49 Comments

1. John B.
   Posted March 15, 2013 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

   Except that you're not "supporting" or being "pro-marriage" by opposing somebody else's.

2. OldKingBlog
   Posted March 15, 2013 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

   Hey John B, let's leave the sloop John B and call for the truth on marriage:

   Whether one believes in God or not, it is an undeniable fact that tens of millions of years of evolution have devised sexuality for the purposes of pro-creation. Nature is a very harsh mistress, as those who study the natural world can readily attest. Therefore, we can, with all honesty, call a homosexual devolutionary; an individual whom nature, for reasons that may always remain obscure to us, did not intend to reproduce. Under normal circumstances, that is, in a sound and happy marriage, there is no more natural affection as that shown between a husband and wife, and between parent and child. In response to what we can call the naturalness of marriage, it is incumbent upon both citizen and public official to continue to recognize the centrality of marriage and to maintain that centrality in law, and to reject all attempts to abolish it or legalize so-called alternatives. Traditional marriage was created to safeguard the welfare of, and to establish responsibility for, any offspring ensuing from heterosexual activities, and not to give legal and social approval to unrestrained and irresponsible sexual activity.
   Let the members of the demimonde live out their lives and conduct their private business privately, far from the public eye and with no control over public institutions.

3. Richard
   Posted March 15, 2013 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

   Oh OKB, the dagger that spears your argument is very simple. There is nothing, not one attempt to abolish marriage law let alone marriage. Nothing. The best evidence? Look to the nine states and counting that recognize both gay and straight marriage. In not one of those states is marriage abolished. In fact, marriage has increased in number by sheer definition. Marriage continues "to safeguard the welfare of, and to establish responsibility for any children" who are a part of married family. And with plenty of natural (nurturing) affection between spouse and spouse (every marriage carries this identity) and the children.

4. Ash
   Posted March 15, 2013 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

   Amen, Marco!

5. Robert
   Posted March 15, 2013 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

   Why are straight people so worried they won't be allowed to get married, once gay people are? Not one state has allowed straight marriage, when it legalized same-sex marriage.

   Get the facts, folks, before you oppose legal same-sex marriage!

6. Ed Murray
   Posted March 15, 2013 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

   Richard, what about the majority of 41 states that have voted for marriage between a man and woman?

7. Ed Murray
   Posted March 15, 2013 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

   Why do gays worry about marriage? They have jobs, money and poltical power. Why should you have more than anyone else?

8. Ed Murray
   Posted March 15, 2013 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

   Very interesting that Justice Kennedy said that 9 Unelected Judges should make Public Policy?

9. bman
   Posted March 15, 2013 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

   Richard->There is nothing, not one attempt to abolish marriage law let alone marriage. Nothing. The best evidence? Look to the nine states and counting that recognize both gay and straight marriage.

   It took forty years before researchers could recognize the harm to marriage caused by no fault divorce.

   Your reference fails to allow adequate time, therefore.

   We can expect the old ways to be normative until the new generation has been indoctrinated with anti-Christian beliefs and starts having children of their own.

   I think we can obtain a clearer perspective if we pose the question this way, "Would it hurt society if a whole generation was taught to disregard traditional sexual morality?

   That question is not unbelievably difficult to answer.

   Indeed, by default, one would naturally expect the the answer to be, "yes, it would hurt society."

   If anyone wants a question that is unbelievably difficult to answer try proving it would not hurt society over time.

10. bman
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 12:17 am | Permalink

    Statement by Five Dutch Social Science Professors on the Deterioration of Marriage in the Netherlands Published on July 9, 2004

    From Reformatorisch Dagblad, July 8, 2004 (original)

    At a time when parliaments around the world are debating the issue of same-sex marriage, as Dutch scholars we would like to draw attention to the state of marriage in the Netherlands. The undersigned represent various academic disciplines in which marriage is an object of study.

    Through this letter, we would like to express our concerns over recent trends in marriage and family life in our country.

