24 Comments

1. Thom
   Posted March 23, 2012 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

   Perhaps your readers should look at another one of their polls just to see how delusional their audience is.

   http://www.onenewsnow.com/Poll.aspx?ekfrm=1325414

   Also, the question assumes that everyone supports the boycott, but where is the option to NOT support a boycott? So much for credibility of that website! LOL

2. Good News
   Posted March 23, 2012 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

   @ Thom
   Can I ask you a question. It is a serious question.
   Leaving religion out of it. Leaving homosexuality out of it. Leaving sex out of it. Leaving politics out of it. Leaving different viewpoints, ideas of society and future possibilities out of it. And leaving coffee out of it.
   Why don't you want to allow one word to identify the man-woman life long (in theory) union? Which is a unique enough union to have a clear unambiguous name. Why don't you want this union to be named?

3. Bryce K.
   Posted March 23, 2012 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

   What Thom said.

4. Good News
   Posted March 23, 2012 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

   @ Bryce K
   I ask you the same question.

5. M. Jones
   Posted March 23, 2012 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

   People of faith, people of conscience, people with traditional values, simply should not have to have the cost of having their values attacked included in their cup of coffee.

6. L. Marie
   Posted March 23, 2012 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

   Sweet question! Conscience supercedes coffee! Every time.

7. Ash
   Posted March 23, 2012 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

   I would choose C as well

8. AM
   Posted March 23, 2012 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

   Good News,
   Great question.

9. Bryce K.
   Posted March 24, 2012 at 2:08 am | Permalink

   Good News, could you please clarify your question? I'm not sure what you're asking.

10. Good News
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 3:45 am | Permalink

    @Bryce, I'll try.

    If 'marriage' eventually becomes a word that names a union where the sex of the other person doesn't matter (what Starbucks is encouraging). Then there will be no word that names the man-woman life long union. Why wouldn't you want 'us' to invent a word to name that man-woman union?

    (Take a look at my long 3 part posts on the 17th or March if they can help you to understand the question.)
    Good weekend to you.

11. Good News
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 4:15 am | Permalink

    @ Bryce
    Correction - Those postes where March 16th, under the title:
    "Video: Prof. Jennifer Roback Morse Speaks in New Hampshire on the Benefits of Marriage"
    4 posts in all...

12. Bryce K.
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    Why does it matter that marriage between a man and woman be named differently than a marriage between members of the same sex? The relationships have the same underlying characteristics, besides the ability to naturally procreate. But then again, that's your whole argument, isn't it?

13. ResistSSA
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    It's my understanding that @Bryce, who posts here often, is a mere child at 16 years old.

    Since at that age he is still in the experimental stages of his sexuality, I am not going to address any of his posts except to encourage him to resist his same-sex attraction and join the vast majority of the world in adopting a heterosexual life.

    @Bryce, given the rampant promiscuity that exists in the world of male homosexuality, you have more pressing issues at your young age than the definition of marriage. Get out of the lifestyle; join the ranks of the normal folks where, incidentally, procreation is a pretty big deal.

    I speak from experience when I tell you that your life will be much better -and probably longer - and more fulfilling. Find a good therapist to help you deal with the issues that make you think that you have no choice but to be homosexual. Best of luck to you.

14. Bryce K.
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    Thank you for ignoring my questions, ResistSSA. You're being quite conducive to an open dialogue at the moment. And by the way, I am 17 now. Not that it matters to you, though, as I'm still "a mere child."

    Thankfully, Good News is the one I was asking a question of. I'm sure he'll be willing to engage in conversation.

15. ResistSSA
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    @Bryce -

    You are so clueless; so impressionable. But the world needs idealistic youngsters like you with the drive to overcome adversity.

    But homosexuality is not a cause worth fighting for; indeed, it ends up destroying lives. Turn your life around before you allow this lifestyle to define who you are.

16. Good News
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    @Bryce
    "Why does it matter that marriage between a man and woman be named differently...?" That is the question that I asked you my friend.
    As for me I could give you a very long and detailed reason - for that is how important such a unique and different word is to me. If you are interested to try and understand why its important to me, I think it would be best for me to give short (and imperfect) answers, and you come back with other questions, if you have them.
    I will end this post with an answer to your last question in post 12. Because 'no', procreation is not the most basic thing that marriage is. My posts that I suggested to you earlier go more into detail on some of this stuff.

    - MARRIAGE IS ONE HUMAN SPECIES IN ITS ENTIRETY; acknowledging, through its two minds, that it will indeed be one. Marriage is not first a purpose, it is a distinct thing. -

    Take care – NOM's young blogger

17. Bryce K.
    Posted March 25, 2012 at 5:52 am | Permalink

    Thank you for your concern, ResistSSA. I'll be sure not to let my same-sex attractions define who I am in my entirety; after all, it is only a part of me.

    And thank you for answering my questions, Good News. I have another question for you - if we decided to call for civil unions with EXACTLY the same rights as marriage, minus the word marriage but including federal recognition in taxes, immigration, etc., would you then support that form of legal recognition for same sex couples? Because to me it seems like the major thing for you is the word marriage.

