Please help us share this far and wide particularly with your friends and family in the four states voting on marriage in November as one example of articulating the case against redefining marriage.
Government promotes natural marriage for a reason, permits many other relationships (including gay relationships) while prohibiting very few relationships (like incest):
You can join NOM's efforts to protect marriage by visiting www.MillionDollarMarriageMatch.com.
56 Comments
That was probably the best video regarding Marriage I have ever seen.
Maybe I'm over-exaggerating a bit, but that should be televised to homes throughout the country for all to see.
Great work.
This is the best one I've seen too, Zack. I particularly love the part when they play cricket sounds when it's time to explain the benefits of ssm to society.
Excellent video, NOM, good job!
NOM, that video deserve an award.... powerful stuff.
You have got to be kidding me to think there is tolerance is beyond words. My partner and I get none of the tax benefits among other things. We also have two adopted children out of foster care that the same people not wanting us to have rights never took into their homes. Trust me these children are loved more than you could imagine. Our oldest is in the top percentile of the nation in school. Our youngest is special needs that at the age of 4 could not speak or function in a public setting. He is now functioning at the rate he should in 3rd grade. So those that think we aren't a family and these kids need a mom and dad you need a reality check
This video is a joke! And completely DISGUSTING. You guys will FAIL, because you are evil!
' I particularly love the part when they play cricket sounds when it's time to explain the benefits of ssm to soc'iety'
Still waiting for that explanation myself. Whenever I've asked it, either it was ignored or the subject changed.
This video was very well done. The homofascist and the marriage-redefinition-bigots are already in a propaganda frenzy on YouTube. This NOM blog has become my number one stop for material for MY blog. (heteroseparatist.com)
' I particularly love the part when they play cricket sounds when it's time to explain the benefits of ssm to society'
There was a great explanation on the Maryland Marriage Alliance FB page, they are the same benefits to society as for opposite couples. But alas MMA censors their page of civil discourse... so much for that free speech thing.
It's been pointed out several times, from Prop 8 to DOMA cases, when a SS couple is protected by marriage, the community also benefits. We've established earlier that NOM members are generally anti-gay, they are hardly motivated to believe in what's good or fair for the gays.
George, what are the immutable characteristics of "gay?" What does their political ideology have to do with marriage law and its equal application to all citizens? You never answered my question as to whether you want us to regulate your personal relationships based on your sexual orientation or your sexual behavior. Thoughts?
That's not bigotry.. that's biology. Love it!
It IS plainly bigotry, AM. You're just too bigoted to acknowledge it.
"But what about tolerance? Yes, SSM advocates need to be more tolerant."
Fantastic from beginning to end!
Why doesn't this movie list any of its sources? Where does this data come from. There have not been enough studies done following the children of same-sex parents. TIME published a story about one study in June of 2010. This study shows that the children being raised by two moms were doing just as well on most criteria, had less behaviors and seemed to be doing better academically than the control group.
There are not enough studies about the children of same-sex parents. The majority of the data about children and families is about single-parent households versus married straight couples. Of course children with two involved parents are going to statistically do better than a single-parent family.
Isn't it strange how your little glossy video rarely mentions love. To me marriage will always be about being able to marry the person I love. Equality is allowing people to marry (and garner all rights related to marriage) who they love.
Appalling. As are all of you smug bastards!
Ad hominem. Hardly a compelling argument for neutering marriage.
I agree with Daughter of Eve regarding Gregor's ad hom attack.
But we can invite Gregor to try to do better. I have left a comment on that note -- it is in the que.
HV--no crickets--you're just behind.
rhonda,
Tthe next time the SSM advocates produce a pro-SSM video, I am certain you will first react -- here in the comment section of the NOM blog but also in the comment sections of pro-SSM blogs -- by demanding sources to be included in the video.
You accept that expectation, right?
Donald Curlee,
Would you SSM for the tax benefits?
What if there were no actual tax benefits? Would you not SSM?
Do you think, all things being equal, that society ought to honor the birthright of children to know, to be known by, and to be raised by the mom and dad of whom they are born?
You would agree, I'd expect, that the mere presence of children does not, and ought not, transform ineligibility to marry into eligibility to marry. For instance, in the case of minors, related people, already-married people, and so forth.
Why then would you write a comment that strongly suggested that the presence of children ought to do for you what it does not do generally?
Is it because you are sexually involved with someone of the same sex as yourself? If yes, then, is same-sex sexual behavior relevant to how you raise children in your home, do you think?
If it is irrelevant, or neutral, then, what is your comment really communicating to the readership here, in your view?
HV, how does society benefit as a whole by what you just said?
Chairm,
In the video it states that children are best raised in marriages involving opposite sex parents... I was merely pointing out that there is not enough data to support this claim...
The point is that there are many different family situations. I do not think we should make a blanket rule that children are best raised by both biological parents. There are (sadly) situations where parents harm their children. Our child protection services often let the parents take a class or do some other virtually painless or symbolic apology and then the children are returned. What about the mistakes that happen? Children know when the parents are a little resentful that they were even born. What about the children born to parents who do not value education and refuse to assist (and all too often hinder) their child's education. And what about closed adoptions? What about the children who never see one or the other parent because (best case scenerio) he/she is always working?
Children of same-sex parents are very intentional. It is not easy to become parents when both parents are the same gender. As a result very few same gender parents take their children for granted... Both parents are involved. I am not saying same gender parenting should become the majority or most common way to raise children. There is more than one way to raise healthy, productive, intelligent children.
Love and caring about other people is always relevant to raising a child. That's what most people in a committed relationship are teaching their children.
This is the best ad I've ever seen for saving traditional natural marriage!!! It needs to be run in every state that is considering denying children the right to a mother and father this election.
Children do best in Mother/Father nuclear families BUT, that is not the reality. Single women having babies is the norm now.
SSM will not affect my marriage in any way.
Repressing a specific group of people is bad for society. Seperate but equal still doesn't work.
M. Jones @ 23, I totally agree with you...
NOM you should heavily advertise this video, and I meant what I said in an earlier post, your new ad is worthy of some formal appreciation or award.
To simply describe your ad: direct, concise, and highly convincing. I will do all I can on my end to get the word out for others to see this find piece of work...
The benefits to the society for SSM are basically the same as traditional marriage. Substitute out biological children with adopted children, and all the benefits are exactly the same. Creating stable family units, raising the next generation, etc. are all true of SSM.
So, SSM first creates instability (like divorce) by separating children from a natural, biological parent, leaves all women unprotected by nullifying presumption of paternity, hangs all fathers out to dry by nullifying their presumed paternity via marriage, and then wants to patch things up via adoption (supposedly)?
Sounds like a recipe for stability all right.
@Jon
"Substitute out biological children with adopted children, and all the benefits are exactly the same. Creating stable family units, raising the next generation, etc. are all true of SSM."
You don't want to venture into the "stable family unit" area. I'm all for legal recognition and full benefits to same-sex couples, but I can't defend them on that front. Same-sex households are very unstable homes. The divorce rate among same-sex couples is 50%(even higher among lesbian couples) higher than opposite sex couples. Think about what that does to children in the name of "stability".
And no same-sex households are NOT the same as male-female households. Why? Because they lack a mother and a father. A man cannot substitute a mother and a woman cannot substitute a father.
In Canada less than 1% (one percentage point) of the adult homosexual populationis SSM'd with children present.
Proportion matters when considering the benefits to society as a whole.
The vast majority of same-sex households that do have children present attained those children via the previously procreative relationships of either mom or dad who subsequently relocated to a same-sex relationship (according to the US Census and related evidence). Perhaps 5% of the children in same-sex households were attained by adoption. But 95% were not.
Meanwhile only a tiny percentage of the adult homosexual population resides in same-sex households with children present. And only a small portion of such households would convert to SSM were SSM (in whatever guise)has been made availble in law. So SSM is a very poor vehicle for delivering government benefits to the members of the gay identity group ... let alone benefiting society -- indirectly if at all -- through the children residing in such households.
Jon, the question remains: what is the benefit to society as a whole? State the benefit explicitly. And explain how the presence of children must make the ineligible now eligible.
GREAT video!
This needs to be broadcast round the world because it makes the case for natural marriage without bringing religion into it.
@Chairm
I told you what the benefits are. SSM creates stable family units (just look at the things listed in the video, aside from "civilizing men", my point is that all of the benefits of traditional marriage apply to SSM).
Your argument against mine is based mainly on statistics. I'm unsure how the Canada statistic is relevant. My point is about adopted children -- do SSM couples need to adopt children before being married? Is it a bad thing that homosexual couples in Canada get married before having or adopting children?
Perhaps the vast majority of same-sex households that have children present have children from previously procreative relationships because same-sex couples cannot legally adopt children in most U.S. states. It seems unreasonable to look at same-sex couple adoption statistics when it's not legal and accepted.
As far as the percentage of homosexuals residing in same-sex households with children present, I'm not why that statistic is relevant. My point is, married same-sex couples can make great adoptive parents, and legally recognizing their union is a benefit not just for all couples like them but also for their children. I'm not sure how that is not a direct benefit, nor do I understand your obsession with the "gay identity group". Children who have no parents and are candidates for adoption are not part of the gay identity group, and they would benefit from SSM and legalizing adoption by same-sex married couples, so it's a bit callous to say that there is no benefit.
@DoE
I'm not sure how SSM creates instability. I'm also not sure why you wouldn't be able to keep presumption of paternity for opposite sex couples while ignoring it for same-sex couples, and setting up a different legal precedent for making sure that the member of the same-sex couple who is not the biological parent is still legally committed to caring for their children, or something along those lines.
But really, how does SSM create divorce? Because some same-sex married couples will divorce? By that logic, traditional marriage creates divorce too...
@Zach
So an unmarried same-sex couple is more stable than a married same-sex couple? If you are for full benefits and legal recognitions, should same-sex couples be able to adopt? If so, would adopted children be better off with same-sex unmarried parents, or same-sex married parents?
I'm not saying the households are exactly the same. No two households are the same, not all fathers are the same and not all mothers are the same. The benefits to society, however, of creating stable family units and providing as many children as possible with stable homes, are the same.
Jon, apparently you've missed an important factor: if the state neuters marriage, it no longer pays any heed to the sexes of the participants; "male" and "female" become legally irrelevant, making, by default, "father" and "mother" irrelevant. The law must treat all citizens and all marriages the same; therefore, if it ignores maternity and paternity for ss couples, it must ignore it in opposite-sexed couples. Hence, presumption of paternity and paternal rights are completely undermined.
Children have a right to both biological and legal ties to both parents. Only marriage can offer that. NO SS union can do so. It's a biological impossibility.
SS unions create divorce-like or out of wedlock conditions for children, where children are raised in a home where the mother is not married to the father. That has proven, documented negative consequences for children.
The benefits of SSM may indeed be a stable family unit for the less than 1% of the 1% who decide to do that, but at the cost of destabilizing the current 99% of society via anti-discrimination laws, human rights violations, lawsuits, government mandates etc, that end up turning our culture into the tyranny of the minority. It would be a different story if SSM was incorporated into society in a 'live and let live' situation, but once government puts its stamp of approval on it, those who disagree will pay the price. The next question to ask is ' Do the benefits of SSM outweight the resulting consequences that will occur?' If not, then it is not beneficial to society as a whole.
Gay marriage is an empty pretense and like most counterfeits it cheapens and degrades the real thing.
Great video, NOM.
How can anyone agree with what it says in the video. If someone loves someone no matter what, they should be able to get married. The benefits of natural marriage that it stated could have been easily applied to same sex marriage. In fact I'm going to apply all the stated benefits to same sex marriage.
1. Creates children: There are many children up for adoption everyday that need a home and the wonderful country of the USA to prosper and improve the economy in the future.
2. Best raises children: This is basically saying that even a neo-nazi could raise children better as long as they are straight.
3. Protects women: The explanation for this is that women can raise a baby better than a man who is uncommitted(assuming gay men are uncommitted to their children). I'm sure that if a two gay men decide to adopt a child, they will not be uncommitted.
4. Civilizes men: The description says that married men are more likely to have a job, so then how should it be different for a married gay man?
5. Lowers crime, poverty, and welfare: Your statistics may or may not be true true, but children who grow up with only one parent are 20% more likely to commit crimes so whether or not the stats are true, there is something much worse for children than their parents being gay.
I concer with comments 1-4 that this is the best video produced here on NOM and comment #6 proves the other side has no answers so they go on personal attacks.
Isn't it strange how your little glossy video rarely mentions love.
It does not need to mention love, government is not in the marriage business just for love. I am single and these marriage benefits are only justified by the benefits that the offspring of these marriages bring to society.
To me marriage will always be about being able to marry the person I love.
No government is stopping you from getting married. How does your SSM benefit all of us including me single John N? As a single man I am not entitled to these benefits either. This video proved the benefit to all of us and proved that false marriage benefits only those who are involved. Why should you get tax breaks intended for procreation while purposely not procreating? This is not fair to singles.
Equality is allowing people to marry (and garner all rights related to marriage) who they love.
NO!!! The government purpose of marriage is procreation and doing what is best for all of us including children.
Jon you have offered your predrawn conclusion but little else.
According to your attempted clarification, SSM benefts adopted children because SSM benefits adopted children. You have failed to state the direct benefit, or any benefit, and instead offer speculation that faors the gay identity group.
Yes, you do rely on identity politics and you missed the obvious qualification that proportion matters when assessing benefits to society as a whole. Do you see that point and would take issue with it or what?
Canadian stats match US stats and match stats from elsewhere. Whatever the benefit (which you not connected to SSM other than by speculation) it would be very tiny for society as a whole. It is not cruel to ask you to explain nor is it cruel to ask for more than a purely speculative predrawn conclusion from you.
There is no good reason to promote more adoption by members of the gay identity group which is a poor pool from which to recruit stable adoptors. Canada and other places do not dissallow adoption yet the participation rate is very low and SSM has not changed that. You are tieing together things that are not actually tied together in reality.
Marriage provides for the unity of motherhood and fatherhood. SSM does not. Pointing at adoption is to point outside of SSM not at its defining features. Likewise, SSM does not do what adoption does directly. So you need to work on explaining your attempted equivalence with marriage.
Put aside the union of husband and wife, for now. Focus on The one-sexed scenario. Do you claim that same-sex sexual behavior is a structural factor for raising adoptive children or is that irrelevant?
If irrelevant, then,why the emphasis on the gay identity group's tiny contribution to adoption?
Besides, within the adult homosexual population it is a marginal practice and hardly provides justification on a scale that shows benefit to the gay identity group ... much less to all chiildren in need of adoption (even if you focussed solely on the relatively few children who might be adopted into same-sex households --or actually a small subset of such households that might SSM ... and much less to society as a whole.
Reposted with typo corrections and additional notes:
Jon you have offered your predrawn conclusion but little else.
According to your attempted clarification, SSM benefts adopted children because SSM benefits adopted children. You have failed to state the direct benefit, or any benefit, and instead offer speculation that favors the gay identity group. For no real reason as yet.
Yes, you do rely on identity politics and you missed the obvious qualification that proportion matters when assessing benefits to society as a whole. Do you see that point and would take issue with it or what?
Canadian stats match US stats and match stats from elsewhere. Whatever the benefit (which you have not connected to SSM other than by speculation) it would be very tiny for society as a whole. It is not callous to ask you to explain nor is it callous to ask for more than a purely speculative predrawn conclusion from you. Explain your assertion.
There is no good reason to promote more adoption by members of the gay identity group which is a poor pool from which to recruit stable adoptors. Except for political favoritism, perhaps, what else is there? Canada and other places do not dissallow adoption yet the participation rate is very low and SSM has not changed that. It is not a very eager pool, really. You are tieing together things that are not actually tied together in reality even in very gay friendly places.
Marriage provides for the unity of motherhood and fatherhood. SSM does not. Pointing at adoption is to point outside of SSM not at its defining features. Likewise, SSM does not do what adoption does directly. So you need to work on explaining your attempted equivalence with marriage.
It is very much an open question (and think a doubtful stretch) that SSM would enhance stability for the participants in childless same-sex sexual friendships, let alone for children in such scenarios. The low conversion rates from same-sex householding to SSM rather speaks against your speculation; likewise the higher dissolution rates.
Put aside comparison with the union of husband and wife (married mom-dad), for now. Focus on the one-sexed scenario. Do you claim that same-sex sexual behavior is a structural factor for raising adoptive children or is that irrelevant? Or gay identity?
If irrelevant, then, why the emphasis on the gay identity group's tiny contribution to adoption?
Besides, within the adult homosexual population adoption, and adoption within same-sex householding, is a marginal practice and hardly provides justification on a scale that shows benefit to the gay identity group ... much less to all chiildren in need of adoption (even if you focussed solely on the relatively few children who might be adopted into same-sex households --or actually a small subset of such households that might SSM ... and much less to society as a whole.
Iasked about making the ineligible, eligible, because of the presence of children. Would your speculation favor all ineligible scenarios or just favor the gay subset?
Do you propose that SSM become a prerequisite for adoption by members of that gay subset? If yes, why? Your speculation alone cannot suffice, surely.
@Jon
"So an unmarried same-sex couple is more stable than a married same-sex couple?"
No. A same-sex couple, married or not, is unstable. That's not me saying that.
"If so, would adopted children be better off with same-sex unmarried parents, or same-sex married parents?"
Well a "married" same-sex couple is not the same as a male-female Marriage. So to say that two men or two women are "married" is a contradiction in terms because they lack the basic components of what a Marriage is.
"I'm not saying the households are exactly the same. No two households are the same, not all fathers are the same and not all mothers are the same. "
I'm not talking about all mothers and all fathers. I'm talking specifically about the genders. Men and women are inherently different.
"The benefits to society, however, of creating stable family units and providing as many children as possible with stable homes, are the same."
No they are not. Just because that house hold lacks either a mother or a father, the child is not getting the same upbringing.
So, John N., if I understand you correctly, you feel the government has a compelling interest in licensing & regulating love.
You forget--tax breaks are benefits--not rights. You have a right to marry, according to the parameters of the institution. You do not enjoy unalienable rights to benefits. If there were no tax breaks, would you SSM?
Oops, sorry John N. I confused you w/ a pro SsMer. Apologies.
@Doe
His post was formatted and written pretty terribly, I think that's understandable. A few quotation marks would go a long way in distinguishing what he is mocking and what he is actually saying.
@Zack
In the United States right now, there are legally married same sex couples. It's not a contradiction in terms.
I have a comment in the que.
Some same-sex couples may adopt children from foster care, but one child had to languish in foster care so that she could be "reunified" with her mother's "wife." She had a father who was fit and willing to take care of her, but thanks to ssm, he wasn't legally considered her father, and so she had to wait for reunification with her "presumed parent" (i.e. a woman who was not her parent).
SSM didn't promote family stability in that case; nor will it promote family stability when all the other LGB cases come down the queue.
Kent that was a rather futile exercise in rhetorical "me-too-ism" but you have not managed to make a solid case on substance.
Love is not a legal requirement but if you think that love makes the ineligible now eligible, well, you would put all limits on eligibility on the table for reassessment based on the highest priority you affixed to love. So would you make that decisive factor a new legal requirement?
If not, why not?
Anyway, did you mean to invoke same-sex sexual behavior when you elevated love to the decisive factor? Please state how that sexual behavior might be relevant to the itemized points in your previous comment. Or is that behavior irrelevant, in your view, and so nonsexual love is what you really meant?
Only about 20% of children in foster care are adoptable. There are more married (as in man/woman) couples waiting to adopt, than there are adoptable children available.
Check out the stats at the United Families International website.
@Jon
"In the United States right now, there are legally married same sex couples. It's not a contradiction in terms."
Yes it is. They are equal in name only, not in definition nor structure.
How does the famous saying go?
"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." Abraham Lincoln
I have a comment in respons to Kent. It is in the moderator's que.
Rhonda, please read my earlier comment @20. Do you accept that expectation?
Where are these videos that you are so worried about Chairm? I usually question information posted online if sources are not listed. If it is someone's opinion that is different... This video was not presented as someone's opinion.
I try hard to see both sides of an issue... part of the reason I come to this site...
I just read an interesting compromise at balancedpolitics.org. ( I don't agree with everything on this site and I wish more sources were listed.) The jist (sp?) of the compromise is the idea that we change the constitution to reflect that marriage is between two people over 18 who are not related. There is more to this compromise... you can go to the site. I know this will not please people on the far right or the far left... but ultimately this compromise could go a long way towards diffusing this issue. I also think this compromise would be unlikely to be repealed in 10 to 50 years...
Excellent video!
Rhonda your earlier comment demanded sources for the "glossy little video" (your words) that is the subject of the blogpost under which your comment appeared.
Disingenuous remarks such as yours do not bode well for promotion of principled resolution of the SSM campaign's attack on the marriage law.
Rhonda, you seem reasonable even though I believe we see this issue differently, so I would like to respond to your post.
1) The study from Time you said was from 2010; there are two new studies, one by Mark Regnerus, using a much larger sample with control group and based on what the grown children of SSM report--as opposed to the earlier studies which used very small samples, with no controls, and --at least one of them--relied on the lesbian couple's assess-ment of their children's happiness/adjustment. That's clearly biased, not scientific. So, the Time study is not reliable.
2) You express the idea that one ought to be free to marry whomever he/she loves. But do you really believe that? If I fall in love with my cousin, my brother, my father, even, should I be allowed to marry him? If a teacher falls in love with a high-school or middle-school student, should she be allowed to marry him? Using just the criterion of love, the answer would be yes. If a man falls in love with a 3 year-old, should he be allowed to marry her? (If that seems ridiculous, go to B4UACT). And what a man's wife dies, and he begins to rely for companionship and affection with his 17 year old. to the point that he want to marry her, is that OK? What about polygamy? polyandry?
3) There is no reason for the state to get involved at all in marriage except for the wellbeing of children and society. There are exceptions to every rule, but on the whole societies of every culture for 2000 years have found the human family to be the best, most secure, and most fundamental building block of society.
4) I dont think you referenced laws favoring families in your post; however, I'd like to say that--as a single person, I don't get those tax breaks or inheritance breaks that married couples do. And you know what? If everybody got them, they wouldn't BE breaks. Couples who take the time and troulbe to love and rear a family deserve them.
But if you want to address inequitiesss in inheritance, I could go along with that. But the remedy is found in the courtroom, not at the altar.
I hope you will give my thoughts some consideration.