NOM BLOG

Disappointed but not Defeated

 

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Obviously last night did not go the way that we had hoped, prayed and worked so hard to accomplish. Our endorsed candidate for president, Mitt Romney, came close but did not cross the finish line. We are very disappointed in losing four tough election battles on marriage by narrow margins. Even though marriage significantly out-performed the GOP ticket in each of these very liberal, very Democratic states, we also came up just short of the finish line.

But make no mistake: we are disappointed, but we are not defeated! We are fighting for a true and just cause—God's institution of marriage. This is a social compact that is not only ordained by the Almighty, it has served society very well. It's a cause worth fighting and with your support we will continue to do just that.

We knew long ago that we faced a difficult political landscape with the four marriage battles occurring in four of the deepest-blue states in America. As our opponents built a huge financial advantage, the odds became even steeper. We ran strong campaigns and nearly prevailed in a very difficult environment, significantly out-performing the GOP ticket in every state.

Despite the fact that NOM was able to contribute a record amount to the campaigns (over $5.5 million), we were still heavily outspent, by a margin of at least four-to-one. We were fighting the entirety of the political establishment in most of the states, including sitting governors in three of the states who campaigned heavily for gay marriage.

Our opponents and some in the media will attempt to portray the election results as a changing point in how Americans view gay marriage, but that is not the case. Americans remain strongly in favor of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The election results reflect the political and funding advantages our opponents enjoyed in these very liberal states. And they don't change the fact that in most states, marriage is protected from being redefined by state judges and politicians because voters have already adopted state
constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Though we are disappointed over these losses, we remain faithful to our mission and committed to the cause of preserving marriage as God designed it. Marriage is a true and just cause, and we will never abandon the field of battle just because we experienced a setback. There is much work to do. With your continued support and with faith in God, we begin that process now.

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.

114 Comments

  1. Markoh
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    Oh, Brian. Americans can STILL support one man and one woman marriage while accepting one man / one man or one woman / one woman marriage. The states where the constitution prevents SSM will eventually be found to be in conflict with the US Constitution just as the anti-miscegenation laws were in the 1960's (when a FAR greater percentage of Americans were against interracial marriage - unlike today where a majority of Americans accept SSM).

  2. pete
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    mark what planet are you living on? majority of people do NOT accept gay lifestyle, let alone marriage.

  3. DJ
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    No, Markoh. Americans should not accept it because that's not what marriage is. There are biological, anatomical, and pro-creative characteristics that cannot be divorced from what every society (other than perhaps Sodom) has understood marriage to be. We cannot arbitrarily redefine marriage any more than we can redefine our left hand to be a "second right hand." It's just not, and nature tells us so (Isn't there something in the Declaration of Independence about "the laws of nature and of nature's God..."?). Interracial marriage is still a relationship between a man and a woman and has historically always been considered so (Moses and Zipporah, Pocohantas and John Rolfe, etc.). SSM has never been accepted by civilized society. If society accepts it, it shows how un-civilized we have become.

  4. Kenneth Dugan
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    What about Minnesota, a strongly conservative state that voted not to ban same-sex marriage? hmm?

  5. Michael C
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    Kenneth, Don't let Michelle Bachmann fool you, we Minnesotans are somewhat socially conservative but the last time we voted for a Republican President was 1972.

  6. Posted November 7, 2012 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    Kenneth,

    Minnesota is a strongly conservative State? It hasn't voted Republican in a presidential election for the past 40. If that's strongly conservative, then I guess California is more conservative than Jesse Helms.

  7. James Gilliard
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    So, from what I can remember, NOM said that God would win the day for them and allow them to go 36-0. Now, it seems that God has blessed marriage equality, by allowing 4 states to win the marriage equality argument, gave Barak Obama the White House, retained a judge on the Iowa Supreme Court, and gave several marriage equality victories over NOM backed bigots... I guess God wanted this to happen...
    And while I am on it, marriage equality is not about anyones church. Last time I checked you did not have to go to a church to have your marriage solemnized! What gay people are asking for is CIVIL MARRIAGE RIGHTS. You are trying to stop them by claiming RELIGIOUS rights. Well, fortunately, CIVIL trupms RELIGIOUS any time. Yesturday, 4 states stood up to you and said eough.!.! The nails are in the coffin of marriage discrimination, and I am proud of MN, ME, WA and MD for using their might to close it for good!

  8. Dan
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    Yesterday was certainly *not* a victory for non-discrimination, tolerance, nor American ideals as those who voted in favor of ssm were led to believe. We've seen that demonstrated time and time again. I guess we either didn't do a good enough job educating the masses on these issues or our society has become so depraved that those who place a priority upon such things are now indeed outnumbered.

    Regardless, nothing has changed where it ultimately matters. Man's vote to redefine marriage can never trump the definition given it by the Lord from the beginning. No doubt those who care about their soul's eternal destination will want to side with Lord on His definition of marriage as recorded in Matthew 19:4-5: "And He answered and said, ""Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.' And he said, 'This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.'

    Yesterday was an advancement, but not in the way ssm supporters think. It merely advanced the world one stop closer to the Lord's return. Although we read in Genesis 18 how He had heard the many cries against Sodom and Gomorrah's sins, he didn't act until the cities had only one righteous family remaining. We learn from His discussion with Abraham He had already been very patient - there was only Lot's family left to be found worthy of saving! Will the Lord be so patient again this time around? Only He knows, but we're obviously moving in that same direction and may be further along in the process than we'd ever imagine. Scoff if you wish, but remember...Noah was scoffed at and Jesus promised his return will be just as in the days of Noah. So, please, if you have not yet obeyed the Gospel and been added by the Lord to His church (Acts 2:38-41), please hurry, there may not be much time.

  9. Diana
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    We still think should be upheld. Marriage should only be between a man and a woman. We feel that the fight has only just begun. We think that most Americans feel this way. We feel that it should go to the US Supreme Court.

  10. Posted November 7, 2012 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    If You've noticed, James... this is no longer about "preserving traditional marriage"...The general message here is thou shall not be gay. You know, like it's a "choice". Like gays "choose" to be hated/discriminated/stigmatized/etc...

  11. Preserve Marriage
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    Davey,

    Sexual preference is a choice.

    People can and do change with which gender they choose to have sex with.

    Your attempts to redefine reality remember of the "gay gene" that turned out not to exist.

    Keep spinning it

  12. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Bless you, Brian, and thank you for your tireless work.

    Voters have been duped by false promises. And they've overlooked the fact that the public interest in marriage is uniting children to their married mother and father.

    But Pearl Harbor was the beginning, not the end.

  13. Kelly
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    It's over NOM.

  14. Good News
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    oudrou

  15. Markoh
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    Pete: sorry, you are just wrong.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/half-americans-support-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

    DJ we do not not live under the Declaration of Independence. The law of this land is the US Constitution.

    Preserve marriage please, show SOME proof that people can change their sexual orientation but as a doctor, I KNOW it can not be done. Behavior can be changed, like forcing a left handed person to write right handed, but it doesn't change the inherent handedness of the person.

  16. Dan
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    >>You can ignore if you wish but like the denial of climate change and evolution, I don,t expect you to be able to go and read about things and not have your views irrevocably mediated incorrectly by your religious beliefs.

    Aside from the poor grammar, the problem with your post is that basic human anatomy and physiology is not dependent upon religious beliefs. Men are obviously designed to copulate with women and vice-verse. Sexual relations between men or between women is an obvious perversion. To claim otherwise is to be in denial of the highest order.

  17. Mark
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    You cannot be 'born gay'. Homosexual attraction is mostly due to environmental factors, and homosexual behaviour is a choice. End of story.

    Everybody has a mother and father, and everybody can already marry - find someone of the opposite sex and you're in. SSM is a deception, people can't even live lives consistent with their own bodies, compatible with the opposite sex.

  18. Mark
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    spot on Dan.

  19. FemEagle
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    Bottom line is, Minnesota has still banned gay marriage, and there is no way that will ever be changed, thanks to the way its legislature is structured. And what the vote on Tuesday really proved - and this is not a plus for the gay-"marriage" gang - is that gay "marriage" CAN be decided by the ballot box, something SSM supporters usually decry (unless it turns to their advantage, of course). Therefore, if SSM can be validated by the ballot box, it can also be *in*validated by the ballot box, as 32 states have done. The due process argument made by SSM supporters is now dead - and don't think the Supreme Court won't take note of it.

  20. Northwestperson
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    Haha! You lost!

  21. Northwestperson
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    LoL. i predict that brian and Maggie will be needing to find new ventures as their anti gay money grab scam is becoming irrelevant.

