Yesterday, I wrote a post about the National Organization for Marriage helping to peddle some hogwash written by syndicated columnist Michael McManus. The piece, Why One Should Oppose Gay Marriage, was full of the usual anti-gay distortions and misdirections.
In one passage, McManus claimed that gay marriage was a bad idea because of the so-called promiscuity of gay men. To accomplish this, he compared two studies. However, the studies in question were decades apart (1978 and 1997) and talked about two different dynamics - i.e. single gay men vs. married heterosexual couples.
And in another passage, he freely cited the bad research of one John R. Diggs, even going so far as pulling out the "gays have a short lifespan" lie.
The point of my column was to show the duplicity of the National Organization for Marriage. At the same time the organization tries to pass itself off as a so-called "defender of marriage," it is openly pushing homophobic propaganda.
However, as a sidebar, I took the liberty of emailing McManus. McManus, by the way, heads a group called Marriage Savers. The organization supposedly devises ways for heterosexual couples to have successful marriages.
Let's hope McManus is more successful at this than he is at explaining his mess. The following is a short email exchange I had with him:
What's with these so-called "protect marriage" types anyway? They seem to be always throwing all sorts of erroneous arguments against gay marriage against the wall and expecting everyone to go for the one which may stick while ignoring their other inaccuracies; inaccuracies which always tends to refute their entire premise.
It's almost as if these folks think that they not only have a divine right to choose who gets married, but also a divine right to have their distortions ignored.
Sorry but no one has that right, especially those who are always implying that their beliefs places them on the right hand of God.
In one passage, McManus claimed that gay marriage was a bad idea because of the so-called promiscuity of gay men. To accomplish this, he compared two studies. However, the studies in question were decades apart (1978 and 1997) and talked about two different dynamics - i.e. single gay men vs. married heterosexual couples.
And in another passage, he freely cited the bad research of one John R. Diggs, even going so far as pulling out the "gays have a short lifespan" lie.
The point of my column was to show the duplicity of the National Organization for Marriage. At the same time the organization tries to pass itself off as a so-called "defender of marriage," it is openly pushing homophobic propaganda.
However, as a sidebar, I took the liberty of emailing McManus. McManus, by the way, heads a group called Marriage Savers. The organization supposedly devises ways for heterosexual couples to have successful marriages.
Let's hope McManus is more successful at this than he is at explaining his mess. The following is a short email exchange I had with him:
Me - Dear Mr. McManus, I know that you think you are operating in the body of Christ, but lies and deception have no place in the body of Christ. See to yourself before you condemn members of the lgbt community. Editor's note - I also attached my entire post pointing out the errors in his piece.
McManus - Dear Sir:I notice you did not question my data that homosexuals are really not interested in marriage. How do you explain the fact there have been only 5,000 gay marriages in Mass. after more than 5 years, many of which were from out-of-state gays, as I understand it. But even if all were from Mass. that is only about 10% of the gay population.Why should the nature of marriage, as practiced for 5,000 years, be changed for such a tiny sliver of people, who are not even interested in fidelity? Or marriage?
Strangely enough, McManus didn't get back with me on this point.Me - The reason why I didn't question your Massachusetts information is because your other citations were so flawed that I didn't bother. If you are citing other studies in an inaccurate manner, then how can anyone have any credibility in what you said regarding Massachusetts?That being the case, would you care to address the flaws which I found in your piece, particularly you making a comparison of married heterosexual couples vs. unmarried gay men from two different studies decades apart?
What's with these so-called "protect marriage" types anyway? They seem to be always throwing all sorts of erroneous arguments against gay marriage against the wall and expecting everyone to go for the one which may stick while ignoring their other inaccuracies; inaccuracies which always tends to refute their entire premise.
It's almost as if these folks think that they not only have a divine right to choose who gets married, but also a divine right to have their distortions ignored.
Sorry but no one has that right, especially those who are always implying that their beliefs places them on the right hand of God.
