No, This is Not a Judicial Ethics Scandal »« More Worldnutdaily Headline Spin

Gay Author Against Equality, Christian Right Rejoices

Paddy Manning, a gay Irish blogger, apparently wrote an op-ed piece coming out against same-sex marriage in that country. I can’t seem to find the original article, but I can find it quoted on about 1400 Christian right websites, including the Worldnetdaily. They are rejoicing at a gay writer agreeing with them and gleefully saying “I told you so!” But his arguments are as bad as theirs.

An openly homosexual columnist in Ireland has written a piece blasting his country for considering same-sex marriage, warning the state has no business reinventing the family and undermining children’s “right” to a mother and father.

Paddy Manning, writing in the Irish Daily Mirror, tells of being arrested for hitting on a male police officer, but warns the solution to persecution of homosexuals isn’t to have government carve up traditional marriage.

“Same-sex marriage is not some warm, fluffy equality bunny; it’s a bare-faced state power grab,” Manning writes. “The state gets to entirely remake marriage, not as the man/woman/child model we’ve inherited from 10,000 years of history and across all cultures, but as an anything-goes irrelevant partnership agreement between adults.”

Such a terrible argument, this claim that recognizing gay marriages will “remake” or “redefine” marriage. Absolute nonsense. Not a single marriage in existence will be changed in the slightest, only a small percentage of people will now get their own marriages legally recognized. Straight people aren’t going to stop getting married. They aren’t going to stop having children or loving them. No one is going to suddenly go “Oh wow, I can marry a guy? Why didn’t I think of that? I’ll divorce my wife immediately!” No one is going to decide to become gay if they can get married. The only thing that will happen is that gay people and their children will now have the security of a legally recognized union. That’s it.

Manning explains same-sex unions will render marriage “irrelevant” because “for the first time, children and parenthood [will have] no place in marriage.”

Really? No place in marriage? Seriously?

“Only a man and a woman have children, despite every fantasy the gender-busters want us to believe,” Manning writes. “Every child has a right to that natural life. Same-sex marriage asks us to ignore reality and children’s rights to a mother and father.”

Okay, let’s follow that to its natural conclusion. If every child has a right to a “natural” mother and father in a legally protected relationship, we would forbid all out-of-wedlock pregnancies, or require that any women who gets pregnant must marry the father of the child. We would forbid all surrogate pregnancies, all artificial insemination and all divorce. Welcome to theocracy.

And this argument about protecting children is incredibly hypocritical when it’s used to argue against legal recognition of their parents’ committed relationships. There are millions of children of gay parents all over the world. Legally recognizing the committed relationships of their parents gives them the same protections that the children of straight people already have. Same-sex marriage is good for children, not bad for them.

Comments

  1. daved says

    And how, exactly, would we forbid out-of-wedlock pregnancies? If neither partner is married, we could force them to marry, but what if the man is already married and the woman is not? Either we’d have to force her to have an abortion (and what a popular idea THAT would be in Ireland), or we’d have to allow bigamy, so she could marry the man.

  2. Alverant says

    So what happens when one parent dies? Can you sue fate, god, cancer, booze, whatever for depriving the child of a parent?

    Are we sure this actual article exists?

  3. paulg says

    A gay person claims gays can’t have families. I have an idea! Maybe he’ll beat the odds and reparative therapy will work on him! Sounds like he’d love it. I certainly don’t like him wearing the label.

  4. zenlike says

    Gays can be bigoted idiots too, that’s not even news. The fact that the reighswing instantly falls in love with this ‘sinner’ is pathetic.

  5. Schlumbumbi says

    warning the state has no business reinventing the family

    Except of course, he’s 100% right.

    In a free society, the state has to provide a legal framework for what society has decided on being worthy of protection. It has absolutely no business of re-educating its citizens about what they should think, feel or how they live their lifes. Laws have to reflect societal reality, not define it.

    You have to admire the gay propagandists for selling their cause as an equal rights issue, while in reality, it was an appeal to radical statism. It’s that backdoor approach (no pun intended) which has created lots of new enemies who don’t base their opposition on religious teachings. You have to wonder, if and how this ruse will eventually backfire.

    Okay, let’s follow that to its natural conclusion…

    First I thought, the paragraph was one huge strawman but then I understood how this bunk must look like it makes sense, seen from a radical statist’s viewpoint.

    For a child however, it doesn’t matter what legal standing a parent has or why a parent is absent. The child only cares for a functioning relationship with its both sex parents. Everything else is just political babble.

