We Just Don't Understand Anti-Gay Marriage Logic

nation_for_marriage.jpg

So let's get this straight. In America we are free to choose the religion we practice, express the opinions we care to share, join the people with whom we wish to assemble, enjoy the right to bear arms, live a life of privacy and to vote for whom we deem worthy.

But when it comes to selecting who we wish to marry, it's as if America forgot the reason America became America. Supposedly, we are the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Sadly, some prefer we become the land of the handcuffed and the home of the terrified.

A group called Nation for Marriage is out with a new PSA that paints gay marriage as if it were the coming of the Devil. Claiming same sex marriage will take away freedoms, wreak havoc on religion, taint youth by teaching gay marriage is OK, the commercial plays out like the Left Behind series.

Look, we could go on for pages about this topic but it really boils down to this. If you want to marry a particular person, you should be able to. That marriage is of no business to anyone except the two who chose to marry. It's their life. Let them live it the way they choose.

We seriously fail to see how accepting gay marriage would have any effect at all on heterosexual marriage. People should be able to love whom they choose. People should be able to marry whom they choose. It's really that simple.

by Steve Hall    Apr- 9-09   Click to Comment   
Topic: Cause, Commercials, Opinion   

Enjoy what you've read? Subscribe to Adrants Daily and receive the daily contents of this site each day along with free whitepapers.



Comments



Comments

OMG! They actually co-opted the phrase "rainbow coalition" -- unbelievable.

Also, am I the only one who noticed that this group's name acronym comes out to NOM.

I have opened the door to scathing puns. Please walk right on in.

Posted by: Jolie O'Dell on April 9, 2009 12:03 PM

The same people that criticize gay marriage (usually very conservative) do it for religious reasons. Usually those same people are the ones that criticize the Arab world for their religious infatuations. Don't these people look in the mirror and see that what the religious fanaticism they endorse here is the very same as that which they criticize? Sad.

Posted by: J.W. on April 9, 2009 12:32 PM

The answer is really quite simple: Remove marriage entirely from the State. Marriage is a religious institution and that's where it should be managed.

Posted by: Kevin on April 9, 2009 1:32 PM

It's just the same. you want this-they want that, there's nothing wrong with expressing their beliefs. This is America. You dont like it? tough. Go lobby or advertise your belief like they're doing. So hypocritical- You want freedom but if it's not your way you cry about it. So some people beliefs are different from yours,.. lets criticize them. not everyone should be the same,. get over it. Gay marriage, racism, abortion etc.. these are belief express by a lot of people in the United States. Whether they go your way or not it's not up to you.

Posted by: James TX on April 9, 2009 1:33 PM

You're looking at the subject from your point of view, they are looking at it from theirs.

For the religious right it's an assault not only on a civil union but on a religious rite and local culture. What happened in Iowa last week was done by a legal challenge from a California-based group, not from home-grown Iowans fighting their established laws for gay marriage. Gay marriage has been an issue not only in civil government but inside church government for years too--where small groups have been doing everything from trying to get gay marriage, female priests, making god female and other changes that tend to get lumped together as social progress. So from their point of view, they're being attacked everywhere including their religious services and interpretations of their holy books.

The better question you should be asking is what is the point of marriage in a society? Procreation? Civic stability? Venereal disease control? Is it just a tax break/insurance sharing/parental rights issue? Answer that and you can have a more enlightened discussion. As it stands now the purpose is well defined in religion but not civics. If you can't even agree what marriage is for or why it exists in civic law, then it's hard to discuss.

All in all, I'm sick of everyone's over-the-top sensitivity and political correctness on every issue. Whatever happened to free speech? A-holes have a voice too. Deal with it and move on.

Posted by: Landon on April 9, 2009 2:04 PM

All good points, Landon. I especially love the marriage definition, "venereal disease control" :) ANd the popint of marriage? I'm in the midst of researching that one right now.

And maybe if the Nation for Marriage...and the rest of use engaged in a bit more NOM, NOM, NOM, we'd all be a little more chill on the topic.

Posted by: Steve Hall on April 9, 2009 2:18 PM

I remember when it was possible to go to a Christian church service for the purpose of worshipping and praising God. I think that was back before God was co-opted as an Icon for the Republican party. Now days it seems like you need to bring a W-2 and a voter registration card to make sure you have what it takes to be loved by God. God forbid sinners would walk into the church by mistake.

