NOM BLOG

“World’s Most Perfect Argument” for Redefining Marriage?

 

A viral photo on the social network Reddit is gaining attention in the media.

The letter shows a two paragraph essay written by a fourth-grader in favor of marriage redefinition. The letter begins:

Why gay people should be able to get married is you can’t stop two adult’s from getting married because there grown and it doesn’t matter if it creeps you out just get over it.

Now, of course, we’re not interested in arguing with a fourth-grader. But what does interest us is the assessment given to the letter by Salon.com journalist Katie McDonough. She called it the “world’s most perfect argument in support of marriage equality”!

McDonough highlights especially the child’s advice that those who stand for marriage between one man and one woman, that they should “just get over it.”

Proof again that the activists pushing same-sex marriage aren’t interested in reasoned debate and argument: just silencing the other side. A tactic fitting maybe for a schoolyard, but not the public square.

92 Comments

  1. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    Cute letter. I wonder if folks would be fawning over it if it was opposed to pseudo-marriage.

  2. Randy E King
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    Marriage corruption supporters like to get other peoples children before they reach ten years of age; before they start questioning what they are being told.

  3. Richard
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    Barb, it is a cute letter and more so because it doesn't include any reference to hate for anyone, just human tolerance and, more importantly, understanding. And this, from a 4th grader. I suggest the above post is best evidence to date that it has never been about the kids as far as NOM and its followers would have us believe.

  4. Richard
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    Breaking: gay marriage likely to be moved on by Delaware Senate Executive Committee. Senate and Governor waiting. "Oh when the saints, oh when the saints, oh when the saints come marching in..."

  5. Son of Adam
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    That letter is typical of the contempt SS"M" supporters hold against dissenting views. Besides, there is no guarantee that this kid will feel the exact same way once he becomes older and wiser. I used to be quite liberal myself until I hit my 30s.

  6. Randy E King
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    Blasphemy is bad enough; but prideful blasphemy...

    St Paul wrote Romans, Ephesians, Corinthians, Galatians; which all delt with the sanctity of marriage while condemniing the sexual depravity you are pimping.

    You most certainly are not marching with the Saints!

  7. Richard
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

    SoA, do you harbor contempt for this remarkable 4th grader? Do you really think that his young sense of fairness and equality are a product of some dark, sinister influence? Perhaps he knows something you don't. Perhaps he has gay parents, or a gay sibling, uncle,aunt, cousin, grandparent, neighbor....perhaps in this young honest child's perspective of life there is more love and acceptance than you can ever imagine to have learned in your first 30 years. How sad.

  8. Richard
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    Randy, something you will never understand. For so many children the formative years are full of hate, hypocrisy and stereotypes. For far too many the only role model is an adult who is fearful, hurt and shrunken from a limited, tortured world. So many of you who post here carry the mark of this upbringing. Hate begins in youth and is nurtured in ignorance and guilt. Here we have a refreshing, guilt free 4th grader full of optimism and NOM isn't interested in his message? Is NOM afraid of him and his message?

  9. Posted April 26, 2013 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

    Permit me to write in "Richard's Blog": This letter by a 4th grader contains hate. He says "If it creeps you out, just get over it. And you should be happy for them..."

    So, they "are born that way", but we are not born our way? According to his indoctrination, non"gays" are the norm and "natural". Actually, they are fooled.

    This child has learned circular reasoning, first.

    Because there is no middle ground: either opposite-sex biological sexuality is the norm, or there is no specific biological sexuality. The 1st has the proper organs. The second doesn't. But that is not something a 4th grader really knows about, yet.

    Another kid (5th grade?) said "Which parent don't I need: my mom or my dad?"
    https://www.nomblog.com/33838

  10. Son of Adam
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

    No, I just think that this 4th grader demonstrates naivete that is typical in children and has been manipulated and corrupted by adults. I know I was from time to time.

  11. Posted April 26, 2013 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

    Those are not the child's biological grandparents. Anyone want to bet?