  6. zenlike says

    Hi Schlumbumbi,

    You might be aware that we are not living in a totalitarian state, but that the politicians we ‘reinvent’ marriage are elected, so this shift is supported by a majority.

    Also radical statism? I find it funny that government restricting marriage = freedom, and governement opening up marriage to more people is suddenly statism.

    You are a fucking idiot.

    Now shut up bigot, adults are talking.

    You are on the wrong side of history, deal with it.

  7. Al Dente says

    Schlumbumbi @6

    The state isn’t re-educating its citizens. It’s giving certain citizens the same rights that other citizens enjoy. The state isn’t saying you don’t have the right to express your hatred for GLBT people. Obviously you do or else your bigotry above would have the politzei beating on your door.

    Answer one question: My wife and I have been married for almost 40 years now. How does same-sex marriage effect my marriage. Please be specific.

  8. daved says

    Are your forgetting your Leviticus? Stoning: New and Improved for your sinful pleasure!

    Sure, but if you stone one of the people to death, then you’re depriving a child of a natural parent. It’s all a question of priorities.

  9. paulg says

    Schlumbumbi @6 (I’ve never seen a name that sounds so right for your disposition)

    Given your argument, the government has the obligation to deal with the reality that gay people fall in love with each other, share their lives together, and raise families. And the areas that have legalized SSM all have populations which have deemed that worthy of protection.

    And if I was some totalitarian statist I’d say you should be shot for seeking to prevent gays from forming legally protected families and raising children. But I’m not.

  10. says

    It has absolutely no business of re-educating its citizens about what they should think, feel or how they live their lifes.

    How fortunate, then, that expanding the definition of civil marriage does no such thing.

    For a child however, it doesn’t matter what legal standing a parent has or why a parent is absent. The child only cares for a functioning relationship with its both sex parents.

    By that, I take it you mean both of the parents who contributed genetic material (and thus, were of the opposite sex)? If so, then ought this not to be an argument against straight couples using a surrogate mother, and an argument for completely outlawing sperm banks?

  11. Abby Normal says

    Repost of Schlumbumbi @6, Annotated

    In a free society, the state has to provide a legal framework for what society has decided on being worthy of protection. [Like equality?] It has absolutely no business of re-educating its citizens about what they should think, feel or how they live their lifes. [This “argument” applies to every law ever passed. Surely some laws are good. It tells us nothing about why recognizing SSM is bad. Also, what’s the difference between educating and re-educating? Are you arguing against Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign?] Laws have to reflect societal reality, not define it. [How can one tell the difference between reflecting and defining? Given that the majority of Americans are in favor of marriage equality wouldn’t recognition be a reflection of society?]

    You have to admire the gay propagandists for selling their cause as an equal rights issue, while in reality, it was an appeal to radical statism. [Allowing two people to marry is not statism when they have different genitals, but it suddenly is when the people have matching sex organs? You do know the state is not going to assign a spouse, right?] It’s that backdoor approach (no pun intended) which has created lots of new enemies who don’t base their opposition on religious teachings. You have to wonder, if and how this ruse will eventually backfire. [Probably around the same time you realize how egotistical you’re being. In both cases my money is on never.]

    Okay, let’s follow that to its natural conclusion…

    First I thought, the paragraph was one huge strawman but then I understood how this bunk must look like it makes sense, seen from a radical statist’s viewpoint.

    For a child however, it doesn’t matter what legal standing a parent has or why a parent is absent. [When a child can’t visit their dying parent because the state doesn’t recognize they’re a family, it matters. When a child loses out on their inheritance, it matters. When a child’s household is stressed because it doesn’t have the same protections that others enjoy, it matters. Put another way, SSM supports children in the same ways that other marriages do.]

    The child only cares for a functioning relationship with its both sex parents. [Not only is that not true, but you have yet to put forth any argument for how that interest is damaged by allowing people of the same sex to marry.] Everything else is just political babble. [On that, you seem to be an expert.]

  12. says

    Also, that guy in the WhirledNut photo is not the Paddy Manning who wrote the article. The Paddy Manning in the photo is an Australian journalist who covers business. The wingnut sights all grabbed the wrong photo, probably creating some unnecessary grief for the Aussie journalist who had his own problems earlier this year after publicly criticizing his employer in a rival publication. http://mumbrella.com.au/fairfax-journalist-paddy-manning-fired-over-opinion-piece-149700

  13. zmidponk says

    Schlumbumbi:

    Except of course, he’s 100% right.

