244 Comments

1. Candy Brown
   Posted June 12, 2009 at 10:13 am | Permalink

   WOW Carrie you are an inspiration to this country. You are in a great position right now in America. You are the voice of millions. God Bless You.

2. Stefanie, Texas
   Posted June 12, 2009 at 11:05 am | Permalink

   If Trump was going to fire Carrie over her remarks why did he not fire her after she made her comments or after she became a NOM spokesperson? He even held a press conference protecting her and praising her.

3. Ross
   Posted June 12, 2009 at 11:35 am | Permalink

   Stefanie, if you do a little more digging, Carrie became increasingly difficult to work with and remained incredibly uncommitted to fulfilling her Miss California duties, even going so far as to book appearances without the organization's approval (which is a violation of her contract). The blackberry emails that were recently leaked are also pretty damaging for her reputation. Just seems like the nail in the coffin.

4. Adam
   Posted June 12, 2009 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

   I for one think you are being played by the media. The emails weren't leaked , they were intentionally put out by the media and only contained one side of the story. There isn't a complete thread of emails as some are missing. Carrie has said there are at least 70 emails that went back and forth between lawyers and her and Keith Lewis.The emails were intentionally given out to ruin Carrie's credibility. I can sense some frustration on her part from the emails. For example, there are allusions to prop 8 in the email, I bet she wanted to say something, but Keith Lewis likely told the media Carrie has no comment. Also it is interesting to note that Keith has been zero support to Carrie. Not congratulating her after 2nd place finish, or even calling her to let her know she was terminated. He put her in situations that he knew she wouldn't want to be in. Also sounds like he was picking and choosing what events she got to be in and not passing all the info on to Carrie. We have not heard the last from Carrie, I expect her lawyers will help restore her credibility. Right now it looks like selective emails that were presented intentionally to harass and destroy her credibility. I can see through the Hollywood media and I'll stand with Carrie.

5. alice
   Posted June 12, 2009 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

   My suggestion is this: let Keith Lewis become Miss California. I am sure he would make a great one, or perhaps Mario (aka/ Perez) if Keith is too busy. This is all a complete circus. I feel sorry for Carrie that she had to deal with those egomaniacal freaks and the circus they have created. But perhaps the good news is that Americans are waking up and realizing that instead of leading the world their country and its values are becoming a farce. Thanks NOM for spreading the message and trying to stop this lunacy.

6. kate
   Posted June 12, 2009 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

   I hope Carrie has a capable legal team to file legal actions against Keith Lewis and others. Breach of contract, wrongful termination, discrimination, sexual harassment (perhaps e-mails urging her to pose for playboy, etc.), slander, defamation. Good luck Carrie. Truth, decency, and good faith are clearly on your side.

7. Carlos
   Posted June 12, 2009 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

   These people are cowards. They didn't have enough guts to tell you that you were going to be dismissed in person. They also are not giving out full details about these required appearances that you were asked to do. I am so sorry that you have to go through all this. I know, however, that you are strong because you have shown that so far. I will gladly stand by you Carrie.

8. jt
   Posted June 12, 2009 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

   This question was asked in the 2009 Miss Shreveport(La.) pageant (preliminary to Miss La. > Miss America.) in pre-pageant interview.

   This seems to be a place chosen to promote the homosexual agenda.

9. Jeffrey
   Posted June 12, 2009 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

   "Carrie Prejean was asked a question: Do you support gay marriage? She answered honestly—like millions of others in California and across this great country: No. Of course not."

   That's not what she said. She said she liked that people had the choice to marry a man or a woman but she personally believed marriage was between a man and a woman. She also offered an explanation for her belief: her upbringing, which I assume includes a healthy dose of Christianity.

   What's odd in all this is that NOM has chosen this woman as its spokesmodel, even though she clearly says she likes choice for others, but "opposite marriage" for herself. I see her as favoring the choice of SSM or OSM. And that's exactly as it should be: choose for yourself, and let others choose for themselves.

10. Chairm
    Posted June 13, 2009 at 5:58 am | Permalink

    No, Jeffrey, the question was about support for "gay marriage."

    Carrie was asked her opinion: should every state follow the choice made in the Vermont legislature?

    I know that SSMers have tried to make this about lack of choice but the question was indeed about political choice.

    She gave a basically federalist answer. In this country, the People can choose, state-by-state.

    In California that choice was made in two direct votes on the issue. Carrie gave herself as an example of someone who'd favor marriage as the union of a man and a woman. She validated that choice, as it was her opinion as asked, and she validated the opportunity to express a choice one way or the other.

    She said nothing objectionable. NOM has supported her against the bizarre attacks on her as a contestant and as a young woman in the public eye. Again, there really should be nothing objectionable in that either.

11. Marty
    Posted June 13, 2009 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    I don't know the facts of her contractual obligations, but am certain that Moakler & Lewis's public response to her support of Prop 8 poisoned any chance of a successful working relationship. It's probably for the best that she's been let go, and is now free to pursue her own goals.

12. Jeffrey
    Posted June 13, 2009 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    Chairm, Here’s what Ms. Prejean said, when asked about same-sex marriage, and my understanding of what she meant:

    “Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.”

    Ms. Prejean approves of Americans having the choice to marry who they want, without regard to gender considerations. She incorrectly believes, evidently, that this choice is widely available, so far.

    “You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there.”

    Her personal belief is that marriage should be between a man and a woman. She believes her opinion is offensive, for some reason. I don’t think her personal belief is offensive at all. What’s offensive is when people try to impose their personal beliefs on others who feel differently.

    But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.”

    Her belief stems from indoctrination she received as a child. She may be conflicted between what she was instructed to believe and what she actually believes, given her earlier reference to the offensiveness of her “official” belief, and her admission that she applauds the “greatness” of Americans having a choice of who to marry.

    That NOM has chosen this woman as its spokesmodel is odd, given her clear statement of support of marriage equality and choice. We all have personal opinions and feelings but so long as we agree to let those who have different opinions and feelings pursue their desires, we can live in a harmonious, fair and just society. Ms. Prejean and I think exactly alike: we both want to marry someone of the opposite sex, but believe those who want to marry someone of the same sex should be free to do so.

13. dawn blake
    Posted June 13, 2009 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    [ think nom should be careful who they chose as a spokeperson. if she had a legitimate case she would have been in a position to sue them.Now they(employers)may be more experienced so would have been careful to dot the i's and cross the t's but it makes you wonder...

14. kate
    Posted June 13, 2009 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    I have a question. If two men get "married" do they become husband and wife, two husbands, or, for completeness sake, two wives? Same question for lesbians -- would they be each other's wives or husband and wife, or two husbands? I am asking because of questions our children may start asking should this issue not go away. For instance, last year, in an elevator, a gay man had a need to provide me and my young children with unsolicited information about what he and his "partner" would wear for halloween. I told him I dicourage my children from talking to strangers and that was that. Now, If he gets "married", would he try to tell my children that his husband was planning to get dressed up as Superman or would he say that his wife was dressing up as Superman? Of course, the latter desciption would be less alarming to a six year old. This is all quite confusing to a grownup. Imagine how confusing and bizarre this would be to a child.

15. Chairm
    Posted June 13, 2009 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Jeffrey, you are spinning.

    Go back to the question she was asked and to which she responded.

    * * *

    She was referring to a question about the choice to follow a particular state's example. But maybe you will spin the question, too.

    * * *

    You said: "She believes her opinion is offensive, for some reason."

    Not quite right. She had reason to expect that the anti-marriage amendment people might feel offended. Her answer was not intended to offend and its content, in fact, was not offensive.

    The pose struck by Hilton demonstrated the phony pose of SSMers. You are trying to spin that pose into a legitimate expression. But it was the SSMers who openly sought "to impose their personal beliefs on others who feel differently" (your own words).

    The false accusation of "indoctrination" has no basis and you are simply making stuff up. The more you spin the more dizzy is your attempt to excuse of the venomous attacks on a young woman who gave a basically federalist answer.

    Indeed, SSMers have long made the same basic argument while purusing the widely recognized inter-state and national campaign to impose their opinion that marriage mean less because marriage, they insist, means nothing more than SSM.

    * * *

    Jeffrey, you closed by trying to force words into Carrie's mouth. Your behavior is that of a political hack serving the master of gay identity politics.

16. Chairm
    Posted June 13, 2009 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Obama's position on marriage during the contest for the presidency was ... ? Yeap, pretty much the same as Carrie's off-the-cuff answer during her own contest.

17. Wes
    Posted June 13, 2009 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    "“Carrie Prejean was asked a question: Do you support gay marriage? She answered honestly—like millions of others in California and across this great country: No. Of course not.”

    "That’s not what she said. She said she liked that people had the choice to marry a man or a woman but she personally believed marriage was between a man and a woman. She also offered an explanation for her belief: her upbringing, which I assume includes a healthy dose of Christianity."

    I think that what you fail to understand is that that question had caught her off guard. From seeing the footage, it was clear that Carrie was floundering about for how she should answer.

    In the first part of her answer, it seemed to me that she was initially considering responding in the way that would please the judges and win her the Miss USA crown, even though it would be a lie conflicting with her principles. But in the middle of her response when she said, "You know what?" I believe that she had rejected that course, switched gears, and decided to respond in a way that was true to her convictions, which was what she did in the second half of her answer.

    Overall, Carrie's answer was a reflection of the decision making process that was going on in her mind as she was speaking. And in the end, she decided to choose honesty over pandering by stating her opinion for what marriage should be: "between a man and a woman."

18. Jeffrey
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    Chairman says:

    "But it was the SSMers who openly sought “to impose their personal beliefs on others who feel differently” (your own words)."

    Chairm, I think you confuse free speech with imposing stuff. Advocates of SSM believe adults should be free to marry the consenting adult of their choice. It is hardly imposition to let people do as they wish. OSM-only proponents want to force people who want to marry to choose someone of the opposite sex, regardless of their personal preference. That's imposing a needless standard on free choice.

    If you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, by all means, choose an opposite-sex partner for yourself and urge others to do so, too. But to force, by law, limited choice on others who feel differently is, well, un-American.

19. Chairm
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    Jeffrey, you are running away from the question that was asked of Carrie.

    Why is that?

    Because you cannot deny that she was asked about the example of one state and about whether other states ought to follow it.

    Carrie said that people have a choice. And indeed the SSM campaign itself has used a state-by-state approach.

    Carrie's answer followed the example of the popular President of this country. You've run away from that too. Carrie is the easier target. That's a political choice you made. And it is political hackery.

    You'd impose social stigma on people who stand their ground. That's another imposition. More hackery -- this time a hypocritical attempt at public shaming.

    The SSM campaign seeks to impose something on all of the country -- on everyone. That imposition would be the replacement of marriage recognition with recognition of something else. Something that would mean less than marriage. That imposition is your goal through the big hairy arm of Government.

    Look in the mirror, Jeffrey, and own what you see there.

    No one here has said that people should be forced to marry. You have just now, in your latest comment, have tried to put words into other people's mouths, again. These misrepresentations amount to yet another imposition. Rhetorical hackery.

    An honest response to Carrie would have been to say, yeap, we have a federal system and, yeap, the SSM campaign itself has gone state-by-state and, yeap, the goal is to merge SSM with marriage and, yeap, that means for all the country -- for everyone -- and, yeap, the SSM campaign does seek to make this both a legal and a cultural change that would stigmatize those who'd dissent.

    In your latest comment you have provided yet another blatant example of that very thing. Now those who disagree with you are "un-American".

    The hackery piles up until it is obvious you have nothing else to offer.

    If someone chooses a nonmarital arrangement, well, that's a liberty exercised and not a right denied. The SSM campaign is about making marriage mean less and less.

    Your own arguments have demonstrated this, over and over. But you runaway from this and foolishly accuse others of what you yourself have been doing all along.

    Jeffrey, you could do better by following the example of Carrie, even you disagree with her opinion.

20. Chairm
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    Jeffrey, you are running away from the question that was asked of Carrie.

    Why is that?

    Because you cannot deny that she was asked about the example of one state and about whether other states ought to follow it.

    Carrie said that people have a choice. And indeed the SSM campaign itself has used a state-by-state approach.

    Carrie’s answer followed the example of the popular President of this country. You’ve run away from that too. Carrie is the easier target. That’s a political choice you made. And it is political hackery.

    You’d impose social stigma on people who stand their ground. That’s another imposition. More hackery — this time a hypocritical attempt at public shaming.

    The SSM campaign seeks to impose something on all of the country — on everyone. That imposition would be the replacement of marriage recognition with recognition of something else. Something that would mean less than marriage. That imposition is your goal through the big hairy arm of Government.

    Look in the mirror, Jeffrey, and own what you see there.

    No one here has said that people should be forced to marry. You have just now, in your latest comment, have tried to put words into other people’s mouths, again. These misrepresentations amount to yet another imposition. Rhetorical hackery.

    An honest response to Carrie would have been to say, yeap, we have a federal system and, yeap, the SSM campaign itself has gone state-by-state and, yeap, the goal is to merge SSM with marriage and, yeap, that means for all the country — for everyone — and, yeap, the SSM campaign does seek to make this both a legal and a cultural change that would stigmatize those who’d dissent.

    In your latest comment you have provided yet another blatant example of that very thing. Now those who disagree with you are “un-American”.

    The hackery piles up until it is obvious you have nothing else to offer.

    If someone chooses a nonmarital arrangement, well, that’s a liberty exercised and not a right denied. The SSM campaign is about making marriage mean less and less.

    Your own arguments have demonstrated this, over and over. But you runaway from this and foolishly accuse others of what you yourself have been doing all along.

    Jeffrey, you could do better by following the example of Carrie, even you disagree with her opinion.

21. Wes
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    "If you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, by all means, choose an opposite-sex partner for yourself and urge others to do so, too. But to force, by law, limited choice on others who feel differently is, well, un-American."

    That means that every single marrige law in the country is "un-American" because they ALL "force", by law, limited choice on others who feel differently. There are some people who would like to have more than one wife, but anti polygamy and anti bigamy laws elimitate that choice. There are adults who would like to marry someone in their early teens but our age of conscent laws eliminate that choice as well. Neither of those laws are any more oppressive than a law keeping marriage between a man and a woman because the state has an interest in maintaining an ideal family setting for the procreation and the raising of children with a mother and a father. Not promoting and encouraging an unhealthy lifestyle that spreads AIDS/HIV and other STDs among those who practice it like no other.

22. Ross
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    Wes says: "Not promoting and encouraging an unhealthy lifestyle that spreads AIDS/HIV and other STDs among those who practice it like no other."

    Actually, Wes, allowing same-sex marriage would actually DISCOURAGE the spread of HIV/AIDs and STDs because it would allow couples to be in monogamous committed relationships under the law.

    The same way opposite-sex marriage discourages the spread of HIV/AIDs, STDs, accidental pregnancy, abortions, etc in the heterosexual population.

23. kate
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    Gay "marriage" would be as ineffective in slowing down the AIDS and other STD epidemics as gay "unions" and greater tolerance toward homosexuals have proven to be. Moreover, if twenty five years of education about the transmission of HIV have done very little to slow down the AIDS epidemic among homosexuals, it is extremely naive, if not, foolish to argue that gay "marriage" would have a positive effect.
    Gays can protect their rights vis a vis their "partners" through contractual laws. Therefore, it is obvious that their attempts to "be treated equally" and be allowed to "get married" are nothing more than attempts to legitimize and promote their lifestyles. Homosexual lifestyle is the original cause and still the greatest contributor to the AIDS epidemic and other STD epidemics (such as syphillis), and more recently Hepatitis. I know this statement is not politically correct, but it is based on irrefutable medical data.
    Not only is it irresponsible of our society to consider a notion of gay "marriage", it is also entirely irrational. Two men or two women will never be a husband and a wife, which is the essence of marriage. They will also never consummate a marriage (a requirement in some states) or give consent, because they can never know what being married means. They will also never have happy and healthy children (statements to the contrary are again false or extremely naive, and condone what effectively is child abuse). There is one way for gays to get married -- choose to be heterosexual. According to a well-known study by a Columbia University Professor of psychiatry, homosexuals can indeed successfully change their lifestyles. His study involved homosexuals who were unhappy about their lifestyles because of the promiscuity factor, depression, inability to get married and have a family, etc. Over 90% of those people were able to become heterosexuals.
    If you choose to be a homosexual man or a lesbian, whatever your reasons, you give up the right to be married. A lesbian who complains that she cannot wear a white dress and get married like her sister is solely responsible for her predicament. A piece of paper from a state which allows you to get "married" (because of corruptible or at the very least short-sighted politicians) will never make you a married couple. And your attempts to promote your gay agenda using, or rather, abusing the traditional and sacred institution of marriage will make the society reconsider the fruits of its tolerance or permissiveness. I think it is already happening.

24. dawn blake
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

    is there any way to get the points raised by Kate and Wes to the teenagers that think this is about civil rights.They are being fooled , its not about civil rights at all rather it is being forced upon us by a minority using diversionary tactics

25. Ross
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    Kate says: "Homosexual lifestyle is the original cause and still the greatest contributor to the AIDS epidemic and other STD epidemics (such as syphillis), and more recently Hepatitis"

    Scare tactics don't work, Kate. As someone who studied the HIV epidemic, you will know that, world wide, the largest number of new HIV cases are transmitted from mother to infant. Homosexual sex ranks on approximately the same level as medical transmission of HIV world wide. As fun as it would be to blame the gay population for the HIV epidemic, they are only the most prominent transmitters of HIV in this country. There is a whole other world outside of the United States. Maybe we should start blaming the mothers around the world instead of the gays.

26. Ross
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    Kate says: "The homosexual has to become willing to admit their lives have become unmanageable, and becoming willing to turn their character defects over to a loving God."

    Kate, how bout I keep my homosexual lifestyle out of your face if you keep your god-reliant lifestyle out of mine. Deal?

    Jokes aside, that is the biggest double standard I've ever heard. Thank god we have separation of church and state. Because statements like Kate's make me wish everyone just stayed out of everyone else's business. It's no one's job to "fix" other people. If people spent half as much time fixing themselves instead of trying to push their agendas and beliefs on other people, the whole world would be a much better place.

27. Ross
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    Kate: "Marriage is not the answer to these problems"
    --------------
    I never said it would be the answer. though I do believe it would discourage certain factors, nothing is an "answer" to any of these problems. And marriage is apparently also not the answer to the increase in divorces, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, etc affecting the country (although, ps. should we blame homosexuals for these as well)?

    Kate: "drug therapies, chemical castration and on-going maintenance support with counseling are helping many become healthy functioning and contributing members of society."
    -------
    I laughed out loud when I read this. Sure, Kate, lets combat drug abuse with--wait for it, wait for it--MORE DRUGS. Sounds like a perfect solution to me

28. Jeffrey
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    Chairm

    I strongly recommend a reading comprehension course. I said I agree with Carrie: it’s great to live in a country where people have choice, even if I myself prefer an opposite-sex partner. Carrie and I all agree on this issue. Strangely, the National Organization Against Same-Sex Marriage, aka, NOM, is using Carrie as its spokesmodel, even though she favors opposite-sex marriage only for herself, and accepts a different choice for others, as they see fit.

    Did I say that people who disagree with me are un-American? Well, no, I didn’t. I said people who impose their personal beliefs on others, whether faith beliefs, marital beliefs, and the like, are un-American.

    “The SSM campaign seeks to impose something on all of the country — on everyone. That imposition would be the replacement of marriage recognition with recognition of something else.”

    Well, my goodness, can someone force you to think something? I surely hope not. If you think marriage is between one man and one woman, please, feel free to think that, and marry someone of the opposite sex. Just understand that many, many others believe withholding marriage rights from same-sex couples is needless discrimination!

    “The SSM campaign is about making marriage mean less and less.”

    The SSM “campaign” is about fighting discrimination against committed adult couples who live and act like married couples, even raising children together. None of the rights and obligations of marriage will change, just the unnecessary gender considerations for who gets to participate. Just like voting, before and after women won the right to vote. Call my comments hackery if that makes you feel useful, but otherwise, your view is a discriminatory one.

29. Ross
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    Jeffrey says: "None of the rights and obligations of marriage will change, just the unnecessary gender considerations for who gets to participate".

    Bravo Jeffrey, I dont think many people have been able to sum up the pro-SSM stance so succinctly and perfectly. Hats off to you

    The anti-SSM camp will, of course, retaliate, with saying "You are changing the 'core meaning' of marriage by changing the gender requirements"...
    And I will retort, that we are no more changing the "core meaning" of marriage than we were in changing the "core meaning" of voting when we allowed women to vote.

    Change isnt always a bad thing

30. Jeffrey
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    Wes, your comments are illogical. Whether they are permitted to marry or not, same-sex couples are free to bear and raise children. Their children enjoy less security because their parents aren't married but apparently that doesn't bother you.

    If marriage laws discriminate against anyone, let those people come forth and make their case. If the government can come up with acceptable reasons to prohibit polygamy or sibling marriage, so be it. But as a country we are highly sensitive to the use of gender and sexuality as reasons to prohibit rights. That's the legal underpinning primarily for why denying same-sex couples a marriage license is discrimination.

31. kate
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    Ross, I am glad you are agree with my point that gays are the greatest contributor to the AIDS epidemic in the US. We are talking about the US and the US gays' aspirations to further their agenda via "marriage", are we not? You also mention something new -- women and children infected with HIV. Most HIV infected women, and certainly all HIV infected children are innocent victims of the AIDS epidemic which originated from homosexual activity (you do not deny that in your comment). Although I do not consider this blog an appropriate forum for discussing moral responsibility, this issue is one of causation. By bringing up innocent victims of the AIDS epidemic, you further support my point that legitimizing and promoting homosexulity through allowing homosexual "marriage" is socially irresponsible and harmful to the society as a whole.

32. kate
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    One last thing. As a mother I feel very strongly about this issue, but unfortunately have little time to devote to it. Therefore, I rely on NOM and similar organizations to do whatever they can to protect traditional marriage and thereby our children. I am very encouraged by NOM's accomplishments and their intelligent strategy. NOM is run by very capable and highly educated individuals, who can see the larger picture of what is involved in gay aspirations to "marry" and the highly damaging consequences of such aspirations. I urge all of you who agree that the idea of homosexual "marriage" is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize and promote homosexuality to continue supporting NOM with generous contributions. I contribute generously and regularly because I feel I owe it to my children and other children out there.

33. Perry
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    Kate, I agree with you that HIV is spread mostly in the US via homosexual contact. I do not agree with the fact that women and children are the "victims". The children, sure. But women choose to have unsafe sex with men just the same as men choose to have unsafe sex with men and women. The women infected are just as guilty of using poor judgement (and i would argue that a large number of their partners got HIV from other women..not from men..) Just because something originated somewhere, does not mean that every single other person who helped continue the spread of the infection through naivety or poor judgement is at least partly to blame for HIV spread. Gay marriage isnt going to solve HIV. And neither is banning gay marriage. Turning gay people straight isnt going to stop it either. At this point only a medical cure and a hell of a lot of common sense and safe sex teachings are going to stop.

    Kate, would you agree with me that Chlamydia is mostly spread through heterosexual contact?

    See, Kate, we are talking about apples and oranges here. STDs and marriage. They are unrelated. Every STD is harmful to society as a whole. Marriage isnt going to stop it (though I still believe it will slow it down) And banning marriage isnt going to stop it either. They are virtually unrelated.

    Apples and oranges, Kate. Apples and oranges.

34. Jeffrey
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    Kate, same-sex marriage doesn't legitimize homosexuality any more than the US Supreme Court's decision to de-criminalize homosexual behavior. Same-sex marriage just recognizes that adult couples form same-sex committed couples, whether you find it appealing or not for yourself, and should as such be permitted to access the same rights and obligations of marriage that other committed couples have. And when you add in that some same-sex unions are raising children, it really becomes a no-brainer if you believe, as I do, that children are more secure when their parents are married.

35. Perry
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    Kate, as someone who loves statistics, I have to wonder at your logic here. You say you contribute generously to NOM to protect marriage for your kids and future kids..but statistically you are on the losing side of this battle.

    Gay marriage support increases on average 2 percent points a year. Some anaylists predict gay marriage will be legal in the United States in all states by 2040..you are on the losing side of statistics. So, as a mother, and as someone who agrees with statistics, why are you not putting your money in a better place (feeding children in third world countries, adoption programs, etc)?

    You do realize you are trying to bail out a sinking ship, dont you?

36. Wes
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    "Wes, your comments are illogical. Whether they are permitted to marry or not, same-sex couples are free to bear and raise children. Their children enjoy less security because their parents aren’t married but apparently that doesn’t bother you."

    Boy Jeff, do you need a course in biology! Same-sex couples cannot bear children! Not with each other. They have to either adopt or resort to artificial insemination, and the latter needs the help of a man. And there are tons of studies that show that children are better off and more well adjusted having been raised by a mother and a father, something same-sex couples cannot provide.

    "as a country we are highly sensitive to the use of gender and sexuality as reasons to prohibit rights. That’s the legal underpinning primarily for why denying same-sex couples a marriage license is discrimination."

    I'm sorry Jeff, but I do not consider respecting the importance of the role the traditional family plays in a stable civilization to be "discrimination." I do not consider concerns over how public health will be compromised with the promotion of homosexuality through same-sex marriage to be a form of "discrimination" either.

    Many civilizations throughout history have declined with the liberalization of their marital laws from the Romans to the Sumerians. And the number of HIV/AIDS cases have always risen whenever gay marriage has been legalized. If you want to spin such concerns as "discrimination" that is your right, even though it is a lie!

37. Wes
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    "The anti-SSM camp will, of course, retaliate, with saying “You are changing the ‘core meaning’ of marriage by changing the gender requirements”…
    And I will retort, that we are no more changing the “core meaning” of marriage than we were in changing the “core meaning” of voting when we allowed women to vote."

    False analogy. Switching the genders of a voter does not alter the fundamental meaning of what it is to be a voter. Any individual can enter a voting booth and cast a ballot whether they are male or female. But only a man and a woman can have a child together and raise that child as a mother and a father. A man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot do that. So with the legalization of SSM, Marriage becomes only about coupling, not about procreation and providing children with a male and a female role model as it has been for thousands of years.

38. Wes
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    "Gay marriage support increases on average 2 percent points a year. Some anaylists predict gay marriage will be legal in the United States in all states by 2040..you are on the losing side of statistics."

    Shortly after Roe vs. Wade, it was frequently stated that everyone would be pro life by the year 2000. They based this on the fact that support for abortion rights had been increasing every year during the 70s and most people in their 20s were pro choice themselves at the time. Now, in 2009, abortion is STILL a hot button topic and pro life people consist of millions of people of all ages throughout the country. In fact, a recent poll shows that more people are now pro life than pro choice.

    The truth of the matter is that growing support for a cause can slow down over time and even reverse as people change their views as they grow older and wiser. Like abortion, SSM is about the role procreation plays in society and whether or not it should be subordinated to the sexual desires of adults. These are not the kind of values that can be outdated.

39. Nicholas
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 1:50 am | Permalink

    Jeffrey,

    As you have stated a couple of times, SSM has nothing to do with homosexuality or the legitimization of said lifestyle. Why all the pushback from OSMers that understand it this way and equate the two? Furthermore, how can two men/women in a SS relationship, remain sexually autonomous? And if so, why? What would be the advantages then of two men/women in a SS relationship getting "married" if able to keep the relationship platonic?

40. Jeffrey
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    Wes, same-sex couples use alternative means to bear children but they still raise children nonetheless. And the “traditional” family may be important but why are other kinds of families less important? Again, you’re confusing same-sex marriage with parenting. If your argument is that same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to raise children, that’s a different argument from same-sex marriage. Either you’re not clear on what your objection to same-sex marriage is, or you want to use concerns about family composition and dynamics to argue against same-sex marriage. Ironically, if you really cared about families and children, you would be encouraging same-sex couples to marry, to provide their children with the greater security that comes from parents who are married, rather than just living together.

    If children must be raised by a mother and a father, shouldn’t single parenthood be outlawed? Why is it ok for a woman to bear a child and raise it on her own? Why can a man and woman with children divorce, create separate households and then fight over who gets the kids and when? If you want to talk about optimal parenting, let’s not limit the discussion artificially to same-sex parents.

41. kate
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    Perry,
    Your statement that "the support for gay marriage increases by 2% each year" is as false as the statement by gay activists that 10% of US population is gay (it is at most 2%). Fabricating numbers and thereby manipulating public perception and opinion is the gay movement's established modus operandi. It is unfortunate, however, that too many people end up buying these falsehoods. And most of us are too busy with our lives to worry about gay activism and its damaging effect on our society. The encouraging news, however, is that NOM and other similar organizations are waking people up. Therefore, I again urge all of you to contribute regularly and generously to NOM.

42. mark
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    Heterosexual sex: 6,000,000,000 plus (not counting those who lived in the past)
    Homosexual sex: 0 (+ increased disease + increased death)

    No matter what the PC bigots here say, the homosexual agenda will not, CANNOT 'win' as all the relevant facts about future generations are on the side of those who simply believe that important social institutions should reflect our biological makeup, not live in some make-believe land about 'civil rights' and 'discrimination' that equate to nonsense. Want to marry? Find a non-related partner of the opposite sex when you both are a minimum age and you qualify - equal opportunity for everybody.

    They claim that organizations like NOM are on the 'wrong side of history' Ummm - no. History shows that a society that bases its laws on lies will not stand for longer than a few generations, especially errors pertaining to sexual behavior. How does it feel to know that if the Earth survives another 200 years, the history books will be filled with how stupid this idea that certain deviant sexual behavior is immutable was and praise organizations like NOM? And Carrie will look beautiful in the photos too.

43. kate
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    Jerry,

    Your arguments are just more of the same diversionary tactics used by gay activisits. Same sex "marriage" has nothing to do with civil rights or equality. It has to do with a disguised attempt to legitimize homosexuality at the expense of families, particularly children and future generations. A gay couple will never have mentally healthy and happy children. Most heterosexual marriages do. Single parents also have better chances to raise happy kids than gays because these children, although unfortunate to be with just one parent, are generally not exposed to a pathological environment every day of their lives. As I mentioned earlier, most of us feel we have better things to do than to fight gays and their aspirations to be mainstreamed. However, recent events have put a face on the aggressive homosexual movement in this country. The gay movement, with Mario (aka/ Perez) as its poster boy is showing its true colors. As a result, the support for gay "marriage" is quickly declining. Even black Range Rover liberals who think UNICEF is a new $5K designer bag from Prada are starting to question their "whatever" attitude to gay activism.

44. Ross
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Kate, you didnt answer Wes's question about single parents..

    You said "A gay couple will never have mentally healthy and happy children. Most heterosexual marriages do."

    So is a single dad raising a child somehow better than two dads raising a child? Are two dads worse than just having one?

45. Chairm
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    Ross said:

    "allowing same-sex marriage would actually DISCOURAGE the spread of HIV/AIDs and STDs because it would allow couples to be in monogamous committed relationships under the law."

    Government does not "allow" that stuff.

    Same-sex sexual monogamy is already an option with or without same-sex union (under whateve name).

    Same-sex householding is an option with or without sexual monogamy. And registering with government has been enabled in varius places for many years.

    Do you have evidence that government involvement has caused a reduction? You must know that commitment does not necessarily entail sexual monogamy or sexual behavior. The cause-effect relationship you have in mind is very unlikely. But maybe you have evidence to prove what you claimed.

46. Chairm
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    Jeffrey, keep spinning. It is amusing to watch you dodge.

    Can you accurately state the question that was asked of Carrie?

    That is the question she answered. But you seek to impose something different. Just as you have in your replies to me.

    Spin. Talking in circles. Eliding the actual disagreement. Yours is a phoney pose and your comments exemplify the hackery of gay identity politics.

47. Chairm
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Pointing to rights and obligations of marital status is insufficient.

    Marital status is a special status. To justify a special status, society does need a special reason.

    No SSMer has stated the special reason for special status for one-sexed arrangements -- but they do emphasize sexual orientation.

    Yet there is no sexual orientation requirement in SSM laws wherever they have been imposed. And no SSMer has advocated for such a criterion.

    Meanwhile the marriage law has no sexual orientation requirement -- not for eligiblity and not for ineligibility.

    So the SSM complaint is bogus.

    Further, SSM argumentation reveals SSM itself to be a nonsexual type of relationship, at law. When SSMers attack the centrality of procreation in the law -- and thus attack the special reason for special status -- they insist that there is no legal requirement that forces all married people to procreate. That rule of argumentation destroys the emphasis that SSMers put on sexual attraction and sexual behavior and even on sexual romance. There is no legal requirement for any of that -- in any place that SSM has been imposed. SSMers insist that SSM is a private choice and they fail to offer any special reason for a special public status; no reason that distinguishes SSMs from the rest of the nonmarriage types of relationships.

    Meanwhile marriage is a sexual type of relationship that entails the two sexes; see the marital presumption of paternity which is entailed in the consent to marry; see consummation, anulment, adultery, and other provisons in the law. Marriage is not sex-neutral; marriage is not the equivalent of whatever people have in mind when they use the term "same-sex marriage". These are very different things.

    A merger of this nonsexual and private type of relationship with the public and sexual relationship of marriage would indeed change marriage for all of society.

    It cuts out of marriage the definitive features.

    Such a merger removes the sexual aspect from the way the law, and the culture, views marriage. That is not a small change. SSMers cannot fail to see the problem since they emphasize sexual orientation -- over and over.

    The SSM campaign is about imposing this on society. It is not about liberty. There already is liberty to choose the nonmarital type of arrangement that SSMers keep describing. They have yet to provide the extraordinary reason for such an extraordinary imposition.

    When they seek to diminish and to abolish the core meaning of marriage, in the name of the right to SSM, as they do constantly, the issue of eligibility comes up for other types of relationships and arrangements.

    SSMers will either shrug and say that if two consenting siblings want to marry, let them; or shruge and say if consenting adults want to form multiple concurrent marriages (i.e. polygamy), then, let them; or they try to kick the can down the road and say that they are arguing not for equal rights for all but for special status based on gay identity politics.

    They argue only for the tiny subset of the nonmarriage category. Their argumentation seeks to destroy the two-sexed basis for the lines drawn around the core of marriage; their arugmentation uses rules that destroy those lines and even the societal significance of drawing lines that distinguish marriage from nonmarriage. But they think they can fool people into believing that their argumentation would only narrowly change marriage for just the tiny subset they have in mind.

    Their stated standards remove the distinction between marriage and nonmarriage -- for all. This is not a small change. It is not justified by the identity politics on display.

    Marital status is not its own justification. Special status is not its own justification. Imposing identity politics of any kind on marriage is not its own justification.

    Marriage does have a core meaning. SSMers deny this even when their own standards destroy their own claim for SSM in the first place.

48. Larry
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    The title of Marriage was always intended exclusively for a man and a woman union by which they become husband and wife never for homosexual couples or same sex couples in truth!!.

49. kate
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    Ross,

    As I said before, in my view, raising children by homosexual or lesbian couples amounts to child abuse. Despite great efforts by some gay couples, I am sure, to create a loving environment for their children, these children are being raised in per se pathological homes. Homosexuality involves rejection, often hate, of the opposite sex. In my college years, I met several lesbians. Most of them were lovely individuals, but they vehemently hated men. No particular men, ALL men. Imagine two such women raising a child? Imagine their horror should the artificial insemination they resort to result in twin or triplet boys? Imagine those poor children?
    A child being raised by a single dad (the scenario you mention) is not being raised in an ideal home, but not in a home that is inherently pathological.

50. dawn blake
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    Ross
    '
    "So is a single dad raising a child somehow better than two dads raising a child? Are two dads worse than just having one?"

    YES!!!

51. Bowler
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    it's unlikely that Prejean would have neglected her contractual duties since she's been under a microscope for the last month; if anything her dismissal reflects poorly on Donald Trump, makes him look like a wishy-washy businessman

52. Adam
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    "Are two dads worse than just having one?”

    Kids deserve a mother and a father. Some kids don't get any parents sadly. Of course kids are better off with a mother and a father.
    In case of a divorce, it is very devastating for a kid. Grades drop, depression is more likely. But what you are supposing will add another burden. Now a kid has to deal with another "Dad". At a critical time when a kid can feel most vulnerable, why would you want to add more awkwardness for them? Already at a time when even accepting a new mother or father would be difficult to replace the one lost. Now he is going to have to accept 2 dads? Now kids will have to go through divorce and be humiliated by friends for having 2 dads! Not that it should be this way, but it is the way kids act. In a divorce, nobody wins. Two dad's can't make up for mom. 2 Dads are not better than one Dad. Just adds confusion. What if the kids don't want another dad?

53. Ross
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    Kate, Adam, and Dawn...

    so what should be done with those children who have two dads? Should they be taken away? Put in foster homes? Given to heterosexual parents?

    No situation is "ideal"..even families with heterosexual parents have all sorts of issues regardless of their gender..

    So, to followup, what would you like to see have happen with these kids? are two dads worse than zero dads?

54. Adam
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    You are sorta working like lawyers who bring a cookie cutter gay couple to court and sue to be married. They fail, go back again with a different couple, failed, go back retry until you find that one tiny little outlet that gets you what you want.

    As far as your questions go about children currently in a 2 dad or 2 mom situation.

    I would suggest that what is done is done. Although not good. For example, The California court should have used better judgement and waited till after the outcome of Prop 8 to let the gay marriage ruling go into effect. So what do do with the 1800 gay marriages? It was the result of a bad decision. The court just let it remain so. With a family of children with 2 dads currently in place, perhaps it makes sense to let it run its course.

    Two dads are not better than 0 except in rare situation where the child would really wants this.

    2 Dad's are not the right foundation to build a family on. A child would be served well by waiting until he could receive a mother and a father. 2 Dads aren't better than 1 just like 3 dads are not better than 2. However 1 dad is better than 2, 3, or 4.

    Now I answered your question, you didn't answer mine about. What about a child who doesn't want 2 dads?

55. Ross
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    Adam, I do appreciate the honesty of your answer...I would have to disagree on the 2 dads is worse than 1 scenario though..if strictly just for time reasons. Parenting is so much easier when you split the load. 1 dad can not be there all the time for guidance, support, encouragement, etc. Having 2 support systems, I believe, is better, regardless of gender. So what if the kid gets twice as much "masculine energy"...kids grow up under a variety of factors..too many siblings, not enough siblings, etc..alcholic father, depressed mother, etc. Depends. But I do think the amount of parental support a child has is increased with two parents instead of one, regardless of gender. That's just me though.

    Now to answer your question..."What about a child who doesn't want 2 dads"? I will answer, that children do not "know" what they want..or what is best for them. This is why there are such things as statutory rape laws, minimum age requirements for things such as driving, drinking, getting married, etc. Children are children..and I think at one point in all of our lives, we have really not liked our parents and their behavior. But a child merely saying "I don't want two dads" is no reason to remove him/her from his parents. Even if he is getting ridiculed at school. Cause otherwise, there would be a lot of children from poor families getting taken away from their parents cause they were made fun of for being poor. So, I go along with your general thinking. You let it play out. Sometimes you just gotta play with the hand you are dealt for the most part. No one has a perfect life. Everyone has struggles. Nothing is "ideal".

    Of course, there are of course situations where a child should get taken away..but they are the same as they are in heterosexual parenting families as well: molestation, physical abuse, etc (and not all same sex parental configurations are guilty of doing these things to a child).

    Hope that answers your question, Adam

56. Mary Ann
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 1:07 am | Permalink

    Ross, etc.
    Its a permanent whole in the heart of a child should, for example, their Mother die or their Father leave the family. Why would anyone who cares about children *purposely* deny children a Mother or a Father?

    Children long for a Mom and a Dad. And yet adults keep pretending that the 'Lego family' idea of just building something, anything based on the love of two people will suffice. Nope.

57. Marlie
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    I came across this, it's called "A Plea for Fathers":

58. kate
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    A man and a woman complement each other in terms of anatomy, psychology and their parenting skills. In terms of anatomical compatibility gays work with what they have, but with devastating effects -- consider blood and feces borne epidemics, such as AIDS, syphililis and hepatitis. In terms of their parenting skills, again, despite great efforts in some instances, they end up psychologically damaging innocent children.
    It is late spring. Look outside if you can. You will see male and female birds taking turns feeding and protecting their chicks. You will not see two male birds sodomizing each other, announcing "we are normal, we want to get married and have a family." You do not have to be a religious person to see a certain harmony and balance in nature. Homosexuality and by extension gay "marriage" and "family" aspirations go against that. If you want to be married and have a family, change your lifestyle. As shown by a highly regarded Columbia University professor of psychiatry, it is an option available to you.

59. kate
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    Marlie, an absolutely stunning video. Very telling and very touching. A lesbian couple raising a child intentionally deprives that child of a dad. A homosexual couple raising a child intentionally deprives that child of a mom. It is as simple as that.

60. Chairm
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    Ross said:

    "the amount of parental support a child has is increased with two parents instead of one"

    One plus one is more than one. That's all you said. Of course, three is more than one and four is more than one and so forth.

    There is a reason that parents come in twos. And it has zilch to do with homosexuality and zilch to do with SSM.

    Ross said: "what should be done with those children who have two dads? Should they be taken away? Put in foster homes? Given to heterosexual parents?"

    Except for you, no one has suggested that children be taken from adoptive parents.

    Yet you have repeatedly pushed forward this strawman. Adama did not suggest it yet you proceeded as if he had gone along with your false dichotomy.

    Why have you done that, Ross?

    To repeat: no one has suggested that children be taken from adoptive parents. Take that as a clear answer to your odd question.

61. Chairm
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    Children do have a say about the choice of adoptive parents.

    Ross, you described an adultcentric view of adoption. Prospective adoptors are only prospective adoptors. There is no adult right to adopt. And, no, the fostercare system cannot force children to submit to an adotpion they'd reject. Until an adoption is finalized, your scenario of the parent's knowing what's best just does not apply pre-emptively. The prospective adoptor is not a parent and has no such authority over children they'd seek to attain.

    Maybe you meant something else?

62. Jeffrey
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    “A man and a woman complement each other in terms of anatomy, psychology and their parenting skills.”

    That’s an argument, I guess, against same-sex parenting. The issue this website opposes is same-sex marriage, not same-sex parenting. Marriage is about committed couples, and how society treats them, not children, or raising them. The state makes no requirements for “good parenting”: clearly, anybody, any couple, a single person, convicted murderer, drug abuser, rapist, etc., can be a parent. It’s nice to identify an ideal situation, but gender distinctions are hardly a useful tool in describing good parents. For instance, if something happened to me, I hardly think I’d want my two daughters raised by a male serial killer and his drug-abusing wife. I’d prefer the lesbian couple down the street, who appear to be happily coupled, and doing a nice job with their two boys.

    I’d say our current president had a less than “ideal” parenting situation and yet he appears to be quite an accomplished person. I wish I had the statistics on the percent of households with a male and female still in their first marriage, and their biological children. I assume that’s the “ideal” family. I bet they’re in the minority.

63. CarrieJones
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    I love that video. It reminds me of the saying: "What you do speaks so loudly, I can't hear what you say." My husband's good example speaks volumes to my boys and girls. I really appreciate it! He doesn't tell my boys how to be a good man, he shows them, on a daily basis.

64. CarrieJones
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    Charim, you have a good perspective. What a mom and dad can give a child is unique. No one else can give what they have to give. It's audacious and more than a little presumptuous to assume one of the genders doesn't matter. What kind of message does that send to children? I'm sorry, boys don't matter?

65. Jeffrey
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    Carrie says:

    “It’s audacious and more than a little presumptuous to assume one of the genders doesn’t matter.”

    I don’t think anyone who supports same-sex marriage is trying to diminish the importance of either gender. But with so many children being raised outside “ideal” one mom and one dad, married forever, families, why are gay couples expected to conform to some perceived ideal, while single mothers, for example, aren’t? In general, opponents of same-sex marriage love to talk about social ideals when it comes to same-sex couples, but go silent about those ideals for any other kind of couple. Is it really ideal for a mixed race couple to produce a mixed race child who might experience social or cultural stigmas? Should couples of different religions be allowed to marry, and confuse the children about their faith?

    If we insist on holding gay couples to a standard, let’s at least be consistent and hold ALL couples to the standard.

66. Larry
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    GENDER POEM-> Adam and Eve / boys and girls / women and men / go together like birds and feathers-as to naturalness and realityness / tis great God made two human genders.

67. CarrieJones
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    Jeffrey, if same sex parenting is just another deviation from something you acknowledge as better, why support it at all? Should we have more divorce just because we can? Should we have more deviation of any kind just because we can?

    If it's not the best, why hold it up as a pretended ideal?

68. Jeffrey
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    Well why let other "non optimal" couples raise children, Carrie? Why don't we outlaw single parenting? divorce, which is non-optimal for kids?

    No one's holding it up as an ideal, any more than single parenting is an ideal. But it's what adults want to do and barring a good reason not to do it, what's the problem?

    Again, let's not expect one group to meet some perceived standard, while all other groups can do as they please.

69. CarrieJones
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    "nobody's holding it up as an ideal"

    If homosexual relationships are not equal to marriage then why are we pretending that it is?

70. CarrieJones
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    No one encourages single parenting, divorce or any other heterosexual foibles. No one holds those up as the ideal. They happen. There's no doubt. People are fallible. In reaching for our ideals, we'll often fall short.

    Homosexuality is not an ideal we should uphold. It seeks to tear down, dethrone marriage and ignores the importance of gender in order to give a small population of adults the emotional satisfaction of having their lifestyle considered normal.

    The problem is that it's not ideal, it doesn't even stretch to the same ideals. It turns the ideal on its head and replaces it with something less.

    That's what the problem is. It's not equal, and children pay the price if we pretend it is.

71. kate
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    Carrie,

    Very eloquently stated. Yes, we should never forget that the real subjects and victims of these social experiments are the children.

72. beetlebabee
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    Dads shouldn't be optional.

73. Adam
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    There is a difference between a non optimal gay married couple than a non optimal heterosexual married couple. The potential for procreation is an obvious give away, but also a mother and a father is important.

    Those in a divorce have a tremendous amount of responsibility. They broke a contract. Children are left in the middle unfortunately. Adults do what they want don't they? The kids get the bad end of the deal.

    We do not wish it upon single mothers or fathers having to raise children. First examine that most single parents don't want to give up their children. But oh how much harder it is for all involved. Thats non optimal. The law encourages couples to get married first before having children.
    Do we set up children with single parents from the beginning? No

    Why not outlaw divorce? Are you really asking this question? Adults care less about contracts and more about what they want. Outlawing divorce could lead to dangerous circumstances, physical abuse, verbal abuse, cheating, to mention a few. When the contract is broken, a couple is entitled to divorce. Would it be just to have a couple stick together in awful circumstances? There would have widespread abuse. Thank goodness we have divorce. Why would you even argue for outlawing divorce?
    Do we set up our kids with divorced parents? No

    Why we shouldn't outlaw Single parenting: A single parent is better than no parent. If we outlawed single parents, many more children would be in homeless shelters. We don't expect everyone to have a perfect marriage, hence divorce. We do expect and hope for a successful marriage.

    An optimal married couple is a mother and a father, however things can go wrong and cause major suffering. How many laws do you know of that try to encourage a non optimal situation? We don't setup for a failure, we look for the best practices, and if something fails we adjust and hope for the best.

74. dawn blake
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

    We are saying that if we NEED and bacon and an egg (heterosexual)to make a bacon and egg sandwich(marraige) and that is not possible we should compromise for the sake of someone that is hungry(children)
    The children will not forgive us if we feed them with bacon and bacon sandwiches :there is no second chance with the life of a child . the damage is already done by the time the child grows up
    What we should do is look for the root causes of decay in marraige values ( lack of egg and bacon) and fix them
    For the children, there may be some who will grow up sane and healthy but there WILL be others who WILL have severe emotional problems as a result of being brought up in a ssm household and there is no way to differentiate one from the other until it is too late
    For those children it is better that they remain in foster care than for them to be exposed to a bacon and bacon (ssm) situation

75. Adam
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    Dawn,
    We aren't saying any of those things at all. Instead of putting words into other peoples mouths. State your own case position and ask for clarification on others.

76. Leona
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    hey everybody. I'm from london (uk). I didn't knew about prop 8 until now. I live in a country where homossexuality is very well accepted, i live in EUROPE guys! a very open-minded land. In UK it's very normal see parents talking with their children's about that...i was created by homossexual and straight people...my parents are both personal treiners...so i always had contact with gays and lesbians..and you know what?...they are exactly like us...work-people, lazy, beautiful, ugly, no matter what...they are HUMAN beings like us....so i don't understand that...they are selfish? they only want marriage for them as some straight people want it? ... NO... that's not about that... i respect your points of view....but it would be so great we try to understand the "other side"... the majority of gays and lesbians i know are from religious families. I have an american friend (her name is jessica), she told me 1 day that her parents believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman...ok...she also said that she had the same point of view...until her boyfriend revealed that he has gay parents...she was very shocked in that time but, when she first met his fathers, she told me: what was happening in my head leona? i had an opinion based on what my family believes...and we never had known gay people before...but now i know well the 2 sides of this "story"...yesterday i knew well 1...today i know both...and nom, my heart tells me that gays and lesbian should have the same rights that i and my husband we'll have some day...Today, i can say that i am a fair person...because i know well the 2 points of view and now i finaly can choose the best side...and i choose to believe that a marriage is something between two people, marriage is a personal decision.

    After all this, i just have to say that the politicians elected by people have to decide what is right or wrong, the church should not have a voice in state, because the state do not decide who will be the next "holy holy saint".
    PEACE!

    PS: One more thing... you like when someone says to you what you have to do or not?

77. CarrieJones
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    So Leona, you're basically saying that one pairing that rejects the importance of gender and one pairing that embraces it are equal with no differences whatsoever.

    Even Jeffrey admits that the two are not the same. At least he's being honest about it.

78. beetlebabee
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, you know I've seen just enough of "EUROPE" and their version of religious tolerance. Even we who are an ocean away can see what has happened to your country for all its social engineering. You'll be substantially extinct in my lifetime, of your own choice.

    Reality is the most damning response to your "EUROPE" enlightenment. No thanks.

79. Lamont
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    Oh the enlightened europeans who kill their babies and their elderly, who are so focused on themselves that the marriage rate is almost as low as the birth rate in comparison to other nations.

    How many ways can you spell self destruct?

80. Lamont
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    "my heart tells me that gays and lesbian should have the same rights"

    It's not about the people involved, it's about the actions involved. Of course people who suffer with same sex attraction are people. What else would they be? aliens? Jails and institutions are full of people too. Do we allow them to do as they please without scrutiny just because they're people too? Of course not. What do you think we are? Animals?

    Do we take every idea that comes to mind and put it into law? Look at the consequences, that's the test of an idea. Don't just accept it because you think it ought to be so.

    Overly emotional hearts have been wrong more often than facts. Have a heart, but don't lose sight of reality.

81. piperD
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

    I agree. well said. well it's not about equality anywayz. the law already applies equally to everyone. everyone is equal, with the same opportunities for marriage as anyone else.

82. Ross
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    Chairm said: Children do have a say about the choice of adoptive parents.

    Ross, you described an adultcentric view of adoption.
    -----

    Chairm, do me a favor and re-read what Adam and I were talking about in the previous questions. We were talking with children with same-sex parents. in general (regardless of how the child came to have same-sex parents). Not about adoption. Please don't put words in my mouth, I didn't use the word adoption once in my question to Adam, nor in my response to his question...

83. Ross
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

    Kate says; You will see male and female birds taking turns feeding and protecting their chicks. You will not see two male birds sodomizing each other, announcing “we are normal, we want to get married and have a family.”
    --------

    Though you will see two gay penguins raising a baby

84. Chairm
    Posted June 17, 2009 at 3:51 am | Permalink

    Ross, how did you imagine that the second dad or the second mom would become a co-parent, if the word, adoption, was not already in your mind, if not in your mouth, as your wrote the questions?

    Would it make your feel better if the word, adoption, was not used in the answer: except for yourself, no one here has suggested that children be taken from their parents.

85. Leona
    Posted June 17, 2009 at 6:59 am | Permalink

    "Oh the enlightened europeans who kill their babies and their elderly, who are so focused on themselves that the marriage rate is almost as low as the birth rate in comparison to other nations."

    so let me ask (and tell) you something lamont, this never happened in America? seriously, some religious people only attack gay people because of what? just because they love each other!
    i'm very proud for being british, thanks, and for living in this wonderful land called EUROPE! gay marriage in uk is just a matter of time, america is so late...seriously, we see european countries, Australia, Japan, Brazil, Canada, are great countries making an amazing job against racism, homophobia, and for having equal rights... you like to see your country behind the others?
    PEACE *

86. Jeffrey
    Posted June 17, 2009 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    Carrie,

    You seem to confuse the separate issues of marriage and parenting. Loving, committed same-sex couples are every bit the equal of loving, committed opposite-sex couples, and therefore should be permitted, even encouraged, to marry, to create a solid, lasting relationship. That goes double if the couple is raising children.

    I heartily agree that a child is best raised by its biological father and mother theoretically. But we already make so many exceptions to that ideal that it is simply ridiculous and unfair to hold this ideal against same-sex couples, whether they have children or not. Again, your argument, fair or unfair, is against same-sex PARENTING, not same-sex marriage. Can you understand the difference?

87. kate
    Posted June 17, 2009 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    Leona, I think you get a BIT carried away stating that your "English" values apply to all Europeans. Europe is a very diverse land and England is a very tiny part of it. Attitudes toward homosexuals and their activism also greatly vary there. I would easily bet that most Europeans believe that the idea of gay "marriage" (and gays raising children) is absolutely idiotic, and constitutes nothing more that a misguided attempt to legitimize and promote something that simply cannot be considered the norm. I do not want to oversimplify this, but I believe that Europe's complicated and difficult history gives most Europeans a unique perspective on what is important, and allows them to quickly see through all the obfuscating debris (such as contrived arguments about "equlity" and "civil rights") and see what the real issue, what is at stake, and, finally, who will pay the price.
    I happen to be European, currently living in the US, and could not agree more with NOM and its message. We should not, in the name of "enlightened tolerance" embarce self- and otherwise destructive tendencies and aspirations of a small group of individuals. I do not want my children or anybody else's children to pay for such group's need to feel accepted and "normal". And, sorry Leona to burst your bublle, I happen to know many Britts who agree with me that this and any other society's blind permissiveness and misguided tolerance can, unfortunately, lead that society in one direction only -- down into the gutter. And the worst part of it is that, as always, the children will pay the highest price.

88. L. Marie
    Posted June 17, 2009 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    "Why can't gay people marry who they love?" This is shallow. Sure, as individuals, we marry BECAUSE we love each other. But marriage exists on a higher level and that is for family and procreation. So while our individual motives for marriage may be about love, the institution of marriage itself, is not. The Gov't doesn't sanction our emotions, and thus grant benefits, it sanctions the promise of procreation.

89. Adam
    Posted June 17, 2009 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    Hey I would like to switch up the debate, the kids parenting issue has been hashed out really good in my opinion. We don't agree but believe all issues have been brought out.
    I would like thoughts on Obama;s announcement to give rights to same sex federal employees. The first thing that came to my mind is he is inviting the gays to file a court case. Seems like a small stepping stone. Although gays will like be upset, Obama is actually giving them something to start the repeal of doma. What do you think?

90. Leona
    Posted June 17, 2009 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    Ok kate, you know many british people, ok, people of your age, because people of my age ( i have 19) agree with, like the majority of the young people in usa and de "Smackority" (lol) of young people in UK. Let me just ask something kate, and if you have a gay son or daughter homossexual? Look, í don't want to be rude to anyone, but i know that some people say that "Oh, I'm against gay marriage, but i have gay friends and..BLA BLA BLA" you know what? i dont undestand how this people can consider themself a gay-friendly person and do not wish the same joys and rights to them... i feel very said cause in america, when a gay male or female is in hospital, their partner is not considered family...i don't understand, what's wrong with that?...just let people loving each other...as i said, i grew up in a gym with many homossexual people, and i also have a gay couple leaving next door since my 7 years old...me and my 2 brothers always talk with them and you know what? we are all straight, so i dont understand what is the problem with people loving each other..why...seriously, you should make a campaign against the war in iraq or against the famine in africa...they need our help..the NOM already achieved a victory in california with prop (h)8...it is time to think about the other things...

91. L. Marie
    Posted June 17, 2009 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    U.S. Dept. of Justice says: "Married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships" SOURCE: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ipv.pdf

92. L. Marie
    Posted June 17, 2009 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    leona, you don't understand because they already have the same rights. Rights isn't an issue.

93. L. Marie
    Posted June 17, 2009 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    Just because we love someone doesn't mean we have to agree with them. You're going back to the old disagree=hate pothole.

94. kate
    Posted June 17, 2009 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Leona,

    Please stop embarassing Europeans by holding yourself up as Europe's representative and spokesperson. Furthermore, although you are English and feel entitled to also generalize about your own country's values, I am confident that you are misguided there too. I am quite sure that a general referendum would prove you wrong.
    Most importantly, however, you are missing the point of this discussion. The issue here is not whether gays are nice people. The issue here is whether gay "marriage" will adversely affect everybody else, particularly children (if you have children one day, you may then understand). Gay activists falsely claim that their "marriage" aspirations will not detrimentally affect anybody. If you read some of the comments here, you may agree that is not the case. Also, gay activists, running out of arguments, claim that their opponents consist solely of the Christian right -- another lie intended to pander to some people's anti-religion/anti-Christian sentiments (I can see this appears to be working in your case).
    Leona, again, it is very nice to be idealistic, but occassionally you have to step back and use one of your most reliable tools -- common sense.

95. Adam
    Posted June 17, 2009 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    Leona, I question your motive here. Initially you said, you didn't even know about prop 8. So somehow you found this website. Your friend prompt you? Anyway so then in your last post you refer to Prop H 8. Thats odd since you just learned about it however you refer to it as prop hate. And even if you didn't know about prop 8. Why the sudden interest in posting on this site? Sure its a free country, but it is interesting you just show up here all the sudden not even knowing about prop 8 and posting as if you campained with tem or something. I could understand if NOM was in your own country, It seems you know more abou prop 8 than you are leading on. I think you are ruining your credibility the more you comment. Especially your last comment including. prop (h)8

96. kate
    Posted June 17, 2009 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Leona,

    I have just read that you are only 19 years old. I am sorry if I was too blunt with you. With more life experience, and especially if you get married (to a man) and have a family, you may change your perspective. Although I do think your time would be better spent worrying about the state of education in your country, not about gay activism in the US.

97. L. Marie
    Posted June 17, 2009 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    kevin. Every man has the right to marry a woman as long as she's not closely related, underage, etc.

    That's equal protection right there.

98. beetlebabee
    Posted June 17, 2009 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    "Imposing biblical views on unwilling citizens is not tolerated in this country."
    
    Lobbing bombs out of left field. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Read this thread. There are social concerns, there are concerns about children, there are concerns about health, there are concerns about the effects of gender.

    You're nuts if you think all that is a biblical argument.

99. kate
    Posted June 17, 2009 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    Kevin,

    This has been answered so many times. Under most laws, just because you love each other does not give you the right to be married. Again, three women and two men may all love each other, but cannot get married. A brother and sister may want to get married, but they cannot. A single woman may want to marry her dachshund (I would presume consent here based on the intelligence of the breed and the fact that pets love us unconditionally). In my view, homosexuals should not be treated differently, for reasons discussed here over and over again.
    My perspective is primarily that of a mother. My priority are my children and concern for other children as well. I believe that gay rights activism hurts children, for reasons discussed earlier. Feelings of gays and their aspirations to feel normal are not on my priority list, especially, if they involve promoting homosexulity, which I consider undesirable. I realize this is very non-PC, but that is my opinion, for reasons I discussed before. I do not need to resort to religion or morality to formulate my opinion here. It is based solely on my view of the world, my life experience, and common sense.

100. L. Marie
     Posted June 17, 2009 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

     Kate, I agree. What else is religion but your view of the world and how you see things? It's all philosophy. You can believe whatever you choose. Some people call it religion some people don't. It all basically boils down to the same thing, a personal philosophy.

     To say this country is devoid of any philosophy but what comes from the secularist religion is insane.

101. kate
     Posted June 17, 2009 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

     No, Kevin, you miss the point again. It is possible that your own agenda (related perhaps to your anti-biblical ranting) is clouding your thinking. As a starting point, I do not think homosexuals should be raising children, whether those homosexuals are "married" or not. And the answer is no -- being "married" will not, in my view, miraculously transform two gay people into fit parents and provide the unfortunate children who are raised by them with a "more stable environment." If you are still confused, I suggest you revisit many of the earlier comments, including mine.

102. Leona
     Posted June 17, 2009 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

     Kate, i don't know how old are you, but i think it's cool to talk about that with someone i dont know...that's very nice...again...i have to desagree with you again...you're right when you say that i'm only 19 years old (in fact, i still have 18 but i'm doing 19 next week).
     I wrote hear because a gay friend told about that...about prop 8 that passes with 52% right?, i thought that it was a joke, that any american state could aprove the ban on gay marriage except california, i was wrong...it shows me that i didn't knew california so well...but i know very weel my country, and i know that the majority of people of this country suports equal rights for everybody, gay, straight, white or black.
     But i just came hear to talk about my life experience with gay people, that they also have children, they are excelent parents, they are great human beings, they are hot (lol), some of them are also bad people of corse, like some straight persons....which shows once again that we are all equal. so i just wanted to share what i know about that... i was always surrounded by gay people and my parents always explained me and my brothers that is nothing wrong with loving someone of the same sex...many of my gay friends dont had the same luck...
     so kate, you said that if i had a child that i'll probably would change my point of view... my parents always taught me to love everybody and to respect their own points of view, this is what i want to teach to my child... and i want to ask you something kate: If you had a gay son (or daughter) how do you react?
     thanks

     PEACE *

103. L. Marie
     Posted June 17, 2009 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

     Leona, it's not about personal dislike. You've circled around the comments completely without hearing any thoughts but your own. How convenient to paste the hate label on everyone's motivations but your own.

     It's classic demonization, a false attempt at a valid argument.

104. Raynd
     Posted June 17, 2009 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

     if you're going to say it's all about hate, you first have to discredit the other arguments to be convincing. This just doesn't address the real life concerns people have about the effectiveness of a homosexual couple in contributing to society in the same way that marriage contributes.

     the hate argument is just a copout, so are the antireligious attacks. Pure distraction from the real threads of the conversation. Jeffrey was the only honest one in here on the SSM side. He actually admitted that ssm is not equal to marriage on the face. It's only when you bring in broken marriage, single parenting and other failures of the marriage ideal that ssm even starts to look appealing as a social construct.

105. Raynd
     Posted June 17, 2009 at 11:56 pm | Permalink

     really, if you want to hash it out, let's go for it on merit. leave the names, sleights and innuendos at home.

     At the end of the day homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a skin color and the choice makes all the difference.

106. Nicholas
     Posted June 18, 2009 at 12:43 am | Permalink

     Kevin,

     If gender is irrelevant, as you say, why are we male and female?

     To suggest that Christians aren't holding OS couples accountable for their actions, I would disagree. Ever heard of the fight against abortion? Having pre-marital counseling? How about the "True Love Waits" campaign? These are just a few of the examples where Christians are holding themselves, and others, to a higher standard. So, in that regard, Christians opposing SSM is the icing on the cake, if you will, of a long-standing history of standing against the ills of society, while at the same time, standing for God, Truth, and Righteousness. Where is the harm in that?

     I know, I know. Not everyone accepts the Christian world-view, so lets leave God out of the equation. To what standard do we live by then? Yours? Mine? Collective consciousness? All those left-handed? Blonde hair? Ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The point being, there must be absolutes that we all live by, whether we believe in God or not lest we all let our "conscience be our guide." Too late, already happening.

107. Casey
     Posted June 18, 2009 at 2:01 am | Permalink

     I totally don't agree with Ms. Prejean's personal veiws, but I don't believe she deserved to lose the crown for them. But if she did violate her contract, then the action taken against her should have fit said violations.

108. Leona
     Posted June 18, 2009 at 7:34 am | Permalink

     Raynd how do you know that is a choice? you're gay? seriously... i don't understand how people can choose that and be discriminate for the rest of his(her) life..anyway...i don't know how it works in usa...but in uk is very normal see two people of the same sex kissing on the streets, as well in much other european countries, i think russia is the only country where the people are very bad to each other...but raynd...before you judge, try to find out first...bye bye bitches... LOL
     PEACE *

109. Raynd
     Posted June 18, 2009 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

     Leona, Who says the orientation is a choice? I said the lifestyle was a choice.

110. L. Marie
     Posted June 18, 2009 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

     French? huh. and I thought she said she was from England.

111. Mary Ann, Singing Mum
     Posted June 18, 2009 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

     Leona,
     One should be able to expect better reasoning (and better spelling) from an educated person living in an 'enlightened' environment. I must admit I'm not impressed.

     Welcome to Britain, where the push for Sharia law meets the push for increased secularization. They won't last together for long.

     I'm curious- do you also lecture Muslims in the UK about the greatness of homosexuality? How far does that get you? LOL!

112. Leona
     Posted June 18, 2009 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

     lifestyle raynd? what it means to you?

113. Raynd
     Posted June 18, 2009 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

     A person's lifestyle is how they live. Smokers have a certain behavior, alcoholics have a behavior, and people who experience same sex attraction, who act on that impulse, live that behavior. The point is, behavior is a choice. Just because you have attractions or leanings toward a certain set of actions does not mean that you have to act on those impulses, or that those impulses are healthy. Not everyone who experiences ssa goes on to live out their same gender sexual impulses. Some choose celibacy, some choose to marry, there is a whole spectrum of choices that go with ssa.

114. Casey
     Posted June 18, 2009 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

     Okay Raynd, so let's say that there's a man or a woman that you know, and from every way they act they seem straight. Then you run into them and their same sex partner, would you totally cut them out of your life because of it?

115. Nicholas
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 1:26 am | Permalink

     Kevin,

     Before answering your question, I have a few to ask you, and hopefully, you will answer as my question about why are we male and female if gender is irrelevant, went unanswered.

     What is marriage? Where did it come from? Who instituted it? Why was it instituted? What need was there that marriage was necessary? Also, why was that need only met by OSM in the beginning? What has changed that SSM could be given the same consideration as OSM?

     To answer your question, you suggest that Christians, by fighting against SSM, are for divorce and adultery. That couldn't be any further from the truth. As a soon -to- be seventeen year veteran (thanks be to God) of marriage, I, on a daily basis, stand against divorce and adultery, by honoring the committment to both God and my wife. Because Christians don't fight to make adultery and divorce illegal doesn't mean we don't take a stand against them. Also, whereas the Bible does speak out against both, it only says divorce was legal in the instance of infideltiy and that the only reason divorce was granted by God was due to the hardness of our heart, but that divorce was never part of God's original intent for marriage-the union of husband and wife, male and female.

     In both adultery and divorce, why are they even part of the discussion? Diversionary tactic? The only case where either would be a threat to marriage is if given consideration as an option from the get go; otherwise, they are not a threat to marriage. It is not like Adultery and Divorce are just waiting in the wings to claim their next victim. They don't just "happen." They are the result (sign) of underlying (symptomatic) causes that can be dealt with effectively. SSM (homosexuality), on the other hand, goes to the root of who we are-male and female and makes no distinction between the two. Which leads me back to my original question to you-why are we male and female?

116. P
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 7:40 am | Permalink

     Raynd says: "A person’s lifestyle is how they live. Smokers have a certain behavior, alcoholics have a behavior, and people who experience same sex attraction, who act on that impulse, live that behavior. The point is, behavior is a choice. Just because you have attractions or leanings toward a certain set of actions does not mean that you have to act on those impulses, or that those impulses are healthy"
     
     ----------

     Ok, I'll bite on this one....the main problem is that people with same sex attraction are banned from and excluded from enjoying the same rights and priveledges under the law as people with opposite sex attraction because of their lifestyle. And yet, people with lifestyles involving alcohol, smoking, etc are banned from....what, exactly?

117. Raynd
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 9:31 am | Permalink

     Casey, I'm not sure what your example has to do with this conversation.

118. Raynd
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 9:46 am | Permalink

     P., what rights is someone who is homosexual denied vs. someone who is heterosexual? None. Zippo. Zero difference.

     It's when the lifestyle choices come in that society starts making a separation between what is healthy and what is not. It is not about rights.

     Alcoholism is considered unhealthy for good reasons. Taxi drivers who choose to drink, are banned from driving.

     Smoking is considered unhealthy for good reasons. Elementary school staff who choose to smoke are banned from smoking in the classroom.

     Are their rights impinged? Perhaps so. For good reason? Most people agree. Yes.

     If Elementary school teachers and Taxi drivers all paraded down the middle of town with signs demanding "Equality for All" and saying that they wanted to stand in classrooms whenever they wanted, or drive cars regardless of their lifestyle choices, we would laugh at the absurdity. It's not safe. It's not a good idea. That's why society doesn't encourage it.

119. P
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 10:02 am | Permalink

     Raynd: "P., what rights is someone who is homosexual denied vs. someone who is heterosexual? None. Zippo. Zero difference"

     Do a little research, Raynd...Shared health care between loving partners? Hospital visitation rights? Visas for their foreign partners? The list goes on and on...

     Raynd: "Alcoholism is considered unhealthy for good reasons. Taxi drivers who choose to drink, are banned from driving.

     Smoking is considered unhealthy for good reasons. Elementary school staff who choose to smoke are banned from smoking in the classroom. "

     Here is the problem with your logic, Raynd. In the case of alcohol use, smoking, etc. There are laws against the BEHAVIOR...but only when the behavior affects other people. The behavior is restricted because of the non-consensual aspect of the behavior. Driving while intoxicated puts other people's safety at risk. Smoking around other people puts their health at risk. Homosexuality, on the other hand, does not put anyone else at risk because it is consensual (nor does heterosexualty, for that matter--unless it is with a minor or rape in both cases, because then it is not consensual).

     So Raynd, explain to me how homosexuality is a "risk" for other people? How do two men in a relationship living next door to you put you at risk? Or them being married for that matter, because the marriage just affects the two people involved and their family, no one else. If they get married, your marriage isn't magically null and void when you wake up the next day.

     Smoking, alcoholism, rape, incest, etc all have laws against the behavior. There are no longer laws against the behavior of homosexuality (as sodomy laws, for the most part, have been struck down). There are laws against the behaviors of smoking and alcohol but ONLY when they affect other people (as any person is more than allowed to get completely blitzed at home with 30 bottles of wine as long as it doesnt affect anyone else).

     I ask you how two people in a homosexual relationship put you in any type of direct risk

120. Raynd
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 10:09 am | Permalink

     "Do a little research, Raynd…Shared health care between loving partners? Hospital visitation rights? Visas for their foreign partners? The list goes on and on…"

     P., you've skipped the application. One to one, homosexuals and heterosexuals are just people. As people we all have rights. The same rights.

     Society doesn't even know the sexual orientation of a person, it would be impossible to tell. So what you're actually calling an infringement of "rights" is actually an infringement on choices.

     It's only when you get into how we choose to use those rights that society steps in. It's the choice involved that society is concerned with, not the person.

121. L. Marie
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 10:11 am | Permalink

     Yes, I want to know also. How does putting a bullet in the head of marriage affect your marriage??

122. L. Marie
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 10:42 am | Permalink

     Who says all the arguments against same sex marriage are biblical? You'd have to be wearing a pretty colored set of lenses to see the arguments so narrowly.

123. Raynd
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 10:44 am | Permalink

     "the rights and obligations of marriage do not depend on gender."

     The rights and obligations of marriage absolutely depend on gender. In fact, you could say that it is because of gender that marriage is.

124. L. Marie
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

     It all comes down to what the core of marriage is. Is it just government goodies? Or is it what it's always been? Marriage, family, children, stability?

     Once you start fiddling around with the core meaning of marriage, saying it's only "love" that makes a marriage, or only government handouts, then who is to say that any group of people who feel true love for each other, and who feel deserving of government benefits ought not be married?

     See this from ABC News yesterday:

     "Many of us adopt another name because it provides us with protection from being outed," she said. "We are the next generation after the gay and transgender communities."

     As polyamorists, the couple belongs to a small group that believes people have the right to form their own complex relationships with multiple partners. The most vocal want the right to marry -- as a cluster.

     "We have rights to love any way we want unless we are harming other people," said Love. "Like the air we breathe, we have a right to be and do and say whatever is our full expression, and this to me is a civil right."

     The polyamory movement grew out of the communes of the 1960s and the swingers of the 1970s, but today, with gay marriage legal in six states, some, such as Love, say their cause should be next. "

     http://abcnews.go.com/Health/US/story?id=7870884&page=1

125. L. Marie
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

     and back you go to the religious attack. Much of the thoughts you claim are only held by religious people are also held by segments of the population who are gay or atheist.

     What I am talking about are social concerns. Homosexuality is not healthy. No one claims it is. but like Raynd said, it's like alcoholism and smoking. We allow it because it is not murder or theft or that level of societal nuisance. However, what the same sex marriage advocates are asking is much different than just allowing homosexuality to exist. They're asking to set it up as an ideal equal to something that is healthy and good.

     By claiming that marriage has nothing to do with society's perpetuation, nothing to do with raising families and children, they are asking that marriage be turned on it's head, gutted of all meaning and then demolished. See the MA court opinions for the circular reasoning.

126. Adam
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

     Kevin, are you the same person as "P" You have the same type of way of speaking as "P" Both say Ok, I’ll bite.
     Do a search on this page and matches are found for Kevin and P.

127. L. Marie
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

     So you don't have to have kids to get or stay married, right. I have no problem with that, however the potential is there for children, and in respect of that potential, society realizes that the healthiest situation for children is with their parents, married and dedicated for life.

     Society allows for all kinds of shortcomings while aiming for this goal, including divorce, but we're all still shooting for the same goal.

     Take children out of the equation and claim it is only a self satisfying sexual relationship and you open the door to what this ABC News article talks about. Homosexuality isn't healthy and it isn't good, and certainly isn't an ideal we ought to be striving for. Neither is group marriage for many of the same reasons.

128. Raynd
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

     Adam, that's funny. I think you're right. I was thinking this all looked familiar.

129. kate
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

     Kevin's or P's mysterious, non-gay, non-activist, but rather "fair minded person['s]" agenda aside, I would like to make one observation. I understand that we are trying to have a civilized discussion here about very important issues. However, I see that political correctness is getting in the way of getting some arguments across. The only side, of course, that feels compelled to be politically correct is the side that speaks out for children, families, timeless values, and religious freedom. Perhaps because I did not grow up in this country, I simply cannot understand the phenomenon of political correctness and why it has been accepted as a one way street. Is it because too many Americans have been so indoctrinated by the radical left media that they are scared and ashamed of their true views? Why are they afraid or embarrassed to say religion is a good thing? Why do they have to excuse themselves when they mention God? It is very irritating, even to a person who perhaps should be more religious, like myself. Why does a clearly smart American person feel compelled to call gay "marriage" or "parenting" " something "less than a traditional marriage"? Why don't you call it what we all know it is -- a travesty which hurts children? What are you afraid of? Do you think that by being so indirect and respectful you will get a gay parent to agree with you that he is hurting the children he is raising? I don't think so. Why are so many Americans afraid to say that endorsement of homosexuality by the proposed institution of gay "marriage" is simply outrageous and damaging to the society as a whole? Why are Americans afraid to hold gays morally accountable for the AIDS epidemic in this country? Why do so many Americans struggle how to counter gays' outlandish aspirations without hurting their feelings or worse, appear provincial (again, side-effect of indoctrination)? Perhaps being direct would not work in this country. Well, I couldn't care less about gays' need to feel normal. Want to feel normal? Get help. Leave marriage and children alone.

130. Erin
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

     Kate - I am truly sorry that you feel that way about me.

131. Sally
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

     It's not about you Erin.

132. Nicholas
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

     Kevin,

     I will ask this one more time. Why are we male and female? Or do you not recognize that there are two genders? And if there is only "one" gender, which is it-male or female? Yet, if there are two genders, again, why?

133. Chairm
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

     Keven, sex differentiation is important to human procreation and is the basis for the marital presumption of paternity, at law. Procreation is directly connected to marriage law.

     You indicate that sex differentiation is very important to sexual attraction between persons who are not sexually different but are the same.

     Is that in the law where SSM has been put in place? I don't think so, but perhaps sexual attraction should be a requirement, enforced absosutely, to reflect your view?

     Please elaborate.

134. Mary Ann, Singing Mum
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

     Kevin, you ask good questions that remind me what I have wondered about for a long time.
     Why do SS couples simulate or mimic reproductive sex acts knowing they can never reproduce? Why do people act in a way opposite to how their body is designed? Why does one person in a SS relationship typically act as male and the other female? It is all very interesting.

135. Lance
     Posted June 19, 2009 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

     Kate, people in same sex relationships do not act in a way opposite to how their body is designed...the sheer fact that two men are physically capable of having intercourse means that the body was in fact at least somewhat designed for it. (plus the presence of a prostate in men and not in women)

136. Marlo
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 2:07 am | Permalink

     designed for it? hm. Considering all the health issues involved with homosexual activity, I don't know if I would really say that the human body was designed for it.

137. Esther
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 3:10 am | Permalink

     It is a shame that individual privacy is not respected anymore. Private emails are intercepted or passed around and laws are amazingly subject to double-standard interpretation. Pageant agencies can put whatever spin they choose on the reputation of an individual as it suits their whims. Who would have ever thought that there would come a time in America that one would have to explain herself for a comment like Carrie made? And, it is my opinion that Carrie sensed the hostility from those instrumental in firing her long before she was publicly defamed and kicked to the curb.

138. Nicholas
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 3:45 am | Permalink

     Kevin,

     Great! I am glad you recognize two genders and that both are necessary for reproduction. My concern, though, now is the way you said "developed" two entities for reproduction. What, we weren't male and female from the get go? Somehow, that (gender)came into "being" over time? I suppose "evolved" could be used here. If that is the case, why has it stopped at the two genders-male and female? Wouldn't we be "evolving" into some post-gender world (why has it taken so long), or is that what SSM (homosexuality) is all about? The androgynitization, ambisexualization, amoralization of society where we look, act, and think alike because nothing is right or wrong and there are no consequences.

     Also, so if I am imposing what I believe upon you (which I am not; merely expressing my belief), how is that different than what you want/believe? Am I just to stand by and let the cards fall where they may (seemingly what the SSM camp wants), or do I take a more pro-active position and defend marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife? I will take the latter and let God be the judge.

139. Nicholas
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 4:12 am | Permalink

     Lance,

     You are getting the cart before the horse. Correct me if I am wrong, but justification for homosexual acts is, due in part, to men being able to have intercourse with each other? Huh? If that is the case, then, men and women alike were "designed" to have intercourse with just about anything they want (some do already) with no repercussions. If the past is prologue, I for one, am not looking forward to the epilogue.

140. Jennifer Lane
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 8:23 am | Permalink

     This shouldn't be so complicated. Below are the final scores showing Miss North Carolina ahead in swimsuit and evening gown - before the final question. It's not rocket science. Carrie would have had to soar to get ahead of her with that final question to win the competition. Unfortunately, minus the debate concerning her answer - she answered the question in a very clumsy, uninformed (of the issues) manner i.e. at that time, four states passed gay marriage laws, not in her "land" or "country" as she said of those who have the right to choose. Carrie knew very little if anything about this subject and gave a poorly constructed answer - and grasping for straws she concluded with her controversial few words. So, just on the context of her sentence structure and knowing issues, thinking on her feet, giving accurate information, she didn't fair very well - it wasn't a smooth delivery. A beauty contestant should have some working knowledge of at least her state's current events, plus some national and world current events - just be able to carry on an intelligent conversation and be able to give intelligent/informed answers when in public. That's just reality. These girls need to sound a bit educated and informed -that's the requirement and not too much too ask.This whole thing is just blown out of proportion.Yes, the gay community was outraged and Keith and group weren't thrilled, but it didn't cost her the Miss USA or Miss Calif. crown. Reality, Miss N.C. was a classier, more intelligent, more composed and an overall, better package than Carrie. She was just better in all areas and so she won fair and square - let's give her credit. And, Miss Calif., Tami, is also a Christian and holds to traditional marriage but, is doing her job, and is working out just find with the pageant folks. Carrie is just too high maintenance and needs to grow up. I hope she doesn't continue to burn her bridges and destroy her young life because of all of this.

     Final competition scores
     [hide]State Swimsuit Evening Gown
     North Carolina 9.198 (1) 9.470 (1)
     California 9.033 (3) 9.275 (2)
     Arizona 9.092 (2) 9.189 (3)
     Utah 8.851 (5) 8.849 (5)
     Kentucky 8.963 (4) 9.047 (4)
     Texas 8.548 (7) 8.694 (6)
     Tennessee 8.442 (9) 8.578 (7)
     Arkansas 8.704 (6) 8.419 (8)

141. kate
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 10:39 am | Permalink

     Erin,
     Your sexuality is none of my business and I wish you well. Gay aspirations, similarly, are none of my business until gays make it my business, which unfortunately has happened. I think a lot of people like myself, who have no particular agenda, who simply want to do the best they can for their children, are realizing that radical gay movement is threatening the most important things in our lives -- children. Call me a bigot, if you wish, but I refuse to have may children taught that gay lifestyle is equivalent to heterosexual lifestyle, something I strongly disagree with. A gay "marriage" sends that kind of message and therefore I oppose it. Also, although it does directly affect me, I feel I need to speak out against gays raising children. These children, deprived by design, of a mom or dad, are being exploited to make gays feel just like everybody else. I am sure many of the gay parents are doing their best. Regardless, these children are being hurt. To me, that is wrong. Again, call me a bigot if you wish. The encouraging news is that more and more people, like myself, who until recently felt radical gay agenda did not affect us, are starting to see that is not the case. A recent poll in NY has shown that the support for gay "marriage" has collapsed. I am grateful to NOM for getting the message out and I will continue to support it for my own children and other kids.

142. Raynd
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:03 am | Permalink

     Kevin, again you've shelved the social concerns in preference for victimhood in trying to paint the entire argument as one of bigotry. It's not a legally solved question either. Most courts would disagree with you and have.

     Address the social concerns.

143. L. Marie
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:08 am | Permalink

     ""As polyamorists, the couple belongs to a small group that believes people have the right to form their own complex relationships with multiple partners. The most vocal want the right to marry -- as a cluster.""

     I still havent seen how this all addresses the move towards polyamory or any other so called "progression" in the marriage evolution.

     Are you admitting there is no answer?

144. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:09 am | Permalink

     kate: " I refuse to have may children taught that gay lifestyle is equivalent to heterosexual lifestyle, something I strongly disagree with"
     --------------------------

     Prejudice, in a nutshell, but at least youre honest about it. Kate, if one of your children ended up gay what on earth would you do?

145. Raynd
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:16 am | Permalink

     Lance, two peas in a pod. your comment has nothing to do with parents loving children or this debate---

     Heaven forbid your son turned out to be a murderer.....what on earth would you do?

