HRC’s Joe Solmonese is devoting a lot of his organization’s resources to “exposing” us here at NOM. Guess what they found out and put up their website? We are Catholics, Mormons, and evangelicals who believe gay marriage will hurt marriage as an institution. It may lead to polygamy. Our budget has grown rapidly—from $500,000 to $10 million in just three years, thanks to your help and support. Human Rights Campaign has a lot of money to throw around—$40 million last year, and one observer estimated, since its inceptions HRC has spent a quarter of a billion dollars.
We're feisty and growing fast. HRC, the gargantuan money machine, is running scared! Brian Brown talks back in this Newsweek story: Read Brian's response here.
93 Comments
Just sent off another check to NOM. Thank You NOM for exposing the homosexual agenda, and their war against religious freedom and their relentless efforts to attack and undermine the American family.
Two more teen suicides this week six this year since school started your agenda is far more devestating then the gay agenda. Your agenda sends young boys and girls into depression and in some cases suicide. Every dollar sent to you is a dollar on a teen life. So rack up those millions and know this, these kids have a price tag on their lives it is sitting in your bank. YOU people discust me. Get over your hatered teach tolorence and do something to make schools safer. We will fight back.
FIGHT BACK!!! FIGHT BACK!!! FIGHT BACK!!!
WE WILL WIN, HATE HAS NEVER BEEN THE RIGHT SIDE!!!
The legalization of same-sex marriage (SSM) will lead to far worse than polygamy. Few seem to realize how tenuous our hold on survival is or recognize the fragility of our, or any, human society. And even fewer can see the deep rifts that have been developing over the war between the sexes during the last few decades. Though it is so critical that we begin the healing process and develop a nuanced understanding of the equality between the sexes and the dependence of members of each sex on members of the other, as has evolved with the evolution of the human species over millions of years, instead we are confronted with a crisis resulting from a catastrophic turn away from healing and toward further division and increasing hostility.
SSM approval helps to feed the runaway positive feedback loops of increasing sex-based separatism, mistrust, hostility, and violence. It leads away from efforts toward resolving sex-based conflicts and increasing sexual harmony, trust, and understanding, and instead provides an outlet for those who wish to find easy and short-term answers that in the long term will likely have catastrophic consequences. Along with the higher levels of sex-based separatism, mistrust, hostility, and violence, children will be more confused about their sexual and social roles and society will be increasingly chaotic and unpredictable. Human extinction will become more and more likely and may even be unavoidable.
Now is the time to choose a different path before it becomes too late. The acceptance of SSM into the foundations and institutions of society may make it impossible to eradicate in the future.
"YOU people discust me."
Blaming the school system for someone deciding to commit suicide is wrong. Unfortunately suicides occur in all walks of life. Hate is wrong no matter what side of the issue you're on.
"Two more teen suicides this week six this year since school started your agenda is far more devestating then the gay agenda. Your agenda sends young boys and girls into depression and in some cases suicide."
Any person's suicide is a tragedy, but what evidence do you have on which to base these ridiculous accusations other than your own emotions? NOM has stated, time and time again, that they do not encourage or support violence or hatred against the gay community. They have never said or done anything that could rationally be perceived as homophobic; their position is on the issue of marriage and nothing else. In fact, the reality is quite the contrary; they encourage all their supporters to act with love and tolerance, and not judge others based on sexual orientation, but to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Why do so many people see that as homophobic?
"YOU people discust me. Get over your hatered teach tolorence and do something to make schools safer. We will fight back.
FIGHT BACK!!! FIGHT BACK!!! FIGHT BACK!!!
WE WILL WIN, HATE HAS NEVER BEEN THE RIGHT SIDE!!!"
If you honestly believe that, then follow your own advice and get over your own hatred and intolerance. You can't expect anyone to take your side on this issue when gay marriage supporters resort to theft, harassment, assault, vandalism, and threats of physical harm. You are in no position to educate people about tolerance while sending people death threats at the same time, simply because you disagree with their agenda.
PS: Learn to spell.
Chris:
It is so sad that you have to take the tragic suicide of a troubled teen and employ it is a political prop. No one's death should be exploited for such purposes.
What's next? A murder/suicide resulting from a love triangle means we shouldn't criticize adultery?
What do you really want gay people to do? Disappear? You don't want gay people to be civilly married. What else do you think a gay person should be prohibited from doing? I'm a medical doctor. What if some religious people decide that I should be lose my medical license because I'm gay? What about my driver's license? And, what would be the rational basis for this? That's a scarier slippery slope than the scenarios that marriage opponents propose. I don't want your religion rubbed in my face in the same way that you don't want homosexuality rubbed in your faces. But, I see religion as the collective aggressor here, essentially saying that assuring that gay people are protected from bigotry violates your right to discriminate and substantively harm us. You don't seem to really want to live and let live. I'm not going to lie down and let you do that without a fight.
Patrick, just take a breath for a second. You are free to do as you please, as is everyone else. You just can't call something marriage that isn't. That's just common sense, and it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. The same rule applies for single mothers and divorced couples. You can't just call yourself married and expect everyone to go along with it.
We are in a democratic republic, a right to vote, a right to protect religious freedom, the sanctity of marriage, and guard against satan and the agenda of his minions.
"What else do you think a gay person should be prohibited from doing? I'm a medical doctor. What if some religious people decide that I should be lose my medical license because I'm gay? What about my driver's license?"
And they call us pro family people paranoid! LOL!
"What do you really want gay people to do? Disappear?" Are you seriously going to make that sort of outrageous claim with nothing to back it up? Show me one piece of evidence that suggests members of NOM feel that way about the gay community, and maybe I'll see things your way.
"You don't want gay people to be civilly married. What else do you think a gay person should be prohibited from doing?" Absolutely nothing. Marriage is between a man and a woman, but beyond that, there is nothing a heterosexual couple can do that a gay or lesbian couple (or single people for that matter) cannot.