    In a free society, the state has to provide a legal framework for what society has decided on being worthy of protection. It has absolutely no business of re-educating its citizens about what they should think, feel or how they live their lifes. Laws have to reflect societal reality, not define it.

    Then, by that argument, laws enhancing and protecting civil rights for black people should never have been passed as, at the time, society was perfectly A-OK with racism, with only a relatively small minority disagreeing with this.

    In reality, this is utter premium grade bullshit. Laws do, quite often, give and protect rights to everyone, minorities included, against the ‘tyranny of the majority’, as John Adams phrased it. And, as has been pointed out, laws recognising same-sex marriage utterly fail to ‘re-educate citizens about what they should think, feel or how they live their lives’, it merely makes what a certain group of people think, feel or how they choose to live their lives no longer the only legally allowable option.

    You have to admire the gay propagandists for selling their cause as an equal rights issue, while in reality, it was an appeal to radical statism.

    I am really quite curious as to what definition of ‘radical statism’ that you’re using where the state failing to specify which gender of person you are allowed to marry fits that.

    It’s that backdoor approach (no pun intended) which has created lots of new enemies who don’t base their opposition on religious teachings. You have to wonder, if and how this ruse will eventually backfire.

    If you’re an example of one such enemy, given the quality of your arguments made here, I don’t think us ‘gay propagandists’, as you term it, have much to worry about.

    First I thought, the paragraph was one huge strawman but then I understood how this bunk must look like it makes sense, seen from a radical statist’s viewpoint.

    Well, no, it’s not a strawman – it’s simply applying the arguments against same-sex couples to other circumstances. I thought this was clear enough from the passage myself, but obviously it needs to be explicitly spelled out for you.

    For a child however, it doesn’t matter what legal standing a parent has or why a parent is absent. The child only cares for a functioning relationship with its both sex parents. Everything else is just political babble.

    Even if I were to accept your claim (which is actually pretty obviously bogus, due to plenty of children being brought up perfectly happily by people other than their biological parents, sometimes without even realising this is the case), this would only be relevant if you were also saying that adoption should be outlawed, divorce or even separation should be outlawed if the couple in question has at least one child, having children outside of wedlock should be outlawed, and parents dying should somehow be made physically impossible. If you’re not saying that, then you’re applying exactly the kind of double standards Ed already highlighted in the OP.

  14. Hercules Grytpype-Thynne says

    Manning explains same-sex unions will render marriage “irrelevant” because “for the first time, children and parenthood [will have] no place in marriage.”

    I’ll be sure to point that out to the lesbian couple raising one of my daughter’s schoolmates. They’ll be relieved to know that their daughter has no place in their home.

  15. Nemo says

    @Schlumbumbi #6:

    There is no such bloody thing as “radical statism”. Your enemies are imaginary. You may as well blame it on demons.

    There are anti-statists, to be sure. But there are no statists. There are only people with different priorities, for whom the power of the state isn’t necessarily the biggest evil in the world.

  16. matty1 says

    In a free society, the state has to provide a legal framework for what society has decided on being worthy of protection. It has absolutely no business of re-educating its citizens about what they should think, feel or how they live their lifes. Laws have to reflect societal reality, not define it.

    I actually agree with this sentence, I just don’t think it means what you think it means. I would interpret it thusly.

    Society has decided that where someone publicly declares another person is their husband or wife that relationship deserves protection.
    The law has no business re-educating people who think and feel that the person they want in that position is the same sex as they are or live their lives with such a same sex partner.
    The law has to accept the societal reality of committed same sex relationships not try to define them out of existence by denying them legal protection.

  17. marcus says

    And let me also mention the fact (obvious though it may be) that whether it is one gay person or a million that are against marriage equality, it really doesn’t matter. The answer is the same. Don’t approve of SSM? Then don’t have one.
    Schlumbumbi you’re an idiot and an overbearing asshole. I would be really surprised if anyone here could care any less about what you ‘think’ (and I use that term very loosely).

  18. escuerd says

    Schlumbumbi @6

    In a free society, the state has to provide a legal framework for what society has decided on being worthy of protection. It has absolutely no business of re-educating its citizens about what they should think, feel or how they live their lifes.