18. Good News
    Posted March 25, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    Bryce,
    Its my turn to ask you if you can make the question simpler for me? Thanks.

19. Bryce K.
    Posted March 25, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    No problem. Thanks for asking. Would you support civil unions for same sex couples, since the word marriage is not at risk in that situation? I'm asking because it seems that the only problem you have with SSM is it being called marriage.

20. Good News
    Posted March 26, 2012 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    What is causing all this reaction in our society is one of the things that might be in "etc." of your question. Which is the possibilities of same-sex couples to get babies in any and all ways possible. And to teach, or let it be known to their children that they only come from those two same sex people. Educating the child to believe that his biological origins are of no importance, interest or value to him. For me I do not think things are that simple or true for the child, or for mankind and his realities. Same-sex couples don't want to adopted children like in the past. Which was letting the child know (with out beating around the bush) that he comes from the two sexes, that he has another parent (another sex) somewhere, even if the child would never see that other parent. Today the fight for the same-sex parents to be able to teach the child that “there is nothing else out there for you child - except us who made you, you're two mothers”, or your two fathers.
    So I feel we would be dishonest to the child, in order to make the adults feel better. And that we would be a society living a lie. This push for babies to be made in any and all ways is not coming mostly from the homosexual movement, but from the medical, science and economic world and from parts of intellectual groups - as well as it being happily encouraged by the feminist movement.

    To answer your question (short and imperfectly). I think same-sex unions would need and want a more exclusive and honorable name than 'civil-union' to name itself. But that aside. If that union had all the same privileges given to it by the State as married couples are given to theirs – except for the question of children. No I would not, and I would never, “support” visible same-sex unions in my society. But. But I would not be wasting my time on the subject as I am now. I would not be 'fighting' against it. For you have to understand I am not here fighting to 'stop' something that someone else has or wants – I am fighting to save something that someone else is trying to steal from me. And that thing is the name of my union 'marriage'. It is me who is being attacked, bullied, threatened and harassed today. From youngsters all the way up to the president of my country.
    What they are all saying (whether they are aware of it or not) is, “if you don't give us everything we want over here in our house, than where going to come over to your house and destroy it and take what we want. In other words, instead of trying to build a new same-sex union in the society (with its own name). And fighting for rights and privileges to be attached to that new thing, whether it be fighting for inheritance rights or adoption possibilities (even if it might take longer to get everything they want); instead of building their own home, they have attacked ours, they have declared war, not us. In any case 'they' (the movement), are not innocent nice guys.
    And like I said, I don't think today that it is homosexuals who can decide on their own if they want or don't want the word marriage. I think much larger financial interests have taken over, and it is they who want the word marriage at all costs. Most homosexuals are just along for the ride (and many are simply being used).

    And that was the short (and very imperfect) answer – good luck with it.

21. Bryce K.
    Posted March 26, 2012 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    Thank you for your well thought-out response. I suppose I'll never understand your fondness of keeping a distinct name; to me it just seems a bit arbitrary. One thing I would like to say is that I, personally, as a gay male, do not like the thought of same-sex couples having children on their own. Not that I think they'll mislead or trick the children into believing they came from two males or two females. And if they did, by the end of grade school they'll know the truth. I do not, however, have any qualms about letting them adopt children. In fact I think it should be pushed that same sex couples *should* adopt children, as there are so many in orphanages/foster care. Thank you, Good News, for sharing your thoughts in an easy to understand and civil way. Until next time!

22. Bryce K.
    Posted March 26, 2012 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    I'm sorry if this turns out to be a double post, but my original message wasn't posted.

    Thank you for your well thought-out response. I suppose I'll never understand your fondness of keeping a distinct name; to me it just seems a bit arbitrary. One thing I would like to say is that I, personally, as a gay male, do not like the thought of same-sex couples having children on their own. Not that I think they'll mislead or trick the children into believing they came from two males or two females. And if they did, by the end of grade school they'll know the truth. I do not, however, have any qualms about letting them adopt children. In fact I think it should be pushed that same sex couples *should* adopt children, as there are so many in orphanages/foster care. Thank you, Good News, for sharing your thoughts in an easy to understand and civil way. Until next time!

23. Bryce K.
    Posted March 26, 2012 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    Sorry Good News. I've tried posting a reply but it isn't going through. If this goes through, I'd like to thank you for your well thought-out explanations. Until next time!

24. wemustdissent
    Posted March 26, 2012 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

    Awww Good News thats horrible. All those mean people trying to take away your word by commiting themselves to a loving relationship. That must be really hard on you. How selfish of them to want to show their love for one another in ceremony and commitment in front of friends and loved ones. Aren't they thinking about you? About your need to define a particular word in a particular way so that
    you can feel better about yourself? Don't they understand that semantics is far more important than being able to have your commitment recognized by the state in a way that is equal to other couples who are afforded that same right?