  22. James
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    @ Mark

    "end of story"? LOL. You are the final arbiter of what is innate and what is not? Just curios as to your qualifications (please don't say common sense for obviously reasons). Regardless, the whole nature/nurture debate is entirely moot. 8 states now have legal SSM, 3 of which by way of popular vote. The courts have no choice now but to declare DOMA unconstitutional. All legally married couples are entitled to equal protection under the law as granted by the 14th amendment to the US Constitution....THAT, my friend, is the real "end of story".

  23. Chairm
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    During the campaigns in which marriage was on state ballots this year, no pro-SSM advocate made the case for abolishing the man-woman requirement for marriage.

    Instead we got far more efforts from SSMers in telling blatant falsehoods such as the nonsense about harming senior citizens. That is the best that SSMers managed to do. Their pro-SSM arguments are anything but pro-SSM, it turns out, but anti-marriage and deliberately (and misleadingly) about other stuff. That is inevitable because SSM is not marriage and, apart from its rejection of marriage, is really about other stuff.

    Layne pounced to make the first comment here but he has yet to deal forthrightly with his advocacy of the asserted supremacy of gay idenntity politics. That assertion is closely analogous with the supremacy of white racist politics.

    Yet Layne is quick (to the point of rapid stupidity) in telling a very big lie. Brazenly and early and often.

  24. Chairm
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

    James,the imposition of SSM, no matter the route that takes, is an arbitrary exercise of governmental power. It remains unjustified.

    SSM is an outright rejection of marriage. Supporting that is unjust. SSM supporters have always applauded the abuse of power via the abuse of judicial review and of executive authority. The pro-SSM arguments are as weak and self-refuting as ever so the question is how that toad got in the gate post in the first place.

    LOLing your way around that blatant problem in the SSM campaign belies insincere participation in the public discourse on the SSM idea.

    Readers might take notice of how SSMers react to this election campaign and these election results.

  25. M. Jones
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    After a series of devastating losses, a football coach (who works tirelessly for a win) is replaced. A new game plan is required. Republicans are asking themselves if they should have made social issues more prominent in the campaign and become more diverse. It may be time for NOM to make some serious leadership changes. As Maggie said in NRO, no way to spin this loss.

  26. Zack
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

    3 Democratic center-left states vote to redefine marriage and one decides not to amend marriage into their constitution and the lefties now claim "it's over"? It's hysterical, I believe the fight to preserve the American Values system is an uphill fight, but it is not lost.

  27. Zack
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    @M.Jones

    Social issues have nothing to do with it. It has to do with the fact that Romney didn't promote the stark contrasts between him and his rival. Remember, Obama himself said that there were two distinct choices. Romney never mentioned that.

    Please, social issues are anything but suicidal for the GOP. And besides, most social issues happen to be tied into economic issues.

  28. John B.
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    "Let the people vote" is what NOM kept saying and that's exactly what the people did. And now that we've finally won ON YOUR TERMS your side STILL won't give it a rest and STILL won't admit that public opinion on same-sex marriage has changed. What on earth will it take??? Proponents of same-sex marriage have won in the courts, we have won in the legislatures, and now we have finally won in the popular vote--and won in a big way--despite all your confidence and predictions. This isn't gloating, this is an honest question: why should we give your side ANY credibility anymore and why should your side have ANY relevance in the debate from this point forward?

    Here's my suggestion: don't just talk the talk, you need to walk the walk. If you're going to be about "supporting" or "defending" marriage, start with your own marriages, and the marriages of your leaders. Try leading by example, rather than by trying to control other people's choices and other people's lives. Live up to your name and try actually SUPPORTING marriages, not preventing people from getting married. Maybe then you'll get a little more respect and get back some measure of credibility.

  29. Zack
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    @John

    You have no idea how Democracy works do you? I mean you think just because we had a terrible night that is a mandate for this fundamental change in our culture.

    "start with your own marriages, and the marriages of your leaders. Try leading by example, rather than by trying to control other people's choices and other people's lives."

    Ahhh, leftist strawmen, how I've missed you.

    "Live up to your name and try actually SUPPORTING marriages, not preventing people from getting married."

    They are supporting Marriage. Two people of the same gender lack the basic components of what a Marriage is, therefore no matter what the law says, they aren't "married".

  30. John B.
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

    Aaand that's why you're going to keep losing.

  31. Chairm
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    John, plainly state meaning of marriage such that it merits special status in our culture and in our laws.

    No SSMer managed to do that during this election campaign. Nor in previous legislative efforts. Nor in court argument, briefs, and pro-SSM court opinions.

    It is a remarkable record of failure on the part of SSMers.

    The SSM idea is in conflict with the marriage idea. So you might as well attempt to succeed where all those other SSMers have failed. Plainly state the essential(s) of the same-sex scenario that imakes it the same as the union of husband and wife while, at the same time, distinguishable from all the types of relationships and living arrangements that are neither marriage nor SSM.

    Given your comment emphasizing the imposition of SSM by various means, you might be ready, immediately,to provide a substantive answer to this query.

    Or you might flee and pretend that the imposition of SSM needs no justification.

    Either way your reaction will illustrate the profound flaws in the rhetoric and argumentation of pro-SSM activism. It is stuck on an anti-marriage view of the real world.

    But you might do better and surprise. Given your comments the onus is on you.

  32. MarkOH
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

    Zack, clearly it is YOU who lack the idea of how a Democracy works.

    Chairm, if you or ANYONE at NOM can state what you see as the "meaning of marriage", perhaps we can start there. I see marriage as a covenant between two consenting adults, NOT as it always has been. Yes, there are some age restrictions, because that is what is meant as 'consenting'. It is not based on race, religion, gender nor procreation. That is how I define CIVIL marriage, with all the benefits society offers it.

  33. KAK1958
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    I agree with John B. NOM has always said the people should decide, and last night they did. Even though I don't think such matters should be put to a vote, Mr. Brown and company should at least acknowledge that reality. Yes, these states are more liberal than conservative, but so was California when Prop 8 was on the ballot. There's no question that things have moved toward more acceptance.

    No, I don't expect Mississippi or South Carolina to vote in support of same sex marriage anytime soon, but places like that wouldn't have voted to end segregation either had it not been more or less forced upon them. The courts are going to take it from here.

  34. CuriousGeorge
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

    And the last thing in the rear view mirror that the USSC will see when they take up Windsor is MD, ME, WA and MN....

  35. Chairm
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH, thank you for your coment.

    You did not answer my query.

    What merits special status? What distinguishes marriage from nonmarriage? The answer to these basic questions need to be identical.

    Consent? That to which consent is given is the key. The limits on consent derive from the first two questions about special status and the distinction between marriage and nonmarriage.

    Gender? SSMers insist that gender is of the utmost importance. Hence the claim that some people cannot be expected to form a union of husband and wife and so the law must be changed.

    The marriage law certainly does entail the marital presumption of paternity which is that to which consent is given ... by the participants and by society. The sexual basis for that legal and pragmatic default is the sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultry/divorce, and so forth. So procreative type sexual behavior is the basis not just for that to which consent is given, but also for the just limitations on eligibility to marry.

    You can disagree, sure, but that would not answer the query I posed to John B. ... and have posed to all SSMers.

    So instead of arguing against that sexual basis, howzabout arguing for the one-sexed type of relationship you have in mind. Stick with that scenario and state the essential(s) such that special status is merited (marital status is a special status). Whatever your answer, how does that distinguished from one-sexed scenarios that are not the type of same-sex relationship you have in mind?

    Perhaps read myprevious comment and explore the possibilities within the one-sexed range of relationship types.

  36. Stephen
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:45 am | Permalink

    Pathetic.

  37. Markoh
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    Chairm, I did answer your query. Clearly, simply. The fact you do not want to listen is the problem. Instead of clearly defining what you ideas are, you go back to the same, old disproven arguments. The is no law, that I am aware of, that insists on procreation to verify / legitimize marriage. If not, why is it the ONLY issue you use as a basis for your definition of marriage? Should you not be working on laws that state if a couple does not produce progeny within 2 years of marriage, their marriage is null and void?

  38. Posted November 8, 2012 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    The victories for marriage equality in Maine, Minnesota, Washington, and Maryland tell me one thing: Americans are learning to make better value judgments.

    Why is it that Straight couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.

    Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!” That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability of even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

    No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.

    THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing, whether the couple in question is Straight OR Gay. It looks like American voters are starting to accept that.