    Until the late 1980s, marriage was a flourishing institution in the Netherlands. The number of marriages was high, the number of divorces was relatively low compared to other Western countries, and the number of illegitimate births also was low.

    It seems, however, that legal and social experiments in the 1990s have had an adverse effect on the reputation of man's most important institution.

    Over the past fifteen years, the number of marriages has declined substantially, both in absolute and in relative terms. In 1990, 95,000 marriages were solemnized (6.4 marriages per 1,000 inhabitants); by 2003, this number had dropped to 82,000 (5.1 marriages per 1,000 inhabitants).

    This same period also witnessed a spectacular rise in the number of illegitimate births. In 1989 one in ten children were born out of wedlock (11 percent); by 2003, that number had risen to almost one in three (31 percent). The number of never-married people grew by more than 850,000, from 6.46 million in 1990 to 7.32 million in 2003.

    People seem to attach less and less importance to marriage. More people are having children out of wedlock, even though marriage is the best setting for successfully raising a child. There is a broad base of social and legal research that shows marriage to be the best structure for the successful raising of children. A child of out-of-wedlock parents has a greater chance of experiencing problems in his or her psychological development, health, school performance, and even the quality of future relationships.

    The question is, of course, what are the root causes of this decay of marriage in our country. In light of the intense debate elsewhere about the pros and cons of legalizing same-sex marriage it must be observed that there is as yet no definitive scientific evidence to suggest that the long campaign for the legalization of same-sex marriage contributed to these harmful trends. However, there are good reasons to believe that the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in the Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favor of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.

    In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid 'lifestyle choices' has not had serious social consequences. There are undoubtedly other factors that have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the relative importance of all these factors. At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form.

    Of more immediate importance than the debate about causality is the question what we in our country can do in order to reverse this harmful development. We call upon politicians, academics, and opinion leaders to acknowledge the facts that marriage in the Netherlands is now an endangered institution and that the many children born out of wedlock are likely to suffer the consequences of that development. A national debate about how we might strengthen marriage is now clearly in order.

11. Robert
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 7:40 am | Permalink

    "Why do gays worry about marriage?"

    There are far more straights worried about gay marriage than gays!

    So the question is, why do so many straight people believe that gay couples should also have the right to marry?

12. Son of Adam
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    It is because this nation's family values have severely declined over the past few decades, in which promoting the sexuality of adults is considered to be more important than the needs and upbringing of children. Children have been placed second in importance to the law to the wants and desires of adults and have as a result created higher illegitimacy rates and more broken homes.

    No fault divorce, abortion, and SS"M" are viruses that causes civilizations to sicken and die. Hopefully, we will see a reverse in this trend.

13. Publius
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    Bman,

    Thank you for your thoughtful, serious, and non-polemic comment. I also note that the fertility rate in the Netherlands is below the replacement level and that immigration from the Third World is increasingly a contentious issue in the Netherlands. This is not the Golden Age of the Netherlands.

14. Zack
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    Marco Rubio is a great statesmen. I think if he went out there more often and talked about the importance of keeping Marriage defined as between a man and a woman, there may be a shift towards protecting it.

15. Marc Paul
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    bman, the dec,one in the Netherlands predates equal marriage by a decade..... Or does that not count?

    The trend in that country is no different from similarly placed nations.

    The scientists themselves state they don,t know if there is a causal link. They speculate on one which are free to do. All of are free to speculate. Unless that can start putting research on the table that explains the decline in the years up to equal marriage then this is just posturing. Can you reference real research that explains the decline of marriage in the 90s in the Netherlands? No? Then please, give us more credible links than links to the very biased heritage Foundation.

16. bman
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    Marc Paul->... the [decline] in the Netherlands predates equal marriage by a decade..... Or does that not count?

    Agreed, but it still counts against SSM.