  12. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    Little Man wrote: "Those are not the child's biological grandparents. Anyone want to bet?"

    No doubt you're correct. The gay couples with whom I'm acquainted routinely lie to the children in their possession about their genesis and about their "relatives," who aren't related at all. These couples pretend that these children don't have a mother or father. This dishonesty is what ultimately woke me up to the terrible consequences of pseudo-marriage. Some of these children are now grown up and not too happy about it. They are seeking out their real parent(s), which is sometimes difficult, due to the fact that the truth has been so carefully hidden from them.

  13. Frank
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    As the song in South Pacific goes, "You've got to be carefully taught." Obviously, nobody has bothered to carefully teach that poor, neglected child. Child abuse at its absolute worst!

  14. Ash
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

    All this child needs to know is that weddings are not illegal in this country. Same-sex couples can have weddings in all fifty states. So long as no one is forced to participate in the ceremony, or the government doesn't lie and claim that same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples, then everything is good in the neighborhood.

    Same-sex couples having a ceremony that involves the willful participation of all parties (suppliers and service providers) and with rational government recognition (if any)? That's fine! We're over it, honey! :)

  15. Randy E King
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 12:36 am | Permalink

    "Life is too short to harbor feelings of hatred and anger. That's it..." Richard Cobb

    Just a few of the last words of a convicted murderer/sociopath still accusing his victims of the crimes he himself was guilty of till the bitter end.

    These miscreants want us to believe that we are the evil ones for hating them for the crimes they commit against humanity.

    They were born that way.

  16. Will Fisher
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 7:44 am | Permalink

    Vintage Randy, equating gays with murderers. If homosexuality is as bad as murder, why wouldn't that merit the death penalty (Lev. 20:13, remember), Randy? And you call other people immoral. lol.

  17. Son of Adam
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    I don't think homosexuality merits the death penalty. But that doesn't make it any less deadly. According to the Center of Disease Control, 1 out of every 5 homosexuals have the HIV virus. They also make up over 50% of syphilis cases. And the CDC reports that the majority of new AIDs cases belong to homosexuals as well.

    Homosexual activity kill thousands every year and should no more be encouraged or promoted than smoking or drinking.

  18. Marc Paul
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    If you were really concerned about HIV then you would also be saying that equal marriage is likely to reduce its prevalence. Sad,y, you don't care when LBT people die.
    from a website:
    "because we have ably stated our case against your spins and misrepresentations, there is now an entire crop of young people who are coming into their own with the understanding that LGBT people are actually good and decent people who are meant to be here."

  19. Son of Adam
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    It doesn't. AIDs cases amongst gays have gone up in MA since SS"M" had become legal.

  20. Son of Adam
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    The problem with you, Marc, is that you care more about homosexuality than you do homosexuals.

  21. Jeanette Exner
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    "Reasoned debate and argument?" What is there to debate and argue about?

    Morality? The morality of Gay marriage is comparable to the morality of Straight marriage: It is morally and ethically preferable to encourage people toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and possibly promiscuity. This is the true conservative position.

    "God's Word?" That's irrelevant, since the U.S. is not a theocracy. It is not the job of our secular government to uphold the Bible, but rather to uphold the Constitution. And unless the Constitution only applies to people who are heterosexual, there is no justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits and protections that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

    A "redefinition" of marriage? For Straight couples absolutely NOTHING is changing or being "redefined." Straight couples will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that is going to change whether (or not) Gay couples are allowed to marry also. Likewise, marriage equality will not affect the number of Straight couples who divorce, cheat on one another, or give up their kids for adoption.

    Parenting and procreation? Couples do not need to marry to have children, nor is the ability or even desire to have children a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. This whole debate is also irrelevant to the number of individuals and couples, both Gay and Straight, who will continue to adopt and raise children to healthy, well-adjusted adulthood.

  22. Son of Adam
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    Saying that SS"M" is conservative is like Joe Biden saying that wanting to pay more taxes is patriotic. SS"M" is a symptom of declining family values in this country and it is no coincidence that it is supported by those who have been bashing natural marriage for decades.

    Your statements are based on nothing more than junk legal analysis and unfounded social theories, which are a front for the promotion of homosexual identity politics, nothing else.

  23. Randy E King
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    As demonstrated in Jeanette's self incriminating offering; these perverts are demanding their depravity be deemed moral via judicial fiat.

    Simply; they seek to legislate the absolution of their sins.

  24. Zack
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    Poor kid. He should be writing essays about his favorite book or some fantasy story about dragons and monsters....not this and shame on whoever coerced him into writing it.

    In other news John Eastman is giving the latest course at Prager University where he dispels the myth of the "separation of church and state" clause the left promotes but can never point out in the Constitution.

    If any of you can find it, let me know...I'm havin trouble ugh

    http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/

  25. Zack
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    Okay I misread the post. In two Mondays, John Eastman will be giving the latest course at Prager Univeristy. Scratch the second half of my post.

  26. David Broadus
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    Bravo, Jeanette. Unfortunately NOM supporters are incapable of understanding why their arguments make no sense. The simplest concept, such as how their religion has zero to do with how laws should be shaped is utterly beyond their comprehension.

  27. Robert
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    It's both marvelous and amazing that a child has a better grasp of reality than the NOMsters! Now that tells you something!

  28. Richard
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Bravo Jeanette! A concise, reasoned and universally understood set of principles that confounds the minds of Randy, SoA and so many others.
    Breaking: Mormon Church announces support for the Boy Scouts of America plan to allow gay scouts to participate. Some gay scouts will grow up to become scout leaders.

  29. Richard
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    Breaking: American Unity PAC, a national group of wealthy and prominent Republican donors is pouring new money ($500.000 spent last month) into lobbying efforts to get Republican lawmakers to support gay marriage in a number of states. Their message is it's good for the country and it's politically the right thing to do. A number of states are targeted.

  30. Randy E King
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    " their religion has zero to do with how laws should be shaped is utterly beyond their comprehension."

    @David,

    So are you saying that your religion is the official religion of these United States?

    Every system of belief has a foundation; a basis from which to governed. In these United States that basis is the laws of nature and natures God.

  31. Randy E King
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    @Jeanette,

    Playing the parasite as not as admirable as Richard would like you to believe.

  32. Richard
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    Isn't it funny how so many people still think to be a Republican, by definition, means to oppose gays and gay marriage. Well, all 5 Republican state senators in RI turned that around. These donors must know something. Perhaps it's that many, many Republicans want to discard that unpopular yoke of discrimination because it was always wrong and now it's not helping.

  33. Richard
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    Google the blog post by a certain anti-gay group out of MA. The infighting has begun.

  34. Randy E King
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    @Richard,

    NOM focuses on any politician that takes NOM money and then turns around and betrays their commitment to defend authentic marriage.

    Your obsession with painting your opponents as the bogeyman only proves how desperate you are to mask your true intent through deception and redirection.

  35. Sheryl
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    Indoctrination of our young people at its worst :( PARENTS are responsible for how their children trun out yet they are leaving it in the hands of the public schools. Nazi Germany , anyone?

  36. Posted April 27, 2013 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    AGITPROP
    Maybe three in a hundred are bent,
    And one tenth of that number intent
    On pretending to wed
    Same-sex partners instead:
    All this turmoil for three-tenths percent?

    BULLIES
    In the 50s our fathers knew best,
    But back then they could scarcely have guessed
    That a mere three percent
    Who are sexually bent
    Would intimidate all of the rest.

    CZARDOM & GOMORRAH
    “We are in your schools now and polluting
    All the innocent minds we’re rebooting:
    There’ll be total immersion
    In every perversion
    And the schools will be safe for recruiting.”

    BENT ON MARRIAGE
    “We are undermining resistance
    With our carefully plotted persistence:
    Rather than disparage
    The institution of marriage,
    We’re defining it out of existence.”