I searched Google last evening and found a liberal congregation in Jackson MS that actually welcomes gays and their families. I expect they are a bunch of tree huggin, queer loving, dope smoking hippies. I should fit right in. I anticipate they will accept my check in the collection plate, and may even be excited if I throw in a little extra due to having casino winnings from the day before services.

I think God loves everyone, and yes that would include Republicans, even if they make it very hard to be loved.

Posted by: Jeff in MS on April 9, 2009 3:15 PM

As far as arguments go concerning Iowa citizens' involvement in this most groundbreaking bit of legislature, does no-one realize that sometimes government has to err on the side of civil rights without its citizens express consent? If civil rights issues were left up to the considerations of the people, women's voting and interracial marriage rights would undoubtedly be still denied in certain parts of this country.

Posted by: Sarah Marae on April 9, 2009 3:21 PM

You know what I think is amazing? I subscribe to your daily Adrants newsletter because I want to be informed about what's going on in advertising. Your content is solid, your quips are usually cute/funny/informative/entertaining, and I think you're doing a good job...

Then you go and lead off today's newsletter with your opinions on gay marriage. You know what - I agree 100%. Gay marriage should be legal. You know what else?

I don't give a flying *&#@ about your opinion on this issue, or any other political issue.

Is this newsletter I subscribed to about the advertising industry, or is it your personal soap box? At what point do you wake up in the morning and say "I think all the people that subscribed to our informative newsletter really want to know what my political views are."

I subscribed to this newsletter for business reasons, and this isn't the first time you've showered me with your unwanted politics. How many readers who disagree with you unsubscribed today? Even worse, how many people characterized your email as "spam" with their service provider?

This type of small thinking all but relegates you to a small sphere of influence. Good luck.

Posted by: Jason on April 9, 2009 3:31 PM

I have to say that as a practicing Catholic its difficult for me to square what I believe about the sacrament of marriage with my secular belief in "justice for all", and my friendships with Gay men and women who sincerely want to see their relationships to be officially recognized by law. How can I remain faithful to what my religion has taught for thousands of years, while remaining an open-minded American? Can you be both? Is the fact that I'm willing to go against the Church's teaching on Birth Control but not on this make me a huge hypocrite? Also, can I keep my friendships with Gay men and women even if I happen to not believe in Gay marriage?

Saying that the Bible only has a few lines that deal with the matter is more of a debating tactic than anything else, particularly with Catholicism, which has a long history of extra-Biblical teaching, based upon - let's hope - the influence of the Holy Spirit.

I happen to married to someone of another race, and that was once against the law in many places. One might ask if the law against that was changed, why shouldn't it change in this case? It's a valid point of view, but I feel that there is a difference between bans based upon ethnicity vs. sexual orientation, perhaps difficult to legally define, that has to be acknowledged.

All questions, few answers. Perhaps the best thing is simply the "civil union" out, which is unsatisfying at best to those who believe in the cause of Gay marriage, but at least palatable to those, like myself, that struggle with the issue of what my faith says and how I feel about it in my gut, and my desire to not be exclusionary or bigoted....

Posted by: Matt K on April 9, 2009 3:35 PM

Stick to the purpose of this blog. This isn't the first time you've used this "advertising" blog as a platform to spout your political beliefs.

The most disappointing part of it all is that you seemed more intelligent than the giant pit or irony you threw yourself into with this post.

Posted by: Luke on April 9, 2009 4:03 PM

Last time I looked this was a free country and you could speak your mind as long as it didn't libel or slander anyone. You may not agree with NOM but you can't object to their right to say it. If you have a different opinion, run a campaign of your own. What could be fairer?

Posted by: rob earl on April 9, 2009 4:35 PM

To Luke and Jason, this is a blog, and it's Steve's blog. It isn't AdAge or MediaWeek. This is their take on the advertising industry, and a PSA is just that - a communication intended to persuade. Steve offers, as usual, his opinion on it.

If Skittles taste like crap, and they make an ad, and it's mentioned that Steve thinks Skittles taste like crap in relation to the ad - same thing. If you don't like it, head out and let the 99.999% of us who read and enjoy hearing Steve's thoughts continue on our merry way.

