I learned this morning NOM has officially made it to the big stage, being parodied last night on the Colbert Report! Thank you, Colbert Report, for the publicity. Those who enjoy the irreverent satire of the Colbert Report can catch the segment here (parental discretion).
NOM's statement released this afternoon is below:
National Organization for Marriage
to Stephen Colbert:“Thank You!”
(Princeton, NJ) - “I’ve always thought Stephen Colbert was a double-agent, pretending to pretend to be a conservative, to pull one over Hollywood. Now I’m sure," said Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage.
“Thank you Stephen for playing our ad in full on national television—for free. HRC eat your heart out. Plus we all had a great chuckle, too!" said Brian Brown, NOM’s Executive Director. "Where can I make a donation to the National Organization for Colbert?"
140 Comments
Wow...your organization is as clueless as it is bigoted.
Oh yes, because Stephen Colbert's audience is SO ready to be swayed by your advertisement.
Like Frank Rich points out today, the anti-gay (marriage) movement is the "Bigot's Last Hurrah."
I will admit, I never would have visited your website, had I not seen that abomination that was supposed to pass for coherent thought conveyed via advertising, nonetheless I'm curious as to what freedom you might lose by gay marriage being legal.
The religious argument I understand, although i necessarily don't agree with, but I understand. But that comment about a loss of freedom, what freedom might she lose?
Keep in mind that Colbert is in actuality a very devout Catholic.
NOM Folks,
Although I do not subscribe to your premise, and although I would not trust you all to decide what's legal or not, I do hope that regardless of outcome your rights will remain intact. At the same time, I hope all and every individual citizen's rights will be upheld.
This issue strikes me as being a legal, not a religious, issue and as such should be decided by our courts (and the Constitution).
Ok, my comment keeps getting removed by the moderator even though it is thoughtful and civil so I'll try commenting on comments instead. After all the publicity the NOM ad received you would think this site would be a rallying point for supporters. But instead 90% of the comments argue with and ridicule the organization. Surely their not moderating supportive comments.
This issue is over. No matter how sunny the response from the group they have to know that they have lost on this issue. Comments alone attest to that fact. You can refuse to post my comments all you want, moderator, but you cannot hide your lack of logic and reasoning that contribute to your defeat.
Everyone should know that NOM is a front organization for the Mormon Church. I first noticed it when I saw that this website was clearly designed by the same people that designed the Protect Marriage site during the California Prop 8 battle. They didn't even disguise it...
This site tells the full story: http://www.mormongate.com
It's generational. Statistics show that this is becoming a non-issue @ 2% per year. Iowa and Vermont this year, many more to come. You can go to your grave feeling self righteous, but know that progress will leave you in the dirt.
No matter what all these "lovely" people say, I cannot understand HOW my marriage to my partner would in any way "threaten" anything about their lives. After all, THEIR marriages do not threaten me, except for the fact that they will breed more bigots. Soon, we'll be wearing the pink triangle--just like Nazi Germany. Think about it.
Oh, Blair, comment #6 above is right. This is a LEGAL issue. No matter how many churches one may get married in, the marriage is not LEGAL until registered at the clerk and recorder of the county the ceremony was performed in and couples must buy a "Marriage License" at the courthouse, NOT The church. So, if you get married in a church and don't have a SECULAR marriage license, your marriage is ILLEGAL, regardless of how "blessed" it is by God. The courts need to work on this, NOT the churches.
This site looks overrun with pro gay trolls.
I have searched all over the web about Calfiornia proposition 8, gay marriage, Miss USA. One thing is consistent. Very few web resources are afraid to take a stand on gay marriage. Just go to google news and search for Miss California. Look through the headlines. Most are trying to convey that gay marriage should be suggested or at least there is no harm done by legalizing gay marriage. Miss USA did what alot of websites are afraid of. Taking a Stand and sticking to it. I believe web sites are afraid of the backlash from the gay people as what happened in California after prop 8 passed. I challenge all media outlets to take a stand as did Miss California. Another thing to note is that most public comments on the major new sites. Fox, abcnews, wall street journal, Wahsington post. all support Miss California, why can't the media take a stand as well.
Dan - So what?
Blair,
Unfortunately, I don't think leaving this issue to the courts and the legislatures is a viable option. Without the people's voice in the conversation, special interests have their way. I applaud NOM for getting involved in the conversation and for educating people on the issues that are out there with same sex marriage. There are many issues to be considered beyond "love".
Whoever made this site, kill yourself. Keep your religion away from our fucking laws. This is a pluralistic society, you're the same people who would've been against interracial marriage 50 or so years ago..
I'm from San Francisco.
First of all, congrats to you guys for destroying civil rights, and protecting and upholding an artificial definition of marriage
I barely managed to survive through 8 months of gay marriage in this city. The thought of so many loving people I knew being able to officially come together in a bond of marriage was just horrifying.
And also thanks to the Mormon Church for supporting this movement, who has ALWAYS supported the idea of marriage as a union between ONE man ONE (or maybe two or more) woman.
Great job NOM! There's no such thing as bad press. We appreciate your willingness to take the heat, even though we know that no good deed goes unpunished.
This is a land of freedom and opportunity, I believe that people should be afforded the same rights and privileges of others... But we must remember that marriage was a religious institution, and like any institution it has its rules for membership and participation. We don't force others to change the rules so that we can all be members of exclusive clubs. If we force those that are religious to bend to our will, we should also force Free Masons to open their doors to the public! I should also be allowed to stroll freely into a Muslim mosque, or a Jewish synagogue with no regard for their sacred traditions and beleifs. Same sex couples should be allowed the same benefits that married couples enjoy, but should never be permitted to force their way into an originally religious union. This is a free land, we do not have the right to dictate who a person should be attracted to... Those that are devout in their faiths must also remember that despite what they may believe Christ preached love and tolerance for all. Did he not defend the woman taken in adultery from the angry mobs that sought her destruction? Regardless of what we feel personally we must remember that all on earth are gods children, gay straight or otherwise.
People please do your homework... The "Mormon" church never gave directly to the defense of Prop 8... It's members made donations not the church. There were more african americans that supported prop 8 than there were mormons... So should we protest and condemn african americans? Oh, no that would be intolerance!! There are many on both sides that cannot see past the nose on their face. When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was fighting for equal rights did you ever hear him whine? No, if he was defeated somewhere it made him stronger... He learned from it and moved on. If you get bogged down in the mire you're only going to get mud on your face.
As a doctor I've had to take care of people w/ swastika tattoos, prisoners who have committed violent crimes and people whose religion opposes conventional medical treatment. As a doctor I have sworn an oath to take care of all patients equally. And I do just that, as most doctors do every day. How dare the NOM drag doctors into this issue. If there is a SPECIFIC organization of doctors opposed to same sex marriage, then quote them SPECIFICALLY but don't feign speak for me and my colleagues globally.
If almost all of the comments were positive, the argument would be that the moderator is controlling the discussion. If it is all negative, then you can (only) muster is (a) measly 36 comments on your most responded to entry (jim). I think that there has not been any substantial arguments raised by the negative folks that require a response, that is why there are none. Maybe that will spark intelligent discussion.
What idiots these other posters are. Or maybe they just realize that California was their "Pickett's charge." The commercial is great, is effective, and is helping to move poll numbers. The screeching of anti-marriage bigots can't change that.
You are the most ignorant organization since the Nazis...
This quote comes from a BYU (Mormon school) professor in support of gay marriage. The full article can be read at:
http://www.affirmation.org/news/2006_46.shtml
To say that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage and the family without giving any reasons why is the fallacy of appealing to fear. Indeed, once you get past the emotion, it is quite an unfounded claim. How could the union of two committed and loving people negatively affect my marriage? I believe that quite the contrary is true; namely, legalizing gay marriage reinforces the importance of committed relationships and would strengthen the institution of marriage.
Ultimately, any appeal to religious authority to create law is misplaced. Our Founding Fathers were inspired by their study of history to separate constitutional authority from religious belief, recognizing as they did the potential for tyranny in unchecked religious influence. In our pluralistic democracy, attempting to restrict an individual's rights and privileges based upon a religious claim is a dangerous rejection of our Founding Fathers' wise insight, and it should be unacceptable to all Americans.
Hmmm...it seems that the only "bigots" I see here are the bigots that don't like what the Christians are saying.... The freedoms that you "claim" to endorse don't seem to extend to anyone who holds a sincere belief that differs from yours....I wonder why?