    Their statement (with my interpretation added in brackets) shows the logical connection:

    ....legal and social experiments in the 1990s have had an adverse effect on [marriage rates] [by harming ] the reputation of [marriage across the Netherlands]

    Thus, any "legal and social experiment" that would erode the core meaning of marriage in the collective consciousness of society counts as harmful.

    SSM is clearly in that category.

    SSM is not gay people getting "married" and living their private lives.

    Rather, its a systematic philosophy of counter-morality, counter-religion, counter-tradition, and counter-normatives pushed on the collective consciousness of a society through social engineering.

    Such a system of philosophy, as it advances, can only erode social stability and the incentives to marry that come from religion, morality, social expectation and traditional norms.

    Furthermore, SSM seems to be an evolution of the earlier experiments, and so it would act to keep the Netherlands on the same trajectory as those experiments.

    For the Netherlands, SSM did not reverse the trajectory or neutralize it, but seems to have fastened it in place, making it extremely difficult to change course.

    The decline in marriage seems to come from spiritual, moral, and social norms having been lost to the collective consciousness of the people.

    In that case, SSM-philosophy would have no chance to reverse the decline, but could only make it worse.

    The Dutch scientists also noted the difficulty of reversing the decline. They said the important thing now is, "what we in our country can do in order to reverse this harmful development. "

    Indeed, what can they do?

    In practical terms, SSM added a huge barrier to ever reversing the decline because it would have to be reversed at law as part of the solution, and the philosophy it entrenched would have to be reversed.

    In sum, SSM is a social experiment based on a philosophy of counter-normative and counter-intuitive principles that would logically bias a society to continue in decline or to develop a decline in marriage over time.

17. Richard
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    bman- If you and so many others would redirect your angst and money to support the millions of married couples in this country, you would, then, have a cause to celebrate. You can even ignore married gay couples and still provide an umbrella of support to all others. The spiritual, social and moral norms you speak of are, for many of us, a wonderful connection between being gay and being married and, increasingly, we have plenty of support.

18. bman
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 3:22 am | Permalink

    Richard->If you and so many others would redirect your angst and money to support the millions of married couples in this country, you would, then, have a cause to celebrate.

    Since you think that is a good idea, when do you plan to start?

    Just more pseudoreasoning on your part, in other words.

    Richard->The spiritual, social and moral norms you speak of are, for many of us, a wonderful connection between being gay and being married...

    SSm is contrary to the norms I am talking about.

19. Richard
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    bman, we have already started and continue to do so every day. Hundreds of millions of our dollars have been spent in support of marriage. And, as you might expect, many (religious and otherwise) would disagree with you on your interpretation of norms.

20. bman
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    Richard->... we have already started and continue to do so every day. Hundreds of millions of our dollars have been spent in support
    of marriage.

    By that logic, you and NOM are working for the same thing since NOM also supports marriage!

21. Robert
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    "Marco Rubio is a great statesmen. I think if he went out there more often and talked about the importance of keeping Marriage defined as between a man and a woman, there may be a shift towards protecting it."

    Except that Marco Rubio doesn't care if marriage is between straight or gay couples, just so the individual states decide. That's his official policy position, just like Dick Cheney's. They don't object to same-sex marriage, just so it is decided by the states, not the federal government.

22. bman
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    Richard->We have already started... in support of marriage.

    NOM and its followers support marriage.

    By contrast, SSMers support "marriage."

    Two different things.

23. Richard
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    No bman, you were right the first time (post #19). Gays support marriage, too.

24. bman
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    No bman, you were right the first time (post #19). Gays support marriage, too.

    Both of my posts meant the same thing.

    You missed the implied conclusion I expected you to reach.

    When I said, "By that logic you and NOM are working for the same thing..." it meant, "by your logic a false conclusion would be reached.."

    Its quite obvious that NOM and SSmers are opposed. Its false to say they are working for the same thing.

    Your wording, that you "support marriage" would put you and NOM on the same side, however.