Posted by: Sean on April 9, 2009 4:39 PM

Steve:

First of all, crazy PSA.

Second of all, does it belong here? Well, it *is* an ad.

Third: ... and anyway, whatever.

Fourth and finally, your NOM NOM NOM really made me laugh..!!!

Posted by: Ann Handley on April 9, 2009 4:43 PM

Sean - First of all, this isn't a blog, it's a business. I wasn't asked to subscribe to "some liberal guys blog" - I was asked to subscribe to an advertising newsletter. Big difference. As a subscriber who drives page views and recommends this site as a resource, I should have been informed that Steve was free to go on about his personal political beliefs whether I asked for them or not.

Second of all, this article has very little to do with the PSA. The PSA is just used as a platform for Steve to spout his perspective on gay marriage. Look at the article closely - the PSA is secondary, Steve's political beliefs are primary.

If, to use your example, Steve commented on a Skittles ad by saying "I think Skittles are dumb and taste bad and anyone who likes Skittles obviously doesn't know what they're talking about" he would look like a moron. His objectivity would be compromised. Skittles fans would unsubscribe.

If Steve wants to "go on for pages about this topic" he should be able to, but at the very minimum he should understand that

1) That's not how he represented his newsletter to his subscribers when they signed up.

2) It compromises any appearance of impartiality or objectivity and undermines his opinion.

3) It undermines his business.

Thanks, by the way, for suggesting some alternatives to AdRants in your comments. I'm sure that business people everywhere will appreciate objective and impartial advertising commentary.

I'm also quite sure that this site will never achieve anything great so long as it's "shackled" by short-sighted writers who can't separate their political views from their job.

Posted by: Jason on April 9, 2009 5:28 PM

What's the current divorce rate in traditional marriage - 50%? As time progresses, it will be interesting to see if those entering into gay marriage are more than 50% committed to promises made to their partners than their hetero counterparts.

Posted by: fred on April 9, 2009 5:32 PM

Here's the link to an impartial and objective source of advertising commentary for anyone who finds Steve's rants offensive, short-sighted, inappropriate, and/or completely not what they agreed to when they subscribed to this "resource."

http://adage.com/register.php

Posted by: Jason on April 9, 2009 5:36 PM

Yes, God loves everyone, even sinners like you and me, but He hates sin. He will never take part with sin. God is holy and our country is blessed by Him because we have founded our nation according to His words. We all have freedom to speak in this country. NOM has spoken just like the gay activists. I regard marriage as a holy alliance between a man, a woman and God. It is more than a sexual preferrence of two people. To make into law something that could affect the blessing of God into a curse would be the end of this country as we know it. In this age of little regard for God's Words could make me sound anti-gay, religous, bigot. But because this is not the first time in history in the bible told us of the nations that went astray from His promises and words, like Sodom and Gomorrah - all people in this wealthy nations were gay, were gone in one day by firebombs from heaven. You might laugh that I believe in this ancient story, but to me it is real. As real as the stock market crash is today and our recession and our economy. God judges the nation according to our actions. So whatever you believe or don't believe about God, He knows all because He is sovereign and He is waiting for our heart to turn to Him.

Posted by: Anne on April 9, 2009 5:54 PM

If you really believe "people should be free to marry whoever they choose," I assume you would have no problem with me marrying, say, my brother or sister. Following "logic," this should have no effect on those committed to traditional marriage. What about my dog? Where would this present a problem to heterosexuals, or gays?

Posted by: Michael on April 9, 2009 6:02 PM

The hits just keep on coming. Great "article" Steve - the religious right is up in arms and now you've given them an excuse to preach to us (see Anne's comments above). Great blog post - really speaks volumes about your judgment.

Posted by: Jason on April 9, 2009 6:21 PM

Oh God (no pun intended), not that hackneyed argument again.

If you believe the bible, then do you think everyone who eats shellfish is going to hell? There's also Hebrew scripture that talks about stoning non-virgin brides to death. Think we should still practice that?

The bottom line is, the Bible and all other religious documents have things people choose to follow and things they choose not to. So get over yourselves and stop falling back on fiction like the Bible as a reason to discriminate or a reason to allow groups like this to spout their bigotry.

