17 Comments

1. catholicpup
   Posted October 14, 2011 at 11:35 am | Permalink

   How clever...

2. Claude
   Posted October 14, 2011 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

   DOMA should be overturned. Extending marriage to same sex couples strengthens marriage, not the opposite.

   Look at the various countries and jurisdictions that have recognized marriage equality, and you will see that marriage has not suffered.

   Massachusetts, recognizing marriage equality, has the lowest divorce rate in the US, a strong indicator that marriage is healthy.

3. Louis E.
   Posted October 14, 2011 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

   Claude,marriage serves NO USEFUL PURPOSE except as a means of guaranteeing opposite-sex relationships the preferential treatment to which their being opposite-sex requires they receive.Anywhere that requirement is not enforced marriage has become useless,and will remain so even if every man,woman,child,and dog is "married" for life to at least fifteen others.

4. GFPC
   Posted October 15, 2011 at 8:16 am | Permalink

   Stanley Kurtz wrote some excellent analyeses on how homosexual marriage in Europe hastens the decline of marriage in these countries. It's no coincidence that countries that have homosexual marriage or could more easily fall to it have very high levels of children born out of wedlock. The point of marriage has largely disappeared.

   Children do best when raised by their mother and father in marriage.

   Homosexual marraige says that this is no longer important - is there no wonder at the results? Also, if the happiness in adult relationships are all we are concerned about, then why limit their number?

   http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp?nopager=1

   http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

   http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/126qodro.asp?nopager=1

   If Kurtz is right then the number children born out of wedlock in Holland should have increased since he wrote his articles. Sadly, they have:

   http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tps00018

   Look at Norway. Also look at why it won't be coming to Greece anytime soon.

5. Andrew D
   Posted October 15, 2011 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

   Louis E., you have already agreed in another thread that marriage serves other useful purposes. Either you have an extremely short memory, or you are extremely dishonest.

6. Louis E.
   Posted October 15, 2011 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

   Andrew D,what purposes are you referring to?

7. Andrew D
   Posted October 15, 2011 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

   Louis E., I am referring to what NOM considers the main purpose of marriage: connecting children to their biological parents. I previously asked you about it, and you agreed it was a useful purpose.

8. Louis E.
   Posted October 15, 2011 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

   That's a byproduct of the requirement that partners be of opposite sexes...everything flows from that.

9. Andrew D
   Posted October 15, 2011 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

   Louis E., what flows from what is beside the point. You admit that marriage has at least one useful purpose other than "guaranteeing opposite-sex relationship preferential treatment." And then you continue to claim that it doesn't. That's dishonest.

10. Louis E.
    Posted October 15, 2011 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

    Not dishonest at all.The usefulness of anything else is a consequence of the preference being reserved to opposite-sex relationships.

11. Andrew D
    Posted October 16, 2011 at 1:52 am | Permalink

    Even if that made any sense to someone who's not you, it's completely irrelevant.
    It's very simple: if you know of a purpose that's useful then pretending it doesn't exist is dishonest.

12. Louis E.
    Posted October 16, 2011 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Elevating opposite-sex relationships is THE purpose.All else is justifications for or consequences of that.

13. Little man
    Posted October 16, 2011 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Claude "Massachusetts,... [recognizing same-sex friendships as civil marriage], has the lowest divorce rate in the US, a strong indicator that marriage is healthy." brackets mine. Your data is correct, but your interpretation of your data is incorrect. NOM has discussed this subject at length, and all you have to do is make a search (Didn't think of it, did you?). I am not surprised. Divorce rate is not a cause & effect parameter in MA, because the State is not a closed system, mathematically speaking. If the young people (who statistically divorce at a higher rate) are leaving the State, to go find work in States typically with marriage amendments to their constitution, it shows a lot more is happening, and it is not a recommendation for civil same-sex marriage to any State. You bought into the argument because you are not a critical thinker.

14. P. Edward Murray
    Posted October 16, 2011 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

    The best defense of marriage may be that none of us come from same sex parings period.

15. P. Edward Murray
    Posted October 16, 2011 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

    Claude,

    Why is it that you want to make a rule to change everything for everyone when your opinon only talks for maybe 3% of the population?

    That's like saying because you don't like tomatoes that no one should eat tomatoes either.

16. OhMyWord
    Posted October 17, 2011 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    Little man, I find it ironic (and a little humorous) that you're haranguing someone about their critical thinking skills.

    Are you trying to claim that people leave their state (jobs, friends, etc.) to move to a state simply because it has a marriage amendment? That's very funny.

    As a critical thinker you should realize correlation is not causation. Try again.

17. Louis E.
    Posted October 17, 2011 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    OMW,I know that any wedding I have will not be in my home state as long as my state allows same-sex marriage.