"What if some religious people decide that I should be lose my medical license because I'm gay? What about my driver's license? And, what would be the rational basis for this?" There wouldn't be one. See, unlike the gay marriage debate, that would be a form of discrimination, which is illegal. Stop making false comparisons between the two; it's completely and utterly pointless. On a side note, I find it rather intriguing that someone who can't see the difference between the two would be elligible to receive a medical degree in the first place.
"I don't want your religion rubbed in my face in the same way that you don't want homosexuality rubbed in your faces." I don't recall there ever being a "Religious Pride" week-long festival being held annually all over the world. If you don't like religion, then don't go to church. Hmm, where have I heard that argument being used before?
"But, I see religion as the collective aggressor here, essentially saying that assuring that gay people are protected from bigotry violates your right to discriminate and substantively harm us." Whoah! Easy there! Seriously? Nobody here is claiming they're entitled to a "right to discriminate". Everyone does, however, have the right to religious freedom, and free speech. I have no problem whatsoever with gays and lesbians living out their lives however they choose, even if I don't personally approve of such activity. I do, however, object to liberal extremists pointing the finger at people who disagree with them on the issue of gay marriage, and resorting to dirty tactics such as vandalism, threats, harassment, and public humiliation such as blacklisting, or producing untrue propaganda films such as "8: The Mormon Proposition".
I am not a religious person, but everytime I see it brought up anywhere, some angsty, rebellious, liberal douchebag starts trashing it just for the sake of being a shit disturber; rehashing commonly used insults like "it's a brainwashing cult" or "it's based on fairytales" or "it's responsible for violence all over the world". And more often than not, they milk the Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandal for all it's worth. I have seen much more hatred, intolerance, arrogance, and sheer stupidity coming from your side of the debate than I have from conservatives. Which is weird, because I usually tend to agree with the liberals for most other things (although abortion is something on which I'm not completely sure where I stand). Oh well, I guess they can't be right about everything.
The suicide of that teen was not only a tragedy it was a crime. The young people who violated laws out of mindless desire to bully or embarrass or whatever the heck kids do this stuff will be prosecuted and probably jailed, I hope.
Nothing in the press accounts suggest the kids who did this were motivated by homophobia, and the cruelty of cyberbullying is causing teen suicides among those who are not gay, as well: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1iMYHMsNbOUJOaBvP10z2VkrP_AD9IIKPUO0?docId=D9IIKPUO0
I do not think the absence of gay marriage is the cause of these tragedies or its presence will resolve them.
We can make this a symbol of all our other fights, or we can try to save all our kids, gay and straight, from this kind of ugly and mindless cruelty.
My heart goes out to the family of the young man. God bless him and them.
Thank you Maggie, for being the voice of reason here.
Maggie, you have no right to comment on these suicides because you and your ilk are the reason they keep happening. You have blood on your hands that can never be washed off. I hope you're proud of yourself, you evil harpy.
Maggie,
You have no right to say anything about these teens who have committed suicide. It it you and people like you who remove all hop of happiness and peace from these kids' future. It is you who should be ashamed of your chosen life of promoting lies, hatred and intolerance. Why can't you just live your live and leave people who have nothing to do with you, alone?
You worry about the future of our children? Look in the mirror. You are helping push these innocents to death. how can you see 8 kids this year that we know of kill themselves and maintain that being gay is a choice?
WAKE UP!!! You are responsible for this!
It is interesting to me that there is such a willingness to emote rather than think here, to remove all choice and consequence from those who chose and put blame instead on your favorite political enemy. It's a little shallow guys.
I don't find it shallow at all. NOM endorses and fosters an environment of hatred, which strengthens the resolve of bullies across the nation, encouraging them to continue their wicked ways and drive young people to that most final of solutions. By fighting against the rights of the LGBT community, NOM is fighting LGBT people directly. You cannot endorse second-class status for a community and then wash your hands of your evil when members of that community come to believe there is no hope. NOM steals hope, and that is why you are all guilty of murder.
I hear the violins playing....way to change the subject. Tragedy is tragedy. Let's not reanimate the dead as pawns in your own personal race war.
"I do not think the absence of gay marriage is the cause of these tragedies or its presence will resolve them."
That's exactly right. "Rev" Hunt, speak peace, not war. Most people who support marriage don't give a hoot what you do in your bedroom. Keep to the topic.
"NOM steals hope, and that is why you are all guilty of murder."
.....aand there we go again with the "freedom of religion" bit. How does gay marriage affect YOU? oh yeah. Agree with me or you're guilty of murder. Say wha??
looooony! you call yourself a reverend?
"rights of the LGBT community"
There are no rights the LGBT community has over and beyond what everyone else has. Everyone is equal, but LGBT people are MORE equal? Everyone, no matter what your orientation has the SAME right to marry. There's no litmus test for sexuality in marriage. We all have the same rights. One man, one woman. That's all it takes.
Why would you want to wear the blood of poor confused teens on your chest as a badge of honor? Teen suicide happens every day. You have eight victims you claim? We all have eight, and many many more. The entire human family mourns the deaths of each teen to suicide, no matter what their personal or political views. There are many reasons why teens choose this route. It's a cheap ploy and dirty pool to make accusations of murder against people who do not advocate hate in any form, but who simply disagree with your political views.
There is a thing called freedom FROM religion also. Shoving your views down the throats of others is not acceptable. One mans interpretation is only as good as another's.
Breeding an environment of hate, meddling in lives that have nothing to do with you, creating a perception that "You are going to hell and God hates you.", devoting your life to place roadblocks in the lives of others is absolutely disgusting. What do these people have to do with your life? NOTHING.
Our children see that what they have to look forward to is living a life of an uphill battle because a few loud blowhards want to dictate their misguided beliefs on others. They see that they are hated and don't want to live anymore because they can't change the fiber of their being.
