This headline yesterday struck me as remarkable. Bear in mind it is atop a news story.
Santorum continues anti-gay rhetoric, takes shot at Bachmann, rest of field
There is a debate going on about marriage in America. Apparently NBC is clear on which side it is on.
Below the headline:
By NBC’s Jo Ling Kent and Domenico Montanaro
ANAMOSA, CEDAR RAPIDS, HIAWATHA, Iowa, and WASHINGTON – Rick Santorum today finally wrapped up his 50-city tour de Iowa.
He continued to press anti-gay views, saying that calling same-sex marriage a marriage would be like calling a cup of tea a basketball.
He repeatedly quoted a study that families do better in heterosexual marriages. Though that study actually uses the phrase “nuclear” family, which can include same-sex couples.
Three supporters of same-sex marriage stood with posters next to the National Organization of Marriage bus, including Alice McCabe and her husband, who have a daughter and daughter-in-law with a daughter in Minneapolis. The National Organization of Marriage has asked Republican presidential candidates to sign an anti-gay marriage pledge.
And then goes on to give Dan Savage yet more coverage:
On sex columnist Dan Savage’s threat to mess with search results for Santorum’s first name — having already done so with his surname, Santorum called it “disgusting.”
“It doesn’t deserve any kind of recognition,” he said. “This is the kind of disgusting discourse in our society that coarsens our society and doesn’t add value. Because we have a society now with the Internet that anybody on the extreme fringe can post things and be heard, it doesn’t mean that should be paid attention to.”
Apparently NBC would like to go circumvent actual debate. At least they are upfront about the bias.
Senator Santorum once compared gay sex to "man on dog." If you don't consider that "anti-gay," is there anything short of violence you would?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly, when will the MSM stop pretending that just because people think allowing gays to marry will destroy civilization means they think there is anything wrong with the gays.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Three supporters of same-sex marriage stood with posters next to the National Organization of Marriage bus, including Alice McCabe and her husband, who have a daughter and daughter-in-law with a daughter in Minneapolis."
That's an interesting combination there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePresenting it as unquestionable fact that obviously the only possible reason why anyone might oppose "gay marriage" is because they hate gay people is essential.
It is just one of the many lies that "gay marriage" relies on.
After all, if they actually had to debate their point honestly, they'd have to explain what gives them the right to demand that people pretend two types of relationship are identical, when the two types of relationship in question do in fact have differences that are both significant and relevant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis one is super-easy to parse. The byline reads: "By NBC’s Jo Ling Kent and Domenico Montanaro."
Those two names suggest "diversity" hires based on race, gender, national origin, and ethnicity rather than merit. As such, I expect that they are affiliated with all the radical "diversity" agendas, which now include same-gender marriage.
Thus, any supposed news article written by them must be discounted. They simply do not know better, or if they did, would not be inclined to report it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Apparently NBC would like to go circumvent actual debate. At least they are upfront about the bias."
Of course one can just as easily say the same about FOX. Just because NBC may be of an opposite slant doesn't make it more noteworthy.
And as for Santorum, were that his opinions were only about his opposition to gay marriage (as clumsy and illogical as they are). He also has made similarly defensive claims about gay couples adopting, about DADT, about a right to privacy extending to gay people. Pretty much anything anti-gay gets his attention. Additionally, Santorum is the one who brought up Savage. So if anyone is giving Savage "more coverage", it's Santorum. Savage's equality efforts are hardly "on the extreme fringe" as can be shown by the thousands of "It Gets Better" videos made by an incredibly wide range of Americans. Santorum only wishes he could have that kind of impact rather than his current trajectory as a has-been politician and internet joke.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"There is a debate going on about marriage in America. Apparently NBC is clear on which side it is on."
"Apparently NBC would like to go circumvent actual debate. At least they are upfront about the bias."
How about a debate about grammar too? (If Miss Lopez doesn't want to read her words twice through, why would anyone else?)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat are you whining about? That she used the word "apparently" twice, or that she inadvertently left the word "go" in a sentence. Get a life.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSome people have too much time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReally, Ms. Lopez? Do you honestly believe for one second that Rick Santorum, who recently stated that Loving vs. Texas should be overturned, is solely focused on an anti-marriage view? Your efforts to set him up as a victim, the current laughable recourse of the anti-gay side, is as pathetic as anything that trips from Mr. Santorum's mouth. But the more he says, and the more people like you attempt to defend him, the more the pro-gay side wins. So keep up the good work!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother thought (Bench Memos, hear me): If "anti gay marriage" is synonymous with "anti gay," that implies that to be gay is necessarily to support gay marriage.
In the federal case appealing Vaughan Walker's decision (he invalidated California Prop 8), the argument is that Walker made his decision not because he happens to be gay (and supposedly objective) but because he would be conferring a valuable civil right upon himself (whether or not he chooses to use it) because he has a gay partner.
