NOM BLOG

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.

71 Comments

  1. Richard
    Posted March 8, 2013 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    Think of the millions who might say, "I'm straight and I oppose straight marriage". So what? This is such a stretch on NOM's part.

  2. Publius
    Posted March 8, 2013 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    Note that redefining marriage does not allow "straight marriage" and "gay marriage" to coexist side by side, which might be a go along, get along solution. Redefining marriage creates only de-gendered marriage, and doing so by judicial fiat takes many matters of gender protection out of the hands of our democracy.

    Marriage is the legal, cultural, and economic human ecosystem through which society governs the integration of the two halves of humanity--male and female--that must be integrated for society to be self-sustaining. Degendering it will have consequences for society as a whole.

  3. Andrew
    Posted March 8, 2013 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    Plenty of gay people have no interest in marriage. Plenty of straight people have no interest in marriage -- for a host of different reasons. Such is the freedom of opinion that we enjoy in these great United States.

    And yet equal treatment under law is guaranteed to all, varied opinions notwithstanding. That's what is so great about our Constitution. There is not only a 1st Amendment, but also a 5th and a 14th. Read them.

  4. Robert
    Posted March 8, 2013 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    I like watching NOM descend into madness and it's delicious knowing that evil persons like Brian Brown will be treated accordingly by history.

    How's the job search going, Brian?

  5. John Noe
    Posted March 8, 2013 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    Poster #3: This issue has nothing to do with the 5th and 14th amendment. However false countefeit marriage violates the 13th amendment because it makes children into property where they can be bought and sold like slaves.

    Read it sometime.

  6. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 8, 2013 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    Great piece by Mr. Mainwaring. He is to be admired for putting the needs of children over the desires of adults.

  7. Randy E King
    Posted March 8, 2013 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    @Robert,

    Are you related to the Foster Farm Muppets; you know, those chicken puppets that are always seeing the world they would like it to be...?

  8. Richard
    Posted March 8, 2013 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    Randy, again, how sad. You are reduced to inane and juvenile responses. Let's rase the bar shall we. Randy, address the very real issues of constitutional law, the points as presented in both sides of the amicus briefs. If you have read even one of these briefs, then offer your take on it. It's time to move beyond the puerile
    stand you find so comfortable.

  9. Richard
    Posted March 8, 2013 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    While I have an open venue to address NOM bloggers, I offer the same challenge I offered to Randy. Let's debate the law, the amicus briefs, the constitutional questions that are about to be weighed by SCOTUS. Why does this not ever happen here? I'll start with a first question. What do we think about the question of equal protection and due process?

  10. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 8, 2013 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

    I'm commenting on the actual topic of this post. Perhaps "Richard" and the other trolls could try doing the same.

  11. Richard
    Posted March 8, 2013 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    Barb, have you ever once addressed the actual constitutional questions that are about to be debated at SCOTUS? I am honest when I tell you I "smell" fear in the responses of you and others. For so long the "debate" has circled around the moral approbations of NOM bloggers and those who contest the silliness of these arguments. We are just 3 weeks away from a truly historic, constitutional purview of our nation's laws. The men and women who will weigh the scope of citizen's rights and equality under the law have an awesome responsibility to get it right. Do you honestly think they will, for a minute, consider the topic of this post, Randy's rhetoric of animus or your unwillingness to get serious?

  12. Randy E King
    Posted March 8, 2013 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    You have yet to poise a constitutional question; much like you forbearers did in Baker v. Nelson when SCOTUS denied appeal to a lower court ruling which found that "Procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings."; a finding consistent with the 1867 SCOTUS ruling upholding the right of Congress to define what constitutes a marriage as it relates to Federalism in these United States - in response to Polygamy.

  13. Randy E King
    Posted March 8, 2013 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

    Let's face facts here Richard; at the end of the day the only thing you will have is the pride in knowing that you cheered corrupt jurists doing your bidding only to have their tyranny lambasted by the 2nd highest court in the land - the highest being We the People.

  14. Richard
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 12:02 am | Permalink

    Randy, "We the People" voted for gay marriage in Maine, Maryland and Washington State. Was that tyranny Randy? Do you really think SCOTUS will ignore the Constitution in favor of the whims of some people (in this case a minority). They didn't with Desegregation. They didn't with interracial marriage. They didn't with Roe v Wade. They didn't with suffrage. We're all those jurists tyrannical, Randy? And what about "We the People"? In some cases most did not support the decisions of the jurists. It all comes down to the Constitution Randy. It deserves a measure of respect that "We the People" sometimes can not match.