  39. lhf
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    One reason we lost this round is that there is no national leadership on this issue making the case using SECULAR language. It's simple: changing the definition of marriage may be wrong, but it is also bad social policy. The effects of this bad social policy MUST be translated into secular language for the vast majority to understand. If they are looking at nice pictures of two women (usually) and their children, it's hard for most people to think what the long term consequences might be. Don't forget that most children are now getting this c**p starting in kindergarten. They are taken in by the heartwarming stories and photos. The pro side has made this about love and children- we must make it about the social chaos that results from undermining the only family unit that makes biological sense.

    The slippery slope arguments should be used as well. The left began attacking marriage decades ago and the definition of "family" has long been diluted. A woman and her children by multiple fathers is now a family. Allowing two men to marry isjust one more nail in the coffin. What happens when 3 men want to claim a civil right to "marry?" How can it be denied? On what grounds? Or let's say aging siblings (there are scenarios here where "marriage" would be desireable) or groups? Why not de regulate marriage entirely, eliminating all age and consanguinity limits?

    And we have to refuse to be silenced. When attacked, we must fight back, not retreat.

  40. Son of Adam
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    "Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!” "

    Actually, one of their reasons usually given is - so we can start a family. While one need not be married to have children, one does need marriage in order to provide a healthy productive raising environment - and that's with a mother and a father. That aspect is the reason why marriage has been established in the first place.

    There is a reason why only an average of 5% of all gays get "married" to each other as opposed to well over half of straights. There is also a reason why heterosexual relationships last longer than homosexual relationships. It is because men and women form a unique bond between each other established by nature and evolution and also provide the ideal raising environment for their offspring.

    Redefining marriage for homosexuality makes the institution only about coupling while children are considered an irrelevant byproduct - secondary in importance to the law. And that is not only harmful to kids, but to society at large.

  41. Markoh
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    ihf, the slippery slope should not be used because it isn't true. Multiple countries have allowed same sex couples to marry and none of the fear mongering you mention has happened.

    As far as potential harmful long term consequences regarding children, they just aren't happening. I know it probably goes against what you believe but facts are facts. And from the studies done so far on same sex families, children are doing just as well as in opposite sex families.

  42. Son of Adam
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    It seems to me that you've been spoon fed with the propaganda and urban mythology of SS"M" advocates, Markoh. If you would broaden your sources, you would know in state after state and to the north in Canada that once same-sex marriage is legalized, children are taught in school about it and related topics, often without advance parental notification and even against the stated opposition of parents.

    You would also know that the slippery slope argument does apply. Since no fault divorce was established by CA decades ago, many states have followed suit producing unprecedented divorce rates. With SS"M" and the promotion of the message that marriage is all about the fulfillment of adults, illegitimacy has skyrocketed with more and more kids being raised without a father as can be seen in Scandinavia.

    And all the studies done on same sex families are based on asking how they and the kids they are raising are doing. Hardly sound statistical and scientific evidence.

  43. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    Markoh, your comments have not answered the query.

    Plainly state the essential(s) of the type of same-sex relationship you have in mind. The stuff that makes it the same as the union of husband and wife but, at the same time, makes it different from the types of relationships that are neither SSM nor marriage.

    Whatever the essential(s), why special status in culture and law?

    Consent is insufficient. That to which consent is given is the key. Consent of the participants is insufficient. Society consents in terms of special status and in terms of eligibility limitations. Both the status and the limitations derive from the essential(s) of the type of relationship. So start there.

    You said gender is not the basis but that contradicts the claim that sexual attraction is the basis for the pro-SSM complaint.

    You reiterated your disagreement with the sexual basis for the bride-groom requirement, as I had anticipated. That sexual basis is the sexual basis for the legal presumption of paternity, consummation, annulment, adultery/divorce, and so forth. It is not the sexual basis for SSM, obviously.

    I said, sure you might disagree, but that disagreement does not answer the query. And your follow-up comment did not. However you resorted immediately to a line of thinking that nullifies same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual romance,same-sex sexual behavior, and gay identity as the basis for the type of same-sex relationship you have in mind for SSM. There is no legal requirement proposed, even, that would make any of that stuff mandatory for those who'd SSM.

    Your own thinking must reject that stuff as a legitimate basis for SSM. Please read the query and start there rather than hastily run away to the weeds of SSM rhetoric. What justifies special status and limitations on eligibility when it comes to the same-sex scenario?

    You are not alone among SSMers in failing this basic task. The onus is on SSMers to answer the query which arises directly from your own pro-SSM complaint and your own pro-SSM proposed remedy. The SSM campaign invites the query but runs away from it. Be forthright. Plainly state your answer.

    By now SSMers ought to have well-reasoned answer to such a basic query.

  44. Layne
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, stop. You're basically arguing with yourself at this point. Nobody's going to respond to your cluttered nonsense because there's nothing to respond to.

    Not to mention the fact that nobody needs to justify marriage equality to you. If you don't like it, don't marry someone of the same gender.

    Nobody owes you any explanation for why we support marriage equality. You can try to spin, rationlize and intellectualize (if your ramblings can be defined as "intellectual") your aniums all you want.

    The judges have spoken, the legislatures have spoken, as of Tuesday night the people have spoken. Get a clue. Marriage equality is moving forward with or without you.

    But yeah have fun obsessing over other people's privates lives as you write sentences like: "However you resorted immediately to a line of thinking that nullifies same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual romance,same-sex sexual behavior, and gay identity as the basis for the type of same-sex relationship you have in mind for SSM."

    ....Whatever that means....

  45. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    Chuck, friendship can take a sexual or a nonsexual form. You might agrree.

    What you described is friendship with no mention of sexal basis for special status nor for limitations on eligibility. Commitment to another's happiness, health, and well-being befits nonsexual friendship.

    For those who'd SSM, do you propose a ban on platonic friendships between persons of the same sex? Do you propose making same-sex sexual behavior mandatory; or same-sex sexual attraction; or same-sex sexual romance; or gay identity? Do you really think that a license to SSM is needed to engage in any of that? Is the ability or desire to engage in any of that mandator under any law that enables SSM anyplace in the country?

    I expect you know better than to contradict your own attack on the bride-groom requirement. But perhaps the rule of noncontradiction does not apply to your pro-SSM comments. Lease clarify.

    Note that to which consent (and commitment) is given is they key. Consent of the participants and consent of society. See the sexual basis for the bride-groom requirement. That is a legal requirement accompanied by the sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery/divorce (and monogamy btw), and, of course, the marital presumption of paternity.This two-sexed sexual basis is extrinsic (outside) the one-sex-short scenario -- sexualized or not.

    And, according to your comment, Chuck, we must consider friendship the basis for SSM because of the lack of a legal requirement making same-sex sexual stuff mandatory. That stuff occurs without a license, anyway, just as platonic friendship does, anyway. The sexual stuff is not intrinsic (inside) the good of friendship, you might agree.

    The comprehensive relationship of husband and wife is not a tool or a widget that exists to make other good stuff. Marriage is a good in itself.

    So we return to the same-sex type of relationship you have in mind. It clearly is not the same as the union of husband and wife, if your own comment is to be taken as your best description of the SSM idea.

  46. Dan
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    @Chairm, I've been reading some of your claptrap on and off for four years now. Are you really serious about the garbage you spew? And, did you use the same lame talking a points and rhetoric when you opposed the civil rights of "colored people?" You and Romney belong in 1950, not the 21st Century. You must live as a frightened old man who thinks the world is falling apart just because we have a black president and two hot men, like me and my husband, are getting married. I pity paranoid geezers like you. What a sad existence you live!

  47. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    Layne, good of you to show-up here for the express purpose of running away from the query. Failure on this point is a deliberate strategy for many SSM supporters such as yourself.

    Meanwhile readers might consider the central theme of the SSM campaign. It attacks the marriage idea with ad hoc arguments they intend as challenges to the justification of the marriage law. They attack the special reason for the special status of marrage. Then they propose a substitute reason for marital status. But their proposal is negated, nullified, neutralized, destroyed by the very same thinking they use to attack the marriage law.

    Then, when queried, SSMers like Layne fold their arms, stamp their feet, and refuse to justify what they had demand be justified only moments earlier. They claim the marriage law is unjust but they end-up relying on an arbitrary exercise of governmental power to 1) abolish the bride-groom requirement and to 2) replae the marriage idea with the SSM idea.

    The pro-SSM failure to answer the basic query is not an oversight on ther part. They are ill-equipped by their own rhetoric and argumentation which destroys their pro-SSM complaint and their proposed pro-SSM remedy.