But if NBC is correct, then Walker necessarily was not unbiased and necessarily was not objective, merely because he is gay. That is, to be gay necessarily implies support of gay marriage (per NBC), even though we already know that to be hetero does not imply rejection of gay marriage (per numerous sources, even the Prop 8 total vote).
May I suggest that this NBC article be quoted in any appeal of Walker?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, K-Lo....not that you ever answer questions, but please show us where Santorum (google!!) is actually gay-friendly. Yes, the correct headline might need to be anti-gay marriage, but i've not seen anything that shows that he is actually in favor of ANYthing gay!
if you know of ANY specifics, let me know. I'll let Dan Savage know, too!!
Thanks!
:-)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNuclear Family Definitions - External Link
External Link
External Link
External Link
Words should not mean whatever you want them to mean. Nuclear family means Mother, Father, and children. In the study quoted nuclear family is never defined and the authors never re-define it as including two parents (gender not important) and children.
Anti-gay does not mean anti-gay marriage. I am in favor of gay marriage when democratically installed but I understand the issues opponents are worried about. Santorum's opposition to gay marriage is wrong in my opinion but that hardly makes him anti-gay.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe term "nuclear family" was itself invented quite recently; the Oxford English Dictionary's earliest citation is from 1924, when it was uttered not by God but by the anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski. It's true that words "can't mean whatever we want them to mean," but that's because we agree on meanings in order to understand each other, not in order to bind ourselves forever to particular concepts or institutions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou mean two parents (gender not important) and children (who may or may not be related to the "parents").
The only time it is appropriate to sever the bonds between a child and its parents is when the child is in crisis and the adoption is primarily motivated by a desire to place the child in the home that is best suited for the child's needs.
Gay marriage relies on the idea that the needs of the parent - not the well-being of the child - is at the center of child custody decision-making.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe live in Alice and Wonderland where the official language is Jabberwocky. Gay marriage is nonsense. The union of husband and wife is nothing like the partnership of 2 identical genders. The union of husband and wife is inherently exceptional and superior to the partnership of 2 identical genders. There's simply no equality in nature or substance between the two. It's apples vs. oranges.
The problem with a decaying civilization is not the issue of gay marriage. The issue is the foolish, sloppy reasoning of a culture that magically thinks. Magical thinking breeds more magical thinking. Making things up, redefining, deconstructing leads to confusion and gullibility of all kinds. That's the SIN. Not homosexuality per se. The SIN is foolish, slothful reasoning. Sloppy conclusions. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
What's next?
A Clockwork Orange.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe're talking about Santorum. NBC got it right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not sure if Rick Santorum is anti-gay, it is understandable that some gay people would take offense at some of his less tasteful comments ("man on dog") and perceive him as being anti-gay. If he was a serious candidate, which he isn't, he would have to stop using some of these silly analogies.
Besides the arguments don't work for those who don't agree with him already, sometimes the definition of words are expanded or narrowed to accommodate the changes that occur in culture or technology or whatever. I saw a video on Realclearpolitics of him going on about a napkin not being a paper towel. Well those are two very similar things that are often used very similarly and it isn't inconceivable that someday in the future they will be sharing the same name. Also outside of the US the word "napkin" is sometimes used to describe something that isn't used to wipe your mouth.
The statement that marriage has always been defined as being between one man and one woman (which historically isn't true) isn't itself an argument against people in a democratic society deciding to change that word's meaning, you know, it's our language.
Also the slippery slope arguments don't fly. Comparing gay marriage to b%sti%lity is just as offensive now as it was when it was compared to interracial marriage. And interracial marriage did not lead to that and neither would gay marriage. Animals can't consent, and neither can children for those of you who want to make that comparison. There are clear dividing lines between gay marriage and any other arrangements that you can conjure up and it not the case that gay marriage will lead to these things.
So you need to make your argument against gay marriage as an argument against gay marriage and not against b%sti%lity. Personally I think expanding the definition of marriage to include gay arrangements would be a benefit to society. I think some people just wish gay people would just stop being gay. That isn't going to happen, we need to get over that and accept that fact that there are gay people and they are not going to stop being gay to fit into your cookie cutter mold of what people should be. Maybe if we de-stigmatize homosexuality the rougher edges that really offend you about the "lifestyle" will be smoothed out. It probably is the best thing for them and society to encourage them to be in monogamous relationships and live life like everyone else should, except for that one aspect that some of us obsess over.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHear, hear.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think I agree with a lot of this. But I'm pretty sure marriage has until recently been defined as being between a man and a woman in nearly all times and places. Even cultures that were relatively tolerant of homosexuality had that understanding in place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse