Dear Marriage Supporter,
Just when you thought you'd heard it all...
Apparently believing that marriage is between a man and a woman, as millions of Americans like you and I do—and saying so publicly—is hate speech and equivalent to murder.
I'm not making this up. (To tell the truth, I don't have a good enough imagination to come up with this stuff.)
But I am completely serious when I say that this is exactly what NOM is fighting against every day: a vicious attempt to impose a radical social agenda while trying to silence anybody who disagrees.
You see, recently, actor Kirk Cameron went on the Piers Morgan show to promote his new film, Monumental. Cameron is a devout Christian and father of six (four of whom he adopted), who is not afraid to stand up for his beliefs—which he did when Piers (as he has been doing with so many social conservatives lately) turned the conversation quickly toward same-sex marriage.
Cameron explained that he believed marriage "was defined by God a long time ago...one man, one woman for life, till death do us part."
Well, as I'm sure you can guess, his answer and the subsequent discussion generated a swift and intense backlash. And it included this tweet from actress Roseanne Barr:
"Kirk or kurt or whatever Cameron is an accomplice to murder with his hate speech. So is rick warren. Their peers r killing gays in Uganda."
Yes, you read that right: Barr thinks anyone who believes in marriage is guilty of hate speech and an accomplice to murder!
According to Hollywood radicals bent on destroying marriage and the family, you and I are now accomplices to murder, and God's truth about marriage is nothing more than hate speech which leads to the killing of gays and lesbians in Uganda.
As you can see, the same-sex marriage movement is NOT about live-and-let live.
It's about viciously and aggressively imposing a radical transformative social agenda on society and ruthlessly silencing anybody who disagrees with them.
Sure, we may be tempted to dismiss tweets from Roseanne Barr as absurd and removed from reality. But sadly they illustrate a much larger and more important point:
Proponents of same-sex marriage want to end the debate about the issue by silencing and stigmatizing us, the opposition.
That's the bottom line.
In their worldview, you and I don't have the right to say in public that it takes a man and a woman to form a marriage. So they try to brand us as bigots and haters...and now, murderers.
Marriage Supporter, it's up to people like you and me to stop them.
In love, we speak the truth, and let the American people be the judge.
This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.
65 Comments
You said -
"... the same-sex marriage movement is... about viciously and aggressively imposing a radical transformative social agenda on society and ruthlessly silencing anybody who disagrees with them."
Um, how can someone 'impose' a social agenda on anyone?
Do you honestly think that legalizing gay marriage will affect you? How?
Will they come into your bedroom to make sure you're doing it right? Will they go to your wedding and make sure you are both of the same gender? Do you think legalizing gay marriage is the same thing as criminalizing straight marriage? Why does it have to be an either-or situation?
Please, tell me: exactly what effect will my marriage have on you? Simple question. Can you answer it?
I would hardly call Ms. Barr the spokeswoman for most. But, I think Mr. Brown's comments are a lot of hyperbole, as well.
I would think NOM would be the last group to point fingers. This statement, "As you can see, the same-sex marriage movement is NOT about live-and-let live."
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The issue of same-sex marriage is all about legal, secular marriage recognized by the State and having nothing to do with religious marriage which is entirely up to the individual church organization. There are plenty of churches who would perform a SSM and many who would not. That is not the issue. Religious marriage ceremonies and rituals hold no legal significance without a state-issued marriage license.
NOM's arguments all stem from religious roots and none from legal logic or the Constitution.
I am perfectly willing to "live and let live." The churches may do whatever they wish as long as they return the favor and leave me alone. They do not have any say whatsoever in our legal, secular world.
How is it correct that the views of a few churches to which many do not belong have the right to prevent others from civil marriage that is granted to all citizens regardless of their religious affiliation?
The tide has changed on SSM and I do not see any realistic means by which all these States will repeal their laws. That ship has sailed.
“They do not have any say whatsoever in our legal, secular world.”
No right to free speech? No right to assembly? No right to petition for the redress of grievances? No right to publish?
When did being a member of a church require forfeiture your constitutional rights? When did a church as a corporation loose the rights other corporations have?
See also http://www.nomblog.com/20403/
Unfortunately, Brian Brown is lying to get your money. He claims that Cameron is being criticized merely for saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman, but Cameron's comments went waaay beyond that, as Brian must know.
If NOM's cause is so just, then why must it lie?
Mr. Cameron was/is 100% correct in his views of sex and marriage.
“They do not have any say whatsoever in our legal, secular world.”
News Flash: We do not live in a "Secular" world. Go pimp your "Secular" religion somewhere else.
It is a habit of extremists and a casual slander to characterize disagreement as lying.
if you single out a group of people for discrimination and shame, calling them sick and disordered and a threat to the family and society and calling for all sorts of sanctions and discrimination, it's only logical that you are deserving of at least some of the blame when a member of said group kills himself because he is a member of this group.
Nova, who's "you?"
groups like NOM and the people who support them.
imagine if you were a gay teenager and you read some of the things written in here. how do you think a gay teenager feels when he hears people like Tony Perkins talking on CNN or MSNBC?
Kirk Cameron might be wrong but he comes across as much more compassionate than the others.
"it's only logical that you are deserving of at least some of the blame..."
Did you mean to say "deserving of some of the credit...?"
Teenagers aren't "gay." "Gay" is a political identity. Teens who have same-sex attraction need to be counseled to avoid any sexual behavior outside of marriage between a man and a woman, as do teens who don't have same-sex attraction. NOM doesn't support death sentences for individuals with same-sex attraction, or those who identify with the gay political movement. Mr. Cameron is correct--homosexual behavior is unnatural and it is high risk, and it is certain to create feelings of lowered self-worth and shame, because it is demeaning and degrading, and unhealthy. But that goes for anyone who involves themselves in homosexual behavior, whether "gay" or not. Marriage is only between a man and woman. No other human pairing of non-related individuals is the same. All teens need to hear the truth, and Mr. Cameron spoke it. Any other message is enabling and puts them in danger. They need to know that life is a lot bigger than their sex life, and to develop their whole self--not just indulge in homosexual behavior. They also need to know that their intrinsic worth is not bound up in their sexual orientation.
@nova -
I think when one calls homosexuals sick and/or disordered that is important to also suggest that these people can get help to overcome their issues. There is help available for young men/women who are confused about their sexuality.
What's worse is the silence about hpv, AIDS, and the other assorted STDs from the homosexual community. All we hear about is the rights of homosexuals; whereas, the fact is there are many reasons why it is not good to be homosexual.
The big issue with homosexuality is not the teens committing suicide; it's the many that are dying from the lifestyle.
It's a shame to learn how filled with hate the religionists are. It wasn't always like this, it seems to me.
homosexuality cannot be cured, nor does it need to be. some people can learn to be celibate -- usually with enormous effort and at great personal cost -- but their same-sex desires never fully go away. it is an immutable, unchosen characteristic that harms no one.
there have been gay people throughout history and in every walk of life, every country on earth, and every historical epoch. there have always been gay people, there will always be gay people.
STDs are a result of promiscuity and/or unprotected sex with infected partners. heterosexuals get AIDS, HPV, etc. indeed, most of the AIDS you see outside the developed West affects heterosexual people. so, you see, it's not the sexual orientation that affects one's sexual health it's the manner in which one goes about engaging in any sort of sexual activity, gay or straight. in fact, the people least likely to contract any sort of STDs are homosexual women. two gay men who have sex with each other will not magically create STDs if neither of them are infected. in fact, some STDs like HPV are much more easily passed through heterosexual sex. the issue is not gay sex vs. straight sex but protected vs. unprotected sex.
knowing that gay people will always be with us we should encourage people to accept who they are and developing healthy self-conceptions of themselves as either hetero or homo or somewhere in between.
the big issue with homosexuality is that people suffer because large swaths of society discriminate against gay people and repeat lies like the ones you've just outlined for us. this, in turn, inculcates feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness in the minds of gay youth that often leads to other problems like suicide.
i am all for you having the right to say whatever you want. but that doesn't meant you don't bear any responsibility for what you say, nor that your words don't affect people.
homosexuality cannot be cured, nor does it need to be. some people can learn to be celibate, but their same-sex desires never go away. it is an immutable, unchosen characteristic that harms no one.
there have been gay people throughout history and in every walk of life, every country on earth, and every historical epoch. there have always been gay people, there will always be gay people.
STDs are a result of promiscuity and/or unprotected sex with infected partners. heterosexuals get AIDS, HPV, etc. indeed, most of the AIDS you see outside the developed West affects heterosexual people. so, you see, it's not the sexual orientation that affects one's sexual health it's the manner in which one goes about engaging in any sort of sexual activity, gay or straight. in fact, the people least likely to contract any sort of STDs are homosexual women. two gay men who have sex with each other will not magically create STDs if neither of them are infected. in fact, some STDs like HPV are much more easily passed through heterosexual sex. the issue is not gay sex vs. straight sex but protected vs. unprotected sex.
knowing that gay people will always be with us we should encourage people to accept who they are and developing healthy self-conceptions of themselves as either hetero or homo or somewhere in between.
the big issue with homosexuality is that people suffer because large swaths of society discriminate against gay people and repeat lies like the ones you've just outlined for us. this, in turn, inculcates feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness in the minds of gay youth that often leads to other problems like suicide.
i am all for you having the right to say whatever you want. but that doesn't meant you don't bear any responsibility for what you say, nor that your words don't affect people.
The gay lobby is continually trying to shame its opponents by calling them hateful bigots and now murderers.
I am fine with live and let live, and I have not called homosexuals sick. I believe homosexuals should have all the rights of the First Amendment and the rest of the Constitution. No question about that. It is ChuckGC who is attacking the rights of religious adherents to exercise their constitutional rights. How do you think believers feel when they hear that they are a threat to society and should be kept out of the public square and in the closet.
@Resist
homosexuality cannot be cured, nor does it need to be. some people can learn to be celibate, but their same-sex desires never go away. it is an immutable, unchosen characteristic that harms no one.
there have been gay people throughout history and in every walk of life, every country on earth, and every historical epoch. there have always been gay people, there will always be gay people.
STDs are a result of promiscuity and/or unprotected sex with infected partners. heterosexuals get AIDS, HPV, etc. indeed, most of the AIDS you see outside the developed West affects heterosexual people. so, you see, it's not the sexual orientation that affects one's sexual health it's the manner in which one goes about engaging in any sort of sexual activity, gay or straight. in fact, the people least likely to contract any sort of STDs are homosexual women. two gay men who have sex with each other will not magically create STDs if neither of them are infected. in fact, some STDs like HPV are much more easily passed through heterosexual sex. the issue is not gay sex vs. straight sex but protected vs. unprotected sex and the health status of each partner.
@nova -
Well, how do you describe someone like me who once had very strong same-sex attraction, decided to give it up and get married and now has absolutely no attraction to the same sex? Pretty well cured, I'd say. This was learned behavior for me, and I will refrain from telling you the harm it has caused me. If I can prevent one boy from choosing this sordid lifestyle, I would (and believe me, I try).
As STDs are epidemic in the male homosexual community, any interaction that any male has with another male is high risk; this is because men are naturally more promiscuous, and without the "control" that women provide over sexual relations in male-female relationships, men have sex with men with few barriers.
The issue IS men having uncontrolled sex with men. The issue is a lack of control and/or the decision to not control. AIDS is completely avoidable through condom-protected sex, and yet male homosexuals continue to contract the disease at epidemic levels in proportions far exceeding that in the straight community. The issue is the lifestyle, and the community is woefully silent about it.
We need to guide sexually confused individuals to heterosexual relationships so that they can avoid the dangerous lifestyle, We need to help those who want help to escape the lifestyle. I did it, and what a fabulous life I have: wife, three kids, and the respect of my community for taking responsibility for the children I created and faithfulness to my lovely wife.
@Resist:
i'd say that i respect you and your story, but you shouldn't think for a second that your story speaks for others. the vast majority of people who seek "help" for same-sex attraction do not succeed. i'm happy for you. can you be happy for others? i do note that you've chosen the word "resist" in your name. that's interesting.
my life is pretty fabulous too. why do you think you need to restrict my rights -- as well as make enormously unsubstantiated, uninformed generalizations -- in order to prove something about your fabulous life?
you've rightly pointed out that STDs have nothing to do with sexual orientation but the behavior of individuals or the decision to use condoms and practice responsible sex. as you put it "control."
most gay men never get HIV, and most gay men -- especially those who are out, proud, happy, and have full emotional lives -- do not have STDs. people who are proud of themselves and free of self-loathing take care of themselves and their sex partners.
Your rights aren't being restricted just because you can't by fiat redefine marriage into a de-gendered institution. If you have a fabulous life, create your own institutions rather than redefining the institutions of others against their will.
It's not just the "religious right" that has stated that SSM unhealthy and a the threat to the family and society. Guess those on the SSM team need to also be attacking psychologists who say this also.
i do think you make a good point -- there's really no reason to exclude gay people from marriage other than to appeal to tradition and/or prejudice.
but it also begs the question as to wonder how and/or in what way does the existence of gay people or gay married people do you any harm? is this a redefintion or an expansion -- akin to extending women the right to vote?
it seems to me that if you really believed in the positive benefits of marriage that you'd want more people to be married.
Gay people!
Is that anything like Smoking people, or Athletic people, or Pedophile people, or Rapist people, or Camping people, or Running people, etc?
We do not classify people by what they like to do; do we?
I object to teaching my children that homosexual behavior is normal... I object to teaching that to children in school... It is abnormal any way you look at it... I don't hate homosexuals but I hate their behavior and their efforts to trying to teach young kids that it is an acceptable lifestyle....
@nova -
1 in 5 homosexual males is HIV positive, and yet despite those scary odds, homosexuals still have unprotected sex. Not telling sexually confused males about this and instead encouraging them to join the lifestyle is, or rather "RESIST" their urges with the goal of overcoming them like me, is tantamount to offering them heroin as a way to feel good without telling them about the potential for addiction.
Look, if you want to live your fabulous, self-absorbed life with a good friend with whom you engage in unnatural physical acts to make yourselves feel good, go for it. But there is no good to society that comes from your choice to live that life, to form that partnership. Indeed, public displays of your relationship has the effect of luring sexually confused males to participate in your dangerous activities with a 20% risk of acquiring HIV at each encounter.
As I've said time and again here, the purpose of marriage is to encourage responsible procreation. When two people of the same sex form a couple they NEVER procreate and thus can not contribute to the purpose of marriage. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples removes the procreative purpose of marriage; it changes marriage from an institution about the protection of children to a selfish phenomenon of no importance to society whatsoever.
Homosexual couples provide no benefits to society. They serve only the selfish desires of the couple.
I wonder where GLAAD is. Why arent they bashing her for her comments. Oh, I know why. Its because they are hypocrites.
So, let me get this straight. You need to raise $25,000 to silence Rosanne Barr? Seriously? How much do you need to keep George Clooney and Brad Pitt from supporting Marriage Equality? Fleece much?
Plubius: “They do not have any say whatsoever in our legal, secular world.” "No right to free speech? No right to assembly? No right to petition for the redress of grievances? No right to publish?"
Perhaps, I should have worded that differently. Clearly, everyone in the USA is entitled to free speech and may express their opinions openly. I certainly have no problem with that. The town square traditionally has been the place for people to express their positions - standing on a soapbox and all that.
What I should have said is that I do not believe it is correct for people of a particular faith to change our secular laws to comply with their version of religion, especially when doing so impedes the rights of others who may not even be members of that particular faith.
Changing the secular law (not a tenet of a church) to remove the gender restriction will have no effect on your marriage. If it does, please explain how so. The churches may recognize or not a secular marriage - I really could not care less. They are entitled to do whatever they wish as long as they do not prevent others who are not of their faith from participating in secular laws. Seems simple enough to me.
I cannot imagine you would stand by and allow an Islamic Imam to lobby to change our secular laws to insist that all women wear a burka and that everyone attends the mosque on Fridays. Your attempt to impose a religious restriction into our secular laws is where the problem resides.
What an interesting group of comments! What I seem to see is an overwhelming response that is negative toward SSM. That's not surprising given this is NOM's website.
However, I see the comments to be mostly emotional, charged, angry, and based upon questionable facts and religious dialogue.
I do not see a whole lot of logic and facts behind the claims and very few factual reasons for denying the legalization of SSM. As I said, it mostly is all emotion.
It would be interesting to see the average age of the people commenting. The numbers for pro-SSM are very high for young people. The overwhelming success of the repeal of DADT is yet another indicator. If young soldiers, presumably fairly conservative, have come to embrace their fellow gay soldiers, that says a lot. I have seen a number of interviews of the enlisted plus being in DC, I know a number of gay officers, including a two from WWII who were buried at Arlington with full military honors. One had earned the silver star at the Battle of the Bulge.
My point is that young people seem to be taking up the torch and moving forward. They have gay friends and don't see what the big fuss is all about.
Perhaps, the older crowd might take a lesson from those who soon enough will be running things around here.
Being an accomplice to murder is not as serious a crime as actually being a murderer. But it is a fine line.
Sort of like supporting the KKK's message is not as bad as actually donning a white hood and burning crosses in people's yard.
People who want to defend the institution of marriage support marriage equality, because when marriage is protected for everyone it is a stronger institution. People who want to take away gay people's right to marry are ATTACKING marriage. Weakening marriage so that the right to it can be taken away from anyone by a vote is a terrible idea. Not to mention a sin.
@Chuck -
I always have probs with my posts showing up, usually the long ones. Sometimes it's several hours before they appear, but then a short one will appear immediately. I think it's a manual process.
If I may comment on your response to Plubius, if a religious tenet has a secular purpose, then why should it not be worthy of consideration? Many religious laws have secular underpinnings even though they are are described in moral terms.
Thus, e.g., the Church has long recognized the importance of moms and dads to children as a secular matter, but in Church law it refers to anything that thwarts that purpose as "sinful."
The Church recognizes that same-sex so-called "marriage" breaks the important link between procreation and marriage, rendering marriage a meaningless institution with respect to the protection of children yet to be born. From a religious perspective, the view is that homosexual acts are sinful; but that should not stop the secular purpose from being argued by religious officials in the public square.
I used to be a fan of Roseanne Barr. Now, thanks to her baseless attempts to silence anti-gay pro-marriage supporters, I will boycott her and write a long letter to her telling her why I am boycotting her and urging my friends to do the same.
