Here's an ad supporting the anti-same-sex marriage amendment.
I suspect it will be quite effective for some people. My question is whether it's actively unfair. Queerty is especially offended by this ad because "it exploits children to spread a political message and then it portrays said children as easily confounded ninnies."
October 31, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
56 comments:
Why not just redefine the word "mom" to include men? A man can be the husband of a man.
So, it's okay to use Michael J Fox in the tremoring throes of his disease for partisan purposes - a strictly emotional appeal if there ever was one - but not okay to use children?
Brent, Michael J. Fox is an adult. He actually has Parkinson's, and the medicine causes him to shake.
I rather doubt the child in the commercial the product of a same-sex marriage.
and these poor ninnies will be so confused, they will do poorly in school and end up stuck in Iraq.
Actively unfair? As Brent points out, in this climate not really. Who would it be unfair to? Life's not fair anyway.
MM: As an adult Fox at least was responsible for being accurate in what he was saying and representing. I have MS and am able to say he was misleading, at best, about what he was representing, based on my authority as a victim of MS.
And as a victim of MS I cannot be criticized because something terrible happened to me.
Of course, if her dad married a man, that would indicate that he was no longer married to her mom either through death or separation/divorce, so you could just as easily ask who her mom is now, anyway.
One can disagree with the ad, but I think that this criticism is silly:
"it exploits children to spread a political message and then it portrays said children as easily confounded ninnies."
They're actors. Millions of ads portray the people in them as "easily confounded ninnies." Where would As Seen on TV products be without actors willing to play such parts?
They're upset that children were exploited in the making of the commercial? Wow. That's never happened before, right? "Mom, can I have another glass of arsenic?"
Ohhhh. Right.
stever, since when is accuracy a hallmark of a political ad? Why does Michael J. Fox have to be truthful? (Let me repeat, that I have not seen the ad -- for all I know, it's 100% truthful).
I question the ethics of those who would use children to push a political point of view. And the question asked: nonsensical. If her Mom died, who would be her Mom?
If a kid lived in a car, what would be his home? If he were home schooled, where would his schoolhouse be? If he made a Skype or touch-tone phone call, how could he dial the number?
Kids can adapt to all these, male moms and so much more. It's the hidebound braindead adults who can't.
Kids can adapt I guess, but to suggest that there will be no confusion or issues ro even to minimize the possibility stretches credulity. Kids are not ninnies, but they are absorbing and sorting a TON of information about who they ae, their place in the world, etc. Parents are supposed to provide structure, safety, and an ever increasing boundary in which they can do this. "Who's my Mommy?" detracts from that.
"I question the ethics of those who would use children to push a political point of view."
Does this include those who do things "for the children" and implore us to "think of the children"? I can't stand those.
and lest we forget the original classic kid exploitation ad?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND3FdwXgRSg
Johnson v Goldwater 64?
MM: My point is, the kids in the ad are no worse and no better than Fox. Matters not that he's an adult with Parkinson's.
Like you said we can't expect truthfulness, in a lot of ways.
Lets not forget the Daisy Girl ad, 42 years ago.
Jeremy said "Of course, if her dad married a man..."
I thought that was a boy. I'm confused...
I don't think it's unfair, I just think it's effing stupid. It's on the order of "hey, when you gay guys have sex, who's plays the woman?" I can't see how anyone would support this amendment when this is the quality of argument that goes out in support of it. Vote against gay cooties! Save the Children!
The anti-amendment ads use children too -- in precisely the way John suggests. Check out this one that uses pictures of a real child, one of whose mothers was dying and has since died of cancer. The surviving mother talks about the limits that affected her as her partner was dying.
I would prefer it if liberals released their own ad making a more persuasive emotional appeal. The ad could show a kid realizing that it's unfair if his or her parents can't get married while his or her friends' parents can.
I'd like to see how that works - how a kid with two male or two female parents was conceived. If I saw an ad like that described, I think it would do nothing so much as make blatant how weird the whole concept of two men being "married" is. I think gays would be wise, strategically, to remind people about children as little as possible.
I love this ad. I think it captures a little bit of the reality of what homosexual marriage would wreak. It brings to mind the controversy in England where gays insisted that a historic portrait of a man and woman standing at an altar be taken down from the place it had been hanging in a chapel for generations, because the depiction of a bride and groom suggested that marriage was just for male/female couples and was thus "heteronormative" or some such p.c. buzzword.
That's just the start. Soon it will be considered offensive to refer to your wife as a "wife" or husband as a "husband" because that will have that awful, bigoted tinge of heteronormativity. If you think I'm being ridiculous, consider how feminists insisted on eliminating "sexist" words like "chairman" in favor of "chairperson", etc. No, we'll all have to call our spouses "partners" and erase any other gender-related words from our traditions surrounding marriage if we don't want to be considered offensive anti-gay bigots.