Good job. really. Come judgment day there are going to be a lot of surprised "Christian warriors" who walk up and God says, "Away from me, I never knew you."
Go, be free to practice your chosen lifestyle of religion. Worship what ever God, Gods, or Goddeses you choose. I embrace theology and it's beautiful stories and morals. But let other people be free too. Leave them alone and worry about yourself!!
Dean: we're not more equal than any other. We simply demand the right to marry who we LOVE, like anyone else. We don't want a relationship based on lies and denial of who we are.
Shannon, no one here is talking about hell. Step away from the talking points that miss the point and we can have a real discussion. The reality is that those pushing SSM on the nation had a much stronger position with the independent thinking "keep the government out of my bedroom" stance before they started demanding everyone agree with their views and only their views in the bedroom, the classroom and the voting booth.
TC: "The reality is that those pushing SSM on the nation had a much stronger position with the independent thinking "keep the government out of my bedroom" stance before they started demanding everyone agree with their views and only their views in the bedroom, the classroom and the voting booth."
We don't demand that everyone agrees with us.
We demand our CIVIL RIGHTS. Nothing more. But also nothing less.
Gillian, but that's the point. No one has the right to marry whomever they choose simply because they LOVE them. Ask the polygamists, the polyamorists and the bigamists. Marriage is about more than just raw emotion.
And yes! A reverend speaking FOR gay marriage. Shocking uh? I guess not all Christians are hopeless bigoted and homophobic individuals like you, and NOM, are.
TC: "Marriage is about more than just raw emotion."
Precisely, It's about protecting our relationships. It's about having a safe environment and stable relationships for our kids.
Marriage is about not having people like you telling me that my relationship is not valid, or treating me like a 2nd class citizen. That I can't be a good mother, that my "lifestyle" (whatever) is harmful.
It's about all of that. So yes, it goes beyond purely marriage.
"We don't demand that everyone agrees with us."
Um, except that your favorite "reverend" just equated those who disagree with your position to murderers.... Do you apologize for his equation?
So you admit it's not just based on love. The same logic you seek to give the state's stamp of approval, as you see it, on your particular relationship is denied to the other couples I named. Are they also second class citizens? What about single mothers? What about divorced couples? Can they also be called married? Are they also second class?
Not every lifestyle is entitled to or can be considered a marriage. No matter how strong the lust or personal desire, you just can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Some lifestyles result in disease and death, pro family folks in part want to protect future generations. Its common sense, procreation a mom and dad, and a right to practice ones religion as they see fit.
If they're divorced, that's because they are NOT married. Same goes with single moms. What's your point here, exactly? You're suggesting that we should extent marriage to single people? That's certainly not something I've suggested. Besides, the Bible's conception of marriage DOES include polygamy, incest and rape, btw.
Jillian, Was the word "confused" a veiled reference to your belief that sexual orientation is chosen? This really is an important point to make.
Donna: Lie No. 436237493: homosexuality is a lifestyle. I know you've promoted your hateful views on that blog quite often. But nope. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. And you have yet to prove me how, even if it were, it's harmful. The burden of the proof is on you on that one, darling.
It's your contention Gillian that everyone who isn't labeled "married" is a second class citizen isn't it? So. Follow the logic, do you believe polygamists are also second class? How about single moms? Just because YOU think they shouldn't be called married.... why do your biases get to be considered reality and not theirs? Don't you think they want the government goodies available to married couples?
Anyone who commits suicide is confused, isn't that obvious? Somehow they think death is the answer to their problems. That is the ultimate confusion and deception. Try not to paste your agenda on to every sentiment posted here.
Then perhaps we should get rid of marriage altogether. It seems to you, TC, that it's such a discriminatory concept... Poor single moms, poor divorced people... All those people who are not married: such a shame. Or yeah, why not make a mass marriage for the whole country, children and animals included, while we're at it?
Gillian, I thought you were claiming to be desirous of the title marriage? Now you're advocating getting rid of marriage? Which is it?
Gillian, marriage has been between a man and a woman for eons upon eons. It's a system that works. You want the entire country to drop what works for something unproven and you want the luxury of not having to prove your theories work before they're adopted as the gold standard? Yeah right. Society is not at your disposal to experiment on simply because you demand it.
I think you know that answer, TC.
But unfortunately your imagination is running wild, thanks for your fears and homophobia. Gay marriage will OF COURSE lead to polygamy and bestiality. And OF COURSE single moms and divorced people will demand the right to marry. OF COURSE. These things inevitably follow from the oh-so-threatening idea that 2 people of the same sex can love (yes, love!!!) each other. *irony*
Next thing you know someone will claim gay marriage killed the dinosaurs.
Your logic makes absolutely no sense. You go at length to deprive a certain group, who you hate, of their rights. With no valid reasons. And that's why we are suing over the right to call our relationships, which are just like straight relationships, marriage.
"Or yeah, why not make a mass marriage for the whole country, children and animals included, while we're at it?"
I'm confused. I thought you were for everyone who loved someone being able to get married?
Gillian "And you have yet to prove me how, even if it were, it's harmful. The burden of the proof is on you on that one, darling."
Man-woman marriage has stood the test of time. A child deserves a mom and a dad. What can your lifestyle offer? We make choices and sometimes tragically we have to be responsible for our chosen lifestyle. And, sadly if you read the news lately, sometimes their can be tragic results.
So? Because it has been that way for centuries (and it hasn't, by the way) doesn't mean marriage can't change. Marriage is a concept, not a monolithic thing.
"Marriage is a concept, not a monolithic thing."
How do you know?
The concept of responsible procreation in not monolithic. Every child deserves a mom and a dad.
Dean: if you havn't sensed the irony in my comment there's nothing I can do for you.
You still haven't answered the question. Why is it that YOU get to choose whomever you want to marry regardless, and other people can't? Are they also second class?
