NOM BLOG

Vatican Spokesman: "Catholic Church Will Not Give Up its Defense of Marriage"

 

A strong statement from the pope's spokesman Fr. Lombardi, SJ in response to recent international efforts to redefined marriage. Here is what he said about the context in the United States:

In the United States, some of the referendums held on the same day as the presidential elections in various States have, for the first time, delivered an outcome favourable to same-sex marriages. It is therefore clear that in western countries there is a widespread tendency to modify the classic vision of marriage between a man and woman, or rather to try to give it up, erasing its specific and privileged legal recognition compared to other forms of union.

It is nothing new. This we had already realised. Nevertheless, the matter does not cease to amaze: Because we should be asking if this really corresponds to the feelings of the people, and because the logic of it cannot have a far-sighted outlook for the common good. Not only the Catholic Church is saying this; it was pointed out clearly by the Chief Rabbi of France in a well-reasoned statement. It is not, in fact, a question of avoiding unfair discrimination for homosexuals, since this must and can be guaranteed in other ways. It is a question of admitting that a husband and a wife are publicly recognised as such; and that children who come into the world can know, and say they have, a father and a mother.

In short, preserving a vision of the human person and of human relationships where there is a public acknowledgement of monogamous marriage between a man and woman is an achievement of civilisation. If not, why not contemplate also freely chosen polygamy and, of course, not to discriminate, polyandry? It is not expected, then, the Church will give up proposing that society recognise a specific place for marriage between a man and a woman.

168 Comments

  1. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    I'd rather they work on the pedophilia issue than deny two consenting adults the right to make a legal commitment to each other.

  2. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    The Church has never attacked homosexuality and same-sex "marriage"; it has always defined marriage as the union of man and a woman. It does not deny marriage to anyone on the basis of their sexual preference.

    The Church needs to reinstate its policy of not admitting homosexuals to the priesthood. That would be a first good step in stopping any future pedophilia cases (recall that over 80% of the child victims were male, i.e., these were homosexual crimes).

  3. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA, Please stop bearing false witness. Pedophilia is NOT a homosexual crime. Ask ANY expert in the field.

  4. Randy E King
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    @MarkOH,

    Every single priest caught in the Catholic Church abuse scandal is a self identified "Homosexual"; and as everyone knows the only way you can tell if a person is a "homosexual" is for them to self identify as such.

    A lot like being a Mason, or a Shriner, or a Judge, or a member of the Moose lodge...

  5. Fitz
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    When speaking to my leftist friends who are all puffed up in their earthly power to redifine marriage and score a "victory" against their hated advesaries..

    I said simply "The important thing is that the Catholic Church and people of good will and all faiths clearly stand up & go on record as being against this gambit to redifine marriage"

    This made them pause because they realized that this was a longer game then they really understand.

    Marriage as multiple Supreme Court precedent have said..

    "Is one of the basic rights of man, fundemental to our very existance & survival"

    This is in fact the case. When written no one was unsure of what this meant or how important marriage is for a healthy and growing society.

    http://www.demographicwinter.com/index.html

  6. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Mark -

    Didn't we discuss on another thread about the bias and socio/politico agenda of the so-called "experts" in the social sciences?

    What do we believe when the homosexually biased "scientists" tell us that sexual encounters between adult males and minor males is not homosexuality? What do we believe when a homosexual-infiltrated APA removes homosexuality from its list of mental disorders?

    Please spare me the references to "experts." 80% of the sexual encounters in the Church scandal involved males participating in sodomy with other males, i.e., the encounters were homosexual.

  7. OldKingBlog
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    Two of the statements by MarkOH are such whoppers they deserve a response. First RE: "Pedophilia is NOT a homosexual crime." Absolutely false. Two males usually engage in those types of acts, clearly making them homo, and since one of the males is underage or did not consent, it is clearly a crime. Second, RE: "Ask ANY expert in the field:" when a left appeals to "experts" (talk about a meaningless buzzword) said left is really appealing to his/her ideological buddies to provide pseudo-scientific blather by way of support. We can conclude their "experts" attended the same school of "experts" who designed the Titanic and the Hindenburg.

  8. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    marriage is "fundamental to our very existence & survival"

    Why? Because male-female couples procreate. No one could say the same thing about same-sex couples; our existence and survival is not dependent on homosexual couples.

  9. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    really sad to see people bury their heads in the sand.
    "What do we believe when the homosexually biased "scientists" tell us that sexual encounters between adult males and minor males is not homosexuality?"
    Uh, because it's facts? Supported by years of research, science isn't based on belief but on reality.
    But I am sure you still believe the sun revolves round the earth because who believes solar biased scientists?

  10. Fitz
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH (writes)

    OvercameSSA, Please stop bearing false witness. Pedophilia is NOT a homosexual crime. Ask ANY expert in the field.

    Pedophilia is defined as pre-pubescent children.. No one is talking about this.

    They are talking about post-pubescent young men.
    Overcame like most people is not familiar with the medical term of .

    ephebophile
    Psychiatry - a person who is sexually attracted to mid-to-late adolescents, generally aged 15 to 19; not a pedophile. Origin: From Greek, "Ephebe" (early manhood).

    Overcame is correct that we need to "recall that over 80% of the child victims were male" (This is correct and can be confirmed by the independent John Jay report)

    Since Priests are all male and 80% of the victims were post-pubescent males it is BY DEFINTION a homosexual (same-sex) crime.

    Perhaps homosexuals need to look at their own communities and own values when it comes to this phenomena.

  11. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    OldKingBlog, instead of screaming that you don't believe what I am saying, how about showing some PROOF to disprove me? Why ..... because there isn't any. My postings are true whether you want to believe them or not.

  12. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    Mark says, "Supported by years of research, science isn't based on belief but on reality."

    Don't you see that the argument is one of semantics in which the "scientific" body doing the research is the one defining the terms?

    If a guy goes after another guy's anatomy, it's homosexual. You can try and make the distinction between the perpetrator's motivation based on the age of the victim, but the point remains that the young people that these men went after, they went after because they had penises.

  13. Fitz
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    Overcame

    Nice comment above...this obvious slight of hand is somehow enough for their insecure brains to label a clearly homosexual crime as something other than what it clearly is.

    When a man engages in sexual acts with a female minor - you wont catch heterosexuals denying that this was a crime perputrated by straight men.

    It kind of reveals their insecurities and the depth of their denial and defensivness.

    FYI - In the future dont forget to make the distinction between Pedophilia (a very rare crime of PRE-punescent children) with the much more common
    ephebophile
    Psychiatry - a person who is sexually attracted to mid-to-late adolescents, generally aged 15 to 19; not a pedophile. Origin: From Greek, "Ephebe" (early manhood).

  14. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    Futz stop lying. Over 70 percent of victims of child molestation are girls and 98 percent of men who molest boys are heterosexuals who express disgust at adult homosexuality. Google Jerry Sandusky

  15. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    Futz heterosexuals are in denial about child molestation. It is a crime of control not motivated by sexual attractions. The majority of non-priest molesters are sports coaches. This is another instance of the heterosexual community blaming gays for their own shortcomings. Just as you blame gays because you don't raise your own biological children.

  16. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    Futz the ratio of girl to boy child molestation is 11 to 1. In other words one boy to every eleven girls.

  17. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    Futz heterosexual males seem to be the ones interested in sex with teens. In Yemen they legalized marriage to girls as young as nine. Disgusting!!

  18. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    Futz instead of heterosexuals whining because gays adopt kids, why don't you raise your own kids?

  19. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    Futz (sorry I'm using an IPhone and it automatically respelled your name): do you know any children that gays have up for adoption because they didn't want them? I don't. This means that 100 percent of abandoned kids were abandoned by their biological heterosexual parent. And gay couples often rescue these abandoned kids. Your side of this argument demonized gays despite the fact we are obviously more responsible than straights. We also don't.have teen pregnancy, abuse of women and abortion, all major social issues...

  20. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    Dan - your comment at #18 is precisely why we have marriage: sex between men and women produces children and when they do, both parents should take responsibility for raising them. Abandonment, teen pregnancy, abortion, are all a function of irresponsible procreation. That's why we encourage men and women to commit to one another before having sex. It's also why we don't care whether same-sex couples commit to one another.

  21. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    Futz funny how I've never met a gay man who is attracted by teen boys. In fact, we like masculinity not femininity. I don't know about you, but I have yet to see a teen boy with a hairy chest, developed muscles and facial hair. In case you haven't noticed, these are the physical traits that gay men desire. Any logical person would conclude that teen boys are not sexually attractive to gay males. You are projecting heterosexual lust for teens onto gay men. I guarantee you gay men are disgusted by boys of any age. And most adult males who lust after young boys seek feminine traits. Psychology confirms this. By the way, most male on male adult rape is anti-gay violence perpetrated by men who identify as straight. It most often occurs in prison. I'm the myth buster!

  22. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA I will point out that gays have biological children. Oops! My ability to procreate has no relationship to my sexual orientation. 40 percent of gay couples in California have children. Overcame you must live in Utah or something. Get out more, dude!

  23. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA you seem confused (understatement of the month). How does the ability to procreate have any relevance to marriage? I will point out that hundreds of thousands of straight and gay couples raise children where only one parent is biologically related to the child. So, you're telling us that blended families aren't valid? Tell that to John Roberts when gay marriage hits SCOTUS. He has two adopted kids, who are not biologically related to either parent. Good luck on that point!

  24. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA one problem is still not resolved. Why don't heterosexuals take responsibility for raising your own kids, and why do you blame gays who rescue those kids? This question has not been answered sufficiently by your side of this argument.

  25. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA your goal seems to be to get heterosexuals to be more responsible parents. I concur. Now, please explain who denying loving gay couples the right to marry has any impact on that front. It is illogical that denying gays can prevent us from having children. In fact, gays can currently adopt children in all 50 states and marriage is not a requirement. Your side is grasping at straws to do everything possible to deny gays our equality and you have yet to come up with a rational, logical and cogent reason to deny us the right to marry. Playing the blame gay is no longer relevant nor compelling. Tell me why my husband and I shouldn't be married. Go ahead.....tell us.

  26. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, I meant blame game, not blame gay (Fruedian slip and IPhone auto spell are to blame)!

  27. Posted November 14, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    Don't worry Dan...This organization (and the folks that share its "values") will be, in just a few short years, about as relevant as the Klu Klux Klan is today.

  28. Posted November 14, 2012 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    Gay couples cannot marry each other since marriage is the union of the two complementary genders of our species- always has been, always will be. It is the nature of marriage to unite the genders.

    It is the nature of fathers to be male.

    There are no female fathers.

    It is the nature of mothers to be female.

    There are no male mothers.

    If your mind has become oateal mush to the extent that you do not grasp this simple truth, then rejoice!

    Today is your today.

    This is your moment.

    You can "feel good" about yourself.

    All the Alinskyites will tell you so.

    Of course, back in the reality-based world, you have contemptibly acquiesced in delivering a generation of defenseless children into the hands of radical homosexualist indoctrination.

    Shame on you.

  29. Posted November 14, 2012 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    Rick...Your denial of reality is pitiful. I get your religious beliefs, but your statements above ( "back in the reality-based world, you have contemptibly acquiesced in delivering a generation of defenseless children into the hands of radical homosexualist indoctrination.") is fantasy.

  30. Curious George
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    Dan,

    The question isn't why you can't marry your husband. You can - it just takes a trip to New York.

    The question is "why can 14 year cousins get married in AL and still be married in NB or TX, while I can get married in NY and be 'unmarried' when I move back home?"

  31. Curious George
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    ,,,or (if it is about protecting the children):
    "Why can a dead beat male, create a family, abandon it, ignore the court ordered child support demand and freely apply for a marriage license to start the whole process over again?"
    "Why can a child molester freely apply for a marriage license so he can pro-create his next victim?"

  32. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    Dan -

    Marriage exists to unite a man and woman with the offspring that they create together; yes, it is about encouraging responsible procreation, assuring that the people who create children take responsibility for their upbringing, but also to assure that children have the best opportunity to be raised by the mom and dad who created them.

    Homosexual couples do not create children; there is always a third party involved.

    Homosexuals who create children with a third party thwart the objectives of marriage by 1) relieving the responsibility for raising the child from one of the child's real (biological) parents; and 2) Depriving the child of one of its parents. Every child raised by a homosexual couple - every one of those children in California that you mention - has been denied at least one of his/her parents. This is a tragedy.

    Marriage laws anticipate procreation; they are designed to encourage the union of a procreating couple so that orphans are not created. Adoption laws, in contrast, control the responsibility of caretakers of children who have already been deprived of one or more of their real parents. What John Roberts did was help resolve the tragedy of children who were deprived of their real parents. That's a fine thing to do, especially because the children were given the next best thing to their real parents: a man and a woman to raise them. The child will thus have role models to permit the children to be well-adjusted in a heterosexual world.

    Did the Roberts' know they were infertile prior to getting married? No. They got married with the intention to conceive children (they are Catholic, after all); they were ostensibly serving the goal of marriage, they were just one of the exceptions who were unable to conceive. Homosexual couples can never conceive, so allowing them to "marry" can never achieve the goal of marriage.

    Heterosexuals who do not take care of their kids are the product of a liberal society that views sex primarily as recreational activity and not as reproductive behavior. I see it as a product of the feminist movement that, under the guise of creating equality with men, made it socially unacceptable for women to reject sexual advances by men prior to marriage; moreover, it made it socially acceptable for women to intentionally have children and raise them without a father, with the government's support.

    I don't blame gays for rescuing those kids; I blame liberalism for creating an environment where unwanted kids are created in the first place. Giving these already psychologically damaged kids to same-sex couples only serves to further screw them up psychologically, particularly with respect to forming relationships with the opposite sex.

    I believe that we should strive for the ideal that all children created are wanted and cared for by the man and woman who created them. Intentional single motherhood, no-fault divorce, same-sex "marriage" all undermine this ideal.

  33. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    Dan (part 1)-

    Marriage exists to unite a man and woman with the offspring that they create together; yes, it is about encouraging responsible procreation, assuring that the people who create children take responsibility for their upbringing, but also to assure that children have the best opportunity to be raised by the mom and dad who created them.

    Homosexual couples do not create children; there is always a third party involved.

    Homosexuals who create children with a third party thwart the objectives of marriage by 1) relieving the responsibility for raising the child from one of the child's real (biological) parents; and 2) Depriving the child of one of its parents. Every child raised by a homosexual couple - every one of those children in California that you mention - has been denied at least one of his/her parents. This is a tragedy.

  34. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    Dan -

    Marriage exists to unite a man and woman with the offspring that they create together; yes, it is about encouraging responsible procreation, assuring that the people who create children take responsibility for their upbringing, but also to assure that children have the best opportunity to be raised by the mom and dad who created them.

    Homosexual couples do not create children; there is always a third party involved.

  35. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    Dan - My posts aren't coming through, no matter how short. Stay tuned, they;ll probably show up as multiple posts.

  36. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    Dan -

    Homosexuals who create children with a third party thwart the objectives of marriage by 1) relieving the responsibility for raising the child from one of the child's real (biological) parents; and 2) Depriving the child of one of its parents. Every child raised by a homosexual couple - every one of those children in California that you mention - has been denied at least one of his/her parents. This is a tragedy.

  37. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    Dan -
    Marriage laws anticipate procreation; they are designed to encourage the union of a procreating couple so that orphans are not created. Adoption laws, in contrast, control the responsibility of caretakers of children who have already been deprived of one or more of their real parents. What John Roberts did was help resolve the tragedy of children who were deprived of their real parents. That's a fine thing to do, especially because the children were given the next best thing to their real parents: a man and a woman to raise them. The child will thus have role models to permit the children to be well-adjusted in a heterosexual world.

  38. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    Dan -

    Did the Roberts' know they were infertile prior to getting married? No. They got married with the intention to conceive children (they are Catholic, after all); they were ostensibly serving the goal of marriage, they were just one of the exceptions who were unable to conceive. Homosexual couples can never conceive, so allowing them to "marry" can never achieve the goal of marriage

  39. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    Dan -
    Heterosexuals who do not take care of their kids are the product of a liberal society that views sex primarily as recreational activity and not as reproductive behavior. I see it as a product of the feminist movement that, under the guise of creating equality with men, made it socially unacceptable for women to reject sexual advances by men prior to marriage; moreover, it made it socially acceptable for women to intentionally have children and raise them without a father, with the government's support.