    Its logically necessary to qualify the difference in meaning between "NOM supports marriage" and "SSMers support marriage" to avoid reaching the false conclusion that they support the same thing.

    A proper qualifier is that NOM supports marriage and that SSmers support "marriage. "

    Since SSmers support redefinition they support "marriage" rather than marriage.

    And since NOM does not support redefinition it does not support "marriage" but simply supports marriage [without quotation marks added].

25. Richard
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    Wow bman, you tied yourself up in some knots there. Once again, Gays support marriage, too. What you support is, well, not clear? ....quote marks not-with-standing.

26. bman
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

    Richard->Wow bman, you tied yourself up in some knots there. Once again, Gays support marriage, too. What you support is, well, not clear? ....quote marks not-with-stand

    There are no knots when marriage and "marriage" are viewed as two different things.

    Knots occur if you do not distinguish them from each other.

    Its that simple.

    The statement, "SSmers support marriage" must be differentiated from, "NOM supports marriage"

    They do not mean the same thing.

    You keep ignoring that .

    Sure, gays support OS couples getting married under a genderless marriage law, but genderless marriage is not the same public institution. Its a different institution based on different principles being called "marriage."

    NOM supports the established institution of marriage without any redefinition, and without any need for quotation marks.

27. Chairm
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    Robert said: "There are far more straights worried about gay marriage than gays!"

    And yet of the population of self-identified and openly homosexual adults, less than 90% resides in same-sex households. Same-sex households is a much more inclusive category than SSM, Civil Union, Domestic Partnership -- combined. So participation rates in this broader category remains very low. Likewise participation rates in SSM wherever it has been imposed under whatever guise.

    The interest is actually very low among the target identity group.

28. Richard
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    bman, law is law. 9 states, D.C. and counting recognize male-female, male-male and female-female marriages. Let's see, three configurations but no matter how you configure it it still comes down to one gendered person marrying another gendered person. Sorry, I don't see a genderless configuration here. Quotation marks are pretty much your domain; just look at your own posts.

29. Son of Adam
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 2:53 am | Permalink

    DOMA and Proposition 8 is the law as well. Yet, you give them no credibility whatsoever, Richard. Any reason why we should treat SS"M" law in a minority of states any differently than you treat DOMA and Prop 8?

30. bman
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 3:13 am | Permalink

    Richard->bman, law is law. 9 states, D.C. and counting recognize male-female, male-male and female-female marriages.

    Law does not change the nature of a thing just because it declares it legal.

    If, for example, [threesome marriages] were legalized in a state so that two lesbians and a man were all "married" to each other, it would still not be marriage in the proper sense but it would only be "marriage" because law artificially called it that.

    The idea that "law is law" and nothing else matters is called legal positivism. Under that notion, slavery is right because a state law says so.

    If, however, slavery was wrong, as I am sure you agree it was, by what standard was it wrong?

    By asking that question, we see such a thing exists as a law being wrong even if a state calls it right .

    The "law is law" idea is not the final word, therefore.

    We can look to higher principles than the law of a state to determine if a state law is right or not.

    Hence, its not necessarily correct that "the law is the law" is the final word.

31. Richard
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    SoA, this is the huge disconnect so many of you make. DOMA and Prop 8 are unconstitutional per the decisions of federal courts therefore, it needs to be addressed. This is why SCOTUS will have hearings on them next week. And you don't have to treat gay marriage law at all. But the reality is it is existing law and available to all who wish to participate. It does not need to be addressed.

32. Richard
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    bman, must have been too long. Here goes: law is law. You refer to the value of a law. The value of gay marriage law is the issue. The constitution supersedes voter values. This is why Prop 8 and DOMA are at SCOTUS due to a constitutional question. This is also why Maine has gay marriage law...no constitutional question and voters value it.

33. Richard
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    bman, in all your examples there were, above any inherent voter value, constitutional questioners that needed to be addressed. This, then, is why the constitution is so important and should be the primary focus of discussion on this site. I love gay marriage. You hate it. This is an issue. But we can't allow more who hate or love something to be the sole determinant in law. SCOTUS is about to show us this next week.

34. bman
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    Richard-> law is law. ...The value of gay marriage law is the issue.

    The immediate issue is your "law is law" statement since you are using that as your premise.

    You seem to insist it applies to Ssm while allowing it might not apply to other laws.

    Can you clarify how that works?

35. Richard
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    bman, not sure of your question(s) but let's try this. In Maine the law is that gay and straight couples can get married. This is true in 8 other states and D.C. The voter value of that law is relatively inconsequential to the constitutional prerogatives that support the law. That's why we are at SCOTUS. All laws enjoy, first and foremost, the blessings of the Constitution. This is why I am convinced that gay marriage will be the law of the land in my time.

36. Son of Adam
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    Five federal courts have upheld DOMA, Richard. And the California Supreme Court itself had upheld Proposition 8 in a 6 to 1 decision, the same court that had imposed SS"M" onto California in the first place 4 to 3.

    The problem with you is that you believe that constitutional rights revolve exclusively around homosexual desires at the expense of everything else. The promotion of that misconception is the reason why DOMA and Prop 8 is in SCOTUS today.

37. Richard
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

    Prop 8 and DOMA are at SCOTUS because they have been declared unconstitutional, SoA. The constitutional rights of gay citizens are at the core of the reasons we are at SCOTUS. Please tell us all, what part of my post #35 is is incorrect (exclude the last sentence as this is clearly, my opinion).

38. Son of Adam
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    You implied that homosexual marriage enjoys the blessings of the constitution. Homosexual marriage is NOT a constitutional right, the opinions of a few activist judges notwithstanding.

    Where in the constitution is gay marriage mentioned at all, let alone marriage in general?

39. Richard
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

    SoA, the constitution doesn't mention marriage ever. You know this. But marriage exists as a civil institution,(both gay and straight). Now, gay marriage must enjoy federal constitutional protections for the very reasons that Prop 8 and DOMA are before SCOTUS: equal protection and due process. And now that nine states and D.C. recognize it there is the issue of the interstate clause.

40. Son of Adam
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

    Two states have legalized marijuana, Richard. Does that mean that the Federal Government has to legalize marijuana on a federal level for the sake of the interstate clause? Not according to Gonzales v. Raich in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use.

    Court precedent does not support your analysis.

41. bman
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    Richard->...not sure of your question(s) but let's try this.....

    That did not seem to work

    Here is your original statement, "bman, law is law. 9 states, D.C. and counting recognize male-female, male-male and female-female marriages...."

    If we simply read your statement without "law is law" would any meaning be lost?

42. Chairm
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 11:56 pm | Permalink

    Typo correction for comment #27: "And yet of the population of self-identified and openly homosexual adults, less than 10% resides in same-sex households."

    Sometimes I explain it this way: More than 90% of the adult homosexual population does NOT reside in same-sex households. In other words, less than 10% does reside in such households. The practice is marginal within the target population.

    More than 97% of the adult homosexual population does NOT reside in same-sex households with children. In other words, less than 3% does reside in such households with children. And of the 3%, about 5% have adopted children. That's about a 3rd of one percent of the adult homosexual population.

    Some perspective is needed whenever SSMers bring up children and adoption and SSM as a theme in SSM rhetoric.

43. Chairm
    Posted March 20, 2013 at 12:10 am | Permalink

    bman, if, as Richard insists, marriage "exists as a civil institution", he would need to justify the law that accords it special treatment.

    The marriage idea justifies the preferential status of the union of husband and wife.

    The SSM idea rejects the marriage idea and so swipes off the table the justification for this special status of this special institution of civil society.

    So what is the substituted justification? What essential(s) of that type of relationship would merit special treatment over and above all other types of relationships?