--Victor Golf Charles
Resist - There are religious organizations who support same sex marriage.
@JR -
I've no objection to religious organizations that support so-called SS"M" to participate in political dialogue on the subject.
@Christian4Equality and @JR -
I think the disconnect between us is what we perceive marriage to be. Without the procreative purpose, it is what you seem to think it is: a decision by two people who love each other to stay together for as long as they remain happy together. Which is to say that it is meaningless; a set of mutual promises with no responsibilities and a net benefit to society of nothing whatsoever. It's no different than two people dating: stay in the relationship until you tire of it. Completely inconsequential to society.
But the purpose of marriage and why the State encourages it (and why society benefits from it) is because it promotes responsible procreation: it encourages the sexes that are capable of reproducing to form a lifelong commitment so that in the event a child is conceived, that child will be cared for by the people who created him/her, a couple who vowed to sacrifice their personal happiness for the greater good of their family AND the greater good of society. You see, society benefits greatly when children are taken care of by their parents: the children are less likely to end up in poverty and reliant on the government to support them.
I think the common perception of marriage today (and the one adopted by homosexuals) is really more akin to what was formerly called "going steady." The couple exchange pins or something that establishes their commitment to be committed, but they can break it off once they realize that it's not all it's cracked up to be.
ResistSSA - thanks for your comments. I would question the purpose of the State creating secular marriage as compared to the purpose of the religious version. The purposes of two very likely are different. Churches have their theological reasons for marriage. I do not question that.
The State, on the other hand, is far more pragmatic and establishes marriage as a binding contract between two people. That is why there is Divorce Court and not Divorce Church. The State has created this secular vehicle they happen to also call marriage that establishes this contract. From that, legal relationships are established and issues can be readily resolved such as inheritance, child custody and protection, medical decision making, tax filing, and so on. The churches have no jurisdiction in these areas. The whole bit about procreation and all that really does not much matter on the legal side, which of course is what secular marriage is all about (vs. religious marriage). The State does not care if the couple can reproduce or not.
I do not see the leap you have made with church marriage establishing a protection for children. The church marriage still will exist for those who wish to participate.
I also do not see where the religious laws necessarily have secular underpinnings. I suspect the religious marriage came first (let's limit this to English law) and probably the two were closely related but evolved over time. However, eventually, the division line became quite clear. This is evidenced by the fact that a straight couple can be married by a Justice of the Peace and that is a legal marriage in the eyes of the State, other States, the Feds, and other countries. Churches may wish to recognize a JP wedding or not. It is up to them. But, a JP wedding has no connection at all with any church. Thus, it exists on its own.
I am a little lost on your statement about the secular (do you mean sectarian?) purpose being argued in the town square. I have no problem with the sectarian arguments being made public. That is Freedom of Speech. However, those arguments against secular SSM based upon sectarian views not held by everyone may well be aired but should not be considered by the public as valid reasons to deny SSM.
In a nutshell, secular laws affect all of the public and imposing what clearly is a very specific, and not universal, religious view on those who may not even be a part of that religious group is not appropriate.
If that isn't enough reason for SSM, then look at the numbers. The religious crowd always quotes that 3% of the population is gay. Okay, if 50% married, and I think that would be optimistic, that means that 1.5% of the population being legally married, vs. just living together, is going to cause the demise of mankind as we know it? Not very likely. Do remember, legalizing SSM will make no difference in the numbers of gay people or the numbers of gay couples. The only difference will be that I now can protect my 11 year old daughter better than I could before.
Believe me, SSM is painless. It won't make a blip on the radar screen. All the arguments against SSM, I heard back in 1967 when a mixed-race couple (gasp!) wanted to be married. Doom & gloom was predicted then, too.
Besides, NOM will be here after SSM is legalized at the Federal level. I suspect it will morph into the National Organization to Restore Marriage (NORM), people will continue to donate, Brian and Maggie witll get paid, and NOM/NORM will continue to exist as a paper tiger similar to the John Birch Society - still there, fully endowed, not much going on.
"Believe me, SSM is painless."
Really? For whom? For the women and children who can no longer count on presumption of paternity to protect their right to mutual support from a father and a co-procreator? Painless for fathers, whose natural paternity rights can no longer be considered sacrosanct, with marriage completely severed from procreation, and parentage a creature of state whim?
No, not painless. Fraught with peril.
ChuckCG -
State recognition of marriage until very recently has always been limited to one male and one female; and yet, you argue, there is no relationship to procreation? Boy, it's incredible how those of you who choose not to use your reproductive organs have so little respect for procreation.
If procreation weren't at issue, the why didn't the states just establish contractual relationships between any pair of individuals, including siblings, and even in states where so-called SS"M" has been legalized those restrictions still exist? Because the policy underlying the law was that marriage protected children by assuring that kids were born to committed parents. It prevents children from becoming charges of the State, a great benefit for the tradeoff of spousal benefits.