  37. Cara
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    Perfect argument? Alright, let's look at this.

    "Why RELATED people should be able to get married is you can’t stop two adult’s from getting married because there grown and it doesn’t matter if it creeps you out just get over it."

    "Why 5 people should be able to get married is you can’t stop adult’s from getting married because there grown and it doesn’t matter if it creeps you out just get over it."

    Since the argument can be used for marriages that we do not approve of it is not a valid argument. If this kid had said:

    "Why gay people should NOT be able to get married is they should just get over it."

    It would be just as faulty. "Just get over it" dismisses and does not address the concerns of the other side, showing an unwillingness to listen to the other side let alone try to understand the other side. It's wrong for both sides to use that sort of logic. I hope my kids learn to reason better than this.

  38. scragsma
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

    "the world's most perfect argument" ??

    It isn't even a RATIONAL argument !!

  39. Richard
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    An interesting post on another blog site asks the question: Where is Maggie Gallagher? Apparently there are many, in the know, who say that Maggie is avoiding this site because it has become far too hateful and vitriolic about gays, a position Maggie never shared. Who knows? Certainly NOM is not about marriage, anymore. Now it's all about denigrating gays.

  40. Will Fisher
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    Sheryl, are you equating SSM with Nazism? Hyperbole much?

  41. Richard
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    The word is out: phone banks, an army of volunteers, organized labor, business leaders and religious clergy joined together to insure the RI success. A certain MA anti-gay group is not happy with NOM. Google it.

  42. Chris
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    I find it funny that NOM is attacking a fourth-grader's argument and trying to make itself look tall.

  43. Zack
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    Chris

    I find it mortifying that liberals would exploit children to further their agenda.

  44. Richard
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    Chris, you are spot on...the very demographic (children) that NOM pretends to protect is now reviled. This is unbelievable. A 4th grader speaks to the honesty, beauty and joy of his/her grandparents' wedding and NOM says the child is indoctrinated...yea, to the love of family, to the youthful respect for what is right, to the belief that his/her grandparents are loving and supportive. NOM you fail on this one.

  45. Richard
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

    Zack, you and so many are the exploitive element in the lives of America's children. You and your churches would teach kids to hate, to revile, to condemn their very parents and grandparents if they don't fit your notion of a married couple. Gay couples with kids love their kids; their kids love them. You hate both.

  46. Richard
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    Now maybe is the time to point out an increasingly obvious status of anti-gay sites such as NOM, the FRC and a MA group which NOM will not allow me to name. You are being abandoned in droves. Your money sources are shrinking. You are now regarded as marginal and unbalanced. You now profess to hate children, gays and anyone who supports them. It was never about marriage. Your motives are fully revealed.

  47. Chris
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

    Zack -

    I find it mortifying that conservatives have exploited children to further their agenda. The fact that you have cheered them in the past goes to show a double standard you have

  48. Richard
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    Not one of you will check out the MA anti-gay site to which I refer for you are scared that its message is spot on. Not one of you will google the news about American Unity PAC, because the barricades are drawn and no light of reality is to e admitted. And, of course, not one of you will engage in honest debate about current events. Just hate and personal attacks.

  49. Richard
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

    USA Today: Delaware, New Jersey, Minnesota, Oregon, Calfornia next up for gay marriage. Of course a host of others are taking steps to advance equality now that momentum is on the side of justice and SCOTUS is ready to rule.

  50. Randy E King
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

    Being anti-self identified bastardized word is not a crime Richard!

    The true crime is in bastardizing words for the sole propose of lending an appearance of acceptability to depravity that is indefensible on its own merit.

  51. Richard
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    Hey Randy, look up the MA blog post and then perhaps you'll have a new phrase to use (repeatedly) but at least it will be new.

  52. Randy E King
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    I use accurate and authentic phrases in defense of my position; you use bastardized phrases in defense of yours.

    Sexual depravity does not turn you into a species of man unto yourself.

  53. bman
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

    Excellent poems F.R. Duplantier!

