NOM BLOG

NOM's Thomas Peters on PBS: The Future of the Pro-Marriage Movement is Bright

 

NOM's Thomas Peters discusses the election results on PBS NewsHour and also responds to the inevitable question about inevitability:

Here is the last exchange between the host and Peters:

Suarez: "Aren't you standing on shifting sand? Given the momentum of the polls, given the momentum of the legal challenges, the losses in various federal appellate courts, the changes in various state laws, maybe you'll win tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, but are you fighting against an inevitability?"

Peters: "No for two important reasons, first of all, I believe in the truth of my pro-marriage views, just as the other side does, and people who have those deep-seated convictions don't look at the changing tides wherever they may be they fight for what's true and what's right. Second of all, I think it's amazing with all of the cultural forces tying to redefine marriage that we're still here in 2012 just barely seeing some footholds gained in deep blue states. I think the future of the marriage movement is bright and ultimately I don't believe history moves in one direction."

198 Comments

  1. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    NOM the pro-equality movement is the pro-marriage movement. Remember that you oppose a certain segment of society's right to marry. Duh!

  2. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    "NOM the pro-equality movement is the pro-marriage movement."

    "pro-equality" is a misnomer. Businesses are practically being run out of town(figure of speech), for adhering to their beliefs. Adoption agencies are being sued for preferring man/woman couples because their religious beliefs dictate their values. If religious liberty and freedom of conscience have to be sacrificed, then what was accomplished?

    "Remember that you oppose a certain segment of society's right to marry. Duh!"

    False. Preserving the male/female definition of Marriage bars no one from entering the union. Our society has a moral obligation for upholding the true meaning of Marriage. If you want to get "married", find someone who will consummate the union. Forcing your beliefs on everyone thus putting their 1st amendment rights in jeopardy is the antithesis of "equality".

  3. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Dan -

    Marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman, based on the fact that male-female is how our species is perpetuated, duh. So-called "gay marriage" is merely an imitation of real marriage; it's same-sex acting couples emulating male-female couples, but lacking the reproductive capacity. Thus, "pro-marriage" is about male-female unions, whereas gay "marriage" advocates are pro-redefining marriage, the latter which is a destruction of the former. This will be the case no matter the success of homosexual "marriage" legislation.

    Dan, you already have the right to marry; you choose not to exercise that right.

  4. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Zack, first, can you show some proof of businesses being "run out of town" over this issue? The stories about such "abuses" involve violation of anti-discrimination laws such as refusing to serve an African American at a lunch counter (which was probably against the servers religious beliefs at that time).

  5. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    So, Zack and OvercameSSA you would both be happy if your daughter married a gay man or if your son married a lesbian? Only the APPEARANCE of marriage is what you want?

  6. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA, you are such a sad case. I pity homophobes like you. Actually, I'm already married to a wonderful man and it's been legally recognized for for years already. Instead of living your life in denial, why don't you get the help you need? You could be happy like me, too.

  7. Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    @ Zack
    You are referring to TWO incidences, and using them just like the "protect" campaign did before the election, like it's a rampant problem. Even before SSM, discrimination policies were/are in place that businesses need to obide by.

  8. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    @MarkOH

    Read again, I say it is a figure of speech. I speak of the farm owners in New York state who denied to host a same-sex union on their farm because it violated their religious beliefs. Catholic adoption agencies in Massachusetts and in Illinois(which doesn't even recognize same-sex marriage), were forced to shut their doors because the state was forcing them to violate their conscience. What more proof do you want? Or do you think discrimination is only acceptable if people of faith are on the receiving end of it?

    "The stories about such "abuses" involve violation of anti-discrimination laws such as refusing to serve an African American at a lunch counter (which was probably against the servers religious beliefs at that time)."

    Race and sex aren't the same.

  9. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    @MarkOH

    Read again, I say it is a figure of speech. I speak of the farm owners in New York state who denied to host a same-sex union on their farm because it violated their religious beliefs. Catholic adoption agencies in Massachusetts and in Illinois(which doesn't even recognize same-sex marriage), were forced to shut their doors because the state was forcing them to violate their conscience.

  10. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    @Davey

    No...not two. The conscience of people needs to protected. If someone refuses to hold a same-sex union or refuses to adopt a child to a same-sex couple, that decision should be respected. Not challenged. Why? Because I believe in freedom.

  11. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    Zack, I have no desire to imitate straight people. Something about beating up a woman, rape and having unwanted children, teen pregnancy and abortion doesn't really appeal to me. I'll stick with my loving husband, thanks!

  12. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    @MarkOH

    "Zack, first, can you show some proof of businesses being "run out of town" over this issue?"

    I said it was a figure of speech first of all. Second, I speak of the farm owners in New York who face legal challenge for adhering to their religious beliefs. I speak of the catholic adoption agencies in states like Massachusetts and Illinois who were forced to close their doors rather than go against their religion.

  13. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    Zack, if you believe in freedom why doesn't that extend to Unitarians? Are you saying their religious right to marry gay couples is trumpted by your beliefs? Phony hypocrite!!!

  14. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    Again...my responses won't make it through moderation

  15. Layne
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    Overcame, I'm sorry your family and friends wouldn't accept you for who you were.

    I know it's got to be a slap in the face, considering how hard to fought to "overcome" your "attractions", which clearly haven't gone anywhere. Meanwhile, marriage equality is now a reality and the community is thriving in ways that were unthinkable just ten years ago.

    I know you'd rather live in your hostility and self-hatred; it obviously makes you feel better about your "conversion".

    But just remember the community will always be there for you. :) We've welcomed back plenty of ex-ex's with open arms because we know how badly they were brainwashed/traumatized.

  16. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    @Dan

    "Zack, if you believe in freedom why doesn't that extend to Unitarians? Are you saying their religious right to marry gay couples is trumpted by your beliefs? Phony hypocrite!!!"

    I honestly can't fathom how this post made it through moderation but mine didn't. Anyways, if they're willing to marry same-sex couples then by all means let them. You misinterpret what I wrote, I said the male/female definition of Marriage should be upheld. If you wish to have a ceremony, then find someone who will do it.

  17. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    Zack, how does my marriage force anything on anyone? Paranoid much? By the way, no gods were invited to our wedding. We were married at city hall, where everyone should marry. I don't believe in religious weddings, they are a waste of time. In France such weddings are pseudo-marriage, because they aren't legally recognized.

  18. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    Zack, but religious marriage is useless to me. Why would I want that without having the governmental benefits?

  19. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    "Something about beating up a woman, rape and having unwanted children, teen pregnancy and abortion doesn't really appeal to me. I'll stick with my loving husband, thanks!"

    Same-sex couples have higher rates of domestic violence.

    http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?id=126352
    http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/10/10/study-domestic-violence-rates-higher-among-gay-men-bisexual-women/

  20. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH -

    I would have no qualms about my son or daughter marrying someone of the opposite sex who has same-sex attraction disorder, as long as that person is a person of character who takes the marriage vow seriously and who has the integrity and will to adhere to those vows. As one who has had same-sex attraction and is happily and faithfully married, I speak from experience that creating life with a woman and forming a family brings far more happiness than any same-sex relationship and raising someone else's children could ever bring.

  21. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    Layne, that was beautiful, and I'm being sincere. Being a closeted gay person is no joke, and OvercameSSA is the perfect candidate for suicide. He can't accept himself. I love your comment, my friend!

  22. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    @Dan

    "but religious marriage is useless to me. Why would I want that without having the governmental benefits?"

    I support full marital benefits to same-sex couples, however the title of Marriage should be upheld as the union of one man and one woman. You think I'm against gay rights or "anti-gay" when that is not so.

  23. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA it is clear you are not happy and the consensus of this thread is that you need therapy. Just saying... You could be happily married to someone you really love, just as I am.

  24. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    Dan -

    Marriage is about couples because it takes two people to make a baby. Homosexuals form couples in imitation of this; there is no other reason for coupling of same-sex individuals. Or, to put it another way; if humans did not reproduce by male-female couples, there would be no such thing as marriage.

  25. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    Zack, why deny gay people the title? That is illogical and an obvious form of gay Jim Crow. By the way, even a Federal constitutional amendment couldn't remove the title of marriage from my marriage
    . It's called the Grandfather clause. Look it up. I'm married for life.

  26. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    @Dan

    "how does my marriage force anything on anyone?"

    The implications involved have been explained numerous times. Biggest one with me is the disintegration of gender. Men and women are inherently different here and while no one may want to admit it, the end result of redefining Marriage is to dissolve the barriers between men and women. Marriage serves to establish this barrier, it establishes the differences between Motherhood and Fatherhood.

    "Paranoid much? By the way, no gods were invited to our wedding. We were married at city hall, where everyone should marry. I don't believe in religious weddings, they are a waste of time."

    So then what is wrong with a Civil Union that bestows all the same legal benefits? The "separate but equal" argument holds no water if all you want is a piece of paper.

  27. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA, marriage has nothing to do with children, except to provide children of gays and lesbians equal protection. I didn't get married to poop out kids! LOL! And few people do these days.

  28. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    Dan -

    You've decided to spend your life with a really good friend. I have really close guy friends and we male bond and we could easily live with one another as some of us did in college. But we decided that we wanted to get married and form families; so we found women to love. You could find a woman to love, but you're stuck on anatomy.

  29. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Zack, I've said it countless times. Marriage has nothing to do with religion nor procreation. Those are separate issues. Stop placing the burden of procreation solely onto gays without imposing a similar requirement on heterosexual seniors.

  30. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    "marriage has nothing to do with children"

    Really? Then why, e.g., does the law prohibit marriage between siblings?

  31. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    #22

    "why deny gay people the title? That is illogical and an obvious form of gay Jim Crow. "

    I am not denying anyone anything. They same rights and restricts that I do. It is not illogical and in no way is related to Jim Crow.

  32. Layne
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Dan. Notice how he blatantly ignored my comment and responded to you instead?

    It's a sad existence, but I totally get how much presure is put on them to represss who they truly are and live up to the expectations put on them (celibacy/marrying someone of the opposite gender).

    It may be acceptable to their families, but that's all it is. Nothing can ever replace a true, loving relationship with someone you really love and care about it. For some of us, true love is found with soemone of the same gender.

    For people like Overcame or whomever else on this blog to dismiss our very real relationships as either "deviant" or mere "friendships" speaks to their hostility and stubborn closed-mindedness.

    But I don't worry about the 'phobes as much as I worry about the closet cases. Too many lives have been destroyed on the count of men never being able to accept themselves for who they truly were.