"The religious argument I understand, although i necessarily don’t agree with, but I understand. But that comment about a loss of freedom, what freedom might she lose?"
The freedom to impose your arcane religious scruples on others, duh.
Uhh.. so your group wants to talk about "the social scientific reasons why marriage between one man and one woman is best for children and society."
Shouldn't you be against DIVORCE!?
Last I checked, the studies have shown that a child raised by a homosexual couple is almost as positive as in a heterosexual couple, and that the happiness of the family (family dinners, talking, not beating their kids...) plays a bigger role?
And also that in ALL cases single parenting has been more difficult?
So why misguided priorities?
Unless of course, this is merely anti-gay bigotry..
Oh and it won't "turn a kid gay" because it's genetic, you are simply born gay and eventually you acknowledge it, or you don't. Some people have stronger feelings than others as well.
oh and it's not unnatural, because it occurs in nature. Duh.
I'm so proud to see that the Biblical stance on marriage is being upheld. The Bible is where our core beliefs and morals come from and as we disreguard even one of its teachings we question all of them.
An appeal to religious liberty and freedom of conscience is entirely in harmony with the principles set forth by the Founding generation.
Ours is a pluralistic society.
The SSM campaign is about pushing a peculiar sectarianism that undermines the principles of constitutional government.
It has a lot in common with the racist identity politics that courts repudiated a generation or so ago.
The issue isn't between what is legal and religious but between reason and natural law. And, it stands to reason that a marriage can't be consummated in a SS relationships. Nature prevents it. Therefore, marriage (in its true sense) is an absurdity for SS couples.
Nevertheless, the institution of marriage does not have its origins in the State. And, when the State passes laws that weaken that institution, it usurps powers it doesn't rightfully have. Marriage, then, is most certianly NOT a legal issue.
Chairm, how do you correlate the same-sex marriage movement with "racist identity politics" that was part of American society?
Of course, I see what you did there; typically, those who advocate for same-sex marriage/marriage equality characterize the nonsense opposition (like NOM) as being bigoted--and harkening back to the days when whites argued that interracial marriage threatened society. You're attempting to argue the same thing, but in a "bizarro" fashion.
Yet, you are not even aware (or are willingly ignorant) of your own cognitive dissonance. You claim that this is a pluralistic society, yet you argue against gay marriage as though it cannot coexist alongside heterosexual marriage (either you're being obtuse on purpose, or you don't know what pluralism actually means).
What you lack in logic you make up for in tenacity...and mendacity.
So what's next GLAAD Community? Should a mother be allowed to marry her adult son? An adult brother and sister, father and daughter, two men and a woman? After all they are consenting adults. Where does it stop!? Marriage is a union, bound and sealed in God's World by a Man and Woman. You can change its definition, change the laws, win this battle in society and guess what? Judgement day comes for all and no congressman, protest, laws, lobbyists, or the devil himself will save you. We all answer for our actions and the GLAAD Community and its supporters will too. As will everyone else. Stop glorifying your sins and seek redemption. I'm a proud Catholic and will uphold God's law until my death. I too am a sinner but you don't see me asking you to support my sins. God be with you.
So sad Mr Brown... you don't even realize how ashamed your children and grandchildren will be of you in a few years.
After perusing this website, the only thing that jumps out at me is the intolerance. To me, the issue boils down to this: everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the right to be miserable if they want to. The last time I checked, the threat of same-sex marriage had nothing at all to do with the difficulties my wife and I experienced in our almost 20 years together. Folks need to keep their noses in their own business.
The tragic loss of freedom that happens when the law forces society to recognize homosexual love as identical to heterosexual is the loss of opportunity for adopted children. It's already happening in Massachusetts. Adoption agencies cannot by law prefer hetero couples and therefore little babies are being trapped into homes in which they have "two daddies," and therefore "no mommy." And vice versa. That's a crime, pure and simple.
Oh and racism denied someone of natural law, basic rights. What are you being denied or will be denied, you say these agendas but they are not feasible. It not like someone is going to be at a park saying do you support same sex marriages. DENIED!
Sharpen your arguement...
Identity politics of the racist kind was repudiated as unconstitutional.
SSMers betray their true colors when they assert the supremacy of identity politics of the gaycentric kind.
The racist system selectively segregated the sexes under the auspices of marriage.
It did so via a racist filter.
It also directly undermined the provision for responsible procreation at a time when the legitimization of children was a very big deal in the law.
SSM argumentation argues for the selective segregation of the sexes; it also deeply discounts or disparages the principles of responsible procreation at a time when the nonmarital trends have increased to very high levels.
The two identity filters are closely analgous.
The trouble with both begins with the truth that there is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. Also, of course, the nature of human generativity is opposite-sexed; and the nature of human community is both-sexed. Marriage is not neutral about these givens.
The racist anti-miscegenation system recognized the centrality of procreation in the social institution of marriage. It looked backwards to ancestry and forward to progeny in applying the racist filter.
The flaw was not in the core meaning of marriage, but in the pressing of identity politics onto the marriage law and, not incoincidentally, onto constitutoinal jurisprudence.
The SSM campaign attacks the core meaning of marriage; it presses identity politics into constitutional jurisprudence; and it does so without a clear statement of just what "gay marriage" actually is.
That is, other than an assertion of the supremacy of identity politics of the gaycentric kind.
The mendacity of SSMers to try to push for a nonmarriage use of marriage, in the name of identity politics, while also waving about their profoundly flawed racial analogy, well, it signifies both intellectual and moral cowardice.
Well, Roger, educate me on what pluralism means.
Does it mean quashing religious liberty and freedom of conscience? Because with those there would be precious little basis for a free society and the republican form of democratic governance.
Does it mean that there is one authority -- the Government -- and its big hairy hand is moved by identity politics? That is the peculiar sectarianism that the SSM campaign has been pushing.
Plural authority, Roger, means what to you?
I believe that marraige is between a man and a woman.
I don't agree with redefining marriage to include two people of the same sex.
I also don't believe in redefining marriage to include:
--a brother marrying his sister.
--a father marrying his daughter.
--a mother marrying her son.
--a pedophile marrying a 12 year old girl.
--One man marrying more than one woman, or vice versa
This has nothing to do with being gay. It's about redefining MARRIAGE. That is ALL it is about.
If you believe in "equality" and "love" and don't agree with the above marriage combinations, then you don't really beleive in equality at all.
If you don't believe in any of the above marriage combinations, then, according to the gay rights activists,
you are a bigot. I disagree with that assessment.
To say that gays should have the right to redefine marriage only to include themselves
and no other alternative marriages is selfish and insulting. I don't beleive
in any of those alternative marriages..gay marriage being one of them. You can't pick and choose.
You either support all of them, or none of them.
And that's why I beleive that marriage should be between a man and a woman. If two people
want to get together, that is their business. But don't redefine marriage.
Typo correction: "Because *without* those there would be precious little basis for a free society and the republican form of democratic governance.
To say that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage and the family without giving any reasons why is the fallacy of appealing to fear.
Who's to say there are no reasons given? The liberty or right to marriage is based on our own individual capacity to procreate, and the states interest in ensuring those who procreate recognize and observe their children's rights.
Marriage seeks (to put it simply)
1) Keep fathers engaged with their families and children. To keep them supporting their wives who naturally bear an unequal burden in the responsibility of children (men can run away before the child is even born).
2) Keep children in active knowledge of their parentage and heritage. That parents indeed are the ones best suited, as sharing real identity with the children, to raise and teach them.
3) Support equality between the genders in the role of family governance and role modeling for children.
Now you tell me. Does neutering marriage (removing its expectation of equality in gender representation) increase or decrease those goals?
I mean especially on the third point, if marriage has been too patriarchal in the past, then imagine what an all-male marriage would mean. Having an all-male marriage is about as helpful to its equality as having an all-white or all-black school.
Indeed, once you get past the emotion, it is quite an unfounded claim.
I've read the posts here, and I've not seen one "founded" claim by the NOM detractors.
How could the union of two committed and loving people negatively affect my marriage?
If nothing else shows the selfishness of neutered marriage, it is the above argument which asks us to simply worry about ourselves. If we can survive, its good enough.
Its like the crack-smoker's argument, how does their smoking crack in their basement affect you?
Both have an affect on society which does indirectly effect everyone. We are not an Alcatraz amidst an ocean of humanity.
I believe that quite the contrary is true; namely, legalizing gay marriage reinforces the importance of committed relationships and would strengthen the institution of marriage.
No-Fault divorce was touted, similarly, to strengthen marriage. The reasoning is that with an easy out, people will be more interested in helping their spouse feel fulfilled in the relationship.
Now, I'm not going to say that didn't happen. I think it will. But an even more dominant phenomenon happened. People who committed on their wedding day to marriages that last until they die, realized that the state really just meant as long as they were happy. Why not just work the de-facto standard made by the state?
Now with neutering marriage we have an even worse president. Where we are told that any two people can raise children as well as you can. Where your wife is just as well off with another woman as yourself. Is that going to encourage or discourage men to support their family? Lowering the expectations in marriage seems to make more people jump through for divorce, leaving a wake of hurt children and spouses.
Ultimately, any appeal to religious authority to create law is misplaced. Our Founding Fathers were inspired by their study of history to separate constitutional authority from religious belief, recognizing as they did the potential for tyranny in unchecked religious influence.
True, only sort of. You are talking of the same Founding Fathers that relied on unalienable rights given us by our creator to unhinge the grasp that the King of England claimed in assigning his people their rights?
Or the same ones who made laws against murder, etc... even though they are found in the Bible?
I agree with separation of church and state, but anyone who wishes to extend that to mean sanitation of religious influence from state is just as guilty of oppression as those who want to set up a state religion.
Chairm, I'm going to spell out why I feel you are wrong in your approach to religious freedoms. Let's say I'm a person who, because of my faith, feels that eating pork is an abomination and a sin. Let's say that, because of this belief, I feel that my religious freedoms are being violated because others are allowed to eat pork. Is it fair to some who eats pork to say that they cannot eat pork simply because another person's religion forbids it? No, the logical conclusion is that there should be no law to ban the eating of pork, simply based on the religious views a few people. This is analagous with gay marriage. There are some religious folks that not only condone SSM, but will perform SSM. Aren't those who are against it imposing on the religious freedoms of those who allow it if we ban it? You simply have NO argument based on the religious freedom argument. SSM MUST be allowed, because there are religious groups that permit it, therefore it cannot be banned based on reliigous principles. You'll have to find another reason to oppress people....
As always, it's good to see the truth - that the proponents of same-sex pseudo-marriage are bigots. Keep it up, kids. America is waking up to your hateful agenda.
Your anology is weak because the man-woman criterion of marriage is not a "ban" based on sexual orientation.
It is not a tradition either. It stands for the core meaning of marriage: integration of the sexes, combined with provisoin for responsible procreation, and these recognized as central to the foundational social institution of society.
What you are advocating is special status for a nonmarital arrangement. For something segregates the sexes; that cannot provide for responsible procreation -- or any procreation within its confines; and which is not a foundational social institution.
You propose a merger. The merger of marriage with nonmarriage. And do this in the name of gay identity politics.
The two-sexed basis of marriage is not purely religious. You mischaracterize the actual disagreement.
Likewise, freedom of conscience is not only for the religious amongst us.
If you want to marginalize the religious liberty and the freedom of conscience of your fellow citizens, you wiull need an extraordinary justification for such an extraordinary imposition.
You have not offered anything of the sort.
You did say, just now, that the Government must impose a religious sectarianism based on the apparently religious basis for "gay marriage".
Further, your reliance on gay identity politics is also the basis for your assertion of the merger that makes no sense in any othere context. This is also a peculair sectarianism.
Your proposal generates huge conflicts with the very basis of our form of governance -- freedom of conscience is at the root of equality, justice, and representative government -- and of constitutional republicanism.
Like I said, you still owe an extraordinary justification for that.
The pork analogy is not even close.
FYI Dan, pork is not an abomination nor mortal sin to the Jewish faith. Pork is not to be eaten because it is unhealthy. Pork is not the only "forbidden" food. Any scavenging, or unclean, animal, such as a dog or cat, is considered "forbidden." God says don't eat because it's unhealthy not because he's going to fry you for it.
Colbert would not be considered "devout" by any faith standard. His comedy style is wildly inappropriate. As for the word "bigot" being applied to people of faith standing for God...very confusing and also wrong. But, Jesus clearly said that the world would hate us (true believers) for speaking truth and would not even recognize their own God.
You could at least be sincere about two things. Then you could begin to have a meaningful discussion. First, the religious argument about gay marriage simply doesn’t hold water. There are two many gay Christians and Christians who support gay rights including gay marriage. This approach quickly backs you into a corner arguing “who speaks for God?” That battle was fought several hundred years ago; remember the Protestant Reformation? So today it’s either the Pope, or each individual’s relationship with God. So this is a cultural and societal argument, big word “secular”. You can argue that, “it’s always been done that way” is a valid starting point.
Second point: Like abortion, the rift can never be healed. I’m suggesting this isn’t even a state by state issue, but that’s what we’re left with. In which case, there is a very, very strong case for breaking up the United States. Start with the red and blue states, as a starting discussion, and go from there. Frankly, I think we’d all get along better if we engaged in “foreign relations” rather than wasting millions of dollars on “he said, she said” arguments. C’mon, get honest.
Well, it seems Gerry likes to rest on the easy good-guy bad-guy narrative of childhood stories.
Bigots may really be the boogeymen of these days. But it is rather self-centered to call people bigots simply because they disagree with you.
I think it is Ambrose Bierce's "The Devil's Dictionary" which noted that "bigot' used to mean someone who didn't listen to the concerns of others. But today it means someone who's concerns should not be listened to. Oh how easy it is to turn bigotry on its ear and unwittingly become the monster on eis fighting.
Robert, I vote for you to take over for Chairm. You make far more sense, and you are able to answer common sense questions with straightforward answers. I've enjoyed interracting with you far more than with Chairm...
By the way, have you read any of his comments to me where he asks me to define the "core" definition of SSM? I just asked him for the "core" definition of male. Let's see if he can answer me.
And, I hope you understand my point about pork. Since there are reliigous groups the condone and indeed perform SSM, isn't it logical that to deny this right is an infrigement on their religious freedoms? I personally think that god was created by man and not vice versa, however, there are gay people who do believe in god(s), and I think it is a violation of their religious freedom to forbid them from marriage. Especially considering the fact that gay people are only looking for "legal" recognition and most of us could care less about "sacred" ceremonies. And, if we do want a religious ceremony, there are churches, synagogues, that will marry us. So, where's the freedom? Seems to me OUR religious freedoms are at stake, not people at NOM...
Chairm, you do a fine job of wrapping your bigotry in psuedo-intellectualism. And still, it is bigotry. Bigotry against fellow human beings who happen to be different than you. You can wrap it in all the justification you want, and the pot, as they say, remains black. The only way SSM would harm the human population at large, from a procreation standpoint, is if we are at risk of becoming extinct and more than half of the remaining population chose not procreate because of homosexuality. Oh yeah, legalized gay marriage really ratchets up the risk of that happening. Please. Ludicrous, ridiculous . . . what else can we call it? I know! Bigotry.
As for Gerry, I'm fascinated by your delusion that "America is waking up to your hateful agenda."
I'd have to say that "America is waking up to the realization that gay people are as deserving of constitutional rights as anyone else, and we've got to get over the past agenda of hate levied at this segment of our society." That would be why more states are allowing SSM, and why a site like this can't even generate 40 comments on the issue. And why this organization, in a knee-jerk reaction to a media outburst, has hired a vapid wanna-be beauty queen with fake boobs, who, at the ripe old age of 21, hasn't enough wisdom to understand what she is saying.
No offense to the general 21-yr.-old population - but until you've been directly affected by an issue like this, you really have no business being the spokesperson for it. I'd love to have a conversation with her, and get to the bottom of why she agreed to to do this. I'm sure it has nothing to do with grasping for fame . . .
Please explain how proponents of SSM are bigots, again? You are saying that people who are different from you should be denied rights, by law. That is bigotry. I, as a proponent of SSM (and a straight person, just so we're clear), say that you are welcome to believe whatever you wish, and by law, be allowed to NOT support the marriage of any gay person. I will continue to disagree vehemently, but I will not ask for any law to be passed that will require you to change anything about your life or deny you any constitutional right. You, on the other hand, wish to deny gay people their constitutional right to live without discrimination. Hmmm. Who's the bigot, again?
Dan,
So because you cannot answer Chairm's questions you look for more convenient commentary, not more insightful.
The core meaning of "marriage" is easy. From Latin, Greek, and many of our mother languages we find this core meaning all the time.
Gamos (greek): This word means the combination of male and female -- or mating.
Conjugal (latin): This word means literally the mating act of combining the gender's differences. Again mating.
Marrier (french): Mating of two different pieces into a uniquely purposed whole.
A study of cultures world wide finds that the inevitable fact of nature, our ability to mate and spawn, has been formalized and ritualized -- and this translated easily from one to the next -- as marriage. A cultural universal constant more than any other we might see. Because it is based on our own humanity.
Given that, I do not doubt that you can find what the core of "male" or "female" means, what "man" or "woman" means, as they are relative terms that are defined as much by their uniqueness as their capacity when combined with the uniqueness of the other.
And your religious red-herring discredits you, not Chairm. Marriage is not something to be sanitized from religion, but it is recognized secularly by all states in the union already. It is even recognized by militantly atheist nations (like Romania in the1980's).
Amazing! To call people who support traditional marriage as bigots is pathetic. From a theological viewpoint, you have just called Jesus Christ a bigot, think about it ...there is a God and the pro-homosexual marriage supporters just called him a bigot. Eventually all those who attack the Lord's moral truth will be judged. Marriage is and will always be between a man and a woman who will hopefully be able to have children. State or federal laws may say differently but that won't change the truth. Just like the abortion battle that began over 35 years ago, only to get more heated so will this marriage battle. People who are against the scourge of abortion and the offensive nature of homosexual marriage will never give up and are in this battle for the duration. Marriage has been and always will be between a man and a women and anything that takes away form that sacred union is discrimination,( either homosexual marriage, incestuous marriage or even polygamy )all which are gaining legitimacy. The true love between a man and a woman can never be compared to that of people of the same sex or the other above mentioned relationships. Everyone already has a right to marriage to the opposite sex, homosexuals want special rights for a union with the same sex and to redefine marriage. Yet we know thousands of people have left this lifestyle to live celebate lives and even marry the opposite sex. This is the little secret that the same sex marriage side doesn't want out.....it all about choices, some may be more difficult than others but they are still choices. This marriage argument is about destroying traditional and natural family values. Marriage is already under assault through divorce, pornography, adultery, contraception and abortion and know this. To legitimize same sex marriage is to delegitmize that right of a child to have a mother and a father, that seems to be the goal of the radical new definition of marriage. Only men and women are capable of having a child either naturally or through adoption and only that relationship will allow the child to be nutured by a father and mother.
To those who want to destroy marriage by re-defining it.....you do your worst ! We will continue to do our best by defending it.
Keep up the good work. We need more people standing up for what is right. We shouldn't recognize different peoples sexual behavior and call it good.
Dan, you and many of the the other SSM posters on this site are guilty of the very bigotry you decry. In the United States, we are all entitled to a dissenting opinion, whether you like it or not.
Chairm obviously took the time to frame their statement around and avoided simple religious defense and instead based it on the fallacy of the racist identity logic that was originally used to support anti-miscegenation laws in the South. Sorry, Dan but those laws were based on the results of progeny and their generational effect. But he clearly noted that there was not a similarity between those rulings and the current issue of SSM. There isn't. As a Black man in an interracial marriage, my children carry on the genetic legacy
of my White wife and myself. In a SSM there is no progeny without the use of donors and hosts. SSM only leads to ZPG (Zero Population Growth)...hence the derogatory term "Breeders" that gays use when they talk about NSM (Normal Sex Marriage) couples with children.
By the way, if ANY opinion poses a direct physical threat, then that is a different issue. Because whether it comes from a SSM or NSM proponent, it is still a threat and warrants a criminal not a legislative response. And so far, I have not seen anything of that nature on this or any NSM proponent site.
Your pork anology is very weakened by the fact that the man-woman criterion of marriage is not a “ban” based on sexual orientation.
It is not a tradition either. It stands for the core meaning of marriage: integration of the sexes, combined with provisoin for responsible procreation, and these recognized as central to the foundational social institution of society.
What you are advocating is special status for a nonmarital arrangement. For something segregates the sexes; that cannot provide for responsible procreation — or any procreation within its confines; and which is not a foundational social institution.
You propose a merger. The merger of marriage with nonmarriage. And do this in the name of gay identity politics.
The two-sexed basis of marriage is not purely religious. You mischaracterize the actual disagreement.
Likewise, freedom of conscience is not only for the religious amongst us.
If you want to marginalize the religious liberty and the freedom of conscience of your fellow citizens, you wiull need an extraordinary justification for such an extraordinary imposition.
You have not offered anything of the sort.
You did say, just now, that the Government must impose a religious sectarianism based on the apparently religious basis for “gay marriage”.
Further, your reliance on gay identity politics is also the basis for your assertion of the merger that makes no sense in any othere context. This is also a peculair sectarianism.
Your proposal generates huge conflicts with the very basis of our form of governance — freedom of conscience is at the root of equality, justice, and representative government — and of constitutional republicanism.
Like I said, you still owe an extraordinary justification for that.
The pork analogy is not even close.
The core meaning of marriage (once again, kids, since you didn't get it the fifth time I defined it):
Marriage is a union of two consenting adults who wish to have legal and societal recognition of this union. Marriage formerly meant that a man owned a woman. You conveniently seem to have left this out. Marriage has changed throughout history in rather dramatic fashion, I might add. The Mormons, who continue this fight against marriage equality, once had multiple women/men relationships, as ordained by their fearless leader Joe Smith. Why did the LDS people suddently get an ephipany that this was somehow wrong, and that it should therefore be banned? Sounds like a redefinition to me.... Secondly, children were married as early as 14 in our grandparent's era (maybe even younger than that), and yet we now consider that illegal, and a man can be arrested for statutory rape for having sex with a 14 year old. Thirdly, blacks and whites could not marry each other at one time in our country. So, another redefinition occured when blacks and whites were allowed to marry. You can talk about history all you want, but I have just shown you the fluid nature of marriage (and all of these examples have happened within the lifetime of people who are now alive! That's just within ONE lifetime). Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the "core" meaning of marriage is big enough to include those of us whose sexual orientation (whether produced biologically or environmentally. I'll leave that up to another thread) happens to be homosexual. Is that so difficult to comprehend? It seems like I'm speaking a foreign language here. I never thought I'd be able to get married, and had NO desire to marry a woman (god forbid. No offense ladies), but here it is 2009, and I"m married! WOW! Can we agree to meet in another decade and see what the status of SSM is? I think it is very safe to say that our side will have made tremendous strides forward. We already have.
And, Charim, the pork analogy is something I stand by. You are trying to impose your religious views on everyone, and that's positively un-American. I know personally a gay Evangelical Lutheran pastor, who lives with his partner, and recently adopted son in the parsonage. Are you going to tell him that he's a sinner, and can't marry because it violates YOUR religious views? He lives in a state that doesn't allow SSM, otherwise, they would have tied the knot already. Hopefully, their state protects their new son if anything bad were to happen to either partner...
On Lawn,
Thanks for taking religion out of marriage. They should always be separate, in my view. I don't in any way want to give the impression that religious folks shouldn't have holy matrimony. Far from it, they should always be allowed to take their union before their god(s) of choice, but I draw the line at allowing the government to sanction this marriage. The government should perform civil unions for all people, and continue to call it marriage, and those who want a church wedding can do it, but not without the couple going to city hall to make it legal and state recognized. And, just because an atheist nation, such as Romania, didn't recognize SSM in the 1980s doesn't mean it won't in the future. As I said previously, Nepal is now making legislation to allow SSM! Amazing, huh? Who would have thought Nepal? And, you certainly must know that South Africa currently has SSM. I needed remind you of their dark past, and yet look at this major nod in the direction of freedom and equality for ALL of their citizens. They must be applauded for this... In the meantime, they have a major AIDS crisis among their heterosexual population which hopefully is consuming the national attention, and every financial resource. Gays and lesbians, and groups such as NOM aren't fighting in South Africa anymore. Marriage equality is already there...
Marriage is a union of two consenting adults who wish to have legal and societal recognition of this union.
I noticed you took away something in that definition, and assumed something that doesn't really follow.
Most people who support such a core definition of marriage either do not realize that it is far more inclusive than they expect
They do not realize the harm that is done to our views of equality, and responsible procreation to assume that marriage is nor longer expected to fulfill those purposes
On the first point, note that two sisters should be allowed to band together to raise children under the same "purpose". Would they be allowed to be married under that purpose? How about two friends who simply want the protection and trust of mutually assigning their benefits to? Is that "marriage" under that purpose?
The answer is 'yes', or else one is a homosexual bigot for not including them for nothing but arbitrary reasons.
And if the answer is 'no' then we really see that marriage is no longer in existence even though the word is still around since it no longer means romance, let alone the responsible social mores around mating and recognizing the rights of all involved in that engagement.
Imagine what that means to those who suffered apartied to see that the equality of marriage in its expectation of integration and equal participation This after they fought for the recognition of the equality of integration and participation for their own state.
I've said it in the past and I'll say it again. Having an all-male and all-femaile marriage is an increase in marriage equality like an all white or all black school is an increase in educational equality.
I don't mind homosexuality on the right and freedom of association, but to say it is more equal is an affront to women's suffrage and civil rights that fought for integration and equality.
While I think the commercial is a little hokey, I do believe in the protection of marriage in its traditional sense, between a man and a woman. I don't appreciate my views being labeled as biggoted. Everyone has a right, and I believe, a duty, to stand up and speak out for - to defend - what they believe in. So let's just leave the name-calling out, ok?
Dan I have not made a religious case for marriage, however, you have made a sectarian case for imposing "gay marriage".
Polygamy is a series of marriages. The first wife does not marry the second; the second and the first do not marry the third wife.
You are kicking Mormons now and reminding readers of your sectarianism.
Both principles and societal experience demonstrate that polygamy is an inferior form of sex integration and an inferior form of responsible procreation. That is so even though the basis for polygamy in the major religions has been the amelioration of certain social problems that are directly connected to the core meaning of marriage.
Polygamy was decided on the national level. Meanwhile, polygamists are a minority and have been persecuted precisely because of their marriage practices. This leads to a question for SSMers.
On what rational basis would the law prohibit same-sex "polygamy" under "gay marriage"?
It can't be sex equality since an all-male or an all-female arrangement would lack the other sex. It can't be anything to do with procreation either. It can't be about lack of consent where the adults knowingly practice this form of marriage. It can't some vague notion of public morality since SSMers have long derided that as a basis for marriage law. Besides, SSMers, such as Dan, have negated the public-sexual aspect of marriage so none of that can stand as enough of a reason to prohibit, much less to treat as a felony, the practice of multi-same-sex unions.
So, in Chairm's view (tell my I'm wrong), only marriages which result in the procreation act are valid. Is this correct?
Then, do you favor banning adults who are no longer of child-bearing age from marriage? Your definition implies this. As far as I know, people can marry at any age, as long as they are over a certain age. Maybe we should formulate laws that would force couples to prove that they can bear children before they are legally wed? Sounds reasonable to me... And, what about straight (aka heterosexual) couples who would prefer not to have children? Should they sign a form promising that they will produce children?
in case you haven't noticed, there are hundreds of thousands of children worldwide in need of a home. Gay couples have provided invaluable service for rescuing these children from failed heterosexual parents. What will happen to this kids if gay couples (that means homosexuals, Charim) are not allowed to save them?
Again, you confuse fertility and parenthood with marriage. Marriage does not in any way require childrearing. If you want marriage to require this, perhaps you should look into writing laws that will do this?
And, stop using your "protect" marriage and "imposing" marriage terms. They display once again your spewing of what your fearless leader has taught you, and it again smacks of cultism... I have no doubt that you are Mormon. I've been analyzing you, Chairm.... Don't be afraid. It won't hurt... But, I think you need to get some help on your homophobic issues. Seriously, get some help...
By the way, can you define the core meaning of "public-sexual aspect?" I'd really have NO clue what public sexual means, except in the case of George Michael being busted for cruising in the park. Please explain.... Remember I don't belong to your cult... You through out these terms as if everyone knows them. I'm not accustomed to your "code" words...
Sorry for the many typos in the last post.
I meant "throw out", etc.. you get the idea... I need to go do something constructive, and have better things to do than fight with anti-marriage equality cult members.
Chairm, just because I've identified you as being a cult member, it does not mean that I'm letting you off the hook from answering my question, that is as of yet unanswered:
Do you, Chairm (not your leader, your organization, but you personally), support banning gays and lesbians (the core meaning of which is homosexual men and women) from teaching in public schools?
Yes, or No?
Then, do you favor banning adults who are no longer of child-bearing age from marriage? Your definition implies this.
Dan, if Chairm, myself, or anyone else here says "No" then do you favor banning them because your relationship of choice is also without the ability to have children?
If so, then lets compare apples to apples. I'm not saying we have to allow elderly couples to marry, I'm actually pretty content with having a discussion about that. Anything which helps us remember and restore the humanitarian concerns of marriage being focused on the rights and responsibilities around mating is good for me.
But apples-to-apples, an elderly couple's infirmity due to age is a disability. We see elderly have many exceptions made for them because of the infirmities of age. They have social security, etc... These are programs meant to help us recognize their rights and help them out.
Now, are you saying that same-sex relationships are in this same category? Are you saying homosexuality is a disability?
I think you hinted at it earlier when you mentioned how horrible it was when homosexuals tried to love, honor, and cherish someone of the other gender in a marriage. Yes or no?
Public.
Sexual.
Public-sexual.
It is an aspect of the public relationship that is a sexual type of relationship, known as marriage.
It is a public kind of relationship, not a private arrangement.
See marital presumption of paternity which is based on sexual relations of man and woman.
The one-sexed arrangement (gay or not, homosexual or not, loving or not, committed or not) does not fit this public-sexual aspect of marriage.
SSM, wherever imposed, under whatever name, does not have a comparable public-sexual aspect in the law. This negates the gaypart of "gay marriage". That's why it is also known as "same-sex marriage" even though same-sex is not one and the same as gay nor homosexual.
* * *
Dan: "I have no doubt that you are Mormon. I’ve been analyzing you, Chairm"
Heh. Ooookay then.
On Lawn, Yes, I would consider a gay person in a heterosexual marriage as someone with "issues," not necessarily a disability, but clearly someone who is living a lie. So, are you saying that elderly persons shouldn't be married, because they cannot have children? Your point isn't coming out clearly to me. You diverge, as usual by bringing in other issues. Should elderly persons be allowed to marry despite being beyond childbearing age? Yes, or no? There is no gray. Yes, or no?
Charim, thanks for clarifying your core view of marriage as only a means to procreation:
See marital presumption of paternity which is based on sexual relations of man and woman.
So, that's it, is it? Then I have a question for you, which I just asked of On Lawn:
Should elderly persons (heterosexual) be permitted to marry despite being beyond childbearing age? Yes, or no?
On Lawn,
I think procreation and marriage are not related, and YES, any two consenting adults (with exceptions of relatives, etc...etc) who wish to marry should be allowed to marry. Procreation is permitted for single people, in case you aren't aware of it. In fact, in the black community it is more common for parents to be single than married in certain age groups. Are you saying that this should be outlawed?
Chairm, public sexual, please... You can certainly come up with something more compelling than this...
Speaking of questions, I have a question for you On Lawn, since you seem far more lucid and direct that Chairm, who likes ot mince words and analyze every syllable of words (waste of time).
I heard a NOM spokesperson (Brian, aka Chairm, in particular) talking on the radio about the fact that black women voted 70 percent for Prop 8 in CA. He didn't propose any theory for why this was true, but I have a theory. I worked in Harlem for seven years as the only white person in an all black organization. I have some authority on the black community having witnessed things that most white people are unaware of or oblivious to. Most black women have multiple strikes against them when it comes to getting a husband. Far too many black men are in jail, or simply will not commit to them, even when they father children. The majority of young black men could care less about parenting, and view it as the job of their "women." Therefore, black women view SSM as yet another nail in their coffin when it comes to securing a man who will marry them or even just commit to raising their children with them. When I heard the statistics that it was basically black "women" and not black "men" who were against Prop 8 it dawned on me that this aspect of their plight is largely responsible for their inability to support SSM. Add religion into the mix, and you get 70 percent of black women against SSM. I'm certain my theory has merit, and I wonder your opinion on this. I personally know a black woman who is raising her daughter alone despite her best attempts to get the father to be involved in the child's life. And, she represents thousands of black women who are in the same situation. It is more common for young black children to be raised by single mom's than it is to have a mother and father. Often, the children are passed into the care of the grandmother if something happens to the mother...
Thanks, Chairm, for admitting that you are a Mormon. It seems to me if you really believe it, there should be no shame in admitting your faith, right? At least you are being honest about it, when asked directly... We're making progress, and you didn't shrink from my question. Good for you...!
So, are you saying that elderly persons shouldn’t be married, because they cannot have children? Your point isn’t coming out clearly to me.
The world is so black and white to the young.
You probably can't see it clearly because you don't understand "I don't care". Well I'm willing to have the dialog socially, and go with what people decide. I can go either way, either the elderly are afforded the right because we support them in the infirmities of age (like all disabled) or we tell them to form the same status we give to gay and lesbian relationships, as well as any two people who want to form a reciprocal beneficiary relationship.
And yes, I also think it is the direct experience with child abandonment that black women understand what real marriage equality is.
I think you may have also have found that black women use religion to help make up for that with the social net, more than the other way around.
On lawn,
Better yet, why not just let us all be married (heterosexuals with children, same sex couples with or without children, the elderly, and heterosexuals who choose to remain childless or are infertile), and end this ridiculous debate once and for all? You are getting silly, my friend. So, you recommend that old people, who cannot bare children, should have one label for their relationship (because they are "disabled" and cannot have kids), and gays and lesbians should have another labet, because they also cannot have kids? I propose two more categories: those responsible straight couples who feel that the earth is already too populated and decide that they will save the planet by not bringing more children onto it, and another category of straight couples, who due to infertility, cannot have children. So, let's see now that would be:
marriage 1- reserved only for opposite sex couples who have children
marriage 2- for the elderly, because they cannot have children (you label them disabled)
marriage 3- for gays and lesbians, even if they have children by adoption or fertility treatment, or prior heterosexual relationships
marriage 4- for responsible opposite sex couples who prefer not to have children
marriage 5- infertile heterosexual couples
Have I left anyone out?
Can I leave it up to you to find words for these five forms of marriage? You are getting absurd now, and no longer are making sense. And, it's all because you cannot comprehend that same sex marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage....
Once and for all, I'll spell it out for you:
Marriage is a contract between TWO consenting adults (with restrictions based on relatives, etc, etc), who may or may not have children. The choice to have children does not mean that some couples have not fulfilled their contract, because this was never in their contract in the first place. Unless, you try to impose your "core meaning" and recommend we include procreation as part of the marriage contract. Is that what you want? So, let's see, if people are married for many years and have not had their quota of children, will they be forcibly divorced?
Marriage and procreation are not one and the same. Apparently, you cannot accept this...
Marriage creates a situation for responsible procreation Dan.
You are wrong when you say marriage is a contract between two people. Marriage always has been and always will be a covenant between a man and a woman. The core meaning is a part of human nature. We can't change the meaning of marriage because we can't change human nature. Most of us anyway have an innate desire to unite with a person of the opposite sex and form a life long relationship. The whole relationship type is stamped with in our very being and is evident by our different yet compatible bodies.
Same sex attraction is a disorder within some people and manifests itself with a desire to form a relationship with a person of the same sex. Some even wanting to call it marriage. The fact that so few people have this disorder indicates that it is not part of normal human relationships. It is not part of our human nature. Even from an evolutionary perspective, if we all had it, no children would be conceived.
Secular Heretic. Again you are so off as to be laughable. There are scientists who believe that homosexuality is a necessary part of nature. In fact, there are hundreds of species of animals that mate with same sex partners for life. Why has it been seen in humans throughout history in all cultures and societies in about the same percentage? Here is an article about homosexuality in the animal kingdom, and why the author feels it is necessary to the survival of the species:
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom/
You people seem to get hung up on the fact that marriage is only for procreation. If this is the case, then you should forcibly divorce heterosexual couples who don't procreate, and not allow elderly people who are beyond childbearing years to marry. And, you seem to have forgotten that same sex couples do have children. If that is your major concern, then you are harming children by not allowing their parents to marry. Marriage is a legal and social contract of two consenting adults (with certain stipulations about being relatives, etc..). No children are mentioned in marriage contracts, and they shouldn't be, either, because this is not what the contract is about.
Dan,
Just chill, think things through a while. You obviously are not quite understanding what people have been saying yet.
Your commentary rarely rises above a school-yard jealousy of seeing benefits and people denied or given them. You feel (erroneusly) that just the fact that someone has something you should have it too, in the government sense, and you clearly exercise no substantial effort to understand why or how they have gotten it.
I'm happy to walk you through this process, but you clearly see things through a paradigm which is a bit immature.
Lets start at the beginning.
Do you support a government recognized institution which explicitly targets the social concerns, and human rights, involved in creating life?
If marriage is not that program, what can be?
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Father in heaven, please spare our children. The man of lawlessness is rampaging through America, destroying families. We, who love you, God, are being maligned as bigots, and purveyors of hate, for standing against this storm of evil, that is wreaking havoc on our, once great, Christian nation.
Father, soon we will be hunted down, and imprisoned, and possibly worse, for holding fast to your precepts, and commandments. We will face all manner of tribulation, for spreading the news, of the power of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Please help us to remain true to you, no matter how dangerous the circumstances become.
Please remember us as yours, when we knock on the door, and plead for entrance unto the wedding feast.
And, Father, for the blind who are being lead by the blind, please forgive them, for they know not what they do.
In the name of Jesus, our Lord and Saviour. . . Amen!
Dan, your insults miss the mark.
If I was Mormon I'd happily sayso.
But I am not.
No matter, you have published several comments which are blatant resorts to bigotry and negative stereotyping.
You emphasize sexual orientation but then whine that I point this out and ask for your explanation.
You brought up identity politics of the racist variety,but whine when it is pointed out that gay identity politics is closely analogous.
* * *
Edlerly men remain potent long past the age at which their wives reach menopause. They are fertile or infertile together, as a couple.
That's sex equality within marriage.
It is the nature of human fertility to be variable based on many factors, including age.
It is the nature of the one-sexed arrangement to lack the other sex and thus to be constantly nonfertile, regardless of age.
The law is about general categories. What you imagine to be exceptions to the core meaning of marriage are really only apparent exceptions, more like minor exemptions.
If you'd bar some people from marrying based on old age alone, then, would you have the government unilaterally dissolve the marriages of people who reach that age, too?
I am guessing, no.
Your complaint is that the boundaries of marriage are not drawn tightly enough. But even if they were drawn more tightly, the one-sexed arrangement would still be out of bounds.
Why is it that SSMers are so quick to throw under the bus old married people and those who have actual disabilities?
It seems absurd and self-defeating but you guys seem to insist upon that.
Robert, pork may not be an abomination, but shrimp is. Do you eat shrimp?
Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
The definition of marriage has changed throughout the ages. Yes, maybe most cultures considered it a male/female union. However, most cultures, until recently, considered it that the male was in ownership of the female. Should we go back to that version of marriage just because it's what has been most practiced "traditionally" throughout the ages?
Chairm thinks that calling someone Mormon is bigotry and negative stereotyping.
I'm very happy to be called homosexual, gay, whatever you want. But, for someone who is Mormon to call it bigotry to be called Mormon strikes me as odd...
On Lawn, it seems to be that you are the one who can only see marriage through the paradigm of procreation. Why is that? I've listed numerous types of marriages, that are universally recognized as valid, legal marriages, and you say they aren't because they don't involve procreation. As I've stated repeatedly, procreation and marriage are separate issues. Why do you insist on sticking to this only prerequisite to marriage? The only purpose of marriage is NOT procreation, and the core meaning of marriage is emphatically NOT procreation. Why is that so hard to understand? We have different ideas of the core meaning of marriage. As Stefanie so eloquently stated about. Marriage has changed through the ages. It hasn't always been about procreation. I don't know why you cling to this. If this is your only argument against SSM marriage, you fail BIG time.
Using your "core" meaning argument, then elderly couples cannot marry. Or at the very least, their marriage has no "core" meaning. This is absurd, and smacks of Mormon identity politics.
By the way, On Lawn, what did you think of our gains today for marriage equality? Maine and Washington, DC are well on their way to SSM! Great news, isn't it? Who would have thought that within the year the gay agenda would have captured all of New England? Any ideas on what's going on in Rhode Island?