  40. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    Dan (last one) -

    I don't blame gays for rescuing those kids; I blame liberalism for creating an environment where unwanted kids are created in the first place. Giving these already psychologically damaged kids to same-sex couples only serves to further screw them up psychologically, particularly with respect to forming relationships with the opposite sex.

  41. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Dan -

    Whoops, this one got lost:

    Marriage exists to unite a man and woman with the offspring that they create together; yes, it is about encouraging responsible procreation, assuring that the people who create children take responsibility for their upbringing, but also to assure that children have the best opportunity to be raised by the mom and dad who created them.

    Homosexual couples do not create children; there is always a third party involved.

  42. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    This blog sucks. Tried posting small posts; several made it, some wouldn't show at all.

    Homosexual couples do not create children; there is always a third party involved.

  43. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    Dan -
    Marriage exists to unite a man and woman with the offspring that they create together; yes, it is about encouraging responsible procreation, assuring that the people who create children take responsibility for their upbringing, but also to assure that children have the best opportunity to be raised by the mom and dad who created them.

  44. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA well where do I begin with all of your false statements and lies? Social science studies have actually confirmed that children of gays and lesbians do better than children of straights. There is less mental illness, they are better socially adjusted, less bigoted towards minorities. Less likely to be abused and not anymore prone to being gay than children of straights. Sexual orientation is formed biologically. Environment plays little or no role in it. Sorry to burst your anti-gay, self hating bubble. I have science on my side. Your religious opinion is meaningless to me.

  45. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA my understanding is that John Roberts chose to have adopted, rather than biological children due to the age of his wife. They didn't want to risk it. I believe they were over 40 when they married. So, according to you, their marriage is invalid?

  46. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Rick: reality check No 1: I'm already married to my same sex spouse. You can tell and scream and act like a child, but it won't divorce us.
    No 2 social science research proves that gender is irrelevant to parenting. However, sexual orientation is relevant, because gays are superior to straights at raising kids. There is a consensus on this. It is an insult to the thousands of single parents to say they are less effective at raising a child of the opposite gender.

  47. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    CuriousGeorge thanks! I've been legally married in my state despite some radical bigoted attempt to strip me of that right (which is being resolved in the courts as we speak). Don't forget the 36,000 married gays in CA. You're speaking to one of them!

  48. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Dan -

    Ah, ah, ah, there you go again quoting your biased homosexual researchers' studies. The Regenerus study is the one you need to look at; it's the only unbiased study out there.

    Your so-called "science" is nothing but wishful thinking wrapped in contrived study groups, selective endpoints, and creative statistics. Google "behavioral research bias" and get educated about the inadequacies the gurus that you rely on to rationalize your lifestyle.

  49. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    Google: Lesbian parents better at raising kids, Sunday Times, UK
    By the way, what does any of this have to do with marriage? I faiil to see any connection. I didn't get married in order to procreate.

  50. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA the Regenerus study was out out by a fundamentalist Christian who only compared the outcome of children in single parent homes. It has been dismissed already. Try to keep up.

  51. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA Regenerus debunked: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/sociology-dept-chair-calls-for-retraction-of-anti-gay-regnerus-study/bigotry-watch/2012/10/11/50936

  52. Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    @Dan #40:

    D: "Rick: reality check No 1: I'm already married to my same sex spouse."

    >> No, Dan. Here is the reality check: you are pseudo-married to your same sex pseudo-spouse. In the reality-based world, marriage is a word which describes what it has always described, from the very beginning of the history of the human species.

    The long term, stable union of a man and a woman.

    It is possible, of course, given a certain degree of civilizational disorientation, to convince a majority of oatmeal-minded dupes that a horse is a duck, or a homosexual pairing is a marriage.

    But reality, alas, has a way of rendering judgements on such absurdities that are not subject to review by the Federal judiciary.

    D: "You can tell and scream and act like a child, but it won't divorce us."

    >> True. Not even the childish pretensions of a subsequent repeal of pseudo-marriage "laws" will divorce you. This is because you are not married. You might perhaps be able to get pseudo-divorced......

    D: "No 2 social science research proves that gender is irrelevant to parenting."

    >> It would indeed require a very great deal of sophistication to advance with a straight face the whopping, risible bit of balderdash that "gender is irrelevant to parenting". It would require a great deal of money, spent in the halls of quackademia, to imbibe the absurdity that children are generated without regard to the gender of the parents.

    Perhaps, once sanity returns, the victims of such Alinskyite quackademic mental illness can petition the Federal judiciary for forgiveness of the student loans which were expended upon achieving such enlightened and progressive sophistication.

    Dan: "However, sexual orientation is relevant, because gays are superior to straights at raising kids."

    >> Says who? Oh, yes. Says Dan, the lying liar who is prepared to raise kids in the virulent form of child abuse, that there are male mothers and female fathers.

    You are lying again, Dan.

    D: "There is a consensus on this."

    >> I would not be surprised in the slightest to hear it. The consensus exists, perhaps, in your local chapter of Same Sex Rules for Radicals.

    So what?

    Only an Alinskyite could be so mush-minded as to confuse "consensus", in any way at all, with "fact".

    Dan: "It is an insult to the thousands of single parents to say they are less effective at raising a child of the opposite gender."

    >> It is an insult- no, worse, it is a form of child abuse, to say that every child in the world has exactly one (male) father, and exactly one (female) father.

    Stop supporting child abuse, Dan.

    The long-term consequences are infinitely worse than your consensus is able to imagine.

  53. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA Regenerus busted for peddling off religious claptrap as real science:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/us/mark-regnerus-and-the-role-of-faith-in-academics.html

  54. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    Dan -

    I was under the impression that the Roberts' underwent fertility treatments to no avail. Regardless, their marriage is valid because they are a man and a woman, ostensibly capable of procreation. If they happened to get pregnant, then their child would have had both of its parents; the marriage safety net for children at work. Since homosexual couples can't procreate, there is no need for this safety net for children for them.

    If they knew they were incurably infertile, their marriage is still valid because their marriage encourages, through example, the union of countless other fertile couples who are contemplating having sex. Married men and women, regardless of whether they actually have kids or not, encourage marriage of fertile men and women who might have children. So-called "marriage" of homosexual couples only encourages other homosexuals to get "married," and discourages male-female potentially procreating couples from marrying, since "married" homosexual couples represent marriage without procreation.

  55. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    Rick: you support child abuse if you think denying children of gays and lesbians equal access to governmental protections is the right thing to do. I happen to think heterosexuals should take care of your own fricking kids, but you don't. Child abusers!

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

    OvercameSSA Justice Scalia agrees with me on this one. He said, "Procreation has never been a requisite for marriage in any state at any time." Good luck in court suckers!

  57. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

    Rick, I didn't even waste my time reading your incoherent rant. Just a hint: shorter posts actually carry more weight if you get to the point. By the way, I'm still married and not a damn thing your sky fairy can do about it. Move on.... Where were you ten years ago, when this discussion began?

  58. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA in case you missed it the first time, Regenerus has been soundly debunked: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/us/mark-regnerus-and-the-role-of-faith-in-academics.html

  59. Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    Dan:

    Just a quick note.

    You are not the audience here.

    You are the straight man.

    No need to stretch, Dan.

    You provide wonderful grist for the mill, and we wouldn't dream of expecting more from you at this stage.

    Carry on.....

  60. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    Regenerus has not been debunked. Did you read the article(s) citedposted? Accusations and questions, but there has been no retraction of the study by the editors who originally published the study.

    What's remarkable about the study is that it survives in a predominately liberally biased field.

  61. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    Dan - "Procreation has never been a requisite for marriage in any state at any time"

    Still isn't; you miss the point. The prerequisite for marriage never had been procreation. The prerequisite has ALWAYS been two people consisting of the only combination of sexes that can procreate.

    Ask any child what it takes to make a baby, and that's your answer as to why marriage is for M-F couples. It takes a man and a woman to create children; marriage exists solely because of that fact..

