Doug Mainwaring: "I'm Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage"


Doug Mainwaring writes in the Public Discourse that "while religion and tradition have led many to their positions on same-sex marriage, it’s also possible to oppose same-sex marriage based on reason and experience":

“I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” These words, spoken by Ronald Reagan in 1991, are framed on the wall above my desk. As a gay man, I’ve adopted them as my own, as I’ve entered the national discussion on same-sex marriage.

I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.

The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.

Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.

I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.


  1. Richard
    Posted March 10, 2013 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    Well Ed, I am a public school teacher (39 years) and my content area is American Studies. I am not an elected politician but I am confident in my political knowledge base. My years in education should give you some idea of my age and, believe me, I'm no spring chicken. But Ed, really, political knowledge and age?

  2. Bobby
    Posted March 10, 2013 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

    Richard- You mean 39 years of indoctrinating innocent American children with your gay agenda?

  3. Richard
    Posted March 10, 2013 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

    Bobby, a good chuckle before I head to bed. There will be those who claim this but, of course, they probably haven't set foot inside a school in many years. Oh we'll...

  4. Bobby
    Posted March 10, 2013 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

    Richard - I have tremendous respect for teachers. Keep up the good work. I always wanted to teach. Having left Wall St a few years ago there is still time. Years back I volunteered for a Church program that offered free SAT prep on Saturday morning for high school juniors. I handled the Math section - was very rewarding. Best of luck with the marriage and your 18 years of happiness together.

  5. bman
    Posted March 11, 2013 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    .Robert->'s easy to see why Harvard reached this conclusion...By 2024, he projects, even the last holdout, Mississippi, will have a majority in favor."

    That was answered in principle by B DeCicco a few posts earlier, even before you posted you
    comment -- "Well, I am all for equality and basic human rights for all, including gays. But something rings false and hollow about gay marriage is not a human rights issue: It is a sleight of hand. Anyone who looks closely enough at the issue will come to the conclusion that it is a dupe. And once this has been seen, you hope for it to be reversed.."

    B DeCicco's comment also agrees with the words of Lincoln, i.e., that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

    BarbC's case also illustrates the principle. She once supported SSM strongly until she analyzed it. Now she strongly opposes it.

    The gay man who wrote the article also shows SSM does hold up when analyzed.

    As logic and reason prevail over gay propaganda, support for SSM must decline. That is the "logical future" of SSM.

    Projections like the one you cite depend on the existing political momentum continuing.

    That, however, depends on false accusations of hate and propaganda being believed by the people.

    Ultimately, the Harvard projection depends on propaganda fooling all the people some of the time, or some of the people all of the time.

    SSM fails at the end, though, because the false propaganda behind it can't continue to fool the people all of the time.

  6. bman
    Posted March 11, 2013 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    Correction: The gay man who wrote the article also shows SSM does [not] hold up when analyzed.

  7. bman
    Posted March 11, 2013 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    Robert->The Supreme Court already ruled that consenting adults, even straight ones, can do sexually what they feel like.

    That seems to correctly describe the general direction taken by the Lawrence Court.

    The Lawrence Court ruled, ".. a personal relationship...whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals."

    However, you also provided a proper counter balance to your initial statement by saying, "Same-sex marriage is an entirely different matter...".

    The Lawrence case also noted that briefly, "The present case...does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."

    In other words, the Lawrence court viewed privacy rights as an "entirely different matter" from a formal public policy that gives formal State recognition.

    They are two different things, as your comment correctly notes.

    Robert->Same-sex marriage is an entirely different matter, one that effects children. Personally, I couldn't live with myself if I advocated a public policy that harmed children, but that's just me.

    I was surprised you made this statement since public policy harm to children, parental rights, and various other areas, is a main reason why people should oppose SSM once they analyze it.

    If everyone took the time to examine how SSM harms society as a public policy, instead of viewing it simplistically as a privacy right, the collapse of SSM would soon follow.