Creating a legal contract law for any old couple at great cost to taxpayers makes no sense; it's like creating a law for owners to marry their dogs and have taxpayers pay for dog food. It's fine for the dog, but why should taxpayers have to pony up for that?
@ ChuckCG says: In a nutshell, secular laws affect all of the public and imposing what clearly is a very specific, and not universal, religious view on those who may not even be a part of that religious group is not appropriate.
But if your perspective is that homosexuality is not immoral, isn't that, too, a religious position, and isn't forcing people to accept so-called SS"M" imposing a religious view on those who may not share that view? Of course it is. And that's why government needs to act based on the PURPOSE of marriage and its benefits to society. So-called SS"M" confers no benefit to society; there is not reason for the taxpayers to have to fund it.
@ Resist:
you may think marriage is solely for the purpose of raising children, but that's not true for society at large. you do not have to have a child to be married, nor do you have to be married to have a child. there is no procreation argument to be made. post-menopausal women, inmates, people with terminal cancer, the elderly, people on a 2nd or 3rd marriage, or people who do not want children -- all are allowed to get married. we all benefit when adults are in stable, protected relationships.
gay parenting is an entirely separate question from SSM.
that said, gay people tend to make pretty spectacular parents. no gay person has a child by accident, and most gays who adopt or do IVF are highly educated, highly committed couples. generally, they exhibit the same characteristics that make for successful parents, straight or gay.
but this isn't a discussion about that.
by your definition, there are a lot of straight marriages that should be "resisted."
@nova -
You're again confusing WHY people get married with the PURPOSE that the State encourages marriage. two very different things. E.g., I encourage my daughter to invite her friends over to my house and I provide the pizza and beverages. My PURPOSE for doing that is to keep an eye on her and protect her; her and her friends' REASONs for coming over is to have fun with one another and to have some free food. I don't really care why they come; I want to keep my daughter safe. So, whether a man and a woman get married for the benefits or because they love each other or they hate each other is irrelevant. What's relevant is that a man and a woman who have sex might produce a child, and it's important for a child to be born to two married parents.
Homosexual couples never produce children, so the State doesn't encourage their unions. Infertile and elderly couples encourage potentially procreative couples to marry; whereas homosexual couples merely encourage the formation of other non-procreating same-sex couples.
Same-sex couples make bad parents because they deprive children of understanding how men and women in relationships interact; moreover, a male child in a same-sex woman couple household has no male role model. These are all set-ups for failure for these children to form meaningful relationships with the opposite sex (that is assuming they are not sexually confused and opt for a same-sex relationship because of having a same-sex couple raise them).
The State does not care about stable relationships, per se; it cares about children and assuring that parents take responsibility for whom they create. That a same-sex couple is in a stable relationship is inconsequential to anyone but the couple; the State doesn't care, society doesn't care; there is no benefit conferred upon either.
good point.
@ Resist:
the moment the state *requires* a biological child for a marriage license you'll have a point. until then, you're sitting on a house of cards. if marriage is *ONLY* about children, there is no distinction, in your view, between a gay couple and an elderly couple, an infertile couple, or an intentionally childless couple.
it seems truly awful to say that you have no worth unless you produce offspring.
stable, protected gay couples can be of tremendous benefit to the state because they can and do adopt children and have demonstrated for decades that they can be excellent parents. the state knows this, which is why they *want* gay couples to adopt. they know it's better to have children in a loving home than in the foster care system.
@nova,
Sitting on a house of cards? ResistSSA bases an opinion on five thousand years of recorded history, biological truth, and the foundational support of America and then you have the nerve to declare it a "house of cards?"
In the world you live in transitory emotions may trump biological fact, but I assure you this is not the case in the world the rest of us live in.
@nova -
We've reached our disconnect here:
"There is no distinction.....between a gay couple and an elderly opposite sex couple, an infertile opposite-sex couple, or an intentionally childless opposite-sex couple."
It's always remarkable to me how homosexuals do not understand the complementary nature of male-female and the completely non-complementary nature of homosexuality. This is why I believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder; it prohibits such a basic understanding of what it means to be human.
Resist,
Yes, anyone with a rudimentary understanding of logic knows that "types" are universal and that a particular deviation does not invalidate the norm.
ssm activist are simply being willfully obtuse.
@Randy: gay people getting married in no way, shape, or form negatively affects straight people getting married. if anything, gay people can offer model a relationship based upon genuine equality rather than one based on limiting gender roles that straight people themselves have already redefined (i.e. women are no longer property, men can no longer beat their wives, etc.)
