Doug Mainwaring (who lives in Maryland) courageously shares his personal evolution towards opposing gay marriage in the Washington Post:
"...Full disclosure: I am gay. A few years ago, I was on the other side of the fence on this topic. But the more I read, thought, investigated and attempted to defend my position, the more I realized that I couldn’t. I feel very strongly that gay relationships should be supported by society. I have grown convinced, however, that the term “marriage” should not be altered or adjusted in any way.
Let’s face it: We should not attempt to force into an old construct something that was never meant for same-sex partnerships. We should welcome the opportunity to christen a new tradition, beginning a new chapter in the history of gays and lesbians within American society. Same-sex relationships are different from heterosexual relationships, and gay men and lesbians need to accept that and design their own tradition."
21 Comments
Thank you Mainwaring for recognizing that same-sex unions are different from gender integrated marriage, and for having the courage to speak up!
Because you have same-sex attraction, your voice has particular power and resonance.
Where is the NOM blog post on the NYC senate GOP primary about Saland? He voted for equal marriage and yet still won re-election. Where is the blog news about that?
@Paul
"He voted for equal marriage and yet still won re-election"
He won the GOP primary. Not re-election. His primary opponent will be running on the Conservative party ticket and Saland will have a Democrat to face come November.
This is excellent. Finally, a voice of reason, without the myopic gay identity politics to cloud common sense and good judgement.....Will definitely be sharing.
As a gay person; I assure you he is the minority in his way of thinking. Most of us simply want the right to marry the person we love, just like the rest of you. Speaking of minorities, you people on this blog who are against marriage equality are also a small percentage.
As a gay person; I assure you he is the minority in his way of thinking. Most of us simply want the right to marry the person we love, just like the rest of you. Speaking of minorities, you people on this blog who are against marriage equality are also a small percentage.
Saland won, but only by a hair, and McDonald lost big, McMIchael. That sends a pretty strong message to Republicans and conservative Democrats about what could happen if they betray their constituents: there's a very good chance they'll lose their jobs if they do.
As for Mainwaring, thank goddess, finally a modicum of sanity within the gay community. It's about freaking time.
Same-sex couples will not try to create their own institution because marriage isn't the goal--a pretend equality with opposite-sex couples is. Many SSMers don't care too much for marriage at all. Not only is this evidenced by the low marriage rates of LGs, but in the fact that some will say that they favor civil unions for everyone. All that matters to them is that there is no legal distinction between same and opposite sex couples.
NOMwould you please find another pic for this article?
Thank you Doug for your courage to speak up.
It's a pretend world for the pseudo marriage supporters. Here's an excerpt from one of the comments to Doug's piece:
"My partner and I have a child and another on the way. It is NOT fair that my partner must ADOPT her own child. "
Honey, two chicks can't have a child in the real world.
@Ash yes but surely "civil unions" are almost as bad as marriage? I mean look at how Christians are being persecuted in the United Kingdom, ever since 2004 when Tony Blair elected to have "civil unions" as a "compromise"
Which as we can see, was not enough for SSM activists in the end anyway
Ash:
"All that matters to them is that there is no legal distinction between same and opposite sex couples."
How arrogant we LGBT people are to actually expect full equality. The next thing you know, we'll make the absurd assertion that our hope for full equality is based on the fact that we're actual human beings with real souls.
"I feel very strongly, but can't articulate any reasons in an article supposedly for that purpose."
And he still didn't say that he's sub-human, so it's hardly anything your followers would support or dare to reference.
Homosexuals are out to destroy all gender-based distinctions to make them feel better about their gender confusion. For example, rather than start a Gay Boy Scouts, the prefer to infiltrate the normal Boy Scouts, which will lead to the destruction of the Scouts altogether: straight guys don't want to hang with gender-confused guys.
Rather than try and cure the sexually confused, we all have to bend over backwards to make them feel normal by pretending that gender, and therefore gender confusion, doesn't matter. It does.
@Bruce, no one is talking about "full equality" between heterosexual and homosexual individuals, who are already treated equality. Please, dare to see yourselves as equal!
I was referring to the goal of creating equality between opposite-sex and same-sex couples, which are in no way equal as relationships. Heck, even same-sex male and same-sex female couples are not "equal" to each other, much less to opposite sex couples.
@Mikhail, let me clarify my comment. I wasn't advocating for civil unions. I was noting that some SSMers--while arguing for ssm--often say that they'd prefer if we didn't have civil marriage at all, but civil unions for everyone, i.e. for both same and opposite-sexed couples.
They are never happy with civil unions as long as opposite-sex couples have marriage.
That's what i have been saying all along. Good catching up!
It would be a mistake for those opposing a redefinition of marriage to praise this article. It probably just means that the pro redefinition side is about to lose and the fall back is civil unions. Civil unions, domestic partnerships, are the camel's nose under the tent. What we don't want is to grant anyone but 1 man and 1 woman the right to form families. Probably too late, but that should be the position taken.
Ihf - Firstly, the above is an letter to an editor expressing the opinion of the write. It is not an article. Secondly, who are you to decide who can and cannot form a family? Should everyone seek your blessing when forming a family?
JR, what makes marriage (or family) distinct from a bunch of room mates living together, or a business, etc.?