    Layne, your comment has conceded far more than your might acknowledge as you beat a hasty retreat fro your own demand that the marriage law be justified.

    By whatever meanss it might be imposed or enacted, the SSM idea is unjustified even by the account of SSMers.

    Also note that the secular case against the SSM idea and for the marriage idea (two ideas, conceptualizations, or core meanings that are in conflict) is waved off by Layne because he admits he has no interest in forthrightly engaging in a public discourse on marriage ... civil marriage or otherwise.

    Again, much thanks to Layne for his illustrative comment. Maybe others will do better instead of running away from the query that arises from their own rhetoric and argumentation.

  48. Dan
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    @Chairm, you have stuck to your heterosexual identity politics from day one. You are stubbornly unable to grapple with the notion that same sex couples naturally mate, raise children and devote their lives to one another just as heterosexuals do. You are blind sighted by deep religious prejudices which you are likely never to be rid of. Close minded people, such as yourself, really don't belong in civilized societies. You would feel more at home in a theocracy, such as Iran. And you surely shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a voting booth when it comes to voting on civil rights of minorities. Chairm, I'm convinced you've lived too long and it's time to be put to pasture... Sad to say.

  49. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    Dan, your comment is appreciated because it illustrates a dark side of the SSM campaign which, frankly, needs no further comment.

  50. Dan
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, you are the one who is attacking the marriage idea. Newsflash: marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Couples have married for centuries without any intention of having children, or was I confused when my 67 year old aunt married a 70 year old man? Wait, were they actually thinking they would procreate? Chairm, my ten year old nephew was well aware that my aunt wasn't marrying to have children. Are you saying you couldn't figure that out, too?

  51. Dan
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, there is no dark side to SSM. I know you've spent four years here trying to demonize gay people and our relationships, but here's a clue: your message is LOSING ground, Chairm. Wake up!

  52. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Dan, a mating pair of human beings is comprised of a man and a woman.

    The nature of humankind is two-sexed; the nature of human procreation and mating is two-sexed; the nature of human community is also two-sexed. Reason and religious teachings happen to acknowledge these as givens. These are truths with consequences.

    Gay identity politics supplies a blindfold that is used to obscure the truth and to soft-focus the conseqences. Why would falsehoods be favored over reason and truth, except for pro-gay bigotry?

    Justice demands otherwise. The supremacy of white racist identity politics has been repudiated, as even your own comment strongly implies, but why then defend the asserted supremacy of gay identity politics over marriage? Justification remains lacking.

  53. Son of Adam
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Different sex married couples who don't have children are the exception, Dan. Not the rule. And laws are not based on every possible exception. Marriage has been established in order to provide a family environment for the rearing of children with a mother and a father. Marriage rates plummet when you render children irrelevant to the institution as has been seen in Scandinavia.

    And your comments do reveal a dark side to SS"M" advocacy implying that those who don't think like you should be expelled from your idea of a civilized society and shouldn't be allowed to vote and should die.

    It is that kind of attitude that has established many a genocidal totalitarian regime. So much for tolerance.

  54. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Dan, you are confused. The SSM idea is a rejection of the marriage idea.

    Would your ten year old nephew be ineligible to form a nonsexual freindship with your aunte? Must a license be obtained for such a friendship?

    The marriage idea, and its sound argumentation, is about the marital type relationship. It does not demonize the gay identity group.

    But the SSM campaign has set out to demonize those with whom SSMers disagree in the conflict they have introduced betwenn their SSM idea and the marriage idea. Losing ground to bigotry did not stop me from opposing the supremacy of white identity politics and it won't stop me opposing the supremacy of gay identity politics.

    I stood against tyrany, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and the absurd ideologies that inviked the very sort of confuddled thinking that the SSM campaign has demonstrated for more than a decade. Loss of life and limb was lost ground in those conflicts and so your bashing your shoe on the table and telling me you will crush us, well, I will thank you for the open threat and the forewarning.

    To pro-marriage readers and those undecided on the issue: please read this thread from the top and note the weakness and virulence of the SSMers whose cheers for the election results flow from dark and murky depths. But their waves are shallow when beached on reality.

  55. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    I have a comment in the que that has not yet been released. It is a firm but gentle reply to Dan's retorts.

  56. Zack
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    @Charim

    Heck of a job there buddy. : )

  57. David
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH - ' I see marriage as a covenant between two consenting adults'

    Why only two? That's discrimination. What are you basing 'two' on?

  58. Zack
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    @MarkOh

    "Zack, clearly it is YOU who lack the idea of how a Democracy works."

    People went out to the polls and voted, same-sex marriage passed. I think that's how democracy works. Did I miss something there?

  59. Dan
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    Zack, that's right that Chairm is doing a heck of a job. If you haven't noticed, one comment after another refers to his non-arguments as a waste of time. Don't believe me? Read them in multiple threads for yourself. I have a few questions for you, Zack. It seems to me your argument is not against gays marrying, but rather gays raising children. Since gay couples can raise children without marriage being legal, why aren't you fighting against gay parenting/adoption? All 50 states currently allow gay adoptions. Between one and six million children in the US have gay parents. SS Marriage further protects those families and this is GOOD for children.

  60. Markoh
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    Son of adam, so you are saying that kids in school, learning about gay people, is some sort of horrible thing? Should we also hide the fact that the sky is blue or the grass is green? Gay people are a reality. And withholding rights from a group of people just so you don't have to talk to your children about subjects you are uncomfortable with is just wrong.

    And I noticed, as always, you are UNABLE to com up with ANY proof of your assertions. Just your fear mongering.

  61. Dan
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    Zack, question 2:
    If heterosexuals are such wonderful parents please tell me why gays can find kids to adopt in the first place. The vast majority of kids who are up for adoption are from heterosexuals who don't want those kids or can't take care if them. Why do you blame gay couples, who should be thanked, for rescuing the kids of failed heterosexual parents? You demonize the heroes when you should be preaching to those failed heterosexual parents about what it takes to be a father/mother. Heterosexuals are bad parents, let's be honest here. My cousin married a stripper who pooped out four kids she didn't want. They were given away for adoption as if they were puppies she didn't want. And you have the gual to say that a child is better off with their biological parents?! I strongly disagree with that. 70 percent of abused children were abused by their own heterosexual biological parent. Just the sad facts. Frankly, kids are usually better served by parents who want those kids rather than someone who happened to get pregnant and didn't want to. If your interest is in the welfare of children you would better spend your time educating heterosexuals rather than preventing gays from marrying, which I will remind you has ZERO impact on whether gays can become parents. The procreation argument against gay marriage is a smokescreen for gay animus and bigotry. It's no longer compelling nor credible. Please find another excuse to deny gay couples equal rights.

  62. Dan
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    The most comprehensive study on same sex parenting was done by the government of Canada. The conclusion: gay parents were somewhat superior to matched straight parents. They have better communication skills, are less likely to use corporal punishment and children of gays were better socially adjusted, less physically abused, less likely to be molested and had less mental illness.

  63. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Zack.

    Dan has fled the challenge I have posed. However, he has invited you to discuss the failings in his comments.

    I'll leave off with more thanks for your steadfast efforts in these coment sections, Zack. Cheers.

  64. Dan
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    Chairm,
    Question for you, how does denying gay couples the right to marry cut down on failed heterosexual parents giving away their kids for adoption? You seem to lack basic logic skills. Your argument is that gays shouldn't marry because they cannot have children. Since between one and six million children already have gay parents before SSM has become legal, there is no logic in your argument. Gays can become parents without getting married, just as straights can.
    Incidentally, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, unless you are Catholic. Marriage in fact requires no sexual activity whatsoever in order to be valid (except in Catholicism).

  65. Dan
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, I have flex nothing you old liar. I have posed questions for you that I would like an answer for.

  66. Dan
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    David, I personally am 100 percent supportive of polygamy. I view it as a religious freedom issue. However, if you think our tax system is convoluted and confusing now, just imagine what polygamy would do to it! The government is too lazy to deal with such a scenario.

  67. Dan
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, sorry I meant "fled...." It's no fun typing on an IPhone!!!

  68. Byrd
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    Homosexual marriage would radically redefine marriage to include virtually any sexual behavior.

    Once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, and the sole criterion becomes the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment," it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex. To those who scoff at concerns that gay marriage could lead to the acceptance of other harmful and widely-rejected sexual behaviors, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very suggestion that two women or two men could marry would have been greeted with scorn. The movement to redefine marriage has already found full expression in what is variously called "polyfidelity" or "polyamory," which seeks to replace traditional marriage with a bewildering array of sexual combinations among various groups of individuals.