  62. reader
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    I'm not sure why people want to change marriage. All of you proponents claim "look at animals they do it" well animals don't have marriages. That's a fact, animals do not have marriages, there is no concept. Second, like it or not, marriage between one man and one woman has been significant since around 400 A.D. Democratic, equality-founding nations were built with this notion still intact. I find it interesting that people want to change society just because they feel like it and not on any logic or fact. I suppose they don't care about the improvements in the last 1500 or so years and want to go backward, with little societal movement and up heave it all? I think it lasted for a reason b/c it created equality between men and women and allowed them to share ideas and understanding.

  63. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA "Don't you see that the argument is one of semantics in which the "scientific" body doing the research is the one defining the terms? " Not exactly. But then, from someone who can't define marriage, I'm not surprised. Fine. Live in ignorance. Funny how you can talk poorly about science while typing on a PC. I guess the PC came about just from prayer. Or magic.

  64. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA "I blame liberalism for creating an environment where unwanted kids are created in the first place. " Thank GOODNESS there were never unwanted children in the past. I mean, if there were, we would have heard of them before by some source or other, like Charles Dickens. Yup, I guess child abandonment is a new phenomena.

  65. Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    Ah, yes, comes now our distinguished "doctor", Mark from OH, that noted practitioner of established scientific practices such as telepathic diagnoses via the internet of stranger whom he has never bothered to meet, much less examine.

    To his credentials let us now add a truly world-class example of straw man argumentation.

    It can be enjoyed in all its hilarious glory above, in post #56.

  66. Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    Well now NOM has decided to gentle everything on down again, so I'll retire to greener pastures and leave the soft sell to them.

  67. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA: "The prerequisite has ALWAYS been two people consisting of the only combination of sexes that can procreate." Yup, which is why in the Bible, one man had multiple wives because they could then produce the most kids. Of course, doesn't explain HOW a same sex couple would harm this historical pairing.

  68. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA yes I read the Regenrus article, which pointed out that his questions were biased against gays. He only focused on people in failed relationships, not even looking at stable gay relationships, which are the norm.

  69. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA I find it pathetic that you base your screen name identity on the fact you are in denial about your sexual orientation. Therapy anyone? This is your identity! Sad....
    OK. More on the Regenerus pseudo-study:
    http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/200-researchers-respond-to-regnerus-paper/

  70. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA when you are interested in actually discussing the issue at hand, which is marriage, I'll be happy to discuss it. Until then, I'm getting bored of discussing procreation and parenting. Those are unrelated issues, which frankly don't interest me all that much. Let me know when you want to discuss marriage, OK?

  71. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    The moderator must be on vacation. The trolls are swarming like zombies on fresh meat.

    b r a i n s . . .

  72. Posted November 14, 2012 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    Not only that, Barb, but the marriage defenders find themselves censored at the same time.

    Big problems here.

  73. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Rick, several of my comments have also vanished. Maybe NOM headquarters has been overrun with the trolls?

  74. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    But it's illustrative of how the opposition operates: swarming, gnashing of teeth, mind-numbing comments, etc.

  75. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    Barb "Maybe NOM headquarters has been overrun with the trolls?"

    Or maybe God only wants the truth to shine through.

  76. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

    Poor Barb, always the victim. First she complains because gays adopt the children abandoned by failed heterosexual parents. Then she whines because gays have been shown to be superior parents to straights. Then she moans because we point out that marriage actually has little to do with children in the first place, as the procreation argument was never used in the Prop 8 campaign. Always the victim, right Barb? Did you ever think that gays have historically been the victims of discrimination and now this is changing in our favor? Barb will go to her grave as a victim. First it was the "colored people", now it's "the gays."

  77. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    Rick, maybe NOM has come to it's senses now that the "will of the people" has spoken and they want marriage equality? After all, the majority always gets it right, correct?

  78. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    Here's an excellent piece about why the Catholic Church has always been on the wrong side regarding civil rights issues, from slavery to the rights of women to marriage equality. They always get it wrong:
    http://m.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/on-gay-marriage-voters-got-it-right-even-if-the-church-gets-it-wrong/2012/11/14/d2eaa620-2e91-11e2-b631-2aad9d9c73ac_story.html

  79. AM
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    NOM moderator
    I second both Rick and Barb.
    For goodness sake, *please* ban Dan the harridan.

  80. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    But AM, I thought you were for America and free speech. Now you want to limit free speech?

  81. AM
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    " I thought you were for America and free speech."
    ???
    Sure. Count me in. I'm for America and for free speech.

    However, there are many pro ssm forums for people to vent.
    Which is what he was doing. Relentless harping and nagging and nothing of substance.

  82. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

    No, AM, he is merely presenting another side to the argument.

    Chairm, now he relentlessly harps on and on with nothing of substance

  83. AM
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

    Besides, Mark, I'm just a commenter here. Like Rick and Barb and you.
    So, NOM is free to do with this blog as they please, regardless of what any of us say.

  84. Ash
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

    Thank you marriage supporters. Dan has engaged in numerous personal attacks, and his posts are hopelessly foolish and ignorant.

    Maybe the NOM website was hacked again. I just hope the marriage supporters don't get too frustrated and stop attempting to offer their insightful comments. :)

  85. MarkOH
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 12:09 am | Permalink

    " I just hope the marriage supporters don't get too frustrated and stop attempting to offer their insightful comments"

    Well, it would be nice to see one.

  86. OldKingBlog
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 12:10 am | Permalink

    A comment RE "Google: Lesbian parents better at raising kids, Sunday Times, UK:" Folks, don't be fooled. This may be summed up in two words; "non" and "sense." An article appearing in a leftist media outlet, written by a leftist writer to advance the current "hot" item on the left's agenda is (I'll be polite here) something less than objective. Ignore it. I already have. In the meantime, Brian, please, please, please ban Dan and MarkOH from this site. They are spammers pure and simple. DO IT, NOW!

  87. Ash
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 12:19 am | Permalink

    You can see anything when you take the time to read the threads you comment on, MarkOH.

  88. Ash
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 12:43 am | Permalink

    “Lesbian parents better at raising kids”

    I doubt if we will see too many headlines like that anymore. Some in the media would make those claims based on the limited same-sex parenting studies of the past. But after they've demanded so much in terms of methodology from Mark Regnerus, they can never cite the previous studies to say that lesbian parenting is superior, lest they prove themselves to be the biased hypocrites they are.

    When the investigators of the NLLFS released positive results showing this or that about lesbian parenting, the media was all over it. But after Regnerus's study was published and covered, only a few outlets (one of them a pro-gay blog) covered the release of the latest NLLFS findings. Why? Because they realized that they couldn't claim Regnerus's study was severely flawed and funded by conservatives, while citing a study that is severely flawed and funded by the Gill Foundation and a gay and lesbian medical group.

    If you want to Google something, Google: “longitudinal lesbian family study male role model.” You will see that only Think Progess and a few others are covering the latest results of the NLLFS, which purport to show that children of lesbians do fine with or without male role models. On the day that the results were released, I also did a search and found that no one covered the release of the findings. Part of the lack of coverage is due to a flagrant methodological shortcoming (the researchers compared the children in the lesbian sample with each other), but also because of the fact that the media just spent days excoriating Regnerus on his study’s methodology.

  89. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 12:43 am | Permalink

    AM sorry, no personal attacks from me, rather pointing out the hypocrisy of people like Barb who claim to be victims when gay people adopt the children of failed heterosexual parents. I also point out the lies and virtriol that infects the anti-gay side. It is painfully obvious you have nothing of substance with which to oppose marriage equality, so you grasp at all sorts of straws to justify your blatant bigotry. Do not be fooled, opposing gay marriage is purely a stance of bigotry and moral disapproval of homosexuality. AM, truth hurts.

  90. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 12:57 am | Permalink

    Ash, I would like to point out that the issue of gay parenting is completely irrelevant to the debate over marriage equality. In fact, gays can be parents in all 50 states. Allowing gays to marry will have zero impact on whether they raise children or not. So, chalk this attack on gay parenting up as yet another anti-gay red herring. So typical and predictable. Now, here is an article from the unbiased Chronicle of Higher Education on the biased and flawed Regenerus religious study of gay parenting:
    http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/controversial-gay-parenting-study-is-severely-flawed-journals-audit-finds/30255

  91. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:00 am | Permalink

    AM I have to admit I'm most flattered and incredibly gratified that I've gotten under your skin. Sometimes it's hard for people like you to face your own hatred and bigotry. Consider me a mirror held up for everyone to see your real soul, or lack thereof.