  33. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA, I already have a family with someone I love. You can never love your spouse because she's got the wrong anatomy. Someday you will pay a psychological price for denying your innate orientation. Don't say you weren't forewarned.

  34. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA, the law prohibits marriage between siblings because it is psychologically damaging nutcase.

  35. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    @Dan

    "I've said it countless times. Marriage has nothing to do with religion nor procreation."

    And that's where your argument fails since the purpose of Marriage is to establish families.

    " Those are separate issues. Stop placing the burden of procreation solely onto gays without imposing a similar requirement on heterosexual seniors."

    I impose nothing. Particular circumstances do not change the definition of Marriage. Men and women are inherently different and even with the absence of children, only a woman can tame a man. I implore you to read the Secular Case against Gay Marriage. It has some grammar issues but a great read.

  36. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    Layne, how right you are! Yes, look at Marcus Bachman, he's clearly a closeted gay who thinks he can convert gays to straight, when no such thing has ever been proven to work. And his pseudo-wife is the most rabid anti-gay bigot.

  37. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    Zack, civil unions are a form of bigotry. Pity you aren't smart enough to grasp it.

  38. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    Layne -

    I am living the life I choose to live; extraordinarily happy without the need to petition the government and persuade people to force tolerance of my life and my relationships. My kids were created by my wife and me, and we enjoy a bond that is only possible between blood relationships.

    You've succumbed to sexual urges that put you on a sad path that denies you children created by you and your partner and makes you different from the vast majority of the entire world.

  39. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    @Dan

    "Zack, civil unions are a form of bigotry. Pity you aren't smart enough to grasp it."

    And it's a pity you have demonstrated improper use of the word "bigotry".

  40. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    Zack, read: The strongest argument against gay marriage, and why it fails. It addresses all of your concerns without any grammatical errors.

  41. OldKingBlog
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    Danny, boy, O Danny boy, the truth is calling: you are "married" only in your imagination, fueled as it is by abnormal sexual desire, emotional confusion, and ideological fallacies (and by the way, the term "homophobe." like its cousins "racist," "sexist," etc., have NO meaning; they were merely buzzwords devised by the left in the Sixties and Seventies to advance an agenda. So can your pity; based on ideology as it is (its phony!). Whether one believes in God or not, it is an undeniable fact that tens of millions of years of evolution have devised sexuality for the purposes of pro-creation. Nature is a very harsh mistress, as those who study the natural world can readily attest. Therefore, we can, with all honesty, call a homosexual devolutionary; an individual whom nature, for reasons that may always remain obscure to us, did not intend to reproduce. Under normal circumstances, that is, in a sound and happy marriage, there is no more natural affection as that shown between a husband and wife, and between parent and child. In response to what we can call the naturalness of marriage, it is incumbent upon both citizen and public official to continue to recognize the centrality of marriage and to maintain that centrality in law, and to reject all attempts to abolish it or legalize so-called alternatives. Traditional marriage was created to safeguard the welfare of, and to establish responsibility for, any offspring ensuing from heterosexual activities, and not to give legal and social approval to unrestrained and irresponsible sexual activity.
    Let the members of the demimonde live out their lives and conduct their private business privately, far from the public eye and with no control over public institutions.

    As for Layne: dream on! No NORMAL person wants to join the demimonde. And never will.

  42. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    Zack, denying others equal rights is bigotry. Simple!

  43. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    @Dan

    I know all the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. My arguments are fairly consistent and have yet to be refuted. We live in an age of feelings, not wisdom. So by that logic, my arguments will get sidestepped in favor of what "feels good".

  44. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    "the law prohibits marriage between siblings because it is psychologically damaging"

    LOL, oh, now I understand.

    Funny how marriage is concerned with psychological damage from siblings marrying, but a guy marrying a guy poses no psychological issues. Do you guys really believe the drivel you spew, or do you recognize that it is all rationalization to achieve your group's socio-political objectives?

  45. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    @Dan

    "Zack, denying others equal rights is bigotry. Simple!"

    Testy testy. I can show you the definition if you'd like, it is nothing of what you say. Upholding Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is not bigoted in any sense of the word.

  46. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    Old King man. Actually the government recognizes marriage and that's all I care about. Until Jesus signs my tax refund check I won't care about his opinion, Old Man!

  47. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Old King man: homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality according to the APA. Sorry to deprive you of an opportunity to feel superior to me.

  48. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    Zack, denying gays marriage is bigotry and the 9 th Circuit Court affirmed that. It's now a legal fact.

  49. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA, you are making progress. You said: a guy marrying a guy poses no issue... I concur. In fact the APA says that homosexual relationships are normal. Sorry, but what you have with your pseudo-wife isn't real marriage. Without love it's a pale immitation of what I have with my husband.

  50. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    Layne writes a lot about people "accepting themselves for who they truly are."

    This is the thinking of weak people; of people who would rather quit or acquiesce than use their will and mind to be what they want to be. I notice my kids being taught this weak-mindedness in school where they label themselves,e.g., as "not good at math," and use that as an excuse for poor performance.

    We're all born with weakness of various sorts, and we are remarkably equipped to overcome almost all of them, including strange sexual attractions, be they to people of the same sex, children, or inanimate objects of penetration.

  51. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    @Dan

    I could careless San Fransisco judges say. Courts can't rewrite the dictionary. I'm done with this discussion. I pity you sadly, I have no need for the government to vindicate my humanity, unfortunately you feel that you do.

    Bigotry- "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

    Good day.

  52. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    typo1: scratch the phrase "I pity you sadly"*
    typo2: "careless what*

    I type so fast I sometimes don't edit my writing.

  53. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    Zack, you have no argument that's your problem. Playing the procreation card is tired and this was not even used in the Prop 8 campaign. If it's such a compelling argument, why was it ignored? See, most intelligent people realize that families come in all shapes and forms. Some choose not to have kids, some adopt while others have blended families. Most gay parents I know have biological children from previously failed pseudo-straight "marriages."

  54. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Dan -

    What makes you think that I don't love my wife?

    I think you missed the fact that my comment about guys "marrying" guys posing no issues was sarcasm.

    Please don't get me started on the APA; it is a socio-political institution (infiltrated by homosexuals, byw) in which faux-science is used to achieve political objectives. I think the leadership even admits that it is no longer a scientific group.

  55. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    @Dan

    Your arguments are based on emotion. As I said before, we no longer live in an age of wisdom, we live in an age of emotion.

  56. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    Zack, any dictionary which excludes same sex couples in a definition of marriage is obsolete and incomplete. Reality check: over 180,000 Americans are happily married to same sex partners as we speak. And many more to come! Accept this reality and move on in your life.

  57. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Zack. Emotion has nothing to do with this. It's about getting treated the same under the law. Simple! YOU are the emotional one who can't accept the SSM is real.

  58. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    @Dan

    I accept that Marriage is between a man and a woman and I will pass these values unto my children one day. Reality is that men and women are different and by binding them to Marriage you enshrine these differences.

    No matter how many politicians write it as law, no matter how many judges rule on it, no matter how much you will it. Marriage is and always shall be between a man and a woman because when it gets right down to it, they are the bedrock of society.

    With that I leave you all for the day, I have studying to do. good day.

  59. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    @Dan

    I accept that Marriage is between a man and a woman and I will pass these values unto my children one day. Reality is that men and women are different and by binding them to Marriage you enshrine these differences.

    to do. good day.

  60. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    @Dan

    I believe that Marriage is between a man and a woman and I will pass these values unto my children one day. Reality is that men and women are different and by binding them to Marriage you enshrine these differences.

  61. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA you could only love your wife platonically. True love, such as I have with my husband, includes sexual attraction. You are gay and therefore can never truly love your wife, except platonically. I don't hate you as much as pity you. I ask any straights reading this to imagine you are in a same sex marriage and this is the life of OvercameSSA. Just pathetic....

  62. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    @Dan

    I believe that Marriage is between a man and a woman and I will pass these values unto my children one day. Men and women are different and by binding them to Marriage you enshrine these differences.

  63. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    @Dan

    Marriage is between a man and a woman and I will pass these values unto my children one day. Men and women are different and by binding them to Marriage you enshrine these differences.

  64. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    No matter how many politicians write it as law, no matter how many judges rule on it, no matter how much you will it. Marriage is and always shall be between a man and a woman because when it gets right down to it, they are the bedrock of society.

    With that I leave you all for the day, I have errands to run and col

  65. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Dan it sounds like you are the one getting emotional. I ask you to take a break and enjoy your day as I will do.

  66. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA, I'm sorry that science is so clearly not in your side. I sincerely wish you could be happy. It's never too late. I know a 55 year old man that recently left his pseudo-wife of 30 years and is now happily living with another man. Their two daughters are incredibly supportive if him. They are smart girls. I admire them. You could do the same and stop living a lie.

  67. Layne
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    @Overcame: "You've succumbed to sexual urges that put you on a sad path that denies you children created by you and your partner and makes you different from the vast majority of the entire world."

    ---Nope. I just fell in love with a truly wonderful and amazing man, and it's a love that goes beyond any mere "friendship".

    (And please don't patronize the community by acting as if we're not able to draw the difference between "friends" and "boyfriends". What an unbelievably childish and condescending thing to say. And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously...)

    By the way, the hubby and I have kids...except they're on four legs and are descended from the canine species.

    Bottom line: We've created a wonderfully happy and fulfilling life and family together. I know you think these are all examples of "weakness", because that's what you've been taught to believe (and you have to believe that otherwise you'd wouldn't have "overcame" anything).

    But the last thing I'll ever do is throw all of that away and bury my true self just so I can live in your miserable, lonely world.

    I'm sorry you "overcame" your "SSA" with self-hatred.

  68. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    Zack, I mean no animosity towards you and I hope you have a nice day, too. No matter how much you oppose my civil rights, I'm still married under the law and I frankly don't care about your opinion. I don't even care if the majority of Americans don't approve of marriage. Those same people once opposed school integration and ending slavery. They were wrong!

  69. Zack
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    Typo: I meant studying argh.

    @Dan

    I have no animosity towards you either. I just disagree with you wholeheartedly on this issue.

  70. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    Layne, I wish you all the best and I hope you one day have the incredible honor of marrying your Prince Charming! Perhaps you're already married? Isn't it a great world we live in? I never dreamed I'd one day be allowed to marry and now I have been for four years. I've never been happier.

