It was just recently reported that Ohio anti-gay activist Phil Burress made a very odd statement on a radio talk show, where he said the following with regard to plaintiffs attempting to challenge a state law which prohibits same-sex couples from adding both names to their child's birth certificate:
"This defies common sense. It's like I'm going to take my cat and try to get a dog license for it, and when they tell me, 'Not, that's a cat,' I'm going to say, 'No it isn't, it's a dog,' and see what they say."
I, for the life of me, can't figure out what in the world this guy is talking about. So, are women the cats in the scenario and men are the dogs? Is he saying that gay men are trying to claim they're women (and vice versa)? Is he simply saying that since gay couples can't reproduce, it's beyond logic to include both of their names on the child's birth certificate? If that's the case, then what about heterosexual couples that can't reproduce and have to adopt? Often times, parents whom adopt a child will go through the process of altering his or her birth certificate so their names are on it. While they aren't the biological parents of the child, they are the ones raising the child. The same can be said of gay or lesbian parents whom adopt a child. They may not be the child's biological parents, but they are the ones raising him or her, and should have just as much right to claim they're the child's parents as heterosexual couples whom adopt.
What was that about defying common sense, dogs, and cats again, Mr. Burress? That's what I thought...
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/burress-many-homosexual-men-have-many-two-hundred-sex-partners
"This defies common sense. It's like I'm going to take my cat and try to get a dog license for it, and when they tell me, 'Not, that's a cat,' I'm going to say, 'No it isn't, it's a dog,' and see what they say."
I, for the life of me, can't figure out what in the world this guy is talking about. So, are women the cats in the scenario and men are the dogs? Is he saying that gay men are trying to claim they're women (and vice versa)? Is he simply saying that since gay couples can't reproduce, it's beyond logic to include both of their names on the child's birth certificate? If that's the case, then what about heterosexual couples that can't reproduce and have to adopt? Often times, parents whom adopt a child will go through the process of altering his or her birth certificate so their names are on it. While they aren't the biological parents of the child, they are the ones raising the child. The same can be said of gay or lesbian parents whom adopt a child. They may not be the child's biological parents, but they are the ones raising him or her, and should have just as much right to claim they're the child's parents as heterosexual couples whom adopt.
What was that about defying common sense, dogs, and cats again, Mr. Burress? That's what I thought...
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/burress-many-homosexual-men-have-many-two-hundred-sex-partners
Comments
Post a Comment