Posted by: MMM on April 9, 2009 6:27 PM

MMM's comments are typical of a certain viewpoint. "Your moral beliefs don't square with mine. Therefore, you're a bigot. Oh, and the Bible's a bunch of hoeey, so you're a moron."

THAT is simplistic thinking. For those that try to live a life that combines a faith handed down for centuries with the demands of modern life, its not so easy as that.

You ask for respect for your views. Fine, granted. Please give a little back in return.

I have never identified with the "Christian Right", whatever that is. I tend to vote Democrat, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sign up to support everything the Left Wing of my party wants.

Posted by: Matt Kaufman on April 9, 2009 7:19 PM

I did not simplify it down to that. I asked for an explanation on how you go about choosing which bible teachings to follow and which you can ignore.

I'm not the one trying to use the bible to justify my beliefs. If you are, then do it in a way that's not hypocritical, otherwise your argument doesn't hold water.

Posted by: MMM on April 9, 2009 7:31 PM

"Yes, God loves everyone, even sinners like you and me, but He hates sin. He will never take part with sin."

Really?

Take this little test.

A.) Disregard everything you were taught in Sunday School for just a minute.
B.) Read Genesis Chapters 1-3
C.) Honestly answer the following questions from just the text you see. If it's not there, it's not there.

1.) Who either didn't tell the whole truth or misstated the outcome of eating the apple?
2.) Who told exactly the truth?
3.) What is the stated reason that Adam and Eve were cast out? Was it sin or jealousy?

Here's another. In the book of Job, the devil, on the orders of God, kills the family of Job, a righteous man who loves God. This is the only reference to Satan killing anyone. God on the other hand has a the blood of over 2,270,365+ on His hands.

Lot after being saved as a righteous man from Sodom & Gomorrah get's drunk and has sex with his daughters, who he had previously offered to a rape gang, but is still a righteous man.

In Exodus, God toyed with the Pharaoh and his people, hardening and softening the Pharaoh's heart in order that the plagues would come to Egypt.

I could go on all day...

You wonder why people aren't falling for this stuff anymore?

Posted by: knowthetruth on April 9, 2009 10:31 PM

"Lot after being saved as a righteous man from Sodom & Gomorrah get's drunk and has sex with his daughters, who he had previously offered to a rape gang, but is still a righteous man."

So, to teach that incest and pedophilia are OK in Sunday School is fine, but to teach that Gay Marriage is OK is not???? What's wrong with this picture?

Posted by: lisal on April 9, 2009 11:02 PM

It doesnt "teach" that incest and pedophilia are okay. If it said that a blogger named "knowthetruth" commented on a advertising blog that he or she didn't agree with the actions of the bible, that doesnt mean adrants.com teaches or agrees with anti-biblical rhetoric.

Posted by: dontknowthetruth on April 10, 2009 10:30 AM

It doesnt "teach" that incest and pedophilia are okay. If it said that a blogger named "knowthetruth" commented on a advertising blog that he or she didn't agree with the actions of the bible, that doesnt mean adrants.com teaches or agrees with anti-biblical rhetoric.

Posted by: dontknowthetruth on April 10, 2009 10:31 AM

JW,
Sorry. You are wrong. It depends on what your FUNDAMENTALS or FANATICISMS are. Yes, we all have issues with religious fundamentals that call for murdering others. But what about the religious fanaticism and fundamentals of the Amish? What's your beef with them? It doesn't get more fanatical.

Posted by: K.E. on April 10, 2009 10:41 AM

JW,
Sorry. You are wrong. It depends on what your FUNDAMENTALS or FANATICISMS are. Yes, we all have issues with religious fundamentals that call for murdering others. But what about the religious fanaticism and fundamentals of the Amish? What's your beef with them? It doesn't get more fanatical.

Posted by: K.E. on April 10, 2009 10:43 AM

I enjoyed the thought provoking questions and the comments that followed. Last night I re-read the first three chapters in Constantine's Sword by James Carroll, a nice late night read, about lies and deception- piled high with hate, during this season and I keep smiling when I think of the late Tim F. Leary's: "almost everything in the bible is wrong"; his tongue in cheek assessment after completing his Tao Prayer Book. And of course A.Crowley's " Almost everything in the bible is a lie"

Wagner's Parsifal, the celebration of a witless fool, a "pure-blooded" hero who overcomes Klingsor, a Jewish stereotype.

