CONSERVATIVE IGNORANCE THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING: A RESPONSE TO MARK NOONAN


blochadvocate_4

And they wonder why they can’t win the White House?

Mark Noonan at Blogs4Victory has three points of why marriage equality is wrong:

1) “Is in direct violation of the commands of God as understood by the overwhelming bulk of people who follow Christian theology – that is, of course, less well understood by our weaker brothers and sisters who have not made an actual commitment to following Christ. This bears no direct relationship on what political settlement will be made save in the fact that those of us who are committed to Christ cannot do certain things vis a vis gay marriage without committing mortal sin – and our concern is that attempts will be made post-legalization to force us to do just that, and this in clear violation of the political laws of the United States, namely our First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, which does include our right to exclude people from our religious exercises – which by command of God go far beyond religious services on Sunday (we simply must engage in charity, etc.).”

The last time I checked, which was 10 minutes or so ago the United States of America wasn’t a theocracy. What people believe is moral and ethical is their right. What laws are made by man for the benefit of those least powerful in the face of government are called civil rights. Had the Johnson administration been made up of Mark Noonanites there would have never been a Fair Housing Act, A Voting Rights act or a Civil Rights Act. Noonan appears to infer that anything that insults his religion is a violation of his constitutional rights. Not true at all as the Constitution nowhere enumerates your right to not be offended.


2) “It is in direct violation of common sense about what marriage is for – the gateway to the creation of a family which may of nature produce children. That gay people may come in to a relationship with children or adopt them or go through such modern horrors as “surrogate motherhood” to obtain children does no change the fact that of nature no gay relationship can produce children.”

While I’ll admit that some laws are common sense, that whole right on red after stop is brilliant, I don’t see where there is any requirement for common sense to be applied in this marriage equality debate. Noonan should have known better than to go down the road that ends in, “the purpose of marriage is to have and raise children.” This isn’t the case for him in his own marriage because he has admitted many times that he has no children. The CDC estimated in 2012 that there were 6.7 million women between the ages of 15 and 44 who were infertile. If one can overlook Noonan’s own personal hypocrisy, what would he do with these people were they to find a man who wished to marry them? is their marriage invalid on common sense grounds? Noonan mentions surrogate motherhood and calls it a “modern horror.” How is that any more of a modern horror than saying a young woman who chooses to have her child and offer it for adoption rather than having an abortion? That’s because neither of them are horrors and it is the modern part that upsets Mark Noonan the most. For the record same sex couples are having children and I saw just this morning that NBC’s Setphanie Gosk and Jenna Wolfe are expecting their first child [congrats!]. How is it that their loving relationship can never be marriage because Mr Noonan wants to live in the pre-digital dark age of the 1600s?


3) “It proposes to equate homosexual acts with heterosexual acts – to pretend that they are morally the same thing, having the same purpose and results when clearly they are not the same thing and cannot have the same results. In this, we get the grave risk of trying to enforce – in law and custom – a falsehood (that gay and straight are the same), and whenever it is attempted to enforce a falsehood the entirety of society suffers (see those nations where falsehoods were enshrined in law and custom all through the 20th century).”

I generally am not sarcastic but when I saw this I thought, A straight man and a lesbian are in a gas station waiting in line to pay for gas. They both pay in cash and are both getting 93 octane fuel for their cars. These are acts by a heterosexual and a homosexual and they are the same. Need gas, go to a gas station doesn’t matter your orientation. Noonan makes it seem as if sex is the all encompassing thing on the minds of the American people. Now I realize from research that Mark Noonan suffered, and I use that word for a reason, with a long battle with addiction to pornography, but simply because he has won a battle by turning his addiction over to G-d, doesn’t mean he has to beat everyone else over the head in America with his own triumph. Marriage is a commitment and it is based on love. Sex is an expression, a purely physical one, of that love and commitment but it isn’t the be all and end all of a marriage.

[Read Jenna Wolfe’s pregnancy blog, here.–F.S.]

Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!

Sarah Bloch, D.S.V.J., J.F., O.Q.H [Jur.]
Amici Bax Demvolu Comnu
Politics & Culture Wars Managing Editor
The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork
208 Low Lux Negro 2 AS

2 Responses to “CONSERVATIVE IGNORANCE THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING: A RESPONSE TO MARK NOONAN”

  1. mitchethekid Says:

    OT, but I sent an email to your consigleri (sp) and no response yet. Maybe you can give him a nuge to get back to me. Thanks!

    • sarahbloch Says:

      Ciu cava is a busy dude. I’ll catch him in the cafeteria in a few minutes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: