Comments on: Belated note on the Newsweek cover story http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/01/07/belated-note-on-the-newsweek-cover-story/ A website for LGBT folks who support marriage as the union of husband and wife—and getting the gay leadership to return to more pressing LGBT issues for our community. Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:49:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: fannie http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/01/07/belated-note-on-the-newsweek-cover-story/#comment-1964 fannie Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:07:18 +0000 http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/?p=114#comment-1964 LOL. I laugh at the fact that Chairm has to be disagreeable over even the smallest of issues, including ones that we actually agree on. He claims that the title was "not misnamed" but then he proposes a "more apt title." :-) LOL. I laugh at the fact that Chairm has to be disagreeable over even the smallest of issues, including ones that we actually agree on. He claims that the title was “not misnamed” but then he proposes a “more apt title.”

:-)

]]> By: Chairm http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/01/07/belated-note-on-the-newsweek-cover-story/#comment-1908 Chairm Sat, 10 Jan 2009 05:31:17 +0000 http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/?p=114#comment-1908 Actually, the Newsweek cover story and its editorial introduction were aimed at the so-called "religious right", "literalists", and so forth. It was so aimed because, according to those writers, that is whence came the most influential voices in favor of the marriage amendment in California. Of course, the authors had to misrepresent the actual teachings on marriage and instead of discussing marriage qua marriage the authors tried to change the subject to homosexuality. The article was not misnamed, given its propagandic purpose. A more apt title would have been Reading Scripture Through the Lens of Gay Identity Politics. The authors attempted to use Scripture, not to accurately represent Scripture, and certainly not to accurately represent the case for marriage as both-sexed as per Scripture. The profound flaws in the Newsweek propaganda are evident both in the Christian and the Jewish contexts. Since the authors failed to address the teachings on marriage of other major religions, they revelead their purpose was political and not religious. They misnamed their article based on their perception of the successful campaign for the marriage amendment and based on the sore loser reaction of the No side in the aftermath of their defeat. Actually, the Newsweek cover story and its editorial introduction were aimed at the so-called “religious right”, “literalists”, and so forth. It was so aimed because, according to those writers, that is whence came the most influential voices in favor of the marriage amendment in California. Of course, the authors had to misrepresent the actual teachings on marriage and instead of discussing marriage qua marriage the authors tried to change the subject to homosexuality.

The article was not misnamed, given its propagandic purpose. A more apt title would have been Reading Scripture Through the Lens of Gay Identity Politics.

The authors attempted to use Scripture, not to accurately represent Scripture, and certainly not to accurately represent the case for marriage as both-sexed as per Scripture. The profound flaws in the Newsweek propaganda are evident both in the Christian and the Jewish contexts.

Since the authors failed to address the teachings on marriage of other major religions, they revelead their purpose was political and not religious. They misnamed their article based on their perception of the successful campaign for the marriage amendment and based on the sore loser reaction of the No side in the aftermath of their defeat.

]]> By: fannie http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/01/07/belated-note-on-the-newsweek-cover-story/#comment-1842 fannie Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:28:45 +0000 http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/?p=114#comment-1842 Yep, the article was definitely mis-named. It's too bad that it's so often taken for granted in our nation that "religious" automatically means "Christian." Yep, the article was definitely mis-named. It’s too bad that it’s so often taken for granted in our nation that “religious” automatically means “Christian.”

]]>