NOM BLOG

Mainwaring in Public Discourse: Quelling "Same-Sex Marriage Fever"

 

Doug Mainwaring, in Public Discourse, dismantles some of the myths by which same-sex marriage advocates seek to generate momentum. He arrives at a compelling conclusion:

Put all this together and it’s evident that there’s no real urgent need for same-sex marriage to be instituted, no great demand for it, and no sea change of conservative support. In fact, the degree of popular support has been fabricated, woven from thin strands of sophistry and fragile threads of emotion. [...]

I am confident that the naked overreach of the media and progressive activists on this issue will invite a voter backlash that will either meet or exceed the same-sex marriage movement’s achievements, leading to a thorough rethinking of Roe v. Wade, no-fault divorce, and our debilitating, anti-family, anti-father welfare state.

Read his whole piece to see what gives him this confidence. It should give us confidence, too.

26 Comments

  1. Son of Adam
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    Make no mistake, the advances of SS"M" has been due to the wealth and the political influence of the homosexual lobby, not civil rights.

  2. Richard
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    SoA, not correct. The advances of gay marriage have come about because humanity, in its evolutionary tendency to respect and nurture individual rights, has come to appreciate that gay marriage advances stability in families and society. But the most important factor is that most people now know and love a gay person.

  3. Randy E King
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    @Richard,

    Your "who are you going to believe; me, or your own damn lying eyes" routine may make you feel better about you crimes against humanity, but it will not save you come judgment time.

  4. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    This is another great piece by Mr. Mainwaring, containing a good bit of humor. He says of the demand for pseudo-marriage in New York:

    "A shoe sale at Macy’s would’ve produced a bigger stampede."

  5. Robert
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    I don't think civil rights should be parsed out based on the size of the minority group. We all win when everyone, no matter the size of his particular group, gets equal legal rights!

  6. OldKingBlog
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    "Earth to bobby-poo: An explanation is in order RE your statement: "We all win when everyone, no matter the size of his particular group, gets equal legal rights!" How and why? (Everyone, I'll just bet the little bugger can't answer these questions cogently!)

  7. Randy E King
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    Robert,

    Civil Rights are parsed out by the laws of nature. You know; that pesky eight-hundred-pound Gorilla in the room you refuse to have an honest conversation about.

  8. Frank
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    Fortunately, OKB, your standard "earth to" statements and your making fun of others' names don't make you any less wrong than you already are.

  9. Robert
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    Hey, congrats to New Zealand! It's almost a country a week at this point!

  10. Ash
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    "Proponents of same-sex marriage must derail public discourse and demand quick action via judicial, executive, and/or legislative fiat; otherwise their mission is doomed."

    Very true. The more this issue is discussed, and the more people ask questions such as "What is Marriage?", "Why is the government involved in marriage?", "Why should unrelated, romantically-involved same-sex couples get more rights and benefits that other nonmarital households?", etc., the worse things get for the ssm movement.

  11. Robert
    Posted April 20, 2013 at 7:37 am | Permalink

    The marriage discussion seems to be moving in one direction only. It's not like previous supporters of same-sex marriage are changing their minds. I think more hearts and minds will change each day, as decent people want others and their children to know the security and joy of marriage.

  12. John B.
    Posted April 20, 2013 at 9:09 am | Permalink

    Poor Mr. Mainwaring, NOM likes to hold him up as a gay man who supports their cause but the truth is that he is a psychologically broken man, who (like so many others, most recently the famously ex-gay and now ex-ex-gay John Paulk) entered into a fraudulent marriage with a woman thinking or hoping it would "cure" him of his homosexuality. As sorry as I feel for Mr. Mainwaring I feel even worse for his wife--two lives ruined, not to mention their poor kids. The ex-gay movement is doing a grave disservice to marriage by trying to foist men like this onto unsuspecting women.

  13. John B.
    Posted April 20, 2013 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    BTW it's marriages like Mr. Mainwaring's that produced the results of the Regnerus study, not same-sex couples raising children together (which Regnerus did NOT study).

  14. Robert
    Posted April 20, 2013 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    Whoever gets to write the definitive book on the anti-gay movement, he or she has a fascinating and disgusting tale to tell!