  71. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    Dan -

    Having a life sciences degree and 20 years' research experience, I am admittedly skeptical of what "science" says about anything, particularly the social and psychological "sciences," which are extremely vulnerable to researcher and subject bias. I think it's a shame that sexually confused people adopt a homosexual lifestyle on the basis that they were "born that way" and are unable to change their destiny. To me, it's tantamount to child abuse, relegating innocent kids to a difficult lifestyle in a heterosexual world. But for guys like you who've chosen their path, hey, if it makes you feel better to rationalize it on the basis of "science," good for you.

  72. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    Zack, funny thing is, your opinion doesn't matter and the fact remains that I'm legally married. What can you do about it? Nothing.... Move on and get your own marriage and stop obsessing about mine. Life's too short, Zack and we all deserve to be happy. Instead of losing sleep because I'm married to a hot dude, why not relish the fact that I'm happy? Have a great day, Zack!

  73. Layne
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    It is amazing, isn't it! And totally unfathomable just a decade ago!

    But I'm not married yet :( PA resident over here, the last state in the Northeast without any kind of marriage equality. We don't even have domestic partnerships here, except for Philly, but both of us live just outside the city.

    Hopefully it won't be long but I'm not holding my breath. The top three biggest cities (Philly, Pitt and A-Town) are very liberal, but the rest of PA is deep, deep red. This is, after all, the state that sent Rick "Google My Last Name" Santorum to the Senate.

    But congrats right back at ya!! Even if marriage equality was a reality in my state, getting rid of DOMA is key to full equality. And that's next! :)

    But yes, with or without a legal marriage I'm still having the time of my life. :):)

  74. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA no what is harmful is telling gays they are damaged simply because you want us to be heterosexual. That is child abuse.. Thing is, I'm happy I was born gay. I view it as a true gift in my life. I've had experiences I know I wouldn't have had if I were born straight. I also don't view parenting as a reason to exist. That's just sad to me. I have outperformed my siblings in life tenfold primarily because I don't have the burden of children. I view that as a blessing. I've seen how raising kids has thwarted my sister's life and she sees it too. I've earned a Ph D, taught at four universities and traveled in every continent. She's never left the country and has no college education, and live in the Midwest. Sad....

  75. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    Layne -

    Please enlighten us with your distinction between friendship and love; perhaps we can use it as the objective distinction between loving "marriable" couples and those who claim to be in-love but are just good buddies looking for government benefits. There's nothing childish about questioning the distinction, particularly when that distinction is claimed to be the defining element of an important social institution.

    You've missed an important thing about my life, Layne: I am happy, content, and I love who I am. I also, btw, enjoy a very fulfilling sexual relationship with my wife with no more same-sex attraction. Yes, it's possible to overcome ssa; such a shame homosexual activists want to deny that fact to sexually impressionable kids.

  76. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA there was a time when left handed people were treated as damaged. To this day, children in Chinese schools are not allowed to write with their left hand. As harmless as that might appear, it is not even close to the damage done to gay people who are shamed into feeling bad because of their innate and unchangeable orientation. Incidentally, even the Catholic Church acknowledges that people are born gay and it's not changeable. Your beliefs are from the 1950s . Get a clue...

  77. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA, friendship is what you have with your pseudo-wife. True love is what I have with my husband. Clear???

  78. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    Dan -

    Obviously we have different perspectives on life; based, I think, on the fact that one of us lives a life involving reproduction, and the other looking to fill the void of not having the inclination to reproduce with things like too many college degrees and traveling. You live a self-absorbed lifestyle and you miss out on the very essence of your humanity and one of the elements of life: reproduction.

    Many people would find your sister's life very fulfilling.

  79. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA I have a friend just like you. He claims to be free of his "same sex attraction", and then I sent him a gay porn picture. Guess what? He's been pestering me for more!! I guarantee that you think of men when you're with your pseudo-wife. No question about it. I had sex with women in college and I got through the traumatic experience by imaging I was with a hot man instead. The mind is an amazing thing.

  80. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    Dan says: "True love is what I have with my husband. Clear???

    Very clear that you are unable to verbalize the distinction. I say you just have the bestest, bestest friend ever, and it is just as credible.

    btw, since you claim to be married with a husband, are you the wife?

  81. Layne
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    Overcame, I am not going to dignify that unbelievably patronizing question with an answer. If you can't draw the difference between friendship and love then there's nothing I can do for you.

    And you're happy and content? This is what happy and content looks like to you? Taking time out of your day to post hurtful and degrading statements about the LGBT community on this blog?

    Does your wife have any idea how much time you spend thinking about LGBT people and their persoanl lives? Your writings border on the obsessive. Over and over, day after day you post the SAME creepy rantings about the community. Does she know how much you dwell on this stuff?

    You insist that you've overcome your attractions; of course I don't believe that, but keep on pretending. Regardless of whether or not you've truly "overcome", you sure haven't overcome your obsession with who you used to be, and all the people who never thought for one second about trying to change their orientation (like me).

    I have many, many straight friends but I can't say any of them obsess over the community quite the way you do.

    It's KIND of obvious, dude. Like overhwelmingly obvious. I hope you can get some help and find TRUE community with people who will love and accept you for who you truly are.

  82. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA, sorry if I don't view changing diapers and washing dishes as fulfilling. I have performed over 60 piano concertos from memory on stages from Berlin to Beijing to Buenos Aires. And, hell no my reason to exist doesn't include procreation. You sound like a teen girl who thinks her life will gain meaning if she poops out a kid. In the words of Judge Judy, any moron can make a baby. There's nothing special about that. It takes no skill.

  83. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA, when two hot dudes marry they call each other husband.

  84. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Dan -

    You make my point about sexual attraction; we can choose to embrace it (like your friend seems to be), or we can choose to shun it and stick with the sexual relationships that are consistent with the way we are anatomically constructed.

    Frankly, I find pornography an adolescent-like vice; not sure why people with good sexual relationships need that.

  85. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA I personally find anyone who feels that their life will gain meaning by pooping out a kid to be immature. Did it matter one iota that Beethoven and Tchaikovsky had no kids? Do we remember Beethoven's brother today because he had a son? He'll no! You lead a sad life, my friend. An unfulfilled life....

  86. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA, I realize that what you need is hardcore therapy, but I'm not a therapist, my husband is. Anyone reading this thread can instantly spot that you aren't happy and that you are a closet homosexual that has been pressured religion to deny your innate orientation. I want you to be happy and it's time to stop living a lie and be yourself.

  87. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    "I have performed over 60 piano concertos from memory on stages from Berlin to Beijing to Buenos Aires"

    I think that's great, Dan, I really do. But we all have the desire to have good careers; to accomplish something with our talent and skills. But that is not a substitute for the fulfillment that comes from exercising the essence of life: reproducing, perpetuating the race, passing on our skills and talents for the future through our offspring. I've created three independent beings who possess my talents and whom I am teaching the skills I've acquired in my life. With those talents and knowledge they are slated to accomplish things beyond what I've accomplished; they and others like them are the future of humanity, and I contributed to that. Your concerts will be good memories; my life lives in through the children that I and my wife created. If you don't think that's special, then you're not as smart as I thought you were.

  88. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    Lyane, OvercameSSA asked you that question because he obviously can't tell the difference himself.

    OvercameSSA, I am sure you love your wife. I am also sure that Dan, in a similar way, loves his husband. Is that so hard to understand? But for someone who says they "overcame SSA", you sure seem pretty angry about it. It would seem, from your postings, that you are just mad that someone could be happy living a life you wish you could live.

  89. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA what does your pseudo-wife think about the fact that you aren't sexually attracted to her? I'd be terribly disappointed to find out my husband was secretly straight.

  90. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH, OvercameSSA is just screaming for help and clearly is brainwashed by religion. It's painfully obvious. He will most likely go to his grave a frustrated human being who thinks sacrificing his innate orientation was the right thing to do for "god"

  91. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    Dan - I address your "pooping out kids" comment in a post that hasn't shown yet. In the meantime, the shortened version is that there are different kinds of fulfillments in life; career accomplishment is one. Creation and passing on a legacy is another.

    One of the reasons that Mozart is remembered is because he was born to a musician; the importance of this is addressed in my post that hasn't appeared yet.

    As for my need for therapy; have you ever met an ex-smoker and their obsession with the fact that other people still smoke? Do you think that those people need therapy, or do you think that they made a great life-changing decision that required a strong will and they demand others aspire to their accomplishment? To continue the analogy, you can look at me as an advocate for people to stop smoking and to prevent teaching children to start smoking, all in the interest of bettering their lives.

  92. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    OK - My last two posts didn't come through. I'm leaving the discussion. Peace all.

  93. Michael Worley
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    One thing missing from this discussion is the fact that a child grows up to look like both parents. Why shouldn't we encourage couples who can, at least in theory, produce biological children, to stay together in a special way (called marriage) because they have a genetic relationship that same-sex xouples cannot have?

    How on earth is that bigoted? My dad and mom are the two people most like me. Think about the family issue.

  94. Michael Worley
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    and I know infertile couples can't have children. I don't believe in letting the exception become the rule.

  95. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    Michael Worley, it only becomes bigoted when marriage, for which there are thousands of legal rights, is denied same sex couples. Again, noone is not supporting marriage. I just support marriage equality.

  96. Michael Worley
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    So, if I accept what you are saying, you are saying there is no special incentive for staying together with biological children. shouldn't that be at the core of family law?

  97. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    Michael, until you can prove that marriage is somehow related to procreation, which your side has failed to do, your point is invalid. Lots of people marry with no intention of procreating and those marriages are no less valid, placing the sole burden of procreation onto gay couples is illogical and unfair. Marriage is between two persons. A third entity is not required. Justice Scalia said "Procreation has never been a requisite for marriage in any state at any time." He may live to regret those wise words!

  98. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    Michael, I find it ironic that straights are suddenly concerned about taking care of your biological children now that gays can marry. Where were you when gay couples were adopting your children without the privilege of marriage? Let's face facts. Straights are irresponsible when it comes to procreation. How about teen pregnancy, abortion and orphans? Are gays responsible for that?

  99. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Michael, promoting the biological unit to stay together and marriage equality for same sex couples are not mutually exclusive.

  100. Michael Worley
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    ", until you can prove that marriage is somehow related to procreation"

    Um, until about 30 years ago, nearly every child was born inside marriage.

    "promoting the biological unit to stay together and marriage equality for same sex couples are not mutually exclusive."

    Then is there a rule which is more than love for two people from your side. Love for two people has nothing to do with kids.

  101. Michael Worley
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    "Straights are irresponsible when it comes to procreation. How about teen pregnancy, abortion and orphans? "

    I'm mormon. we don't do that sort of thing. Obviously there are many other concerns in family law. I want, for example, a return to fault-based divorce... will you still want marriage with that constraint?