Well of course TC I'm not the one making such choices. But it so happen that the majority of Americans are FOR gay marriage.
And anyways, following your logic: why should YOU straight people be the only one benefiting from it? Can you answer that question?
Besides, NOM is skewing public opinion with its campaign of fear and homophobia. And that's what is unacceptable. THAT, and not being clear about its finances, letting people think that NOM is funded by individuals while in fact, most of its money comes from big churches.
Who do you think funded the Prop 8 case? Not the people, certainly.
You still haven't answered the question.
I HAVE answered the question. It's not ME that will make the decision: these are social issues that I alone am not deciding on.
Polygamists are also straight. And according to your definition, they are not benefiting from marriage the way they want. According to your definition, they are second class citizens. Do you agree?
TC: polygamy is in your Bible anyways. And the polygamist mormons are the one who funded Prop 8 in court.
So you're unwilling to admit that your "second class citizen" logic just doesn't hold. It's not us vs. them. It's not straight vs. homo. It's nothing of the kind. It's the definition of marriage vs. everything else, including single people, divorced people, polygamous people (whether they're heterosexual, homosexual or aliens from mars with purple antennae...) and the list goes on. ALL people have marriage available to them, as defined. NO people have marriage available to them as a label to slap on a relationship that is not marriage. Marriage means something. All your blow hard emotionality cannot overcome that simple fact.
But TC, that's inherent in YOUR view of marriage. You simply assume that single individuals and divorced people will suddently start screaming to get married. Where's the logic? Where's the link with gay marriage?
Besides, divorced and single individuals CAN get married to someone they LOVE. When they eventually find this person.
The case cannot be said of gay people. Sure, we can marry. But NOT someone we love. And while love is not the be-all and end-all of marriage it's certainly an important component.
But you seem to ignore that: otherwise why would you suggest we marry someone we don't love?
"And the polygamist mormons are the one who funded Prop 8 in court."
um yeah. That's a dodge.
The fact is, Tyler must have felt the whole world was crashing down on him. Would a straight boy or girl have felt the same? No way. Because they don't grow up with the incredible shame that gay peple feel. A straight guy definitely would have gotten over it. A straight girl would have had a harder time, but would know it would eventually pass. A gay person outed like this would know it would be something they could never live down.
Why do gay people feel that shame? Because people like NOM supporters tell them that there is something inherently wrong with who they are - who they were born as. You and your ilk have had a hand in these suicides. Definitely. You make gay bashing acceptable because gay people (and gay relationships) are not the same as straight relationships (they are) and, thus, gay people should be ashamed of themselves, of who they are.
I'm not making any assumption of the sort. Does screaming and demanding create second class status? Not according to what you said earlier. You claim that because you cannot have your non marriage relationship labeled marriage, that you are a second class citizen. I challenged that assumption and gave you ample examples of other relationships, both heterosexual and otherwise, whose relationships are not labeled marriage and who are also not considered second class citizens. I have yet to hear your logic on why that would be. Is it your contention that they simply don't KNOW they are second class citizens? Or could it possibly be that their relationships, even in your view, are simply not marriage? If that's the case, then I would ask, why should society adopt your view, and not theirs?
Tom, it's disingenous of you to claim that one child who commits suicide suffers more than another child who commits suicide simply because they agree with your political world view.
And why should society adopt YOUR views, TC? Most people have no problem with 2 men or 2 women getting married. So why shouldn't they? Why should YOU have the monopoly on "marriage"?
That's not what I said at all, Dean.
A straight person wouldn't have committed suicide if they were filmed having sex, because they haven't been told all their lives that their sex life is evil. Straight people being filmed like that would have moved on.
For a gay kid, it was impossible to move on because of the same he felt about who he is. Where did that shame come from? People who told him he is inferior, that his desires, needs and who he loves were wrong. That he was wrong. That he was not acceptable.
You have the collosal nerve to issue a statement condemning bullying, while simultaneously bullying the gay community yourself.
What else would you call IMPOSING your belief system onto others whom you perceive as too weak to fight back--you laud the fact that your numbers have grown, that your "gang" far outnumbers those whom you persecute.
Polygamy is also NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!
Marriage equality will have absolutely NO EFFECT on heterosexuals. NONE!
Marriage equality will not force any heterosexual anywhere to alter their behavior, or force any heterosexual to marry someone of the same sex.
Just as legal polygamy won't force ANYONE to enter in to such an arrangement.
You contend that you are "protecting" something which won't be effected one way or the other by the equal treatment of ALL citizens of the United States.
Therefore, your contention that you are "protecting" something is a rationalization for your need to control the actions of others...to FORCE OTHERS to behave the way you want them to.
YOU are the bullies.
If christians would keep their noses out of other peoples' business which has no effect one way or the other on their lives, then NO ONE would CARE about marriage equality or DADT. YOU are the antagonists.
Already, all over the world, and as close as Canada, same-sex marriage is already legal, and that legality has had ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON THE HETEROSEXUAL POPULATION OF ANY OF THOSE COUNTRIES. NONE!
You have every right to your opinion, but you do NOT have the right to impose that opinion onto to others to the detriment of their life and liberty and equal protection under the law.
It's like this: It doesn't effect my life one way or the other that you have brown hair. However, let's say I drum up support from other crazy nosey bored people with paranoid tendencies and we all get together and gang up on people with brown hair and pass legislation which makes having brown hair illegal, and then say it's just not that big of a deal since brown-haired people can dye their hair blonde and be just fine.
This is what you are doing. You're not "protecting" anything. You're simply using paranoid delusion to attempt to legislate against other citizens who aren't doing anything to you or anyone else.
The ONLY reason gay people are having to be so forceful is that we are actually having to protect ourselves from YOU! YOU are the bully.