The whole thing is so screamingly politically correct and ridiculous. It's going to end badly for gays I think, because there is going to be a tremendous angry backlash when the full extent of the intrusion on social traditions becomes clear (assuming gay marriage is legalized). There's already a lot of people like me who have had it with multiculturalism, internationalism, and all the other liberal assaults on our traditions, sovereignty, and national identity. Combine that building resentment with a good big economic crash and perhaps some more muslim terrorism and it could be quite ugly. (I am certainly not threatening anything. I am simply predicting what we would see happen.)
On the other hand, maybe gays should have their couple of decades of feeling normal before the muslim demographic wave overtakes us and they have to retreat to the closet in order to survive.
Well, to answer Prof. Althouse's question, this ad is no more unfair than a hundred other political pitches (most of them on the left, I think) that use the welfare of children to advance an agenda. Is it unfair to have a liberal advocacy group call itself "Children's Defense Fund"? No. Politics ain't beanbag.
This ad is unfair in all sorts of ways, but particularly so because the marriage amendment on the ballot in Wisconsin isn't about the definition of the word marriage. The amendment specifically prohibits the legislature from passing a bill that gives gay couples the same rights as married couples, which is an unnecessarily cruel step that will hurt real families.
If the amendment was merely about 'preserving the definition of the word,' then this ad would be less unfair. However, since the amendment goes beyond that, I have to agree with Elizabeth. Its a "hey gay guys, which one of you is the bitch?" sort of ad, and its offends me and a lot of other straight people.
On an unrelated note, I wonder if I should point out to Mark that one cannot "wreak" reality? Nah, he's probably too busy watching Bill O'Reilly and screaming at his tv to care.
Jim said:
"Kids can adapt to all these, male moms and so much more."
There you have it folks. The modified noun version of the next English word targeted for corruption. You read it hear first.
Funny how the left is always targeting family related words too.
"If my dad divorces my mom, who would be my mom?"
"If my mom marries another man, who would be my dad?"
or how about
"If my dad beats my mom, is he still a man?"
Danny -- That's awesome. If a politician put that advertisement on tv I would take out a bunch of new student loans just to write his campaign a larger check.
Edward,
WTF? what does that have to do with changing the meanings of the words marriage, mom, husband, wife, and "gay" for that matter?
Why aren't this vocal, whiny minority unable to think up their own words for new concepts, just like real innovators do?
I have to go take my kids trick or treating now.
The modified noun version of the next English word targeted for corruption. You read it hear first
Oh, please. If you want to whine about corruption, move to France or some other nation that actually cares about enforced linguistic stasis. English has always been a whore of a language, willing to lie down with any new idea or foreign word that comes its way.
The English language managed to endure "creation science", "animal rights", and "organic beef" without the world coming to an end. It can handle "male mom".
The amendment specifically prohibits the legislature from passing a bill that gives gay couples the same rights as married couples
Can we just establish once and for all that this is a lie?
Heterosexual people have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Homosexual people have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex.
By definition, they have the same rights. What the Homosexual community wants to do is create a new right, the right to marry a member of the opposite sex.
The obvious, and fair, compromise is civil unions, open to both heterosexual, and homosexual couples.
Gahrie -- read closer. I said gay couples, not gay individuals.
And the "homosexuals want new rights" argument is so ten years ago that I don't really know how to begin dismissing it.
Robert: "Daddy and Poppa" is very sweet!
Terry:
Which is why Gay marriage will never be enacted except as a dictate from a court.
If it is truly about having the right to visit a spouse in hospital, share retirement income etc as we are told, civil unions will accomplish that, without destroying an institution that has been around at least as long as civilization.
Even in societies that embraced open homosexuality, there was no gay marriage.
This has become more about winning, and enforcing your will on the American people, than it is about securing certain rights, or civil unions would be acceptable.
Terry: On an unrelated note, I wonder if I should point out to Mark that one cannot "wreak" reality? Nah, he's probably too busy watching Bill O'Reilly and screaming at his tv to care.
Just more confirmation that when discussing things with a liberal, one must be very, very careful to get all spelling, grammar, and usage exactly right, because they are looking for any reason to denigrate your intelligence rather than honestly engage with your ideas.
Gahrie -- once again, I would point out that the proposed amendment in Wisconsin would prohibit the legislature from passing a law establishing EITHER gay marriage OR civil unions, so your proposed compromise would be out of the question. If the proposed amendment barred only gay marriage, but allowed for civil unions, then it wouldn't be as bad.
