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.