  92. Ash
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:22 am | Permalink

    Dan, I've read the criticisms of Regnerus's study. Trust me, you can't show me anything new. Darren Sherkat criticized Regnerus's study long before he was asked to conduct an audit. He vented his frustrations about the study and the media ran with it to say that his audit discovered that the study is "bull----", when in fact, he admitted that the peer-review process was solid.

    I actually agree with you. The abilities of same-sex parents is quite irrelevant to the issue of marriage. No matter how great same-sex parents are, the state has a unique interest in children being raised by their mother and father. Same-sex couples can raise children all they want, and we are no more obligated to redefine marriage for them than we are to widen the boundaries of marriage for the vast array of households raising children that are ineligible for marriage: sisters, same-sex female couples raising children with their friend/donor, etc.

  93. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:23 am | Permalink

    Article for Ash:
    Why gay parents may be the best parents:
    http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html
    Just remember that it is my view that the issue of gay parenting is a separate one from marriage, and gays will continue to raise kids with or without marriage. Legalizing or banning SSM has zero impact on this.

  94. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:26 am | Permalink

    Ash: most states actively encourage gays to become parents. If marriage is about raising children, banning SSM goes contrary to the state's interest, as was wisely pointed out by the 9th Circuit when they invalidated Prop 8. Simple logic.

  95. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:30 am | Permalink

    Ash, if Regenrus was interested in studying gay parenting why did he only study those people who were not in stable relationships? An obvious flaw from step one. The majority of gay parents are in committed, stable relationships. Regenerus also referred to bisexuals as gay! Ridiculous! So even if a woman was in a relationship with an abusive man, she was counted as lesbian if she had ever been with a woman.

  96. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:33 am | Permalink

    Ash, allowing women to vote didn't redefine voting, nor does allowing gays to marry redefine marriage. Yet another rightwing, anti-gay tired talking point...

  97. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:37 am | Permalink

    Ash, yes allowing gays to marry expands the meaning of marriage. I will point out that marriage has been in constant flux since it's origins as a Pagan group ritual. The concept of one man/one woman is fairly new on the scene. The following forms of marriage are currently recognized worldwide: marriage between men and girls as young as nine is legal in Yemen; polygamy is legal in over 40 countries and same sex marriage is legal in countries on every continent but Australia.

  98. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:49 am | Permalink

    "marriage has been in constant flux since it's origins as a Pagan group ritual"

    Nah, it preceded the Pagans. It goes back to prehistoric man in which it was learned that children had a better chance at survival with both a mother and a father.

    But as far as ancient origins go, in all of its iterations, marriage has always involved the joining of a man and a woman. Indeed, even homosexuality has only very limited instances of acceptance in the history of civilization, legalized less than 10 years ago in the greatest country that has ever existed.

    Same-sex "marriage" fails because it does not perpetuate the species; it is a dead end. Nature doesn't like dead ends.

  99. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:34 am | Permalink

    OvercameSSA a good case could be made for viewing heterosexuality as the greatest threat to our current existence. If heterosexuals don't slow down your breeding practices humanity as we know it could be doomed in two hundred years. Can anyone say seven billion? Stephen Hawking is our greatest living scientist and he makes the claim that humanity may end in 200 years.
    Gays have the potential to save the planet. The last thing we need to do is to encourage more procreation. The governments of Mexico and the Philiphines are teaching birth control to curb population growth.
    You need a serious reality check. Homosexuality has been a natural human sexual orientation for millions of years.
    OvercameSSA when will you give up your pseudo-marriage and find someone you can truly love? I'm sure your female "roommate" would like a real husband as well. This group can help you: Beyondexgay. com

  100. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:38 am | Permalink

    OvercameSSA I have a real marriage. This is one in which the couple truly loves one another. Your "marriage" is based on a lie. Does your "wife" know you are gay? I pity people who feel the need to deny who they are in order to fall in line with church doctrine. I have made it my life's mission to bring this to an end. By the way, are you Mormon? I strongly suspect you are, because the Catholic Church doesn't support gays marrying straights. They view it as inhumane, and encourage gays to be celibate.

  101. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:41 am | Permalink

    I oppose mixed marriages of gays to straights. It is unnatural and immoral. Gays should marry gays and straights straights, period!

  102. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:48 am | Permalink

    Ash, this is in response to a post of yours from a different thread: if your theory is that children do best with their biological parents, please explain how you can support it in light of the fact that over 70 percent of abused children were harmed by a biological parent. And, why did the Federal court conclude in its fact finding that biological relationship to a parent is not a predictor of outcome for children. It seems to me a specious claim that biological relationship implies quality of parenting. My own cousin gave away four of his own biological children for adoption because his stripper wife couldn't be bothered with kids. Is a child better off with a crackhead mom just because she pooped out that kid? Hell no!

  103. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:50 am | Permalink

    In the words of Judge Judy: Any moron can make a baby. It takes no skill to make a child. It takes skill to be a good parent....why do you morons make babies if you can't be a parent? End quote...

  104. Fedele Razio
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 4:08 am | Permalink

    Dan, probably you don't understand statistics: most of the abused kids are abused by biological relatives because most kids live with their biological relatives.

    What actually is important, however, is the probability of being abused, and the fact is: kids living with their biologica relatives have far less probability of being abused than kids living with non biological relatives.

    Stated the other way, kids living with non biological relatives have far more probability of being abused than kids living with their biological relatives.

    Real marriage is and always will be the best place for the kids to grow in.

    In my opinion and on the basis of independent research purposely deniyng the kids the right to live with their father and their mother is child abuse.

  105. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:06 am | Permalink

    Fedele,
    Whatever point you were attempting to make is lost on me. Did you actually read what I wrote about the bad biological parents in my own family? How can anyone in their right mind think that a child is better off with a bad biological parent who doesn't want them? Are you insane? Do you not know about fathers who molest their own daughters? Do you not know about kids who grow up in an environment where their alcoholic father beats their mother and themselves on a nightly basis? Are you completely clueless about what it's like to grow up this way? Really, your comment is without doubt the most disturbing comment I have read on this thread. I'm speechless with horro that think a child is better off abused as long as they live with a biological parent. Just speechless.. Speechless.....
    And, I'm presuming you think a child of a gay parent is better off when that parent is married rather than single, correct? So, you support SSM, which redeems you a little. See, between one and six million American kids have homosexual parents (yes, biological parents, too)!

  106. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:19 am | Permalink

    Fedele, you said something that is provably false. A far higher percentage per capita of children are abused by biological parents (not just any relative). What you said was a blatant lie.

  107. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:28 am | Permalink

    Fedele, one in four women is abused by a heterosexual male, usually their spouse/boyfriend. Please go to your local women's shelter and child protective services and see for yourself. It will forever change your mind. I know a woman whose three year old daughter witnessed her mother getting beaten daily. The mother was sent to the hospital several times and yet she remained with this excuse for a man.

  108. MarkOH
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 8:19 am | Permalink

    OldKingBlog sorry my truthful posts disturb the little faux world you have created for yourself.

  109. MarkOH
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    OvercameSSA, thank you for stating that the definition of marriage has evolved. But, again, if it's all about perpetuating the species, why not exclude infertile couples or those too old to procreate?

  110. MarkOH
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    Fedele Razio, why do you think that same sex families don't have their biological kids living with them? Many do. Do you have access to a study that shows rates of child abuse in stable same sex couples? If not, your "common sense" idea that they are better with an opposite sex couple is biased, at best

  111. Chairm Ohn
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    The gay emphasis of SSMers is unjustified even by their own argumentation.

    That is not disguised by the SSMers .. such as Dan and Markoh ... who substitute attitude for substance. Theirs is a very common approach to their side of the public discourse.

  112. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    Has anyone here on the same-sex marriage side looked up the studies involved? No more than 3 studies ever involve more than 200 children of gays and lesbians, and almost none involve a random sample. (If anyone wants to critique the larger studies, that's a good conversation).