Furthermore, neither the Massachusetts nor the New Jersey Supreme Courts imposed gay marriage upon the state. Rather, they held that the legislature cannot give certain rights to married couples without creating some sort of equivalent for gay couples. The legislature then had the choice to either create a legally recognized union for gay people OR to repeal the laws that granted special rights to married couples. Much to its credit, the Massachusetts legislature chose the former.
RE: New Jersey
The Court refused to specifically recognize marriage for same-sex couples, but said they are entitled to equal rights and benefits of married people, and that it can be called marriage or something else (civil unions).
Assemblyman Richard Merk called the Supreme Court "clueless" and vowed to introduce legislation that would impeach the entire court. The head of Garden State Equality chastised the court, vowed to stop at nothing short of marriage and quite ironically said, "SO HELP US GOD, New Jersey’s LGBTI community and our millions of straight allies will settle for nothing less than 100 percent marriage equality"
I think the ad very deftly targets two sub-issues to the discussion regarding traditional marriage:
1. Traditional thoughts on gender.
2. The "it's not the same" theme.
Both sub-issues seem to be non-negotiable to the opponents of traditional marriage, and agreeing with either of the two points about is asking for an intolerant lecture on tolerance.
Rather than simply arguing for specific rights, it's clear that advocates of gay marriage want a complete redefinement of marriage, gender roles, and parenthood. Note how individuals are treated if they believe traditional marriage to be unique and--gasp--superior to other unions.
When Catholic Charities in Mass. has to get out of the business of adoption and the MTA has to pay damages for denying transgender bathroom of choice (preventing a man from using the women's room), we are way beyond gay marriage. It's obviously a much larger battle.
I love this ad. I think it captures a little bit of the reality of what homosexual marriage would wreak.
Terry, I had the exact same reaction to this sentence. And it's not that it's incorrect, it just strikes me as funny.
Anyway, just about any child is a lot more adaptable than you're giving them credit, mark.
Revenant says: "English has always been a whore of a language, willing to lie down with any new idea or foreign word that comes its way."
Between that and your remarks in the innate morality thread, you're my absolute favorite commenter on Althouse today, Revenant. You make our species stronger!
English has always been a whore of a language.
Another thing liberals do: they have a propensity for using sexual vulgarity in their language and, as in this case, metaphors. It's not enough just to say "English has been flexible and adaptable." No, we've got to get a sexual vularity in there somewhere - so, liken English to a prostitute.
And then this "whore" metaphor prompts "elizabeth" to praise the person who said it. I think vulgarity must strike liberals as being really authentic - you know, not all tied up in knots like those damned right-wing religious zealots.
I should give more examples of this to make my case, but honestly it's just something I've noticed over the years when reading blogs.
Well, the entire anti-gay-marriage argument amounts to "Isn't that weird? Ooh!" so the ad is in keeping with that.
When you ask what the specific consequences will be (and examples from places like Massachusetts) there's a deafening silence.
Yes, every child does deserve a mom and dad in the home. I look forward to this group's next campaign to make divorce illegal. I'm not quite sure what they plan to do about the moms and dads who die prematurely, though. I don't think that hotline to God and their monopoly on interpreting His will is going to do them any good, however.
Hey Cedarford - Many do both and some do neither.
You figure it out.
When you ask what the specific consequences will be
How about the polygamists using the same arguments to promote polygamy? It's already happened in at least two court cases.
How about further undermining the basic structure of western society?
The promotion of libertine lifestyles by the left for the past 50 years has already put the status of the family in jeopardy.
Mark, if you're so offended by vulgarities, how'd you miss Cedarford's ode to gay men's asses stuffed full of semen?
Methinks you ought to take the corncob outta yours. But if you did, who would provide the entertainment?
Edward, you think it's spittle on Cedarford's keyboard? I'm not so sure. He gets really excited when he writes about the gays.
Corncob... megaphone... six of one, half-dozen of the other.
