Saturday, April 21, 2018

Katy Faust appealing to China - New appeal, same old BS (Updated)

Katy Faust
Katy Faust produces another anti-gay tirade
Updated (end of post). According to Katy Faust of Ask the Bigot fame, Hey China, I’m an American Traditional Marriage Supporter. No you are not. You are a marriage equality opponent trying to re-frame a negative into a positive. It's all rather pedestrian and intellectually dishonest. The narrative continues:
My name is Katy Faust. I live in Seattle. I have gay friends and family who I love. And I support traditional marriage. I know that you have probably heard that people who oppose gay marriage are narrow-minded, or bigoted, or are even afraid of gay people. Maybe you think that everyone in the West supports gay marriage, and that those who don’t just can’t handle progress. But that’s all wrong. Let me tell you why.
If this deranged woman actually has gay friends then she would want them to enjoy the benefits of marriage equality. Moreover, the attempt to inoculate herself from criticism fails. In point of fact, Faust is bigoted and she is narrow-minded. Now she seeks to export her discontent.

Furthermore, what's “all wrong” is the woman's fact base. About two-thirds of United States citizens approve of marriage equality. None of the dire consequences that these people promised have ever come to pass and never will. Most of those who oppose marriage equality are not, as she says, unable to handle progress. Most of the opponents have a religious objection which they have tried to mask as something else.

I am not going to repeat too much of the same losing arguments ad nauseum but here are some:
As you join much of the world in debating gay marriage, I want to first challenge you to ask the question, “What is government’s interest in marriage?” If your answer is that the government should validate the emotional union of adults, then there should be no problem with gay marriage. Or polygamist marriage. Or incestuous marriage. Because if our basis for marriage is just “love is love” then no one (certainly not the government) should put any limits on the definition of marriage at all.
Begging the question is intellectually dishonest and same-sex marriage has nothing to do with incest or polygamy. Slippery slope arguments are also logical fallacies. Either no one has really forced Faust to come to terms with her own BS or she thinks that she can get away with this nonsense with a new audience. If she really has gay friends then they need to sit her down and do some deprogramming.
But the reality is that government’s interest in marriage is not about 堕入爱河, being “in love.” Government’s interest in marriage is children. Why? Because heterosexual sex makes babies. And when it comes to family, those babies have rights, needs, and longings. Those rights, needs, and longings can be found in only one adult relationship- that of their married mother and father.
Sure. Let's trot out “responsible procreation” because that worked so well here and in Australia. I know nothing about Chinese law. Here, the government's interest in marriage is primarily the division of assets and responsibilities if the marriage should fail. That is what is written into Florida family law and many other states as well.

The government's interest in marriage strangely became baby-making when religious people started to object to same-sex marriage. With or without marriage equality, the same heterosexual couples will unite in the same marriages, crank out the same children and sue for the same divorces. This is why Faust's non sequitur argument fails.

Faust's verbose pomposity devolves into a long diatribe about the rights of children without considering that gay couples are raising kids with or without marriage equality. Those children are entitled to the benefits of having married parents. The rights of children being raised by heterosexual couples are not affected, in any way, by marriage equality.

Later on:
So this debate is not really about our gay friends, who should receive all of our love and friendship. This debate is not about bigotry, because it’s not hateful for the government to encourage and promote the one adult relationship which protects a child’s rights, needs, and longings. And if this debate is really about an LGBT “right to marry,” then why does it result in children losing their “right to their mother and father”?
This debate is about bullshit and just how much bullshit Ms. Faust can peddle with a straight face. The basis for the bullshit is that the government's marriage laws “promote” something. They have been spouting the same bullshit since Maggie Gallagher became co-founder of National Organization for Marriage. It is also based on the bullshit that gay couples are less suitable parents than heterosexual couples. They even purchased research which tried, and failed, to establish that.

Have I gotten the point across that this is bullshit? No single word better describes what Faust is up to.

Children raised by caring gay couples are going to be far better off than children raised by less caring heterosexual couples. According to the research gay couples are caring, attentive and deeply involved in the lives of their children.

I often think about Jeremy Hooper who wrote, and occasionally still writes, the Good As You blog. When he became a parent he gave up just about everything else. He is deeply devoted to his kid who will, undoubtedly, be a huge success in life because she has two men guiding her along in the most beneficial way. She seems to be at the center of her parents' lives. Good for them and good for her.

As for Ms. Faust, she is too wrapped up in her own needs to appreciate her own toxicity. If, as she says, she really does have gay friends, she does not deserve them and they deserve better. They need a good talking-to.

Update, April 21, 2018:

I am going to quote a reader with far more expertise than I have:
The translation appears on what I assume is an Australian-Chinese woman's Weibo* page. The name of the Weibo page in Chinese is “Aussie Mommy Parent.” It says at the bottom of the Chinese page that it is a translation. It is bizarre how she seems to be working with an Australian-Chinese woman for this.

The Chinese version is done in Simplified Chinese, which is what they use in China and Singapore. Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau use Traditional Chinese characters.
* “Weibo” is the Chinese word for “microblog.” Sina Weibo is a twitter-like service, and is thought to be the largest among all microblog services in China.

Related content:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.