This is probably a dupe, but wtf is up with this ad from the National Org for Marriage?

[Skip Intro]

"A Gathering Storm."

http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.5075663/k.A89C/Religious_Liberty.htm

These people say gay marriage takes away their rights?

Gay marriage is a gathering storm that will wipe out their rights?

How?

So I went searching for a FAQ page, and found this:

----------------------------

III. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”

A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”

A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

9. What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”


-----------------------

Does that answer the question of how? No, it doesn't. Gay marriage makes these people uncomfortable, but in no way takes anything away from them except, as they admit, their ability to restrict the rights of gays to marry.

Crazy shit.

I'm a Democrat with very libertarian social views. If someone comes to my door and says, "I don't approve of what you are doing, so I forbid you to do it," and you're doing nothing unconsentual with those involved, I'd say, "who the fuck are you? live the way you want - you don't need my permission and I sure as hell don't need yours, get the fuck outta my face, mind your own fucking business." I'm pretty sure anyone here would agree.

Yet you have this crap.

I'll stop here, before I really start ranting.

Who the hell are these people that stand on very shaky ground and try to scare people into outrage that something is being taken away from them?

[Kool Kitty]

1. This is a very bizarre ad.

Creepy. Rachel Maddow ran the actors' "audition tapes" tonight on her show, I don't remember where she got them. Wouldn't you know it-the next commercial break included this revolting ad.

[Liberal_in_LA]

5. almost like a sci fi video

[canetoad]

2. Most so called FAQs

should be called NAQ -never asked questions or MUQ - made up questions.

[hfojvt]

3. Wasn't that answered in the ad itself?

the examples given in the ad

1. California doctor forced to choose between practicing her religion and keeping her job
2. New Jersey church facing something
3. Massachusetts mother having tolerance taught to her kids

etc. There may be more examples.

Part of that is also answered in the second part of FAQ #4

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

[Skip Intro]

4. Yeah. "You must endorse gay marriage before you can enter this park!"

Silly stupid bullshit.

[hfojvt]

6. it's not entering a park, it's renting part of a park

let me find the other thread.

Here, from LBN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3824867

[HughBeaumont]

7. Guess whut, BIGOTS? If it begs the question, you probably ARE.

And THAT'S just common sense.

Justification of hatred is high comedy. Especially people who think "teh geigh" can be "cured" like the flu.

[Berry Cool]

8. If this is all they got, they got nothin'.

Look at their answers to half the questions: "It's just not right."

Huh???? That's IT???? You're counting on my agreeing with you that "teh gay" is "just not right" to CARRY your argument?

I might as well say "We need to have a law against people having dogs and cats in the same household. Why? Because...it's just not right."

One could also easily rephrase these arguments to use them in defense of other stupid laws, too, which is another sign they're weak as all hell.

Oh, and then there are the ones where their argument is..."Well, if you don't agree with me you're calling me a bigot...and THAT HURTS MY FEELINGS and DO YOU THINK IT'S FAIR TO HURT MY FEELINGS?" Oh man...

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists?

Well, if the shoe fits...

I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you?

Actually, no, I think it's pretty true.

Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage.

Well, to those African-Americans, I would say they are bigots. Whether they find it offensive or not.

Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

Actually, it IS taking away some people's rights. And the fact that you call it "common sense" doesn't MAKE it so.

2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other.

Yes, and bans on gay marriage were about keeping gays apart so that heterosexuals could oppress the, or keep them from Having Teh Sex (as if THAT would stop them), or something.

Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.”

Is THAT why? Someone better tell my dad, He left when I was quite young, so for a long time as a kid I didn't get the love of my own mom and a dad, and my mother got stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone. Funny, though, neither of my parents was gay, so Teh Gay really had nothing to do with why I didn't get a mom and dad's love or with why my mom became a single parent. So how do you figure banning gay marriage prevents this kind of thing?

“Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

But that happened to people like me despite no gay folks being involved. How does this prevent it?

3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”

A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far.

How do they "threaten marriage"? Surely you're not telling me straight people's marriages are threatened by gay people's marriages? Is someone forcing them to marry gay people instead?

We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day.

In other words, so you don't have to defend your bigotry every day?

The people get to decide what marriage means.

And I am one of "the people." So are gay folks.

No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

How do you figure judges are making an end run around the rules when they interpret the law according to their jobs? And what exactly is a "grandstanding San-Francisco-style politician"? Is that a politician who rides cable cars, or eats Rice-A-Roni? Or is it a legislator who--I know this is hilarious--thinks it's his or her power to MAKE LAW?

4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

Honestly, is that all you got? You don't like it when Adam fits his Tab A into Steve's Slot B, and you think it's "just not right," so YOU are personally harmed? Bwahahahaha.

A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

Well, like I said, if the shoe fits...

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

I seriously doubt that.

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

And this is bad how??

“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

What?? If your kids are told by the schools that children don't need a mommy and a daddy, that's going to cause them to go crazy having Teh Sex without getting married first, and getting pregnant, and becoming single parents? Really? Well, in that case you better do a better job transmitting your values to your kids--ya think?? How is that everyone else's problem??

“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

Again with the "That's not right." Why not? Actually, the people will only "lose" that "right" if they vote not to keep in in the first place. Which you could say they indirectly did via the judges or the legislators they chose. Right?

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

And gay marriage isn't just any kind of love, either. It's the special love of two men or two women who love each other enough to want to get married, and for the children they may want to raise. Whether those are children someone else helps them conceive, or unwanted children they adopt and give two loving parents. Why do you want to interfere with that?

6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”

A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

But if you allowed gay people to get married, many of those problems would be solved for some people. That is bad how??

A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

And wouldn't more children be protected if gay people could marry and legally adopt children who currently have no homes, with no red tape? And what about married couples with no children--how does banning gay marriage have anything to do with them?

7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

And how would outlawing this "radical social experiment" known as gay marriage "strengthen" marriage and prevent divorce, exactly?

8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

Aren't you promoting sex-role stereotyping? Why can't two men or two women provide all the different kinds of nurturing a man and a woman can?

9. What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”

And again, when you insist on children needing a "mother" and a "father," are you not promoting sex-role stereotyping? Admit it: you guys aren't just homophobes, you're sexists.