NOM BLOG

NEW: The Best Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

 

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Our opponents will use the election results to push the idea that the radical redefinition of marriage is “inevitable.” Now more than ever, we have to fight back hard with prayers—and with strong arguments.

That's why I think it's Providential that we're just weeks away from the release of the strongest pro-marriage argument ever written, praised by the likes of Rick Warren and Cardinal Dolan!

What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, written by NOM co-founder and Princeton professor Robert P. George along with Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson, is the best short, accessible argument for marriage as a union of man and woman. Their 2010 article on marriage was an instant international success, cited worldwide as the toughest, most eloquent pro-marriage argument out there. They've expanded and enhanced it for this book, further developing key arguments and responding to critics.

The book offers a devastating critique of all the pro-gay marriage arguments, which no one has been able to answer. Use it to challenge friends and coworkers who think "history is on their side."

Finally, it demolishes the usual objections to our cause—points about infertility, interracial marriage, equality, freedom, same-sex couples' practical needs, separation of Church and state, and much more.

And it's very affordable—just $9.92 on Amazon! Buy it now, "like" its Facebook page, and invite your friends and family to do the same.

See below the high praise it's already gotten!

What people are saying about Marriage and the Public Good

"This book brilliantly explains why the definition of marriage is so critical and why the strengthening of marriages is absolutely essential to our freedom and our future."
Dr. Rick Warren, Author of The Purpose Driven Life and Pastor of Saddleback Church

"What Is Marriage? There is the question. Thanks to these three eloquent authors for so cogently reminding us of that, and for showing us how reflective reason answers it."
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York

"What Is Marriage? is the most insightful, eloquent, and influential defense of marriage as it has been historically and rightly understood. People of all traditions—and everyone who cares about the future of this central and sacred social institution—owe Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George an extraordinary debt."
Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, Yeshiva University

"With many countries on the verge of redefining a basic social institution, What Is Marriage? issues an urgent call for full deliberation of what is at stake. The authors make a compelling secular case for marriage as a partnership between a man and a woman, whose special status is based on society's interest in the nurture and education of children."
Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law School

"What a joy to see this book by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, which presents the most philosophically astute and historically accurate defense of traditional marriage to date. It exposes the incoherence of attempts to radically redefine marriage by showing the inherent wisdom in what is our oldest social institution."
Rabbi David Novak, University of Toronto

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.

58 Comments

  1. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    I've not seen nor heard a pro-SSM argument that is a sound challenge to this pro-marriage account of the meaning, significance, and norms of the conjugal view.

    On the flipside, no SSMer has managed to provide a sound argument that answers the basic query, what is marriage? The pro-SSM view is revisionist and fails to justify the special place of marriage in law and in culture; and fails to justify limitations on eligibility.

    The pro-SSM view is fatally handicapped by its own argumentation against the bride-groom requirement. That argumentation ends-up pulling the rug from under the pro-SSM complaint and cutting-off the legs of the pro-SSM remedy. SSM argumentation puts all limits on eligibility on the table for reconsideration; but more it puts the special status of marriage in the least favorable light.

    What this book does, I think, is to invite SSMers to demonstrate, if they can, their best argument in favor of the SSM idea. Generally, SSMers are more comfortable attqacking the marriage idea rather than defending the SSM idea. Ut to justify abolishing the bride-groom requirement, SSMers need justification derived from within the type of same-sex relationship they have in mind. If they point outside of that, then, they will not be making the case for that type of relationship.

    Readers might explore this book more closely firsthand so as to better discuss what is at stake.

  2. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    Great. Looking forward to receiving my copy.

    Of course the opposition will use their recent victories to push the idea that pseudo-marriage is inevitable. That's what they do.

    They won b/c they were able to carpet the airwaves with catchy slogans and outright lies, using money from gay billionaires and misguided folks like Bill Gates. They relied upon uninformed and gullible voters who get all their voting information from TV ads.

    Gov. Romney made the astute observation that the Obama campaign went small. They invented a non-existent "war on women." They focused on non-issues such as Big Bird, bayonets and binders. They bought votes with ObamaPhones. Meanwhile, our consulates are burning, hundreds of Mexican citizens (and at least two US citizens) are dead by guns given to the drug cartels by our DOJ, and the media does nothing to investigate.

    Amazingly, they won these elections using techniques that most of us find absurd. It would be funny if it didn't result in so many lost lives and the loss of our freedom.

    It'll be interesting to see how much further down the toilet our country goes in the coming years. With so many folks on the government dole we're well on our way to a socialist state.