  54. OldKingBlog
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 12:28 am | Permalink

    Brian: why are lil richie, Jeanette, and their tiny band of intellectual rubble and moral detritus left over from the Sixties still allowed to post here? I want them moved to Moveon post haste!

  55. Ash
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 1:19 am | Permalink

    @F. R. Duplantier,

    "Bent on Marriage" is the best one, IMHO. :)

  56. Will Fisher
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 6:18 am | Permalink

    OKB, NOM is trying to maintain the pretense that they're not anti-gay or ideologically-driven. Your comments don't help. Head on down to FreeRepublic.com or WorldNet Daily.

  57. Posted April 28, 2013 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    Ash said: @F. R. Duplantier, "Bent on Marriage" is the best one, IMHO.

    Yes! Nicely done, Duplantier! Very smart

    BENT ON MARRIAGE
    “We are undermining resistance
    With our carefully plotted persistence:
    Rather than disparage
    The institution of marriage,
    We’re defining it out of existence.”

    Homosexual and Kim Kardashian farcical marriages for everyone!

  58. Randy E King
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    @Will,

    You seem to be working under the mistaken belief that ideologies that stand in direct opposition to your are somehow unconstitutional.

    Justice Kennedy will undo the wrong he perpetrated against the U.S. Constitution during is ill advised majority opinions in Romer V. and Lawrence; clarifying that ideologies that oppose so call homosexual identity politics are not only Constitutionally permissible, but also protected under the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    You will be undone!

  59. Will Fisher
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    We shall see, Randy, in about two months time.

  60. Zack
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    @Chris

    "I find it mortifying that conservatives have exploited children to further their agenda. The fact that you have cheered them in the past goes to show a double standard you have"

    Number of things here:

    1) I've never cheered children being used to further an agenda from any side and I challenge you to find ONE quote where I praised such a practice.

    2) Throughout the archives of this blog alone, I have found only 2 children that NOM has promoted but can point to literally dozens the left has coerced into promoting their agenda. By the way, no conservative has ever wished death upon a child that argued on behalf of redefining Marriage. But the left is filled with such animosity towards differing views that span all ages.

    3) The fact that you lump me in with false generalizations only proves the truth that liberals can't comprehend nor predict how a conservative will think.

  61. John
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    Since McDounough has decided this is the perfect defense for so called marriage equality..

    The letter reads"you can't stop two people from getting married because they are grown." So I guess that means two people in love who are related can get married huh? Guess if that creeps me out too bad.

    Don't judge other people's lives? tell that to the people that spend more time judging and accusing people of hate, discrimination, etc..when the people they judge merely believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman..and it has nothing to do with being anti gay, but pro marriage.

  62. Will Fisher
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    John, First cousins can marry in quite a few states and foreign countries.

  63. Posted April 28, 2013 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    Will, will you answer? True, first-cousins can marry in a few States in the USA. But that means opposite-sex first-cousins. You forgot to mention that. Like you said: only "in a few States", so there must be a reason why the other not-so-few States do not allow it. In your opinion why would that be so?

  64. Will Fisher
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    Little Man, to be honest, I'm not really sure why some states allow first cousin marriage (states as blue as NY & MA and states as red as AL & SC) and some states don't (as blue as WA & DE, as red as MS & KS). Most foreign counties do, but some don't (in India, Muslims can, Hindus can't; go figure). I live in a state that allows 1st cousin marriage; I have no problem with it). Very few marriages in my state are endogamous but they are legal. John was insinuating that if SSM is legalized, we will have to legalize First cousin marriage. My point was that they most likely don't have anything to do with eachother. First cousin marriage preceded SSM in most states where legal (WA being one exception). The fact that TN, AL, GA, and SC all ban SSM but allow 1CM suggests that the legal status of one is irrelevant to the legal status of the other.

  65. P. Edward Murray
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    I live next door to NJ.

    Think again...

    The Governor is not going to let gay marriage in...next door, here in Pennsy, it will be the same.