    Homosexual activists have a political agenda: to radically redefine the institution of marriage.

    Homosexual activists admit that their goal is not simply to make the definition of marriage more inclusive, but to remake it in their own hedonistic image. Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, states, "Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and ... transforming the very fabric of society." Homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile rejects monogamy in favor of "a relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often ... and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners."

  69. MarkOH
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    Byrd, and this is why many people look at NOM as more anti-gay than pro - "natural marriage"

  70. Dan
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH,
    Make no mistake, gay relationships are equally as natural as heterosexual relationships. Homosexuality has existed in the animal kingdom since the dawn of time, just as heterosexuality has. Some animals mate with same sex partners for life and raise the young of their species. The notion that homosexuality is unnatural is as laughable as saying left handedness is unnatural or having red hair or black skin is unnatural. As a person who was born gay, nothing is more unnatural to me than heterosexual sex. Sorry, but it's disgusting. Been there, done that. Never again! And you did nail it that NOM is anti-gay. I thought this was self evident. NOM is the KKK of the anti-gay movement. They are also against marriage not for it. Anyone who supports marriage should favor gay couples participating in this fine institution. And why do you people think gays are against man/woman marriage? Complete nonsense. I support heterosexual marriage, too, you idiots.

  71. Son of Adam
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    Animals have been having sex with their siblings and their young for just as long, Dan. Does that make incest and pedophilia natural too? The last thing we need to do is base human sexual ethics on the behavior of mindless animals. The fact that you do shows how contrary to civilization the promotion of homosexuality really is. You have been greatly misinformed by leftist promoted urban legends because there is no scientific evidence of a "gay" gene anymore than there is evidence that the human anus is designed for sexual intercourse. It is also an unhealthy practice that kills thousands of gays every year. The CDC reports that the majority of new AIDS cases belong to gays. They also make up more than 60% of all syphilis cases.

    Opposing man/woman marriages would mean the end of civilization. Opposing SS"M" does not.

  72. MarkOH
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    But Son of Adam, NO one is opposing man/woman marriages. NO ONE. And for all your "statistics" about gay sex, you ARE aware that legal marriage is a good way to CUT the rate of STDs, right?

  73. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    Dan you have erred by depending on te naturalist fallacy.

    When we refer to "natural marriage" we use a phrase with redundancy because we contrast marriage with the idea behind the oxymoroni phrase same-sex marriage" or "gay marriage". On one side, a redundancy, and on the other side, an oxmoron.

    Marriage is organic. It has a reality independent of law and culture. A reality that law and culture recognize but do not create nor own.

    The mom-dad duo raising their offspring is the basic organic unit of civil society and is pre-political. Much follows from this. But there are priror 'givens' from which societal regard for the marital relationship arises directly. To wit: the nature of humankind -- tow-sexed; the nature of human procreation -- two-sexed or complementarily sexed; the nature of huma community -- also two-sexed or both-sexed. Here "the nature of" takes the obvious sense of "the essence of" as in that without which humankind would not be humankind, or human procreation would not be human procreation, or human community would not be human community, or marriage would not be marriage.

    Hence the query I posed which is not about asserting what ought to be from what is. Rather we reason about what is and figure out, rather than proscribe, what ought to be.

    Beasts do not reason but rely on instinct and reflex and the like.

    Surely you would not reduce the SSM idea to a kind of 'beastiality' in the guise of human-on-human sexual urges.

    My query has generously assumed that SSM supporters have reasoned to their certitude. Perhaps that is proving to be an unwarranted, if charitable, assumption.

  74. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    There is no gay criterion for ineligibility to form the union of husband and wife. Not in law. Not in fact.

    There is no gay criterion for eligibility to SSM anypace where SSM has been imposed. In fact and in law.

    Meanwhile the bride-groom requirement is a legal requirement arising from the cultural regard for the core meaning of marriage. The two-sexed sexual basis for that requirement is expressed in our marriage laws clearly on sexual consummation, annulment, adultery/divorce (and monogamy), and the marital presumption of paternity. Further, that is the same sexual basis society regards when drawing just lines or boundaries around eligibility and ineligibility -- see age limits, consent limits, relatedness limits, and the two-person (one mand and one woman), the one marital relationship at-a-time.

    The SSM idea lacks justification for these limits and lacks a core meaning that merits the special status accorded the union of husband and wife in law and in culture. In fact.

    Marriage integrates the sexes, provides for responsible procreation, and does so as a coherent whole.

    Each one-sex-short arrangement (sexualized or not) is sex-segregative and cannot provide for procreation,much less responsible procreation, within the arrangement. The SSM idea lacks coherency. It is not foundational to civil society. It is not intrinsically distinguishable as a type of relationship or type of living arrangement; it is merely a subset of the broader one-sex-short subset of the range of types or relationships and types of living arrangements that populate the non-marriage category.

    The choice to form a non-marriage scenario is a liberty exercised and not a right denied.

    SSM argumentation swallows whole all the limitations on eligibility such as the lines drawn against polygamy and polyamory and relationships of related people. That is not a slippery slope but a leap off the cliff.

    Go back to the essential(s) of the type of one-sex realationship or living arrangement the SSM supporter has in mind.

    There are forthright admissions among SSMers that their SSM idea does embrace polygamous-like SSM and polyamourous SSM and -- yes -- even underaged SSM and incestuous SSM.

    When the SSMer notes that SSM, at law, is not a sexual type of relationship, much is conceded.

    First, that destroys the pro-SSM complaint based on sexual attraction. Second, it destroys the pro-SSM proposed remedy based on sexual attraction. Third it removes the sexual basis for the special status of SSM-as-marriage. Also, it directly undermines the sexual basis for age limits, relatedness limits, and limits on number or SSMs at-a-time and number of concurrent SSM partners.

    A nonsexual basis has not been brought front and center by the SSM campaign. A nonsexual basis for special status has not been forthcoming. A nonsexual basis for limitations derived within SSM has not been put forth to justify boundaries for eligibility and ineligibility.

    These are the failings of the SSM campaign and SSMers eventual concede all of it with a shrug.

    It goes back to the question, what is marriage? The book will get at this more thoroughly and more rigorously than I have here. I look forward tol reading the book which expands on the previous article in the Harvard Law Review.

  75. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

    Byrd, do you find it amusing that an SSMer would consider Ettlebrick (and Lamda) and Signorile have 'anti-gay' messages.

    Anti-marriage, yes. Undermining the pro-SSM complaint and proposed remedy, yes. But 'anti-gay'?

    I find it amusing that such twisting and spinning by SSM commenters would concede so much so readily. But to what end?

    Contraryism, I suppose. Dunno. Thanks for providing that context, Byrd, and for prompting the SSMer's concession.

  76. Zack
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

    @Dan

    "Since gay couples can raise children without marriage being legal, why aren't you fighting against gay parenting/adoption?"

    I'm not. I never said I was. Dan if you actually read my posts on past blogs, I'm for full legal recognition of same-sex marriage without the title of Marriage. However, I am also for defending religious liberty, that means if an adoption agency on the grounds of their religious faith refuse to adopt a child to a same-sex couple, that decision should be respected not challenged. Same goes for businesses or individuals who refuse to hold ceremonies on their property or facilities on the grounds of their religious beliefs.

    As for your second question Dan, I again ask you to look at my past posts. Never once did I attack homosexuals, my issue is with the activists and leftists who are assaulting our religious freedoms and first amendment rights. Are there bad male/female parents? Of course! Are there children who neglected by their male/female parents? Of course! I am not disputing the troubles that our society has created surrounding the issue of families. I don't blame anyone except the counter culture movements of the past that have changed Marriage from something that was ordained by God, to a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship that merits no responsibility. But that is not a mandate for changing what a Marriage is. My argument has been fairly consistent; men and women are inherently different. There is a compelling interest for society to uphold that, because only a man and a woman are capable of bringing new life into the world. There are qualities only a woman can give to a child and there are qualities only a father can give to a child. That does not discount homosexuals as parents. I believe it is better for a child to be raised by two people of the same gender but I oppose dismantling the barrier between the two sexes. Whether or not that is the intention is irrelevant, that is and will be the end result. If the purpose of Marriage is not to tie parenthood with procreation and ensure a stable home for children to properly grow(not all couples can achieve this), then what purpose does it serve?

  77. Zack
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

    @Dan

    "Since gay couples can raise children without marriage being legal, why aren't you fighting against gay parenting/adoption?"

    I'm not. I never said I was. Dan if you actually read my posts on past blogs, I'm for full legal recognition of same-sex marriage without the title of Marriage. However, I am also for defending religious liberty, that means if an adoption agency on the grounds of their religious faith refuse to adopt a child to a same-sex couple, that decision should be respected not challenged. Same goes for businesses or individuals who refuse to hold ceremonies on their property or facilities on the grounds of their religious beliefs.

  78. Zack
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

    As for your second question Dan, I again ask you to look at my past posts. Never once did I attack homosexuals, my issue is with the activists and leftists who are assaulting our religious freedoms and first amendment rights. Are there bad male/female parents? Of course! Are there children who neglected by their male/female parents? Of course! I am not disputing the troubles that our society has created surrounding the issue of families. I don't blame anyone except the counter culture movements of the past that have changed Marriage from something that was ordained by God, to a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship that merits no responsibility. But that is not a mandate for changing what a Marriage is. My argument has been fairly consistent; men and women are inherently different. There is a compelling interest for society to uphold that, because only a man and a woman are capable of bringing new life into the world. There are qualities only a woman can give to a child and there are qualities only a father can give to a child. That does not discount homosexuals as parents. I believe it is better for a child to be raised by two people of the same gender but I oppose dismantling the barrier between the two sexes. Whether or not that is the intention is irrelevant, that is and will be the end result. If the purpose of Marriage is not to tie parenthood with procreation and ensure a stable home for children to properly grow(not all couples can achieve this), then what purpose does it serve?

  79. MarkOH
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, the ONLY way that same sex couples differ from opposite sex couples is in procreation. The rest of your diatribe will fit same sex couples. So, again, unless you are proposing that any married couple that does not procreate must have their marriage voided, you are just discriminating against same sex couples.

  80. Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

    "the ONLY way that same sex couples differ from opposite sex couples is in procreation"

    >> More fundamental transformation.

  81. Son of Adam
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    "But Son of Adam, NO one is opposing man/woman marriages. NO ONE."

    And for good reason: because it is the cornerstone of a stable and productive civilization in which its citizens are raised in an environment with a male and female role model. Supporters of SS"M", however, insist that marriage is only about coupling while children are an irrelevant byproduct. Such a view is destroys the whole point of having marriage which is to provide a family environment for kids with a mother and a father. Why do you think marriage rates have dropped so drastically in Scandinavia?

    "And for all your "statistics" about gay sex, you ARE aware that legal marriage is a good way to CUT the rate of STDs, right?"

    And yet, it doesn't. The number of AIDS cases have risen dramatically since SS"M" was imposed by the courts and only a small minority of gays get "married" anyway. And many who do keep their marriages "open".

  82. Spunky
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

    @ Son of Adam

    "And for all your "statistics" about gay sex, you ARE aware that legal marriage is a good way to CUT the rate of STDs, right?"

    And yet, it doesn't. The number of AIDS cases have risen dramatically since SS"M" was imposed by the courts

    I have said many times before, gay marriage has not caused an increase in HIV/AIDS in Massachusetts. As the CDC explained,

    This increase was expected, due to the fact that antiretroviral treatment has greatly extended the life spans of people with HIV, and because more people become infected with HIV than die from the disease each year.

    As this website points out, the figure you should be citing is the number of men contracting HIV from having sex with other men. However, as the Massachusetts Department of Public Health Office of HIV/AIDS reports, in 2010 the number of men contracting HIV from gay sex each year decreased by 40% since 2004. So it appears the advent of gay marriage in Massachusetts has negative correlation (but again, not causation) to the number of gay men contracting HIV.

    This is completely intuitive, as MarkOH pointed out. Government subsidy of a relationship structure that generally involves monogamy is a good way to prevent the spread of HIV, which occurs from promiscuity.

  83. Chairm
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 2:03 am | Permalink

    Markoh, you dodged and you sqirmed but the query remains unanswered. Your bluffing doesn't provide an answer.

    The union of husband and wife is sex-integrative but the one-sex-short scenario is sex-segretative. Your gay emphasis misses the target, too: marriage integrates by male and female sexual attraction (see the sexual basis for the presumption of paternity for an obvious reminder) but SS, according to your complaint, is segretive by male-only or female-only sexual attraction. Marriage is a sexual type of two-sexed relationship (see the sexual basis in marriage law for an obvious reminder) but, by your own concession, SSM is not a sexual type of relationship at law. The differences mount and mount and the contrast between the SSM idea and the marriage idea becomes more and more stark.

    The core meaning of marriage justifies the special status accorded this type of relationship. It sets marriage apart from nonmarriage. It justifies the boundaries for eligibility and ineligiblity of various two-sexed scenarios.

    That core meaning you have now alighted upon in your recent comment in which you conceded the obvious difference. Marriage integrates the sexes; it provides for responsible procreation; it does so as a coherent whole.

    The SS idea, by your own concessions, is a rejection of the core meaning that explains the special status of the union of husband and wife.

    Why do you demand that society favor the gay subset of nonmarriage? That is discriminatory but perhaps you might offer your justification. The funny thing is that you have fled the query even though your complaint and proposed remedy invite that query upfront.

    Readers can draw conclusions, perhaps tentatively, from your deliberate evasions. But among the SSM supporters far and wide well; you are not alone in demonstrating this failure of the SSM campaign.

    You are still stuck on attacking the marriage idea instead of justifying your SSM idea. Show some moral and intellectual courage; your pose had held such a promise implicitly yet you have not delivered.

    Readers might weigh that in the balance, too.

  84. Dan
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 3:19 am | Permalink

    Chairm, once again the anti-SSM crowd has a slight problem with basic words. How is denying couples the right to marry "defending" marriage? That would be comparable to men saying they were "defending" voting by refusing to allow women to vote.
    When I hear the words "I support traditional marriage", I instantly translate that to: "I oppose those icky gays from having the right to marry." This has nothing to do with supporting marriage, it is about discriminatation against our families and relationships. Old man, you've spent four years of your life wasting time on this issue and you only come out of it as an obvious anti-gay bigot. Couldn't you have done something better with your time? If one of your grandchildren were gay and one day wants to marry a same sex partner, will you be proud of the incredible amount of time you've spent fighting their civil rights? Just sad, old man. You're a tired relic of 1952.

  85. Dan
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 3:31 am | Permalink

    Son of Adam, while I don't oppose the rights of heterosexuals (gays are simply more mature in that regard), there are aspects of the heterosexual lifestyle I profoundly disagree with. These make me thankful I was born gay:
    Teen pregnancy
    Abuse of women (one in four is abused, one in five raped).
    Unwanted children
    Overpopulation of the planet
    Abortion (I support a woman's right to choose, but let's face reality, without heterosexual sex there would be no need for abortion)

  86. MarkOH
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    Chairm you MUST be putting me on! There is no validity or even logical sense in anything you write. But I do notice your dodging my questions to you. Why? Because, like your other arguments, they are indefensible.

    By your logic, single race marriage should be illegal because it segregates the races. And, if a couple chooses or is unable to procreate, they should be forbidden to marry. And, trust me, I care for MANY opposite couples who are no longer sexual so I guess, by your logic, they should also have their marriages annulled.

    But, most importantly, as legal case after legal case has shown, allowing same sex couples to marry does NOTHING to the marriage of opposite sex couples. It is sad to see an individual who is so willing to discriminate against their fellow American citizen for no reason other than gays are icky.

  87. lhf
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    With respect to Markoh above: it's important to look back to find the slippery slope. A mere 40 years ago when the closet burst open, conservatives warned that it wouldn't be long before homosexuals would demand they be allowed to marry. Homosexual spokespersons at the time made out as though that were a crazy idea, but now we have it. Very slippery slope indeed.

    But, if you want to look forward, look at the website of the polyamorists and the polygamists. They are making the samecivil rights arguments that homosexuals have made.

    And if you wish to see where plural marriage has occurred already, look at the Netherlands, which I think was the first country to legalize genderless marriage. A man was permitted to legally unite with two women several years ago. Probably more have taken place since.

    There are many slippery slopes and we are quickly sliding down all of them - back into the mire from which we escaped thousands of years ago.

  88. Chairm
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    Dan, you have trouble answering the query. The rest of your latest comment lacks coherency due that basic failing.

    Namecalling is the best you can do. Your comment assumes that bigotry is not a good basis for marriage law, but that is not the basis of my argument. look at your argument (and contraryism) and note how it has defeated your own complaint against the marriage law. Also, your own remarks exhibit a stubborn refusal to accept reason; and an intolerant and irrational prejudice; in short, your own words accuse you of bigotry.

