Minnesota for Marriage explores and shares the truth about the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment -- but of course many of the topics are useful for defending marriage in general!
Check it out here and please share it far and wide!
Myths & Facts About Marriage
July 2, 2012 at 9:00 am
-
Categories
- Adoption
- Ads
- Africa
- Alerts
- Australia
- Canada
- Catholic Church
- Chick-fil-A
- Children
- Civil Unions
- Civility
- Cohabitation
- Congress
- Corporate Ethics
- Culture
- Debating Marriage
- Divorce
- DOMA
- Dump General Mills
- Dump Starbucks
- Economics
- Education
- Election 2010
- Election Watch 2012
- Ethics
- Europe
- Events
- Featured
- Federal
- France
- Free Speech
- Gay Voices
- GOProud
- Human Rights Campaign
- Humor
- IRS
- Law
- Let The People Vote
- Manhattan Declaration
- March for Marriage
- Marriage
- Marriage Election Watch
- Marriage Moment
- Marriage Update
- Marriage Victory
- MarriageADA
- Media
- Mexico
- Mitt Romney
- New Zealand
- News
- NOM Marriage News
- NOM on Facebook
- Offbeat
- Parenting
- Pedophilia
- Politics
- Poll
- Polling
- Polygamy
- President Obama
- Press Releases
- Pro-Life
- Prop 8
- Religious Liberty
- Research/Study
- Ruth Institute
- Same Sex Marriage
- Science
- SFMA
- Social Media
- South America
- SPLC
- States
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- Texas
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- Washington DC
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
- Statistics
- Supreme Court
- United for Marriage
- United Kingdom
- Women
- Youth
-
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
19 Comments
Excellent. There in one place are good answers to many of the tired myths the opposition tries to make in favor of redefining marriage.
That is great site, and it provides an easy way to respond to the trolls who post here. All of their questions answered in one place.
Minnesota for Marriage is on a roll.
from those who are anti-traditional marriage - "fact : you're denying true equality"
Fact: the trolls who put that site together operate within the framework of one overarching fundamental position: animus towards gay people. Simply look at the number of threats posited and one could not possibly think otherwise. Chicken Little comes to mind....the sky is falling, the sky is falling. But it's not and it won't no matter how hard you try to scare people.
I think "Myths and Facts" is a bit of a misleading title. It should probably read "Their Opinions and Our Opinions".
A quick look over some of the "Facts" shows they are not in fact "facts" anymore than any other opinion is a "fact". For example, the corresponding "fact" for the "myth" that SSM won't affect anyone else's marriage doesn't actually explain an effect on anyone else's marriage. It says the term "marriage" will be redefined (okay -- and that will change heterosexual marriages how?), and it says that businesses and individuals may face litigation if they discriminate based on sexual orientation. These "facts" have nothing to do with the "myth".
Also, @OvercameSSA, you might want to learn what "troll" means. I post here not to de-rail the discussion and cause everyone to get angry. I post here so I can show you folks what the other side has to say and have a debate about it.
@Tom, that's not a fact, that's an opinion relying on a certain interpretation of "true equality". I think that restricting marriage to one man, one woman inherently treats homosexuals unequally, because if one is homosexual then one cannot marry the person that one has fallen in love with and with which one wishes to start a family. I think same-sex marriage would be a positive thing for society and for children currently being raised by same-sex parents. Do I think my opinions are "myths"? Definitely not. Do I think they are "facts"? No. But I do think they have more supporting evidence, and are more moral, than the NOM, "traditional marriage" position.
As Richard Dawkins once said you are free to believe what you want, but it doesn't matter what you belive if there's no facts to back your opion. The myth vs fact pages are the same thing that we have heard over and over again, but when science says it doesn't matter then why are we still fighting over this. All studies show that a homosexual couple in a long term relationship have done very well raising there adopted kids so plz drop the child argument. One more thing why would make an argument that a father can teach a daughter to be female and a mother can't teach her son to be a male doesn't this support that being gay isn't a choice, and that you are not in fact born with a sexual orientation didn't the bible say that he creates adam and eve wouldnt that be wrong to say that god doesn't choose for you that we do, and also what does it matter to you they are not your kids.
Jon - Don't flatter yourself, I wasn't addressing you personally.
The win in Minnesota is going to be, like that in NC, quite powerful evidence for SCOTUS to digest as it turns its attention to the radical legal assault on marriage (and the deeper target of this strategy- an assault on religious freedom).
Excellent work by Team Minnesota!
So let's look through the mists and myths of "traditional marriage" and examine the concept that marriage is a sacred, religious rite practiced since the beginning of time.
The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected the prevailing concept of marriage along with many other Catholic doctrines. Martin Luther declared marriage to be "a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government", and a similar opinion was expressed by Calvin.
The English Puritans in the 17th century even passed an Act of Parliament asserting "marriage to be no sacrament" and soon thereafter made marriage purely secular. It was no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace. The Puritans brought their concept of marriage to America where it survived for a long time. These Puritans were the foundation of America and certainly saw marriage as a civil act.
"True equality" would include everyone..polygamists, incestial relationships, and EVERY other kind of relationship that is out there. It would also normalize every other type of orientation and attraction adults have that goes outside the norm.. That's the big lie gay marraige activists put out there about true equality. . Equality only means them, and excludes all others. That's not equality. That's hypocrisy.
John -- I have no problems with polygamy if it is between consenting adults. As far as incest goes, I think biologically there are reasons why closely related couples should not have kids, but again, if it is between consenting adults who aren't going to have children, then whatever (I mean personally it disgusts me, but I can't come up with a rational basis for making it illegal, besides the fact that in most cases incest is due to some messed up circumstances and probably would not be considered consensual). So you could say that I support true equality, and that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with one another in private. As for marriage, i don't know how polygamy would work from a legal standpoint (government benefits, divorce settlements, etc.), so that really narrows it down to two consenting adults who wish to start a family together. Incestual marriage would not work because both parties would already be family, so there would be no family unit creation going on there.
Obviously I'm not speaking for the entire marriage equality movement. Also, keep in mind that the consenting adults part is crucial to what I believe. Pedophilia (which many people associate incorrectly with homosexuality) is morally wrong. Beastialty is morally wrong. There is a clear line that I am drawing here. But don't try to call me a hypocrite.
@ John
Not true at all insestial marriage has bin proven to be bad biologically and poligamy has bin proven to be bad socially, and regardless of someone wanting to marry there pet or tree rock etc it is not a consenting adult. I understand that a gay marriage might not be the best for ether social or biological but the problem is that there is no scientific proof of it doesn't harm the people in the relationship or the people around it and it doesn't demean ether sex ( I.e. male, female) in any way. So Iam sorry but your gona have to do better then that.
John, your premise is false and is based on the opinion that heterosexual relationships are a happy alternative for gay men and women. As time has proven: they are not. Polygamy, incest, etc. etc. are all compositions of relationships that transcend sexual orientation. What we are discussing here is one type of relationship: monogamous marriage among consenting, unrelated adults.
Incest, polygamy, et al. are not sexual orientations. Denying marriage rights to those is denying one type of possible relationship composition. In denying marriage rights to gay couples, you are denying all possible, valid relationship compositions.
All for nothing, imo, aside from your ability to feel better than gay men and women in America.
RJ says:
"your premise is false and is based on the opinion that heterosexual relationships are a happy alternative for gay men and women."
>> No one is proposing requiring heterosexual relationships for any man or woman who does;t like being in one.
"As time has proven: they are not."
>> Actually, it is not for you to say whether they are or not. It is for the individual man or woman involved. That is called freedom, which concept is poisonous to the marriage corruption advocate.
"Polygamy, incest, etc. etc. are all compositions of relationships that transcend sexual orientation."
>> It is always amusing to read a sentence which refutes itself. Yours above is a museum quality specimen.
"What we are discussing here is one type of relationship: monogamous marriage among consenting, unrelated adults."
