So every once in a blue moon I think "Oh, I have a blog, I ought to write something on it again!" and then I get pulled away because The Toddler needs fed, he's doing something that could potentially land him in the ER or one of a dozen different other things that seem to be constantly pulling me every which way.
But today, I needed a bit of a rant about something and The Toddler has crashed out for a mid-afternoon nap, a true rarity now-days, and I have something to rant about :)
My topic of ranting today is a blogger/writer named Matt Walsh. He proclaims himself a "truth sayer" and prides himself on being conservative and brash.
He rants on all sorts of issues. The latest one I read was about how in his opinion, gay marriage doesn't exist. That it cannot exist.
Link through donotlink here to what he said for any who are masochistic enough to read it ;) http://www.donotlink.com/byjp
The reality is that saying gay marriage does not exist is like looking at a tree and declaring it isn't there.
He says it cannot exist because..... wait for it..... gay people in gay marriages can't have babies with each other!
Facepalm
Really? Except he's wrong and reality proves him wrong.
First, let's talk about the ways straight people make babies.
First there's the man and woman have sex.
Then there's go to the doctor for various treatments to get pregnant.
They can have a baby with donor sperm or eggs.
They can hire a surrogate to carry their child for them with the child created by genetic material from neither of them OR from only one person in the relationship OR with genetic material from both of them.
It seems there should be more but I'm drawing a blank. But my point is that even for men and women in straight marriages there are a wide variety of choices in how they create life and sometimes it includes using biological matter from other people outside the relationship. If gay marriage doesn't exist because of the procreation then all the marriages of people who don't have a baby the old fashioned way don't exist either I'd think. Because people who are gay DO procreate, the same as people who are straight. They procreate with people of the opposite sex, they procreate with surrogates, they procreate with donor genetic material. They become parents through adoption. They can become parents in all the same ways that straight people can become parents.
So if an adopted child of straight people becomes their child, so does the adopted child of a gay couple become their child. If a straight couple who use donor sperm have a child it is THEIR child, not a child raised by the wife and the sperm donor. Same with a lesbian couple using donor sperm, it is THEIR child not being raised by the sperm donor and the wife who bore the child. If a straight couple use a surrogate is it still their child, it is not raised by the surrogate, they raise the child. Same with a couple who is gay. That is THEIR child, not the surrogates child to raise.
Then we get to the fact that creating new humans of our own biological material is not required for raising children and plenty of folks who create new humans don't raise them. Even straight people adopt sometimes even when they suffer no issues with infertility. If adopting even with no fertility issues is a valid option for building a family for a straight couple or single person then there's no reason it's not a valid option for people who are gay to build a family.
And then, even though it takes two humans to donate genetic material to make a new human, some single parents, both biological and adoptive, choose to be single parents. I'm sure Matt Walsh would have some way to hate on them too but that does not change the reality that families exist that are built that way.
So we can see that despite Matt Walsh's best efforts to take procreation and make it the central factor in declaring if gay marriage exists that it does indeed exist all the same.
One thing he says is this:
The government doesn’t ‘award’ marriage or give it away like a cash
prize in Wheel of Fortune. All of the government can do — and should do — is recognize the natural reality of the situation.
If marriage is anything, then it is an institution meant to bind a
husband to his wife, a wife to her husband, and both mother and father
to their children. If it is something at all, then it is the foundation
of civilization. It establishes the context in which families are formed
and children are raised.
The natural reality of the situation is there are families headed by people who are gay that deserve and demand the equal legal protections that families that are straight have. The context in which families are formed and children are raised as we've addressed is much more varied in reality than Matt Walsh will admit because it doesn't fit into his narrow view of what society should be based on his personal religious choices. Children are raised by adult humans. Someones one adult human, sometimes two adult humans, sometimes 3 or more adult humans. That's the foundation for civilization, we care for our own young and sometimes the young of others.
Marriage is not for the purpose of procreation. Marriage is a contract that two people, two adult humans capable of consent, agree to join lives and share the joys and burdens of life together with a legal binding. That is what legal marriage is whether Matt Walsh likes it and whether deigns to declare it as "existing" or not. Just because you call yourself a "truth sayer" does not mean that everything you say is then the "truth". Some people in marriages procreate, some don't. Some people not married procreate. Procreation is a biological fact of life and has bumpkis to do with marriage other than some people who are married procreate one way or another.
Then later, ironically, he says this about the government recognizing straight marriage: The only other options are for the government to pretend it doesn’t
exist, or to pretend that it’s something other than what it is.
Oh, you mean like marriage between people who are gay and the way you want to pretend it doesn't exist? Like that?
Frankly, Matt Walsh deserves no engagement. His views on this matter, and on other matters, are ridiculous and while are perfectly fine for an individual to choose for their own personal belief they are not fine and rather they are downright dangerous at times when he seems to think they should apply to everyone. So that's why I decided to write up this rebuttal. Because anyone who tries to declare themselves as a "sayer of truth" and then spews hate and bigotry like this deserves to be called out as hateful and bigoted.
Because here's the reality. He's free to pretend that gay marriage doesn't exist. Just like some sects of Christianity(like Catholicism which Matt Walsh practices) only recognize the first marriage. They don't recognize divorce and they don't recognize remarriage. Now Catholics can get an annulment if they qualify, but some sects don't have any option for annulment. You're married and that's one time and to the death. If you do legally divorce, it doesn't matter to the church. You cannot get remarried in that Church until your ex-spouse passes away. So in that way certainly, he's free to feel like gay marriage doesn't "exist" in his religious beliefs. But to want to keep legal rights away from people, from families, from marriages that are easily proven to exist outside of the narrow strictures of conservative religious beliefs is a really hateful and bigoted thing to want.
How about this Matt Walsh. You live by your beliefs, everybody else gets to live by their beliefs, the government provides equal protection to all forcing none to live by the religious beliefs or non-beliefs of others and you blow your idea that everybody should live by your beliefs out your ol' wazoo.