The ignorance displayed here by NOM's supporters is hardly worth debating. You want to be congratulated on the suicides of gay teens, Randy? Let them spew their garbage - it's all they have and it loses in court every time. Equality will win and these fools will be relegated to the dust pile of history.
@ Resist:
i love and respect my straight family and friends, and not one of them seems remotely threatened by my existence.
i wonder why you do?
if said couple is infertile or chooses not to have children, how then does their "complimentary" nature matter if not to produce children?
or, maybe, just maybe, we're here on earth to do more than just produce offspring? maybe we're more complex and wondrous than the flat, reductive model you've offered as the only acceptable way to be human.
Resist: "But if your perspective is that homosexuality is not immoral, isn't that, too, a religious position, and isn't forcing people to accept so-called SS"M" imposing a religious view on those who may not share that view? Of course it is. And that's why government needs to act based on the PURPOSE of marriage and its benefits to society. So-called SS"M" confers no benefit to society; there is not reason for the taxpayers to have to fund it."
Actually, it is not. Because, from my side of the fence, I am not in any way impeding your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Whether or not I am in a SSM has no effect on your marriage. From your view, because of your interpretation of your morality (not everyone's), you are denying me those same rights. How exactly is SSM "imposing a religious view on others?" How is a anti-SSM person adversely affected by SSM? If Bob and Steve up the street who have been living together for 20 years decide to fly to DC to marry and then return home, how are you adversely affected? I just do not see any compelling argument to support your view.
The taxpayers will be funding what, exactly? How would the government be funding SSM beyond what they "fund" any straight marriage?
And, SSM does benefit society in that it promotes marriage, the economy, and stability. I would think the anti-SSM people would be pro-SSM. The idea is to promote marriage. You are not doing so by denying it to others.
What is this? "Creating a legal contract law for any old couple at great cost to taxpayers makes no sense; it's like creating a law for owners to marry their dogs and have taxpayers pay for dog food. It's fine for the dog, but why should taxpayers have to pony up for that?"
What "great cost?" $2.00 for a marriage license? Your comment is insulting to elderly people, dogs, and to me. What "dog food" is the government paying for?
@nova
At what point in time in American history did men own women?
The roles of intergender ralationships have never changed; it takes a sperm from one man to fertilize the egg of one woman to produce a child...
Oh dear; I had no idea that we would have to go all the way back to page one of how a baby is made just to bring you up to speed with the facts of life.
Changing the meaning of the word marriage will affect everbody.
As an engineer I know that in order to marry two parts one part must have a male connector and the other part must have a female connector; if you would like to connect two parts with similar surfaces you must bond said parts by their pre-defined faying surfaces, but we know this bond is incappable of ever becoming a marraige - the joining of opposites.
@nova -
I'm not threatened by your existence. I just believe that boys don't marry boys, because two boys don't make a baby. Only a man and a woman make a baby.
All married opposite sex couples encourage marriage between other opposite sex couples; thus, infertile or sterile or elderly couples promote the unions of couples who are interested in procreating. It's a form of peer pressure, if you will; any single person who has sat amongst a table of married couples understands this phenomenon. If homosexual couples were married, they would not have the same effect; heterosexual couples recognize that boy-boy couples are NOT the same as infertile male-female couples. It goes to that complementary nature of male-female couples: we recognize that males are constructed to join with females. Homosexual couples encourage the formation of other homosexual couples.
I think anyone who thinks that procreation is just one of many special aspects of human existence is kidding him/herself. Nothing is more devastating to a married opposite-sex couple than to learn that they are unable to have a baby together. Maybe, just maybe the people who diminish the miracle of procreation have a mental issue that under the right circumstances could have been prevented or even reversed.
@Chuck -
If I told you that homosexual acts are immoral, you'd attack me as a religious zealot. Conversely, if you tell me that homosexual acts are moral and force me to live in a society where that morality is taught, you are forcing a religious value on me, impairing my right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
So-called SS"M" is a radical social experiment the results of which we can only imagine. Look at how government disincentives for marriage have affected the African American community: a 70% illegitimacy rate and high child and single-mom poverty.
In the short term, my kids might be forced to learn about your sordid lifestyle; taught that it is equal to a heterosexual, procreative existence. My daughters will be exposed to sexually confused boys who, taught that homosexual acts are normal, have experimented with same-sex acts in a community where 1 in 5 persons in infected with HIV. That's plenty of impact for me.
Finally, spousal benefits are expensive: health care, social security, etc... and the taxpayers would have to pick up that tab for same sex "married" couples. And what do we get in exchange? Nothing but what I mentioned in the previous paragraph.
ChuckGG,
From my side of the fence you are demanding that which has always been regarded as a charished ideal and cornerstone of modern civilization be transformed into nothing more than a mere pretense.