How much of the gay marriage debate is sprung from the families of gay couples who simply cannot come to grips with their child's gay relationship? Let me explain. I hear all these arguments talking about .. oh, insurance beneficiaries, visitors in hospital when only family may be admitted, and other similar relationships. Well, IANAL, but can't anyone designate anyone as an insurance beneficiary? I think the answer is yes.. so it comes down to relationship things, like hospital visitors. Are a lot of gay couples reacting to old-school moms and dads who won't admit that Sonny is gay and has a lover, and won't let said lover visit Sonny while hospitalized? And they are trying to make the state recognize the relationship so Reactionary Mom and Dad HAVE to? So .. my question is, why don't Sonny and Lover have a contract that lets Lover be admitted to hospital visitation? And if that just sounds too cruel, let me pose it as a heterosexual living-together scenario, where strait-laced Mom and Dad won't let Live-In Guy or Gal come visit heterosexual Daughter or Son in hospital as they have no legal right .. same deal, I think. Or, to put it in a more positive light: If Mom and Dad accept SameSexLover, they will let him/her come visit and cry and laugh with them. Only when there is this contentious family relationship does the legal argument enter (who gets to visit, who gets what family privileges). And, btw, I believe that end of life arguments are also grounded in this relationship miasma ... mom and dad think one thing, and spouse (or live-in ... hasn't happened yet, but it will!) disagrees. The law is just not up to date with the complicated relationships that modern day Homo sapiens choose to get involved in.
I gotta say Elizabeth, you moonbats always manage to remain consistently classless.
This has become more about winning, and enforcing your will on the American people, than it is about securing certain rights, or civil unions would be acceptable.
In fairmess to you, that is probably true.
Gahris, yep, it's lowdown dirty of us to quote people making crass statements. You wingnuts don't disappoint either; you never fail to ignore the beam in your own eye.
gahrie--sorry to mispell your name.
ronin--megaphone. funny!
Elizabeth:
You're wrong. I despise most Republican politicians almost as much as the Democratic ones. I loathe the fact that there is no responsible opposition to the Republican party.
I was once a Gore supporter in the 1980's, back when Gore was pro-life, pro-business and before he became a moonbat.
I don't particularly like either Pres. Bush. I am a Reagan Republican, something neither one of them is. But again, there was simply no credible opponent to vote for.
I long for the day when the Joe Liebermans and Zell Millers are once again welcome in the Democratic party.
"Is it actively unfair?"
Does the above question have any practical value? This is a normative question, and there is no objective way to answer it.
That said, I think the ad makes some pretty gross assumptions about low intellectual capacity of the general public, and the resiliency of children!
Claiming that kids are going to be 'confused' by a change in the definition of marriage is just as idiotic as claiming we need to keep Pluto in the official solar system because the kids will be bummed and confused if we kick it out.
...
...
"...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection."
I think the guy who wrote this had the right idea. If he did, then we ought to start handing out marriage licenses to these people, and equal protection and equal support under the law. Holy matrimony we may leave to Holy Writ.
"...children have no business expressing opinions on anything except 'Do you have enough room in the toes?' "
Florence King
One of my daughter's friend had two mommies. One of her mommies was my divorce attorney, and got me half time custody of my daughter, hence she is one of my favorite people in the whole world! Having two mommies did not confuse my daughter's friend. When she told my daughter, my daughter smiled and said "I have two mommies too" meaning her mother and her step mother!
What confused my daughter's friend is that after her mommies broke up one of her mommies is now dating a man. THAT is confusing.
Trey
gahrie, while you're going on about your impressively complex conservative identity, you completely ignore my point. Don't give me guff about what I've said when you happily ignore the foulness cedarford spews. That's the beam in your eye.
Since you're soooo concerned about identity, it's pretty funny that you labeled Revenant a liberal.
"English has always been a whore of a language"
Another thing liberals do: they have a propensity for using sexual vulgarity in their language and, as in this case, metaphors.
The news that I'm a liberal will come as a surprise to the many commentators here who think I'm a right-wing Republican toady.
It's not enough just to say "English has been flexible and adaptable."
Oh, please. I used a lurid metaphor in response to a lurid accusation -- that a shift in vocabulary was part of a campaign to "corrupt" the English language. There are no good metaphors for "English is a thoroughly corrupt and impure language already" that won't offend your delicate ears. So do us all a favor and get over yourself already.
Nobody seems to have a problem when gay people trot children out to prove what great parents they are. Remember the White House Easter egg hunt? We are also told that children don't need a mother or a father, and that a positive role model does just as well (i.e. teacher, postman, the checkout guy at the local grocery).
Does anyone really believe that if gay marriage became legal that nothing else will change? Look at Massachusetts before you answer that question. Schools now feel justified in reading same-sex fairy tales to grade-schoolers. Who can blame little Mark and Jimmy if, after hearing about two kings in love, they began to view their buddy as a play boyfriend? This is the nightmare scenario that millions of families will face.
We are continuously told that gay marriage will in no way affect religion. One might consider Catholic Charities. Unless they agreed to hand children over to gay couples they faced the revocation of their license to place at risk kids. No one seemed to concerned about protecting religious liberties in that case.
We are facing an untried social experiment that involves the most vulnerable amongst us....our children. Without some definitive prove that gay marriage indeed does not harm society, why are we so hellbent on enacting it?
Post a Comment