Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  no, nom

NOM Really, Really Likes Us. Too bad They’re Precisely Wrong.

The National Organization “for” Marriage just can’t stop talking about Queerty! First they linked to us from their blog, and now Maggie Gallagher herself has referenced our post about teaching tolerance. Not once, but twice! But sadly, we can’t quite make sense of her arguments.

On Tuesday, Maggie wrote,

The Queerty blogger who admitted he wants public schools to teach about gay marriage, was wrong about one thing.  He made a big deal that such education would not include instruction on gay sex.  (“b-f***ing 101!”).

Neither we nor Maggie can take credit for coining the phrase “buttfucking 101″ — that goes to commenter Caligari, who was describing an article in The Onion. Queerty has some of the finest commenters on the Internet! As does NOM, with such gems as “I personally think that sodomy should be illegal” and “No parent wants the heartbreak of a homosexual child; no child should have to be subjected to the temptation of homosexual acts.”

Of course, it’s not just NOM commenters who make surprising statements. Maggie herself does:

But here’s what Helena, Montana proposed to teach sixth graders about sex:

“”Understand that sexual intercourse includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration; using the penis, fingers, tongue or objects.”

Uh, okay. So, if we may boil down your argument, it goes something like this: “A school in Montana teaches kids about sex. Therefore, tolerance is the same thing as sex.”

Oh, okay! Wait, what?

Maggie’s making a common mistake here: she’s confusing marriage with anal sex. You may be surprised to learn that they are not exactly the same thing! Just because a school teaches tolerance does not mean that it teaches sixth graders what sex is. And teaching about sex does not equal teaching tolerance for LGBTs.

In fact, Montana doesn’t have a statewide anti-bullying program. Some folks are trying to enact protections for kids by passing a “Schools Are For Education Act,” but the bill doesn’t even mention sexual orientation.

Montana’s anti-bullying law is opposed by Tea Party leader Tim Ravndal. Ravndal last showed up on Queerty when he made a joke about how funny it is that Matthew Shepard was killed.

Also, in case you hadn’t noticed, straight people have anal sex too. So we’re not exactly sure why anal sex ed has anything do with gay couples filing joint tax returns.

Anyway, referring to Montana’s sex ed, Maggie goes on to ask of Queerty blogger Daniel Villarreal, “Will he join with me in saying that’s wrong?” Maybe! That certainly sounds like something worth considering! Maybe we will have time to give it some thought when we are done talking about marriage, which, we just want to make sure you are aware, is not the same thing as anal sex.

She also asks Daniel to denounce this part of the curriculum:

“Understand gender identity is different from sexual orientation.”

Yeah, sure, we will denounce that right after we denounce “The President of France is different from Jackee Harry,” because both statements are completely accurate. Gender identity is different from sexual orientation, so … what’s the problem? Maybe those words do not mean what you think they mean.

And then there’s this piece, which she also published on Tuesday. (Geez, Maggie, you keep busy! Would you like to blog for Queerty? We’re always looking for promising new contributors. We are completely serious.)

Once we decide to give up on the public fight on marriage, what’s next? What’s next is shaming, punishing, and economically harming those who speak up for the biblical view of marriage—as the fates of Peter Vidmar and Damian Goddard have recently illustrated. What’s next is the use of government, through the public schools and other avenues, to teach that the biblical view of marriage is discredited bigotry. See “Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want to Indoctrinate Kids” for evidence.

Peter Vidmar (an anti-gay Olympic official) and Damien Goddard (an anti-gay hockey commentator) stood up for what they believed in: oppressing gays. Good for them. Then, their colleagues stood up for what they believe in: fostering a safe, productive working environment. Good for them.

These aren’t just people who support opposite-sex marriages. We support opposite-sex marriages! We think they’re great! And it’s a shame that so many straight people want to get out of them! But Vidmar and Goddard went even further by saying that they want to prevent any marriage that doesn’t meet their arbitrary criteria.

Look, sometimes there are consequences for taking a principled stand for what you believe in. Especially if your principled stand is for preventing millions of people from visiting each other in the hospital; for widows being barred from disposing of their wives’ remains; for bi-national families to be forced to live continents apart; for senior citizens to have to spend their entire life savings to qualify for Medicare; for husbands to be forced to testify against each other … and so on.

Vidmar and Goddard revealed themselves to be incompatible with environments in which they would encounter LGBTs. They made a choice to stand by their beliefs. Life’s all about choices, and some of them are hard. When an employee decides that they simply must make statements that threaten their colleagues, well, we can’t fault Human Resources for pulling out the termination paperwork.

Remember, we’re not talking about two guys who said “I have such-and-such belief.” We’re talking about two guys who said, in essence, “I have such-and-such belief … and I want to force everyone in the world to live by that belief, too.” Okay! Good luck with that, preferably someplace very far away!