Kids commit suicide for lots of reasons. You don't know why he did what he did any more than anyone else. Certainly we can empathize, but to say that angst doesn't happen unless you're gay, that's going a bit too far. The point is, you're making an awful stretch in order to pin this boy's choices on people who don't support suicide, bullying or anything like it. What is your point?
Are you advocating that anyone who disagrees with your particular world view is responsible for his choices? That is neither fair nor honest.
Great discussion.
Randall, Hitler used the "we're all victims" to justify his solution as well. Perhaps you should simply have tolerance for Christians and their ideas just like you have tolerance for your own. It is a free country. You don't have the right to force the world to conform to your particular world view.
Actually I find it interesting and more than a little telling that two pro SSM posters on this thread have admitted that polygamy is no big deal, despite the evidence that it's detrimental to kids.
More evidence that it's all about YOU and not about what's best for society. You can hide behind your "victim" stance, but you can't hide from the fact that doing what's best for YOU isn't always best for society, our children or our families.
The world conforms to natural marriage because it's been time proven best for kids and families. If you want your views to be accepted, show your proof that they're better. It has nothing to do with hate, or religion, except that many religions happen to agree that natural marriage is best for families and children and stable society, and as TC points out, it doesn't even have anything to do with sexuality. People of all walks of life have relationships that are not marriage. That's fine. It's only the pro-ssm faction that wants to force their brand of love on everyone else, without evidence that it's better. Scathing rhetoric and flaming names isn't evidence. Neither is the sad propensity to use human tragedy as a political weapon.
Here's the bottom line:
Think same-sex marriage is wrong?
Don't have one.
Think polygamy is wrong?
Don't do it.
Think abortion is wrong?
Don't have one.
Think prostitution is wrong?
Don't engage in it.
Other than that: Mind Your Own Business!
If you don't like murder, don't engage in it.
If you don't like your house being broken into, don't steal.
If you think--- oh wait....
Don't like slavery?
Then don't own one!!!
totally apart from what one thinks is right or wrong, the pro-ssm posters have failed to come close to a logical flow of thought...........stand up for what you believe, but make sense and check the over emotionalism drama at the door......................
Sure, a child should be raised by their natural parents. That's the "best case" scenario in general. But it's not always possible.
It seems to me that kids being raised by same-sex parents are always better off than any practical alternative they may have.
For those children who were adopted by gay parents, they’re better off than under their alternative: staying with their natural (but abusive) parents, or staying in foster care. (Otherwise, the adoption wouldn’t have been approved.)
For those children conceived “artifically” (eg, surrogacy), they’re better off than their alternative: never having been conceived and born at all!
The only time when gay parents would be inferior as a practical matter would be if children were being taken from their natural, loving, and supportive parents. This doesn’t happen, of course.
"It seems to me that kids being raised by same-sex parents are always better off than any practical alternative they may have."
Ken, unfortunately, your scenario is not the extent to which application of the gay agenda goes. There are many cases where a same sex couple has received preference over a couple who can provide a mother and a father to a child, simply for political correctness. Every child deserves a mom and a dad.
Hi TC Matthews. I would definitely agree that any set of parents should be chosen simply for political correctness in adoption cases. The best interests of the child should always take precedence. I'm not sure how often what you're saying actually happens, and I doubt it's as often as you suggest. But to the extent that it does, I would certainly condemn it.
To address one of my specific points: do you believe that a child conceived "artificially" (eg, surrogacy) and born to a gay couple would be better off had it never been born?
I don't think NOM are as horrific as they are made out to be by some hardline groups, but at the same time I do find fault in their methods much of the time. IMHO while they sometimes send off-kilter messages, its the individual's responsibility to react appropriately. In the case of the poor kids committing suicide, it isn't right to use them as a political tool, for either end. If you want to spout statistics, then do that, but don't grab individuals and flail them around like a weapon.
NOM exposed? Hell, anyone with an active mind can see what they've done wrong in the past. I don't think it's worth spending money to further publicize what misdeeds they've done...anyone who cares about them knows of them, and anyone who doesn't know about them just doesn't care enough about the issue.
Personally, I don't support NOM and their reasoning on SSM, but I'm not about to go head to head with them about it. I'd rather spend that time and money pushing for progress, not to diminish an organization I don't feel holds true to my beliefs, no matter how frustrating it may be to see the results those organizations are getting.
As for child adoption, it would be good for every child to have its own natural mother and father, if those parents are capable parents. However, many children go up for adoption.foster care, and it would be unfair to give hetero parents advantage over SS parents in that case, considering there's no evidence showing either are necessarily better parents than each other. Natural parents are one thing, but outside of that, there's really no difference.
Is there a "gay agenda"? Maybe, but each organization has their own path to follow, much like there is no singular "christian agenda". It cannot be simplified as such(a good comparison here would be masculinity... it's hardly singular, as it has various definitions within it to describe itself)
I feel it's perfectly acceptable to be against same sex marriage. That is anyone's right, and they should have the freedom to express that. Same for religious beliefs, those are individual and should not be compromised by law. I do think that if people are so concerned about their religious freedoms being compromised, they should put focus on that rather than as a secondary sub-point while pushing something unrelated.
I think religion is an individual relationship between oneself and a deity, and that such a relationship should be properly fostered if it is to be at all. I feel the very same way for education. If one wants to learn of a deity and a religious way of life, a church/mosque/synagogue/etc. is a good place to get such information in hopes that they are capable teachers and strong to their teachings. If one wants to learn arts and sciences, a school is a good place to get such information in hopes that they have capable teachers and are strong with their teachings. In no way do I feel that either should affect the other in terms of what is taught. I don't believe a school should push evolution into a church, and I don't believe a church should push abstinence only health education into a school. And so forth. Any parental opinions on the subject matter in either institute should be considered, but should never hold veto power on its own(much like you wouldn't want a community to re-write sections of the Bible, you wouldn't want a community to re-write a school curriculum).
