NOM BLOG

Video: NOM's Thomas Peters Debates the Future of Marriage on CrossTalk

 

NOM's Communications Director Thomas Peters joined in a spirited debate with Peter Tatchell, a veteran LGBT activist from the UK, over the meaning and future of marriage -- we think you will enjoy it!

On love and its relation to marriage, Peters says in response to Peter Tatchell:

"The proponent of gay marriage keeps saying "love is love is love" but the fact is there's a difference between the love of two men, and the love of a man and a woman the difference being that the love of a man and a woman, in most cases, ends with a child, and the child needs a mother and a father, a child for its entire biological [upbringing] will need to be raised by will be raised best by its mother and father and so that's why it's absurd to claim there's something ethically wrong with with seeing the love between a man and a woman as being unique -- that's what the core of marriage is, it's not an evaluation of one love versus another, it's saying different loves result in different things, and that's why the vast majority of who will experience love heterosexually and will have a child and that child will need a mother and father and all the social sciences show that children to best when they're raised by their biological mother and father. And so marriage just isn't about the emotional needs of adults, it's about the practical, emotional, psychological, social needs of children and that's why, while you can experiment with marriage for a few years, generationally only a healthy society that understands this core meaning of what love actually means, is a successful society."

On the harm gay marriage causes, Peters provides an illustration:

"There's an awful lot of civil society -- churches, communities, government -- that is all built to support marriage because marriage isn't easy. It's not easy to get men and women to commit to raising the children they make with their bodies. But that's what civil society has been doing and a healthy society does that. It is difficult and gay marriage makes it difficult for all of civil society to enshrine that value that children deserve a mom and a dad, and that men and women should stick around and love and raise the children they make with their bodies, and the detraction of gay marriage has made it impossible for things like the Catholic Church, for things like political/civil government to give that message and so when you say "gay marriage won't hurt anyone" it already has because now when I try to say "a child deserves both mom and a dad" you jump in and say "that's against equality!" and so you can actually see already that the more gay marriage becomes accepted and enshrined in law the more difficult it will become for the rest of us to communicate this life saving propagating message for the next generation."

16 Comments

  1. zack
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    Wonderful, simply wonderful. Keep up the good work.

  2. M. jones
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    I feel sorry for marriage terrorists who have no better arguments or propaganda that what was presented here.

  3. Good News
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Thomas, great job! Keep the pace.

  4. M84
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    I feel sorry for those who are too illiterate to discern someone stating an opinion from those who blow up innocents "in the name of Allah."

  5. Bobby
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    M jones - you mean like poor Thomas Peters. I would not stoop so low as to call him a terrorist - perhaps misinformed and tiring. Peter Tatchell does a fantastic job though.

  6. johnson
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Bravo Thomas. Thank You.

  7. Randy E King
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

    Polygamy is still the union of one man and one woman. When an individual enters into a polygamist arrangement they are not wedded to every other person in that arrangement; only to the one person of the opposite sex.

    If what these perverts are saying were true then polygamy would, in fact, be same-sex marriage. And if polygamy were same-sex marriage then they would have to acknowledge that it has been deemed illegal in these United States by both the SCOTUS and Congress since the early 1800's.

    The perverts have nothing real to point to in defense of their demands for special consideration; only transitory emotions that cannot be defined or quantified.

    They might as well be claiming they were space aliens from the planet Uranus.

  8. M. jones
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    The SS"m" idea, an ideology that encourages ripping the opportunity away from children ever having both their mother and father = marriage terrorism.

  9. Stefan
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 12:09 am | Permalink

    Randy, are you a pervert every time you masturbate?
    I mean, self gratification, right. Just you and no one else. No woman at all, just you and your hand. No babies, no children. is that perverted, or something different all together?Question goes out to all the regulars. M. Jones, little man, son of Adam, the list goes on.

  10. Posted February 5, 2013 at 2:28 am | Permalink

    Excellent use of time by Thomas Peters from NOM.

    Peter Lavelle, the coordinator of this British encounter on SSm and civil unions announced "CrossTalk" means contributors to the debate could 'jump in' (interrupt) other contributors 'any time they want'.

