?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Bigots

I'm at my dentist's office, and he's a religon pusher. I picked up a magazine called Citizen, which seeks to inform those 'who feel like today's mass news leaves [them] in the dark when it comes to pro-family issues.'

I'm reading an article called Someone's Gonna Get Hurt: How could Adam and Steve's marriage possibly harm anyone else? We're all about to find out. It's not as bad as I had thought it would be and does have some interesting points about the abuttal of church and state. Interesting in a philosophical and sociological way, not in a convincing-me-to-hate-gays way. However, I snorted embarassingly when I realized the following paragraph is supposed to be presenting a bleak future. I was thinking 'right on!'

"For if orientation is like race, then people who oppose gay marriage will be treated under law like bigots who opposed interracial marriage. Sure, we don't arrest people for being racists, but the law does intervene in powerful ways to punish and discourage racial discrimination, not only by government but also to private entities."
-Maggie Gallagher. Citizen Magazine 8/06



--melissafaith

Comments

( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
marciamarcia
Sep. 24th, 2007 05:57 pm (UTC)
Someone's Gonna Get Hurt: How could Adam and Steve's marriage possibly harm anyone else? We're all about to find out. It's not as bad as I had thought it would be and does have some interesting points about the abuttal of church and state. Interesting in a philosophical and sociological way, not in a convincing-me-to-hate-gays way. However, I snorted embarassingly when I realized the paragraph is supposed to be presenting a bleak future. I was thinking 'right on!'


Would you mind doing a little re-cap of their thinking here? I've just never heard a coherent argument on this that didn't go something like:

Step 1: Gays can marry
Step 2: mumble mumble mumble
Step 3: Your straight marriage is ruined and civilization collapses
eutheria
Sep. 24th, 2007 08:04 pm (UTC)
that should have said "the following paragraph"


Luckily, this article only talked about real issues that are currently cropping up within the Catholic church, re: gay marriage. In Massachusetts, the Catholic Children's Charities elected to stop arranging any adoptions, so that they would not be breaking any anti-discrimination laws by not adopting to gay couples. Previously, this charity had arranged a lot of adoptions, and so the group's decision to stop doing them would be detrimental to many children. The article discussed how separation of church and state was a misnomer, church is actually surrounded on all sides by state, and has to abide within this framework.


Anyway, the way it talked about the ways that religion and beliefs must function within the framework of the law was what was interesting to me. The article, thankfully, didn't go into how gay marriage hurts straight marriage or anything. It was mostly about how the Catholic Church can and will react when it the law and its teaching don't mesh.
worshipper
Sep. 24th, 2007 07:11 pm (UTC)
I'm always impressed with the horrific scenario in which people who oppose public acknowledgment of homosexuality might face a small amount of public condemnation if they say certain things outside of their own group.

Personally, I face this same kind of condemnation when I mention that I liked the Star Wars prequels. I had no idea until recently that this constituted a violation of my civil rights.
eutheria
Sep. 24th, 2007 08:05 pm (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what kind of deviant admits to liking the Star Wars prequels??????
lovebug24
Sep. 24th, 2007 10:38 pm (UTC)
Well, Mags, I agree with you. That's all I'm saying. Maybe she's undercover.
tikifreak
Sep. 24th, 2007 10:46 pm (UTC)
Who's your dental carrier? I'll totally get you a new dentist.
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )