been largely confined to states which have not passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. These states saw their divorce rates decrease by an average of 8 percent between 2003 and 2008. States which had passed a same-sex marriage ban as of January 1, 2008, however, saw their divorce rates rise by about 1 percent over the same period.” (Emphasis added.)

It’s almost as if the anti-marriage equality crowd secretly thinks if same-sex marriage (I’m sorry, when same-sex marriage) becomes legal, their spouses will leave them and enter into a same-sex relationship. Perhaps they’re right?

The other fact — since we’re bringing up statistics — the Right doesn’t want you to know, is that states that offer full marriage equality also have the lowest incidents of child homelessness. It’s true. In, “2.9 Million Orphans, Happy Father’s Day,” I write that, for example, Utah, which “ranks #38 [50 being the worst,] prohibits adoption by ‘a person who is cohabiting in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage.’ Coincidence?”

The Right wants to make people believe that “homosexual marriage” (they love to call it that too, because “homosexual’ sounds “bad,”) will somehow obliterate “traditional marriage.” Well, it won’t. Marriage, is marriage.

In a bigoted and strongly fallacious piece, The Family Research Council says that, “[h]omosexual marriage degrades a time-honored institution.” The Family Research Council thinks that marriages are like iPhones. The moment a new model comes out, it makes the existing ones less valuable.

The folks who really should be angry at that are the folks who have been in long-term marriages. Those marriages have withstood the test of time, making their relationship one of beauty and value.

All of this bigoted, hate-mongering is preposterous.

As is this concept: If marriage equality becomes the law of the land, it will mean that homosexuals are normal.

Oh, wait. We ARE.

And that, my friends, is what America’s anti-marriage equality Right Wing is really afraid of.

(image: kevindooley)

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Bad Idea’: Trump’s Plan to Cut Vaccines He Deems ‘Dangerous’ Met With Concern by Experts

Published

12 hours ago

on

December 12, 2024

By

Saying he will be the one to decide—in consultation with anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—which vaccines the federal government should cut, Donald Trump on Thursday again invoked the false and widely debunked conspiracy theory that links autism to the life-saving drugs. The President-elect’s remarks were met with concern and condemnation.

“When asked in an interview for TIME’s 2024 Person of the Year whether he would approve of an end to childhood vaccination programs, Trump said he would have a ‘big discussion’ with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,” TIME magazine reported Thursday, noting Trump has nominated RFK Jr., an attorney who has no medical training or experience leading a massive organization, to run the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

“The autism rate is at a level that nobody ever believed possible,” Trump told TIME, which debunked his remarks in its reporting. “If you look at things that are happening, there’s something causing it.”

READ MORE: ‘Did He Lie?’: Trump Questioning His Price-Lowering Promises Are Possible Sparks Anger

Reuters also reported, “Trump says [he] could get rid of some vaccinations ‘if I think it’s dangerous.'”

“When asked if the discussion could result in his administration getting rid of some vaccinations, Trump said: ‘It could if I think it’s dangerous, if I think they are not beneficial, but I don’t think it’s going to be very controversial in the end.'”

Like RFK Jr., Trump has no medical training or background.

While “Trump did not explicitly say in the interview that vaccines cause autism,” which it classified as “a false claim that traces back to a retracted study from the 1990s,” TIME reports that when “pressed on the issue, Trump said his administration will complete ‘very serious testing,’ after which ‘we will know for sure what’s good and what’s not good.'”

Dr. Ashish Kumar Jha is a physician, the Dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, and served as the Biden White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator. He characterized Trump’s remarks that he will speak with RFK Jr. and possibly cut some vaccines, as an “extraordinarily bad idea.”

“RFK jr doesn’t seem to understand the data on vaccines,” Dr. Jha wrote. “He should have no role in deciding which vaccines should be available, recommended.”

READ MORE: ‘Marxist’ Agenda: Hegseth Says Gay Troops ‘Erode Standards’ in ‘Social Engineering’ Push

Dr. Priya Pal of the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Division of Infectious Diseases, commenting on Trump’s remarks, referenced creators of some of the most important vaccines in history: “Never could Pasteur, Salk, Jenner, Sabin have imagined people celebrating the return of childhood diseases that they and others worked so hard to prevent.”

Dr. Annie Andrews, a pediatrician, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., a Senior Advisor to Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action, and the CEO and founder of Their Future, Our Vote. She responded to the news by snarking, “Congratulations preventable infectious diseases!”

Infectious disease physician Apu Akkad, an Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine wrote: “Wow. This sounds hugely problematic. RFK has no business deciding which vaccines should and shouldn’t be used — most especially without first gathering further data.”

TIME also dove in to Trump’s allegation about the perceived rise in autism.