  15. Randy E King
    Posted April 20, 2013 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    @Robert,

    It is very telling that you believe fidelity to the laws of nature and natures God to be "disgusting."

    Then again; you also believe masturbating on same gender companions to be moral; that partaking in sexual depravity transforms you into a species of man unto yourself; that changing the meaning of words somehow renders your crimes against humanity acceptable.

    Degusting: repugnance

    Repugnance: the quality or fact of being contradictory or inconsistent

    Gee, Robert, it looks like you have a lot more words to redefine.

  16. Robert
    Posted April 20, 2013 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    Randy, feel free to redefine all you want! Are two gay people in a relationship still a "couple" or are they not allowed to use that word either?

    I think two people engaged in consensual sex is perfectly moral. But I was brought up not to judge others, certainly not hypocritically. All the lying from NOM and its supporters shocks the conscience, don't you think?

  17. Robert
    Posted April 20, 2013 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    Hey Randy, the corker is how you support legal pre-marital sex, legal adultery and legal divorce, all forbidden by the Bible, but oppose legal same-sex marriage, which the Bible is silent about.

    How will you explain to God why you defy Him on pre-marital sex, adultery and divorce, yet actively opposed legalizing something He never talked about?

  18. LHF
    Posted April 20, 2013 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    In most other countries where ssm has been imposed, it's been imposed legislatively, and can therefore be reversed. If the US Supreme Court decides that there is a right to ssm, we are stewed. How do you reverse that?

  19. Bobby
    Posted April 20, 2013 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    LHF - In any country that has legislated marriage equality is there any serious move to reverse it? One never hears much about people evolving so they no longer support equality.

  20. Randy E King
    Posted April 20, 2013 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    @Robert,

    How is it that all sexual deviants are now "Gay People?"

    I provide you with the official definition of words yet you claim that I somehow made up the definition so as to make perverts look bad.

    Perverts do not need my help to look bad Robert!

  21. B DeCicco
    Posted April 20, 2013 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    The Supreme Court is not going to find a right to SSM within the constitution. They cannot find what does not exist. Equality has nothing to do with redefining marriage.

    I have heard many advocates for SSM say in the past, "With a bad economy, job loss, etc., voters aren't going to care about SSM." This was said as an optimistic statement; in other words, we will never have a repeat of the election of 2004 when gay marriage questions on ballots of 11 states made voters swing against it.

    What they are forgetting is that if voters lose interest in being AGAINST SSM , they could also lose interest in supporting it. Our future holds economic crisis, war, terrorism, joblessness, and more. I predict there will be a falling off of support for SSM globally: In the coming years it will increasingly be viewed as irrelevant and trivial to most mainstream people.

  22. Randy E King
    Posted April 20, 2013 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    @Bobby,

    Spain is seriously moving to reverse it, Bobby, because it has been proved to be the principle reason why the nation has fallen into ruin.

    I predict the others will find this to be true as well in a very short time.

  23. Frank
    Posted April 20, 2013 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    When, NOM, are you going to let Doug in on your little secret? I mean, that poor little self-loathing guy is out there selling his soul hoping for a grain of acceptance from groups with whom he will never have anything in common other than hypocrisy. The least you can do is to let him know that you are more than happy to post his quotes in an effort to bolster your losing argument and position but that at the end of the day you still despise him, perhaps even more than he despises himself, because he is part of "teh ghey." You haven't made a single truthful statement in your entire existence; now might be a good time to start reversing that trend.

  24. P. Edward Murray
    Posted April 21, 2013 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    This voter does care because he sees that the "well off" are pushing this...

    IF they were not so darn comfy they wouldn't be pushing it either!

  25. Posted April 22, 2013 at 3:40 am | Permalink

    Indeed a very positive article and an author who sees through the ability of the Liberal newsmedia and misguided Liberals to create the news they prefer to announce.

    Just waiting for SCOTUS to strike. Predictions are irrelevant, at this point.

  26. E. Cohen
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    No one should demand rights based on behavior - and homosexuality is just that. A behavior based on influences in a person's life.

    If folks are "born that way" - how is it that 80% or more of all gay identical twins have HETEROSEXUAL twin siblings? Because....no on is born gay.

    Check it out: http://www.nooneisborngay.com Just the facts folks.