To Whom Do You Think You’re Speaking?

I want to say something about Terry Frank’s hateful mess of a post, but I’m not sure where to start.

Coble hits on most of the points I want to make.

So, I’ll just say, “Shame on you, Terry Frank.  How heartless and cruel do you have to be to use people’s suffering as a measure of their unworthiness to be called a family?” 

7 thoughts on “To Whom Do You Think You’re Speaking?

  1. Sometimes I wish I could just bury my head in the sand and not even know or have to think about shit like that Frank woman’s post, because it makes me depressed and afraid to think about how many people out there hold that same opinion, and who continue to affirm that point of view in God’s name.

  2. why is it hateful when someone posts something you disagree with? I saw her post and she said marriage didn’t require children. You are going overboard.

  3. Let’s examine the direct quote, to demonstrate what she said:"I don’t believe that marriages must produce a child to be a marriage–but its ability to is its very essence."So, her position is that marriage requires the possibility of procreation. That’s why she believes that gay marriage is invalid and should be outlawed by the state. What Terry forgets (and refuses to acknowledge) is that some heterosexual couples cannot conceive children — as God has willed, if you believe in that sort of thing. They do not have the ability to have kids natally — which is where Terry has located the social and religious purpose of marriage. This would therefore mean that Terry feels that marriages between heterosexual infertile Christians are not real marriages because they don’t have the ability have children natally (you know, like those gays and lesbians that she goes on about). Leaving aside her collapse of "Christian" with "secular" definitions of marriage (which is problematic in a nation that claims to separate church and state), her idea that marriages are founded only on procreative sex is bizarre. What happens when couples hit their golden years? Do they suddenly stop being "really married" because the men can’t get it up and the women go through menopause? Her reasoning is bad. When that was pointed out, she got snippy with people who argued that "the ability to procreate" couldn’t be used as either a legal or religious definition to restrict marriage to heterosexuals (which was the point of the post). The combination of a stupid argument and nasty treatment of dissenters — yep, I’d say that was hateful.

  4. I’m a woman and I have a medical condition that means I probably can’t have children. If the ability to procreate is the essence of marriage, does that mean that I shouldn’t have the right to marry a man, for the same reasons that homosexuals shouldn’t? Because I can’t fulfill the biological imperative of having children? You have to be a fertile heterosexual in order to have the right to marry? Vote YES on Amendment #413, that all people have to prove their fertility in order to have the constitutional right to marry! Perserve our heritage!! All of this would make me feel kind of shitty, if I didn’t think this woman was talking out of her ass.

  5. Anon, I’ll tell you what the problem with Terry Frank is, continually. She uses a shot gun in situations when a surgeon’s scalpel is called for and then acts like it’s not her fault that bystanders are hit by buckshot.Coble’s merely pointing out that she is hit when Frank tries to target gays, and hit in a painful way.

Comments are closed.