  66. P. Edward Murray
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    And The PRC is laughing their collective heads off while they are about to overtake us economically and they are not worried about a right to marry in Red China!

  67. P. Edward Murray
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    Chief Justice Roberts:

    “When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say let’s have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.”

  68. Robert
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

    "The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.”

    Or maybe there weren't any homosexual couples around to consider. Of course, times change and marriage has changed and rational people say, well, have the times changed so that gay couples would benefit from marriage, and, of course, the answer is yes.

  69. Randy E King
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

    Bastardizing words so as to lend an appearance of acceptability to sexual depravity is all the proof anyone needs that rational people are not the ones saying "well, have the times changed so that "gay" couples would benefit from marriage"

  70. zack
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    There's an excuse for everything isn't there robert? People back then understood the nature of Marriage and what it's purpose entailed. People were very much aware of homosexuality.

  71. Little Man
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

    Rob(ert) lives in a world of pure speculation. Who can argue against speculation, against hypotheticals? Rob found a very defensible position - arguing by means of fables. Interesting lunacy, but impractical. (A version of "I plead insanity.")

  72. P. Edward Murray
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

    Robert lives on Mr Roarkes "Fantasy Island":)

  73. P. Edward Murray
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    Arrogance is knowing everything about everything except of course no human being really does.

  74. Will Fisher
    Posted April 29, 2013 at 5:38 am | Permalink

    Little Man, how's this for speculation?

    "Many of us say that too. "glads" and "lessvians" in general have extra money, because for the most part they do not engender the next generation. Marriage is LEGAL discrimination against same-sex friendships, because only opposite-sex friendships can engender the next generation. Without the next and next generation, the USA population would diminish to zero, and we would be taken over by another nation that respects motherhood and fatherhood. It is simple Mathematics."

    Recognize this drivel?

  75. bman
    Posted April 29, 2013 at 6:44 am | Permalink

    Robert->..... gay couples would benefit from marriage...

    The proper question is whether society would benefit from it.

    Mostly likely not.

  76. Stephen
    Posted April 29, 2013 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    My husband and I have made our lives together for 44 years. We were married in Canada as soon as it became legal. We live in NY state which has legalized our legal status and look forward to the day when DOMA will be done away with. Our marriage affects no one but ourselves. The work we do and have done in the past has created opportunities for many others and has been seen around the world.

  77. bman
    Posted April 29, 2013 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    Stephen->Our marriage affects no one but ourselves.

    That is not much of an argument since that could be said about a threesome marriage, as well, or almost any behavior that is private.

    Besides, no man is an island, as they say.

    A contra-normative marriage model would naturally have a contra-normative influence on marriage in the surrounding moral environment.

  78. John Noe
    Posted April 29, 2013 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    This blog reminds me so much of the book ANIMAL FARM & 1984. The lies and indoctrination of children. Instead of the public school system protecting children and teaching them the health consequences of homosexuality, it is instead teaching children to adhere to a deathstyle that brings about disease, no creation, and early death.

    The little minds are being harmed. How bad is it? If you are a public school teacher and want to teach the children the truth about homosexuality you are fired. Either lie to the children or be fired.

  79. Richard
    Posted April 29, 2013 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    John Noe, you need a quick and serious lesson in the matter of public education regarding sexuality. We do not teach straight or gay sexuality. You have in your previous post revealed the following: you are uneducated (stupid); you have not set foot in a public school since god knows when; you wouldn't know curriculum if it smacked you over the head and, most importantly, you have no idea of the procedural steps to establish curricula. In short, you are an idiot.

  80. Randy E King
    Posted April 29, 2013 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    You seriously believe bastardizing words is all you need to do in order for you to "evolve" into species of man unto yourself. Now you feel justified in questioning someone else's education?

  81. Robert
    Posted April 29, 2013 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

    Let me see if I understand you John Noe: straight people kill millions of unborn babies every year and being gay is a deathstyle???? Is that really what you meant?