    If one considers just the same-sex category of relationships, the category is not defined by same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual behavior, or the gay identity. The category is not the gay identity group; the group is a tiny subset of the large same-sex category.

    So we can narrow the query to the essential(s) of the type of same-sex relationship that SSMers have in mind (I think their gay emphasis invokes identity politics far more than a sexual relationship but they argue otherwise) that distinguishes SSM from the rest of the same-sex types of relationships that are not the type that the SSMers have in mind. From the essential(s) the SSMer might concoct some sort of attempt to justify preferential treatment. It cannot by gay identity, because they argue that gay identity is not a legitimate basis for lawmaking on eligibility and ineligibility. And, as every SSM imposition has demonstrated, there is no gay requirement for eligibility to SSM so their own imposition takes the gay out of SSM.

    Now, that has been my approach to challenging SSMers to use reason and legal and moral argumentation.

    But I like your approach, perhaps even more. Thank you for your comments here at the NOM blogsite. If I was a NOM moderator or otherwise working for NOM, I'd do my best to raise your comments to level of blogposts with which to channel substantive discussion of the topics that arise from within the rhetoric and argumentation of the SSM campaign.

    Cheers.

44. bman
    Posted March 21, 2013 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    Chairm->... if, as Richard insists, marriage "exists as a civil institution", he would need to justify the law that accords it special treatment.

    Agreed and it makes perfect sense.

    Here is a 3-2-1 diagram of the basic logic involved that seems to highlight your point.

    3. SSM
    [depends on]
    2. law gives special status to marriage
    [depends on]
    1. society needs well ordered procreation between men and women

    There is an obvious disconnect when we compare 3 against 1.

    SSM does not belong in that picture.

    With #1 and #2 as stated, a coherent picture requires bride-groom marriage at #3.

    SSMers need to repair the disconnect.

    To do that, they need to replace #1 with something that matches up with SSM.

    Instead of doing that, however, they have removed #1 so they can "marry," depending still on #2.

    They need to replace #1 with something else, not simply remove #1.

    It reminds me of the wiley coyote cartoon character who stands in mid-air a few seconds before falling, not knowing there is no longer any ground underneath to stand on! Its not until he realizes no ground is underneath that he falls.

    Perhaps that explains why SSmers don't like your argument - if they see its empty at #1 SSM will logically fall.

    By analogy, SSm at #3 is like having a boat registration at #3 in the following stack:

    (3) Boat registration
    [depends on]
    (2) law grants special status to being registered
    [depends on]
    (1) society needs to regulate cars on public roads

    The stack is again incoherent.

    With 1 and 2 as stated, car registration must be at #3 to be coherent..

    We can't simply remove #1 to support boat registration at #3, we must also change #1 to match.

    That is also what SSmers need to do.

    Instead of them removing procreation at #1, they also need to change #1 so it matches SSM at #3.

    Its always informative to see how SSmers respond when confronted with your argument along with your counter reply.

    I look forward to gleaning from your future exchanges .

    Thank you, BTW, for the favorable comments.

45. bman
    Posted March 21, 2013 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    Addendum:

    We can also place God's design at the base of the stack and top it with perpetuation of the human species.

    (6) Orderly perpetuation of the human species
    [depends on]
    (5) Bridge-Groom marriage privileges
    [depends on]
    (5) law giving special status to marriage
    [depends on]
    (3) civil society needs well ordered procreation between men and women
    [depends on]
    (2) natural laws of sexual reproduction
    [depends on]
    (1) God's design of human nature

    The stack now has considerable explanatory power.

46. bman
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 12:27 am | Permalink

    Chairm->The marriage idea justifies the preferential status of the union of husband and wife.

    Agreed. My previous post left that unstated though implied.

    A more complete diagram would show that marriage law depends on the marriage idea.

    It would also show the marriage idea depends on things outside law, such as religion, morality, sexual reproductive biology, basic family structure, complementary gender differences, common sense, the needs and rights of children, needs and rights of parents, duty of parents to each other, to their children, to society, and more.