“It’s true that autism is diagnosed much more frequently now than in the past—but not because vaccines are causing the condition. Researchers have explored possible reasons for the uptick, including rising parental ages and environmental triggers. But much of the increase, research suggests, stems from changes to diagnostic criteria, widespread awareness of the condition, and improvements in screening. Detection jumps have been particularly steep among children of color, girls, and young adults, all of whom have historically been diagnosed less frequently.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has stated he believes “There’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘You Have to’: Trump Confirms Plan to Deport US Citizens With Undocumented Parents

Image via Reuters

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Did He Lie?’: Trump Questioning His Price-Lowering Promises Are Possible Sparks Anger

Published

18 hours ago

on

December 12, 2024

By

As a candidate, Donald Trump campaigned—and won—this year on the promise he would lower prices for Americans angry after the COVID pandemic’s inflation brought steep price increases, but now he’s backtracking, saying he’s not sure he will actually be able to fulfill those vows. Outrage at Trump, and the people who voted for him based on that pledge, was palpable on Thursday.

As recently as Sunday, MSNBC reports, Trump insisted, “We’re going to bring those prices way down.”

On Monday, Fox News reported: “Pointing to high grocery prices, Trump says, ‘I won an election based on that'”

But in his TIME magazine “Person of the Year” interview, Trump suggested he might not be able to lower prices as he promised to do. Appearing to remove himself from the equation, he declared: “It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up. You know, it’s very hard.”

Sam Stein of The Bulwark and MSNBC noted via social media, “’Prices will come down,’ Trump told voters during a speech last week laying out his vision for a return to the White House. ‘You just watch: They’ll come down, and they’ll come down fast, not only with insurance, with everything.'”

READ MORE: ‘Marxist’ Agenda: Hegseth Says Gay Troops ‘Erode Standards’ in ‘Social Engineering’ Push

The President-elect told TIME he would “like to bring them down” when asked, “If the prices of groceries don’t come down, will your presidency be a failure?” but insisted if prices do not drop he doesn’t think that will make his second term a failure.

On the campaign trail Trump repeatedly promised he would lower prices and inflation, as HuffPost reported Thursday:

“’We will end inflation and make America affordable again, and we’re going to get the prices down, we have to get them down,’ Trump said at a rally in September. ‘It’s too much. Groceries, cars, everything. We’re going to get the prices down.'”

“’We will cut your taxes and inflation, slash your prices, raise your wages and bring thousands of factories back to America,’ Trump said at a Georgia rally in October, reciting a line he used in speeches at several other events.”

“Trump also specifically promised to get gas prices down: ‘I will cut your energy prices in half within 12 months.'”

Stein’s post earlier Thursday morning quoting Trump saying “You know, it’s very hard” to bring prices down set of an explosion of anger at the incoming occupant of the White House.

READ MORE: Trump’s Guilfoyle Nomination Surfaces Allegations Old and New

“Trump has already folded on prices. He has no plans to make life more affordable for the majority of Americans,” declared Lindsay Owens, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Groundwork Collaborative.

“All of you idiots who voted for Trump over food prices should feel pretty stupid,” journalist Roland Martin remarked in response.

Politico White House reporter Adam Cancryn responded to Stein: “Trump in Asheville in August: ‘From the day I take the oath of office, we will rapidly drive prices down, and make America affordable again’ ‘Prices will come down. You just watch. They’ll come down and they’ll come down fast. Not only with insurance, with everything.'”

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake added: “Trump on Sept. 23: ‘Vote Trump, and your incomes will soar. Your net worth will skyrocket. Your energy costs and grocery prices will come tumbling down.'”

“Oh, Trump doesn’t have a plan to bring down costs for Americans? I’m shocked,” snarked Democratic U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal.

Tom Bonier, a veteran Democratic political strategist noted, “He’s likely right, which is why the Biden record of increasing wages while slowing inflation has put our country on the right track, but of course no one could admit that until Trump won by running against inflation.”

Ron Fournier, a business executive and former journalist asked, “Wait. He promised to bring them down. Did he …

… lie?”

READ MORE: ‘You Have to’: Trump Confirms Plan to Deport US Citizens With Undocumented Parents

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Marxist’ Agenda: Hegseth Says Gay Troops ‘Erode Standards’ in ‘Social Engineering’ Push

Published

19 hours ago

on

December 12, 2024

By

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s controversial pick to oversee the Department of Defense and its 3.4 million military and civilian personnel, has a long history of anti-LGBTQ statements. According to multiple reports, Hegseth has opposed gay service members, labeling them a threat to military standards and a part of a “Marxist” agenda promoting “social engineering.”

“At least when it was an ‘Army of One,’ they were, you know, tough looking, go get ‘em army – but you’re right, that was the subtle shifting toward an individual ad campaign,” Hegseth told far-right podcaster Ben Shapiro, CNN reports. “Now you just have the absurdity of ‘I have two mommies and I’m so proud to show them that I can wear the uniform too.’ So they, it’s just like everything else the Marxists and the leftists have done. At first it was camouflaged nicely and now they’re just, they’re just open about it.”