  82. Richard
    Posted April 29, 2013 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    Randy, I've questioned your level if education in every blog post.

  83. Zack
    Posted April 29, 2013 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

    @ Richard "You have in your previous post revealed the following: you are uneducated (stupid)"

    Being educated does not mean one is intelligent.

  84. leehawks
    Posted April 30, 2013 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    The Hypocrisy Of Gay-“Marriage” Advocates
    by Chris Graham

    When a liberal tells me he supports gay marriage because he supports equality for all, I like to invent for myself a sister in her mid-teens and a father with whom, I tell the liberal, I am deeply in love, and who in turn are in love with me. Our mutual plan, I tell the liberal, is for the three of us to get married in a few years when my sister is of legal age, and to live a long life together in loving matrimony, just me, my sister/wife, and my father/husband.

    It is at this point that the liberal, usually, will discover a sudden and strong respect for tradition. It’s a fun experiment.

    Yesterday a self-described moderate sent me a message to ask me what my opinions are on gay marriage, adding that she is bisexual and in a loving relationship with another female. In my response to her, I conducted the above experiment, telling her of the incestuous but truly loving relationship between my sister, my father, and me.

    Her response indicated that while it was all a bit shocking (“Are you really in love with your father and sister?”), she still didn’t mind as much as most liberals do. Even still, she said, “I guess I see your point.”

    At that point I told her the truth:

    I’m not in love with any of my relatives, no. I was making the point of the hypocrisy of those who say they support equality. A liberal says, “I support gay marriage because I support the freedom to marry whoever you love.” So I say, “Will you sign my petition to allow me to marry my two sisters? All three of us are so deeply in love.” And they suddenly become Puritans. This proves that their support of gay marriage has nothing to do with equality (they only say it does because it makes them feel righteous, justified, romantic, sanctimonious); it has everything to do with selfishness, and in some cases it has to do with actively seeking to destroy the very notion of marriage in the first place, as one gay-rights activist recently admitted). They want to destroy marriage because, as they know, marriage is a religious institution. And liberals by and large seek to eliminate all religions that differ from their own: Secularism.

    Which leads me believe that the religious could coexist with the secular more happily if only the secular would permit it.

  85. leehawks
    Posted April 30, 2013 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    Can't get the other part by same author to post. It's called "The Fantasy Lived By Gay-’Marriage’ Advocates" Google it.

  86. Richard
    Posted April 30, 2013 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    Zack, just read your post #83 and I find it and you unfathomable. Let's try this, being unintelligent means one is uneducated. A pretty sure bet and I'm pretty sure it represents many of you who post on this site.

  87. Ash
    Posted May 1, 2013 at 12:01 am | Permalink

    "And they suddenly become Puritans."

    Hypocrites

  88. Little Man
    Posted May 1, 2013 at 12:16 am | Permalink

    Richard: you really don't want to measure your intelligence. I don't recommend it. Education can also mislead you, depending on your teachers.

  89. Little Man
    Posted May 1, 2013 at 12:17 am | Permalink

    Thanks, leehawks

  90. zack
    Posted May 1, 2013 at 12:40 am | Permalink

    Education doesn't equal intelligence. Getting an A in history or english doesn't mean one understands history or english.

  91. leehawks
    Posted May 1, 2013 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    Frankly, some of the most over educated people I have ever met have absolutely no common sense at all.....which in practice makes them very stupid. That's why liberals are profoundly stupid.
    They advocate emotional responses to every problem, never any logical, in depth, long term solutions. They will blow up every tradition, morality or law for the slimmest of reasons no matter how fundamental they are to a society that works for the majority of people just to strike a pose for some ridiculous cause that their friends will all applaud them for.

  92. Chairm
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    Whether or not Richard is educated (heh) is beside the point: he has failed to provide sound reasoning in favor of the SSM imposition. His attempts to insult others is always a diversion from the lack of substance in his comments here. His remarks are quite a bit less schooled in reasoning than that of the letter written by the child mentioned in the original blogpost above this comment section.