NOM BLOG

Carson Holloway: Has Obama Changed His Position on Marriage Again?

 

Carson Holloway at CatholicVote:

The Obama campaign has a new ad featuring actress Sarah Jessica Parker. In the ad Parker invites viewers to enter a contest to win a ticket to a dinner for the president and the first lady, a dinner to be held at Parker’s New York home.

In this ad Parker characterizes the president as “the guy” who, among other things, “says you should be able to marry anyone you want.”

...So now the president is now not content to advocate redefining marriage as being possible between two people of the same sex. He is now in favor of redefining marriage so that it can be any union at all — which is to say, he is in favor of abolishing any publicly normative definition of marriage. If “you should be able to marry anyone you want,” then you should be able to marry someone who is already married, you should be able to marry your father, your mother, your sister, your brother, whoever. Taken as stated, the president’s position, proclaimed by his actress-spokesperson, is to personally advocate polygamous and even incestuous marriages.

No doubt the president does not really intend to say this. But why not, at least on the logic of the left-wing marriage nihilists whose rhetoric he is parroting? Conservatives say that same-sex marriage is a step towards the destruction of marriage. Their liberal opponents respond that this is childish, that letting gay people marry does not threaten any existing marriage. But that response completely misses the point, which is this: the argument by which the left defends same sex marriage is inseparable from an argument that marriage should be anything anybody wants it to be, which is the same thing as saying there should be no publicly normative definition of marriage, which is the same thing as destroying marriage as a public institution.

56 Comments

  1. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    What she should have said is, "The guy who...thinks that kids don't need a mom and a dad; that it's more important for guys to marry guys and women to marry women...." But that would be the truth.

  2. 14th Amend
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    Yup - because SJP used the phrase "anyone you want" when clearly referencing same-sex marriage rights, she must be officially speaking on behalf of the President who now supports children marrying cats. Get a grip, folks.

  3. Stefan
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    Resist, or Overcame, whatever your current status is, if you really believe what you say, then you truly are as ignorant as it gets. I'm sorry that you cannot stomach your own sexuality to the point you deny anything homosexual. Give it a rest already. You sound like a broken record.

  4. Randy E King
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 11:05 am | Permalink

    14th,

    You know; you would save us all a lot of time if you would just copy and paste "No it isn't" and "So what" in response to.

  5. Randy E King
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    Overcame,

    You know you must be near the target when you start seeing flak.

    Bombs away!!!

  6. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    Stefan - I speak the truth. So-called SS"M" promotes what homosexuals demand for their personal happiness to the exclusion of children's rights to be raised by their moms and dads.

    If I sound like a broken record, its because you and your ilk keep coming here ignoring this most important aspect of marriage, and blabbering on about YOUR rights. It's not all about YOU and who YOU can "marry." It's about CHILDREN and how they are are not only deprived of moms and dads, but how children are taught in schools - even under parental objection - that homosexual couples are the same as heterosexual couples after so-called SS"M" is legalized.

  7. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    President Obama's campaign has now become a twisted game show.

  8. Ash
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    I mean....Sarah Jessica Parker *did* say "anyone you want."

    What else are we supposed to conclude? ;)

  9. Jim
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    @OvercameSSA - If I marry my boyfriend (which I might one day do!), which child would be deprived of a mom and dad?

  10. Peter Thomas
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    @ Jim,
    You wrote, " If I marry my boyfriend (which I might one day do!), which child would be deprived of a mom and dad?"

    The children you were supposed to make with your wife. You have not only deprived them of a MOM, but of LIFE itself.
    Not only that, your "boyfriend" should also marry a women and make babies, so you are depriving TWO sets of children LIFE.

    If you two do get "married" and adopt kids, then you have ripped these kids away from their natural parents as two men CANNOT create new life together, only steal that life away from someone else.

  11. Posted June 6, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    Oh, for crying out loud, that's a bit of a reach, NOM. Seriously? SJP makes policy now? Honestly. . .

  12. Stefan
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    It's certainly not about me or my rights. I'm straight and have been married to my wife for 18+ years. I have nothing to gain yet remain an ardent supporter of marriage equality. I completely disagree with you and think that you're far removed from reality. What about children abandoned by heterosexuals that are brought into loving same sex households? What about bad heterosexual parents? What about childless couples, straight or gay? The millions of single parents. I could go on and on. Children aren't the only thing that bring couples together.
    You don't need to respond because I already know what I'll hear. You and your ilk and me and mine will continue to argue our same points over and over. The main difference between you (and others here) and me is that homosexuality doesn't bother me in the least.
    It is no more a choice than heterosexuality is. I know I'll get slamed by the regulars here who believe otherwise, but so be it. Bring on the next generation already. It will do this country some good.

  13. Randy E King
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    Stefan,

    Support of an activity that stands in opposition to the laws of nature is the very definition of what it is to be irrational.

    Just saying

    Children may not be the only thing that brings people together, but the creation of children is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings. Maybe you should try to come up with rational basis defense for your demands of new rights for sexual deviants; other than repeatedly stating that if they could have what their proclivity does not allow for they may be less inclined to kill themselves because of the choice they refuse to acknowledge they made.

  14. 14th Amend
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    Great post, Stefan!

  15. Becky
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    what about adults marrying kids? he okay with that too?

  16. Zack
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    @Stefan

    "What about children abandoned by heterosexuals that are brought into loving same sex households? What about bad heterosexual parents? What about childless couples, straight or gay? The millions of single parents"

    You get no argument from me in those areas. Now if you were to directly engage me in a discussion on this issue I would tell you that I support all the marital benefits being afforded to same-sex couples. However that stops at Marriage because I firmly believe the institution sets a distinction(which it does)between the two genders. If there was a child up for adoption and I had two couples come before me; one straight and the other homosexual and they were identical in all fields such as no history of domestic violence, financial stability just all in all a good background, I would choose the straight couple because children deserve a mother and a father. That isn't because I have a vendetta against homosexuals. I don't. I just believe that men and women each have something unique and special to give to a child that no two people of the same gender are capable of giving.

  17. Zack
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    @Stefan

    "Bring on the next generation already. It will do this country some good."

    I completely disagree with that statement. I'm part of the "next generation" and I dread the day we start running for office.

  18. GZeus
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    Stefan: Overcame is just a bitter queen who was too cowardly to accept who he is. I feel sorry for his wife and kids who must live with an angry actor.

  19. D
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    I watched this video and laughed so hard, i thought I was going to hurl! JUst goes to show you that you can tell ANYTHING to a bubble head, and the hilarious thing is, THEY BELIEVE IT!!!! 4 million jobs???

  20. GZeus
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    Jim: answer is None! Since procreation is not mandatory of any married couple, gay or straight. It's just a meme NOM uses - its about protecting the children! The poor children must have a mom and dad so instead of making divorce illegal, or focusing on single parents, or straights giving kids up, it's all about same sex marriage and how THAT will somehow automatically rip kids from their parents.

  21. Posted June 6, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    The message is really working for Obama.

    I mean, just look at the overwhelming success of the Democratic message in Wisconsin, for example.....

    PS: Polls wrong again :-)

  22. Mike
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    We humans were put on this earth to procreate, have babies, repopulate the earth, whatever you call it. Two females or two males cannot do that, therefore it's wrong and should not be tolerated. Homosexuality is a choice just like the clothes you put on in the morning. It's a sin, and you choose to sin. We may all have sin in us everyday, but sometimes we choose to sin, such as stealing, having lust over someone who is not our partner, if we can choose to sin like that, why is being homosexual not a choice if its a sin? If its a sin, its a choice, and since it is a choice, its not discrimination to ban them from marrying. In the states who have voted, minus California, ALL have voted to ban gay marriage. I'm not gonna be all crazy like those nuts from that "church" in Kansas who believes God hates fags, we all know God loves everyone and hates their sins. If re-production wasn't our purpose, why do we have reproductive organs? If God wanted man to be with man and woman to be with woman, he wouldn't have gave us reproductive organs, OR he would have just made us all the same gender. Its funny how the Pro-SSM people are the ones who always have bad things to say about us against it, and call us idiots, but yet we don't call you anything. And we're the ones who are supposedly "hating" Stop being such hypocrites, if you don't want hate from us, stop hating on us because we follow the word of God and are loyal to Him and only Him.

  23. Randy E King
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    GZeus,

    Procreation is not mandatory; the ability to procreate within the construct of your relationship is.

  24. Karen Heath
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    I wish the deluded movie stars would just do their jobs and SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!

  25. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    GZeus and other supporters of so-called SS"M" think that pointing to the fact that since procreation is not required for marriage, then marriage is not about protecting children. This is a circular argument. The protection of children in marriage stems from the fact that only a male and a female couple can create a child; it is the potential for procreation by virtue of the combination of male and female that is important. Same-sex couples can never, ever create children, therefore there is no issue of protecting children with their unions.

    The few infertile male-female couples who wish to marry - and the fact is there are many stories of supposedly infertile couples who turn out to not be infertile; this is never the case with same-sex couples - serve as examples, as do all married male-female couples, for fertile male-female couples to get married and assure that any children they create will have a mom and a dad. We often forget this important role for non-procreating male-female couples; but as humans often act out of imitation and peer pressure, these couples serve an important societal purpose that same-sex couples do not.

  26. Posted June 6, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    ".... the argument by which the left defends same sex marriage is inseparable from an argument that marriage should be anything anybody wants it to be, which is the same thing as saying there should be no publicly normative definition of marriage, which is the same thing as destroying marriage as a public institution."

    Bingo.

  27. 14th Amend
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    @ Becky, Yes. The on the President's agenda for his next term is lowering the age of consent to 3. Is that what you want to hear? Insanity.

  28. Doug
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    I believe that nearly everyone misses the point concerning gay couples. The risks to public health caused by gay men and their “lifestyle” are enough to render any further conversation a moot point. Let’s begin with two "civilly married" men who decide that one is the "male" partner and the other, presumably, is the "female" partner. They then copulate using their bodies in a variety of ways which are dangerous from an epidemiological viewpoint AND contrary to God's will. They, in fact, mix the emissions of the reproductive glands with the contents of the waste excretion systems of the body. No child will ever be conceived by such perverse physical and sinful interactions, PERIOD. In fact, a vast majority of the gay men polled in a recent survey prefer the notion of an open “marriage” relationship where either party is obliged to bring as many guests for group copulation as their dwellings can reasonably accommodate. This easily adds up to hundred and even thousands of semi-anonymous sexual encounters in the course of months and years. The continuing steady rise of STDs, including AIDS, Hepatitis, Herpes and gay bowel syndrome only serve to illuminate the problem with the gay “lifestyle”. So this is how we define marriage? The reason for all this graphic description is to highlight the extreme disrespect that gay men display to each other and God. What else can be said? The myriad of dangerous health and mental consequences of gay unions speak for themselves. Don't try to compare that with what I do with my wife of 16 years! Don't insult my marriage with the disgrace mislabeled as “gay marriage”. How just 1 to 4% of the populace can undermine 2000 years of solid teachings on the topic of morality is a question best answered by the twisted degenerates who operate the mass media conglomerates that pour sewage into the minds of our youth. God help us all if the 1st Amendment continues to be defiled by the media vulchers.

  29. 14th Amend
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    "We humans were put on this earth to procreate, have babies, repopulate the earth, whatever you call it. Two females or two males cannot do that, therefore it's wrong and should not be tolerated."

    The leaps of logic are truly spectacular to watch.

  30. Posted June 6, 2012 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    Well, 14th, your major difficulty is that your idea of logic, apart from its oft-demonstrated inadequacies, also fails to resonate with the electorate.

    It's OK though.

    We encourage you to keep right at it .

    It will make our job so much easier :-)

  31. Chairm
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    Stefan: "I could go on and on. [...] You don't need to respond because I already know what I'll hear."

    You mean those little voices inside your head, like your fellow SSMers GZeus and 14th Amend who predictably chanted --

    GZeus: "procreation is not mandatory of any married couple"

    14th Amend: "The leaps of logic are truly spectacular to watch."

    And:

    "Overcame is just a bitter queen who was too cowardly to accept who he is. I feel sorry for his wife and kids who must live with an angry actor."

    Yeh, you know what you'll hear from SSMers. You don't deal with the actual disagreement and prefer to blather on about other nonsense.

    I agree that the back and forth is tiresome and not productive. You have your part to play in making it more effective and on-target. But you chose to do otherwise.

    You do go on and on about nothing much more than your favoritism for the gay identity group. Andyour antipathy toward those who reasonably prefer the core meaninig of marriage over the SSM idea.

  32. Michael C
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    Hi, Mike. For most people, sexual orientation is not a costume. One can choose to live contrary to their orientation, but behavior does not affect constitution. Just because you dye your hair blonde doesn't make you "A Blonde." You state "If God wanted man to be with man and woman to be with woman, he wouldn't have gave us reproductive organs." To that I ask you, if God wanted me to procreate with a woman, why didn't he build into me a desire to do so? People don't create children because they are commanded to do so by God, they do so because they are wired to (by God or whatever). You also say "the Pro-SSM people are the ones who always have bad things to say about us against it, and call us idiots, but yet we don't call you anything." Um, wow. Where do you live? I can't tell you how many times I have been called ugly names. Do you pay attention to how many people on this site say awful things about gay people? I do, however, prefer name calling to physical violence, which I have also been exposed to.

    Zack, while our opinions differ, I appreciate your presence on this forum.

  33. Chairm
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    Carson Holloway anticipated the remarks by SSMers above:

    Carson said:

    "No doubt the president does not really intend to say this. But why not, at least on the logic of the left-wing marriage nihilists whose rhetoric he is parroting?"

  34. Chairm
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    Michael C said:

    "To that I ask you, if God wanted me to procreate with a woman, why didn't he build into me a desire to do so?"

    Maybe he wanted you to procreate with a man? Come on, Michael, what are you really trying to say -- that same-sex sexual behavior is the moral equivalent of coital relations of husband and wife?

    If so, you can't get to that from what you just said.

    Zack, would those benefits be accorded based on gay identity or based on same-sex sexual behavior or something else?

    I ask, because there are plenty of non-gay and otherwise nonsexualized scenarios that populate the nonmarriage category that would merit protections. Protection equality is about the benefits that match the circumstances.

    Merger is something different. It would either reduce marriage from its preferential status in our laws and culture, or it would elevate gay identity to a special status on par with or superseding marital status. There does not appear to be a happy middle ground -- not in principle and not in practice.

  35. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    Doesn't Sarah Parker portray a slut in "Sex and the City"?

  36. John K. Noe
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    Mike at post #18 that was just brillant.

  37. 14th Amend
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    "You don't deal with the actual disagreement and prefer to blather on about other nonsense."

    Chairm, Are you writing to marriage equality supporters or Carlson Holloway, who wrote an entire post on a couple of words that Sarah Jessica Parker said?

  38. 14th Amend
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    "there are plenty of non-gay and otherwise nonsexualized scenarios that populate the nonmarriage category that would merit protections."

    Chairm, It sn't about giving marital protections to non-marriages, it's about allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into marriages. Your circular reasoning is basically "they shouldn't be marriages because they're not marriages". No wonder you keep losing in court.

  39. Michael C
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    Hi Chairm. I don't believe I made any claims to the morality, immorality or amorality of my absence of attraction for the opposite sex in my response to Mike. ...but since you asked.

    "[W]hat are you really trying to say -- that same-sex sexual behavior is the moral equivalent of coital relations of husband and wife?"

    No. Same-sex sexual behavior is NOT the moral equivalent of coital relations of husband and wife. Same-sex sexual behavior IS the amoral or immoral equivalent of opposite-sex sexual behavior.

    A loving, committed, dependent, romantic, responsible, caring, supportive marriage is the moral equivalent of a loving, committed, dependent, romantic, responsible, caring, supportive marriage.

  40. michael geeter
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    I want to let stefan know that I side with the holy b ible the word of God. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Same-sex Marriage is wrong putting children in the care of the ungodly union is damaging and destructive. Not all heterosexual parents are bad but you cant use that as an excuse to condone wrong. Stefan I challenge you not tobe double minded but take your blinders and scales off your eyes and see the truth in God's Word.

  41. Posted June 6, 2012 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    14th, you seem to intentionally forget that there are no laws prohibiting anyone who claims to be either "gay" or "lesbian" from entering into marriage. Rights are for individuals, not for couples or groups. If you want to change that, you'll have to start over from the beginning. But remember, individual rights aren't subject to the whims of sexual orientation or identity politics. They are based on equal treatment of all citizens.

  42. Michael C
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

    Yes, yes, DoE, gay people can marry someone of the opposite gender. We're already treated equally. This cruel joke gets less funny every time I hear it. You keep saying that the application of the law is not dependent on sexual orientation. The very fact that marriage is limited to opposite sex couples is evidence of heterosexuality getting preferential treatment by the law. no?

  43. AW
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 1:03 am | Permalink

    Michael C: The only reason the State ever gave out certificates for marriage - rather than cohabitation, "going steady" or other romantic arrangements - is because originally marriage was conceived as an institution by which new citizens were produced. The State is not in the business of regulating romance, nor are you prevented from having a romance if you don't have a marriage license. Nor are you denied other legal benefits - e.g., if you want your partner to inherit your possessions after you die, just draw up a will !

  44. Chairm
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 1:11 am | Permalink

    Michael C, you have made two moral claims:

    1. "Same-sex sexual behavior is NOT the moral equivalent of coital relations of husband and wife."

    And this cryptic (well cryptic to me I must say) sentence:

    2. "Same-sex sexual behavior IS the amoral or immoral equivalent of opposite-sex sexual behavior."

    Neither moral claim can be reached by what you said in your earlier comment about sexual desire, Michael C.

    You concluded by saying:

    "A loving, committed, dependent, romantic, responsible, caring, supportive marriage is the moral equivalent of a loving, committed, dependent, romantic, responsible, caring, supportive marriage."

    [Not sure what that means but I'll try to unpack it. Please correct, confirm, or clarify. I do not wish to misrepresent your intended meaning.]

    I doubt you meant to take the sexual out of the proposed moral equivalency. If you did intent that, then, you have stretched the proposed equivalency to include the nonsexual types of relationships that otherwise meet your description.

    Of course I do think that your meaning is sexualized. You did not mean platonic love. Nor platonic romance. Not following your comment about sexual desire.

    As for commitment, did you mean sexual fidelity -- as in sexual monogamy? Maybe not. If not, then, that gets added to the list in my next paragraph.

    The other things -- responsible, caring, supportive, dependent (and nonsexual commitment) -- do not distinguish marriage from nonmarriage. Sexual or not.

    So from your response did you mean that coital relations of husband and wife is the moral equivalent of same-sex sexual behvior of men or women who SSM'd?

    And that outside of SSM same-sex sexual behavior is amoral or immoral?

    Perhaps the legal status transforms same-sex sexual behavior into moral behavior? Or is it the other way around perhaps?

    The morality of the sexual type of relationship known as marriage comes first; the law follows. Perhaps that is the moral equivalence you proposed in your comment.

    Onthe other hand, maybe your reply was meant to say that sexual behavior is irrelevant to the morality of marriage. I dunno. I found your comment vague and have tried to read it with generousity.

    You said something earlier about sexual desire. And your reply to me seems to have abandoned what you had said in the previous comment. Maybe that is a mistaken impression. Please explain.

    I don't think you can get from your previous comment about sexual desire to your comment that evaded the question about coital relations of husband and wife.

  45. Chairm
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 1:18 am | Permalink

    I think what I said above in my previous comment has been confirmed, pretty much, by what you said in your reply to Daughter of Eve:

    Michael C, you said: " The very fact that marriage is limited to opposite sex couples is evidence of heterosexuality getting preferential treatment by the law."

    Marriage is limited to some two-sexed scenarios. The preferential status is based on the core meaning of the social institution. This is not a cruel joke.

    Marriage has a sexual basis in the marriage law. See the sexual basis for the legal presumption of paternity; it is the same sexual basis for consummation, annulment, and adultery. Not by happenstance, that sexual basis is two-sexed rather than sex-neutral.

    But the law did not make this so. Marriage made it so. The law merely recognizes the social institution for what it actually is. That core meaning is what merits the preferential status accorded to unions of husband and wife.

    To wit: 1) provision for responsible procration, 2) integration of the sexes, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole (i.e. as a foundational social institution of civil society).

    The laws are reasonable on this. I do not think that the SSM idea can be reasonably imposed on a same-sex sexual basis; nor on a moral equivalency with coital relations of husband and wife. It might be imposed arbitrarily so as to force society to treat unalikes as alikes. But that would be immoral.

  46. Zack
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 1:34 am | Permalink

    @Charim

    "would those benefits be accorded based on gay identity or based on same-sex sexual behavior or something else?"

    Good question. I assumed it would be towards same-sex couples that desired the same legal protection of married couples.

    "I ask, because there are plenty of non-gay and otherwise nonsexualized scenarios that populate the nonmarriage category that would merit protections. Protection equality is about the benefits that match the circumstances."

    Point taken.

    @Michael C

    "Zack, while our opinions differ, I appreciate your presence on this forum"

    Thank you and I appreciate yours as well. You don't seem hostile like some of the other posters on this forum.

    "The very fact that marriage is limited to opposite sex couples is evidence of heterosexuality getting preferential treatment by the law. no?"

    I disagree. I don't believe it's the law giving preferential treatment but rather the law just codifying what has already been for thousands of years.

    I like to believe it is nature that has given men and women preferential treatment since it's only when these two genders meet that the foundation of society is built.

  47. Chairm
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 1:58 am | Permalink

    14th Amend said:

    "Chairm, It sn't about giving marital protections to non-marriages, it's about allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into marriages. Your circular reasoning is basically 'they shouldn't be marriages because they're not marriages'."

    Well, no, I asked Zack about civil union which would not be marriage. Why, I asked, would nonmarriage be accorded the status of marriage in all but name?

    That there is nonmarriage is hardly disputable. SSMers depend on a line between marriage and nonmarriage -- between SSM and nonmarriage. So you really cannot hide behind a false accusation of circular thinking against what I said.

    Protections for types of relationships that populate the nonmarriage category is certainly what this is about.

    Tell me, 14th, what makes SSM marriage in your view? Don't go all circular in your reply.

  48. Christopher Lines
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    OK. You NOM nuts. This ad in no way suggests that Pres. Obama nor Ms. Parker are advocating polygamy. You might want to ask your buddy Romney about polygamy.

    Two can play at the 'it's in the bible game: Mark 7: 17-18 & Galatians 3 15-24 (ESPECIALLY 19-24).

    Abraham married his sister: David had 8 wives (1 Chrons 3: 1-9)
    Solomon had 700 wives (1 Kings 11:3)
    Deut 22 If a man rapes a woman, he must marry her.

  49. Posted June 7, 2012 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    Mitt doesn't support polygamy, but nice try there Christopher :-)

    If you disagree with polygamy, great. So does God. See Matthew 19:

    "Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: 5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh."

    I would like to invite you to lavish particular attention upon that significant little word "two".

    Hope this helps.

  50. AW
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    Christopher Lines: St. Hildegard said that God told her He had permitted polygamy at one time only because there were so few people - polygamy is a more efficient way to reproduce (think about it). The early Israelites were a small tribal group constantly under attack and therefore in need of new members to serve as soldiers. But notice that the Bible does not encourage polygamy but merely permits the practice for the early Israelites. The law you mentioned is part of a historical law code, much like the genealogy lists included in the Bible - no one mistakes the genealogy lists for moral codes, yet some people claim that every legal precept included in the Bible must be part of the moral law.

  51. AnonyGrl
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    So NOM has completely gone off the rails, I see.

  52. Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    And another content-free drive-by by AnonyGirl.....:-)

  53. Wayne
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    Obama is a one-term president!

  54. Stefan
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, I have no little voices in my head. And as you know, what you quote are from other posters, not me. When you say that I don't deal with the actual disagreement and prefer to blather on about other nonsense, what nonsense is that? I made a few points in my post and left it at that. Granted I’ve never articulated to the degree that you have, but very few have. And I find that, for the most part, what I read on these blogs by NOM supporters is foolish, ignorant and extreme, not to mention condescending. Not everything mind you, but a lot.
    I've stated my personal opinion here a couple of times only to be told that I'm full of it, don't know what I'm talking about, etc. How effective, on target and productive are those responses?
    I have no favoritism for any group, gay or otherwise. Whether or not someone is gay makes no more difference to me than if they're straight. I have many close straight and gay friends. I have no antipathy toward those who you say reasonably prefer the core meaning of marriage over the SSM idea, although I'd question reasonably. And if you want antipathy, look at many of the posts that are geared towards SSM supporters (I realize it goes both ways). When you get queer, homo, rubbing your junk (one of Randy’s favorites), the names and implications go on, that doesn’t sound to on target to me, let alone productive.
    I’m very aware of what my core meaning of marriage is and can honestly tell you it will mean more to me when marriage equality is a done deal, be it next year, in 5, 10 or more.

  55. Chairm
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    Stefan,

    You said: "You don't need to respond because I already know what I'll hear."

    And I said: "like your fellow SSMers GZeus and 14th Amend"

    And you observed that I quoted from them. Are not those the very sort of remarks you had said you already knew about? Sure.

    Your antipathy toward marriage defenders is notable and it is remarkable that you pretend to downplay it. Your misrepresented Overcame -- with blather of your own making -- and now ask where you have blathered?

    As I said, you can play a role in encouraging SSMers to do better, much better, if your standards really are better. Live up to what you expect of others.

    You say you show no favoritism for the gay identity group. Well, what is YOUR basis for the complaint against the man-woman basise of marriage law?

    You say that you are "very aware of what my core meaning of marriage is"; and that, Stefan, is another example of blather.

    Your core meaning? The social institution has a core meaning. Your notion of a personalized core meaning is absurd.

    I mean, how could you possibly claim the current marriage law is wrong unless you had some clear understanding of what marriage actually is?

    And you claim your personalized "core meaning" is superior -- right? to the man-woman law. So you clearly want to see your personalzied "core meaning" imposed in the law for all of society.

    Use of the bumpersticker, marriage equality, is another example of blather.

    Your latest remarks provided the examples you asked me to provide.

    But let us proceed with your personalized "core meaning". Please state it. Show no favoritism for the gay identity group -- as you clearly feel and believe that such favoritism would be wrong.

    your earlier comment merited my response. Your subsequent reply did not change that but diverted to something else. Fine. Got it you

    I’m very aware of what my core meaning of marriage is

  56. Craig Hundelt
    Posted June 11, 2012 at 1:23 am | Permalink

    The gay lifestyle is immoral, unhealthy, and destructive. Numerous studies have shown the debilitating effects. The 2010 CDC report declared an epidemic rise of HIV/AIDS among the youth in gay population.