<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: UNITED! Stand with NOM Against Baseless Attacks from the NY Times!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nomblog.com/21380/feed?doing_wp_cron" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nomblog.com/21380</link>
	<description>The official blog of the National Organization for Marriage</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:28:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Suzanne Todd</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/21380/comment-page-1#comment-99232</link>
		<dc:creator>Suzanne Todd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2012 21:46:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nomblog.com/?p=21380#comment-99232</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hate will bite you in the arse when God judges you.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hate will bite you in the arse when God judges you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Best Spinner Bonuses</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/21380/comment-page-1#comment-99219</link>
		<dc:creator>The Best Spinner Bonuses</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2012 19:31:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nomblog.com/?p=21380#comment-99219</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You really make it appear really easy along with your presentation however I in finding this topic to be actually one thing that I think I&#039;d never understand. It seems too complex and very vast for me. I am taking a look ahead for your next publish, I will try to get the dangle of it!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You really make it appear really easy along with your presentation however I in finding this topic to be actually one thing that I think I'd never understand. It seems too complex and very vast for me. I am taking a look ahead for your next publish, I will try to get the dangle of it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lhf</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/21380/comment-page-1#comment-99033</link>
		<dc:creator>lhf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:53:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nomblog.com/?p=21380#comment-99033</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What is the atheist argument against gay marriage? 
The reason the state grants marriage licenses is to ensure a bond between the legal father (biological or adoptive) and the child so that the child does not become a burden to everyone.   We already see what has happened as marriage has been undermined by domestic partnerships, civil unions, and unmarried cohabitation.   Dropping the one man-one woman definition will open the door to not only &quot;marriage&quot; between two men or two women, but multiple partner marriage of all types.   The Dutch, I think the first country to permit homosexuals to marry has already permitted a 3 person marriage, so you can directly point to the consequences of further undermining the  existing definition.

Under the new scheme, should homosexuals be granted the &quot;right&quot; to marry, would marriages be allowed between 40 year old men and 16 year old boys?   Why wouldn&#039;t it be a violation of my civil rights to be prohibited from marrying my sister?  Or my brother?   

I could go on, but you get the picture.   The slippery slope is the best argument and I don&#039;t know why it&#039;s not more widely used.

Obama is claiming that the Republicans will undermine middle class families - that has already happened under the broad welfare state and adding marriage for homosexuals will continue the course in that direction.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is the atheist argument against gay marriage?<br />
The reason the state grants marriage licenses is to ensure a bond between the legal father (biological or adoptive) and the child so that the child does not become a burden to everyone.   We already see what has happened as marriage has been undermined by domestic partnerships, civil unions, and unmarried cohabitation.   Dropping the one man-one woman definition will open the door to not only "marriage" between two men or two women, but multiple partner marriage of all types.   The Dutch, I think the first country to permit homosexuals to marry has already permitted a 3 person marriage, so you can directly point to the consequences of further undermining the  existing definition.</p>
<p>Under the new scheme, should homosexuals be granted the "right" to marry, would marriages be allowed between 40 year old men and 16 year old boys?   Why wouldn't it be a violation of my civil rights to be prohibited from marrying my sister?  Or my brother?   </p>
<p>I could go on, but you get the picture.   The slippery slope is the best argument and I don't know why it's not more widely used.</p>
<p>Obama is claiming that the Republicans will undermine middle class families - that has already happened under the broad welfare state and adding marriage for homosexuals will continue the course in that direction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Jansen</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/21380/comment-page-1#comment-99001</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Jansen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 12:13:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nomblog.com/?p=21380#comment-99001</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So quoting your own memo&#039;s against you is a &quot;baseless attack&quot; nowadays? 

That makes sense, coming from the people who use made-up statistics and fairy-tales to prove their points.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So quoting your own memo's against you is a "baseless attack" nowadays? </p>
<p>That makes sense, coming from the people who use made-up statistics and fairy-tales to prove their points.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/21380/comment-page-1#comment-98926</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 22:29:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nomblog.com/?p=21380#comment-98926</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Baseless? The editorial was BASED on NOM&#039;s own internal document.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Baseless? The editorial was BASED on NOM's own internal document.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: akork</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/21380/comment-page-1#comment-98891</link>
		<dc:creator>akork</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 19:51:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nomblog.com/?p=21380#comment-98891</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Louis E.  In what way does homosexual marriage threaten heterosexual marriage.  Do you believe that if SSM was not allowed (as it isn&#039;t in most states) that homosexuals would start marrying people of the opposite sex and raising families?  Why would you believe they would do that?  Conversly why would homosexuals marrying decrease the frequency in which heterosexual couples marry?  That is the thing I do not understand.  Why does one preven the other, its not like the Unites States has some sort of limit on the number of marriages it can issue in a year and so SSM is somehow taking away from that limited number in a way that prevents heterosexuals from marrying  yet you are acting like that is somehow the case.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Louis E.  In what way does homosexual marriage threaten heterosexual marriage.  Do you believe that if SSM was not allowed (as it isn't in most states) that homosexuals would start marrying people of the opposite sex and raising families?  Why would you believe they would do that?  Conversly why would homosexuals marrying decrease the frequency in which heterosexual couples marry?  That is the thing I do not understand.  Why does one preven the other, its not like the Unites States has some sort of limit on the number of marriages it can issue in a year and so SSM is somehow taking away from that limited number in a way that prevents heterosexuals from marrying  yet you are acting like that is somehow the case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TC Matthews</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/21380/comment-page-1#comment-98880</link>
		<dc:creator>TC Matthews</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 18:53:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nomblog.com/?p=21380#comment-98880</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Blacks, whites and Hispanics...Republicans, Democrats and Independents...Catholics and Protestants, Mormons, Jews and atheists...All standing together for the good of marriage!&quot;

It&#039;s a beautiful thing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"Blacks, whites and Hispanics...Republicans, Democrats and Independents...Catholics and Protestants, Mormons, Jews and atheists...All standing together for the good of marriage!"</p>
<p>It's a beautiful thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Louis E.</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/21380/comment-page-1#comment-98875</link>
		<dc:creator>Louis E.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 18:47:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nomblog.com/?p=21380#comment-98875</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Michael,I&#039;m a non-religious theist (I see it as impossible for there to be no Infinitely First Cause,but can see no credible evidence that the IFC writes books,has an official fan club,or involves itself in any &quot;personal&quot; way in our affairs...it is largely beyond our comprehension)...my opposition to SSM is based on the overwhelmingly greater importance to humanity of opposite-sex relationships meriting a perpetual guarantee of preferential treatment for such relationships.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael,I'm a non-religious theist (I see it as impossible for there to be no Infinitely First Cause,but can see no credible evidence that the IFC writes books,has an official fan club,or involves itself in any "personal" way in our affairs...it is largely beyond our comprehension)...my opposition to SSM is based on the overwhelmingly greater importance to humanity of opposite-sex relationships meriting a perpetual guarantee of preferential treatment for such relationships.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/21380/comment-page-1#comment-98859</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 18:13:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nomblog.com/?p=21380#comment-98859</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What are the atheist arguments against same sex marriage?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What are the atheist arguments against same sex marriage?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ash</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/21380/comment-page-1#comment-98845</link>
		<dc:creator>Ash</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nomblog.com/?p=21380#comment-98845</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yay! I love it when generous friends of NOM match donations. I&#039;ll send something in the next few days. :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yay! I love it when generous friends of NOM match donations. I'll send something in the next few days. <img src='http://cdn.nomblog.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