  15. Richard
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 12:04 am | Permalink

    And Randy, at the end of the day I will have my marriage to my partner. Sorry Randy but there is nothing you can do about that.

  16. Posted March 9, 2013 at 1:33 am | Permalink

    Richard: You are getting married today? CONGRAtuLATIONS! May you engender many children together. What colour is the cake? Wonderful, so beautiful. And who's wearing the white dress?

    (Hope you have a sense of humour).

  17. Robert
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    I get it, NOM and the Westboro Baptist Church, both hate groups, oppose legal same-sex marriage. But look at all the normal people and groups that support equal legal rights for gays and lesbians! Don't they carry more weight than hate groups?

  18. Randy E King
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    @Richard,

    It is "We the People of the United States..."; not "We the People of Maine, Washington, Maryland..."

    All the words matter my poor misguided friend; not just those that appear to give your argument merit when taken out of context.

    In my State of California, in addition to forty other states, and the laws of nature, your relationship is still nothing more than a perversion. A feeble attempt to lend an appearance of acceptability to your depravity.

  19. Richard
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    So Randy, the fact remains that in my state of Maine, my marriage is a legitimate, government sanctioned contract. It is not out of context to say "We the People" recognize this contract and call it marriage. Now, in spite of your personal animus to such an arrangement, can you not see the legal implications that SCOTUS must address with DOMA? SCOTUS does not have the "luxury" to rely on personal animus in its deliberations. It must address the law of the constitution. Theirs are the words that will matter, (as well as the language of the constitution), not yours or mine. Your arguments rely almost exclusively on animus, thankfully we won't have to hear that from SCOTUS. BTW, will this make them "activist" jurists?

  20. Richard
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    Thanks Little Man for the kind regards. No more children; we're too old (but still get a marriage certificate) and after 18 years together, our three grown sons and their wives (plus three grandchildren) are plenty. Their mother is fine, too. No cake, a dessert station instead, no dresses except on beautiful women who wear them well and like to dance. As you can see very untraditional, but yes, very wonderful and very beautiful. Would you accept an invitation? I think it would be a hoot to have you join us.

  21. Randy E King
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    It is out of context because you are leaving the operative out. It should read " We the People of Maine..."

    If I wanted to live by the scum bag rules of the people of Maine I would live in Maine

    Your "personal animus..." reference is a direct reference to the personal opinion of Justice Kennedy who also noted that his opinion should "in no way be viewed as an open door to Same Sex Marriage."

    Personal animus is protected under the very 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.

  22. B DeCicco
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    "I like watching NOM descend into madness and it's delicious knowing that evil persons like Brian Brown will be treated accordingly by history.

    How's the job search going, Brian?"

    You obviously made the above remarks under the belief that all will continue on the trajectory which began in the early 1990s. History shows, contrawise, that the political trajectory goes so far, and then circles back in times of economic crisis, war, and natural catastrophes; plenty of which are in the offing and which we are due for.

    Recall that many movements had to begin again from scratch in the decades after the Civil War: They had reached their apex and reversed in the crisis. 20 years from now Brian Brown will be seen to have been way ahead of the curve, and of his times.

  23. Richard
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    That's why we are graced with your elegant nomenclature time and time again, Randy. Rules are rules Randy and rules are often law, Randy. It doesn't matter how you perceive them although you certainly find colorful ways to define them. Maine's "rules" are state law as they are in 9 other states and counting. I doubt we will hear any of the justices using your diction but what we will hear are the justices exploring the legal implications of state and federal law surrounding equal protection and due process. And yes, full faith and credit.

  24. B DeCicco
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    "Think of the millions who might say, "I'm straight and I oppose straight marriage". So what? This is such a stretch on NOM's part."

    My good man, you cannot be serious. Straights often say they do not like marriage, do not wish to be married, but how many straights have you ever heard say that they believe marriage is harmful for children and for society?

    This gay man is rightfully suspicious of "genderless marriage" and I infer that when he says correctly that it is "something other than marriage" he is hinting at the dangers of such impending destruction to a civil institution. He has spoken well and spoken truly - of course he will be hated for it.

  25. Robert
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    DeCicco, Brian Brown will be out of a job within two years, tops. The catholic church is very tight with its money and is not going to keep funding a losing venture. Heck, many people think marriage equality has come around so fast BECAUSE of the idiocy of hate groups like NOM! All it takes is for normal people to see Brian or Maggie Gallagher interviewed to come to a marriage equality position.

  26. Chairm
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    Robert, when you are shown to be wrong, will you reappear here to acknowledge you were wrong?