Finally, marriage. I cannot recall NOM's stance on everything in regards to same sex marriages. I can only say that many religious organizations openly state support for civil unions/domestic partnerships in areas where SSM is being fought for, while opposing civil unions and domestic partnerships in areas where they are being brought up as legal, government sponsored options. I feel they would do well sticking to a consistent platform and doing proud by their supporters.
I personally have no issue with Marriage being tossed out of government and made into a solely religious contract given out at marriage ceremonies, with the government giving out only civil unions(which carry all the legal benefits of marriage, both state and federal recognition), with all prior marriages being grandfathered in to prevent any great outcry. After all, I've ever understood why people are so against same sex marriage for religious reasons, when hetero atheists get married and their spirits aren't enjoining in the eyes of god. *shrug*
That way, the religious institutions get to dole out marriage licenses to those who want them, everyone gets equal treatment in the civil union framework, and people can start putting all this donated money to better use.
Ken, if your position is that giving a child a mom and a dad is best whenever possible, then we agree. For me, that applies also to IVF. It's not artificial in my mind, it's real seed from real men and women. Denying a child a mom or dad on purpose is cruel, no matter who does it. If that seed was not given to a family who was willing to provide for that child's rights, then it would have been given to another. To me it's not a choice between ss parenting and never being born, it's a choice between what's best for the child that would be produced by those donated seeds, no matter who they're given to.
Well reasoned Fluffy. TC, I can appreciate your concern for the welfare of children. However, I cannot understand how the "children need and deserve both a biological mom and dad married to one another" argument applies to same sex couples who do not and do not plan to have children.
Simply stated and accepting the premise that children need both a biological mom and dad married to one another, this would not be an issue for childfree same sex couples who are or wish to be married. It's not an issue for opposite sex childfree couples. You say that that it' all about kids and families but in some cases kids and families are not applicable. Marriage is not just about procreation and marriage, it's also about over 1000 federal rights that come with marriage.
Just to be clear: are you against SSM because it is contrary to your ideals of what "responsible procreation" is or do you feel that childfree same sex couples simply do no deserve to have the over 1000 federal benefits and rights that their married opposite`sex childfree couples enjoy?
"I cannot understand how the "children need and deserve both a biological mom and dad married to one another" argument applies to same sex couples who do not and do not plan to have children. "
I don't think that argument is intended to apply to people who don't want or plan to have children.
I am against SSM because it is not marriage, yet wants to be held up the same as marriage. Marriage and responsible procreation are inseparably connected. The benefits society gives married couples is to encourage them to be married in order that any children they may bring into the world will have a better chance at having a stable environment in which to be raised. The government doesn't give or withhold incentives to couples because they like or don't like their sexuality.
TC, if benefits are championed by the government to give couples reason to marry, in order to promote stable environments to raise children...shouldn't those benefits be given to couples who want to provide stable environments to children through adoption, at the very least, regardless if they're a hetero couple or SS couple?
I mean, if those benefits are to promote childbirth and giving kids a stable foundation, a SS couple who adopts children to provide a stable foundation (where they otherwise would have none) should be able to apply for the same benefits.
That's logical to me. I don't care what label anyone gives it, people will call things what they will no matter.
The point isn't to encourage the bearing of children or we'd be offering it to single mothers as well. The incentive is to encourage the raising of those children in the best possible environment. The government provides incentives to people for them to marry and stay married. Whether they grow their families by adoption or by birth is largely immaterial. It's the acknowledgment of procreative potential of men and women that provides society a reason to be interested in married couples staying together. Same sex couples are are not procreative by nature and if they go outside the relationship to create children, they still cannot provide children with both a mother and a father. Denying a child a mother or father by design is by definition, less than ideal. Why would society want to encourage placing children in motherless or fatherless situations?
Hi, TC. I think we agree that "artificial" isn't really the right term to use. That's why I put it in quotes originally. The child isn't "artificially" conceived -- there's nothing artificial about it, they really were conceived! Please let me know if there's a better term I could use.
Also: I guess I just don't understand your position that "If that seed was not given to a family who was willing to provide for that child's rights, then it would have been given to another." That seems untrue to me. (There are way more sperm and eggs than willing parents -- any unused donations will end up being thrown away.) Whether or not a given gay couple decides to have a child via "artificial" methods has absolutely no effect on whether any other couple decides to have a child via the same methods. No straight couple is going to base their decision on having a child on whether a gay couple is also having one, or whether there's enough supply (of sperm and eggs). It seems to me that any decisions by straight couples are unaffected by this discussion, and the only decision -- as a practical matter -- is whether the gay couple is going to have such a child or not. If so, the child will be born. If not, it won't. Which is better for the child?
I am MAD!
I have been gay all my life, and I still DON'T know what "the Gay Agenda" is?!?!?!
I've even tried googling it!
Actually Ken, all donated seed is frozen, and has the ability to be frozen indefinitely. Practically speaking, there is no need to make a substandard choice for any child.
Ken Spreitzer said: "do you believe that a child conceived "artificially" (eg, surrogacy) and born to a gay couple would be better off had it never been born?"
Huh?
1. What do you mean by "born to a gay couple"? Really, please be explicit.
2. In the use of these methods, no child exists prior to the decision to deploy these methods. The behavior of the adults is the really issue, not the birth of the child.
3. Consider the analogy with rape. Would you say that a child conceived via rape would be better off never having been born? Then try to make sense of that question while considering the behavior of the rapist.
Note: I am not equating rape with the use of these methods. I am making a valid comparison of adult-centered behavior prior to the conception and birth of a child.
There is such a thing as procreative justice. Deliberately creating a child for the purpose of fulfilling the neediness of a fatherless or motherless scenario is unjust, always.
Hi, Chairm. I'll try to answer your questions, sorry if anything I've been saying was unclear.