    How exactly is allowing gay people to get married is “re-educating [...] citizens about what they should think, feel, or how they live their [lives]“? The state having input on who is allowed to marry isn’t something new, and it certainly didn’t originate with decisions to allow the inclusion of same-sex couples.

    You have to admire the gay propagandists for selling their cause as an equal rights issue, while in reality, it was an appeal to radical statism.

    Oh, so it’s all a conspiracy by the evil black-hat statists to, er, gain more power for the glorification of their almighty dark lord, Statan.

    I’ve met plenty of couples estranged from one or both of their families who’ve had to deal with legal hell when one falls sick, is injured, or dies. They’re treated as strangers before the law, while the family (who often had nothing to do with their gay relative during his/her adult life) are permitted the rights to make medical decisions, manage the estate, etc. I’ve known international couples who have been unable to get the same immigration rights as straight counterparts. In some of these issues, powers of attorney helped, but not always. At least in some cases, they were ignored for purposes of hospital visitation or medical decisions. Plenty of gay couples also have or raise children, and they may contribute every bit as much as a straight parent, yet not be considered as a legal guardian, etc.

    Maybe you should listen to what actual gay people who’ve dealt with such issues have to say before proclaiming that they’re all secretly propagandists for some nebulous covert agenda.

    It’s that backdoor approach (no pun intended)

    Really? I’m curious as to how old you are.

    Your juvenile sense of humor and your enamorment with libertarian style rhetoric (e.g. references to “statism” even in contexts where it makes absolutely no sense) makes you seem like you’re a mid to late teenager with strong contrarian tendencies.

  19. Schlumbumbi says

    @matty1 #21 – Congratulations.
    I hope it feels good to be the only person in this comment section with a firm level of reading comprehension.

    Society has decided that where someone publicly declares another person is their husband or wife that relationship deserves protection.

    You’re spot on. If there is a societal consensus on that matter, and a couple makes the corresponding claim, the state simply has to say “Ok, we’ll protect you” and otherwise shut the fck up about it.

    But that’s not what happened in the US. The activists achieved a questionable goal : To replace an actual consensus with a court verdict. That I see as a serious transgression on the state’s side, one with potentially far reaching consequences.

    If the state thinks it’s an equal rights issue, I’m not being cynical when I say that I would wish that the polygamists get their recognition and protection as well. If marriage is just a binding committment between consenting adults, they have every right to get the same protection as all others do.

    Needless to say, I’d take any bet, that if polygamists made that claim, americans, straight and gay, would immediately resort to their good old fashioned double standards.

    @escuerd #23

    I’ve met plenty of couples estranged from one or both of their families who’ve had to deal with legal hell when …

    That’s EXACTLY the kind of shit you get when you allow the state to nose into things it has no legitimate business with.

    Your juvenile sense of humor

    I’m sufficiently familiar with the FTB commentariat. Had I not written “no pun intended”, someone would’ve made the claim that “backdoor” were a snide allusion to anal intercourse. Oh wait, that’s what you just did. Thanks for proving my point.

  20. zmidponk says

    Schlumbumbi:

    You’re spot on. If there is a societal consensus on that matter, and a couple makes the corresponding claim, the state simply has to say “Ok, we’ll protect you” and otherwise shut the fck up about it.

    So, this means if the ‘societal consensus’ was that such marriages should not be allowed, then the state should not recognise this marriage as being legitimate or existing, in any way, far less actually protect it. Congratulations, you’ve just said that Loving v Virginia was decided wrongly, as interracial marriage was opposed by around 75% of the population at the time.

  21. dingojack says

    Schlumbumbi posted: “In a free society, the state has to provide a legal framework for what society has decided on being worthy of protection. It has absolutely no business of re-educating its citizens about what they should think, feel or how they live their lifes [sic]. Laws have to reflect societal reality, not define it.”

    Nice to see you support marriage equality (even though it’s only because a majority supports it)..
    Of course legality (and morality) should be what is just (and moral), not just what the majority want. But even by your (low) standard the judicial system is simply reflecting the will (and morality) of the society of the US as a whole.

    Dingo
    ——–
    BTW Legalising marriage equality is hardly “re-educating its citizens about what they should think, feel or how they live their lifes” (as you put it.). It’s simply saying there is no legal reason to discriminate between one group of popple and another when it comes to the rights, responsibilities and privileges of marriage, that the state confers.
    You can be as bigoted as you like about same-sex marriage (just don’t expect many people to agree with you or the courts to protect you from criticism of your archaic views)

Leave a Reply