I wanted to be sure you received an invitation to this year's Values Voters Summit in Washington DC this September 18-20th. Please see the flyer for details.
Protecting marriage is one of the key topics at this year's Summit, and I hope you can make it. NOM will be hosting a table all weekend -- please make sure to stop by and say hello!
Faithfully,
Brian Brown
27 Comments
I'm all for protecting marriage, just so it's available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples!
Kevin,
How exactly is destroying marriage's true meaning protecting it?
Why not groups too, Kevin? And why not extend marriage benefits to those who want to marry their siblings? What about those who want to marry their beloved pets?
Don't be such a reactionary. Remember, morality is personal and so no one can judge anyone else. If it makes someone happy to marry his box turtle, who are we to deny them their happiness?
P:
Extending marriage rights and protections to same-sex couples doesn't destroy marriage, it strengthens it. It makes marriage more desirable, since more people can get, and want to get, married.
Adultery and divorce, both perfectly legal and frequently practiced in this country, devalue marriage.
P,
Here's what Kevin is trying to say:
"Adultery and divorce are already weakening marriage, so why worry about weakening it any more? Besides, we know homosexual marriage will work against adultery and divorce, since homosexuals would NEVER commit adultery or get divorced. After all, they're SO faithful to one another in their relationships now. But if in fact it turns out that they're WAY less monogamous than heterosexuals, well, you know, it's all because of homophobia. See, if we can just learn to accept anything that anybody wants to do and call 'right,' then we'll have a better society. But don't ask me how we'll evaluate "better" since we can't be so judgmental as to have an objective calculus for making such evaluations, because you see it's all a personal matter, except there are laws that exist, I don't really know how, but that's not personal because I say so, but please don't make me actually make an argument to back that up because I'm not too good at making arguments."
With a 50% divorce rate it boggles my mind how jeff can be so critical of how long homosexual relationships last.
And besides jeff, if your claims were true then the divorce rate in MA would have sky rocketed since gay marriage became legal in the state..and yet it has done nothing except go down
Look up the data on how many partners homosexuals have lifetime and compare it to heterosexuals. You won't like what you find.
Culturally left states like MA have lower marriage rates and fewer marriages than many other states, so there are fewer married people to even consider getting divorced in the first place. But Perry can't be bothered to look at complexities like that. The homosexual radical lobby gave him his marching orders and he just repeats what they tell him.
If you want a good look at Massachusetts homosexual marriage experiment 5 years later, see http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/20/massachusetts_gay_marriage_five_years_later_96579.html
A plurality of residents of MA oppose homosexual marriage today, and large percentages note that they are afraid of having it publicly known that they oppose it. "Freedom" indeed. Sounds like a state run by the thought police to me.
Ummm ever thought that homosexuals have more partners because marriage isn't available to them? Or can your tiny pea sized brain not follow that logic..,
let's see...statistics show heterosexuals are more likely to stay together when married...the divorce rate in MA has not skyrocketed, so one could logically conect the dots and reason that homosexuals would be more likely to stay together when married as well.
Therefore gay marriage would curb the promiscuity rate
Perry,
So the answer to divorce is SSM? Really? If that is the case, then why couldn't we have come to this conclusion sooner? Also, SSM couples do in fact get "divorced" as reports are coming in of this occuring. So in reality, SSM isn't a cure-all for the ills that plague OSM, as some would suggest. If anything, SSM is an indication of the world turned upside-down and spinning out of control like a top losing its centrifugal force and becoming wobblier as it spins ultimately toppling over being unable to support its weight on its own.
Perry, if homosexuals are promiscuous simply because they can't marry, why have so few of them in MA married? After all, they're just waiting on THAT to change their culture of 'sex through a hole in the bathroom stall with the unknown stranger next door, repeated 25 times a weekend,' right?
I haven't seen state-by-state figures on homosexual partner numbers (and I doubt they even exist, as all researchers are scared to death to study anything that might reveal unflattering things about homosexuals), but I would almost bet my house that they are highest in culturally left states like MA.
You're wrong, as usual.
Invite the homosexual radicals to do their own survey in MA. They won't do it because, unlike rational people, they're not interested in actually discovering what people independently think. They only want to make sure everyone thinks like them.
Perry is so deep in the homosexual radical soup that he thinks anyone who opposes his crack-brained and destructive ideas is 'biased.'
Gallagher has co-written books on marriage with scholars at the best universities in the country. Perry has the typical ideologue's disease: never reads anything that doesn't support his own position, and only reads the dimmest things among that subset, and assumes everything else (which, again, he hasn't read) is written by evil monsters. Poor, sad man.
As I already said, just another homosexual troll furious at the very idea that there are people anywhere who refuse to accept his holding his breath in unison with all his homosexual brethren and screaming "UP IS DOWN!"