    Back to the query. The opening question in your latest comment depends, utterly, on a substantive answer to that query. Otherwise your evasions speak against your pro-SS stance which remains unjustified even by yourself.

    I leave you with the task that your own pro-SSM rhetoric has dropped in your lap.

  89. MarkOH
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    Ihf, yes, let's look at history. Those early gay right activists were merely trying to survive in a country that wanted them dead. Of course they weren't interested in marriage, they were interested in keeping their jobs and not lynched. But that was then. Now, they are fighting for ALL of their rights.

    This country was founded on equal rights but, initially, blacks and women were not given all the rights that white males had. Did some of the things that people warned against happen after they were given those rights? Possibly. but you cannot deny Americans their full Constitutionally protected rights out of fear of a "what if".

  90. Son of Adam
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    No one was born gay, Dan. There are thousands of ex gays who can testify to that. And there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic. That is an article of faith, nothing more.

    Teen pregnancy is bolstered by the degrading family values that affirms the hedonistic notion that coupling is more important than procreation and the rearing of children - a notion heartily supported by SS"M" supporters.

    And according to the US Department of Justice, heterosexual relationships experience significantly less intimate partner violence than do homosexual relationships.

    And of course there wouldn't be any unwanted children or overpopulation or abortion without heterosexuality because then there wouldn't be any people! Can you possibly be more specious?

  91. Chairm
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    Dan, given your recent comment, you owe this discussion your list of the defining feature(s) of the same-sex relationship you have in mind.

    You know, before the law enters the picture.

    Is there any type of same-sex couple that would be ineligible to SSM anyplace it has been imposed, enacted, or proposed? If yes then your comment is a complaint against those limitations.

    You also now owe the discussion your defining criteria for the term, bigotry. State your intended meaning such that your own remarks can be assessed for bigotry.

    Your namecalling is boorish and that namecalling and virulence is your burden, not mine. You are invited to do better. You owe this public discourse much better.

  92. Chairm
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    Markoh, it is sad to read that you say that gay persons are icky.

    I did not say that. You did.

    I have discussed the conflict between the SSM idea and the marriage idea. You have runaway from that substantive discussion because you cannot provide a sond answer to the query that your own rhetoric has set before you.

    You owe this discussion your answer. You already have mine regarding the husband-wife type of relationship. What is your answer for the type of same-sex relationship that you have in mind? Icky has zilch to do with it, I would hope. You might clarify.

    The annulment provision in law and in culture is reasonable. Annulment means there was no marital relationship. So your odd comment bespeaks a profound misunderstanding of marriage, annulment, and lawmaking. Also, that comment belies your authoritarian impulse.

    Likewise with your utter confusion regarding the provision for responsible procreation both in culture and in law. The sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity pre-exists government. That sexual basis is highly reliable in our legal system. You misrepresent the pro-marriage view of responsible procreation because you need to do that just to puff up another strawman. that is not a valid approach to reasoning in an open annd civil public discourse. You can do better, I hope.

    Your authoritarian impulse has confused your understanding of the reasonable limits on governmental powers, as well. But you have now invoked absolutist standards of argumentation that destroy your SSM idea. You are demonstrating the way SSM rhetoric swallows all limitations on eligibility and destroys the pro-SSM complaint and proposed remedy.

    In short you have invalidated the SSM campaign. You did that with little to no prompting from me.

    Society may justly discriminate between marriage and other types of relationships that are not marital. So the question of whether the marriage law is right or wrong depends on the query you have yet to answer.

    The marriagea -- as I described -- merits special status in culture and in law. Societal regard for the core meaning of marriage (ie for its essentials) justifies the boundaries a society draws for eligibility and ineligibility.

    But the SSM idea is quite a different thing. Thusfar, it is ill-defined by SSMers themselves. The query is evaded for unstated reasons. In the meantime, no justification for special status and none for limitations on eligibility -- none that flow from within the type of same-sex relationship that the SSM advocate has in mind. But the gay emphasis is unmistakable so that needs to be made a legal requirement for those who'd SSM or it is a misplaced emphasis, according to the line of thinking on display by SSMers here.

    If the special status and the boundaries for eligibility are arbitrary (i.e. unjustified), then, the SSMer directly contradicts the pro-SSM demand that the law be justified.

    It is becoming clear that SSM rhetoric and argumentation is very prone, perhaps inevitably, to shooting itself in the foot.

  93. Chairm
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    I've a comment in reply to Dan. It is in the que.

  94. MarkOH
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, it really amusing how you make up facts and then spend time to defend them. Please, the Bible says "thou shall not bear false witness" - I did not say gays were icky. That was clearly implied in your writings.

    But, please, for ONCE define the term "marriage" - simply and precise.

  95. Chairm
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    Well, Markoh, you misrepresented what I actually said. So you said it, not I.

    I have already answered the query. How did you miss it?

    The core meaning of marriage: 1) integration of the sexes (see the bride-groom requirement and the sexual basis for consummation and so forth), 2) provision for responsible procreation (see the marital presumption of paternity and its sexual basis), and 3) these combined as a coherent whole (see marriage as the foundational social institution of civil society due to this type of relationship's comprehensiveness).

    Objections from you would not answer the query. You are still on the hook for answering the query about the type of same-sex relationship you have in mind.

  96. MarkOH
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, oh but I did respond. You have yet to answer how it is that a couple who does not, or can not, "responsibly procreate" is allowed to remain married? Nor have you answered why a brother and sister, "integrating the sexes" are not allowed to marry?

  97. Chairm
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    Markoh, now you'd misrepresent your own comments. Please link to or quote directly from your answer to the query.

    In this thread alone I have discussed the core meaning o marriage, multiple times. Readers can see that.

  98. Zack
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    Continued off of post #69

    As for your second question Dan, I again ask you to look at my past posts. Never once did I attack homosexuals, my issue is with the activists and leftists who are assaulting our religious freedoms and first amendment rights. Are there bad male/female parents? Of course! Are there children who neglected by their male/female parents? Of course! I am not disputing the troubles that our society has created surrounding the issue of families. I don't blame anyone except the counter culture movements of the past that have changed Marriage from something that was ordained by God, to a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship that merits no responsibility.

    But that is not a mandate for changing what a Marriage is, neither is arguing that sterile couples can marry. My argument has been fairly consistent; men and women are inherently different and it is only those differences that contribute to raising a healthy child. There is a compelling interest for society to uphold that, because only a man and a woman are capable of bringing new life into the world. There are qualities only a woman can give to a child and there are qualities only a father can give to a child.

    That does not discount homosexuals as parents. I believe it is better for a child to be raised by two people of the same gender but I oppose dismantling the barrier between the two sexes. Whether or not that is the intention is irrelevant, that is and will be the end result. If the purpose of Marriage is not to tie parenthood with procreation and ensure a stable home for children to properly grow(not all couples can achieve this), then what purpose does it serve?

  99. Chairm
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    The union of husband and wife is a sexual type of relationship as per the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. It is a comprehensive relationship in which husband and wife come closely related. Therein lies your answer for people too closely related to marry.

    You conceded that your concept of SSM is not a sexual type of relationship. Besides, sexualized or not sexualized, there is no sexual basis to presume a man would impregnate another man; or that a woman would be impregnated by another woman. Procreation is outside of (not intrinsic to) the same-sex scenario. Same-sex sexual behavior is not decisive, by your own account. Likewise same sex sexual attraction.

    So you lack justification to use relatedness to draw lines of eligibility. It would be unjust to bar people arbitrarily.

    Explain your concept of SSM: how might someone become more closely related to an unrelated person of the same sex than to someone to whom one is already too-closely related to be eligible to SSM?

    And, if so closely related, how are participants in SSM not too closely related for incestuous sexual behavior?

    The core meaning of marriage provides the principled grounds for the line drawn based on relatedness. A society made blind to that core meaning, as per your pro-SSM thinking, would abandon those grounds and might have no alternative grounds under the concept of SSM. You have offered zilch from within the type of same-sex relationship you have in mind.

    Plainly state the essential(s) of that type of relationship such that limits on eligibility flow from relatedness. You already ruled out sexual behavior and procreation for these, according to you, are not legitimate bases for lawmaking on eligibility. Arbitrarily making relatedness a factor is insufficient. Justify it first.