Kicking your feet while screaming why not at the top of your lungs was not acceptable when you where five and it most crertaintly is not acceptable now. The laws of nature dictate the marital structure in the United States; it always has and it always will.
Resist, you make a good point. Really, this whole battle about marriage has religious values on both sides. The ssm side, though they claim to be students of secularism, are really quite religious. They say they want to be treated like everyone else; but they are treated like everyone else. Thus, what they are really saying is that we have to redefine marriage to conform to their relationships, all in an effort to declare that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. Deny as they wish, but that is the goal. They can't be demanding equal treatment, because that is what they have. They are demanding special treatment, and want to force society to say that their relationships are equal to real marriages. The play on words involves labeling the rational, biological and historical arguments of marriage supporters as "sectarian," when they themselves are the religious zealots!
I was listening to a podcast of Dr. J debating marriage in a university forum. She did not mention God, the Bible, or anything of the sort during her remarks; but a person who came to ask a question said that her arguments were religious-based. She rightly replied that she was shocked that this man viewed the idea that marriage is about securing mothers and fathers for children as a religious argument; that would mean that every religion worldwide has embraced this tenet!
The simple fact is that when SSMers can't contend with the arguments of a marriage supporter, they have to label it as religious or hate-based in order to dismiss it. They understand that their claims are too faulty to stand on their own; claims such as: the state, for all of this time, has been involved in relationships between two, unrelated, opposite-sexed people, because it likes love and wanted to discriminate against gay people.
"Willfully obtuse" is the right term, AM!
Marriage isn't organized around sexual orientation, but around sex. Case in point:
only unrelated opposite-sexed adults can be married (in most states), no matter the sexual orientation of either individual
same-sexed siblings still cannot "marry" in states legalizing SSM, no matter the sexual orientation of either individual
a parent cannot marry their opposite-sex adult child, no matter the sexual orientation of either
Man/woman marriage may include any sexual orientation, and represents both sexes, and unites both sexes to their own offspring. No other human pairing can do/say the same.
Clearly, whether or not an individual or the couple identities as "straight" or "homosexual" is a legal non-issue. Those choosing to make it so have a political agenda which seeks to promote identity over equality, inclusiveness, or justice.
Marriage = man + woman
Glad to see that you're willing to say ANYTHING to make a buck. Your motives are transparent, as are you. There are, and will be, only 2 threats to marriage: divorce and death. To state otherwise is to appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignoratium).
Nova said, "i do think you make a good point -- there's really no reason to exclude gay people from marriage other than to appeal to tradition and/or prejudice."
Nova, you'll be pleased to know that "gay" people are already allowed to exercise their right to marriage in all 50 states, and, in fact, are never required to divulge their sexual orientation on any public document.
Christian4Equality said, "People who want to take away gay people's right to marry are ATTACKING marriage. Weakening marriage so that the right to it can be taken away from anyone by a vote is a terrible idea. Not to mention a sin."
Christian will be relieved to know that no one is trying to take away a "gay" person's right to get married. In fact, nowhere in the 50 states or U.S. territories will a person be required to divulge their sexual orientation, nor is there or has there ever been any legislation which discriminates for marriage on the basis of sexual orientation. If a gay man or woman, or a "gay" couple, where either the man or woman identifies as "gay" wishes to get married, they are certainly welcome to do so; their sexual orientation is no one's business, and they cannot be denied a marriage license based on their sexual orientation, either "gay" or "straight." That's equality, and that's Christian. Furthermore, it meets Christ's own definition of marriage, which is between a man and a woman.
The reason it is considered murder, is because by with holding the freedom to be an American and marry who you love, what's created is a terribly depressing thing.
These people are killing themselves over this; this is sad that is has had to come to this. I've spent my whole life with God, and this is not in his will.
Remember Gandhi having to starve himself so that the people would stop their cruelty? He got lucky that it worked. I just hope our future LGBT children will be as lucky.
Stop denying people their right to love and marry. Marriage is not just the joining of two people like a social union is; it's the joining of those people's families and lives. The joining of their hopes and dreams.
PLEASE don't take that away from me or anyone else whether they are Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Agnostic, Atheist, Black, Asian, Indian, White, or Gay.
All this attention on fighting gay marriage is creating a scary future. Just today people saying no to marriage completely for anyone is at a staggering all time high.
I prey in Jesus's Holy name that we can stop this battle and just live in peace.
Once we stop suppressing the gays we will all become gays. That would destroy my marriage.
Lets take the bible literally, shall we? How about this one, very fitting to Mrs. Gallagher... "Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says." - 1 Corinthians 14:34. Or this one... "If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her finds no proof of the young woman’s virginity, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death." - Deuteronomy 22:13-21.