  3. Layne
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    Chairm, as with the long, rambling comment you posted to Markoh last night and the even longer and even more rambling comment you posted to me last week, nobody's responded because your lengthy diatribes are downright incoherent.

    None of your fellow NOM'ers are cheering you on because they can't make a lick of sense out of it either. You can use all the big words and compound sentences you want. Word salad is still word salad.

    Plus we know that no cogent argument will satsify you because it's not the answers you want.

    Besides that, Tuesday night showed definitively that we don't have to "demonstrate" anything anymore. The onus is on YOUR SIDE to come to court and demonstrate to the judges YOUR best argument against what you call the "SSM idea".

    By the way, it's not an idea anymore. It's now a legally recognized reality in nearly 10 states + DC. DOMA is next. :)

    But hey since you're so smart, why don't you go to court and defend DOMA. Trust me. BLAG is like 0-8 for DOMA decisions in one year alone! They need all the help they can get!

  4. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    I talked with a man in his early 70s yesterday. He was pleased with the election results.

    I asked him what caused him to vote for Obama. His answer was that he was a Democrat.

    I asked him if he supported gay marriage. He doesn't.

    I asked him if he supported taxpayer funded abortion on demand. He doesn't.

    I asked him if he supported Obamacare. He doesn't.

    Yet he voted for Obama. You figure it out. I couldn't.

  5. Sara R
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    Personally, I do not know anyone who voted on either side of Question 6 in MD who voted a particular way because of commercials, politicians, celebrities, or money. They simply voted their conscience. Some voted one way, some the other. None of them were naive enough to be swayed by their televisions.

  6. lonesomerhoades
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    We must continue to teach the truth that man was made for woman and woman made for man. That is basic!

  7. Donna
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    Layne, you are incorrect. I, a fellow NOMer will stand with Chairm and his/her comments. I found your reply to be a more rambling diatribe than Chairms.

    Chairm presented a challenge to SSMers....demonstrate your best argument for SSM. Instead of doing that (which makes me doubt you even have a solid argument for SSM) you threw out a bunch of random stats with no sources to back them up.

    So...I'll second Chairm's challenge. Demonstrate your best argument for SSM, and I'll add, back it up with REPUTABLE sources (no Wiki's).

  8. Layne
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    Donna, if you're that interested in pro-equality arguments, then you're welcome to read the transcripts from the Prop 8 trial. They're all online free of charge.

    Or you can read the many DOMA decisions that have been handed down in 2011-2012 alone. Again, they're all online free of charge.

    If you and Chairm were that interested in a pro-SSM argument, you would've done the research.

    Speaking of which, for a side that doesn't "have a solid argument for SSM" (your words), we sure are doing swimmingly well in court arguing in front of judges that were appointed by Republican Presidents!

    How come BLAG is like 0-8?

  9. Zack
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    My arguement for traditional marriage is based on the truth that men and women are inherently different. I believe Marriage establishes these differences for children in order for them to properly develop. A man cannot be a mother and a woman cannot be a father.

    There is more, but that is the gist of it.

  10. Jacy Topps
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    Barb

    There is nothing small about what the Obama campaign did. They focused on reality and what we call facts. The demographics are changing. That's something that the Republicans still haven't figured out. You can not dismiss climate change, dismiss the fastest growing ethnic group in this country, think blacks won't vote, cast off 47% of the population as lazy not wanting to take care of themselves, and challenge the sitting President's citizenship and win an election.

    And I wish you would get your facts straight and stop spewing Fox News' talking points. Abortions are a very small percentage of what Planned Parenthood does. It is a doctor's office first and foremost. They do pap smears, cancer screenings, pregnancy tests, and much more. There is no such thing as an Obama phone. There is a program that supplies low-incomed people with cell phones. And that program was started in the Bush administration.

    I'm so tired of the Republican party talking about less government and freedom but then want the federal government to step in and ban gay marriage. You can't have it both ways.

  11. Son of Adam
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    The government is the one that is establishing and maintaining gay marriage, Jacy. SS"M" is not a concept that can survive and thrive on its own because it is contrary to biology. It takes a big government to impose marriage redefinition onto society.

  12. Randy E King
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Obama appealed to the lowest common denominator and won; woman and children’s need to feel safe right now.

    The demographics have not changed as much as you think. My father was a die-hard union rep who told me over forty years ago that if the Democrats just got their people to show up at the polls they would win every election.

    Transitory popular culture has been responsible for the fall of more civilizations throughout human history than war, or natural disasters combined.

  13. FemEagle
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Jacy, the Democratic Party and the media managed to paint a false picture to some voters gullible and ignorant enough to embrace it. Mitt Romney only favors the rich, the economy is starting to get better, gender doesn't matter when it comes to marriage, the bad economy is still Bush's fault - all sorts of nonsense. Younger people who watch Jon Stewart for news (utterly unaware that he's an entertainer, not a journalist) slurped up his drivel and voted accordingly. These same younger people are going to get a rude awakening once they realize how much of a financial burden Obama's spending sprees are going to impose on them. They're going to have lots of fun trying to pay off student loan debt when they can't find work. When they're living at poverty level despite their degrees, their perspective on capitalists like Mitt Romney (who's provided hundreds of jobs during his lifetime thanks to his sound financial practices) might change a wee tad.

    OH, and by the way...the SSM votes in three states only proved one thing: that SSM CAN be decided on by the ballot box, something SSM activists previously denied. They don't have that argument anymore, so the idea of due process goes out the window. If the ballot box can validate SSM, then the ballot box can also *in*validate it. You can't say that one vote counts but the other doesn't. The Supreme Court will have to take that into account now, and very likely SSM advocates are going to have to try to validate SSM - for 40 states - by vote. Which will largely fail; bet on it. SSM will remain illegal for much of these United States.

  14. Fitz
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Layne (writes)

    "nobody's responded because your lengthy diatribes are downright incoherent."

    Nobody responds to Charims arguments because your ideology cant handle a sustained counterargument. All you can & do is label all opposition irrational bigotry. Its an old marxist tactic and is anti-intellectual to the core.

    Jacy Topps (writes)

    "I'm so tired of the Republican party talking about less government and freedom but then want the federal government to step in and ban gay marriage."

    Marriage as traditionally defined is a fundemental consitutional right...it is also a international human right. It is the job of the Supreme Court & State Supreme Courts not to allow this fundemental right to be redifined.

    Rather than protecting our rights...our judicial branch is the one spearheading the movement to subvert the all important right to marriage.

    Think about it... But for the decisions of multiple State Supreme Courts, the movement to redifine marriage would not have gotten off the ground.

    To add to the irony...your a black woman. 70% of all black children are born outside the insitution of marriage. This has desimated the balck underclass and made it impossible for them to dig themselves out of poverty and the tangle of pathologies that have accompanied the sexual revolution.

    Try an understand it this way...

    "Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

    Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress, Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC.

    Again...think about it....

    If the cultural left and the democratic party really cared about people getting "married" - then whay have they ignored the complete collapse of marriage amoung the black underclass?

    Why, for the first time since the sexual revolution are the democratic party and the left suddenly embracing "marriage"...but only for gay couples.

    Why are they not also spearheading efforts to rebuild it for all Americans...especially those who's children would benifit most from it?

  15. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Donna.

    If Layne thinks the anti-marriage arguments made by the pro-SSM litigants provide his best case, then, he still has not answered the query I posed earler.

    But he has added his open concession that he believes that the SSM campaign does not feel compelled to justify what they demand. Yet their central theme is that the marriage law must be justified or abolished.

    That concession lay bare his misunderstanding of lawmaking, of marriage, and of public discourse in a pluralistic and democratic society. He prefers the sectarianism of gay identity politics, he has all but admitted in his various comments.

  16. Fitz
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    Jacy Troops (writes)

    "I'm so tired of the Republican party talking about less government and freedom but then want the federal government to step in and ban gay marriage"

    Marriage as traditionally defined is a fundemental consitutional right...Indeed it is a international human right. The Supreme Court as well as the State Supreme Courts are supposed to be protecting our rights, not subverting them.

    Think about it... without the aid of activist judges this "movement" would have never gotten off the ground. People simply were not interested in changing the definition of marriage. It has taken them more than a decade of propaganda to finally get some democratic legitamacy for what they are doing.

    "Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

    Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

    To add to this irony your a black woman. 70% of black children are born outside the insitution of marriage. Thios deprives them of the insitution of marriage that is required to lift a people out of poverty.

    Do you really think that the cultural left and the democratic party are suddenly interested in marriage but only for gay people??

    Where were these same people when it came to the disentagration of the black family..? Were are they now when it comes to marriage for everyone?

    Why are they only interested in "marriage" when it comes to gays?

  17. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Layne, I agree that SSM is hardly an idea ... it is a conceptual mess. But it is a musing that you take umbrage with my generously describing it as an idea.

    As for practice, well, under whatever guise (including the most inclusive -- same-sex householding) the participation rates within the adult homosexual population is vanishingly low. It remains a marginal practice (if indeed it posses the coherency of an actual normative practice) even among the members of the gay identity group. Acc ording to the Census and related evidenceabout 90% of the adult homosexual population does not reside in same-sex households.

    Layne can look it up.

  18. Layne
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, enjoy your obsession with all things gay.

    The rest of us are moving forward with full equality for all. :)

    So yeah. There's my argument: "Separate is never equal." I'm gonna laugh when SCOTUS agrees with me and you're left screaming about "activist judges" and "gay identity politics"....still don't know those are by the way, and I've been gay my whole life.

    ....Funny how straights know more about being gay than us gays...

  19. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    It is well worth noting that an incumbent president has a huge advantage during re-election. The challenger thus faces a huge mountain to climb and overcome. Doesnt matter which party. Also, the mainstream media gives the Dem party several percentage points in advantage and that necessarily correspondingly disadvantages by that amount the Republican party regardless of incumbency -- although incumbency can still be a net advantage. Doesn't matter the policy choices.

    But that is the landscape in which our election campaigns are conducted so it is no excuse. On issue-specific votes, well, campaigns do matter. Nothing is predecided. Votes count.

    Sound arguments count more when defending marriage but much less when attacking marriage. It is always far easier to tear down rather than sustain and strengthen social institutions. Civil society is in conflict with Government and this is starkest in the conflict between the marriage idea and the SSM idea.

    The People have a government, not the other way around. When the governed forebears injustices, there is always a limit beyond which statist push at their political peril We can put up with a lot of interferences but the time comes when enough is enough.

    The imposition of SSM is a line that some wish to drag civil society -- along with other very bad ideas. I, for one, stand in dissent and will not relent. That is not a defiant boast. It is a humble promise to my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren -- and to future generations to whom we bequeath that which human civilization had sustain for millennia for us, their descendants.

    Some want us to throw all that away. I say, No.

  20. Michael Worley
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    The broader principle that same-sex marriage idealizes is that of sexual freedom. We oppose any law that encourages sexual freedom.

  21. Zack
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    @Layne

    'There's my argument: "Separate is never equal."'

    True, but a same-sex union is not the same as a male/female union. Logically speaking, it makes perfect sense to call it something else since two men nor two women can biologically/naturally achieve what a man and a woman can. I'm with Dennis Prager on this one, yes it is unfair...but it is unfair for a reason. Men and women are inherently different.

    "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." -Abraham Lincoln

    Calling a same-sex union "marriage" doesn't make it so.

  22. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    Layne, you may well know more about gay identity, but that is poor qualification for deciding what marriage is.

    However, as per the query, would have expected you to know more about SSM than you have managed to deliver. That has zilch to do with gay identity, supposedly, but everything to do with your pose here as a supporter of an idea that rejects the marriage idea.

    O SSMer, gay or otherwise, intellectual or otherwise, moralistic or otherwise, Dem or Repub, mature or immature, thoughtful or thoughtless, articulate or otherwise, intellectual or otherwise, religious or otherwise, judge or legislator or executive -- no SSMer has managed to do what the query asks of their advocacy of SSM.

    Ndeed their failure is the failure to live-up to their own stated standards.

    Favoritism for the gay identity group is one thing and unjustified, but the asserted supremacy of gay identity politics goes to a a different level of inequality. Pressing identity politics into the marriage law was unjust when it was for the supremacy of white identity group which claimed to be benign; it would be unjust if it was for the gay identity group regardless of how benign you might hope it to be.

    I know marriage and I know identity politics. Keep them seperate because pressing the latter ino the former is not benign nor equality.

  23. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    I've a comment in the que.

  24. Fitz
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Layne (writes)

    "Chairm, enjoy your obsession with all things gay -The rest of us are moving forward with full equality for all. "

    Chairm and the other defenders of marriage on this blog are simply not "obsessed with all things gay"

    This is simply a manifestation of your own narrcasism - pretending that large majorities of your fellow Americans and the overwellming histroy of marriage is simply a orginized effort to marginalize gays for no good reason.

    Rather they are defending the instition of marriage against a open and obvious subversion of its central understanding.

    This requires bland and banal bumper sticker slogans like "equality for all" and simply cannot subject itself to any sustained or honest debate.

    This is what Chairm is refering to when he asserts that you & others cannot defend what your doing to marriage.

    Instead you have to hide behind bumper sticker slgans and accusations of anti-gay bigotry.

  25. CuriousGeorge
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    As Jennifer Rubin, a conservative columnist who backed Romney, wrote Wednesday in The Washington Post, “the issue of gay marriage is a generational one, a battle that social conservatives have lost ... The American people have changed their minds on the issue and fighting this one is political flat-earthism.”

  26. Good News
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    The opposite-sex union is the human-species in its completed form.

    The natural human desire to name things produces the need for a word to name this thing. It also produces this conflict of ours, for marriage was the word that did name it.

    (Looking forward to reading this new book.)

  27. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    Herb, the racist analogue is the SSM campaign's gay emphasis and it assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics.

    SSMers even talk of gay purity as an obstacle to forming a union of husband and wife for people in the gay identity group.

    SSMers insist that sexual attraction is decisively the factor that demands the abolition of the bride-groom requirement; and that supplants the centrality of the provision for responsible procreation and the unity of motherhood and fatherood.

    They insist that the law must be changed to put aside integration of the sexes. Nstead they promote segregtive relationships. Yes, sex segregative. Yes, segregative by sexual attraction, too -- either male-only or female-only.

    But marriage integrates the sexes. So, according to the pro-SSM complaint, marriage integrates male sexual attraction and female sexual atraction. And the sexual basis for marriage law is two-sexed, SSMers have complained; and, they claim, the sexual basis for the marital pesumption of paternity must take a back seat to gay identity politics.

    The anti-miscegenist system segregated the sexes via the white identity filter; and that same filter marginalized and undermined provision for responsible procreation.

    Much like the gay identity filter that would require society, coerced by government, to treat all unions of husband and wife as if they were one-sexed or sex-neutral and lacking either a bride or a groom.

    Marriage is integrative. SSM is segregative. The SSMer is the racist analogue, however benign you might imagine that brand o identity politics to be.

  28. Fitz
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    CuriousGeorge (wrote)

    “the issue of gay marriage is a generational one, a battle that social conservatives have lost ... The American people have changed their minds on the issue and fighting this one is political flat-earthism

    Herb (wrote)

    "20 years from now someone coming across the letters "NOM" will think its a mispelling and that the writter meant to spell Nome, AL."

    This is what the mainstream feminist movement said about abortion when Roe v Wade became law.

    That all they had to do was wait a decade or more and the oposition would die off and fade away.

    Obviously it did not and now more young people are pro-life than people over 65. The enthusiam gap is also striking with pro-lifers being more "strongly opposed" than pro-abortion supporters.

    Its not hard to see the battle against gay marriage following the same path.

    It takes awhile for grass roots movments like pro-life and pro-marriage to get traction initially. They dont have the power of the big media and universities to white wash their arguments and use poltical correctness to denounce opposition.

    Instead they relly on one on one conversion and strong arguments and activism through religious and civic organizations.

    The pro-marriage movement will have a much easier time of it because unlike abortion theirs really no self interest in being pro gay "marriage". Half the country gets gets pregnant and the other gets them pregnant...so plausibly everyone has a self interest in maintaining legal abortion.

    Traditional marriage however is an much easier sell. For those who think that we will be easy to paint as bigots...they need to understand that all we ever need say is "children deserve a Mother & a Father"..

    Since everyone has a Mother and Father, they can all relate...even if their parents are divorced or they were abandon...then they know even more keenly the importance and formative expeirance of the gender of ones parents.

  29. Fitz
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    CuriousGeorge (wrote)

    “the issue of gay marriage is a generational one, a battle that social conservatives have lost ... The American people have changed their minds on the issue and fighting this one is political flat-earthism

    Herb (wrote)

    "20 years from now someone coming across the letters "NOM" will think its a mispelling and that the writter meant to spell Nome, AL."

    This is what the mainstream feminist movement said about abortion when Roe v Wade became law.

    That all they had to do was wait a decade or more and the oposition would die off and fade away.

    Obviously it did not and now more young people are pro-life than people over 65. The enthusiam gap is also striking with pro-lifers being more "strongly opposed" than pro-abortion supporters.

  30. Fitz
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    Its not hard to see the battle against gay marriage following the same path.

    It takes awhile for grass roots movments like pro-life and pro-marriage to get traction initially. They dont have the power of the big media and universities to white wash their arguments and use poltical correctness to denounce opposition.

    Instead they relly on one on one conversion and strong arguments and activism through religious and civic organizations.

    The pro-marriage movement will have a much easier time of it because unlike abortion theirs really no self interest in being pro gay "marriage". Half the country gets gets pregnant and the other gets them pregnant...so plausibly everyone has a self interest in maintaining legal abortion.

    Traditional marriage however is an much easier sell. For those who think that we will be easy to paint as bigots...they need to understand that all we ever need say is "children deserve a Mother & a Father"..

    Since everyone has a Mother and Father, they can all relate...even if their parents are divorced or they were abandon...then they know even more keenly the importance and formative expeirance of the gender of ones parents.

  31. Fitz
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    Its not hard to see the battle against gay marriage following the same path.

    It takes awhile for grass roots movments like pro-life and pro-marriage to get traction initially. They dont have the power of the big media and universities to white wash their arguments and use poltical correctness to denounce opposition.

    Instead they relly on one on one conversion and strong arguments and activism through religious and civic organizations.

  32. Fitz
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    The pro-marriage movement will have a much easier time of it because unlike abortion theirs really no self interest in being pro gay "marriage". Half the country gets gets pregnant and the other gets them pregnant...so plausibly everyone has a self interest in maintaining legal abortion.

    Traditional marriage however is an much easier sell. For those who think that we will be easy to paint as bigots...they need to understand that all we ever need say is "children deserve a Mother & a Father"..

    Since everyone has a Mother and Father, they can all relate...even if their parents are divorced or they were abandon...then they know even more keenly the importance and formative expeirance of the gender of ones parents.

  33. Ash
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    Definitely looking forward to reading this book! :)

  34. CuriousGeorge
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    "Obviously it did not and now more young people are pro-life than people over 65. The enthusiasm gap is also striking with pro-lifers being more "strongly opposed" than pro-abortion supporters."

    Hmm, guess that's why all the following pro-life candidates lost their bids -
    IN(US Senate) - Richard Mourdock
    IL (US Rep) Joe Walsh
    WA (US Rep) John Koster
    MO(US Senate) Todd Akin
    MD (US Rep) Roscoe Bartlett
    ND (US Senate) Rick Burg
    VT (US Senate) John MacGovern
    PA(US Senate) - Tom Smith
    IA (US Rep) - Steve King
    WI (US Rep) - Roger Rivard

    and that nation wide exit polling said that citizens thought abortion should be legal in a 59/36 ratio.

  35. Fitz
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    CuriousGeorge

    I thought you were aware of the pew polls on abortion attitudes amoung young people...multiple polls over a decade now note this trend and both right & left seem to agree on their accuracy.

    It also notes the enthusiasm gap with more young people being "strongly opposed" compared with pro-choicers voicing the same level of commitment.

    Is that list and your off hand refrence to a single exit poll demostrative of your knowledge on this issue?

  36. Zack
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    @CuriousGeorge

    Check again, Steve King won reelection.

  37. GMC
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

    I think Fitz makes some very good points.

    It seems that the liberal left has consistently stated that marriage isn't all that important... except when it comes to marriage for gay people. Frankly, I'm confused.

    It would appear that all of this arguing is about the government promoting and sanctioning a particular type of sexual behavior or orientation, rather than an interest in marriage, per se.

    I could be wrong, but what have liberals done to make marriage an important issue for ALL of us? Their policies, entertainment, media, and life philosophies indicate that marriage is not all that important. According to the left, we should experiment with our sexuality starting in middle school, learn how to use condoms early in life, put ourselves and our own needs first, "if it feels good then do it," make sure that Planned Parenthood is funded in case there are any "mistakes," tell students that gender is nothing more than a psychological construct, and continually let women know how oppressed they are by marriage and motherhood. These are the instructions that our students are exposed to these days, in addition to dealing with their broken families. Who on earth can build a successful marriage on such rocky foundations?

    Yet, the biggest social issue of the day is whether gay people should get married.

    Is anyone else on this thread completely baffled --- not to mention, worried --- about the motives of people who have such a two-faced concern regarding marriage?

  38. Ash
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

    “SSM will remain illegal for much of these United States.”

    I agree, FemEagle. I like how Rich Lowry said it: “Unless the Supreme Court decides this by fiat, we are likely to have gay marriage existing only in deep blue states and lacking the recognition and legitimacy of traditional marriage for quite a long time.”

    Great points in comment #15, Fitz. You probably know that there is a long history of anti-marriage thought amongst many of the academics fighting for ssm. They always say that ssm is important for the fraction of one-percent of children being raised by a same-sex couple, but spurn the idea of trying to promote marriage for the sake of the vast majority of children born to heterosexual relationships. They brand any attempts to draw attention to the breakdown of the Black family as racist, but all of a sudden see marriage as an important stabilizing force for the miniscule gay population—whose main interest in marriage, at this point, is moral approbation of their sexual practices.

  39. MarkOH
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    Chairm, I LOVE your circular logic! Let's ban SSM in most states and then, in order to justify banning SSM, say that gays just are participating in marriage. It makes as much sense as saying the Bible is truth because the Bible says so.

  40. Chairm
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    Not circular, Markoh, but straightforward reasoning.

    Participation in the type of same-sex relationship that SSMers hold up as the model for their SSM idea -- that type of relationship under whatever guise (licensed or not) -- is a marginal practice within the adult homosexual population. It is not normative even within the gay identity group.

    Big contrast with the very high participation rates in the type of two-sexed sexual relationship that is the basis for marriage and marriage-like cohabitation within the rest of the adult population. More marriage and less unwed cohabitation is about moving this type of relationship into a social institution that benefits the participants and their children and society.

    SSM, not so much, as participation rates in same-sex householding help demonstrate. Marginal practice within the target population.

  41. Chairm
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    Meanwhile the challenge remains unmet by you and other SSMers. Maybe you are happiest in your comfort zone where you attack the marriage idea. But you do appear to be terrified of venturing outside of that destructive pattern and switching to a positive pattern of justifying the SSM idea as per the challenge.

    Oh well.

    Your own rhetoric and argumentation invited the challenge. You were invited to meet that challenge. You dodged instead. You circle back to your false start. He invitation remains open.

  42. MarkOH
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, I would think, by your logic, would work to eliminate marriage all together. I mean, with a 50% success rate, it seems, in your logic, hardly worth keeping.

    And it's sad that you see your circular logic as being straight forward. Using your logic, when slavery existed and there were free states, then the majority of slaves wanted to remain slaves because they did not partake of the free states.

  43. Fitz
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH

    "And it's sad that you see your circular logic as being straight forward."

    I'm afraid Chairms logic is straightforward. He is simply pointing out what is well known. That even in States were same-sex "marriage" is legal, homosexuals as a percentage of the population dont get married at nearly the rates the straight population dose.

    If we are correct and think marriage as traditionally defined is a greater motivater to channel people into marriage then it makes little sense to change its definition for a small percentage of people who dont as a practical matter even join that insitution in significant numbers.

  44. MarkOH
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    So, exactly why should you prohibit marriage to a group of individuals just because some of them won't use it?

  45. bman
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

    Layne->"Separate is never equal"

    Even if we suppose that to be the case, we must then ask if gay sexual unions are equal to bride-groom sexual unions.

    If the answer is "no they are not equal" then its proper that society treat them separately in law.

    In other words,your comment does not even argue for equality but for separation.

    Also, any gay marriage law will pose a threat to established religious freedoms if no protection clauses are added.

    This alone shows incompatibility with the general tenor of American legal philosophy.

  46. Chairm
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    Divorce is a problem for society. Divorce rate is not analogous with the low participation rates in the type of same-sex relationship that SSM is designed for.

    Note that in my earlier comment I said "licensed or not".This is not a measure of participation in SSM only but in same-sex householding under whatever guise ... unlicensed cohabitation, civil union, domestic partnership, reciprocal beneficiaries, SSM, and so forth. I referred to the type of relationship.

    I did the same regarding the two-sexed scenario.

  47. Chairm
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

    Markoh, marriage is not denied to a "group of people" under the bride-groom requirement.

    Did you mean the gay identity group? If so, why the gay emphasis and the deliberate favoritism over the rest of the types of relationships and types of living arrangements that are not marriage?

    Individuals marry each other. Groups do not marry. Or did you mean polygamists and polyamorists? I expect not but you have admitted that you are a-okay with inclusion of such types of relationships or arrangements, so maybe you did mean such groups of people.

    Anyway, please clarify your intended meaning.

  48. Ash
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

    God bless Chairm and Fitz for their attempts at rational discussion with MarkOH. I have a feeling that he is just a troll, possibly an immature teenager, who gets his jollies loading the page with meaningless, incoherent comments.

    I'm one to acknowledge when a SSMer is thoughtful and eloquent--even if they have an incorrect view. MarkOH is neither. He makes the rest of the SSMers on this page to be a breath of fresh air, lol.