    I also want a culture of chastity before marriage and total fidelity in marriage...will the gay community latch on to this in TV shows? can we change Glee, for example, so "the first time" is the wedding night?

  102. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Michael Worley "Um, until about 30 years ago, nearly every child was born inside marriage." Seriously? Do you have some proof of that?

    "Then is there a rule which is more than love for two people from your side. "
    Since this has been the reason opposite sex and same sex couples desire to marry, not really. However, it is clear that there is a benefit for the children being raised by both types of couples. In addition, there are the many legal and financial benefits that marriage provides.

  103. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    People need to better understand the philosophical antecedents of the cultural left and therefore this move to redefine marriage.

    The argument about "inevitability" in marriage being changed is the most common and potent argument the proponents of same-sex "marriage" have.

    They have used it since the beginning of this movement in place of an argument on the merits of this social change. When we argue if it is good or bad policy to adopt this new definition/concept of marriage they most often retort not with an argument that their concept is superior, but rather that concept is inevitable.

    That is why they most often try and draw analogies with the movements for woman's "rights" or, more often the civil rights movement & specifically the anti-miscegenation laws that were overruled in Loving v Virginia.

    In this way they replace a straightforward discussion about the purpose of marriage and what we as a society are trying to promote and insure through that institution, with a argument about the motives of their adversaries.

    Now, clearly the left is well....the left. As such they have a collective history and certain ideological understandings that can be identified and understood.

    Marxists believed in what was called a "science of history". That class struggle, be it the proletariat vs the bugiose, or the rich vs the poor, or male vs female, or black vs white, or gay vs straight...was what Marx called "the locomotive of history". That is it was driving force that moved history inevitably towards greater equality.

    It is called the Master/Slave dialectic or (more commonly) the oppressor/oppressed dialectic. It is my clear understanding that the left has since feminism and gender studies simply replaced economic class struggle with feminism and/or gender studies. The idea that gender itself is not based in a human nature but is rather a "social construct" (pure Marxist ideology)

    So certain truisms of the leftist mind can be seen all over this "movement" for redefine marriage. Much like capitalism was seen as destined for the "ash bin of history", so to marriage as traditionally defined is seen as inevitably destined for extinction.

    This understanding of "inevitability" has all the hallmarks of what is called "Marxist determinism" or what is called sometimes called "Historicism". (I recommend "The Poverty of Historicism by Karl Popper)

    As I say above these ideological antecedents become the frame of reference that our adversaries hold that in turn shape how they view these arguments. "Marxist determinism" views the changing definition of marriage as something that is a"inevitable" because that it what is required to keep the troops inspired towards further social change.

    They have their newest proletariat (gays) that has been agitated and radicalized into believing that all opposition arguments are based in nothing more than bigotry. Key ideological dogmas must remain unchallenged and appear all the time in arguments for same-sex "marriage". These dogmas have historical roots in recent leftist movements steeped in the Marxist world view. "all family forms are inherently equal" or "gender is just a social construct" or "the revolutionary act itself changes the consciousness", or "all dynamics are power dynamics" or "marriage is about property rights..men historically owned their wives as a form of property"

  104. Michael Worley
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    Background: Glee ran a show called "The first time" about a gay couple and a straight couple had sex for the first time in high school.

  105. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    People need to better understand the philosophical antecedents of the cultural left and therefore this move to redefine marriage.

    The argument about "inevitability" in marriage being changed is the most common and potent argument the proponents of same-sex "marriage" have.

    They have used it since the beginning of this movement in place of an argument on the merits of this social change. When we argue if it is good or bad policy to adopt this new definition/concept of marriage they most often retort not with an argument that their concept is superior, but rather that concept is inevitable.

    That is why they most often try and draw analogies with the movements for woman's "rights" or, more often the civil rights movement & specifically the anti-miscegenation laws that were overruled in Loving v Virginia.

    In this way they replace a straightforward discussion about the purpose of marriage and what we as a society are trying to promote and insure through that institution, with a argument about the motives of their adversaries.

    Now, clearly the left is well....the left. As such they have a collective history and certain ideological understandings that can be identified and understood.

    Marxists believed in what was called a "science of history". That class struggle, be it the proletariat vs the bugiose, or the rich vs the poor, or male vs female, or black vs white, or gay vs straight...was what Marx called "the locomotive of history". That is it was driving force that moved history inevitably towards greater equality.

    It is called the Master/Slave dialectic or (more commonly) the oppressor/oppressed dialectic. It is my clear understanding that the left has since feminism and gender studies simply replaced economic class struggle with feminism and/or gender studies. The idea that gender itself is not based in a human nature but is rather a "social construct" (pure Marxist ideology)

    So certain truisms of the leftist mind can be seen all over this "movement" for redefine marriage. Much like capitalism was seen as destined for the "ash bin of history", so to marriage as traditionally defined is seen as inevitably destined for extinction.

    This understanding of "inevitability" has all the hallmarks of what is called "Marxist determinism" or what is called sometimes called "Historicism". (I recommend "The Poverty of Historicism by Karl Popper)

    As I say above these ideological antecedents become the frame of reference that our adversaries hold that in turn shape how they view these arguments. "Marxist determinism" views the changing definition of marriage as something that is a"inevitable" because that it what is required to keep the troops inspired towards further social change.

  106. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    As far as a "culture of chastity before marriage and total fidelity in marriage", many same sex couples do adhere to this, and WITHOUT the benefit of the legal recognition. As it is said, perhaps if you clean up your own mess (i.e. opposite sex couples) then you can focus on same sex couples. Just try watching daytime soap operas for how well opposite couple sex is portrayed.

  107. Michael Worley
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Do I have proof that, 30-50 years ago, almost all children were born inside marriage?

    Yes. google "1980 out of wedlock pregnancy" and click on the CDC link.

  108. Curious George
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    "So, if I accept what you are saying, you are saying there is no special incentive for staying together with biological children. shouldn't that be at the core of family law?"

    There are plenty of "special incentives" available to couples who stay together with biological children when compared to two people who produce a child then go their separate ways.

    These "special incentives" are exactly the same as for a couple who stay together for the sake of their adoptive children.

    These "special incentives" are exactly the same as for a couple that commit to taking care of each other without children.

    These "special incentives" should be available to all couples who commit, regardless of the race, religion or gender of their selected partner.

  109. Michael Worley
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH,

    You say that, but the new york times came out with a story called: "An open secret", indicating just the opposite.

  110. Michael Worley
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    I need to go. sorry.

  111. Curious George
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    ...register for a civil marriage license, say "I do" in front of your friends, family and a legal state official, and get these "special incentives" - its that easy for any same sex couple in the US (just go to NYC).

    Getting those "special incentives" recognized by your local state or US government - not there yet, but it got a lot easier in 2012.

  112. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    People need to better understand the philosophical antecedents of the cultural left and therefore this move to redefine marriage.

    The argument about "inevitability" in marriage being changed is the most common and potent argument the proponents of same-sex "marriage" have.

    They have used it since the beginning of this movement in place of an argument on the merits of this social change. When we argue if it is good or bad policy to adopt this new definition/concept of marriage they most often retort not with an argument that their concept is superior, but rather that concept is inevitable.

    That is why they most often try and draw analogies with the movements for woman's "rights" or, more often the civil rights movement & specifically the anti-miscegenation laws that were overruled in Loving v Virginia.

    In this way they replace a straightforward discussion about the purpose of marriage and what we as a society are trying to promote and insure through that institution, with a argument about the motives of their adversaries.

  113. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    Now, clearly the left is well....the left. As such they have a collective history and certain ideological understandings that can be identified and understood.

    Marxists believed in what was called a "science of history". That class struggle, be it the proletariat vs the bugiose, or the rich vs the poor, or male vs female, or black vs white, or gay vs straight...was what Marx called "the locomotive of history". That is it was driving force that moved history inevitably towards greater equality.

    It is called the Master/Slave dialectic or (more commonly) the oppressor/oppressed dialectic. It is my clear understanding that the left has since feminism and gender studies simply replaced economic class struggle with feminism and/or gender studies. The idea that gender itself is not based in a human nature but is rather a "social construct" (pure Marxist ideology)

    So certain truisms of the leftist mind can be seen all over this "movement" for redefine marriage. Much like capitalism was seen as destined for the "ash bin of history", so to marriage as traditionally defined is seen as inevitably destined for extinction.

    This understanding of "inevitability" has all the hallmarks of what is called "Marxist determinism" or what is called sometimes called "Historicism". (I recommend "The Poverty of Historicism by Karl Popper)

  114. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    Now, clearly the left is well....the left. As such they have a collective history and certain ideological understandings that can be identified and understood.

    Marxists believed in what was called a "science of history". That class struggle, be it the proletariat vs the bugiose, or the rich vs the poor, or male vs female, or black vs white, or gay vs straight...was what Marx called "the locomotive of history". That is it was driving force that moved history inevitably towards greater equality.

    It is called the Master/Slave dialectic or (more commonly) the oppressor/oppressed dialectic. It is my clear understanding that the left has since feminism and gender studies simply replaced economic class struggle with feminism and/or gender studies. The idea that gender itself is not based in a human nature but is rather a "social construct" (pure Marxist ideology)

  115. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    Now, clearly the left is well....the left. As such they have a collective history and certain ideological understandings that can be identified and understood.

    Marxists believed in what was called a "science of history". That class struggle, be it the proletariat vs the bugiose, or the rich vs the poor, or male vs female, or black vs white, or gay vs straight...was what Marx called "the locomotive of history". That is it was driving force that moved history inevitably towards greater equality.

    It is called the Master/Slave dialectic or (more commonly) the oppressor/oppressed dialectic. It is my clear understanding that the left has since feminism and gender studies simply replaced economic class struggle with feminism and/or gender studies. The idea that gender itself is not based in a human nature but is rather a "social construct" (pure Marxist ideology)

    So certain truisms of the leftist mind can be seen all over this "movement" for redefine marriage. Much like capitalism was seen as destined for the "ash bin of history", so to marriage as traditionally defined is seen as inevitably destined for extinction.

  116. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    Now, clearly the left is well....the left. As such they have a collective history and certain ideological understandings that can be identified and understood.

    Marxists believed in what was called a "science of history". That class struggle, be it the proletariat vs the bugiose, or the rich vs the poor, or male vs female, or black vs white, or gay vs straight; was what Marx called "the locomotive of history". That is, it was driving force that moved history inevitably towards greater equality.

  117. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    It is called the Master/Slave dialectic or (more commonly) the oppressor/oppressed dialectic. It is my clear understanding that the left has since feminism and gender studies simply replaced economic class struggle with feminism and/or gender studies. The idea that gender itself is not based in a human nature but is rather a "social construct" (pure Marxist ideology)

    So certain truisms of the leftist mind can be seen all over this "movement" for redefine marriage. Much like capitalism was seen as destined for the "ash bin of history", so to marriage as traditionally defined is seen as inevitably destined for extinction.

  118. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    Now, clearly the left is well, the left. As such they have a collective history and certain ideological understandings that can be identified and understood.

    Marxists believed in what was called a "science of history". That class struggle, be it the proletariat vs the bugiose, or the rich vs the poor, or male vs female, or black vs white, or gay vs straight...was what Marx called "the locomotive of history". That is it was driving force that moved history inevitably towards greater equality.

    It is called the Master/Slave dialectic or (more commonly) the oppressor/oppressed dialectic. It is my clear understanding that the left has since feminism and gender studies simply replaced economic class struggle with feminism and/or gender studies. The idea that gender itself is not based in a human nature but is rather a "social construct" (pure Marxist ideology)

    So certain truisms of the leftist mind can be seen all over this "movement" for redefine marriage. Much like capitalism was seen as destined for the "ash bin of history", so to marriage as traditionally defined is seen as inevitably destined for extinction.

  119. Curious George
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    "their concept is superior, "

    The concept of treating all citizens equally in choosing their life partner and committing to that partner in civil marriage is superior to "separate, but equal" (civil unions vs civil marriages) and "separate, but un-equal" (special rights for heterosexual couples, but limited or no rights for same sex couples).

  120. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    Now, clearly the left is the left. As such they have a collective history and certain ideological understandings that can be identified and understood.

    Marxists believed in what was called a "science of history". That class struggle, be it the proletariat vs the bourgeois, or the rich vs the poor, or male vs female, or black vs white, or gay vs straight...was what Marx called "the locomotive of history". That is it was driving force that moved history inevitably towards greater equality.

    It is called the Master/Slave dialectic or (more commonly) the oppressor/oppressed dialectic. It is my clear understanding that the left has since feminism and gender studies simply replaced economic class struggle with feminism and/or gender studies. The idea that gender itself is not based in a human nature but is rather a "social construct" (pure Marxist ideology)

    So certain truisms of the leftist mind can be seen all over this "movement" for redefine marriage. Much like capitalism was seen as destined for the "ash bin of history", so to marriage as traditionally defined is seen as inevitably destined for extinction.

  121. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    Marxists believed in what was called a "science of history". That class struggle, be it the proletariat vs the bugiose, or the rich vs the poor, or male vs female, or black vs white, or gay vs straight...was what Marx called "the locomotive of history". That is it was driving force that moved history inevitably towards greater equality.

    It is called the Master/Slave dialectic or (more commonly) the oppressor/oppressed dialectic. It is my clear understanding that the left has since feminism and gender studies simply replaced economic class struggle with feminism and/or gender studies. The idea that gender itself is not based in a human nature but is rather a "social construct" (pure Marxist ideology)

    So certain truisms of the leftist mind can be seen all over this "movement" for redefine marriage. Much like capitalism was seen as destined for the "ash bin of history", so to marriage as traditionally defined is seen as inevitably destined for extinction.

    This understanding of "inevitability" has all the hallmarks of what is called "Marxist determinism" or what is called sometimes called "Historicism". (I recommend "The Poverty of Historicism by Karl Popper)

  122. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Marxists believed in what was called a "science of history". That class struggle, be it the proletariat vs the bugiose, or the rich vs the poor, or male vs female, or black vs white, or gay vs straight; was what Marx called "the locomotive of history". That is, it was driving force that moved history inevitably towards greater equality.

    It is called the Master/Slave dialectic or (more commonly) the oppressor/oppressed dialectic. It is my clear understanding that the left has since feminism and gender studies simply replaced economic class struggle with feminism and/or gender studies. The idea that gender itself is not based in a human nature but is rather a "social construct" (pure Marxist ideology)

  123. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    Marxists believed in what was called a "science of history". That class struggle, be it the proletariat vs the bugiose, or the rich vs the poor, or male vs female, or black vs white, or gay vs straight; was what Marx called "the locomotive of history". That is, it was driving force that moved history inevitably towards greater equality.

  124. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    It is called the Master/Slave dialectic or (more commonly) the oppressor/oppressed dialectic. It is my clear understanding that the left has since feminism and gender studies simply replaced economic class struggle with feminism and/or gender studies. The idea that gender itself is not based in a human nature but is rather a "social construct" (pure Marxist ideology)

  125. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    So certain truisms of the leftist mind can be seen all over this "movement" for redefine marriage. Much like capitalism was seen as destined for the "ash bin of history", so to marriage as traditionally defined is seen as inevitably destined for extinction.

    This understanding of "inevitability" has all the hallmarks of what is called "Marxist determinism" or what is called sometimes called "Historicism". (I recommend "The Poverty of Historicism by Karl Popper)

    As I say above these ideological antecedents become the frame of reference that our adversaries hold that in turn shape how they view these arguments. "Marxist determinism" views the changing definition of marriage as something that is a"inevitable" because that it what is required to keep the troops inspired towards further social change.

    They have their newest proletariat (gays) that has been agitated and radicalized into believing that all opposition arguments are based in nothing more than bigotry. Key ideological dogmas must remain unchallenged and appear all the time in arguments for same-sex "marriage". These dogmas have historical roots in recent leftist movements steeped in the Marxist world view. "all family forms are inherently equal" or "gender is just a social construct" or "the revolutionary act itself changes the consciousness", or "all dynamics are power dynamics" or "marriage is about property rights..men historically owned their wives as a form of property"

    The last time we confronted a movement that was this leftist was also steeped in Marxist ideology. Feminism shoehorned relations between men & woman into the oppressors/oppressed dialectic. If you were against abortion it was because you wanted to force woman into having children ignored to "control their bodies", treat them like chattel and perpetuate the old archaic gender norms in marriage that kept woman in their place.

    In this leftist thinking...In order for a woman to be equal to a man she needed to be able to procure an abortion so #1. she could have the same sexual licence ("sexual empowerment") that men exercise without the worry of an unwanted pregnancy. In order for a woman to be equal to a man she needed to be able to procure an abortion so #2. She could have the same career trajectory of man ("economic empowerment")

    It was all about radical egalitarianism. That what Marxism is... a radically egalitarian movement that see's the greatest good as a moving society towards greater equality. Even if this steamrolls solid arguments based on ancient understandings of human nature and the common good. Even if fundamental human rights and constitutional rights end up being usurped, redefined and used as weapons against those who support the very constitutional & human rights themselves.

    Even if (as has happened over the last 40 years since the sexual revolution) the institution of marriage collapses under the weight of this revolution and the institution of marriage ends up shattered among the underclass...to the determent of men, woman and children... I guess you just have to "break a few egg's to make an omelette".

  126. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    They have their newest proletariat (gays) that has been agitated and radicalized into believing that all opposition arguments are based in nothing more than bigotry. Key ideological dogmas must remain unchallenged and appear all the time in arguments for same-sex "marriage". These dogmas have historical roots in recent leftist movements steeped in the Marxist world view. "all family forms are inherently equal" or "gender is just a social construct" or "the revolutionary act itself changes the consciousness", or "all dynamics are power dynamics" or "marriage is about property rights..men historically owned their wives as a form of property"

    The last time we confronted a movement that was this leftist was also steeped in Marxist ideology. Feminism shoehorned relations between men & woman into the oppressors/oppressed dialectic. If you were against abortion it was because you wanted to force woman into having children ignored to "control their bodies", treat them like chattel and perpetuate the old archaic gender norms in marriage that kept woman in their place.

  127. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    In this leftist thinking...In order for a woman to be equal to a man she needed to be able to procure an abortion so #1. she could have the same sexual licence ("sexual empowerment") that men exercise without the worry of an unwanted pregnancy. In order for a woman to be equal to a man she needed to be able to procure an abortion so #2. She could have the same career trajectory of man ("economic empowerment")

    It was all about radical egalitarianism. That what Marxism is... a radically egalitarian movement that see's the greatest good as a moving society towards greater equality. Even if this steamrolls solid arguments based on ancient understandings of human nature and the common good. Even if fundamental human rights and constitutional rights end up being usurped, redefined and used as weapons against those who support the very constitutional & human rights themselves.

    Even if (as has happened over the last 40 years since the sexual revolution) the institution of marriage collapses under the weight of this revolution and the institution of marriage ends up shattered among the underclass...to the determent of men, woman and children... I guess you just have to "break a few egg's to make an omelette".

  128. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    Michael Worley, and 30-60% of opposite sex couples admit to infidelity. So, if you are saying same sex couples should not be able to marry because they are not faithful, obviously, it's not necessary for opposite sex marriage.

  129. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    In this leftist thinking...In order for a woman to be equal to a man she needed to be able to procure an abortion so #1. she could have the same sexual licence ("sexual empowerment") that men exercise without the worry of an unwanted pregnancy. In order for a woman to be equal to a man she needed to be able to procure an abortion so #2. She could have the same career trajectory of man ("economic empowerment")

    It was all about radical egalitarianism. That what Marxism is... a radically egalitarian movement that see's the greatest good as a moving society towards greater equality. Even if this steamrolls solid arguments based on ancient understandings of human nature and the common good. Even if fundamental human rights and constitutional rights end up being usurped, redefined and used as weapons against those who support the very constitutional & human rights themselves.

  130. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    Marxists believed in what was called a "science of history". That class struggle, be it the proletariat vs the bugiose, or the rich vs the poor, or male vs female, or black vs white, or gay vs straight; was what Marx called "the locomotive of history". That is, it was driving force that moved history inevitably towards greater equality.

    It is called the Master/Slave dialectic or (more commonly) the oppressor/oppressed dialectic. It is my clear understanding that the left has since feminism and gender studies simply replaced economic class struggle with feminism and/or gender studies. The idea that gender itself is not based in a human nature but is rather a "social construct" (pure Marxist ideology)

    So certain truisms of the leftist mind can be seen all over this "movement" for redefine marriage. Much like capitalism was seen as destined for the "ash bin of history", so to marriage as traditionally defined is seen as inevitably destined for extinction.

    This understanding of "inevitability" has all the hallmarks of what is called "Marxist determinism" or what is called sometimes called "Historicism". (I recommend "The Poverty of Historicism by Karl Popper)

  131. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    Michael Worley, looking at graph about out of wedlock births - it was at least 4-5 % in 1940 and then rose to about 32% in the middle 90's and then has leveled off. And 30 years ago, rate was just under 20%. For sake of argument, I would not consider 80% " nearly every child"

  132. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    Marxists believed in what was called a "science of history". That class struggle, be it the proletariat vs the bugiose or the rich vs the poor or male vs female,or black vs white,or gay vs straight; was what Marx called "the locomotive of history". That is, it was driving force that moved history inevitably towards greater equality.

    It is called the Master/Slave dialectic or (more commonly) the oppressor/oppressed dialectic. It is my clear understanding that the left has since feminism and gender studies simply replaced economic class struggle with feminism and/or gender studies. The idea that gender itself is not based in a human nature but is rather a "social construct" (pure Marxist ideology)

  133. Michael Worley
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    Mark OH,

    So you are saying children are irrelevant? if we're talking about family law, that's the radical claim.

    Families matter. and people behave differently when families matter. If you are saying it is irrelevant if children are involved, then we see a very different concept of a family. If children didn't matter, society wouldn't care about marriage.

  134. Curious George
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    Families matter a great deal.

    A family can be a husband and wife (no children);
    A husband and a husband (no children)
    A wife and a wife (no children)
    A husband and a wife (with the children they conceived)
    A wife and a wife (with the children one or both conceived)
    A husband and a husband (with the children they had from a failed "faux" marriage)
    Any of the above couples with children that they adopt.

    Are you saying only some of the above families "qualify" for marriage?

  135. Rachel
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Curious George, that's exactly what he's saying.

    The cruelty of some of these people is breathtaking. I have a dear friend whose father abandoned their family when she was quite young. Her mother then met a man who became her father -- this man, although never legally adopting her, nurtured her, taught her, provided for her, and loved her. She's grown now and calls him Dad and is closer to him than to her biological father.

    According to some people, her Dad is not her REAL father, just some sham father. And if infertile people fall in love and marry and adopt, it will never be a REAL family, they'll just be pretending to raise someone else's kids. What a warped, cramped view of love and family.

    Sheesh, and they call us sick.

    Oh, and Dan, I totally support your right to have or not have children, but many of us do find parenthood to be very fulfilling -- even in a fake, pretend, ersatz, sham family, fingerpainting with a goofy giggly 3-year old is still awfully fun. :D

  136. Rachel
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, in above comment I should have said "is closer to him than to her biological MOTHER." She has no contact with the bio dad. I defy anyone to hear her talk about her dad with such warmth and love and tell her that he's not her REAL dad because they don't share DNA.

  137. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    Michael Worley, "So you are saying children are irrelevant?"
    Are you referring to an earlier comment of mine? This comment seems out of left field. I believe very much in families, but ALL families, not just the ones you and NOM feel are somehow worthy. Why do you feel that families with same sex parents are somehow not relevant?

  138. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    Curious George (writes)
    Families matter a great deal.

    "A family can be a husband and wife (no children);
    A husband and a husband (no children)
    A wife and a wife (no children)
    A husband and a wife (with the children they conceived)
    A wife and a wife (with the children one or both conceived)
    A husband and a husband (with the children they had from a failed "faux" marriage)
    Any of the above couples with children that they adopt."

    Are you saying only some of the above families "qualify" for marriage?

    George..I find your list to be arbitrary and incomplete. Why do yopu stop at lists of only those in a sexual relationship & why do you have (again) an arbitrary prefrence for the number two.

    Why are you bigoted against any number of deomestic relations that also share a measure of love, commitment, and domestic arrangments?

    Here is a statement from a long list of VERY bright, well placed intellectuals, academics and polticians and policy makers that is much more philisophically consistant and reasonable than your narrow and arbitrary one.

    "Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example:"

    · Single parent households

    · Senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers (think Golden Girls)

    · Blended and extended families

    · Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents

    · Adult children living with and caring for their parents

    · Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives

    · Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

    · Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

    · Care-giving relationships that provide support to those living with extended illness such as HIV/AIDS.

    "The current debate over marriage, same-sex and otherwise, ignores the needs and desires of so many in a nation where household diversity is the demographic norm. We seek to reframe this debate. "

    http://www.beyondmarriage.org/

    Are you saying only yor list of families above "qualify" for marriage?

  139. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    Michael, how come you're a Mor(m)on and I'm gay and you know all about this Glee show and I've not seen a single episode? That strikes me as odd. Am I supposed to watch this stupid show because I'm gay or something? Hate to burst your bubble, but I hate shopping, Barbra Streisand, and going to a bar. I don't drink or do drugs and I'd rather work out at my gym than try on clothes at the shopping mall. Just ask my husband as he can't get me to buy any new clothes. As your Heavenly Father is my witness. I swear on my magic underwear!

  140. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    Futz what an idiotic comment. Why are gays obliged to support any form if marriage other than two people of the same gender? Were blacks obliged to support the rights of goats to attend schools with white people? There's a disconnect in your thought processes. Gays are not required to support polygamy, even though I view it as a religious freedoms issue. It is currently legal in over 40 countries. Even though it's a heterosexual lifestyle choice and not an innate sexual orientation, unlike homosexuality, I support polygamy. Why not? Marrying animals and relatives is absurd.

  141. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    Futz by the way if two elderly women live together and are romantically in love, why shouldn't they get married? I find it absurd that you people would support a gay man marrying a straight woman when there's not a chance it will be a marriage containing the key ingredient of love. Futz, if you want to marry a lesbian, go for it. I view such mixed marriages as a farce and immoral. Gays should marry gays and straights straight.

  142. Sara R
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    @Fitz- I just need to take a moment and give you props for the Golden Girls reference. I was just watching that the other day and Rose was in the hospital and the other girls were not allowed to see her. Anyway, just wanted to thank you for the golden girls shout out because it lightened my mood while reading through the commentary.

  143. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

    Fitz, as always, those are against marriage equality clutter the discussion with straw man arguments.

    Currently, we recognize marriage as between on e man and one woman - two consenting adults - some with children and some without children. Marriage equality expands this to include two consenting adults who happen to be of the same sex.

    Now, if you want to discuss other changes, would be glad to. But realize that is out of the scope of the current discussion. (and, somehow, I would guess that you too are "bigoted against any number of deomestic relations that also share a measure of love, commitment, and domestic arrangements")

  144. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    Dim

    I never mentioned animals I never mentioned realitives having sex...I never said I would "support a gay man marrying a straight woman" or "elderly lesbian couples"..

    Apparently your arguments are so convoluted and baseless that you cant even discern your opponents points most of the time.

    The list above is from "beyond gay marriage.org" a organization comprised of well placed intellectuals, academics and polticians and policy makers.

    They are intellectually consistant and principled. Even though I disagree with them I understand that they know what you do not.

    That once you seperate marriage from the only coupling capable of producing children...once you sever it from that biological basis there becomes no principled legal basis for not expanding it to any number of sexual or non sexual arangments.

    Your standard is completley arbitrary.

    That is why it is neccesary that you attribute positions to the other camp that we never asserted.

  145. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    Dim

    I never mentioned anaimals or close relatives having sex or "two elderly women live together and are romantically in love "

    Nor did I ever assert that I "support a gay man marrying a straight woman" nor that I "want to marry a lesbian"

    The list I refrence is from "beyond gay marriage.org" an organization of well placed intellectuals, academics, polticians and policy makers that is much more philisophically consistant and reasonable than your narrow and arbitrary one.

    Just because you cant handle the philisophical ramifications of what you advocte dosent mean the mainstream leftists have not done te intellectual heavy lifting that you find politically disadvantageous.

  146. FemEagle
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    The criteria for marriage is that the couple be made up of a male and a female. PERIOD. That criteria hasn't changed throughout the history of marriage. If a couple doesn't meet that criteria, then marriage isn't for them. They have the alternative of civil unions.

    Criteria is important for setting up sensible societal standards. And it's not "bigoted". if you haven't got the pipes, you'll never sing at the Metropolitan Opera. Is that kind of criteria bigoted?

  147. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH

    As they say "Its not the answer to the question - Its who writes the question"

    The list I reference is from "beyond gay marriage.org" an organization of well placed intellectuals, academics, politicians and policy makers that is much more philosophically consistent and reasonable than your narrow and arbitrary one.

    Just because you cant handle the philosophical ramifications of what you advocate doesn't mean the mainstream leftists have not done the intellectual heavy lifting that you find politically disadvantageous.

  148. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    FemEagle, when civil unions provide the IDENTICAL legal recognitions and security, we can talk (course I've never been a big fan of 'separate but equal')

    As far as the Met analogy is concerned, why would you deny a singer just because they were a different race / sex / religion? Would not that be bigoted?

  149. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH

    The position you advocate is an inch high and inch wide and a quarter of an inch deep.

    The list of lumanaries who signed onto http://www.beyondmarriage.org/ is very prestigious and loaded with heavyweight intellectuals from some of this countires leading universities.

    They understand what you dont.

    Once you remove marriage from a grounding in biology than you make it all about feelings. Their is no intellectually valid reason or principled legal reason to give the word marriage or its legal benifits to any number of arrangments.

    At best your being anti-intellectual, at worst your being selfish.

  150. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    Damned

    I never mentioned animals or close relatives having sex or "two elderly women live together and are romantically in love "

    Nor did I ever assert that I "support a gay man marrying a straight woman" nor that I "want to marry a lesbian"

  151. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    Fitz, either this group (which I've never heard of until today) is "very prestigious and loaded with heavyweight intellectuals" who obvious know a lot about the marriage condition, or are unable to provide any "intellectually valid reason or principled legal reason to give the word marriage or its legal benefits to any number of arrangements". You really can't argue out of both sides of your mouth and hold any validity.

  152. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH

    I left out a word there...

    "Once you remove marriage from a grounding in biology than you make it all about feelings. There is no intellectually valid reason or principled legal reason to NOT give the word marriage or its legal benifits to any number of arrangments."

    Your free to read there arguments for yourself. That is why I provide the link. It also contains a list of the signatories and their respective employers and feilds of study.

    I dont know what you mean by "marriage condition".

    Its not really germaine that you have not heard of the organization. The point of bringing it up is to demonstrate that accept the arguments for same-sex "marriage" as valid you put marriage as an insitution on untenable grounds.

    Society has always understood the purpose of marriage and socieities interest in promoting and protecting it.

    These intellectuals are simply demonstrating the level of insight & principled thinking that more pedestrian advocates dont demonstrate.

    I think you and other gay advocates are simply thinking of marriage only inasmuch as it benifits you in terms of both legal incidents and social affirmation.

    What your ignoring is that any number of arrangments are also as valid as gay relationships and once you allow for one aception to historical norms you cant make a principled case for denying the others.

  153. reader
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    The beyond marriage website is interesting, but being for marriage between a man and a woman is not against equality, it is for equality between men and women. Through this bond, they interact and can learn to respect one another. Personally, I feel marriage between a man and a woman should be protected, because this legality today allows the greatest equality seen in history. If we legalize, we say it is ok for men and women to be split. The romans legalized it, propagated it, but they did not let women vote or hold property. They discriminated against other races. One man and one woman is the most equal, as they equally share and understand one another. Remember Einstein "insanity is when you repeat the same thing over and over again expecting a different result"

  154. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

    Fitz,
    "Society has always understood the purpose of marriage and socieities interest in promoting and protecting it."

    And, what is that exactly? Is it to raise children? Is it to inherit wealth?

    Once you have defined the above, please tell me how expanding marriage to same sex couples will harm marriage. So far, in every trial, the "traditional marriage" people have failed to come up with any credible reason short of animus against gay people.

  155. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH

    You have not followed "every trial" nor read every court decsion. We have won court cases in New York, Washinton, Maryland, New Jersey..whose courts said marriage rested on a rational basis and was not at all related to a irrational animus..

    You display very little knowledge of the parmaters of this debate..

    You show very litle sophistication or charity in your exchanges.

    When presented with sound arguments and valid demonstrations you either ignore the points or pretend they stand for something they dont.

    I have been around this block before. I'm under no obligation to educate you as to your opponents arguments.

    Its called burden shifting mark...

    Gay men and woman are being used as the latest proletariate in the war against traditional marriage and family.

  156. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    Futz gay men and women are being granted access to marriage for the first time in history. I know bigots like you had trouble accepting when women could vote and "colored people" could go to the same schools as the normal kids. But the notion that gays are trying to wage war on an institution we want to participate in is hilariously funny to me. So, let's see here, i got married in order to destroy marriage!!! Futz you should be a stand up comedian. You old Cathiolic farts crack me up.

  157. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    Futz why didn't you answer my questions? I asked you some serious questions which you ignored. I want to know why you think gays are morally obligated to support marriage between siblings, or humans with animals. It is illogical, yet you brought it up. Explain why gays must support polygamy. Explain to me why I should support two brothers getting married. For the record, I oppose incestuous marriages. I oppose marriage to animals and children. And I support polygamy. Now why am I a bigot because I think a mother and daughter shouldn't marry each other.

  158. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

    Fitz, what a shame. You cannot answer simple questions so you attack me. It demonstrates how shallow and empty your arguments are. There is no war against marriage except in your own paranoid mind. Your side may have won earlier battles but the war will be won by marriage equality. You will go down in history like George Wallace, a sad foot note in bigotry.

  159. OldKingBlog
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:44 am | Permalink

    Dear Markie: When are you lefties ever going to abandon the if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you're-a-bigot argument? That argument was used in the early Sixties when the so-called civil rights movement was heating up. But by the end of that decade it was shopworn and tiresome. Now it belongs in a museam. Can you come up with something new? Just this once?

  160. Frank
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:51 am | Permalink

    You're right about that, Thomas. The future of the pro-marriage movement looks very bright indeed.

  161. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:29 am | Permalink

    MarkOH, how spot on you are. The anti-equality people clearly have no valid nor logical reason to oppose marriage equality, so they bring all sorts of red herrings into the discussion. You would not have believed the victimhood they played into during the Prop 8 campaign. They actually showed pictures of children who attended their lesbian teacher's wedding and made it look as if the kids were being tortured in a tortuew chamber. Then the ad said: "think what this means to your children." It was the same tactics used by Nazis against Jews and the KKK against blacks. Just read the comments by BarbChamberlain an you'll see the paranoia and victimhood I speak of. Can you tell me how heterosexuals are harmed because I got married? Ironically, these people have no logic whatsoever. Barb says she opposes gays raising children. How does denying marriage equality prevent gays from raising children? There is a logical disconnect in their cognitive functions.

  162. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:50 am | Permalink

    FeminineEagle I hate to burst your delusional bubble, but this is 2012 and the criteria for who can marry now includes gay couples in nine states and Washington, DC. Are you aware that you were once excluded from voting for a very, very long time? I can hear a man in 1912 saying: the criteria for voting always was a man ONLY! PERIOD! See how out of touch you are? Over 180,000 Americans can now show you their marriage license which involves a spouse of the same gender. If you conservative types don't change your message, you will continue to lose elections. Just advice for you... Evolve or die out. Your choice.

  163. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:44 am | Permalink

    It looks as if marriage equality will be on the agenda of the veto- proof Democratic state legislature in Illinois in the next session:

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/16360691-418/gay-marriage-emanuels-no-3-priority-for-legislature.html
    Next up for marriage equality: Delaware, Rhode Island (which already recognizes out of state marriages), New Mexico, Hawaii, Oregon and Minnesota. Stay tuned, folks, we intend to make history and keep the momentum going.

  164. Posted November 14, 2012 at 3:35 am | Permalink

    Dan, once I see evidence that the defensive, soft, play-out-the-clock strategy which cost us four deep blue states by razor thin margins has been ditched, and we are prepared to fight gay pseudo-marriage as the existential threat to civilization that it is.........

    I will be happy to fight you every step of the way.

  165. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    Rick, it really is sad that you would stand on the steps of the school along with George Wallace and prevent school equality. Oh, I'm sorry, it's 2012. Now you are just preventing marriage equality. Tell me, what does it get you other than a black spot in history? Please, look to the polls, with almost 70% acceptance for those under 35, marriage equality is a a DONE DEAL. Obama may appoint up to 3 Supreme Court justices and, except for the south, most of the nation is moving into the future as the 4 wins prove.

  166. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    Silly homosexuals like to try and equate their condition with Blacks during the 1960s. Here's the difference: there is no consequence to the difference in color between two people. Contrast the fact that the anatomical differences between a man and a woman have huge consequences, i.e., a man and a woman have the potential to create new human beings, and those human beings need to be cared for.

    Marriage is a recognition of the fact that male-female couples make babies, and the government/society has an interest in promoting lifelong commitments between such potentially procreating couples.

    The question is not what harm do same-sex couples cause to marriage (although there are harms), but what good do same-sex couples provide to society that makes them worthy of the same recognition given to male-female couples? Or more to the point: society does not care whether same-sex couples form long-term partnerships, because there is absolutely no possibility of a child being created. Homosexuals want us to believe that reproductive sex is a negligible biological function; I suppose when doesn't have the inclination to reproduce that it is convenient to think that way.

    The consequences of the creation of children are so important to society (in both good and bad ways), that society recognizes marriages between all male-female couples regardless of their intention to procreate and regardless of whether they actually can procreate. Fertile M-F couples who have no intention of having children nonetheless have the potential to create children despite the couples' intention; nothing is more common than an accidental pregnancy. Infertile married M-F couples promote marriage to single fertile persons and unmarried fertile couples through example: one of the key reasons that people get married is because everyone else does (indeed, this is one of the motivations of the homosexuals, desiring to be the same as everybody else). Moreover, all married male-female couples are assumed to be or have been fertile by virtue of biology; thus, male-female marriage is deemed to be an institution for procreating couples.

    Same-sex couples are inherently non-procreating. Thus, same-sex "marriage" undermines the perception that marriage is the institution that unites moms and dads with their offspring. With marriage no longer perceived as the institution for bearing children, fewer M-F couples will get married. This ultimately leads to more children brought up without both a mom and a dad, and leads to more children being supported by taxpayer dollars.

  167. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    Same-sex "marriage" implies that same-sex couples are the same as M-F couples. A quick peak into any biology text will tell you that that simply is not the case. There is nothing wrong or unconstitutional about treating different things differently when those differences have significant consequences for society.

    Men are not the same as women; same -sex couples are not the same as M-F couples. To treat them as if they are the same is just stupid, frankly.

  168. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    History will look back on this era as the time when aging radicals from the 1960s achieved positions of power and began to lead the country in a bizarre direction. We know that a generation of conservatives is in the wings waiting to re-route the country back to its former status, so enjoy these groovy days for as long as you can before the adults are back in charge.

  169. reader
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    I don't know why people say SSM is futuristic it has happened in the past ages and ages ago, like thousands of years ago and people got past it, now people want to go back? W/e and people have been brainwashed into thinking people are born that way. I get into arguments and refer to people who were one way than chose the other and then this blinded person then says that person has a mental illness or something, I never said they did they just accused them, but other people don't for them b/c they were supposedly born that way. I've seen lots of people who changed course later so for them to say it isn't a choice is ignoring reality.

  170. Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    SSA...
    You think equality supporters believe everyone is "the same"? Your comments are very general and vague. In general, this is a movement for SS couples to receive legal BENEFITS that we are entitled to, that's all. Your motivation (to deny said benefits) is based on the fact that since you "chose" not to live the life as a gay person, every other person with such an orientation should follow suit. BIG gray areas here and everywhere. It's not nearly as simple as you claim.

  171. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    "Men are not the same as women" And noone said they were. However, marriage is a legal relationship and to restrict it to your narrow definition is discriminatory.

    And, pray tell, where is this large group who will take this country BACKWARDS ? Oh, yes, the Koch brothers have pumped HUGE amounts of money into politics and, yet, the Democratic party still had a HUGE win.

  172. reader
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    Also, it is not healthy. It's divisive and groups people up. It actually makes people unequal. It's the extreme left who think that by legalizing it, that it won't spread. They need to get a sense of perspective because it will spread b/c people will think the lifestyle is OK and people in pre-school now have to listen to it like in San Fran. A lot of them can be hateful though, people with the SSM lifestyle like the crooked men to the straight women. I had a relative who went though the entertainment industry, so she saw a lot of them and she said they were nasty b/c they were jealous of straight women and catty. I've experienced their jealousy also and it is not enjoyable especially when they're in customer service. I think they should stop saying they're not having a good life w/o this stuff b/c they are and are nasty to people and no one cares b/c why should they care it's just some random person,l but now they're teaching kids it's the right way to go, it's at birth? They take their hate too far, in my opinion. We don't want your lifestyle, thanks now leave my life alone.