146. Ross
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:18 am | Permalink

     L. Marie,

     There is no answer. If people want to fight for polyamorist marriage, then they are more than welcome to. Shouldn't everyone stand up for their beliefs? Although I do believe they would come up with a lot of problems...the idea of marriage involves a union/coupling of two people in love. Adding a third would take a lot of reworking of the legal system.

     As for marrying animals, that too would be difficult because marriage is consensual...you cant marry someone against their will..and animals can't really consent to things, can they?

147. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:20 am | Permalink

     raynd, I don't follow the analogy. Murder is a felony, being gay isnt.....

148. Raynd
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:20 am | Permalink

     Are you prejudiced against murderers?

     No. Prejudice is for race, things that are immutable. Orientation has proven to be mutable, or changeable. It's not something you're born with, or an inherent characteristic like race is. It's an action, a lifestyle. People say "I'm gay", but gay is not who they are, they are people. Legal status doesn't matter. It's the choice involved.

149. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:22 am | Permalink

     Orientation is not mutable...A person is pre-determined to be attracted to one sex more so than the other. Whether they act on it--the action--is mutable. Murder is an action. Orientation is an adjective. A person is gay the same as they are caucasian, tall, short, skinny, over-weight.

150. Raynd
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:26 am | Permalink

     Not even the incredibly political APA believes orientation has to do with predetermined genes. Orientation is showing to be quite malleable for some people over time. Perhaps it would be good to check up on those facts.

151. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:26 am | Permalink

     Raynd, take a look at statistics if you don't believe me..

     why does left-handedness appear more in homosexuals than heterosexuals?

     Why does homosexuality appear more, statistically, in identical twins than it does in fraternal twins (and for that matter why does homosexuality appear more, statiscially in fraternal twins than in regular siblings).

     Or for that matter, why does the statisical chance of a son being gay increase with the number of older male siblings the brother has.

     Take a look at those findings and then tell me that orientation isn't pre-determined.

152. Raynd
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:27 am | Permalink

     The twins study proves it most conclusively. If it was genetic, all twins would feel same sex orientation. They don't. They share all the same genes, but not the orientation.

     Environmental factors do exist, and usually twins share similar upbringings and experiences.

153. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:30 am | Permalink

     Raynd, you are jumping to the conclusion that it is genetic (in that it is encoded in genes or dna). Re-read the studies. Most of them indicate that it has to do with enzyme, hormones, etc sent from the mother and contacting the fetus while it is in the womb...especially in the gay-sibling studies.

154. kate
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:33 am | Permalink

     Lance, I would be devastated if my child was homosexual, like, I believe, a great majority of parents of homosexuals. I know, in your view this is bigotry and prejudice 101. Nevertheless, I would do everything possible to encourage my child to change that lifestyle. The encouraging news is that homosexuality is a lifestyle that can be changed, contrary to what you say. I suggest you take a look at a study done by a highly regarded Columbia University professor of psychiatry (the same one who helped remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders, so probably not a bigot per se).

155. Raynd
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:33 am | Permalink

     There is no conclusive evidence to support your theories, otherwise the APA would not have come out against predisposition. It actually went back on what it's said for years, that gays are "born that way" because the evidence just isn't there. They finally had to admit that sexual orientation is not "born that way".

156. Raynd
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:42 am | Permalink

     "Gay people consider their gayness part of who they are."

     It's not who they are any more than I am overweight or alcoholic or any of my own personal inclinations...some of which actually DO have genetic components apparently. The activist gay community has tried really hard to group people together into a new race, "gay", it's practically a religion. Everyone has to toe the line and spout the dogma to be "true to themselves" but somehow logic got lost on the way.

157. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:44 am | Permalink

     kate, the point is those children should not be made or encouraged to change their "lifestyle"..they should be accepted. If your kid was an extreme snowboarder, would you encourage your child from that "lifestyle" because of the inherent risk factors involved?

     And true that the report indicates a change in orientation is possible..but one must also look at the pool of candidates. These were candidates who willingly submitted to the report (meaning they were, more than likely, at least somewhat slightly unhappy with their lives)......Although I can not find a report on the flipside, I would bet that if they did the same experiment with heterosexuals in turning their behavior to homosexuality, the results would be similar (as those people were probably submitting themselves willingly, and therefore unhappy with their lives as well).

     The point is, not everyone is unhappy with their lives. There are many many many homosexuals out there who lead very normal lives, disease free, and are in monogamous, committed, long term relationships.

158. Raynd
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:46 am | Permalink

     If your son were alcoholic would you "encourage" him to accept those drinks as part of who he is?

     Apply the groupthink to any other group of people whose actions are detrimental to themselves. It gets laughable.

159. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:48 am | Permalink

     Raynd, it also does not say it is a blatant choice...
     Straight from the APA website:

     "What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

     There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

160. Sally
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:54 am | Permalink

     This is a good conversation. Its interesting to see that we've gotten away from the whole, "how would my marriage affect yours" to actually admitting that if trios or quads wanted to marry, well it's their right too. Which basically goes back to what L. Marie said, "How does shooting marriage in the head hurt your marriage." Interesting.

     And the idea that there are no social concerns, yet Perry I think it was? talked about the fact that even though gay "marriage" wasn't ideal, or even equal to marriage by merit, it was still better than nothing. (but I notice the ramifications to kids and families got glossed over)

     An eye opening thread. Thanks guys.

     Oh and I love the exgay topic. That's something I hadn't even realized there was so much information on. Thanks Kate for the tip. You guys are awesome in here.

161. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:56 am | Permalink

     Raynd, you again associate homosexuality with something negative--alcoholism (which is called a disorder...). Homosexuality is not a "disorder"--since you're big on APA, you can check that out straight from their mouths.

     I repeat, that not all homosexuals are unhappy, miserable, and promiscuous. I would encourage my child to be happy, find love, not be promiscuous, etc (the same as I would if my child were heterosexuality). You seem to equate homosexuality with constantly negative connotations, when I know of many many homosexuals who lead happy, fulfilling lives single and in long term couples.

162. Raynd
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:56 am | Permalink

     Lance, no one says it is a blatant choice. Sexuality as currently understood is affected by many factors, environment being one of them. As is alcoholism. In fact, the two are quite similar.

     The choice comes in what you decide to do with that inclination once you've got it.

163. L. Marie
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 11:59 am | Permalink

     I agree that this has been a very interesting thread. The part about following your desire for love wherever it may lead, whatever black sticky puddles it may drag you through just kind of makes me smile.

     My sons will claim they are happy eating cookies all day. Friends will claim they are happy shooting drugs. It's all something we grow through. Finding happiness is a lifelong pursuit.

     Yes, go, find your way, be happy. Just don't expect society to put a blessing on destructive behavior.

164. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

     Raynd: Lance, no one says it is a blatant choice. Sexuality as currently understood is affected by many factors, environment being one of them. As is alcoholism. In fact, the two are quite similar.

     Ummm...except that Alcoholism is classified as a disorder...and Homosexuality isnt.......yeah...I can see how they are totally similar... .

165. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

     LOL L. Marie. The point is to yes, find your way. No one put you in charge of the morality police. Once people become adults, people are in charge of their own happiness, not you. Society can't treat every adult as if they are a child.

166. L. Marie
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

     And no one put you in charge either. So how are these things decided?

167. Raynd
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

     Let's go with merit! Alcoholism is definitely without merit. It destroys lives. What is the benefit of homosexual practice?

168. L. Marie
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

     Oh but society can treat us all as children. I wish they wouldn't, but they sure can. Besides, we're not talking about making homosexual behavior illegal, we're talking about adopting it as a normal way of life aren't we? Teaching it to our kids in school, holding it up as something that is "equal" to marriage?

     There is a difference.

169. Sally
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

     I agree with you there, please, keep the government out of my pocketbook! Taxed Enough Already!!! and take all those social programs with you! lol.

170. Sally
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

     yeah but Kevin, what good does it do us to keep gender out of it? Gender is part of marriage. Take gender out, take children out and what is left?

171. Raynd
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

     "Ummm…except that Alcoholism is classified as a disorder…and Homosexuality isnt…….yeah…I can see how they are totally similar… ."

     Lance, sounds like you're putting an awful lot of faith in an organization that has proven itself to be a political machine.

     If alcoholism and homosexuality can both be improved with therapy, what is the substantial difference?

172. Sally
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

     There's more to marriage than just love, or physical attraction, otherwise we would all just shack up with whoever we were in "love" with at the time.

     Cutting marriage down to only love and lust destroys it.

173. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

     Raynd, flimsy argument. What are the benefits of heterosexual practice (other than procreation...which, in an already-over-populated world, I would arguee is hardly a "benefit" these days).

     Personally I find love and companionship benefits of any practice regardless of sexuality.

174. Sally
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

     So Lance, why are you interested in marriage if not children and families?

175. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

     Sally says: "There’s more to marriage than just love, or physical attraction, otherwise we would all just shack up with whoever we were in “love” with at the time.

     Cutting marriage down to only love and lust destroys it."

     Marriage isnt only love and lust...it's love and committment. You seem to forget the commitment part. And by the way, it worries me, Sally, that you throw the word "love" around so carelessly. "Love" is not such a simple thing

176. L. Marie
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

     honestly, that whole stance just makes me realize even more firmly that the interests of the homosexual activists pushing for marriage are not in strengthening the institution, but in furthering their own social standing. Do you even care if marriage is destroyed along the way?

177. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

     Sally says: "So Lance, why are you interested in marriage if not children and families?"

     Because, Sally, children are not a requirement of marriage (as not all marriages have children). Marriage is about the two people making a committment to eachother under the law. It's not about the phantom-ghost babies that they may or may not have in the future.

178. Sally
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

     Love, you are right. True love is about more than just yourself and what you want. True love encompasses families and children and more of the bigger picture outside of yourself and your personal wants.

179. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

     Sally, it bothers me that you are more concerned about children that do not even exist yet, and their "happiness" (or what you define as their happiness) over the happiness of the gay couple living down the street, who have been living together monogamously for 10 years, who cant get married and receive legal protection. They exist. They are right down the street. ...

180. Sally
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

     So you want to change marriage for everyone just to suit you?

181. Raynd
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

     There are legal contracts that can be made up to provide benefits. Marriage isn't the end all of that quest. In fact, many states have civil unions or partner laws giving just that, yet they're slammed because they don't give enough perceived social status.

182. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

     Do you even care if marriage is destroyed along the way?

     L. Marie, you're being a bit dramatic arent you? Marriage isn't destroyed, the gender requirements are merely removed...

     And trust me, divorce itself is destroying marriage just fine, isnt it? With a 50 percent divorce rate and thousands upon thousands of divorces happening in every state every year... I assure you there are much bigger fish to fry than letting a few gays tie the knot

183. Raynd
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

     Those "ghost babies" that you think the world can just as well do without would be better off with marriage intact than not. Sally had a good point. Love, the real kind of love, means more than just your pride. It means looking out for all the consequences and making a clear judgment about what's best for kids and for society, not just you.

     The whole reason marriage is held up is because it supports children and families in a stable environment. It's not a mere piece of paper with the state's sexual stamp of approval on it. You've got to see the bigger picture and consider the ramifications for everyone, not just yourself.

184. L. Marie
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

     "Do you even care if marriage is destroyed along the way?

     L. Marie, you’re being a bit dramatic arent you? Marriage isn’t destroyed, the gender requirements are merely removed…

     And trust me, divorce itself is destroying marriage just fine, isnt it? With a 50 percent divorce rate and thousands upon thousands of divorces happening in every state every year… I assure you there are much bigger fish to fry than letting a few gays tie the knot"

     Woah. I can't believe you would even compare gay marriage to divorce! I think you are right. When the dam is breaking, divorce is rampant, marriage is being destroyed, what is one more hole to all of that?

185. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

     Raynd says "It means looking out for all the consequences and making a clear judgment about what’s best for kids and for society, not just you."

     Raynd, I totally agree with you, but I guess that's where our thinkings diverge at the core. I have an incredibly hard time trying to justify making decisions for a future generation..I live in the now..and when there are people around me, that i physically see every day who are not being treated equally, I feel more for them than for people I don't see. I do care about society as a whole, but I care about the society that I see in front of my eyes. Not the society that may or may not exist in 10 years.
     Refusing to treat and conquer bigotry and prejudice today will do nothing but promote bigotry and prejudice in the future. Fixing it today will promote acceptance in the future. I believe we both have good intentions in our minds, we are just putting the bandaid in different places.

186. Raynd
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

     What? bigotry? predjudice? where are you coming from? These are legitimate consequences and concerns. I see no one standing up and saying gays go to hell. Good grief, stay on topic.

187. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

     Sally, I didnt compare the two. You did. Im sure you see both issues as holes in the dam ("Holes" is a word you used, not me...and I, however, do not see both as holes)...I was just pointing out the fact that you sure seem to be spending a lot of time and energy trying to plug the little one....instead of that big huge gaping one right above it.

188. OldManSweaters
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

     I love that a man & woman who hate eachother can get married, but two men who love eachother very much are denied that right.
     Why aren't you throwing a fit about straight, atheist couples who marry? They certainly don't respect "god's holy union." Just imagine all the little atheist babies they'll have. Yet, a religious, gay couple can't marry.
     Keep your religion away from my rights.

189. Raynd
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

     Nice show of tolerance for others' views there Old Man Sweaters. So you're basically proving that it's not about love----or religion.

190. L. Marie
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

     If it were simply love involved, we would be happy to have whomever, in whatever groups or numbers entering into marriage at the flowery gate. Who cares? Let love be free right? Sure, do as you please, but don't call it marriage.

191. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

     er, sorry, that last one was directed at L. Marie. Not Sally....

192. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

     L. Marie: "How then does teaching children about homosexual unions as equal to marriage benefit marriage?"

     L. Marie, how does teaching children about divorce benefit marriage?

     Round and round we go.....why does everything in life, L. Marie, to you, have to "benefit" something else?

193. L. Marie
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

     The societal implications are beneficial by nature. Society ought to support the things that help society and discourage, (or simply not support) the things that don't help society. Things that are detrimental are severely discouraged.

     That's just how stable society works.

194. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

     L. Marie "Society ought to support the things that help society and discourage, (or simply not support) the things that don’t help society. Things that are detrimental are severely discouraged."

     Oh right, divorce and adultery are "severely discouraged"....and yet still legal...hmmmm

195. L. Marie
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

     perhaps I was too simplistic, but you get the point. Murder is severely discouraged. Homosexuality is not. Neither is divorce, yet neither of them is promoted or held up as what we all ought to do. Those are not ideals.

196. Lance
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

     L. Marie "Neither is divorce, yet neither of them is promoted or held up as what we all ought to do. Those are not ideals."

     Good, I'm glad that you agree that divorce is not an ideal. So next time you go around accusing marriage equality as "putting a bullet" in the head of marriage..you might want to consider the concept of divorce (which, in itself, is the anti-thesis of marriage..and by becoming legal completely shattered the "sacredness" of marriage). As you can see, marriage took a bullet in the head a long time ago.

197. L. Marie
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

     As for the assumption that I am against same sex marriage but not divorce, that's just a hopeful guess on your part. Supporting families and children is exactly fighting divorce. Should we outlaw divorce? No. It's a necessary freedom for people to have. Should we outlaw homosexuality? No, people are free to do as they please, but they are not free to force society to uphold it as something great when it isn't.

198. L. Marie
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

     There is a difference between divorce and same sex "marriage" that you are not considering. With divorce, the ideal is still correct, man/woman marriage, connected with children and families.

     With same sex marriage, the ideal is torn down. Children and families are ripped from the definition of marriage, leaving only a shell, and then this shell is to be held up as the new ideal, perfectly tailored to be "equal" with something it isn't equal to at all.

     Divorce is an acceptable risk, redefining marriage isn't.

199. L. Marie
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

     "Google the word 'polyamory' and see how many groups there are," he told http://www.facebook.com/l/;ABCNews.com. "And look at their rhetoric. It is word-for-word what same-sex marriage advocates employ in their effort to redefine marriage. Is it really a good idea to open this Pandora's box?"

200. Chairm
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

     Keven, to be clear: you oppose a requirement that would make sexual attraction mandatory for SSM. Yes?

     And you do recognize that the opposite-sex basis for the marital presumption of paternity is embedded in the marriage law. Yes?

     Please reconcile this with your viewpoint on the significance of sex differentiation when it comes to the law.

201. Chairm
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

     Kevin, you believe that the marriage law is neutral on both sexual attraction and sex differentation. Yes?

     It is odd that while your viewpoint takes the sex out of the public relationship, you have emphasized sexual orientation.

     To wit: "gay adults form loving, committed couples, just like straight adults"

     Why do you emphasize sexual orientation when the marriage law includes no such criterion for eligibility nor for ineligibility?

     By your own stated standard, marriage is NOT a sexual type of public relationship.

     * * *

     Marital status is a special status. What is the special reason for that special status, do you think?

     Your comments have not distinguished between marriage and nonmarriage. Your comments have not distinguished SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category.

     You did refer to social pressure. Do you imagine that the vast majority of people in the adult homosexual population will be pressured to enter SSM? What is the motivation for society to exert pressure for such an outcome?

     This goes back to the special reason for special status. You have restricted yourself to a view that makes the law (and social policy) neutral in regard to sexual attraction and sex differentation.

     You have not yet reconciled the significance, in your view, of sex differentation for same-sex sexual attraction with the importance of sex differentation for human procreation.

     You have not yet reconciled either of those two things with the lack of significance, in your view, of sex differentation for marriage.

     Your comments strongly suggest that there is NO special reason for special status for SSM -- maybe not for marriage too.

     Meanwhile people can form private relationships and arrangements as they wish. But a special status is a public status based on special justification.

202. Chairm
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

     The basis for consummation, adultery, annulment, and other provisons is not neutral on sex differentation. These provisions arised from the opposite-sex basis of marriage.

     For example, what do you think would be the required sexual behavior for consummation in a same-sex arrangement? Is it the same for the all-male and the all-female? It would not be the same for the husband-wife union.

     The societal significance for the union of husband and wife is that the husband is presumed the father of the children born to him, by his wife, during their marriage.

     What is the societal significance of same-sex sexual behavior between men or between women? I think your comments suggest that it is a private concern and irrelevant to society.

     The same can not be said of paternity.

203. kate
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

     Lance, you admit that a homosexual can change his or her lifestyle if he or she is unhappy with it. That is a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, you say, gays should be allowed to get "married" because they are generally nice, love each other, are not always disease-ridden, and because that is only fair. I will give you an analogy demonstrating why your logic is flawed, unless, of course, we abolished all existing laws in this country. I want to be the next president of the US. Do not get alarmed, I cannot. I am an American citizen, pay significant taxes, and have been here for a while. I cannot become the next US president, even if I acquire bilions of dollars to run my campaign. I cannot become the next US president because I was not born here. That is a fact I cannot change, and have had no control over. I can whine that is not fair, but I have to respect the law. You are in a better position. You can get what you want if you only change your lifestyle. You admitted that is possible, so why are you whining?

204. kate
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

     Lance, I forgot to add that my application for exemption to the citizenship requirement would include several affidavits purporting to demostrate my love for this country, as well as relevant medical records showing my physical and mental fitness. I would be even willing to stand (or kneel) outside the Capitol for a whole month proclaiming my love for the US. Wouldn't I then deserve a chance to run for the president, provided enough people found my candidacy appealing? Should't I, together with other U.S. citizens who are denied the right to run for president, demand that the laws change? Shouldn't we just have a general revolution, seeking the abolition or re-interpretation (by the U.S. Supreme Court, of course) of all "unfair" laws?

205. Hannah
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

     To the people at NOM: What exactly is your problem with people like me? I never once chose to be gay, you know, yet you make it your mission to ensure that I don't have the exact same rights as straight people have, including the right to marry the person I love. Why is that? What did I ever do to make you want to discriminate against me?

206. Sally
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

     it's not about you Hannah. It's about what you want to change in society. It's bigger than just you, and it's not about discrimination or hate or anything of the sort. If you have read the concerns here you would know that.

207. kate
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

     Hannah, nobody here is judging you or your choice of lifestyle. The main question here is whether gay people should be allowed to marry. Marriage is traditionally reserved for a man/woman union. Two straight women cannot marry any more than two gay women can. Two straight single women may want to marry to reap benefits of being married. Should that be allowed and how do we check if they are just using the system or really trying to get married? On the other hand, just like a straight man and woman couple a gay man and a gay woman couple may get married to reap the benefits of marriage. There is no sexuality based discrimination here. Nobody asks you when you get married if you are gay. There just has to be a man and a woman. There are of course other societal considerations discussed here extensively. You may want to read them to see that judging people's choices is not the gist of this discussion.

208. Lily
     Posted June 20, 2009 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

     "Homosexuality involves rejection, often hate, of the opposite sex. In my college years, I met several lesbians. Most of them were lovely individuals, but they vehemently hated men. No particular men, ALL men. Imagine two such women raising a child? Imagine their horror should the artificial insemination they resort to result in twin or triplet boys? Imagine those poor children?"

     No Kate. Just no.
     I don't hate men one bit. In fact I get alone better with them then most straight girls do! Seeing as they date them and always have complaints. I just don't want to have sex with them, and I don't develop in-love feelings for them. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. Logically, this doesn't mean I HATE them. Please.
     You need to provide some evidence other than your own personal anecdote. It is sad that the lesbians you met hated men so much, since the whole reason that someone is a lesbian is because they love women, not because they hate men. I sincerely hope that they were just at that early stage of finding out their sexuality and that they matured, like most people do once they pass those years. Honestly, can you find a whole lot of mature people in college, heterosexual or not? Well, I'm there right now and I can tell you, no, not really.
     I've seen my fair share of heterosexual idiots who I think should not under any circumstance be anywhere near children. Even one who thinks that children who appear to be gay are better off dead. Does my unfortunate experience mean that all straight people shouldn't be raising kids? No, absolutely not.
     Does yours? No.
     I really encourage you to try to find out a little bit about same-sex parent headed families before you jump to the conclusions that lesbians would hate their male children. Why on earth would then some lesbian couples have adopted male children?! Come on, really.
     You don't have to look far, really. Just do a quick look on youtube! I know it isn't concrete evidence and it wouldn't reveal much, but maybe a short peek into their lives could put you at ease that lesbians don't hate their male kids. They are still mothers, not monsters. Why would someone try for a child if they didn't want a boy but knew there would be a 50% chance for one? Awfully high chances.
     And all I have to say is that when I have a kid, and if it's a boy, I will love him, and it doesn't mean anything at all that you pretend otherwise.

209. Mary Ann, Singing Mum
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 1:04 am | Permalink

     Lily, I know your reply was directed at Kate. But I want to say that I understand you can love a little boy, and I bet a lot of people who comment here do.

     I also understand you could never provide fatherhood to a little boy. Consider all the programs out there encouraging fathers, trying to hold them accountable, etc. Fathers really matter to all kids, perhaps especially boys.

     I have three boys of my own, and it is hugely edifying to see how important my husband (their Father) is in their lives. A lot of why I'm against redefining family is because I see how important BOTH a Mother and a Father are to children.

     Again, the problem is not what you as a lesbian would do, but what you would never be able to do- be a Father.

210. Leah
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 1:31 am | Permalink

     Mary Ann,
     You stated that you are "against redefining family because I see how important BOTH a Mother and Father are to children." Now, I'm may be going out on a limb here, but can I assume that by this statement, you believe the definition of a family is only mother-father-children? If something were (God forbid) to happen to you or your husband, would you consider the result less than a family because a mother or father was missing? I ask this because I am fortunate to have both a mother and a father (married for 25 years next month, yay!), and I don't consider my family any more legitimate or healthy than that of the single parent home down the street. I agree that having both a mother and a father can be an impetus for healthy childhood, but I don't think it is the requirement.
     Sounding off from my parents' 25 year anniversary:
     The example of my parents' long and happy marriage has made me hold the concept of marriage in high regard. I hope that I will be able to have a relationship of love, dedication and commitment when I grow older. However, I want that relationship to be with a member of the same sex. When I look at their marriage, I don't consider successful because they are a man and a woman, or because they had me. I consider "marital bliss" to be directly related to their partnership, and while children (me) are important, child-rearing is not the standard by which I measure their marriage. They could be terrible parents (which they're not, thank god) and still be happily married. I believe that parenting is being mixed up with marriage in these debates. In fact, I don't think marriages do (or should) have any contribution to society, they are a solely selfish act of committment to another, not to society. So my questions to commenters here: If we take children out of the equation, is SSM still an issue? Should children be a requirement or standard by which we judge a healthy or successful marriage? Does marriage=family?

211. L. Marie
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 2:39 am | Permalink

     Leah, this question has already been dealt with further up the thread, but in a nutshell, family and marriage are inseparable.

212. Rene
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 3:16 am | Permalink

     I read an interesting article on a book that came out a while ago: Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society.

     LIKE Nero, fiddling while Rome burned, Americans have steadfastly denied the reality engulfing us. The siren songs of sexual liberation and individual self-realization, abetted by the transformation of our economy, have lured us to the deadly reefs on which marriage, as known throughout history, is breaking up.

     So, without ever admitting that two and two do make four, we contemplate the mounting evidence of divorce, co-habitation, single motherhood, child abuse, and violence perpetrated by children, not to mention children's suicide, alcoholism, and drug abuse. Many have attended to the signs, but they almost unanimously find someone to blame: conservatives charge women with neglecting their responsibilities; feminists charge men with brutality; everyone deplores deadbeat dads. Some preach restoration of family values, others sexual equality and joint-parenting, still others look to a rejuvenation of fatherhood. All these charges avoid the real problem: Marriage as the essential social unit -- the glue that binds men and women to one another and, from infancy, binds children to society -- has disintegrated.

     In The Abolition of Marriage, Maggie Gallagher forcefully lays out the essentials. Feistily challenging the complacency of those who promote the "good divorce," she summarizes the massive evidence that, short of pathological brutality, divorce is never good for children and not much better for adults. In replacing the aspiration to marriage with the "divorce ethic," we have acquiesced in a vision of family as nothing but "a package of roles related to the function of caring for and rearing children" -- roles that might appropriately be assigned to professional caretakers.

     Miss Gallagher is masterly in dismantling, one by one, the prevailing nostrums about roles, relations, partnerships, and all the rest that have drained marriage of its significance, meaning, and, yes, sanctity. Remarriage after divorce does not solve problems and often exacerbates them. Stepfathers rarely invest as much time and love in children as biological fathers and are much more likely to abuse them. Sexual abuse is overwhelmingly perpetrated by stepfathers and mothers' live-in boyfriends.

     Meanwhile, divorced biological fathers rapidly lose their sense of responsibility for children with whom they do not live. Pre-marital cohabitation does not improve marriages' chances for success; it weakens them. Divorced mothers can rarely provide the attention, resources, and opportunities children need, and children of mothers who never married fare even worse. Nothing serves children as well as the presence and commitment of their biological father. Should you doubt the importance of commitment, consider that children of widows do much better than those of divorced or never-married mothers.

     The delusion that divorce and single motherhood don't harm children presumably originated in adults' need for comfort and reassurance. No matter how selfishly we behave, we and our children will be okay. With respect to the needs of children, that wisdom amounts to nonsense, and it serves adults no better. Thinking to have liberated ourselves from the bondage of undying promises and their attendant responsibilities, we have condemned ourselves to a wasteland of anomie, loneliness, and despair. We are beginning to acknowledge the burdens that sole responsibility for children imposes on women, especially if they are poor. We have been slow to admit the tremendous cost that men's freedom to leave or never commit to marriage imposes on us all, starting with men themselves. Men who father illegitimate children disproportionately end in jail, addiction, or premature death.

     One may, without exaggeration, argue that the entire history of civilization has been a sustained attempt to bind men to women and children -- literally to domesticate their propensity for aggression and sexual irresponsibility. Within the past few decades, that project has unraveled. David Popenoe's fine study, Life without Father, sketches some of the historical background and, especially, provides a searing picture of contemporary failures and their cost. Fatherhood -- good fatherhood -- grounds the well-being of children; its absence painfully cripples them and all of us. Whatever we may like to believe, neither mothers alone nor the village can substitute, and the personal failings of individual men inescapably result in "a major public crisis."

213. kate
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

     Lily, I am very happy to hear that you indeed like men as friends. My comments were not about you, but rather about my personal observations of lesbians I have known. The lesbians I came across in my life unequivocally hated men and made sure to note that whenever they could. Perhaps some horrific experiences caused that, I do not know. And I am not judging them. Nevertheless, that was the case. In fact, one of them made "man hating" part of her teaching curriculum. And the subject had nothing to do with men, or humans for that matter. Since this is a public blog, I will not go any further than that. I am sure not all lesbians hate men. From my personal experience, many of them do.
     But that is not the point of this discussion. Gays want to get "married." I object to that. I feel gay unions and partnerships should give them all the rights heterosexual people have. I strongly object to gays getting"married" becuase I do not like the message it sends, for reasons I mentioned before. Also, I object to the institution of marriage being thrown around like a bag of garbage for political and /or financial gain of various activist groups. I find it insulting and unacceptable. Finally, and this is not a judgment of your choice of lifestyle, we live in a two gender society and we cannot pretend that gender does not matter. You do not have to have a PhD in sociology or anthropology to see that. To those who say gender doesn't matter a very, very non-PC question (i.e., an honest question): why does at least one of the women in a lesbian relationship generally look (and act) like a man? Same with homosexual men -- why does one of the men eventually end up looking and acting more like a woman? With an older gay couple, it is often impossible to tell that they are a same-sex couple. Could it be because we all instinctively know that there is a purpuse why we are either male or female? That gender does matter?

214. Rene
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

     "It’s odd that so many posters here want to equate parenting and marriage."

     Why is it odd that people want to create stable home environments for children to be raised? Every child deserves a mom and a dad. Marriage is the best way to keep that unit together, history has proven it. Marriage is only marriage because of the potential for children. Everything else is just that...everything else.

215. Leah
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

     Kate,
     I think those are very legitimate questions, and are actually of topic of debate within the gay community. Some find it degrading to conform to gender roles within the butch/femme spectrum and prefer a more egalitarian relationship while others embrace taking on unconvential gender roles as powerful.

     As a lesbian, I can assure you that the generalization that most GLBT couples have a butch/femme dynamic is not true. It's easy to assume this because these couples are more easily identifiable as queer, whereas two "manly men" or two femmes in skirts may not immediately stand out as a couple.

     You said, " feel gay unions and partnerships should give them all the rights heterosexual people have. I strongly object to gays getting”married” becuase I do not like the message it sends, for reasons I mentioned before." I think this gets to the root of the issue (by the way, I like the fact that you think we should enjoy the same rights as you, that should be a given, regardless of whether or not we call it marriage in the future). Once again, we are drawn into the realm of "separate but equal." A civil union does not equal a marriage. Some of you will object to this comparison but, a "colored" water fountain was not equal to a "white" fountain. Sure, they both provided the same water and were made of the same materials, but the need to differentiate between the two implied that different people needed different treatment.

     Some people will no doubt jump on me saying, "race is different from being gay." Well, as a black woman I can tell you that I can no more choose or change my sexual orientation than I can choose or change the color of my skin.

     Therefore SSMers find civil unions "insulting and unacceptable," because it reeks of the old separate but equal cage. If we rattle the bars we are told we are asking for "special rights," and trying to change marriage. SSM will not change any aspect of marriage, as it will still remain a legal contract between two consenting adults. It will simply make marriage more inclusive. If anything, it may strengthen the dissolving values of marriage by showing that love and commitment is so important that it is worth fighting for.

     PS: Thank you, Kevin! Marriage is not about children. You don't have to have kids to get married and you don't have to be married to have kids. Parenthood is a separate issue from marriage. You don't say "I do" to the prospect of children down the line, you say "I do" to the person standing next to you whom you love and want to commit to. To paraphrase Barack Obama's father's day speech, "any fool can have a child." Children are important, they are the future, after all . But the ability of a man and woman to produce a child should not serve to elevate a heterosexual relationship - of any kind - above the rest.

216. Rene
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

     Kevin, you know nothing of my personal circumstances. Childless married couples have no less significance than married couples with ten children. You have flagged a red herring.

217. el rio marcher
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

     Everyone knows that when you get married, it is to make a family. Simple social science. The things that must be twisted to make your logic work!

218. Malena
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

     I don't have any children yet. I have no problem with marriage and families. This is the way it is. When I marry, I will want the best for my kids. There is nothing better than a mom and a dad for families. This reasoning stinks if you think, on Father's day of all days that you can make kids do without a dad.

219. L. Marie
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

     "One may, without exaggeration, argue that the entire history of civilization has been a sustained attempt to bind men to women and children — literally to domesticate their propensity for aggression and sexual irresponsibility. Within the past few decades, that project has unraveled. David Popenoe’s fine study, Life without Father, sketches some of the historical background and, especially, provides a searing picture of contemporary failures and their cost. Fatherhood — good fatherhood — grounds the well-being of children; its absence painfully cripples them and all of us. Whatever we may like to believe, neither mothers alone nor the village can substitute, and the personal failings of individual men inescapably result in “a major public crisis.”

     Rene, I love this quote, thanks for posting. I agree 100%.

220. Raynd
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

     It's interesting with all the whining that no one cares about divorce, that same-sex couples "divorce" at an extreme rate and are highly unstable.

     In general, characteristics associated
     with increased risk of divorce appear very
     similar for same-sex and opposite-sex
     partners:16 Younger couples, less educated
     couples, couples with greater age
     differences, couples where one partner was
     foreign-born, or where one or both partners
     had been previously married, were more
     likely to divorce. For example, Swedish
     partners with only a secondary education or
     less were more than twice as likely to
     separate as couples where both partners had
     a university degree.17
     Same-sex legal unions, however, had
     unusually high rates of divorce. Sweden is a
     country with relatively low rates of marriage
     and relatively high rates of divorce. In 1999,
     55 percent of Swedish births were outside of
     marriage.18 There were 53 divorces for every
     100 marriages.19 Overall, gay male couples
     were 1.5 times as likely (50 percent more
     likely) to divorce within the 8-year study
     period and lesbian couples in legal unions
     were 2.67 times as likely (167 percent more
     likely) to divorce.20 After controlling for
     demographic variables associated with
     increased divorce risk, gay partners
     remained 1.35 times as likely (35 percent
     more likely) to divorce and lesbian partners
     three times as likely (200 percent more
     likely) to divorce as opposite-sex married
     couples.21

221. Malena
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

     Happy Father's Day!

222. madon
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

     200%???? woah.

223. Raynd
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

     Yeah, 200% higher percentage of divorces for same sex couples in only eight years. Surprisingly enough, that's the statistic.

     I wouldn't be surprised to find similar statistics in other countries as well. For all the talk about equality, in practice, nothing comes close to the tried and true model of marriage.

224. Malena
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

     Ignorant? Who are you calling ignorant Kevin? You have the truth plainly before you and yet it isn't enough. You have to force nature to do your bidding so you can what, be happy? You, the one who can't remember what forces brought you to this earth. Good heavens man.

225. madon
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

     yet you propose to speak for childless couples kev? I find nothing ignorant in the tie between marriage and children. That's the way God and nature intended.

226. madon
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

     Whether you have children or not, whether by choice or not, marriage still provides the safety net of security, fully in place, should any children happen to arrive.

     Having that safety net in place waiting for the possibility of children from a same sex couple would be fruitless, meaningless effort.

227. Leah
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

     Raynd,

     Those are interesting statistics. And in Sweden, no less I'd love to see the source. I think the "whining" about divorce mostly stems from the perceived hypocrisy of a group claiming that SSM will "put a bullet in the head of marriage" when the divorce rate in the US is 50% (and this census bureau notes that the majority of these divorcees remarry and divorce three times!). It seems like fire's already burning down the house and OSMers are ignoring the pyro with the gas can and blaming the prospective buyers for the blaze.

     To the rest:

     The American Heritage Dictionary defines "to marry" as
     To join in marriage: They have been married for 25 years.
     To take as a spouse: She married him two years ago.
     To give in marriage.

     Nowhere do I see: "To have children."

     If you marry someone with the primary goal of having children that's your prerogative. But this organization's rallying cry is to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage, and to boil it all down to having kids (side note: women aren't just baby-factories) seems to be very one-dimensional. The level of decorum and intellectual coherence of the comments here is pretty high, so I guess when I came to hear the OSM argument about why marriage was so sacred, I expected a little more than the reply, "think of the children." Perhaps because I separate the concepts of marriage and parenthood? Perhaps it's selfish to think of marriage as a contract between two adults who love each other and consent, and no one else? I'm not trying to be inflammatory; blame my debate club background for wanting to get into the heads of the opposition.

228. Leah
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

     Madon,

     I agree, marriage provides a safety net for your children AND spouse. And some same-sex couples strive to have children, so why deny this safety net to them?

     You said: "Having that safety net in place waiting for the possibility of children from a same sex couple would be fruitless, meaningless effort."

     By this logic, marriage for any couple that doesn't have a speck of a child on the horizon is a "fruitless, meaningless effort." Nevermind that most of the government benefits are related to spouses, like not having your assets taxed to nothingness if your spouse dies, or visitation, or being able to take bereavement leave, or filing taxes jointly. Because if you don't want a child or love someone of the same-sex, why should you get any of that, right?
     Having children is a traditional progression from marriage. But to those who are unable to extricate the two and acknowledge the legitmacy of relationships that do not involve children, the legal benefits of marriage become a prize for creating offspring, which is not rocket science (see the quote from my previous post). But once again, same-sex couples with children (families) do exist, and if we are to turn marriage into a pre-emptive "baby shower gift," why restrict it to only to heterosexuals?

229. madon
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

     Even couples without a "speck" of children on the horizon (elderly couples perhaps?) are still honored with marriage. The fact that they are men and women gives them the potential same genders will never have.

230. Raynd
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

     "Nowhere do I see: “To have children.” "

     Aren't you taking this description a little too tightly? Because marriage is linked to children and has children in mind doesn't mean it is the sole extreme reason for marrying. There are other sections as well, as Chairm said earlier in the thread, but the nurture and stability of children cannot be removed from marriage without destroying something vital.

231. Raynd
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

     The simple fact is that without men and women in loving, stable relationships, children would suffer and society would suffer. We can see the evidence of the breakdown of that institution in society already. Divorce, same sex marriage, single parenting, they all threaten the stability of the family and the continuance of civilized society. Argue as you will, this cannot be reputably disputed.

232. L. Marie
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

     "some same-sex couples strive to have children, so why deny this safety net to them?"

     because to do so would require the dismantling of the very core of the marriage institution. The principles that make it what it is. To hold something that is broken up as an ideal makes no sense.

     I am against pretending that two moms is the same as a mom and a dad, giving them societal encouragement would increase those numbers and increase the hurt to the children involved.

233. Sam
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

     I was reading, as one does of a Saturday morning, the official Toronto Pride Week website:

     As part of Toronto’s 29th Annual Pride Week celebration, the LGBTTIQQ2S communities, families and friends will unveil this year’s Pride Parade on Sunday June 28th at 2 pm...

     Join our International Grand Marshal, Victor Juliet Mukasa, Parade Grand Marshal, El-Farouk Khaki and Honoured Group, AIDS Committee of Toronto, as they guide the LGBTTIQQ2S communities through our amazing stories of equality, human rights, respect, diversity, honour, love and acceptance...

     Join our parade facebook group to cultivate a collaborative effort between a wide range of diverse LGBTTIQQ2S communities...

     Okay, I'll bite. LGBTTIQQ2S?

     Well, apparently:

     LGBTTIQQ2S means "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgendered, Intersexual, Queer, Questioning, 2-Spirited..."

     "2-Spirited" is, I believe, a bisexual Native-American, rather than "too spirited" as in Anne of Green Gables.

     I didn't author this bit, but I find it interesting that once the SSM camel's nose is in the marriage tent, look what baggage it brings. --sam

234. L. Marie
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

     Leah,

     "(side note: women aren’t just baby-factories) "

     I find your oversimplification of this argument to be offensive. In addition, it is disingenuous of you to imply that women do not partner equally with men in marriage.

235. Leah
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

     Raynd,

     I think we share some of the same values. I agree that divorce and single parenting (to the extent of dead-beat dad/mom syndrome, because a single-parent can do a great job with their child), are not good for children. You also cited same-sex marriage as contributing to this decline. However, SSM does not mean that their are fewer heterosexual parents in the world, nor does it mean there are fewer OSMs. While in your view, and to some extent, mine, divorce and single-parenting take away from OSM by literally destroying it (in the case of divorce), SSM is an addendum to it, adding a group of people who can share in marriage and provide stability for themselves and any children they might have.

     L. Marie,

     Regardless of whether you think same-sex parents are the equivalent of opposite-sex parents, same-sex families exist, and denying the safety net of marriage as an "So they think they can be parents, eh?" act certainly doesn't help the children involved.

     Side note:

     Going back to my previous analogy of marriage being like a house: "It seems like fire’s already burning down the house and OSMers are ignoring the pyro with the gas can and blaming the prospective buyers for the blaze." Marriage is not solid right now. I'd argue it never has been. There have always been marriages of convenience, money, naivete, arrangement, and neccessity. But when there are people who think marriage is great, and are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to get married, traditional marriage supporters don't like it. You just can't please some folks.

236. Leah
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

     L. Marie,

     Didn't mean to offend. Feminist sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet. But when you see these constant replies that marriage is only a vessel for children, you've got to wonder what their view of women is, seeing as women are having the children (Of course their husbands play an equal role). We seem to be boiling marriage down to kids, kids, kids, and ignoring that it is initially a significant step in a (hopefully) healthy relationship.

237. L. Marie
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

     "But when there are people who think marriage is great, and are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to get married, traditional marriage supporters don’t like it. You just can’t please some folks."

     And where does it end? Speaking of the core of marriage, what it is and what it isn't in no way belittles any segment of the population, including polyamorists, polygamists and many other varieties of desire that would like to be married.

     The question is, what is marriage? and why? You believe it is a simple legal contract, a piece of paper that gives the state's stamp of approval. I believe it is more, and has been more, for good reason.

     You need to come up with better reasoning than screaming "equality" in a crowded room to justify turning marriage on its head.

     The reality is that ss couples suffer from core instability that cannot be remedied by a watered down version of marriage. To use your house analogy, it would be like throwing kerosene on the flaming house instead of water.

238. L. Marie
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

     "marriage is only a vessel for children"

     This is misconstrued yet again. You over simplify a beautiful principle in your attempt to muscle the argument to your favor.

239. Raynd
     Posted June 21, 2009 at 10:58 pm | Permalink

     "SSM is an addendum to it, adding a group of people who can share in marriage and provide stability for themselves and any children they might have."

     This has unfortunately not proven to be the case in countries where SSM has taken hold, as the statistics cited earlier illustrate.

     Are you trying to say that same sex couples are the picture of stability? that their lifestyles are not plagued with violence, and disease? that dads don't matter to children? that responsible procreation has nothing to do with marriage? The writhing twisting logic goes on and on trying to make SSM look normal and equal. By merit alone, it is not equal by a long shot. Pretending it is can only add to the problems marriage and families are suffering.

240. Chairm
     Posted June 22, 2009 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

     Kevin your remarks depend on SSM being a sexual type of relationship.

     Please cite the legal requirements for same-sex sexual behavior in any jurisdiction that has enacted or imposed SSM in the law.

     No such requirements exist.

     Your own comments have negated your rhetorical dependance on treating SSM as a sexual type of relationship. That destroys your attempt to push the gay-straight dichotomy.

     Marriage is not about that.

     Also, earlier you had said that marriage is neutral on sex difference. Yet you have emphasized sex difference via sexual orientation.

     Please cite the legal requirement for same-sex sexual orientation anyplace that SSM has been entrenched in the law.

     None exists, as you must know.

     Unlike marriage, the thing you have described is not a sexual type of relationship or arrangement.

     You have made ignorant remarks about SSM being defined by sexual orientation.

     If only you would apply your own stated standards to your own viewpoint, then, you might realize that you are stuck on stupid. Stupid being the assertion of rules of argumentation that destroy your own demand for SSM.

241. Chairm
     Posted June 22, 2009 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

     Leah, you join Kevin in showing your ignorance of marriage.

     When people enter marriage they consent to all that marriage entails, including the basis for the presumption that the husband is the father of children born to his wife during their marriage. This is vigorously enforced. They also consent to the integration of the sexes. These combine to form the core meaning of marriage as a social institution that is foundational to civilization.

     SSM is none of these things: it is sex-segregative, it cannot provide the opposite-sex basis for the presumption of paternity, and it is NOT foundational to civilization.

     The marriage statutes do include the marital presumption of paternity. And contrary to Kevin's ignorant remarks about DNA testing, the law does not hold the default position that husbands, and society at-large, distrust wives and require that the governmente assign children based on DNA testing. In any case, DNA testing itself is based on sex differentiation and that is foreign to the arrangements (sexualized or not) that lack one or the other sex.

     To repeat the gist of your own words back to you:

     SSM is not about same-sex sexual attraction nor about same-sex sexual behaivor. You don’t have to have same-sex sex to get SSM'd and you don’t have to be SSM'd to havesame-sex sex. Homosexuality is a separate issue from marriage. It is a seperate issue form SSM. You don’t say “I do” to the prospect of having same-sex sex down the line, you say “I do” to the person standing next to you whom you love and want to commit to.

     But there is no legal requirement for love. And the commitment in marriage is not just to the person you marry; it is to the social institution, to the core meaning, and it entails societal endorsement of the opposite-sex sexual relationship.

     SSM is not a sexual type of relationship, at law, and lacks societal endorsement on that basis. Your own comments concede this.

     But you have not distinguished SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category. The vast range of that category is nonsexual but is also two-sexed. Yet here you are claiming a special status for one tiny subset.

     Marital status is a special status; apparently you wnat society to become blind to the special reason for that special status.

     Your ignorance may be due to incompetence, but I suspect it is due to a studied disregard for the core meaning of the public relationship that people form when they enter the social institution of marriage.

     What is the core meaning of the relationship type you have in mind, Leah, if it is not sex integration and not provision for responsible procration and not the foundational social institution?

     Some vague notion of sexual orientation? Really.

242. Chairm
     Posted June 22, 2009 at 11:15 pm | Permalink

     Kevin you quoted me as having said:

     “The basis for consummation, adultery, annulment, and other provisons is not neutral on sex differentation. These provisions arose from the opposite-sex basis of marriage.”

     You dodged in your reply comment.

     If sex differentation is irrelevant to these provisions in the law, then, please explain the sex-neutral basis that you imagine would sustain these provisions.

     It can't be something to do with the genitals, right? The all-male and the all-female combos are very different in that regard. It can't be something that distinguishes the huband-wife duo from other arrangements, right? What is the lowest common denonminator?

     If you would propose a different basis for the all-male, the all-female, and the male-female combos, then, you must concede that sex differentation is more important that you claimed it was in your own viewpoint.

     No matter, you conceded as much when your re-emphasized sex differentation via sexual orientation: "sexual orientation explains why someone chooses a same-sex or opposite-sex partner"

     But there is no legal requirement for the sexual aspect that you think is definitive. You are groping around in circles, Kevin.

243. Chairm
     Posted June 22, 2009 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

     Kevin said: "Maintaining long-standing tradition is not to society’s benefit."

     But if there is no societal benefit, why do you depend on the modern tradition of romantic love?

     If what you have in mind is a private concern, then, you don't need to push for a change to the public relationship that is marriage. Private arrangements are already possible -- see my previus remark to Leah.

244. Chairm
     Posted June 23, 2009 at 12:01 am | Permalink

     Kevin laid down a marker: "Unless you believe that adult same-sex couples have no legitimacy then it’s hard to argue against SSM."

     You have not distinguished SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category.

     You have not shown legitimacy such that SSM merits a special status, even if that would mean piggybacking on marital status.

     You seem to have failed your own test.

     Once again, are we to read into your remarks an emphasis on sexual orientation and same-sex sexual behavior when you refer to "same-sex couples"? Why are you not more explicit with what you actually mean?

     Because there is no legal requirements that would define SSM by that which you have emphasized and that in which you have invested explanatory power. So you resort to a vague notion of a category -- "same-sex" -- which is not even the opposite of "marriage". There is a wide range of different-sex arrangements and relationship types that are not eligibile because of the core meaning of marriage.

     This is a fatal weakeness in your viewpoint, Kevin, because you really are just making a special plea for a tiny subset of the nonmarriage category -- the subset that, by your imagination, is definitively homosexual, sexualized, and "loving". And yet you can't distinguish that subset from the rest so you keep resorting to "same-sex couples" without explaining the same-sex part nor the couples part of that phrase.

     Marriage is a subset of the full range of human relationship types and kinds of living arrangements. It is the union of husband and wife. By type, it is public and sexual; by type, it integrates the sexes and it provides for responsible procreation; it is the foundational social institution of civilization. Its presumption of paternity carries far more socieal significance than anything you have said about SSM. SSM is a pale imitation and means far less than marriage. By your attempt to equate the two different things, you also seek to make marriage mean less and less.

     And for what purpose do you seek to do that, precisely?

     I had asked you about your comment regarding social pressure:

     "Do you imagine that the vast majority of people in the adult homosexual population will be pressured to enter SSM? What is the motivation for society to exert pressure for such an outcome?"

     As I explained:

     "This goes back to the special reason for special status. You have restricted yourself to a view that makes the law (and social policy) neutral in regard to sexual attraction and sex differentation. You have not yet reconciled the significance, in your view, of (1) sex differentation for same-sex sexual attraction with the importance of (2) sex differentation for human procreation. You have not yet reconciled either of those two things with the lack of significance, in your view, of sex differentation for marriage."

     But you have conceded that you have in mind a private arrangement, not a public type of relationship, and yet you need to reconcile that with the demand for a license and for special status. Especially in light of your viewpoint there is there is NO special reason for special status for SSM — maybe not for marriage too.