Kevin, meanwhile, is so lost he cannot see how predicated Gallagher's article is on the complementarity of the sexes. The points she makes depend on the definition of marriage as uniting the two halves of humankind, male and female.
As I've already noted, there is simply not a shred of evidence to demonstrate that marriage would make homosexuals less promiscuous. Much of Gallagher's argument relies on the fact that the complementary sexual and emotional drives of men and women produce much of the benefit of marriage. There is of course no such complementarity for homosexuals. They will not benefit from marriage, but on the contrary will weaken it further than no-fault divorce already has by infecting it with their culture of promiscuity and irresponsibility.
Perry,
Small hole? SSM is the result of the breakdown of the family unit as put forth by God (gasp) in creation. No doubt, adultery and divorce have added to that breakdown (among others); I am not say they have not. What I am cleary saying is that SSM is the embodiment of that breakdown in totality and its entirety.
To your question as to what I am doing to fight against adultery and divorce. Primarily, by honoring the commitment I made to both God and my wife. By submitting myself to God's rule in my life. By leading by example. By raising our daughter in the "fear and admonition of the Lord." By standing for Truth and Righteousness.
I am a New York resident, and it is my dream to get married in this great state. It really is a shame people want to mess up the concept of marriage here... I find it very disturbing that so many people want to take marriage out of my future. Many of the people who support retaining traditional marriage as it is are married themselves. I think it's rather selfish they want to keep this joy to themselves and not be willing to let others embark on the wonderful, beautiful journey of marriage as they have.
I completely understand the fears that allowing same-sex marriage would force homosexuality to be come more socially acceptable, that allowing it would make any individual rejection of its validity more difficult... I do not believe your religious opinions are invalid -- not at all! I believe you have every right to believe what you do... I just think it is tremendously unfair that your opinion on the matter may prevent me, personally, from getting married in my lifetime. You can reject my relationship's validity as much as you want... But to deny me the ceremony and the cake and the guests and the bouquet being thrown and the rings and the photo albums and the smiling friends and family and the vows... that's too much to steal from me, when I want nothing whatsoever from you
Cy,
Actually, OSM couples aren't denying you anything as you suggest. Take some responsbility for your own actions and realize that maybe, just maybe they have something to do with why you can't "marry."
"Why not groups too, Kevin? And why not extend marriage benefits to those who want to marry their siblings? What about those who want to marry their beloved pets?"
Slippery slope arguments do not work. Nobody is arguing in favour of those things, nobody is trying to pass laws to allow those things. If people who want to marry their siblings come forward and say "well gay people can marry," this won't change any opinions or laws unless they can make a good case on their own.
Those same arguments also exists simply because MARRIAGE exists, heterosexual marriage.
If a man and a woman can get married, then why can't a man marry his sister? If a man and a woman can get married, then why can't a man marry more than one woman?
You see? Gay marriage brings no new slippery slopes to the table. None.
"Much of Gallagher’s argument relies on the fact that the complementary sexual and emotional drives of men and women produce much of the benefit of marriage."
You clearly aren't aware that there is far more diversity within the sexes than between the sexes. A man and a woman with the same (not complementary) emotional and/or sexual drives could get married. Of course it could happen! So they shouldn't get married because they won't get the benefits of marriage produced by complementary emotional and sexual drives?
For the record, my girlfriend and I have very complementary emotional and sexual drives. Just because we're girls doesn't mean we have the same drives. In fact, the person who I think is the most similar to myself, emotionally, is a man.
We don't deserve a shot because some surveys show homosexuals to be more promiscuous? What if there is a certain age group of heterosexuals that is more likely to divorce or cheat? What if (not saying it's true) those under 30 have a much higher rate of these things? Don't let them marry? Make them wait till their 30? Don't give them a shot?
So, heterosexual couple gets divorced, but they were allowed to have a shot because they are straight.
Homosexual couple stays together their whole life, but was never allowed to marry because of some people who have the same orientation as them?
and please do direct me to some studies showing high homosexual promiscuity rates. The only one I've seen had samples taken from men at bars/clubs/sex clubs. If you surveyed heterosexuals from the same sample groups, who'd get high promiscuity rates too!
The proponents of the SSM campaign and its argumentation insist that marriage must mean less and less. It devalues what makes marriage, marriage.
As Kevin conceded with his oft-repeated example of adultery and divorce, when marriage means less, it harms society.
Meanwhile Perry jumps in to namecall because no SSM argument is really a bonafide argument until its first axiom is invoked: that to disagree is a mark of a pez-sized brain. Yet his own logic is deeply undermined by his utter reliance on sentiment over reason. He has no clue of statistical analysis and yet repeats, ad nauseaum, the weak pro-SSM talking points of the anti-marriage crowd.
