NOM BLOG

A Tough Election, NOM Marriage News

 

NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

It was a very tough election for marriage. On Wednesday, the day after, Maggie Gallagher was at church, and she emailed me to let me know about what the readings at Mass that day had to say. She said she thought that the reading from Paul's letter to the Philippians seemed to be speaking very clearly to all of us who are in the fight to defend marriage:

My beloved, obedient as you have always been,
not only when I am present but all the more now when I am
absent, work out your salvation
with fear and trembling.
For God is the one who, for his good purpose,
works in you both to desire and to work.

Let's take a step back and assess what happened.

Crunching the Numbers

We narrowly lost in four deep blue states, after being badly outspent. Even though NOM contributed a record amount to help these state races—$5.5 million—our opponents were able to amass vast amounts of cash to drive their campaigns. They outspent us by $20 million, and that money helped them win narrow victories.

How close did we come? In Maine, we would have won if 18,000 voters had gone the other way. In Maryland, we lost by 94,000 votes out of 2.4 million cast. In Minnesota, about 100,000 votes out of 2.9 million cast. And in Washington, we lost by 83,000 votes out of 2.1 million ballots counted so far (final results there won't be known for days).

We always knew it would be a tough fight. These states are so liberal that they were never contested at the presidential level, except very late in Minnesota, resulting in blowout wins for Obama in each of the four states.

It's funny how the left and the media work. Can you imagine if marriage elections were held in Texas, Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina and gay marriage advocates had narrowly lost those fights after being outspent by $20 million? Do you think the media and the left would suggest that homosexual marriage advocates cut and run and give up the fight because they lost in those states? Of course not! If anything, they'd be congratulating them on a great showing.

Yet some advocates on the left and in the media are saying we've lost. It's preposterous!

One of the PR spins that our opponents are pushing is that somehow these votes signal that the country has changed their views about same-sex marriage. That is preposterous as well.

Bottom Line: Marriage Still a Winning Proposition

NOM is today releasing the results of a nationwide survey conducted on Election Day of actual voters. The poll was conducted by Kellyanne Conway's highly regarded firm, 'the polling company, inc.' This latest survey shows that fully 60% of voters believe marriage is one man and one woman, which is consistent with the 57% result they found in September.

And here's another point the media should consider: despite narrowly losing, the pro-marriage position out-performed the Republican ticket by an average of 6.6 points in these four states. This confirms that had marriage been put to a national vote, our side would likely have captured at least 55% of the popular vote this past Tuesday. The GOP ticket captured 48.4% of the popular vote nationwide. Marriage outperformed the GOP ticket by an average of 6.6 points. The facts show that it is wrong to contend that preserving marriage as the union of a man and a woman is anything but a winning issue in America.

But coming back to the elections, even though we fought valiantly, none of us accept losing. I promise you we will be chewing through the data, re-evaluating what worked and what didn't, and figuring out and sharing with you how to forge new pathways to new victories.

Forging New Pathways for the Fights Ahead

It's clear that we need to forge new partnerships with so-called 'economic conservatives'—the people who contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to candidates and Super PACs to run ads about the economy. We need to show them how supporting marriage will help conservative candidates, and that it is in their own interests to ensure that marriage campaigns are well-funded.

It's also clear that we need to create structures that will allow deeper engagement within the evangelical, orthodox and other supportive religious communities, and translate the conceptual support we enjoy into creating tens of thousands of grassroots activists to help us do the hard work of walking precincts, phoning voters and organizing at the grassroots levels.

We have work to do to deepen our relationships with the minority community, who are being challenged by President Obama and the NAACP to ignore the word of God and instead cast a political vote to redefine marriage.

And we have work to do with the GOP to remind them that marriage is a winning issue and that it is a mistake for republican candidates to be quiet on their support for maintaining natural marriage.

But most of all, it's clear that we need to develop new channels of financial support. As hard as we worked and as much as we produced, it wasn't enough. We simply cannot spot our opponents a $20 million funding advantage—especially in very liberal states—and expect to pull off a miracle (although we nearly did).

As Paul spoke to me the other day, I want to thank each and every one of you who stands up for God’s truth about marriage:

But, even if I am poured out as a libation upon the sacrificial service of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with all of you.

In the same way you also should rejoice and share your joy with me.

Those of you who are not Christians, thank you most warmly for standing up on marriage! I treasure your fellowship and your courage.

While pouring over accounts of the national election results I came, via National Review's The Corner, this striking insight from Joel Kotkin:

[President Obama] held his own in the cash race by assembling a new, competing coalition of wealthy backers, from the 'new hierarchies of technical elites' that Daniel Bell predicted in 1976 in The Coming Of Post-Industrial Society. For that group, Bell wrote, nature and human nature ceased to be central, as 'fewer now handle artifacts or things' so that 'reality is primarily the social world'—which, he warned, 'gives rise to a new Utopianism' that mistakenly treats human nature as something that can be engineered and corrected by instruction from their enlightened betters.

To them, reality is some sort of construct, but of course human nature is real. Cultural constructs by technocratic elites, like same-sex marriage, take enormous amount of energy to sustain, to defend, because they are not rooted in what is Real.

We are born male and female and called to come together in love to make and raise the next generation. That's not a construct, that's Reality.

While I am disappointed today, I am not defeated. We are fighting a true and just cause—and a popular one to boot with voters across America. We've suffered a setback, to be sure, but we will rebound stronger, smarter and more successful than ever before.

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.

78 Comments

  1. Dan
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    >>This confirms that had marriage been put to a national vote, our side would likely have captured at least 55% of the popular vote this past Tuesday.

    That may be a majority, but far too slim of one for us to be content with it. When almost half the nation is blind to the problems arising from ssm, that should be a real wake up call to the rest of us that there's much work to be done.

    And as far as changes to make going forward, aside from the Millennials largely duped by the so-called "civil rights" argument, the biggest perception Republicans need to overcome is the one I've heard all my life yet haven't heard the analysts mention since the losses Tuesday night and that is this one: "Republicans only care about the wealthy while Democrats are for the working man." That perception isn't going to cut it anymore, folks. You're going to have to do better. A LOT better.

    It seems it is also largely perceived - and perhaps rightly so - that Republicans don't want to help the poor (sorry, but I personally know some real tightwads when it comes to charity and they are...yep, you guessed it... Republicans!).

    If the Republicans are the ones we're counting on to carry the marriage battle forward, they better start addressing these perceptions if they expect any real chance at staying relevant to the majority. [By the way, I consider myself neither Democrat nor Republican. I simply vote for whomever I truly believe will do the best job in the respective office. If that happens to be a Democrat, so be it. If it happens to be a Republican, so be it. I will never vote for someone merely because they have a capital "R" or "D" stamped on their derriere.]

  2. Ash
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    Great newsletter, Brian. Thank you.

  3. indorri
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

    Haha, talking about "what is real" by positing a bunch of neoplatonic trash.

    Sorry, bud, but marriage is a construct through and through, and it's changed throughout history in various ways. Only thing that seems to be taking effort is your maintenance at pushing your views on others.

    See ya in the dustbin of history, folks.

  4. Ash
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 12:52 am | Permalink

    "See ya in the dustbin of history, folks."

    *Yawn*

  5. KAK1958
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 1:39 am | Permalink

    It was a very tough election for marriage?

    That is just so overly dramatic. Heterosexuals who wish to marry can still marry. You can still have children. You can still have a wonderful life.

    As a heterosexual woman who chose to remain single, I've never felt that the existence of marriage, gay or straight, has made it tougher for me to remain a happy single person. Stop worrying so much about how other people are living their lives and just go enjoy your own. It's really very possible to do - trust me.

  6. lonesomerhoades
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 7:11 am | Permalink

    Homosexuality is aberrant behavior. It is unnatural.
    A man cannot marry a man regardless of laws and changing word definitions.
    The fight for truth continues.

  7. MarkOH
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 7:50 am | Permalink

    lonesomerhoades, Please read and educate yourself. Homosexuality is a NATURAL, inborn trait. It can't be changed. Please get over your hatred. Discussing the marriage issue is one thing. Referring to your fellow citizens as somehow sub human is just evil.

  8. Marianne Seggerman
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 8:16 am | Permalink

    Until and unless NOM somehow finds a legion of volunteers willing to spend years (and as Mr Brown well knows, here in Connecticut it was nearly a decade) systematically and patiently educating the voters then NOM will find itself losing more and more of these battles. Oh they may, with the vast pockets of the Catholic Church, prevail for a while in Rhode Island. Then again, Rhode Island has always been prey to the worst elements. The passion is on the side of marriage equality. He only has fear-and that is being eroded away by education. Brian Brown hates losing-I wonder how much longer he plans to stay at NOM if this keeps up. He fled Connecticut when Anne Stanback and her loyal forces at Love Makes A Family proved too much for him, so that Peter Wolfgang officially had to stomach the defeat which was really his (Brian Brown's).

  9. Eric S
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    Prior to this election- Brian said it was a great oppurtunity for a "national referendum on SSM". Now that he has lost- all of a sudden they are deep blue states which do not correspond with the views of USA.

    Sigh

  10. MarkOH
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    Exactly, Eric. The spin from Brian continues

  11. John B.
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    "Narrowly lost"? You lost by 6 points in Maine, nearly 6 points in Washington, and 4 points in Maryland. Your "narrowest" loss was in Minnesota, where you lost by 3 points. None of those are especially narrow margins, but I'll remember that when (if?) your side wins another vote by just two or three percentage points.

  12. CuriousGeorge
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    More than 6 points in WA (when all is said and done).
    The final margin will be north of 180,000 votes when the counting is done.

  13. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Brian.

    The public interest in marriage is uniting children to their married mother and father. That's a reality the opposition H8s. So they indiscriminately buy, sell and trade human gametes in order to manufacture babies like so many poor creatures in a puppy mill.

    They call this "parenthood."

  14. MarkOH
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    "So they indiscriminately buy, sell and trade human gametes in order to manufacture babies like so many poor creatures in a puppy mill."

    Exactly what people are you referring to, Barb? My sister and brother in law who used artificial insemination? Honestly, if this is your main concern, get off gay peoples backs and start working to outlaw divorce.

  15. M. Jones
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    Homosexuals value the meaning of children as much they do a new purse or high heels. Some of them treat children like pets. Children are not fashion accessories, or pets.

  16. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    Many of these gay-manufactured children won't know who their real parents are. Some of them will have scores of half-siblings, fathered by the same anonymous sperm donor.

    Given the incestuous nature of gay communities, it's just a matter of time before these half-siblings begin to have children with each other. The damage to the human gene pool will be immeasurable.

    Of course the opposition doesn't care one whit as long as they get their pseudo-marriage. Many of them hate themselves and the society into which they were born. Anything resembling normal is an enemy.

    "Destroy the family, and you destroy society." (Vladimir Obama)

  17. nitro
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    “President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage less than 48 hours after the Washington Post reported that prominent political donors were threatening to withhold donations over the president’s position on gay rights.”
    “The Washington Post noted on Tuesday that roughly 20 percent of Obama top campaign bundlers—who are responsible for arranging $500,000 and up—“publicly identified themselves as gay.”
    Obama’s announcement fits a pattern of changing positions on major issues for what appear to be financially motivated reasons.”

    Thanks, Brian for all you do.
    For all the over jubilation by the ssm crowd it seems lost on them that still 80% of the country does not recognize gay marriage and that doesn't look to change anytime soon.
    Other than Iowa, where the extreme judges imposed their will, most of these northeastern liberal states are the ones you would expect pseudo-marriage to be legalized.

  18. MarkOH
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    Barb, get over your hatred (or fear) of gay people. They are no different than you.

    "Given the incestuous nature of gay communities"
    Seriously? Need I remind you of the fine upstanding Republican, pro-marriage types such as South Carolina’s Mark Sanford, Nevada Senator John Ensign, Newt Gingrich, Congressman Bob Barr, and Republican Rush Limbaugh - all of who admitted adultery?

  19. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    #7MarkOh,
    Pardon me? Please check an anatomy and physiology textbook and you will see that in almost all cases, people are born with heterosexual equipment. Please educate yourself.
    Secondly, speaking truth is, well, speaking truth. How you get hate out of that speaks to your own inabiltity to frame a debate.
    What you do in the bedroom is totally your business but for you to demand society accept your choices is just plain wrong.

  20. MarkOH
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    LonesomeRhoades, as a physician, I am well aware of anatomy. Course, never heard it referred to before as "heterosexual equipment". However, "equipment" is not the same as sexual orientation. And when you refer to people as "unnatural" or "aberrant " because they have a natural, same sex orientation, that is hate speech. Oh, and you should know that studies show that men who are more anti-gay tend to have same sex attraction. It seems to be a defensive posture.

  21. Bob
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    Wow, a tragically poignant letter written by someone who is losing everything he's worked so hard for.

  22. CuriousGeorge
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    "Other than Iowa, where the extreme judges imposed their will, "
    ...and "extreme voters" voted to retain Judge Wiggins...and were exit polling said that a large majority who voted to not retain the other 3 judges in 2010 now feel regret....

  23. Chairm
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    Markoh, your comments are stuck on the naturallistic fallacy. Same-sex sexual behavior is harmful to the participants and not just physically.

    Your rhetoric does not whitewash that.

    Moreover, you are among the SSMers who have to provide sound moral argumentation for the moral assumption that same-sex sexual behavior is ever moral.

    Moral harm to physical harm and on and on. That is aberrant. That something can occur does not make it natural in the moral, philosophical, and functional senses. Otherwise your comments would apply to sexual violence, incestuous sexual behavior, bestiality, and a whole range of harmful behaviors. A competent physician would understand the limitations of his area of competence and not dally in sophistry as you have just done here.

    Speaking the truth is not hateful. Disagreeing about the implications of the truth for civilization is not hateful. Making valid distinctions between moral and immoral behavior is not hateful.

    But you might agree that telling half-truths as whole truths is not worthy of a bonafide physician. R even of a copetent participant in civil discourse.