    Would you trust NOM if they routinely put out polls of 1-90 people, and usually not from a random sample? I wouldn't. But this is exactly the quality that the same-sex parenting studies are.

  113. lonesomerhoades
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    Of course the militant homosexuals will try to distract from their mission to destroy marriage by focusing on pedophile priests. Of course you stupid homosexual they need to do that! And at the same time they also need to protect marriage also!

  114. M. jones
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:08 am | Permalink

    Self report lesbianism is not considered a valid and credible part of the scientific method.

  115. lonesomerhoades
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    To the militant homsexual: Your orientation can never be truly acceptable because it is perversion.
    Nobody is forcing you to change at this point in time. Why do you insist on forcing people to view your union as a "marriage". Leave it alone. Have your civil union and all this goes away!
    Many in this militant movement are selfish egotistical jerks who will not stop till like petulant children they get what they want. Why you cannot give a little is beyond comprehension.

  116. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Please don't call homosexuals perverted when that isn't civil/ There are excellent reasons to support man-woman marriage without resorting to name calling.

    One I just posted above--the small sample size of basically every same-sex parenting study. No one has responded. Anyone want to?

  117. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    Lonesome of course the militant anti-gays will detract from the topic at hand, which is marriage. What does raising kids have to do with marriage? Gays can have kids with or without marriage, but the APA says marriage further strenghens those families. There is no reason to oppose SSM.

  118. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    Michael, you are mistaken. There have been studies on gay parenting which are very broad and comprehensive and not small.
    Now if you can tell me what this has to do with the rights of gays to marry, we'd be getting somewhere. How is the abilities of gays to raise children relevant? It isn't. The states already encourage gays to raise children and often actively seek gay parents because we are outstanding parents.
    Here's a more compelling question for you: why are heterosexuals such lousy parents? Why do you give up your kids for adoption? Why do you breed children you don't want? Why do you abuse women and molest kids? One poster last night suggested that a child should remain with an abusive parent just because it is their biological parent. That was jawdroppingly disturbing to read. Do you feel the same way? Do you know that every state has laws that will remove a child from an abusive parent?

  119. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    Lonesome do you know how immature you sound? You act like a ten year old playground bully how is about to have his marbles stolen. Why should I accept a civil union which is not equal under the law when I'm already legally married in my state for four years? Are you crazy?

  120. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    Chairm if you could kindly out forth a valid and logical reason you oppose my marriage perhaps we could have a civil discourse. Bringing up red herrings such as parenting or procreation is not helpful and just a smokescreen to distract from the fact you have no valid reason. In fact, legalizing SSM will have zero impact on whether gays raise children. Try to think....

  121. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    Michael where did you get the idea that studies on gay parenting have been small? That ludicrous. In fact the largest study was done by the government of Canada, and lasted several years. Conclusion: gays were somewhat superior to matched straight couples at raising kids. This is not the result the socially conservative members of the government were hoping to hear and many of them actively tried to suppress the results. It's well documented.

  122. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    Here's what I don't get: Why do homosexuals want to imitate heterosexuals? In those couples, it seems, one plays the male role and one plays the female role, each adopting the characteristics traditionally associated with the respective sex role.

    Best I can figure, for the guys, it all comes down to music: they like to play the skin flute and can't give it up. For the women, it all comes down to decorating: no hardwood floors, just carpet. Bizarre use of sex organs should not be the basis of forming relationships, but that is what seems to be the case with homosexuals.

  123. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    Michael here is a link for you: the article refers to over 100 studies on gay parenting including the Canadian Justice Department study I referred to:
    http://www.canada.com/mobile/iphone/story.html?id=38cc20ce-7f14-44ea-b4d9-d4cd16d7a269&k=9378

  124. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    Dan--

    I was going off a table by Michael Rosenfeld at Stanford, plus my own research.

    Can you get me a link to the study you cite? I know NOM doesn't like links, but if you figure out what terms to search for so that a relevant article comes up on Google, that would help.

  125. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    Oh. Sorry, You gave me what I asked for, :)

  126. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    What was the sample size (Number of kids) of that study by the Canadian Justice Department? (My computer isn't pulling up that link-- not your fault)

  127. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    Tangentially, the "over 100 studies" thing means nothing. If NOM and ADF do 100 polls, that doesn't make the polls reliable.

  128. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Here is the title and you can google it:
    Study: Same-sex parents just as good, if not better, at parenting. Ottawa Citizen, May 6, 2007

  129. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:55 am | Permalink

    Michael of what relevance is gay parenting to the legalization of SSM? I fail to see a connection. Gays can raise kids without marriage, but marriage further protects and strengthens our families.

  130. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    Michael, sincere question for you. Did Mormon leaders tell the flock to stay out of the SSM campaigns this time around? I was wondering if this was an effort to keep Mormons out of the news, to aid Romney. Here in California Mormons were in the news everyday during Prop 8, and it was always mentioned in a negative light. People were protesting at your temples. Just wondering if the church was covering its tracks this time around.

  131. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    Dan... you assume I'm a mormon. I am, but I'm surprised you assumed that.

    Anyways, to answer that question, the LDS faith neither encouraged nor discouraged campaigning. Part of that is because the faith is nonpartisan and the Romney situation combined with the fact that the church and the same-sex marriage issue both lean right.

  132. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    Dan,

    The study you referenced at was a meta-study, so it just summarized the other studies. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ssparcdn2.htm

  133. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    (I've got a comment awaiting moderation re: Romney)

  134. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    And, Dan, let me quote nursery rhyme that shows why children at least used to be relevant to marriage

    "First comes love,
    then comes marriage
    then comes a baby in the baby carriage"

    I admit freely many people break this rule, but this is a good model (for straights, obviously) to follow.

  135. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    Anyhow, my main point stands-- no more then two published studies have ever used more than 200 children of same-sex couples. Given one of those two is Mark regnerus's study, the data is not conclusive. In addition, almost none of the studies use a random sample. See this link.
    http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_Demography_children_suppl.pdf
    Would you trust polls by NOM with less than 200 people and not a random sample, even if there were 100 of them?

  136. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    The LDS church took no specific position on the ballot measures this year, in either direction.

  137. Ash
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    "Article for Ash: Why gay parents may be the best parents"

    Been there, done that, but thanks for sharing. As expected, the article was published before the release of Regnerus's study. Funny that Live Science didn't cover the release of the latest findings of longitudinal lesbian family study to reaffirm their claim that gay parents are the best. Perhaps because they know that the same-sex parenting studies are far more flawed than Regnerus's, and that they can no longer get away with citing those studies to make inappropriate claims.

    By the way, why do they have a picture of a same-sex male couple when the research on those parents is virtually non-existent? Goes to show how a play on words and a picture can dupe ignorant people who will swallow what's said hook, line, and sinker.

    "Ash: most states actively encourage gays to become parents. If marriage is about raising children, banning SSM goes contrary to the state's interest, as was wisely pointed out by the 9th Circuit when they invalidated Prop 8. Simple logic."

    Marriage is about ensuring that procreation takes place in a stable unit so that children can be raised by both parents. It's not about granting benefits to any constellation of adults raising children, as the gamut of households ineligible for marriage now in places with or without ssm would be entitled to marriage.

    Oh please. The 9th Circuit's opinion simply stated that the term "marriage" has social significance, and it's unconstitutional to only apply it to opposite-sex couples because that hurts the feelings of same-sex couples by not giving them the social approval they're looking for. Also, based on a flawed interpretation of Romer, the 9th Circuit essentially said that the people of a state can't amend their constitution in response to their state supreme court's interpretation of it.

    "Ash, if Regenrus was interested in studying gay parenting why did he only study those people who were not in stable relationships? An obvious flaw from step one."

    After scanning a random sample of 15,000 people Regnerus was only able to find two stable same-sex couples. He expressed disappointment at this, but of course, it's not his fault that there aren't many adult children who have been raised from birth by a same-sex couple.

    Perhaps you could explain why the widely proclaimed longitudinal lesbian family study found that half of the elite, self-selected lesbians in the sample separated (talk about stability), but the children suffered no harm?

    "The majority of gay parents are in committed, stable relationships."

    Maybe the ones raising children today are in stable relationships. Maybe. But the ones who raised children at the onset of the gayby boom sure weren't in stable relationships, as evidenced by Regnerus's study.

    "Regenerus also referred to bisexuals as gay! Ridiculous! So even if a woman was in a relationship with an abusive man, she was counted as lesbian if she had ever been with a woman."

    Makes sense. What other way would you attempt to operationalize the terms "lesbian" or "bisexual"? Based on whether you THINK they are gay, or whether they engage in homosexual conduct?

    "Ash, allowing women to vote didn't redefine voting, nor does allowing gays to marry redefine marriage."

    Which is why we allow gays to marry everywhere.

    " Ash, this is in response to a post of yours from a different thread: if your theory is that children do best with their biological parents, please explain how you can support it in light of the fact that over 70 percent of abused children were harmed by a biological parent. And, why did the Federal court conclude in its fact finding that biological relationship to a parent is not a predictor of outcome for children."

    No, the predictor of outcomes is being raised by *married* biological parents. Of course children are more likely to be harmed and abused in single, divorced, step-parent, and cohabitating families, which usually possesses at least one biological parent. But they are safest in intact (biological), married families.

    "It seems to me a specious claim that biological relationship implies quality of parenting."

    On average, when the biological parents are married, yes, they do produce the highest quality parenting regardless of race and SES.

    "My own cousin gave away four of his own biological children for adoption because his stripper wife couldn't be bothered with kids. Is a child better off with a crackhead mom just because she pooped out that kid? Hell no!"

    Your personal experiences cannot replace empirical data. And no one said that all married biological families will be absent of dysfunction. We're talking about averages here.

  138. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    And my church teaches children are entitled to birth inside of marriage and to be reared by a mother and father, Children will always be linked to marriage.

  139. Fedele Razio
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    Fact 1: kids have a far higher risk of being abused when they not live with their biological parents.

    Fact 2: kids living in a same sex household live with at most one of their biological parents; the other one can't be there.

    This are facts, not opinions.

  140. Ash
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    Thank you, Michael. Dan did, in fact, cite a meta-analysis as if it were an actual study. Goes to show how much he comprehends this subject matter (not very much). But *someone* boosted him and convinced him that he's competent enough to challenge people on an opposing forum. Or he was born prideful. :D

    I would add that a study by Potter is also nationally representative and was published this year in the Journal of Marriage and Family. It found that children of married biological homes do better than children of same-sex couples in math, though the disparity is largely because of same-sex household instability.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00966.x/abstract

  141. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    Ash,

    How can we get the argument I just made to go mainstream? It's an argument that works, but I feel like its an insider secret.

  142. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    Ash, exactly what does any of this BS have to do with marriage rights for gays? Please tell me. And, moron decades of research on three continents ( you haven't even mentioned the studies from the UK and Australia on gay parenting, WHY?), have all come to the same conclusion: gays are equal or superior to straights at raising children. Your buddy Regrnerus admitted two important points.
    1 marriage for gays would be beneficial to children raised by them.
    2 his study makes no conclusions regarding gay parenting generally, but only applies to the tiny subgroup he was studying.
    You anti-gay bigots amuse me in the lengths you will go to demonize gays and simply prevent us from gaining access to a basic civil right. Absolutely pathetic!

  143. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    Michael this argument was not even used in Prop 8 because most voters are intelligent enough to know that gays can be good parents and that plenty of straights marry with no intentions of procreating. You need to wake up to the fact that we WILL win marriage in all 50 states and it will be through court order, not ballot measures.

  144. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    Ash, name just one study, other than Regenerus that reached a conclusion that gays were less fit to be parents. Just one... Oh, you can't, never mind! Moron!!!

  145. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    Ash, for a short list of studies which concluded that gays were equal to straights at parenting see: Wikipedia article: LGBT parenting

  146. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Dan,

    Actually, no, the LDS church said that children were entitled to a mother and a father. The studies are starting to come around.

    Did you even look at my link? You're acting like 100 studies without random samples are conclusive.

    I ask you for the last time: Would you trust any poll of 100 or less people? Then why trust studies which all have less than 100 children?

  147. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    Dan, name just one study, other than Rosenfeld that used more than 100 children of same-sex parents and concluded no difference. Just one... Oh, you can't, never mind!

    This is a math thing... If I survey 50 people, my error is much larger, and therefore, I can't conclude two groups are different. Now, if I survey 1,000 and conclude the same, they're probably similar.

  148. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    Only two studies matter. Regnerus and Rosenfeld. You cannot conclude no difference with a sample size smaller than 100. This is statistics, which sociologists gloss over.

  149. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    Michael I ask you for the 10th time, how is gay parenting relevant to the rights of gay couples to marry? You are illogical. Gays can raise children with or without marrying and all you're doing here is a silly competition to see who is better at parenting . It's a sign that your side views this as a competition and you really have no interest in providing a valid argument opposing gay marriage. You and Ash are wasting everyone's time. It's silly. Really. Now, ask Ash why he's never mentioned the UK and Austrailian studies which concluded that gays are equal at parenting.

  150. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    Marriage was formed because children result. Otherwise sex would be a amoral recreational activity, which would not need regulation.

  151. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Dan,

    http://www.comres.co.uk/poll-digest/11/margin-of-error-calculator.htm

    A small sample reduces accuracy, means scientists cannot conclude there is a difference.

  152. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    It's not my fault that men and women are different and inherently parent differently, It's not my fault that each person born acts like his parents. Thus, it makes sense t o encourage parents to stay with their kids.

    First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes a baby in a baby carriage. That's how things have worked for thousands of years. Now you're saying the baby doesn't matter.

  153. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    I've made my arguments as convincingly as I know how. Have a great day people!

  154. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    I don't think gay parenting is relevant to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. Marriage is about anticipating the creation of children, establishing a stable mother-father union for any children conceived by the couple. Since homosexual couples cannot procreate, there is no need to establish a stable union; any children to be raised by homosexual couples will have been stripped from one or both parents.

    Even if homosexual couples are proven to raise more successful children than heterosexual couples, it is still a travesty to intentionally deprive a child of one or both parents and give it to a homosexual couple. Part of what makes kids "do better," is their happiness in knowing that the people who created them did not abandon them. Moreover, in a world of men and women, children raised in a household of a man and a woman are more likely to develop healthy adult relationships with members of the opposite sex.

  155. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    OK, I agree with the potential irrelevance.

  156. MarkOH
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Fedele Razio #130
    Yes, those are facts but one is not necessarily related to the other. And that is the problem with the current study. He compared intact families with those of divorce. He also through in the same sex aspect although this is never verified. We need more studies that look at stable same sex families compared to stable opposite sex families. Until then, meta analysis will have to do and it all points that there is no difference in stable families.

  157. MarkOH
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA "Marriage is about anticipating the creation of children"

    SO, now it's the EXPECTATION of procreation. You guys sure love to dance around whether marriage is about procreation or not. Because if it IS all about procreation, you just can't justifying allowing infertile couples to marry while denying the same rights for same sex couples. Other than animus, I mean.

  158. Ash
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    The discussion has nothing to do with marriage rights when you are LOSING the argument, Dan. If you thought it was irrelevant it might have helped to shut your trap about the topic, especially since you don't know what you're talking about.

    @Michael, the arguments you made about the parenting literature are actually pretty well known on both sides amongst people who are familiar with the literature. But like you said, it's sort of an insider secret, kept from the Dans of the world.

    Some ways to get the message out is to break ground in media coverage of this field, and to keep publishing new studies and critiques of the older studies.

  159. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    I find it terribly amusing and endearing that the anti-gay crowd has exactly one researcher who supports their claim that straights are better parents. And this researcher is universally condemned by his peers (except the religious ones with an anti-gay animus). Not only that, but this one researcher states that marriage for gays would be beneficial to their children!

  160. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    "I find it terribly amusing and endearing that the anti-gay crowd has exactly one researcher who supports their claim that straights are better parents."

    Homosexual researchers conduct biased studies to try to prove that homosexual couples are good parents. Straight researchers know that moms and dads are the best environment for raising kids; they don't feel the need to conduct studies.