Neither of these two commenters favor protecting marriage. Their anti-marriage remarks keep reminding us that SSMers have nothing but contempt for the social institution and for those who stand-up to reaffirm and to strengthen marriage in our society.
Lily, so you are comparing homossexual relationships with incestuous relationships?...oh god...in america you guys are so 2000' late...whatever...i have a question for you...my grandfather will be merry next week...he have 77 years old...if he and his future wife cannot procreate...so tell me, what is the diference between 1 older man and 1 older woman and 2 older men or 2 older women?...because homossexuality is confused to childrens?...well i guess not...so many parents in your country are teaching their kids that be gay is wrong...and you know what...if it's wrong to them watch gay programs on tv...what about violent programs?...do you think it's fair to gays loving each other so much and cannot celebrate their love?..what the harm? we actually do not have much love in this world...people are bad to each other and kill each other...when love exists, don't you think that it should be expressed? i hope one day to live in a world where gays and lesbians can finally marry each other...i think it's really ironic that you guys defend so much the bible but in the end you guys are forgetting a really important thing: don't judge!
have a good day
one more question...how to teach homossexuality to a children?...it's like french? lol
have a nice day
Leona,
Based on your last question, are you saying that homosexuality can be taught or learned? If that is the case, that flies in the face of all the homosexuals that say they were "born this way." So which is it then? Is homosexuality learned (nurture) or innate (nature)?
Also, your comment about the Bible and not judging is interesting. No doubt Jesus did say not to judge others lest you be judged; if the fact that someone disagrees with your lifestyle, how is that a judgement upon you? What, can no one have a dissenting belief on SSM (homosexuality) without being castigated?
Leona,
Based on your last question/statement, are you saying that homosexuality is a learned behavior akin to learning a second language? If so, doesn't that go against the multitude of gays/lesbians that say they were "born this way?" So, which is it then, learned (nurture) or innate (nature)?
Nicholas
i was just being ironic dear nicholas...many parents say that teachers cannot "teach homossexuality" for their children...and i ask it...how can a teacher teach homossexuality to a children? it's like french or maths? really i don't understand it....me and my brother we are all straight and we grew up surrounded by gay people... and they are just amazin' persons...they have amazing stories to tell...really...who are you to judge?...God said to love your neighbor not to hate....and i do that everyday...so, try to meet someone...some family's, i guarantee that you will not regret...God don't hate those who love...and children's need someone who loves them.
Leona, is there a love requirement that determines eligibility in the marriage law?
Nope.
Oh well.
As for your remark to "not judge", you seem to be doing more than your fair share of that in your own comments.
Oh well.
You pose as if your asserted knowledge of gay persons is a trump card. It is not. Nor would it be for anyone else who met gay persons.
Your comments illustrate that for you this is about gay identity politics first and foremost. The rhetoric belies an ignorance and a lack of concern for the social institution of marriage itself.
And, Leona, disagreement is not hatred. Follow your own advice and try not to despise those with whom you disagree. Your rush to name call serves only to signify the hypocrisy and the flimsiliness of your stated opinion on these matters.
Leona,
Thank you for responding. Again, though, how is it that I am judging? Simply because I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle? What, can anyone not speak against (fill in the blank) without being labeled as intolerant, hater, or bigot? Is this what we have come to in the world today where anything goes and there are no consequences? Lord have mercy on us all if that is the case.
chairm, i never went poorly educated with anyone on this site...and...lol, ok, maybe you're right....
but if some disagreement's are not hatred, well, hitler also had the right to have their opinions?...and for example, if i want to teach my childrens (in the future of corse) to don't be a friend of a black person, i have the right to think that way?...i am just saying that we cannot judge people we don't know...i'm not hear to judge anybody i'm just hear to share my experience with gays...and explain me, why marriage is not just about love?...it's not important? marriage is just about procreate with each other? so explain me...why my 77 years old grandfather can marry and my friend Justin with 23 years cannot?...because 1 is straight and the other is gay...i live in a country where the majority of people support gay marriage...almost 70%...in america more than 50% oppose it i know...but 80% of young people support it, so i know that one day, gays and lesbians will have the same rights that you and me have and we will be looking to the past very ashamed, because nobody have the right to deny rights to people and to tell them what they should do or not with their lifes.
have a nice day
Leona,
You feel that your view is based on love and that the motivation of those with whom you disagree is hatred.
Your view can be summed up thusly: if not for hatred, all would be eligible to marry.
Right?
* * *
I think you ought to take care when you pose as an accuser -- those who disagree with you are presumed guilty of hatred until proven innocent -- while you also pose as a protector -- those who are ineligible to marry are hated.
No one is ineligible to marry because they are "gay". There is no such criterion in the marriage law. And "straight" is no trump card, as you must be aware if you are knowledgeable of the subject of marriage.
Instead of invoking opinion polls, how about focussing on the justification for your own assertions and opinions?