    The last line in your comment is pathetic and you are behaving like a troll. Recalibrate and dial it down.

  24. Preserve Marriage
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    Re: "Do you think the media and the left would suggest that homosexual marriage advocates ..."

    They ARE homosexual marriage advocates!

    The media that reports on homosexual issues is largely homosexual.
    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/10/us/gay-journalists-leading-a-revolution.html

  25. CuriousGeorge
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    What I find interesting is that NOM picked this fight in MD, WA, and MN (ME was a citizen's initiative w/o the support of Governor Lapage), and now NOM is regretting that decision.

  26. Preserve Marriage
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    "Homosexuality is a NATURAL, inborn trait."

    Got evidence?
    http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

  27. CuriousGeorge
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    Oh, and in Iowa, didn't Wiggins retain 54/46 while Romney narrowly lost 52/48?

  28. Preserve Marriage
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    "Homosexuality is a NATURAL, inborn trait. It can't be changed."

    Quit lying. People can, have and will continue to change their sexual preference.

  29. Preserve Marriage
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    "Course, never heard it referred to before as "heterosexual equipment". [...] they have a natural, same sex orientation"

    Course, never heard it referred to before as "natural, same sex orientation."

    Did you know that sexual "orientation" used to be called "sexual preference"?

    Guess what subgroup changed the expression used. (I'll give you a hint: It was the same subgroup that made up the word, "homophobia".)

  30. CuriousGeorge
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    In addition, not much is being said about the NY Senate race. Grisanti won with 50%, NOM's candidate Swanick got 12%.

    DiCarlo (NOMs candidate) got 14% of the vote - just enough to out Saland so he can be replaced with a marriage equality supporting Democrat - Gipson.

    This is a victory?

  31. Dan
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

    Barb, gays don't create children we buy and sell at puppy mills. You are confusing us with straights. Barb, without irresponsible straights who breed children they don't want, just as rabbits do, where would gay couples get children to adopt, Barb?
    Barb, have you thought this through? Apparently your interest is in demonizing gays who rescue unwanted children from failed heterosexual parents. Your vitriol is misplaced. You sould be on your hands and knees thanking gay people for accepting responsibility for YOUR failures, Barb.
    I'm all for biological parents raising their own kids, why don't heterosexuals take this responsibility seriously, as do gays?

  32. Posted November 10, 2012 at 11:34 pm | Permalink

    Dear Doctor Mark Fro0m OH:

    Your diagnostic skills are truly.......remarkable.

    Yes.

    That's the word.

    Telepathic.

    I can't begin to imagine how lucky your patients must be.

  33. Dan
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

    Preserve marriage, guess which group still thinks that human beings choose their sexual orientation despite the fact that I've never met a human who said they made such a choice? Apparently a lot of religious people are attracted to both genders and make a choice to be gay or straight. Make no mistake, in my next life I absolutely would choose to be gay, but in this life I was given no choice.

  34. Dan
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

    Rick, MarkOH's diagnosis of those who are so virulently opposed to equality for gays is ndeed accurate as they are very likely dealing with suppressed homosexual desires. You can't tell me that the four years of anti-gay hatred of Chairm is not motivated by such a deep, dark secret. Anyone who is so obsessed with the sex lives of gays, has "issues." Just saying....

  35. Dan
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 11:45 pm | Permalink

    Preserve Marriage, how come the APA says homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality, and homosexual relationships are normal, if it's not natural? That would make no logical sense.

  36. Dan
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

    Preserve Marriage, how come the APA says that sexual orientation is not changeable? You seem to have lots of confusion. Let me clear it up for you. A gay person can marry a straight person, but will always remain gay. Even the president of Exodus International says he's still attracted to men, despite being in a faux marriage to a woman. He also says he's never met anyone who changed from gay to straight. If you had gay sex tomorrow would this make you gay? Of course not, that's absurd. Sexual behavior and sexual orientation are two different concepts. Learn the difference.

  37. Dan
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 11:51 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH, love your comments! Kudos to you for standing up to bigotry.

  38. MarkOH
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

    Thank you, Rick. Yes, I think my patients are very lucky. In me, they have a doctor that is not judgmental, that will actually listen to them and not condemn them for the way God made them.

  39. MarkOH
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 12:03 am | Permalink

    Preserve marriage - it's funny because that "heterosexual equipment" is used in homosexual ways.

    "Did you know that sexual "orientation" used to be called "sexual preference"?"
    No, I did not. Can you cite a reference? Of course, terms regarding sexuality have been evolving (oh, probably a word you don't like) as our understanding about it develops. Perhaps a bit of knowledge would help you understand the natural sexual orientations:
    http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

  40. MarkOH
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 12:04 am | Permalink

    Thanks, Dan

  41. lisa
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 1:54 am | Permalink

    All people are born straight, these people should stop labeling people with" genes" when anthropologist say it's all choice and purely social. We're all about 0.000001% dif between races (race is Purely a social concept) and gender (both men and women's brains are equal and have same proportions)... anyone can BECOME --Anything-- they want in multicultural America with ANY income and occupation, it's pure fluidity, people are not born into a certain lifestyle by "genes"... This is just more divisiveness by "gene" backers

  42. lisa
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 2:10 am | Permalink

    MarkOH "get off gay peoples backs and start working to outlaw divorce."

    For a physician, you seem to be very much against women's rights issues like to to have a divorce, but very much for gay marriage. Can I have your name so then I can never go to your medical office b/c you appear to have issues with women and I wouldn't feel comfortable with that as a woman myself.

  43. Chairm
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 5:04 am | Permalink

    The progay bigotry in the comments of SSMers is boorish and misses the mark anyway.

    This has come to be one of the defining features of SSM advocacy.

    Playing a physician on the internet is hazardous, especially when it is used as a crutch by a very incompetent thinker. But the SSMers who've cheered have displayed a deep animus born of troubled bodies, minds, and souls. Their burden of suppressing conscience is very heavy and cannot be shifted to someone else. But blaming others is common enough.

    I appreciate that NOM leaves that stuff on the record for readers to assess for themselves.

  44. CuriousGeorge
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    I know changing a "term" doesn't redefine "truth" no matter how often the other side says it.

    Just like redefined "voting" to include "women" didn't change the meaning of "traditional" voting.

    Ref-74 wasn't really affirmed - after all men voted to reject it 49/51.

    The non binding women vote affirmed this 57/43 - so there is still some hope here. Get together and demand a recount, this time only using the legitimate "traditional" male vote.

  45. CuriousGeorge
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    Hmm,

    Might not be just the republican party that has a "woman" issue.

    ME: Men: 47/53 against; Women: 61/39 for.
    MD: Men: 48/52 against; Women: 55/45 for.

    So men seem to be kinda, sorta against marriage equality.
    Women seem to be really, really for it.

  46. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    About this "gay gene" thing. If there were such a thing would it not have disappeared through natural selection? Just wondering.

  47. John B.
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Brown, the fundamental number-crunching problem for NOM is that over 50% of the public now supports same-sex marriage. You were in denial over polls to that effect before the election, but now that the election has proven them correct, what's your excuse now? "Let the people vote," you kept saying, and they did.

    If the margins were a lot closer you might have a point about being outspent but the reality is that you lost by several percentage points in every single race. People's minds and opinions have changed, and all the money in the world won't buy those votes back for you. The question you face now is how or even if you will change your strategy when "let the people vote" backfires on you.

  48. MarkOH
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    Barb , in the area of genetics, a gene may play a role that is not apparent. A good example is the gene for sickle cell. There was a benefit for those in malaria rich environments. The trait form offered some protection from malaria. Now, in the US, since malaria is not a concern, the gene is more of a hindrance. However, should malaria return, it will give some protection again.

  49. lisa
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    So now MarkOH, you are defending the theory of the "gay gene" by comparing it to malaria, a disease?

    Do tell me how beneficial it is to predestine people's lifestyles with "genes" and then supporting your arguments for this by appearing to say people who got malaria where predestined to do so because of their "genes" ascribed at birth.

  50. Dan
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    Barb, it is clear that homosexuality serves a biological function, otherwise why has it existed in all cultures and all time periods and in all mammals? And, by the way, scientists have never expected to find a master gay gene. That's a popular myth and a religious right talking point.

  51. Fitz
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    Dan...

    It wasn't the religious right that created the myth of the "gay gene"...it was the popular press itself that popularized the research of one scientist who himself disavowed the theory...

    Now the mainstream media is hardly a handmaiden of the religious minded. Rather the press saw it as a easy way to reinforce the idea that people are "born gay".

  52. MarkOH
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    Fitz, it is easier for some people to hold on to the idea of a "gay gene" in order to accept that homosexuality is an inborn trait. The original researcher really thought he had found a gene. Research has shown that sexual orientation, even though it is most definitely innate , probably results from several things occurring in combination.

    However, if you feel homosexuality is a choice, the question is always: when did you choose your sexual orientation?

  53. CuriousGeorge
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    Oh, one other result from Tuesday:

    In MN, to thank the MN legislature for putting this measure on the ballot, the MN House got flipped from 72R / 62D to 87D / 47R. The MN Senate got flipped from 37R / 30D to 46D / 21R.

  54. Fitz
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    From Dr. Jeffrey Santinover's "The Trojan Coach"

    McHugh is here referring to “sexual identity” as it would be sensibly understood pre -gay activism: Male and female, not homosexual and heterosexuality. It is ironic that in the worldview of the modern left, significant differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals (which science shows to be extraordinarily difficult to characterize and wholly unstable) are argued to be innate, while significant differences between men and women (which are enormous, self-evident and permanent) are argued to be at once trivial and socially constructed.

    This statement does not contradict the presence of “indirect genetic factors” influencing homosexuality. Most people mistakenly presume that an indirect genetic influence refers to a mere technical distinction. In fact, the distinction is crucial. Basketball playing shows a very strong, argu ably stronger than homosexuality, indirect genetic influence, but there are no genes for basketball playing —it is a wholly “environmentally” influenced behavior subject to a high degree of choice —much higher than same-sex attraction. The crucial point is that genes that indirectly influence a trait have nothing at all to do with the trait itself and therefore can’t possibly “cause” it. The genes that influence the likelihood someone will become a basketball player are self -evident: Those that code for height, athleticism, muscle refresh rate. There are, at present, even strong racial genetic associations to basketball playing. These associations are almost entirely socially-determined while the genes themselves are biological (and evolved in an era before basketball playing even existed), and the associational degree (i.e., with race) fluctuates over time as basketball spreads across the globe.

  55. Fitz
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    McHugh is here referring to “sexual identity” as it would be sensibly understood pre -gay activism: Male and female, not homosexual and heterosexuality. It is ironic that in the worldview of the modern left, significant differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals (which science shows to be extraordinarily difficult to characterize and wholly unstable) are argued to be innate, while significant differences between men and women (which are enormous, self-evident and permanent) are argued to be at once trivial and socially constructed.

  56. Fitz
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    This statement does not contradict the presence of “indirect genetic factors” influencing homosexuality. Most people mistakenly presume that an indirect genetic influence refers to a mere technical distinction. In fact, the distinction is crucial. Basketball playing shows a very strong, argu ably stronger than homosexuality, indirect genetic influence, but there are no genes for basketball playing —it is a wholly “environmentally” influenced behavior subject to a high degree of choice —much higher than same-sex attraction. The crucial point is that genes that indirectly influence a trait have nothing at all to do with the trait itself and therefore can’t possibly “cause” it. The genes that influence the likelihood someone will become a basketball player are self -evident: Those that code for height, athleticism, muscle refresh rate. There are, at present, even strong racial genetic associations to basketball playing. These associations are almost entirely socially-determined while the genes themselves are biological (and evolved in an era before basketball playing even existed), and the associational degree (i.e., with race) fluctuates over time as basketball spreads across the globe.

    From Dr. Jeffrey Santinovers - "The Trojan Coach"

  57. Fitz
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    This statement does not contradict the presence of “indirect genetic factors” influencing sexuality. Most people mistakenly presume that an indirect genetic influence refers to a mere technical distinction. In fact, the distinction is crucial.

    Basketball playing shows a very strong, arguably stronger than homosexuality, indirect genetic influence, but there are no genes for basketball playing —it is a wholly “environmentally” influenced behavior subject to a high degree of choice —much higher than same-sex attraction. The crucial point is that genes that indirectly influence a trait have nothing at all to do with the trait itself and therefore can’t possibly “cause” it. The genes that influence the likelihood someone will become a basketball player are self -evident: Those that code for height, athleticism, muscle refresh rate. There are, at present, even strong racial genetic associations to basketball playing. These associations are almost entirely socially-determined while the genes themselves are biological (and evolved in an era before basketball playing even existed), and the associational degree (i.e., with race) fluctuates over time as basketball spreads across the globe.

    Dr Jeffrey Santinover

  58. Fitz
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    This statement does not contradict the presence of “indirect genetic factors” influencing homosexuality. Most people mistakenly presume that an indirect genetic influence refers to a mere technical distinction. In fact, the distinction is crucial.

  59. Fitz
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    Basketball playing shows a very strong, argu ably stronger than homosexuality, indirect genetic influence, but there are no genes for basketball playing —it is a wholly “environmentally” influenced behavior subject to a high degree of choice —much higher than same-sex attraction. The crucial point is that genes that indirectly influence a trait have nothing at all to do with the trait itself and therefore can’t possibly “cause” it. The genes that influence the likelihood someone will become a basketball player are self -evident: Those that code for height, athleticism, muscle refresh rate. There are, at present, even strong racial genetic associations to basketball playing. These associations are almost entirely socially-determined while the genes themselves are biological (and evolved in an era before basketball playing even existed), and the associational degree (i.e., with race) fluctuates over time as basketball spreads across the globe.

    From Dr. Jeffrey Santinovers "The Trojan Coach"

  60. MarkOH
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

    Fitz, not sure who McHugh is. However, as far as "sexual identity" - male and female, it really isn't as simple as you seem to think. This opens the whole area of transsexuals and what the internal switches that go on and off to tell an individual, internally, if they are male or female, regardless of external genitalia,

  61. smiley
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 12:46 am | Permalink

    There is NO predilection for homosexual preference in other species. Some aniamals, chimps for instance, may mount another male but it was consistently either just a display of dominance or in reaction to nearby stimuli (e.g. a female chimp in heat that just happened to be nearby). In other words, the animal had no clue or idea what it was doing.

    Mallards are known engage in necrophilia, and mothers in the animal kingdom frequently abandon their weakchildren.
    Perhaps Nat Geo isn't the best place to look for morality?

  62. FemEagle
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 2:53 am | Permalink

    Dan, sadomasochism, incest, pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality have all existed since early man also. Does that make them wholesome and acceptable and "equal"?

  63. LISA
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    "However, if you feel homosexuality is a choice, the question is always: when did you choose your sexual orientation?"

    I don't remember, neither do I remember when I chose my preferred political party or chose my religion. Many others could probably say the same, as the memory going back to young childhood gets farther and farther away, some do not remember younger than 5 at all, e.g. It;s called "infantile amnesia" So this argument is absolutely irrelevant and false.

  64. Chairm
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:57 am | Permalink

    MarkOH, you claimed to be a physician. You did so as a claim of credibility. What is your the number of your medical license?

    Nothing you have said here, by the way, depends on your claim to be a physician. So your attempt to use that to bolster your credibility is propagandic and not substantive.

    But you claimed to be a physician and now this goes to your credibility as per yoir own stated standard. Provide the reference: thelicence number wiould allow readers to verify your claim.

  65. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    Chairm, always out to attack a person that their ideas. Shows how really weak your ideas are. I do not arbitrarily give out my information on blog sites. Information that is available for public viewing is easily researched. Knock yourself out. Of course, this has NOTHING to do with the current discussion. Chairm, as always, diverts away from issues and attacks people. Sad and pathetic.

  66. Chairm
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    You claimed to be a physician and did so to expressly claim special authority in the current discussion. You have done the same in other discussions here. You thought it mettered and that readers should also think iit mattered.

    Also, you have repeatedly asked for cited references from others for their comments.

    Now you show your double standard.

    You made a claim for which you now expressly refuse to provide a reference. The licence number is a reference that physicians routinely make available to the public because it is ethically and lawfully required as evidence of qualification claimed by the professional. It is a public reference, not a private secret.

    Now you did that all on your own. I have not attacked you but You refuse to be held accountable to your own stated standard. Moreover, you now complain that your claiming to be a physician suddenly "has NOTHING to do with the current discussion".

    Readers will not that you shouted with all caps to emphasize your complete contradiction of your previous pose of this mattering enough for you to have brought it up yourself.

    You added that content -- the plea from supposed special authority -- and that is the content I asked about. You might happily verify the content you placed in your comment. Instead you complain that it the request for a cited reference is an attack on you personally.

    The claimed credibility is now disavowed by yourself. It was a rhetorical tactic on your part and a pathetic example of your double standard.

    Perhaps you will be less inclined to flaunt hypocrisy in such a way in future discussions.

  67. Chairm
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    You claimed to be a physician and did so to expressly claim special authority in the current discussion. You have done the same in other discussions here. You thought it mettered and that readers should also think iit mattered.

    Also, you have repeatedly asked for cited references from others for their comments.

    Now you show your double standard.

    You made a claim for which you now expressly refuse to provide a reference. The licence number is a reference that physicians routinely make available to the public because it is ethically and lawfully required as evidence of qualification claimed by the professional. It is a public reference, not a private secret.

    Now you did that all on your own. I have not attacked you as a person nor have I forced you refuse to be held accountable to your own stated standard. You chose. Moreover, you now complain that your claiming to be a physician suddenly "has NOTHING to do with the current discussion".

    Readers will not that you shouted with all caps to emphasize your complete contradiction of your previous pose of this mattering enough for you to have brought it up yourself. Emphatically. Partly to mock someoen esle.

    You added that content -- the plea from supposed special authority -- and that is the content I asked about. You might happily verify the content you placed in your comment. Instead you now complain that the mere request for a cited reference is an attack on you personally. A diversion, you say, from the content of your comments.

    The claimed credibility is now disavowed by yourself. It was a rhetorical tactic on your part to draw attention to your spposed authority in the current discussion. Now it tuens out to be an example of your double standard.

    Perhaps you will be less inclined to flaunt hypocrisy in such a way in future discussions.

  68. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    LOL, oh Chairm, can you not merely debate my comments? Apparently not because now you turn to attack me, again, by making up an issue and then trying to justify it.

    Discredit my ideas, if you can'(and which you haven't been able to so far). Leave the rest of the garbage behind.

    Tell you what, you post your social security number and I'll post my license number. Deal?