1. By "born to a gay couple" I mean a child conceived with the intention of being raised by a gay couple. For example, let's say one member of a lesbian couple goes to a sperm bank; the resulting child would be "born to a gay couple". This is in contrast to a child who was born to a straight couple but later removed from that couple (perhaps because of abuse? or the couple died?), went into foster care, and was finally adopted by a gay couple. The child in this 2nd example was not "born to a gay couple" but ended up with one. Have I explained myself clearly? Hopefully so. Assuming I have, please re-visit my original point, which was that any particular child 'born to a gay couple" (ie, conceived with the intent of being raised by a gay couple) is better off than its only other alternative, which is not to have been conceived at all.
2. You said, "The behavior of the adults is the really issue, not the birth of the child." While of course those are two separate issues, my original point was talking about the benefit for the child (ie, being born versus not being born). I guess I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
3. You asked, "Would you say that a child conceived via rape would be better off never having been born?" No, I certainly wouldn't say that. Such a child is innocent, and would obviously be better off being born rather than being aborted. I assume you agree with this? If so, then do you agree with my main point, which is that a child conceived by/for a gay couple is better off than if it hadn't been born?
Finally, you also said, "There is such a thing as procreative justice. Deliberately creating a child for the purpose of fulfilling the neediness of a fatherless or motherless scenario is unjust, always." I certainly see your point, but I don't see how the desire of a gay couple wanting to a raise a child is any different (or needier) than a straight couple wanting to do the same thing.
I suppose you might say that every child deserves a mother and a father, and that a gay couple which conceives a child while still realizing that they won't be able to provide both a mother and father are being selfish by bringing a child into an imperfect situation. If that's your point, I could certainly see your logic. But I don't see that situation as much different than what almost every straight couple certainly does. Every straight couple must realize there will be limitations on what they can provide for their child, and that they won't be perfect parents -- yet they still proceed. Or consider it another way: a gay couple might be able to provide 95% of a perfect upbringing for a child. There won't be both a mother and father, but the child will still have two parents, unlimited love, sufficient money, will learn to be kind and decent and loving, get a good education, etc. (I'm saying the presence of both a mother and father is worth 5% of a perfect upbringing just for the sake of argument.) But if the gay couple decides not to conceive the child because they won't be able to do a 100% job, then the child will never be born and will get 0% of a perfect childhood. And I'd say a 95%-perfect childhood is better than a 0%-perfect childhood.
If you disagree with any of this, please let me know if I'm not explaining something clearly, or whether you get what I'm saying but disagree with it.
I hope this reply was helpful. Thanks.
To answer your question, yes, it is better that the "gay couple" not deliberately create a child to satiate their neediness to raise a child in a home that is by design fatherless or motherless.
They'd pre-emptively deny the child her birthright -- to be known and raised by the mom and dad who created her (barring dire circumstances or tragedy). Their pre-conception decision is unjust and, as such, should not be acted upon.
Please note that this is not a gaycentric answer, contrary to your question's emphasis.
Human beings are not commodities to trade, sell, market.
The rapist's adult behavior does not self-justify; the birth of the child of rape does not justify the adult's behavior.
I think you need to rethink your points #2 and #3.
Furthermore these processes of IVF/ARTs create millions of children who are discarded. If you agree they should not be destroyed, then, your points #2 and #3 do not align with the glib question and elaboration of your point #1.
No, gayness does not resolve the issue in favor of the "gay couple" using such methods of attaining children.
The desire is different when comparing the prospective mom-dad scenario and the prospective one-sexed scenario. The latter desires what it can not create. And so the latter depends on commodification of human gametes and human beings; it depends on the manufacture of human beings; this stands against justice (i.e. to each his due) in light of the dignity of the human beings involved, especially that of the yet-to-be-conceived human beings (some of whom will be discarded and some of whom will be commissioned for deliberately fatherless or motherless homes).
The desire is different even if you think the neediness of the "gay couple" is justified by the gayness of the individual adults. Is that really why you do not see the difference, perhaps?
You said:
"There won't be both a mother and father, but the child will still have two parents, unlimited love, sufficient money, will learn to be kind and decent and loving, get a good education, etc. (I'm saying the presence of both a mother and father is worth 5% of a perfect upbringing just for the sake of argument.)"
You deeply discounted the birthright of the child. You do so because of an adultcentric view of children. Given such a view, it is odd that you do not focus first on the decision and actions of the adults who participate in "donor" procreation. Their neediness does not trump the needs of children -- least of all their birthright.
Instead of compensating for a real tragedy, or responding to dire circumstances, what you are defending actually creates tragedy and dire circumstances. Put aside your gay emphasis and recalibrate your thinking on this issue.
* * *
Please do not confuse the use of IVF/ARTs with the use of third party (aka "donated") gametes.
The vast majority of IVF/ARTs procedures are for husband-wife couples who do not go outside their relationship for ova and/or sperm. And regards to your comparison of desire for children, please note that a tiny fraction of 1% of all married couples who experience infertility actually use these methods in combo with third party "donors". That tiny fraction of 1% act unjustly. Their lack of a gaycentric card to play does not resolve the issue in their favor; neither would a gaycentric card justify the "gay couple" doing this; neither would a single woman's desire for children; neither would the desire of a married couple.
Due to negligence, this practice remains lawful. Too often it is argued that the law permits what it does not prohibit; but in this case it is a matter of omission and not positive permission. Society has been negligent. Regardless, what is unjust will remain unjust even if it were to become enshrined in a positive law.
No disease is cured; no life is saved; no injustice is prevented through this practice. Quite the contrary.
Hi, Chairm. Thanks for your replies.
I think I understand where you're coming from, and I think we just disagree. In particular:
1. I'm surprised you think it's better for a child never to be born rather than to be raised by gay parents. There are thousands and thousands of kids who have been raised by gay parents and have done just fine. I just can't imagine telling one of these people, "It would have been better for you if you hadn't been born."