  173. reader
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    Dan actually no the first woman vote was actually October 30, 1756 in colonial America as Lydia Taft. Women voted in regional meetings long before it became legal federally, but w/e. It's not like it happened overnight and it was the Dems who were not for women voting federally b/c they were for the majority always and in their mind that was the majority when it wasn't for the R's at all, those colonial people's descendants were R's later not D's. D's are for the majority, R's are for sensibility and small gov't with a republic of representatives. They wanted restrictions to make it safer to protect against tyranny of the majority or an overly strong leader.

  174. Randy E King
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    Discrimination, as it relates to behavior, is not the crime you make it out to be MarkOH.

    Embrassing the failed polices of ancient Rome is not the progressive step you seem to believe it is.

  175. Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    It is irrelevant whether the Democrats had a huge win.

    What is relevant is whether, faced with a civilization so drastically disoriented as to surrender its own children to indoctrination in a particularly virulent form of child abuse (mothers are not necessarily female, fathers are not necessarily male)- what is relevant is whether these lies are identified and resisted as the civilization-destroying, canary-in-the-coal mine signs they ion fact are.

    The acceptance of homosexual disorientation as "normal" is the consequence of a lack of courage on the part of parents.

    I am looking to support an organization that will fight this darkness, instead of equivocating about it.

    Forget the elections- the elections happened, look out below.

    What is relevant now is the fate of the children who have been betrayed by the electorate.

  176. Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    "civilization so drastically disoriented as to surrender its own children to indoctrination in a particularly virulent form of child abuse".
    REALLY????
    Sorry, Rick. I would call your feelings HATRED.
    Your comment (#134) is HARSH, dude. "The sky is falling!!"

  177. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    Davey and Mark -

    If you want to shack up with a good buddy and contract with one another for inheritance rights and hospital visitation, and whatever else you think you are being denied, go for it. But when you assign the word "marriage," you are saying that the partnership is the same as any other married couple, and that's simply untrue. Two guys can't create a child nor can two gals; as such, society has every right to treat your couple differently and label it differently, because it is different and that difference has huge consequences for society.

  178. Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    #135:

    Yes, REALLY.

    It's not about feelings, however kuch you prefer to substitute them for truth.

    The truth is, it is a monumental form of child abuse to subject innocent children to indoctrination in the homosexualist lie that not all mothers are female, not all fathers are male.

    This is a lie.

    It is a virulent form of child abuse.

    Shame on the profoundly disoriented and weak voters in MN, MD, WA, and MN, who considered how goood it "feels" to have the approval of liars like Davey here.

  179. reader
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    I remember when I was looking after one of the neighbor's kids almost two years ago and she said something odd one day (pouting and moody) that she wished she was a boy and that she thought she was supposedly fat. She said the other kid's were picking on her and called her fat and not being strong enough, boys get more things. She didn't want to play with them anymore. I said they're just jealous that you're pretty and that she seemed a normal weight to me, not fat at all. She continued to pout I knew this could become a problem in a place like CA so I seriously and sternly said girls are great and it's good to be a girl, you don't want to be a boy, you;re pretty, smart and normal. Kids pick on each other all the time at this age b/c they don't really understand what they're doing and lack impulse control. You're just very mature for your age. They're just jealous. After that she never mentioned being fat or wanting to be a boy again and she seems very fine and happy with the way she is as a girl.

  180. Tribune
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    Rick. I have to agree with your post. To emphasize how politically inadequate the voters that decided to go along with this farce, those same supporters will be outraged when thier children are forced to learn about homosexuality and homosexual marriage at an early age WITHOUT parental consent. Or if they disagree with a request from the gay community how they will be be punished for exccersing personal choice. Or how thier tax money will be spent on gay health issue because that community will not excerise personal resposibility. Or how tHey will disturb religious services or vandalize houses of worship. Or physically get attacked or send fecal care packages by gay advocates for expressiong thier own constituional right to an opinion.

    Those supporter will be locked in a jail of thier own making.

  181. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    The system for posting comments here still sucks; there is no apparent rhyme or reason for the disappearance of comments. I type a long comment only to never have it show up. Immediately after, I post a short comment that appears immediately.

    Hey NOM, now that the election is over, why not take some time and get a decent blog system?

  182. B DeCicco
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    I think the smartest thing Peters says here is that he believes history does not move in only one direction. In this, he is correct and timely. Things reverse, circle back, and our era is ripe for such a reversal now, notwithstanding the recent gains for "marriage equality".

  183. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Rick DeLano, you are not speaking so much for support for "traditional marriage" as you are anti-gay. Get over your homophobia and then, perhaps, we can discuss this like adults.

  184. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    Tribune, and why should children NOT learn age appropriate information about homosexuality? What do you fear will happen? That they will all turn gay? You do realize that all the gay people today were raised in a VERY strict heterosexual world and it didn't make them straight. Also, I feel it's important to teach children reality. How else will they learn?

  185. Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    Mark from OH:

    Your telepathic pseudo-diagnoses are well documented here.

    I am immune to the tactic.

    Time to fight the liars who would impose child abuse on innocent children, by forced indoctrination in the homosexualist lie that mothers are not necessarily female, fathers are not necessarily male.

    The homosexuals can go ahead and call that homophobia if they want.

    Since they are liars, let us give them full opportunity to lie in their moment of overconfidence.

  186. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    Rick, child abuse is telling a gay child that they are damaged and unworthy of the right to marry simply because they are gay.

  187. Fitz
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    Overcame (writes)

    "The system for posting comments here still sucks; there is no apparent rhyme or reason for the disappearance of comments. I type a long comment only to never have it show up. Immediately after, I post a short comment that appears immediately. "

    I have the same problem...Make sure you save your comments to word or another document before you paste.

    Sometimes longer comments need to be broken down in several posts...

    Sometimes whole sections (for who knows what reason) simply cant be posted....

    God Bless

  188. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    Not to hijack the thread, too much, Fitz, but "for who knows what reason" are the operative words. In this age of advanced technology, there's no reason for long posts to have to be broken down. And the worst of it is, is it appears to be a random selectivity. If NOM wants its advocates to continue posting, it needs to get up to speed technologically. I'm leaving today, once again, out of frustration.

  189. Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    Dan, you are lyiong again:

    "Rick, child abuse is telling a gay child that they are damaged and unworthy of the right to marry simply because they are gay."

    No one is prevented from marrying because they subjectively report that they are "gay".

    They nay mnarry whether they report themselves "gay" or ""straight", or "questioning", or "lesbian", or "happy", "sad", "liberal" or "conservative.

    Let us recognize the entire Alinskyite scam of the pseudo-marriage for what it is: an attempt to impose subjective, gender-left "values" as a substitute for the objective biological fact that the human species is constituted in two, complementary genders.

    There exists no child whyo is the result of the union of exactly one male and exactly one female.

    Homosexualist liars can lie as long as the weak-minded dupes allow them to get away with it.

    The rest of us need to sharpen up our game.

  190. reader
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    "Also, I feel it's important to teach children reality. " - What you really mean is YOUR warped reality, and not actual reality, which is that men and women and equal and form relationships with one another. The other way is divisive, one-sided, and is not backed up by any historical or scientific benefit. Plus, the places which had SSM in the past were not so pretty. It took the dark ages for people to really fess up to reality, that marriage should be and always be, between a man and a woman, and both persons treated equally under the law.

  191. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    Rick DeLano
    Babble about the "Homosexualist liars" all you want. You are doomed to be seen by your children and grandchildren as a bigot. One who prevented loving individuals from marrying. Call it a liberal brainwashing, or a failure of your anti-equality ideals, just realize this is a war that you will lose. Oh, and I'd see someone about the paranoid ideation if I were you.

  192. reader
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    "Rick DeLano, you are not speaking so much for support for "traditional marriage" as you are anti-gay. " No one is anti-any individual person. In my opinion, there is a person and then there are their actions. The two parts are separate. You can sympathize or not feel anything toward the person, but you can feel anger or non-satisfaction for their actions. Everyone should have the right to a court under the law, minor or major, and no drastic actions taken by unruly individuals. Keep it to the courtroom. Hate crimes, drastic vigilantes will be punished, so keep your stuff to yourself and leave it to the law. No one is against any PERSON, but could be not for their ACTIONS. There's a story where men dragged a woman out in the NT in front of Jesus and said she was caught in adultery, so they should stone her (ugh!). Jesus ignored them and said "let the one who has no sins throw the first stone." NO ONE threw any stones and left and the woman was fine. Yay! Reminds me a lot about our court rooms and mostly peaceful society.

  193. lhf
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    "MarkOH

    Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    "Men are not the same as women" And noone said they were. However, marriage is a legal relationship and to restrict it to your narrow definition is discriminatory. "

    So, does the state have the authority to regulate marriage? If not, then you ought to be arguing for the complete de-regulation of marriage. If that is what you are advocating, then who is going to decide who is a parent for the purpose of custody decisions? Who will decide inheritance issues?

    If yes, then what kind of regulation would be acceptable - since gender is out? Can it limit the number of people who may "marry" each other, or is that too narrow a definition and therefore discriminatory? What about consanguinity or age limitations? Are they too narrow and discriminitory?

  194. Chairm Ohn
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:06 am | Permalink

    The SSMer who routinely accuses others of bigotry needs to state the objective criteria used by that SSMer for determining whether a comment is bigoted.

    Do SSMers agree on such criteria?

  195. Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    Chairm:

    Of course not.

    SSM'ers insist that it is a form of discrimination to point out that every single child has exactly one (male) father and exactly one (female) mother.

    Objective criteria cannot be inserted into a world-view which is predicated upon a demonstrable absurdity.

  196. Dan (the true marriage supporter)
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    Recommended reading:

    http://massresistance.org/docs/gen2/12d/ssm_analysis_111312/index.html

    Note especially points #3 and #4. We've got to change our strategy, folks. It's clear we can't be afraid or ashamed of speaking the truth - the whole truth - if we really expect to win the battles that are coming.

    As to point #6, why aren't we showing images like these (churches vandalized for support of true marriage) in the videos of what's to become of religious freedoms when people support ssm? Really folks, we're doing ourselves a disservice and making this so much more difficult than it needs to be if we'd just stop playing defense and play offense for a change.

  197. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 16, 2012 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the link, Dan (ttms).

    We can't be afraid to call the homosexual agenda and homosexual behavior the threat that it is to society and our children. They are the haters, they are the attackers of our religion, they are the tyrants who intend to force their beliefs on our children, they are anti-mother and father claiming that homosexuals make better parents than a child's real parents.

    I'd love to see some gay-pride parade footage show up in some of these ads; that freakshow is what society has to decide whether it wants to mainstream or not.

  198. The Man
    Posted November 17, 2012 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

    Your Honors of the Court
    The question is not "Can I" or "May I" but rather

    What is Marriage?