Springs rituals of love and hate seem to go hand in hand and most don't mind the hate filled messages. Thanks for noticing this hate filled PSA (ad). peace.

Posted by: rumpledforeskin on April 10, 2009 12:41 PM

MMM - see the commentary on Catholicism and "extra-biblical" teachings.

Posted by: Matt K on April 10, 2009 3:47 PM

Genesis 19:30-38..
OK, Dontknow, What does this passage teach?

Sounds like drug rape at best to me. At worst, incest is OK so long as your drunk and she wants it?

Posted by: lisal on April 10, 2009 7:41 PM

Dontknow, I do not espouse anti-biblical rhetoric. My point is that the Bible provides neither lies nor truth. It is a collection of stories around which, dogma can be wrapped.

An example from Genesis:

the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. Genesis 3:1

The Gnostic tradition translated this as:

the serpent was wiser than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

Changes the tone a bit doesn't it? Orthodox Christianity claims that the Serpent was Satan but some Gnostic traditions claimed the Serpent was Christ.

So, without external dogma, how do you make any sense of this? If you can't, then how can you know what God's true motivations are? How do you know who are the good guys and who are the bad?

In the Pistis Sophia, Jesus warned about doctrines of error. If a doctrine is true it will harmonize 'with the setting of the air and of the heavens and of the circuits and of the stars and of the light-givers and of the whole earth and all on it and of all waters and all in them.' In plain English, it will be consistent with what we can observe and know to be true.

Rumpled, thanks, I need to check out these references. Legend has it that when Constantine received the first set of books for the Canonical Bible, that he thought it was too big. He then threw the books on a table. Those that stayed on the table were included, those that fell off, were dropped, literally.. :)

Posted by: knowthetruth on April 10, 2009 8:19 PM

I don't get the opposition, either; it simply makes no sense. The great thing is, though-- they've already lost. Because the kids just don't care. Progress marches on. Interesting blog, btw.

Posted by: Susan on April 11, 2009 3:26 AM

trying to forcibly redefine for religious groups their concept of marriage (a religious concept) is equally intolerant of their choice.

since many religions and philosophies of life exist, the govts of countries should b independent of this (not atheist on this, but independent). if a person wants to get married, they should do it thru their own organisation, be it a church, mosque, gay society, atheist society, etc. not thru the govt

as far as civil rights go, the govt should provide equal rights to all irrespective of wat they choose. because someone wants to be single for their life shouldnt mean they have less rights. many ppl choose to live alone with a pet, or to be gay or straight. the rights should b equal.

i believe many ppl r merely jumping on the bandwagon in gay marriage debates. taking the popular choice. but wat about ppl who want to marry animals? y is that wrong? or marry multiple people, or marry trees or manequins or cars? these fetishes exist in our society, dont deny that. i genuinely and seriously ask u, y r these things more wrong than straight or gay marriage? maybe in 100 yrs they will b socially acceptable and u'll b saying they deserve rights too. democratic reasoning is flawed. kohlberg's highest level of moral reasoning is universal principle based. dont jump on the bandwagon

Posted by: damon on April 12, 2009 3:21 AM

If we break down the definition of marriage to say people instead of man and woman... what else would we have to do to accomade other sexual minorities.

Bestial-sexuals would want it to say between two souls or entitities rather than people.

Brother-sister relationships would want the ban lifted on them to marry!

Pedo-sexuals would want the age lowered from 18 to 13!

If two consenting adults who are non-related and are of opposite sex wish to marry than it is their right. However when you change this sentence to ask if two consenting adults who are non-related wish to marry than it is their right. Why would you stop there...???

Who's moral compass are we using... homosexuals or everyones moral compass. So far majority feels marriage is between a man and a woman. If it wasn't for the media and homosexual pull in the media there would not be so many confused people out there questioning whther or not homosexuals should marry also. Sooner or later, incest relationships and polygamous relationshipd will be introduced... and why not! I mean their relationship is not really hurting you or I right! Let a brother and sister to marry! Whats's wrong with that? If you counter that argument with the "ick" factor, well then brother (or sister) thats the same argument many normal heterosexuals see whats wrong with homosexuals!

Posted by: Alex on April 22, 2009 7:51 PM





Stanton Optical


Featured FREE Resource: