48 Comments

1. John Noe
   Posted April 29, 2011 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

   Their was in earlier blog about reciprocal benefits. It is so easy to solve. No homosexual marriage or civil unions. Instead only offer the benefits that tie in directly to procreation to married people only.
   Other benefits such as inhertitance or visitations can be offered equally to married and non married people. It works for the people who are single and it works for the homosexuals.

2. Don
   Posted April 29, 2011 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

   Well, there we have it! No civil unions!

3. Ken
   Posted April 29, 2011 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

   Who cares what the Catholic church supports or opposes? This has absolutely nothing to do with them.

4. Gothelittle
   Posted April 29, 2011 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

   Yeah, Ken, it has nothing to do with the Catholic church at all, they were tired of caring for orphaned children in Massachusetts anyways. [/sarcasm]

   On a more serious note, I have been cheered to see the Catholic church continue to present a unified defense of religious liberty and life-sustaining morality.

5. Zoula
   Posted April 29, 2011 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

   Civil unions is like drinking decaf coffee. It's okay-ish, for the time being.

   What we want, what we need (both on a social and economic level) is full marriage equality for ALL citizens.

6. Kioki
   Posted April 29, 2011 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

   Civil unions is like drinking decaf coffee. It's okay-ish, for the time being.

   What we want, what we need (both on a social and economic level) is full marriage equality for ALL citizens.

7. Don
   Posted April 29, 2011 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

   Ken:

   If that is true then we can safely say, "Who cares what ken supports or opposes? This has absolutely nothing to do with Ken."

8. Ken
   Posted April 29, 2011 at 11:21 pm | Permalink

   Gothelittle: Whoever told you that freedom of religion means that you're entitled to having the law accommodate whatever type of discrimination you want to wrap in the cloak of religious expression owes you an apology. They lied to you and they distorted your understanding of the world and how you fit into it.

9. Don
   Posted April 30, 2011 at 1:41 am | Permalink

   Kioki:

   All already have full marriage equality. What you want is to redefine marriage to provide extra rights beyond the equality which everyone now enjoys.

10. ConservativeNY
    Posted April 30, 2011 at 6:39 am | Permalink

    That is why I oppose SSM, Ken. I don't want the government to adopt the same hostile attitude against traditional family values that you habitually display.

11. John N.
    Posted April 30, 2011 at 6:44 am | Permalink

    Way to go Gothelittle, we Christians and New Englanders need to be vigilante. The homosexuals long term ultimate goal is to eliminate religious freedom and Christianity.
    I have seen their blogs. Ken and his ilk in the name of combating "homophobia" and hate and bigotry want the Christian religion to be outlawed.
    Do we value our faith? We are as much as taxpayers and citizens of this country and have every right to participate.

12. Gothelittle
    Posted April 30, 2011 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    Ken, whoever told you that freedom of religion meant that you're entitled to force all other religions in the country to openly support and celebrate your narrow little minority view or be punished by The State owes you an apology.

    Conservative NY, you said it very neatly and succinctly!

    Kioki, you might want to be aware that your mindset put into action in my state is what changed me from being pro-civil unions to being staunchly anti-civil unions. It's been made abundantly clear that the gay activists will brook no compromise between gay community demands and religious freedom.

    It's a shame, really, because there are an awful lot of gays who would be perfectly content with civil unions because they aren't out to destroy religion... and the stubbornness of people like you is keeping them from getting what they want.

13. Don
    Posted April 30, 2011 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    The homosexual "equality" agenda is backed by the Communist Party USA. The explicitly stated goal of the Communists is to abolish religion. So, of course religion goes if the homosexual activits prevail.

14. Ken
    Posted April 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    Conservative - Keep spinning, but you forgot to put quotes around "traditional family values". That euphemism for bigotry is really getting tired.

    John N. - Another ridiculous claim with absolutely no truth it. Gays want to outlaw Christianity? If I wanted to use your tactics it would sound something like this: John N. and his ilk in the name of religious freedom want to round up all gays and lesbians and force conversion therapy with electroshock and brain surgery. Sounds scary doesn't it?

    And Gothelittle: Seriously, stop with the lies and bigotry. Same-sex marriage does not force anything on religion and you know it. Again, religious freedom doesn't mean that you're entitled to live in a world free from all the things you disapprove of. Sorry to burst your bubble but marriage equality isn't about you or your religion. Making disparaging comments about the motivations of an entire segment of the population is bigotry no matter how badly you want to call it something else.

15. Don
    Posted April 30, 2011 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Ken:

    Now that you have offered more of your baseless propaganda, let's look at the facts.

    The homosexual "equality" agenda is backed by the Communist Party. Communists seek to abolish family, the education of parents by children, religion and morality. How do the activities of SSM activists correlate with these Communist objectives?

    By attacking traditional marriage, which forms the basis of the nuclear family, SSM activists are in perfect alignment with Communist objectives to abolish family.

    By seeking to have the state educate children regarding homosexuality, in the public schools, SSM activists are in perfect alignment with the Communist objective of replacing parental education, regarding sexual matters, with state controlled education on the subject.

    By attacking religion as "bigoted" and by attacking specific churches, like the Catholic and Mormon churches, SSM activists are in perfect aligment with the Communist objective of abolishing religion.

    By dressing minor children in T-shirts with foul language on them and then directing the children to shout vulgarities on camera, SSM activists are in perfect alignment with the Communist objective of abolishing morality.

    It isn't simply that homosexual activists are backed by the Communist Party, it is that in word and deed they are seeking to implement the stated objectives of the Communists in their ongoing efforts to destroy The United States of America.

16. Gothelittle
    Posted April 30, 2011 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    Ken, the last time you claimed that same sex marriage didn't force anything on religion I cited multiple Christians who were fired/fined for refusing to celebrate gay marriage, multiple churches and religious charities that had to cease or modify operations in order to avoid glorifying gay marriage, and multiple situations in which even non-religious groups and peoples were forced to comply with the normalization of homosexuality or be punished by the State.

    Your response is to parrot "Saying it'll affect these people is a lie and you know it!" over and over again despite being given multiple specific examples, apparently in an effort to make these people either disappear or become nonpersons, I don't know. I admit I'm used to debate rebuttal containing, well, an actual rebuttal instead of a constant repetition of claims that have already verifiable been proven false.

17. Gothelittle
    Posted April 30, 2011 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Oh and Ken: "Making disparaging comments about the motivations of an entire segment of the population is bigotry no matter how badly you want to call it something else."

    Really?

    If making disparaging comments about the motivations of the extremist gay marriage activist groups is bigotry, then is it also bigotry to condemn the population segment made up of so-called Christian extremists who shoot abortion doctors?

    If it is, then call me a bigot, because I've spoken out against both! And if so, then you're probably a bigot too! In fact, can you find me anyone who isn't?

18. Gothelittle
    Posted April 30, 2011 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    My old comment is going to show up later tomorrow, I bet, but as it's letting the new ones through again, I'll try again to have it out here while people are still reading.

    Or a variant of it, anyways.

    Ken, this is how logical debate works. You assert that SSM won't infringe on religious freedom. I give you a list of cases (which I did in a previous thread) in which it does. Then you address the evidence... either by telling me why it's wrong or acknowledging that it makes your stance problematic.

    A statement like "Elaine Huguenin, a wedding photographer, was fined thousands of dollars for refusing to take on a lesbian client for a commitment ceremony in a state where SSM is illegal," is what we call an Objective Statement. It doesn't say that this action was good or bad. It simply states a plain fact.

    If you keep countering plain, objective facts with "Stop with your lies and bigotry", without proving it to be a lie or explaining why it is bigotry, you will merely cast doubt on your ability to debate logically.

19. Don
    Posted April 30, 2011 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    Gothelittle:

    Ken likes to bring up that kind of garbage because he can't refute substantial facts like the manner in which SSM activists are seeking to implement a Communist agenda.

20. Ken
    Posted April 30, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    Facts Don? You're hilarious. Now same-sex marriage advocates are trying to implement Communism? Your arguments are getting crazier. All you do is regurgitate your baseless propaganda. Your agenda is backed by the KKK and Aryan Nations too - that's a fact - but I don't need to use that fact against you to justify my opposition to your agenda because my position stands on its own merits. Yours does not. "Attacking traditional marriage" is a straw man argument and you know it. Same-sex marriage is not an attack on anything. LGBT people aren't trying to outlaw heterosexual marriage but to read your propaganda, one would think they were. You need to pretend it is in order to justify why you're so relentless anti-gay. I get it.

    Gothelittle - So gay people are on par with murderers? Keep digging your hole. I don't call you a bigot for speaking out against murder, I call you a bigot for the blatant anti-gay bigotry that you espouse.

21. Gothelittle
    Posted April 30, 2011 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    Ken, you have repeatedly made the claim that SSM will not change anything for any religious group.

    I have repeatedly given you basic, simple, objective facts. Names, places, and situations where this has happened.

    Your response? To accuse me of lying without actually proving that these things did not happen, and to accuse me of hatred and bigotry for pointing out that they did.

    Are you truly incapable of logical discourse?

22. Don
    Posted April 30, 2011 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    Ken:

    You have provided all of those who read this blog with a perfect specimen to examine regarding the classic tactic used by Communists when confronted with facts which they cannot refute.

    First, there's ridicule: "Your arguments are getting crazier."

    Then there is an attempt to change the subject: " Your agenda is backed by the KKK and Aryan Nations too..."

    Then there is a return to the propaganda line: "Same-sex marriage is not an attack on anything."

    In all of this, the subtance and the absolute, unquestionable facts I have presented are completely ignored.

    Since you haven't even attempted to refute the facts I have presented, Ken, that I presume that you concede and you lose by default. Yet another loss for the SSM people.

23. Don
    Posted April 30, 2011 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    Gothelittle:

    Oh, Ken is quite capable of logical discourse. He's just employing a classic tactic of the radical left when confronted with facts they can't refute: ridicule, change the subject and restate the propaganda line again. It's as old as the hills but it's all he's got, LOL!

24. John Noe
    Posted April 30, 2011 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    Welcome to the club Gothelittle. By now you may have noticed that Ken and his followers cannot refute or rebute any points you make. You prove your case, so he just lies and attacks the messenger.
    I have made posts about the effect of SSM on children, health, religious people of faith and the responsibility of your actions.
    John N. has pointed out the absurb interpretations of equallity, civil rights, and the constitution that the homosexuals want. In all cases whenever we present the truth and facts, Ken just attacks the messenger. He has never refuted or rebuted any of our points. Typicall far left tactic: when you cannot debate, attack the messenger.
    I have noticed that whenever I or John N. have made great posts Ken always calls us stupid and ignorant and claims it does not deserve a thoughtfull response.
    Just in folks, the reason why Ken will not give a thoughtfull response is because he has none.

25. Ken
    Posted May 1, 2011 at 12:27 am | Permalink

    At some point you all may actually want to respond to one of the facts in my comments, rather than just talking about how I ignore facts. I'm not interested in getting sucked in to your game of circular logic. Here are just a few of the questions none of you seem able to answer:
    1. How does civil marriage increase the transmission of HIV?
    2. What were your justifications for anti-gay positions before 1981?
    3. Does the promotion of man-woman marriage promote HPV and cervical cancer? If not, why?
    4. How does extending the exact same civil rights that married opposite sex couples have to married same-sex couples establish a communist system in the U.S.?
    5. Please address my account of what happened with CC of Boston with specific mention of the 1989 law. 

    Try to actually answer the questions without just restating the propaganda that prompted the questions. For example, don't respond to "how does same-sex marriage increase AIDS?" with "because same-sex increases AIDS". 

26. Don
    Posted May 1, 2011 at 12:31 am | Permalink

    John Noe:

    SSM advocates simpy want to repeat their propaganda as if, through enough repetitions, people will buy it. The facts and the principles are against them on every single issue across the board so all they have left are subjective judgements, unfounded predictions of the future and their empty propaganda.

27. Don
    Posted May 1, 2011 at 12:33 am | Permalink

    No, Ken, we'll ask the questions and you can answer, something you have yet to do regarding anything which has been put to you by us.

    This is the NOM Blog. You aren't in the driver's seat here, we are.

28. Don
    Posted May 1, 2011 at 12:48 am | Permalink

    Ken:

    How do you explain the fact that the actions taken by SSM activists correlate point for point with the objectives of the Communists as articulated in Chapter II of the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" by Karl Marx?

29. Don
    Posted May 1, 2011 at 1:16 am | Permalink

    Ken:

    I'm waiting to hear your answer to my question, Ken.

30. Gothelittle
    Posted May 1, 2011 at 7:13 am | Permalink

    Ken, in 1981 I was four years old. I didn't *have* a position on SSM.

    And you don't get to ask the questions until you explain how the actual people and situations that I have listed *by name* do not constitute loss of religious freedom and/or freedom of conscience, as you have claimed. Take them one-by-one if you wish.

31. edgwaterprog
    Posted May 1, 2011 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    Don and Gothelittle. - Your religious beliefs are not the standard by which the rest of us must be forced to live. That is the point of religious freedom. If you do not want marriage equality you have some options:
    1. Do not get married to a person of the same sex.
    2. Do not belong to a religious denomination that will marry same-sex couples.
    3. Make sure to stay away from all LGBT persons, lest you be offended by their relationships.

32. Ken
    Posted May 1, 2011 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    Gothelittle, Here's how I responded to your claims about Catholic Charities and Peter Vadala:
    On CC... the (very) short version of the facts (which can be easily verified): Although Catholic Charities of Boston had already been placing children with gay parents for years, they voluntarily ceased providing adoption services in 2006 because they decided they would no longer comply with a 1989 anti-discrimination law (in place for 15 years before SSM was legal in MA). You guys are the ones who claim to have the facts on your side. So reconcile your version of events with these facts or respond with proof that my above description of events is not accurate.

    On Vadala: Which version are you going with, did Mr. Vadala get fired for a) just "refusing to congratulate a lesbian coworker on her SSM" or for b) telling her "apologetically that it was against his religion" because the story changed between your first post (which you didn't think would get posted) and your second one. The real answer is c) None of the above because you've severely minimized this man's actions to make it sound like the big bad homosexuals made this poor Christian get fired. Brookstone fired Vadala for harassment, not because he didn't congratulate his coworker as you would like to spin it. He was preaching his religious beliefs to her and telling her she was deviant. Evidently in Gothelittle's ideal employee handbook being gay is grounds for termination but harassing your gay coworker and telling her she's going to burn in hell is perfectly acceptable behavior.

33. Don
    Posted May 1, 2011 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    Ken:

    I'm still waiting for your direct answer to my direct question.

34. Gothelittle
    Posted May 1, 2011 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    Ken...

    Peter Vidala, after being harassed multiple times by this woman in her efforts to get him to respond about her gay marriage, told her that he was unable to congratulate her due to his religious beliefs. He did so apologetically. Over this he got fired.

    I've heard multiple people on BOTH sides of the debate acknowledge that she went too far and ideally she should have been the one in trouble. Others have acknowledged that she was baiting him and he was not harassing her, but have claimed that our society *should* punish him for not being willing to say "That's wonderful, congratulations!" in response to hearing about her gay marriage.

    You're the first one I've heard claim that she was being sweet and wonderful and angelic and he was harassing her and telling her she was going to burn in hell.

    "Evidently in Gothelittle's ideal employee handbook being gay is grounds for termination" because obviously you can't object to people being fired for not congratulating someone on her SSM without wanting to FIRE ALL GAYS AND KILL THEM TOO WHILE YOU'RE AT IT, right?

    I hope you have fun arguing with the version of me that lives in your head.

35. Mary Ann
    Posted May 1, 2011 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

    Ken hammers for a twisted idea of equality by calling everyone bigots. He can keep shouting to the wind. People who acknowledge something special and valuable about marriage, motherhood and fatherhood, know in their gut that those are not bigoted positions. Time after time they vote to support marriage. 31 states and counting. And Ken just isn't getting that he needs new bully words to get people to fall in line.

    Tell me why SSM is so great as to replace marriage as we know it and I'm happy to listen.

    If you can't argue for it with common sense and respect for people then I'll ignore you like the combox bully you are.

36. John Noe
    Posted May 1, 2011 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

    Thank you Mary Ann, Gothelittle, and Don: You do a great job refuting Ken and the other SSM'ers here. I am in your shoes. Whenever me and John N. make factuall posts that cannot be rebuted Ken simply calls us names. He cannot refute them.

    One little piece of advice to all of the NOM supporters who support marriage as is. One of our civil rights in the USA is that you are innocent until proven guility. I just did jury duty. The prosecutor cannot tell you to prove your innocense,

    Ken is like the prosecuter who cannot so he tries to shift the burdon of proof. He wants us to prove to him that SSM will harm society. It does not work that way. They are the ones demanding the change. THE BURDON OF PROOF IS ON THEM AND NOT US!!!!!! GET IT!!!

    It is the SSM advocates who have to make the following two proofs in order for our society to change the meaning of marriage to what they want.

    (1) What is the benefit to society as a whole does SSM give. Not your own sexual benefit but how do we as Americia benefit?
    (2) It is you who has to prove that their is no harm to society with SSM because it is you who wants the change. We do not have to answer your useless bonehead questions because the burden of proof is on you and not us.

37. Don
    Posted May 2, 2011 at 1:23 am | Permalink

    John Noe:

    Thanks! You're doing a great job yourself!

    Anyone who reads this blog is clearly seeing that SSM advocates are disingenuous. They destroy the credibility of their own "cause" and that is turning people against them. No one cares for those who avoid telling the truth and who are not forthcoming.

38. Don
    Posted May 2, 2011 at 1:36 am | Permalink

    Notice how Ken refuses to address my very clear question regarding SSM and the Communist agenda. Doesn't want to blow his cover, LOL!

39. Don
    Posted May 2, 2011 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    It would seem that Ken's assertion, that discussing SSM activism in the context of Communist ideology is "ridiculous", doesn't hold water. He flees the subject the way SSM advocates flee a vote of the people. How telling!

40. edwaterprog
    Posted May 2, 2011 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    John Noe

    You seem to have legal concepts a little messed up here. Marriage equality is a constitutional question not a criminal matter. You seem to be confusing "burden of proof" with "proof / guilt beyond a reasonable doubt".

41. Gothelittle
    Posted May 2, 2011 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    And marriage equality is what we have right now. If a gay man wants to marry a lesbian woman there is nobody checking their sexual orientation and then telling them that they cannot do it.

42. John Noe
    Posted May 2, 2011 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    edwaterprog:

    I do not have my legal concepts messed up here. I do understand that this is constitutional matter and not a criminal matter. But just like in a criminal matter the burden of proof is on you and not us.

    It is the homosexuals who make the bogus claim that they were born this way. When challenged they say prove it to me that I am not. We do not have to prove our case since we did not make the original claim. The burden of proof is on yoy.

    Homosexual advocates cannot present evidence that SSM benefits society, it only benefits themselves. Homosexual advocates cannot prove to society that there will be no harm with SSM. So they try to shift the burden onto us by saying prove it to us that this bad thing will happen.

    You do not get it. It is you demanding the change. In order to grant change the burden of proof is on you.

43. John N.
    Posted May 2, 2011 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    to edwaterprog:

    Your useless point #3 in post 31 is totally bogus. In fact there are Christians who try to avoid the LGBT folks. But it is the LGBT folks who are seeking the confrontations, Read the above posts.

    The old saying just because you do not look for trouble with them does not mean they will not look for trouble with you. All of these wedding photographers, bed and breakfast inns, resorts, and most of all the public schools can attest to that.

44. edgwaterprog
    Posted May 2, 2011 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    41. Gothelittle - I seriously doubt you even believe that statement. It is just what the people on your side say when they cannot think of anything more insulting to say.

45. Don
    Posted May 3, 2011 at 2:41 am | Permalink

    edgwaterprog:

    We admit that we come in a distant second to SSM advocates when it comes to insults. On that, you've won.

46. Gothelittle
    Posted May 3, 2011 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    edgwaterprog, check this out:

    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1316254

    If it's the most insulting thing I can possibly say, then does that mean that Etti and Roni and the other at least 11 couples are insulting you by their very existence? If I can't possibly believe what I'm saying, do you think that they, also, can't possibly believe in what they're doing?

    Funny, isn't it, how people can't step outside your narrow little mindset without insulting and horrifying you.

47. edgwaterprog
    Posted May 3, 2011 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    42 - John Noe - Actually John there is a question about where the burden of proof lies in the court debate. If LGBT persons constitute a protected class under Constitutional theory then the burden of proof is on groups or government bodies that are discriminating against them. LGBT persons would not have to prove how society would benefit or not be harmed but only have to prove that they have been harmed by the marriage laws as they are.

    46 Gothelittle - I read that article when it was posted here on this blog before. If you want to hang your hopes of the efficacy of conversion therapy on 22 Orthodox Jews in Israel, go at it. That is in the face of hundreds if not thousands of failed attempts at here in this country. I am neither insulted or horrified by a couple dozen people in their situation being able curb their desires to please their religious community. I am actually surprised that conversion therapy is not more successful here in this country. I guess we are just not religious enough here.

48. John N.
    Posted May 3, 2011 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

    Did you read your own post#15 in the strong armed lawyer blog. You claimed equallity not special treatment. Now you want special treatment. So which is it.

    Anyways we could easily prove that you have not been harmed by the marriage laws as they are, but you have benefited from the marriage laws as are.

    It is the same reason why we singles benefit and are not harmed. The marriage laws promote procreation. The children produced pay the entitlement taxes that allows you and me to benefit when we get hold.
    You would have a hard time proving that you were harmed by the fact that although your homosexual sex produced no offspring, thanks to people like my sister who had seven children, they are now paying the entitlement taxes that you will benefit from when you get old.