  100. MarkOH
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    LOL, Chairm, your lack of basic comprehension is amusing. I have never said marriage equality is a non-sexual relationship (WHY do you people who are against marriage equality have such an obsession with sex?). However, since you make it a key portion of your definition of marriage, can you list the laws in this country that require verification of sexual intercourse in marriage as a requirement for remaining married?

  101. Chairm
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    By the way, what did you mean by "allowed to remain married"?

    That comment strongly suggests that you do not understand that marital status is not a conditional status; and that your authoritarian impulse has obscured, for you, the reasonable limitations on governmental power.

    The sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity is the same sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery/divorce, monogamy, and so forth. People who enter marriage, and society via marital status, consent to that sexual basis. It is two-sexed and not one-sexed nor sex-neutral. That is the starting place: this pre-exists the law and the state and the government. It is recognized rather than prescribed. Marriage is a public relationship but its deeply intimate essence does not empower government to peer into the marital bed for the antimarriage goal of proscription post hoc. That is reasonable both in principle and in practice.

  102. Chairm
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Markoh, it is not an obsession but an answer to your question. Oh well.

    Is same-sex sexual attraction mandatory for those who'd SSM? Nope. Nor same-sex sexual behavior. Nor gay identity.

    So why your gay emphasis? Does it bespeak your obsession with sex? Or with identity politics, perhaps? It is your SSM idea -- designed for the type of relationship you have in mind.

    Maybe you are uncertain. You backtracked and claimed you have mind a sexual type of same-sex relationship but that is not a legal requirement, by your own account.

    You conceded that same-sex sexual behavior is not a requirement for those who'd SSM. According to your own line of argument, that behavior does not define SSSM. Please clarify.

    And answer your own questions, if you can, without slamming into your own objections.

  103. MarkOH
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, I'll answer you with this:

    Is opposite-sex sexual attraction mandatory for those who'd OSM? Nope. Nor opposite-sex sexual behavior. Nor hetero identity. See? you've supported my very views. You are unable to support marriage as only between one man and one woman.

  104. Chairm
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    No, you shot yourself in the foot.

    Given the answers you provided in your recent comment, there is -- in your conception of SSM -- no sexual basis for the pro-SSM complaint based on sexual attraction, sexual behavior, group identity.

    There is no gay criterion for ineligibility under the bride-groom legal requirement. Non-gay menare not eligible to marry each othe, for example. The pro-SSM complaint is based on a different type of relationship rather than some gay criterion for ineligibility to marry.

    Meanswhile, as already demonstrated in my earlier remarks, the union of husband wife entails the two-sexed sexual basis ... embedded in the marriage law.

    Take consent. Marital status includes mutual consent to the sexual basis for the default that the husband will father the children born to he and his wife during their marriage. This is one of the most vigorously enforced legal presumptions in our legal system And one of the most reliable ... even when challenged on a case-by-case basis in courts. It is part of the coherent whole that hangs together in reasonable requirements and provisions in marriage law. See the two-sexed sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery/divorce, monogamy, and so forth.

    That sexual basis is foreign to the one-sex-short scenario. Those who'd SSM do not consent to that sexual basis. There is no sexual basis for a default of mutual consent to procreate within the scenario; no sexual basis for a theoretical default of mutual consent to co-equal parental status; and no sexual basis for mutual consent to engage in same-sex sexual behavior. You cocede the the sexual stuff is not key to your concept of SSM in law.

    What, if anything, is the nonsexual basis for SSM?

    You insist that the lack of a legal requirement that makes this or that mandatory (such as for same sex sexual stuff) must stand decisively against using this or that as the basis for lawmaking on SSM ... and so that applies to its imposition with special status (marital status is a special status) and for limiting eligibility.

    Thusfar, you are unable to distinguish the type of relationship you have mind from the rest of the types of relationships and types of living arrangements that populate the non-marriage category. Nor have you been able to state the essential(s) of your favored type such that it merits special status over and above the rest of non-marriage.

    Answer your own questions, if you can, without slamming into your own objections.

  105. MarkOH
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, as always, you dodge the questions poised you, name call and repeat the same, failed arguments you always use.

    "What, if anything, is the nonsexual basis for SSM? "
    The same, nonsexual basis as for opposite sex marriage.

  106. Spunky
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    @ Son of Adam

    "And for all your "statistics" about gay sex, you ARE aware that legal marriage is a good way to CUT the rate of STDs, right?"

    And yet, it doesn't. The number of AIDS cases have risen dramatically since SS"M" was imposed by the courts

    If you are trying to imply that gay marriage in Massachusetts has helped HIV/AIDS become more widespread, you are mistaken.

    I have said many times before, gay marriage has not caused an increase in HIV/AIDS in Massachusetts. As the CDC explained,

    This increase was expected, due to the fact that antiretroviral treatment has greatly extended the life spans of people with HIV, and because more people become infected with HIV than die from the disease each year.

    As this website points out, the figure you should be citing is the number of men contracting HIV from having sex with other men. However, as the Massachusetts Department of Public Health Office of HIV/AIDS reports, in 2010 the number of men contracting HIV from gay sex each year decreased by 40% since 2004. So it appears the advent of gay marriage in Massachusetts has negative correlation (but again, not causation) to the number of gay men contracting HIV.

    This is completely intuitive, as MarkOH pointed out. Government subsidy of a relationship structure that generally involves monogamy is a good way to prevent the spread of HIV, which occurs from promiscuity.

  107. Chairm
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    Markoh, if it is the same, as you asserted, then, plainly state the nonsexual basis for SSM and Marriage.

    Your assertion is an empty statement. Provide the content.

    By the way, the basis for marriage is a two-sexed sexual basis. It is not a nonsexual basis.

    But your assertion is on the record. You claim an equivalence. There is a nonsexual basis for SSM, you said, and it is no different than the nonsexual basis for marriage, you said.

    Let's see how such a basis might distinguish the type of relationship you have mind from other types of relationships in the non-marriage category -- and presumably the non-SSM catoegory at the same time.

    ---

    By the by, you have left most of my questions unanswered ... especially the query you brazenly dodged thusfar. Readers can take that as a silent and dumbfounded shrug from you on the most basic task your own rhetoric had given you and all other SSMers. Robert George's book will do more than issue the challenge again. It will deal rigorously with the answers offerred by prominent SSMers more prepared than yourself to defend their certitude.

  108. Spunky
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    The filter at the NOM Blog (or the moderator him/herself) has refused to publish this comment. Hence the late re-post (and possible "previous" posts).

    @ Son of Adam

    "And for all your "statistics" about gay sex, you ARE aware that legal marriage is a good way to CUT the rate of STDs, right?"

    And yet, it doesn't. The number of AIDS cases have risen dramatically since SS"M" was imposed by the courts

    I have said many times before, gay marriage has not caused an increase in HIV/AIDS in Massachusetts. As the CDC explained,

    This increase was expected, due to the fact that antiretroviral treatment has greatly extended the life spans of people with HIV, and because more people become infected with HIV than die from the disease each year.

    As this website points out, the figure you should be citing is the number of men contracting HIV from having sex with other men. However, as the Massachusetts Department of Public Health Office of HIV/AIDS reports, in 2010 the number of men contracting HIV from gay sex each year decreased by 40% since 2004. So it appears the advent of gay marriage in Massachusetts has negative correlation (but again, not causation) to the number of gay men contracting HIV.

    This is completely intuitive, as MarkOH pointed out. Government subsidy of a relationship structure that generally involves monogamy is a good way to prevent the spread of HIV, which occurs from promiscuity.

  109. Chairm
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    And that basis is ...?

  110. MarkOH
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, if you don't know then why do you constantly bring it up?

  111. Chairm
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 5:09 am | Permalink

    I do not know your answer. Because I do not have your answer. Because you have not provided your answer. Perhaps that is because you do not know your own answer.

    In your view, the nonsexual basis is ... ?

  112. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:32 am | Permalink

    Chairm, let me clarify the question for you:
    What is the nonsexual basis for opposite sex marriage? Or, are you only obsessed with sex?

  113. Chairm
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    Come on, Markoh, you said there is a nonsexual basis for marriage and SSM. If you do not state what that is, in your view, then, by your own account, you'd demonstrate that you don't know what you were talking about.

    You made the assertion, not I. Back it up, if you can.

  114. Chairm Ohn
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 7:55 am | Permalink

    Come on, Markoh, you said there is a nonsexual basis for marriage and SSM. If you do not state what that is, in your view, then, by your own account, you'd demonstrate that you don't know what you were talking about.

    You made the assertion, not I. Back it up, if you can. It is okay if you can't.