    I expect you will use a different moniker (yet again) soon anyway -- but I also expect you will (here and now) run away from being held accountable. But on this you might surprise. We'll see what you are really made of, in any case.

  27. B DeCicco
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    Well, I am all for equality and basic human rights for all, including gays. But something rings false and hollow about gay marriage. I do not believe Brown is a hater in any sense of the word. Time will tell. But 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. And such a reversal would not mean inequality in any true sense of the word.

  28. Chairm
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    Comments in the que.

  29. Zack
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    "Heck, many people think marriage equality has come around so fast BECAUSE of the idiocy of hate groups like NOM! All it takes is for normal people to see Brian or Maggie Gallagher interviewed to come to a marriage equality position."

    When the left uses fear, bullying tactics, and revisionist history to sway public opinion(just look at the 2012 election and how Piers Morgan treats people who disagree with him for proof) then yeah it's understandable how the fight over this culture battle is being won.

  30. Posted March 9, 2013 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    Richard: Ha, ha, ha ! What logic, @1

  31. bman
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    Richard->Think of the millions who might say, "I'm straight and I oppose straight marriage". So what? This is such a stretch on NOM's part.

    Since some gays oppose SSM, it means none should presume hatred of gays is the default motivation for opposing SSM.

    It strongly suggests that good faith reasons can exist for opposing SSM, and that gays should presume their opponents have good faith reasons by default, instead of accusing them of hatred by default.

  32. bman
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    Robert->.... evil persons like Brian Brown..."

    That is a perfect example of wrongly presuming an opponent is evil by default.

    By default, gays should presume their opponents' have good faith reasons to oppose SSM unless gays have facts to prove otherwise.

  33. Posted March 9, 2013 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    ehem. . . Hey Mr. or Mrs. Richard: the Internet is quick, but how can I make it to your wedding, if it is already past? It certainly would have been a hoot. :) Hey, are you married completely, or only by your State. Of all you said, i respect motherhood and friendship the most; and yes, you are married - no doubt about it - but don't give me the deal of the hidden card (the mother). You are not a couple. You are a trio. It's a way of getting by the ban on polyandry (what women do when they get tired of doing the laundry). Anyway, i do consider you responsible, and congratulations for that. Again, marriage is a State matter, and its up to your State whatever it wishes to do to the marriage Institution. You might think it cannot be reversed. One case proves nothing, statistically. I can show you married couples who are in chaos - just look on Tv. Thanks.

  34. bman
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

    Andrew->...equal treatment under law is guaranteed to all...

    The majority of high courts to consider the issue since 2003 have rejected a right to same-sex marriage under the 14th amendment .

    The US Supreme Court also rejected your claim in Baker v. Nelson in 1971-2.

  35. bman
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    Richard->...address the very real issues of constitutional law...

    Just click on the words Majority of High Courts Find No Constitutional Right to SSM.

  36. Randy E King
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    Equal treatment under the law is not guaranteed. What is guaranteed is that even though you may be denied equal treatment under the law you will not be denied equal treatment without due process of law.

    All of the words matter; not just those that appear to give your argument merit when taken out of context.

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

  37. bman
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    Publius->Redefining marriage creates only de-gendered marriage, and doing so by judicial fiat takes many matters of gender protection out of the hands of our democracy.

    That sure sounds right.

    If only gays on this blog would try to refute a comment like with logic and reason rather than use default accusations of hatred and such.

  38. bman
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    correction: If only gays on this blog would try to refute a comment like [that] with logic and reason rather than use default accusations of hatred and such.

  39. Robert
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    The good news is, most courts have found that gays and lesbians should be treated equally under the law with regard to legal marriage rights. Some of these courts have even ruled unanimously, as the Iowa Supreme Court did!

  40. Randy E King
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

    @Robert,

    Six courts do not a majority make. However; those two dozen courts, including ten of twelve Federal Apellate courts, that upheld the Constitutionality of traditional marriage does, in fact, constitute a very significant majority.

    Sucks to be you!

  41. Sheryl
    Posted March 10, 2013 at 12:35 am | Permalink

    I agree with him, if you want to have a ceremony call it something other then marriage. Marriage is a Biblical institution that is supposed to be for the purpose of PRODUCING CHILDREN. Gays want it for tax breaks, health benefits etc. many of which they have already gotten anyway. What people do in the privacy of their bedroom should stay there, gay or straight. a little tid bit for you, SODOMY is ILLEGAL in most states. so you want to legalize a relationship clearly intending to perform an ILLEGAL sex act? Plus if obama takes away the marriage tax break it will be cheaper to NOT be married :)

  42. tom langley
    Posted March 10, 2013 at 6:20 am | Permalink

    If anyone would research the history of the 14th amendment it was clear that the purpose of the amendment was to insure that the newly freed slaves would not be deprived of their civil rights. If someone would have told the authors of the 14th amendment that some people would try to misuse it to mandate same-sex "marriage" they would have put you in an insane asylum. Marriage is between a man & a woman. I do believe in civil unions for homosexuals.

  43. Robert
    Posted March 10, 2013 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    With so much support from the people and the courts, it's easy to see why Harvard reached this conclusion:

    "Whether or not the Court deems gay marriage a constitutional right this year, the future seems clear. Of late, support for marriage equality has been growing two or three percentage points annually. A study by statistician Nate Silver finds startling results: in 2013, a majority of people in a majority of states support gay marriage. By 2024, he projects, even the last holdout, Mississippi, will have a majority in favor."

  44. Robert
    Posted March 10, 2013 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    Randy,

    I know you're frustrated that marriage equality is coming. You're hurt, and maybe frightened of change. Or maybe you just hate gay people. But you can behave civilly, if that's possible for you.

    From what i know, more courts than not have supported equal legal rights for gay and lesbians after 2003's Supreme Court decision legalizing gay sex. That decision was like the freeing of the slaves was to blacks, which lead to the 14th Amendment. Now that gays and lesbians are "free," they, too, get to benefit from the 14th Amendment, just as blacks did.

  45. Randy E King
    Posted March 10, 2013 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    Robert,

    Your refusal to acknowledge the actuals only serves to demonstrate how desperate you are to make your trip down the river Denial last as long as possible.

    SCOTUS did not legalize promiscuous sex; there are no fewer than eight States with anti-sodomy laws still on the books. What SCOTUS did do was re-affirm that the unequal application of law is still unconstitutional.

    You do not have a constitutional right to have your depravity declared good and proper; you cannot legislate the absolution of your sins.

    Harvard has lost all semblance of impartiality on this subject and is just trying to ease the blow for you.

  46. Robert
    Posted March 10, 2013 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    No one is demanding depravity be legalized, although it is certainly legal for religious groups to exist and their religions practiced, just so they don't hurt others.

    The issue isn't about what's depraved or not but rather, what consenting adults do in their private spaces. The Supreme Court already ruled that consenting adults, even straight ones, can do sexually what they feel like.

    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. You do what you want. I do wonder what a vengeful God will thing, though. Maybe you should, too!

  47. Randy E King
    Posted March 10, 2013 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    SCOTUS has ruled no such thing.

    What SCOTUS ruled is that the State cannot apply the law to one group with out applying it equally to the other - please note defining marriage consistent with this nations history and traditions applies to everyone equally

    Not only do you advocate a policy that harms children, but the very thought of a national imposition of said policy sends a thrill down your leg.

  48. Ed Murray
    Posted March 10, 2013 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    "We the people" have voted FOR marriage between a man and woman in most of the states now. That is a FACT. A fact that those who want same sex marriage are all too willing to deny.

    Trust me, you do this to the majority of Americans who are NOT gay and there will be backlash and probably the first sign of it will be at the midterms.

    You won't like what will happen!

    Remember that while YOU may not believe in God, he is there nevertheless and as St. Peter asked Jesus what should we do Jesus replied "Change the world".

    And IF we have to "Change the world" again we will!

  49. Richard
    Posted March 10, 2013 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    Ed Murray, calm down. We the People voted "for marriage" a generation ago (except NC). No one denies this but what you deny is that We the People are fast changing our minds about this. If you mean by "do this to the majority of Americans who are NOT gay" that we will have SCOTUS rule that married gay couples are entitled to federal benefits, then your issue will be with SCOTUS and the Constitution. The midterms is an election; we will all participate and the results will not change Constitutional law or the will of SCOTUS. You have no knowledge of my faith Ed and it is inconsequential as is your faith. But on one point we agree, the world is changing and you're not happy.

  50. Ed Murray
    Posted March 10, 2013 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    I probably know a heck of a lot more about politics than you do plus the fact that I am a lot older!

  51. 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?

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

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

  53. 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...

  54. 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.

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

    .Robert->....it'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....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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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.

  58. 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?

  59. 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?

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

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

  61. 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.

  62. 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…”

  63. 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.

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

    Comment in the que.

  65. 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!

  66. 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.

  67. 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.

  68. 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 :)

  69. 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?

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

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

  71. 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. . .