Hegseth, now a former Fox News weekend co-host under fire for alleged sexual assault, alcohol abuse, an affinity for Christian nationalism, and mismanagement of two veterans’ charities, has repeatedly denigrated gays and lesbians, and expressed opposition to LGBTQ Americans serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, and women serving in the military — especially in combat roles.

RELATED: House Republican Says They Were Told ‘In Conference’ Hegseth Accusations ‘Were Anonymous’

“In his 2024 book ‘The War on Warriors’ and in subsequent media promotions this year. Hegseth described both the original ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ (DADT) policy and its repeal in 2011 as a ‘gateway’ and a ‘camouflage’ for broader cultural changes that he claims have undermined military cohesion and effectiveness,” CNN reports.

Studies before and after the repeal of DADT have proven LGBTQ service members serving openly do not diminish unit cohesion or impair military readiness. “The repeal of DADT has had no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions, including cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale,” a Palm Center report found one year after DADT repeal.

As MeidasTouch News reported Wednesday, Hegseth has “argued that allowing women and openly gay and lesbian individuals to serve undermines the readiness and effectiveness of the armed forces. He dismissed these inclusivity efforts as ‘social engineering’ aimed at satisfying political agendas rather than improving national security. In his words, the changes were about achieving symbolic milestones, such as having a female Navy SEAL, rather than maintaining operational excellence.”

Hegseth lamented on Fox News’ “Red Eye” in 2015 that America has a “military right now that is more interested in social engineering led by this president than they are in war fighting, So, as a result, through Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and women in the military and these standards, they’re going to inevitably start to erode standards because they want that one female special operator, that one female Green Beret, that one female Army Ranger, that one female Navy Seal, so they can put them on a recruiting poster and feel good about themselves and has nothing to do with national security.”

READ MORE: Trump’s Guilfoyle Nomination Surfaces Allegations Old and New

“So it started, you know, we saw it under Clinton with the tinkering of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and the reasons for those changes,” Hegseth said in November on a podcast promoting his book, also according to CNN. “And I talked to some of the people involved in when that was changed, but it really happened, started to accelerate under Obama.”

And yet, when asked on Wednesday by CNN if he still holds that repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a mistake, Hegseth grew silent and did not answer, ignoring the reporter (video below).

Hegseth has a long, documented history of anti-LGBTQ and anti-women statements and positions.

“The dumbest phrase on planet Earth in the military is our diversity is our strength,” Hegseth said on a podcast this year, ABC News reported last month.

“There aren’t enough lesbians in San Francisco to staff the 82nd Airborne like you need, you need the boys in Kentucky and Texas and North Carolina and Wisconsin,” Hegseth also said earlier this year, ABC noted. On a separate podcast, he “said that transgender soldiers are ‘not deployable’ because they are ‘reliant on chemicals’ and suggested that women should not serve in certain combat roles.”

“Everything about men and women serving together makes the situation more complicated, and complication in combat means casualties are worse,” Hegseth also said, ABC added. He also argued “that men are ‘more capable’ in combat roles because of biological factors.”

Hegseth, under fire, this week claimed he supports women in the military, but did not specifically state he supports women in combat roles.

“I strive to defend the pillars of Western civilization against the distractions of diversity,” Hegseth wrote in 2002 as publisher of The Princeton Tory, the university’s conservative student magazine, The New Yorker reported last month.

“In the same year that Hegseth was defending the West against diversity, he and the other editors of the Tory opined that the New York Times’ decision to publish announcements of same-sex marriages had opened the floodgates to incest and bestiality: ‘At what point does the paper deem a ‘relationship’ unfit for publication? What if we ‘loved’ our sister and wanted to marry her? Or maybe two women at the same time? A 13-year-old? The family dog?’”

And in a 2002 publisher’s note at The Tory, Talking Points Memo reported, Hegseth “declared that he was ‘not encouraged’ by the ‘educational principles … guiding our generation.’ Among other things, he cited the ‘encouragement and support’ for ‘homosexuality.'”

“In pieces for the Tory,” TPM continued, “Hegseth and the team he oversaw railed against efforts to promote diversity on campus and what they described as the immoral ‘homosexual lifestyle.'”

The New Yorker also reports that during Hegseth’s tenure, The Tory wrote: “boys can wear bras and girls can wear ties until we’re blue in the face, but it won’t change the reality that the homosexual lifestyle is abnormal and immoral.”

“Hegseth and The Tory’s editor also wrote: “Overwhelming majorities of Americans agree with the notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not moral equivalents.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

Trump’s Defense Secretary pick, Pete Hegseth, has called allowing openly gay troops a “Marxist” push for social justice and said it “erodes” military standards.

He declined to clarify his comments when asked Wednesday by CNN.

Watch: www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/p…

[image or embed]

— Andrew Kaczynski (@kfile.bsky.social) December 12, 2024 at 9:48 AM

RELATED: ‘Swarm of MAGA Attacks’ Making Hegseth Confirmation Seem More Likely: Report

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.