  69. Ash
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    I'm not going to lie, MarkOH, I did see your claim to be a physician as a way to boost your credibility.

    ****Maybe they'll believe everything I say and shut up because they think I'm a physician and I know what I'm talking about.****

    I'm glad Chairm asked you for your license number. I believe anyone can discuss anything they want. I also believe that with lots of a reading, people can become experts on a number of things. So, we normally don't care what someone's credentials are. But when you reference your credentials as a way to bolster your "street cred," then you might want to back it up--especially when the claim is hard to believe. I could actually laugh at the thought of you being a doctor when I consider your debate style.

  70. Ash
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

    *Correction: "...with lots of reading..."

  71. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:14 am | Permalink

    OK Ash, same deal. Post your social security number and I will post my license number.

    But, like so many gay haters, you divert the discussion, try to discredit the poster because you can't discredit their opinions and then flee into your self delusion about witty you are. Oh well, Obama may have up to 3 Supreme Court justices to appoint. The opinion regarding marriage equality is evolving rapidly to acceptance. And, within 10 years, you and your ilk will be a soiled mark on our history.

  72. Chairm
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 6:51 am | Permalink

    Neither Ash nor I claimed special authority that could be verified with a social security number.

    You made a claim of special authority that could be verified with a licence number that is a public reference which physicians make available to backup their credentials.

    Your double standard is obvious even in your panicky reaction.

    I've discussed the content of your comments. I have queried you about your views. You dodged and ranaway from that. Your pose is superficial and betray you as an insincere participant in these discussions. You lack the moral and intellectual courage to engage the substance of these discussions. That cowarildice is demonstrated in your avoidance of being held accountable for what you do say here.

    This claim of being a physician is a sideshow ... as you conceded yourself. You brought it into discussions. Now you seek to withdraw it. Good. That would be progress of a sort.

  73. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    LOL, you are funny, Chairm, although a little scary. I am sure there is a DSM IV diagnosis in there somewhere. You believe whatever your little heart desires. It's a smoke screen, straw man point you are making, and an example of your lack of logical, insight discussion. But, I've been aware of that for a long time.

    Consider me a teenager, if you'd like, who still presents clearer, more logical debate on this issue than you.

  74. Fitz
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    If Mark was a pysician I would never let him treat me or my family.

    He cant even tell the difference between male & female.

  75. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    Fitz, don't worry, if you were ever in need, I would not turn you away. Oh, and don't worry, I do know the difference between a male and female. I just hope the physician your family sees now is not as judgmental as you.

  76. Chairm
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 6:28 am | Permalink

    Judgmental? Maker of strawman arguments? Lack of logic and insight? Frequent user of ad hom attacks?

    Markoh your own words accuse you.

    Therefore you are more than welcome to have the last word between you and I in this thread.

  77. MarkOH
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    Chairm, whether I am a physician or not is not important to this discussion but it's obvious, since you are unable to rationally respond to the issue, that you attack the poster. You do it often.

  78. Marcus
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH -«As a physician»

    Dan -«MarkOH's diagnosis is indeed accurate»

    MarkHO -«In me they have a physician who is not judgemental»

    MarkOH -«like so many gay haters you .. and your ilk will be a soiled mark on our history.»

    MarkOH -«you are always out to attack a person (instead of) their idea»

    Chairm -state the essential feature(s) of the type of relationship you have in mind. ... the conflict between the SSM idea and the marriage idea ...»

    MarkOH -«now you turn to attack me»

    MarkOH -«can you cite a reference?»

    MarkOH -«studies show» (no referenced cited)

    MarkOH -«research has shown» (no cited reference)

    MarkOH -«the internal switches that go on and off to tell an individual, internally, they are male or female, regardless of external genitalia.» (no cited reference)

    MarkOH -as a physician» (no reference cited) (refused when asked)

    Ash -«I did see your claim to be a physician as a way to boost your credibility»

    MarkOH -«whether I am a physician or not is not important to this discussion»

    MarkOH -«this has NOTHING to do with the current discussion»

    Dan -«MarkHO's diagnosis (of those he disagrees with) is indeed accurate»

    MarkOH -«Thanks, Dan.»

    Chairm -«Nothing you have said here depends on your claim to be a physician. So your attempt to use that to bolster your credibility is propagandic and not substantive.»

    MarkOH -«as a physician» (repeatedly refused to cite reference for credentialls)

    MarkOH -«in me they have a physician who is not judgmental»

    Chairm -«This claim (to be a physician) is a sideshow, as you conceded yourself. You brought into discussions. Now you seek to withdraw it. Good."

    MarkOH -«as a physician» (no reference cited)

    MarkOH -«I am sure there is a DSM IV diagnosis in there somewhere.»

    ********************

    Recommend comments No. 23 and 65.