    But in the end the main, reiterated, message from Peter (pro-SSm in UK) was that Thomas (pro-natural marriage in USA) was 'sooo rude' and interrupted about '20 times'. . . There is a sense that Peter is not used to hearing his analogical arguments answered rationally. So he starts attacking the value or appropriateness of the person presenting the argument, not the argument itself. If silly analogies don't work, then pro-SSm advocates often bring out the ad hominem methods (not arguments). This is seen clearly in this video.

    Here's why:
    In politics, most voters don't have time to research the question of SSm in-depth. After all, there are many political issues to consider. Therefore, they respond positively to analogies, false promises about conscience protections, from the SSm advocates. This, combined with misleading polls, gives SSm advocates a sense that the majority in a country stand behind them. They finally feel they have the positive attention of the majority (something thrilling, and new to them), and therefore believe their own shallow arguments. It's not about SSm. It's about becoming a recognized, respected, and even idolized part of society. That possibility blinds them to the arguments against SSm. Therefore, they are in a biased state of mind. They are not about to let go of their moment of virtual triumph and recognition. More than anything, they want acceptance, though it means changing the majority's ideology about marriage, for theirs. There's no middle ground in this issue.

    But when they are face to face with rational arguments against SSm, they forgo reason, and attack the 'messenger' of the opposing view. After all, they are nihilistic and therefore, to themselves, they cannot possibly be wrong, though they don't know how to answer.

    Nowhere did Peter answer any arguments against SSm presented. Peter just brought out a string of weak arguments for SSm, as if the number of (invalid) arguments made a difference. Probably to those voters wanting change for the sake of change, it makes a difference. This is their main strategy: change the subject constantly.

    But, ultimately, laws have to have a reasonable basis. Even if they lose the marriage politics, the SSm will have gained center stage, and be more recognized for their contributions as equal citizens (which they already are).

    Yet the whole thing can backfire, because now we know how they really are, and it's not 'pretty'.

  11. Good News
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 3:49 am | Permalink

    @Stefan
    Yes, masturbation is something different and to be looked at separately - (I don't think that it is “totally” different, since it does relate to the humans sexual drive and how he deals with it). I could explain in detail why it is different, similar and or how it relates or does not relate to the issue at hand... But do you really want to get lost in another side track; when we are still, as a civilization, having a hard time seeing any difference between a man-woman and a woman-woman union. I think we have all we can handle for the time being.

    When Peter Tatchell, in the above clip, mentions all the different marriages in the past, what he makes very clear with all the cases that he mentions, is that what they all do have in common is that they are all made up of a female and a male – which is understandable, for man-woman IS the starting point to what marriage is. (When in the past, in rare cases, a same-sex couple might have been considered “married” in a certain culture, this was only allowed because it did not, and could not, put the reality of the man-woman union into question. Today with our sciences and technologies the uniqueness of the man-woman union (a uniqueness that has not changed and which is unchangeable) can be put into question, especially in the minds of our growing children. And this is why a different word is needed to name these two different unions. Using the same word for these two different unions is simply a way to benefit the up and coming baby making industry.

  12. Randy E King
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    Pervert" a unusual or abnormal sexual act that is habitual.

    Experimentation is considered quite normal and healthy; making a career out of it is perverted.

  13. CRSmith
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    You all should be ashamed of yourself. And you call yourselves decent. Even folks like me who dont think gay marriage is right dont need to see this kind of dirty talk in a public place this. Please control yourselves.

  14. Son of Adam
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    No one is saying that marriage should be redefined to suit masturbation, Stefan.

  15. Posted February 6, 2013 at 1:35 am | Permalink

    CRSmith: Since the subject is on civil marriage, there's no room for 'dirty' talk, agreed.

    Some people who leave comments here consider marriage from a purely religious perspective because they believe civil and religious marriage are one and the same.

    They forget that to persuade anyone to join their ranks the persons to be persuaded would need to convert to their religion and be discipled, or be of that religion already.