  49. MarkOH
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    bman "any gay marriage law will pose a threat to established religious freedoms if no protection clauses are added. "
    Actually, it doesn't just as any church can refuse to marry any couple. Catholic churches for years, and still might, refuse to marry a divorce.

  50. MarkOH
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, you do twist words to suit your own arguments. Gay individuals, for now in most states, are forbidden from receiving those rights that opposite sex couples who marry now enjoy. But, it seems, that if a gay man married your daughter, that would be fine. It doesn't have to be a marriage based on anything other than one man and one woman. No sex, no love, no children, nothing.

  51. MarkOH
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    Ash, you are wrong about as so many other things. And I would love to see one "SSMer" that you think is thoughtful and eloquent because, those who are, are belittled and then blocked.

  52. Fitz
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH

    Your new to this board and so dont appreciate that Ash is one of the most fair minded, charitable, and relentlessly fair and nuanced supporters of marriage on the blog.

  53. Posted November 12, 2012 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    The premise of same sex marriage is that diversity of sexual orientation is more important to society than gender, so we need to redefine marriage and eliminate the dual-gender requirement.
    Reality and biology tell us otherwise. Gender diversity is far more important. Where would we be without the integration of genders?

    I look forward to reading the book "What is Marriage?" so I can help spread the powerful message that marriage is unique and beautiful.

  54. Ash
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Fitz.

  55. Chairm
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 4:27 am | Permalink

    Markoh, your coment @#42 is incoherent and it is unresponsive to the content of my previous remarks anyway.

    There is no law against a gay individual" (your expression) forming a union of husband and wife, adv. There is no law that assesses the wisdom of such an individual doing so. There is no law that makes an individual ineligible to marry due to group identity. You mentioned a group and have yet to clarify directly your intended meaning. But you mistakenly implied that members of the gay identity group are ineligible under the bride-groom requiremet. That is factually wrong, for the individual and for the group notion as well.

    So you must be referring, however fleetingly, to a type of relationship that is, according to your view, definitely gay. And so the notion of a group, as you introduced it here, is one based on purity of identity such that the ability -- legal and otherwise -- to form a union of husband wife is denied by gay identity politics.

    It turns out that you deny the "gay individual" his or her freedom to do what the marriage lw's bride-groom requirement obviously permits.

    Your notion thus returns you to the startin line which is the query I noted at the top of this thread. The type of samesex relationship you have in mind is defined by what essential feature(s)-- before the law enters the picture?

  56. Chairm
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    The challenge to SSMers still stands unmet with sound argumentation.

  57. bman
    Posted November 17, 2012 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    blockquote>
    bman-> "any gay marriage law will pose a threat to established religious freedoms if no protection clauses are added. "

    MarkOH-> Actually, it doesn't just as any church can refuse to marry any couple. Catholic churches for years, and still might, refuse to marry a divorce

    First, the mere fact a right existed "for years" does not prove it would still exist after a same sex marriage law.

    Second, in 2009, the state of Maine added a clause to protect churches from having to perform same sex marriages. Why would they do that unless they perceived a legal threat to religious rights that you say would not exist?

    Third, anti-discrimination laws would be redefined by a same sex marriage law unless religious protections were added. Thus, a church would "logically" violate anti-discrimination law if no religious protection clause was added.

    Fourth, your comment fails because religious freedoms are not limited to churches performing weddings. What about the other religious freedoms that would be harmed? Even if you were correct about the one you mentioned, you still have all these others you did not mention.

    We have already seen the indoctrination of children in public schools with gay-sex ideology against the religious ideology of parents; fines for a religious photographer who refused to film a gay wedding ceremony; fines for Christian owners of a Bed and Breakfast because they refused to accommodate gay marriage.

    In conclusion, my claim is that any same sex marriage law without a religious protection clause poses a threat to religious freedoms.

    Your reply did not refute that. The claim stands.

  58. bman
    Posted November 17, 2012 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    As noted above, religious freedoms are not limited to churches performing weddings.

    An article by Real Clear Politics regarding Maine's proposed law explains this:

    Under current [Maine] law, clergy and churches aren't required to perform marriages for whatever reason, he said. The proposed law won't protect [the religious rights of ] town officials, florists, photographers, caterers and others who refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage, he said.

    "Someone may say this protects religious rights [because churches don't have to perform gay weddings] and not realize how restrictive it is,"...

    That last sentence probably explains why the people of Maine voted for it.

    They did not realize they were voting against the religious rights of others.