Gay agenda:
1. Equality
2. See No. 1
By the way, On Lawn, are you a paid consultant or an alias for Chairm? Your "identity politics" and "party line" are starting to sound strangely familiar. I'm pretty sure that you aren't doing this for your own edification. I have a vested interest, since it affects MY life. But, your life is not impacted by SSM. Why so passionate?
Stefanie, I like the way you think. Keep up the bible quotes. It hits home to people like Chairm and On Lawn. But, do you own a book of Mormon? It might have even more impact... Did you know that marriages without children have no "core" meaning? This is the outlandish and outdated belief of Chairm and On Lawn. Hey, I thought of a something, since they seem to be on the same page regarding their arguments. Let's just call them: On Lawn Chair..
By the way On Lawn Chair, I absolutely think that elderly people should be married. Remember, I'm the one who feels that married does not require, nor even imply procreation. That is YOUR identity politics at work. I think marriage has no relation to procreation, remember? I think you are confusing me with someone else. And, I certainly don't view all elderly folks as "disabled." I'm not sure why On Lawn Chair thought of that. It's a ridiculous sterotype. Many elderly folks are as healthy as you and I...
I feel that marriage is a big enough institution to handle all sorts of couples (with restrictions on related persons. I know you approve of father/daughter, but I'd draw the line there). I feel that an 80 year woman and a 20 year old man should have just as much right as a 50 year old man and a 30 year old man to marry. Both of those couples are infertile and will never produce biological children, but who are YOU to say that their marriage has no "core" meaning. How dare you... And, you never answered my question regarding age. Can you, On Lawn Chair, tell me why it is that our grandparents could marry girls as young as 14 or 15, and yet this is considered statutory rape today? What changed in society that made for this "redefinition" of marriage? There have been other changes to marriage within our lifetime, and, in case you haven't heard, SSM is next!
On Lawn Chair. Admittedly, this is not the most definitive source (wikipedia), but the definition of the core meaning of marriage is a good one, and you'll notice not a single word of it says anything about "procreation" or "children." It's about two people:
Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual or legal union of individuals that creates kinship. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock.
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state, by religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.
Do you see mention of children signing this contract? I don't seem to find that anywhere in the definition. Nor do I find any mention of the individuals who are marrying agreeing to procreate.
Sounds like SSM fits perfectly with this definition of the "core" meaning of marriage. Are you satisfied? The core meaning of marriage is NOT procreation. Sorry to disappoint you.
Dan,
The only purpose of marriage is NOT procreation, and the core meaning of marriage is emphatically NOT procreation. Why is that so hard to understand?
You confuse misunderstanding (which you seem to be doing on my position) with simply disagreeing.
I'm not saying that the only purpose of marriage is procreation. I'm saying the purpose of marriage is to encourage recognition of the rights and responsibilities of all involved in the human mating practice.
So I'll return to these questions. If you answered them, just send a link where and perhaps provide a partial quote to help me narrow in on it...
By the way, On Lawn, what did you think of our gains today for marriage equality?
I think what you consider marriage equality is at the detriment of real equality.
An all-male or all female marriage increases marriage equality the same way an all-white or all-black school increases education equality.
Due to the petty insults, the sneering misrepresentations, and the childish taunts that continue to litter Dan's published comments, his trollish behavior is now beyond doubt.
Thanks on Lawn, for at least not going around in circles again. Charim is more stubborn, and can't talk in a straightforward manner. Yes, I agree marriage is an appropriate institution for which to procreate, foster and raise children. However, I do not feel that marriage's "core" meaning, or sole purpose is to procreate. In fact, I'll go a step further and say that the institution of marriage, at its "core" meaning, is large enough to encompass nearly endless possibilities for relationships, including those that have multiple persons involved. Now, we as a society have outlawed this practice (which was largely practiced by the Mormon church, and was the primary reason that Utah exists today, due to the fact that the cult had to move there to escape prosecution). We as a society (I'm talking the world now, not just the US) have decided that we are finally ready to recognize as families those pairings which consist of male/male and female/female partners. Some people, including YOU, feel that society is not ready for marriage to encompass this category of couplings. However, it is clear that this will be the law eventually. I'm sorry if this offends you, or disappoints you. But, it's a fact you must come to terms with. As you continue to cling to this outdated notion that marriage cannot include same sex couples. you will only appear more and more on the fringe, and will eventually be social dinosaurs. I needn't remind you that interracial marriage was also unpopular when it was first made legal. And, for several decades the general public did not approve. I once heard that if it had been up to a vote, interracial marriage would not have passed until fairly recently (within the last few years). This means that interracial marriage was part of the law of the land well before the majority of Americans could accept it. Just such a trend is happening now, although SSM is gaining supporters every day. Have you seen the polls lately? In CA we are very close to having the majority approve of SSM. In fact, this is what the polls were saying leading into the election. It surprised everyone when Prop 8 won. Our side in this argument were complacent and thought Prop 8 would fail. So, in the end, we will prevail. It is only a matter of time. And, SSM is moving far more swiftly than we thought. You had better start concentrating on states that are likely to come next, because New England seems like a done deal for us....
More of Dan's greatest hits...
I’ll go a step further and say that the institution of marriage, at its “core” meaning, is large enough to encompass nearly endless possibilities for relationships, including those that have multiple persons involved.
Well there you have it. Lets let Dan's proposition for humanity live on its own terms...
I needn’t remind you that interracial marriage was also unpopular when it was first made legal.
It never really was that popular. And by the time of the Loving case, about half of those states which had ever practiced such a law had already removed it. It was a small minority of the states which regulated marriage that way.
And as I said before,
An all-male or all female marriage increases marriage equality the same way an all-white or all-black school increases education equality.
Hi Dan, I don't own a book of Mormon, but I'm sure I can read it online. "Did you know that marriages without children have no “core” meaning?" Actually, I had Mormon friends in school and I'm very familiar with their beliefs on having children. It's unfortunate that they claim same sex marriage is taking away their religious liberty, when in reality they are trampling on the religious rights of others.
they claim same sex marriage is taking away their religious liberty, when in reality they are trampling on the religious rights of others.
Funny, you can't point to where a religion was reprimanded or given any court action for a ceremony they performed. Yet there are incidences all over the country already where gay and lesbians have pressed charges against religious institutions for not performing their same-sex ceremony in their religious buildings.
Yet you say that anyway. How bizarre.
On the Lawn, you say, "Do you support a government recognized institution which explicitly targets the social concerns, and human rights, involved in creating life? If marriage is not that program, what can be?"
Why can't marriage have more than one purpose/meaning? It's pretty easy from looking at the variety of marriages around that marriage has more than one purpose. I would say marriage protects and encourages creating life and it also protects and encourages committed relationships.
On the Lawn, you say, "you can’t point to where a religion was reprimanded or given any court action for a ceremony they performed."
There are numerous religions in the U.S. that allow for homosexuals to marry (some Christian sects, Unitarians, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc...) The people who oppose same sex marriage do so almost entirely on religious grounds. It is unconstitutional for our government to recognize one religion's brand of marriage and give them legal rights and deny other religions' brand of marriages and deny them rights.
How hard is that to understand?
Stefanie, you might find hope and encouragement in this great NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19Rich.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=frank%20rich,%20gay%20marriage&st=cse
I would say marriage protects and encourages creating life and it also protects and encourages committed relationships.
The Mad Hatter noted
In that frame of mind, I will add that in the context of marriage,
I protect the concerns around procreation by establishing committed relationships...
Is not the same thing as
I protect committed relationships by having them recognize the concerns around procreation.
The former does not work, for as committed relationships last only as long as the commitment. And as we read the stories of gays in this forum who consider marriages with children a "sham", it shows their commitment is only as good as their sexual attraction. And marriage should follow each commitment as it happens.
The latter notes that the permanence is in the relationship with the child, which lives on even without any personal contact or commitment. It makes the commitment match that permanence which gives it a real mooring and standard that otherwise wouldn't be there.
I'm not saying we can't have multiple purposes, I'm saying that its most valuable purpose is not compatible with the purposes and results behind neutering marriage.
And no where is that observed better than in the dismissals we see of our concerns by those proposing marriage to be neutered.
Please explain how letting gays get married stop straight people from getting married and having children? Oh yeah, NOM can't explain it because it doesn't make any sense and it won't happen.