    Even so, as the Dutch Scientists noted, socio-legal experiments can devalue the marriage idea in the collective consciousness of society and result in a decline.

    As social engineers use law and policy to indoctrinate society with, "There's no evidence a child needs different-sexed parents.." as Robert just stated in another thread, it strikes at the very foundations of the marriage idea.

    SSm does not simply attach to the marriage idea; it overwrites it, as when a computer virus takes over a program.

    SSmers attack virtually all the pillars that support the marriage idea, like religion, morality, family structure, social norms, common sense, biological parenting etc.

    How, then, can SSM avoid causing a decline in marriage, or avoid causing more social ills, once it has indoctrinated the collective consciousness of society with its counter-philosophy?

    That said, protecting the marriage idea and the pillars that support are important to the fight.

    I look forward to your defense of the marriage idea in your future posts.

47. bman
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    The idea also occurs that SSm has a support stack that is contrary to the marriage idea stack.

    Marriage, for example, depends on sexual biology, while SSm depends on "orientation."

    Here is a draft that briefly compares the differences..

    Marriage IDEA SSM IDEA
    ----------------- ---------------
    Religion Irreligion
    Sexual morality Sexual Indifference
    Sexual Virtue Sexual Vice
    Teen sex education 1st grader sex education
    Tradition Redefinition
    Sexual Biology Sexual Orientation
    Human Dignity Gay Pride
    Motherly Instinct Gay step dad replaces mom
    Father Figure Gay step mom replaces dad
    two parent norm three parent norm
    For Procreation Marriage not for procreation.
    intended for children not intended for children
    Public Institution Private contract
    sacred duty Personal preference
    Conscience Rights Intolerant Law suits
    Freedom Oppression
    Parental Rights Gay Rights
    Law by Majority Law by Gay Interests
    Intuitive Counter-intuitive
    Common sense Law is law
    Natural Sex Maladaptive sex
    naturalfamilystructure arbitrary family structure

    More can be added, of course, or better wording used.

    The key idea is the two stacks depict two systems that are not equal.

    The issue is not whether gays can "marry" and live privately without harming my marriage.

    Rather, its a public policy issue, not a private rights issue.

    Whoever votes for SSm votes for the entire column under it as the basis for family law for future generations.

    One column will give the next generation the means to build society on the laws of nature given by God.

    The other column will give them a society pitted against nature and nature's God.

    My question for the pro-SSm voter is which column will you hand down to the next generation?

48. bman
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

    The two columns did not display with the same spacing I used.

    Here its the table again with a separator [vs.] added.

    I would have used an html table but it did not work in this forum the last time I tried one.

    Marriage vs. SSM
    -----------------------
    Religion vs. Irreligion

    Sexual morality vs. Sexual Indifference

    Sexual Virtue vs. Sexual Vice

    Teen sex education vs. 1st grade sex education

    Traditional Society vs. Unrooted Society

    Sexual Biology vs. Sexual Orientation

    Human Dignity vs. Gay Pride

    Motherly Instinct vs. Gay step dad replaces mom

    Father Figure vs. Gay step mom replaces dad

    Two parent norm vs. Three parent norm

    For Procreation vs. Not for procreation.

    Intended for children v.s Not intended for children

    Public Institution vs. Private contract

    Sacred duty vs. Personal preference

    Conscience Rights vs. Intolerant Law suits

    Freedom vs. Oppression

    Parental and Child Rights vs. Gay Rights

    Law by Majority vs. Law by Gay Interests

    Intuitive vs. Counter-intuitive

    Common sense vs. Law is law

    Natural sexual vs. Maladaptive sex

    naturalfamilystructure vs. arbitrary family structure

49. Chairm
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 12:13 am | Permalink

    bman, good work. Perhaps you could put our diagram on the web someplace else and provide a hyperlink for readers? That way we can reference it as needed.

    Cheers.