>> Precisely so. We are discussing, exactly, "marriage"; that is, the unique relationship which unites the two complementary genders of our species in stable, long term unions from which children commonly result, and in which they are best nurtured.
"Incest, polygamy, et al. are not sexual orientations."
>> Indeed. They are, like homosexuality, sexual *behaviors*.
But this is of course precisely the point.
Marriage is not a matter of sexual behavior, it is an objective union of a man and a woman, the basis of well-nurtuired children and the bedrock of the future of our civilization.
The homosexuals, polygamists, pederasts, etc, are seeking something the fulfillment of a desire to act out a sexual preference.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage.
"Denying marriage rights to those is denying one type of possible relationship composition"
>> "Possible relationship composition"??
Oh my.
I think I have never heard a better definition of pseudo-marriage.
A pseudo-marriage is that which asserts that marriage subsists in "possible relationship compositions".
The polygamists, pederasts, polyandrists, and bestials are certainly going to be relieved to hear *that*.
I think you have made an excellent case against pseudo marriage here, RJ.
Let me know when everyone is required to have the same purpose for their marriage. But make sure all couples who don't follow NOM's definition are blocked...not just same sex couples.
Thanks,
-America
Sure, Ocho.
That moment is now.
In every state where the people have been consulted.
We will get around to the ones that imposed pseudo-marriage without the consent of the people, as soon as we have run the table this November.
Jon asserted that,
"Incestual marriage would not work because both parties would already be family, so there would be no family unit creation going on there."
That is muddled thinking. Unrelated men do not create a family unit. Unrelated women do not create a family unit.
How do unrelated men become more closely related than those deemed too closely related to be eligible?
And the issue here is that you would deny some people what you demand for others. But what is the real justification in your mind?
You can't rely on procreation as a legitimate basis for denying eligibility. You can't depend on sexual behavior, either, since you have said that is none of the government's business -- and it is no one else's business anyway.
So what is the legitimate basis for your denial of eligibility to those who are closely related? If they are a family, why deny them the special status (marital status is a special status) that you demand for unrelated men or unrelated women?
It cannot be to create family members. Unrelated men and unrelated women remain unrelated -- basic DNA tests would demonstrate that, surely. The law would not change their DNA. And there is no possibility of their becoming related through a child conceived between them. Even same-sex sexual behavior does not transform unrelated persons into related persons. They remain non-united bodily.
If you rely on the law and only on the law to create a legal fiction of related persons, while denying really related persons, you would depend on arbitrariness rather than justice.
Maybe you have some more deeper thinking to offer on the creation of a family unit. If you did, it would be welcomed, but if you do not, then, your muddled thinking leaves you in a twist of your own making.
Jon asserted that,
"Incestual marriage would not work because both parties would already be family, so there would be no family unit creation going on there."
That is muddled thinking. Unrelated men do not create a family unit. Unrelated women do not create a family unit.
How do unrelated men become more closely related than those deemed too closely related to be eligible?
And the issue here is that you would deny some people what you demand for others. But what is the real justification in your mind?
You can't rely on procreation as a legitimate basis for denying eligibility. You can't depend on sexual behavior, either, since you have said that is none of the government's business -- and it is no one else's business anyway.
So what is the legitimate basis for your denial of eligibility to those who are closely related? If they are a family, why deny them the special status (marital status is a special status) that you demand for unrelated men or unrelated women?
It cannot be to create family members. Unrelated men and unrelated women remain unrelated -- basic DNA tests would demonstrate that, surely. The law would not change their DNA. And there is no possibility of their becoming related through a child conceived between them. Even same-sex sexual behavior does not transform unrelated persons into related persons. They remain non-united bodily.
If you rely on the law and only on the law to create a legal fiction of related persons, while denying really related persons, you would depend on arbitrariness rather than justice.
Maybe you have some deeper thinking to offer on the creation of a family unit. If you did, it would be welcomed, but if you do not, then, your muddled thinking leaves you in a twist of your own making.