  8. Posted March 11, 2013 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    Bobby: I was a Math teacher too. Do you have tremendous respect for me? Or do you take points off for not believing in the supposed merits of GLm covered up as SSm? Actually, why would I care?

  9. Bobby
    Posted March 11, 2013 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    Little Man - I respect you too. I post here to try to point out that much of the argument made against marriage equality is based on fear. I live in an equality state - NY - and nothing has changed for heterosexual couples in the nearly 20 months that homosexuals have been able to have the state recognize their unions. As an aside, would you treat gay students no differently than heterosexual students?

  10. Chairm
    Posted March 11, 2013 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    Bobby, what has your gay emphasis got to do with marriage, anyway?

  11. Bobby
    Posted March 11, 2013 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    Chairm - Once again you just don't get it. A minority - I say upwards of 8% whereas others say more like 3% - of the population is born gay. The US government grants benefits to those who marry opposite sex partners (the heterosexuals) but does not grant the same benefits to same sex couples. The current DOMA lawsuit results from a tax burden a same sex partner had to endure on an inheritance that she would not have had to endure had she an opposite sex partner. There is no gay emphasis. There is a n acknowledgement that gay people exist - something you cannot comprehend.

  12. bman
    Posted March 12, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    Bobby->Chairm - Once again you just don't get it. A minority - I say upwards of 8% whereas others say more like 3% - of the population is born gay.

    You'll have to say the APA doesn't "get it" also, in that case.

    Per the APA:

    "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation... no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…”

  13. Richard
    Posted March 12, 2013 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    B-man, wonderful news. Then it is possible we are all gay. I have wondered at times.

  14. Chairm
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 12:04 am | Permalink

    Comment in the que.

  15. bman
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    Richard->B-man, wonderful news. Then it is possible we are all gay. I have wondered at times.

    Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion but maybe you should also tell the APA since they wrote the piece!

  16. Chairm
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    Another comment in the que. Please release for fellow NOM blog readers to read and to consider in light of the pro-SSM comments here.

  17. Posted March 13, 2013 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

    With the rally coming up, our kind, live, moderator is probably volunteering for other critical tasks.

  18. Posted March 13, 2013 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

    Richard: Jokingly and accidentally you arrived at a truth (it got through your bias!) -

    "Then it is possible we are all gay. I have wondered at times."

    Very, close. Getting warmer. . . Yes, all men have the potential of homosexual behavior of sorts. And yes, all women have the potential of lesbian behavior of sorts. Can we prove the contrary? And the bi-sexuals have always believed it.

    What can trauma do to a person? (. . .Not like we can run destructive experiments on humans). For me, a 'homosexual' is a guy who can't find a woman sexual/romantic partner, because sexually/romantically women for the most part want to have their cake and eat it too; It's a matter of fear to unite steady with the opposite sex - very complex; but that's just my opinion.

    Please, define what you would mean by true homosexuality, and differentiate it from effeminate traits, lack of body hair, and masculine sensitivity. How can you measure it? Maybe not your forte, but you hit on an interesting topic for me, while the moderator is gone 🙂

  19. Chairm
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    Bobby even as you deny there is a gay emphasis you insist that your gay emphasis is indispensable to your demand for the SSM imposition.

    Readers will note that you did not answer the question as asked.

    What are you dodging now?

  20. Chairm
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    Richard, how is the world changing? Perhaps you used exageration.

  21. Posted March 15, 2013 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    Richard is about to give out the Report Cards:
    Chairm D- (for saying ununderstandable things)
    Bman C (for providing sources)
    Publius B (for not replying as much)
    Little Man F (for lack of 'imagination')

    Notice how he 'teaches' us as mere pupils, and only he, of course, has set foot in a school (teaching), recently.

    Is he here to learn (unlikely) or to teach (likely). Some people go home, but take their profession along with them. . .

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.