And let’s also talk about that “biblical view” business. Should schools “teach that the biblical view of marriage is discredited bigotry”?

Well, we teach that geocentrism, once the Catholic Church’s view of the solar system, is discredited science.

We are totally open to Maggie’s argument that gay couples are inferior to straight couples — that the sun travels around the Earth — in a way that somehow pertains to civil marriage law. But we’re going to need a lot of persuading.

By:           matt baume
On:           May 18, 2011
Tagged: , ,

  • 11 Comments
    • Alex
      Alex

      Ohhh, this is getting exciting.

      Hey Maggie, since you apparently stand up for the ‘biblical view of marriage,’ do you also stand by all the other biblical ideals?

      Such as slavery, abandoning your family/wealth to follow Christ, and women not speaking in church–or thinking for themselves, as the man is the head of the woman, just as Jesus/God is the head of the church?

      May 18, 2011 at 9:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete n SFO
      Pete n SFO

      What a bother… this article is barely readable.

      Why dispute crazy comments from a woman whose whole life & financial well-being are devoted to keeping this ignorance & bigotry as inflated as it can possibly be???

      Don’t play defense.

      Make our message clear… There’s a difference between civil marriage & religious marriage, & it’s un-American to create separate laws for specific groups of people. Period.

      May 18, 2011 at 10:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BenFrankly
      BenFrankly

      Good article. You do have to feel sorry for Maggie. She is butt ugly, dresses like a depression era housewife and obviously needs a good fat nine inches to take care of her needs. If you know what I mean. Over the years I’ve noticed that women like her completely change when they get a husband that really knows how to give it to them; their sour angry dispositions turn into sweet loving fur balls.

      We need to find Maggie a man with big dick to schtup her into bliss; for all our sakes won’t someone volunteer?

      May 18, 2011 at 10:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ohplease
      ohplease

      For the record, this site is handling this very bad idea very, very, very badly. It seems that you’re thinking you’re being very clever, but you’re really not. How is this cutesy, incoherent, rambling doing any good and, more importantly, how is it doing more good than harm?

      May 18, 2011 at 11:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • matt baume
      matt baume

      @BenFrankly: No matter how good it makes you feel, we’re really not interested in having personal attacks on Queerty.

      May 18, 2011 at 12:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville
      Mike in Asheville

      @Pete n SFO: Amen. Besides, a definition of an idiot is someone who argues with a moron. And Maggot Gallagher surely is an moron.

      May 18, 2011 at 12:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Elloreigh
      Elloreigh

      “What’s next is shaming, punishing, and economically harming those who speak up for the biblical view of marriage”

      Ahem: You mean the kind of shaming, punishing and economically harming of those who don’t hold a “biblical view of marriage” that has been carried out by those who do, NOM included?

      If you’re intent on marginalizing LGBTs, don’t expect us to feel any sympathy when you cry that your bigotry is causing people to marginalize you. It’s a consequence of your own actions, while in contrast LGBTs are being marginalized merely for who they are.

      No one has any obligation to share your “biblical view of marriage”, Maggie – nor are we obligated to refrain from criticizing your use of that view in an attempt to shame, punish and economically harm us.

      Bottom line: If you start this kind of war, expect resistance. Whining about consequences you brought on yourself isn’t going to fly.

      May 18, 2011 at 1:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AFruit4Thought
      AFruit4Thought

      I think it’s great that Queerty is publishing Maggie’s quotes. It’s good know when our anti-equality friends say something silly…and it’s even better to publicize it.

      I think that ridiculous quotes from fundies can push people that are on the fence into the queers-won’t-destroy-the-world camp.

      May 18, 2011 at 2:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SpencerJ
      SpencerJ

      I don’t understand: how can “government”, “teach”, and “biblical” be used in the same sentence without taking the negative? When talking about legislation, religious views shouldn’t even be on the table. I’m a gay Christian, but I understand the concept of separation of church and state. Why can’t they?!

      May 18, 2011 at 10:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patsy Stoned
      Patsy Stoned

      Ah NOM. NOM NOM NOM NOM. They basically the junior high bully that shoves the gay kid into his locker and then sues (and wins) claiming the gay kid caused them to have a hangnail. The fact that these hateful bullies go around claiming victimhood is the height of arrogance.

      And Maggie, Sweets, will you join me in saying it is bigoted and hateful to marginalize and demean and blatantly lie about gay people in order to line your purse? No? Then I don’t think I’ll be “joining” in any of your proclaimations either.

      May 18, 2011 at 11:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      The Biblical view of marriage? Cue Mrs. Betty Bowers!

      May 19, 2011 at 9:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.