    Civil marriage is a secular definition of marriage. Secular means there is input from all voters, according to their political power. Secular does not mean "free" from religious voters.

    Knowing marriage is more than what civil marriage can possibly make it to be, i prefer to deal with the subject from a logical point of view. That's the only way the debate will be won.

    In the end, this subject is not for the dinner time conversation. Though i don't find it to be a topic of sexuality at all, many people view it as a sexual matter. it isn't. [For same-sex couples or lesbians cannot really have sex within the friendship, they can only try to simulate it and imagine it].

    Government is interested in protecting the children engendered that are brought about by sexual intimacy of all kinds. SSm does not contribute (within the couple) to that interest, and therefore is irrelevant. It's not exclusion. They would first have to qualify in order to be 'excluded' or 'banned'.

    Government is not interested in the actual sexuality.

    It's difficult to differentiate between the two, since "no sexuality" means "no children". But protection of children (as in adoption) is the Public Purpose of civil marriage, not sexuality itself.

    It took me a long time to be able to find the words to speak openly about this matter. But after all, the subject matter is not sexuality or sexual depravation (which all people are capable of doing). And the associated subject of homosexuality is not covered by NOM's mission, as far as i know. Other blogs cover that subject well.

    Your point is well taken.

  16. Posted February 6, 2013 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    Stephany:
    There are some things you cannot question. There are rules and laws regarding personal privacy, and privacy of information. You cannot go there, in public. 'In-public' means the opposite of 'private'. It's similar to "Have you stopped beating your wife?" example - the question assumes part of the answer. You are not entitled to an answer.

    From the time of the SCOTUS Lawrence vs. Texas decision, there is no legal significance to the word "pervert".

    From a religious point of view, there might be significance, but it would be in "the eyes of the beholder".

    The courts won't punish for moral perversion because there's no legal basis. But people might withhold association with someone who they believe has perverted either sexuality or the concept of marriage, and they are in their right to do so.

    Legality doesn't necessarily make unlikable behavior acceptable. Getting drunk with alcohol is legal (though immoral for Christianity), but driving a vehicle in that state of mind is highly punishable under the law. Christianity puts a stop to it before it has become an action. It is the wisdom of Christianity, but anyone can predict what happens if you decrease your mental function. It's elementary.

    Hate, as an emotion, is not illegal nor can it be illegal. Because it is an emotion, it is not measurable or provable. But "hater" is the answer to 'pervert' in an opposing camp. Of course, many types of crimes can follow from hate, as well as perversion. But it is the action resulting from hate or perversion that is penalized, because the effect of such action can be measured or proven in court (or on a personal based if someone is vindictive).

    But, i believe the issue of SSm and such civil unions is one of semantics vs. professional statistics. The word 'marriage' has been perverted, not by unhappy 'gays', but by most everyone. Government only mirrors what society is like. It is because civil marriage is already weakened that SSm sees an opportunity to capitalize on the confusion.

    The verb 'to per-vért' comes from 'thoroughly' + 'to turn' (Latin). It contrasts with 'to per-fect' ('thoroughly' + 'bring to completion', again from the Latin). Since 'to pervert' meant originally 'to turn thoroughly' from the Christian moral dogma (emphasis on thoroughly, for we all at some point are immoral in that respect, yet we do not pervert it), it preserves its association with a moral code, specially Christianity's.

    The noun form 'pérvert' is now used more like an ineffective insult in the general public. So, it is only effective within the group from which the perversion resulted.

    'Pérvert' used to make a better insult than it does today, maybe because it has similar meaning to the word 'radical', which can have even a positive association today.

    There is a sense that pérvert has to do with sexual perversion, and is how it is used today. For instance most of us would consider the pedophile's action of taking advantage of the sexual innocence of a child as a perversion, and would call him or her a pérvert (in this case gender doesn't matter); but we wouldn't call the parent of the child who almost beat to death the pedophile a pérvert. We would call such parent a criminal, but not a pérvert - though he/she also departed from the generally accepted moral code.

    Such insults only have the desired effect within the particular group which wouldn't like to be called a 'pérvert'.