2. I understand that your comments are not solely directed at gay people. You also think children shouldn't be born to single mothers, etc. Your position is consistent.
3. I must admit I still don't even understand your comments about rapists. For example, you said, "The rapist's adult behavior does not self-justify." I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. I was never really trying to get into scenarios involving rape since rape is a violent crime, whereas a gay couple getting a child (surrogacy, etc) is consensual. I still assume you think that if a woman is raped that she should keep the child. All of that says nothing about the rapist's sin.
4. You said, "Furthermore these processes of IVF/ARTs create millions of children who are discarded. If you agree they should not be destroyed, then, your points #2 and #3 do not align with the glib question and elaboration of your point #1." My understanding is that there are a ton of eggs and sperm that are donated and kept separate, but not that millions of "children" are discarded. A woman undergoing IVF may have several eggs fertilized and implanted at once, knowing that most usually won't "take." (That's why the Octomom had so many kids -- all of her implants were successful, unexpectedly.) In any case, I don't think I've been glib on anything here; I'd appreciate you pointing out where you think I have been.
5.I'm not sure what to say about comment #90 above. I guess I'd just say that the desires and motivations of gay parents are the same as of straight parents (ie, wanting a family, etc). Nothing too profound there.
6. Comment #91: I guess we just see this differently. It feels to me like you have an extreme position: that a child deserves to be raised by their natural mother and father so much that if it weren't possible then you would rather have them not be born. That seems to definitely be against the interest of the child! In any case, now we're just re-treading the same arguements. I understand what you're saying, and it sounds like a hardcore Catholic belief. I understand, and I respect your opinions, and still agree that you're being consistent. It's just that this is one area where I definitely disagree with the Church.
Thanks again for the discussion.
Ken Spreitzer, I did not say that children should not be born. Read with more care, thanks.
You clearly do imagine yourself telling children that people who disagree with you have said that they should not have been born.
I did not say that -- not explicitly and not implicitly. Your gay emphasis is distorting your perception of what was actually said.
* * *
Adult behavior. Focus on the behavior prior to conception. That is the point of the comparison with rape.
The child not-yet-conceived does not justify the adult behavior of the rapist nor of those who'd use "donated" gametes to manufacture a human being. The adult behavior is pre-conceptual.
The onus is on you to justify the behavior. You have not done so.
* * *
Your understanding of IVF/ARTs has missed a great deal. There are millions of embryos in storage, for example. The manipulation of embryos as widgets in a manufacturing process is explicit in the industry's own guidelines and benchmark standards. The goal is to create children while discarding children. That is for you to justify, also.
The discarded children do not get the opportunity to hear someone say that they should not have been born. Given your stated view, that should be unimaginable to you.
* * *
The desire of "gay parents"? Again the gay emphasis is irrelevant to the practice but you are making it central to your own view of this practice. So be it.
As I said, gayness does not justify any of it. You claim it does, now, so go ahead and explain your gay emphasis more clearly.
You are pointing at a practice that destroys children and that denies the birthright of those children who do survive.
Most parents do not partake of IVF/ARTS. Also, the vast majority of mom-dads who have used IVF/ARTS did not use gametes of someone else. Also, the married mom-dad duos did not design a deliberately fatherless or motherless family for the yet-to-be-conceived child.
So you are clearly missing the decisive desire to create such a family. That desire is a differentiator you seem too-ready to gloss over.
It is that desire which is central to your "gay parents" comparison. As I said you have yet to justify it as decisive to this particular issue.
Your response to comment #90 is glib and dodges its content.
* * *
The last paragraph in your recent comment exhibits the same flaw as in your opening paragraphs.
I did not say that. You would rather put words into my mouth than deal with what I have actually said?
It is not an extreme position that each child has a birthright to know and to be raised by her mom-dad duo (barring dire circumstances or tragedy). That is the first principle of responsible procreation and is expressed in the marital presumption of paternity. That presumption is not merely a tradition (and strong tradition even at that) and is found across cultures and belief systems; it is a legal presumption that is vigorously enforced in our legal system; the major religions honor it on many different levels.
Unfortunately, the extreme position, the one that deeply discounts this principle, is yours. And so far you have discounted based on a gay emphasis you have yet to justify.
* * *
You said:
"That seems to definitely be against the interest of the child! In any case, now we're just re-treading the same arguments."
The birthright of the child is not in the best interests of the child?
You need to do much better than that. And much better than trying to reposition that birthright as something that is exclusive to Catholicism. I did not bring up the Catholic Church. You did. Stay focused on what is actually written in my comments and you will do much better at focusing on the actual topic at hand.
No child exists prior to conception. The question is, does the adult's desires over-ride the birthright of each and every human being?
Your comments strongly suggest that, yes, the adult desires trump.
So when you refer to the best interests of the yet-to-be-conceived child, you are not referring to the most basic interest of each and every child. You drop that from sight.
Your position begins with birth, not conception. The topic is about the pre-conception practice of those who manufacture human beings. If you are saying that the means are justified by the ends -- the manufacture of human beings is justified by the satiation of the desires of gay adults -- then please be explicit and explain yourself more clearly.
If you are saying that the desires to be satiated are satiated in the best interests of the yet-to-be-conceived child, then, please be explicit.
Thanks.
chairm,
So you think there is no adult heterosexual desire to even biologically manufacture babies to satiate said adult desire? You just can't bring yourself to say that homosexuals can provide the love required to successfully raise kids, can you? Tunnel vision is clouding your thought capacity.
Tell that to the millions of lifelong monogamous homosexual pairings in the rest of mammalian and bird life on this planet.
What exactly is it about homosexuality that perturbs you so, and why? I'd love to know, because it clearly has nothing to do with nature's representation of homosexuality. Only your homophobic insistences.