NOM BLOG

Video: All the March for Marriage Speakers!

 

Did you miss the March for Marriage? Now you can watch the whole program of our rally on the National Mall!

This playlist plays the individual speakers one by one, as well as the introduction and closing remarks by our President Brian Brown:

What's the next step? Signing our citizens petition to the Supreme Court!

15 Comments

  1. Robert
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    "Did you miss the March for Marriage?"

    Yeah, I blinked.

    Hey, could you guys let the Ruth Institute know that there was a whopping 10,000 people at the march? They think it was only 2,500! It's like they believe the lame-stream media or something!

  2. Son of Adam
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    "There is substantial evidence that a child benefits by having two married parents."

    That's because those two married parents consist of a mother and a father.

  3. Son of Adam
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    "They think it was only 2,500! It's like they believe the lame-stream media or something!"

    The lame stream media reported dozens.

  4. bman
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    Robert->Except it's not. There's no evidence that a child benefits by having more than two married parents.

    Although SSM may eventually lead to "having more than two married parents" that had nothing to do
    with my comment.

    You jumped track on that one.

    Here is the point you missed. A man who has children by many different women can marry only one of those women. The children he has by other women could not have married parents because polygamy is illegal.

    You said opposing SSM is to oppose children having married parents.

    Do you also apply that same logic to opposing polygamy?

  5. Robert
    Posted April 6, 2013 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    "You said opposing SSM is to oppose children having married parents.

    Do you also apply that same logic to opposing polygamy?"

    No, because polygamy doesn't permit the focused commitment that is the essence of marriage. You can't be committed to more than one person in the way you are committed to just one. But I think you've finally hit at the heart of what marriage is: commitment.

  6. Son of Adam
    Posted April 7, 2013 at 4:51 am | Permalink

    If you can't be committed to more than one person, then how can you possibly be committed to more than one child? - Or a spouse and a child?

    This rationalization is nothing more than a front to promote homosexual identity politics.

  7. Robert
    Posted April 7, 2013 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    Son, go back and reread what I wrote. I didn't say you can't be committed to more than one person, but rather, you can't be committed to more than one person THE SAME WAY YOU CAN COMMIT TO ONE person. Plus there are other downsides to polygamy, such as it's religionist origins.

  8. Son of Adam
    Posted April 7, 2013 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    So please explain to me, Robert, how it is possible to commit to the raising of more than one child, who by all accounts is a person too? And there are downsides to homosexuality as well, such as promiscuity, domestic abuse, STDs, pedophilia, etc. You just won't see past the wealth and political influence of the homosexual lobby to appreciate them.

  9. Randy E King
    Posted April 7, 2013 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    "go back and reread what I wrote. I didn't say you can't be committed to more than one person,"

    I'll bite:

    "No, because polygamy doesn't permit the focused commitment that is the essence of marriage."

    The old "who are you going to believe; me, or your own damn lying eyes." routine you are dependent on is not the winning arguments you seem to believe it is.

    You believe because we are tolerant we are weak; your arrogance offends me.

  10. Robert
    Posted April 7, 2013 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    Son, you're creeping me out: children are not adults. Raising a child is not the same as having an adult, sexual relationship! Are you a pedophile??? If so, get help!

    In fact, the high divorce rate shows that marriage is about adult desires, not the needs of kids. But heck, make up whatever reality fits your prejudices!

  11. Randy E King
    Posted April 7, 2013 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    "But heck, make up whatever reality fits your prejudices!"

    Like the way you convinced yourself that your proclivity turns you into a subspecies of man, or the way you convinced yourself that the last tow-thousand-years of recorded human history never really happened; that the laws of nature and natures God were fabricated so as to exclude the species of "Gay" from decent society?

  12. Son of Adam
    Posted April 7, 2013 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    The high divorce rate started with the legalization of no fault divorce under the misconception that marriage is only about promoting the sexuality of adults, not the best interests of children. Once divorce became easier to obtain, more and more children were forced to see their families ripped apart and forced to be raised in broken homes. So don't tell me that putting the sexualities of adults above the needs and upbringing of children doesn't damage marriage. Forty years of history proves that it does. And our kids have paid the price!

  13. bman
    Posted April 8, 2013 at 12:33 am | Permalink

    Robert->No, because polygamy doesn't permit the focused commitment that is the essence of marriage. You can't be committed to more than one person in the way you are committed to just one. But I think you've finally hit at the heart of what marriage is: commitment.

    Are you saying that if polygamy was legalized and the man married all the other women with whom he had children, that it would not be marriage "in essence?"

  14. Chairm
    Posted April 9, 2013 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    Commitment to sodomy is not a marital commitment.

  15. leehawks
    Posted April 10, 2013 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    And marriage is not consummated by sodomy.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.