    Homosexuals spend their lives trying to rationalize their existence as normal. Their time would be better spent living the lives based on the way they are biologically constructed instead of making up data to support their disordered mental condition.

    Keep those "studies" coming; maybe someone will actually believe them some day. Kids who grow up in stable mother/father households would never even think about how changing their upbringing. Kids brought up by homosexual couples always wonder what it might have been like if their real parents had raised them.

  161. Preserve Marriage
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    "Catholic Church Will Not Give Up its Defense of Marriage"

    Wow, I bet homosexual special rights lobbyists are shaking in their boots (after the Catholic Church's 'Herculean' effort we just saw).

  162. AM
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    "I find it terribly amusing and endearing that the anti-gay crowd has exactly one researcher who supports their claim that straights are better parents."

    No, he found that the married biological family is the best environment for children. Just like every other respectable study has found.

  163. Chairm Ohn
    Posted November 16, 2012 at 1:59 am | Permalink

    What are the possible sources of children attained by same-sex households?

    Gary Gates of the pro-gay Urban Nstitute has estimated that perhaps 4% of children in such households were adopted. That entails government intervention to assign a second parent to a child. It has no sexual basis arising from whatever an all-male or an all-female scenario might engage in.

    So the pro-gay emphasis is unwarranted.

    The use of so-called "donor" sperm, ova, or surrogates might account for 1% of children in same-sex households -- or less. This also depends on government intervention for enabling legislation or court fiat. Also, it lacks a same-sex sexual basis.

    So the pro-gay emphasis is still unwarranted.

    Both of these sources for children come with the pre-requisite of parental relinquishment whereby either mom or dad or both give their children up. The parent relinquishes parental status, however, the relinquisher remains a parent for purposes of incest laws, marriage laws, intestate laws, and so forth. That lingering partial parental status does have a sexual basis in the nature of human procreation but not in same-sex sexual behavior. Note that this relinquishment is pre-emptive in the example of the "donor". Pre-emption is ham-fisted. For example the lingering partial parental status is often obfuscated by "anonymous donor" arrangements. Anyway, the "donor" is shielded from the child and the child is shielded from her mom or dad.

    There is no sexual basis for that either. The pro-gay emphasis is unwarranted.

    About 5% of the very tiny population of children residing in same-sex households was attained via adoption and "donation". Both sources are extrinsic to the same-sex scenario (nonsexual or sexual). The vast majority migrated to such households from the procreative relationships of their mom and dad (usually marriages).

    Such a move is the consequent of the pro-gay emphasis andnot the other way around. This, too, is unwarranted.

    So 100% of same-sex parenting scenarios are not intact for unarranted reasons. No matter if the children had been attained as infants.

    The lack of either mom or dad is a structural factor. And same-sex sexual behavior is not a structural factor. At least, according to the lack of a social-scientific narrative that it could be structural. Splitting either mom, dad, or both from their children born to them is the basic structural feature of non-intact families.

    When it comes to the use of "donors" there is also the obvious fact that the adults do not act in the best interests of the child, because the decision to attain a child and to split from mom or dad or both is made prior to the existence of a specific child and her interests. That choide, we are told, is well-planned. T is intentionally predicated on the nonfertility of the one-sexed structre of the pro-gay scenario. But no research has shown that same-sex sexual behavior is a structural factor for parenting.

    That adult choice creates a structural factor. The practice points outside of the adult's relationship. The inclusion of children depends on lack of an intact family. Intentionality is the supposed excuse rather than the best interests of a child already existing.

    On the other hand procreative justice anticipates the child born of her mom and dad. The child has a birthright to know and to be known by and raised by her mom and dad. Justice commands that we speak for the child because the child is voiceless and dependant. We have the responsibility to see this from the child's perspective, as best we can. To over-ride that for the adultcentric approach is to put procreative justice aside.

    Gay advocates speak as if this is warranted by their pro-gay emphasis. But they do not go so far as to claim that same-sex sexual behavior is a structural factor. Instead they talk vaguely of gay identity as a definitive feature of this parenting scenario.

    The flipside of the child's birthright is that both mom and dad are responsible to one another and to their offspring (barring dire circumstances or tragedy). This is responsible procreation which is a coherent set of principles. Parental status is, presumptively, based on the nature of human procreation (and thus its two-sexed sexual basis) and not an arbitrary government intervention. Specially not a government intervention against the child's birthright and against responsible procreation.

    The provision for responsible procreation is at the core of marriage as a social institution. It is combined with integration of the sexes. These are structural factors of intact families. But this coherent combination is rejected outright by those whose pro-gay emphasis puts procreative justice aside.

    The Catholic Church teaches the marriage idea as a good in itself and as essential to the common good of society. A priest who makes this case for marriage would make a sound moral argument ... and would do so whether he wore his collar or not. The truth is discerned via reason rather than via the emotivism of the pro-gay emphasis and its identity politics.

    It is very odd that SSMers depend so heavily on an unwarranted pro-gay emphasis. It goes to show that children and marriage are being used as means to a much different end than the common good.

    Also the context for same-sex parenting that is gaycentric is that more than 95%of the adult homosexual population does not reside in same-sex households with children. About 10% of the adult homosexual population resides in same-sex households -- stability is not a feature of same-sex sexualized relationships so not so well researched. It just is not very common.

    But why study something just about as rare as unicorns? That's a metaphor. Just like SSM, to a significant extent, is merely a metaphor for marriage. Its symbolism, if entrench as newly imposed orthodoxy over and above procreative justice, would corrupt all that it touches.

  164. Chairm Ohn
    Posted November 16, 2012 at 2:10 am | Permalink

    How would SSM (or civil union or domestic partnership or registered partnership etc) directly protect and strengthen a one-sexed relationship?

    What is supposedly protected or strengthen by SSM?

    How would your answers fit the assertion that "gay parenting" is irrelevant to the right of "gay couples" (what does that term objectively mean anway?) to SSM?

    It must be adultcentric, the "gay family". But why must the same-sex scenario be gay?

    Valid reasons to stand against favoritism for the gay identity group will likely be illustrated in your answers to these basic questions.

    Whatever your answer, why must SSM to be designed for the same-sex sexual relationship? What has that sort of sex got to do with it? Or is it, like parenting, irrelevant to the demand you'd impose on all of society?

  165. Fedele Razio
    Posted November 16, 2012 at 3:41 am | Permalink

    MarkOH #156

    "We need more studies that look at stable same sex families compared to stable opposite sex families."

    Thank you for aknowledging the need to decide having in mind the goal of the good for the kids.

    But:

    - in a statistical analysis you can't shape the sample in order to obtain the outcomes you desire.

    - the population here is "the kids".

    Now, fact3 is: same sex households are far less stable than opposite sex households.

    You can reach the conclusions by yourself.

  166. Posted November 16, 2012 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    I have no idea whether in some strange way it might be of benefit to have academics assess the "outcomes" of a given set of parenting circumstances.

    Perhaps this might be of interest to someone, for some reason.

    What would be insane, would be to take the "data" of such a study- whatever "outcome" it reports- and use it to suggest that a child is better off when deprived of the love of its own mother and father.

    That is the moment where quackademics trump reality, and it seems we are a progressively quackademicized bunch of oatmeal-minded dupes.

    See the marriage votes in MN, MD, MN, and WA for specific examples.

    We do not need a study to establish whether a child is entitled to the love and nurture of its own mother and father.

    Such a truth is immune to statistics, to social science, to debate.

  167. Chairm
    Posted November 18, 2012 at 4:02 am | Permalink

    Dan has not provide a logical reason to favor the gay subset of nonmarriage. Mislabelling that subset and according it with the special status of marriage is to impose a falsehood and it would depend on a legal fiction propped up by an arbitrary exercise of governmental power

    What is essential to the type of same-sex relationship that the SSMer has in mind? Why is it essential and does it merit special status?

  168. Michael Worley
    Posted November 20, 2012 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    “Throughout history, marriage has first and foremost been an institution for procreation and raising children. It has provided the cultural tie that seeks to connect the father to his children by binding him to the mother of his children. Yet in recent times, children have increasingly been pushed from center stage."

    W. Bradford Wilcox and Elizabeth Marquardt, eds., The State of Our Unions: Marriage in America (2011), 82.