On Lawn, You wrote this:
Funny, you can’t point to where a religion was reprimanded or given any court action for a ceremony they performed. Yet there are incidences all over the country already where gay and lesbians have pressed charges against religious institutions for not performing their same-sex ceremony in their religious buildings.
So, name a church group that has been sued, in a state that allows gay marriage, for denying rights to gays and lesbians the right to marry. I would imagine these cases have arisen in states that DON'T allow gay marriage, because churches are exempt from lawsuits in states that allow gay marriage. OK, so name one...
So you see On Lawn, that once gay marriage becomes law, religious liberties will have more protection than in states that don't allow it... The law will protect them. I assume you'd rather have the churches be sued so that the states will continue to have their bans on gay marriage. So, relgiious liberty is clearly not your concern, is it?
Dan, lets start with this one about civil unions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Grove,_New_Jersey#Civil_union_controversy
Stefanie,
Please explain how letting gays get married stop straight people from getting married and having children?
Is that the only harm you will be willing to defend against?
What about just the harm of removing from government's ability to target the needs of all involved with the human practice of mating?
If neutering marriage is reasonably shown to affect that to have more people neglect their responsibilities in that end, would you defend marriage equality then?
On Lawn,
Let's start with finding legal protection for ALL children, despite the sexual orientation of their parents. You want to punish children simply because they live in a home with two moms or two dads. You are selfishly clinging to your belief system and in the process hurting kids. Shame on you...
On Lawn, let me make this clear. Despite my opinions about what I think will happen if gays are allowed to marry, I'm not making any claim about what will or won't happen if gays are allowed to marry. I come from this as a rights issue. You are the one making a claim about what will happen when gays are allowed to marry and the onus is on you to prove that.
You are the one making a claim about what will happen when gays are allowed to marry and the onus is on you to prove that.
Okay, lets go through this again. Where did I say gays can't get married? Or lesbians for that point...
If you say they can't because they cannot love, honor and cherish someone of the other gender --because of their gender-- then we know where the real bigotry and intolerance lies.
Let’s start with finding legal protection for ALL children, despite the sexual orientation of their parents.
Agreed.
That is called marriage, and it specifically seeks the legal protection of children by focusing on the relationship that creates them and the individuals involved in creating them.
Nature says that is a heterosexual relationship, I didn't decide that and neither did you. But those are the facts, and why marriage tries to encourage those engaging in that mating practice to do it in a way that recognizes the rights of all involved.
You want to punish children simply because they live in a home with two moms or two dads.
No, you want to punish children because their dad is gay, or their mom is lesbian. You call their marriage that was meant to ensure they help and support each other "faux" or false -- even after the child exists.
I can't support you in assuming that there is no harm done in that. I can try to help the kids by proposing RB's, but there is a certain amount of harm already done by the gay or lesbian's intolerance of the other gender.
Funny, an institution that was set up to protect marriage equality is now, in the hands of Dan, turned into an institution to protect intolerance of the other gender.
On Lawn, "Where did I say gays can’t get married?"
What's the point of all this if you aren't saying gays (meaning all types of gay) can't marry each other? I'm completely lost. NOM supports state amendments that deny gays the right to marry. Am I missing something here?
On Lawn, thanks for this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Grove,_New_Jersey#Civil_union_controversy
Unfortunately, it's so complicated (this particular case) that I had a hard time following what is actually going on in this case. One thing I know for sure, if this issue had really involved the rights of a church to refuse a same sex couple from marrying in their church, and this happened in a state that currently allows same sex marriage (which New Jersey, as of yet, doesn't, but stayed tuned...), then this would have never been an issue, would it? The same sex couple would have been legally barred from marrying there, and the church would have been protected from any legal issues arising from this. So, it only proves my point all the more. Namely that allowing same sex marriage will protect churches. The New Jersey case arose largely because they have no laws in place that will protect churches from such suits. WHEN they have same sex marriage, they will be protected. Yet another reason to support marriage equality...
Thanks for proving my point!
Note:
“gays can’t get married”
Is different than saying,
"[gays] can’t marry each other"
On Lawn, are you really going there? I thought it was obvious that yes gays could choose to marry a straight person and everyone's life could be miserable. Do you feel like you won the argument now?
This was written by a 17 year old person on youtube. I think our next generation will handle gay marriage with far more intelligence than their parents:
My Government AP teacher did a lesson on the civil rights movement a few days ago. He showed us a video clip of a minister trying to use the Bible and God as a legitimate reason to discriminate against black people. The aforementioned preacher sounded amazingly stupid while doing so, and I imagine several years down the road from today, discrimination against homosexuals will look equally as foolish.
Consolidating threads on Dan's remark from a teenager.
I thought it was obvious that yes gays could choose to marry a straight person and everyone’s life could be miserable.
Miserable because of their own intollerance? What about their spouse is so bad? Their gender. That intollerance sounds like a cause for government to support to you? If so, I'm sure some plantation owners have a hard-luck story of how miserable they are without free labor, too.
Even from the aspect that attraction is a requirement for a happy marriage, some people are grossly disfigured in crashes, or with disease, and are no longer sexually attractive. There are people who because of hurt their spouses give them are no longer attracted to them.
In short there is a lot of potential misery out there. No one is free from misery in marriage, it is a lot of hard work for everyone. It is, however worth it for the value it brings children and the spouse. That is love and commitment.
It isn't up to the state to ensure marriages are free from misery.
F. Rottles on calling in-tact marriages a "sham":
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/03/f-rottles-on-calling-in-tact-marriages.html
However, according to the BiHealth Program's "Bisexual and bi-curious men’s group" in Boston [LINK]:
[QUOTE]
Contrary to the stereotype, most married men had already shared with their wives that they were attracted to other men. Of that group, most of the wives and girlfriends were accepting of the attractions. The issue on the table was not one of coming to terms with attractions, but rather of behavior. [...]
The group also [included] gay-identified men who were coming to terms with their attraction to women. ... this situation is more common than many people realize. Many of these gay men had positive relationships with the women in their lives, but the thought that sexual attraction could be part of those relationships was new for them. Some found themselves falling in love with a female friend, but struggling to come to terms with the stereotypes, misunderstandings, misogyny and ambivalence about bisexuality (and about women’s bodies and sexuality) present in gay male communities.
[/QUOTE]
Meanwhile, same sex householding, like same-sex union, is a fringe lifestyle even inside the homosexual population. Only about 10% of the adult homosexual population lives in same-sex households. Of those, only about 25% have children resident.
And same-sex householding is strikingly more common among formerly married homosexual people than among never married homosexual people.
* * *
The entire blogpost is worth a read.
Also see another which touches on the religious liberty aspect:
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/03/post-by-f.html
Child Custody and Disparagement.
[QUOTE]
One parent decides to identify as a homosexual, breaks up the marriage, and eventually moves in with a same-sex partner. Eventually, the parent who identifies as homosexual sues for custody, claiming it is not in the child's best interest to remain in the custody of the non-homosexual parent, because that parent (often a Christian) cannot in good conscience condone or remain silent about the departed parent's homosexual behavior.
[...]
Since it is not uncommon for [...] nondisparagement clauses to place a duty on the parents to ensure that third parties do not disparage the other parent in the presence of the child, taking the child to a conservative church that preaches the Biblical message on homosexual behavior can become grounds for losing custody.
[/QUOTE]
On Lawn, I feel really sorry for you husband or wife because you openly admit that there need be no sexual spark or connection in a marriage.
It's one thing for a couple to try to stick out the ups and down of sexual attraction, but there needs to be a spark to begin with. People who are gay have no initial spark for the opposite sex. That's not discrimination, that's biology!
"Miserable because of their own intollerance?"
No, both parties will be miserable because of biology. The gay person will not be able to be satisfied by the straight and vice versa. It is in everyone's best interest (including children) that these two people not try to form a committed relationship that involves sex.
"What about their spouse is so bad?"
On Lawn, let's say tomorrow the government the world changed and children came out of same sex unions. Would you be able to be attracted to and have sex with your same sex?
I find it really comical that you are relating this to slavery. Allowing gays to get married doesn't make straight people slaves. You people have gone completely off the deep end. In order to mask your religious discrimination you had to come up with this ridiculous secular argument. (if you can call it an argument, it doesn't make any sense to a rational person)
I think gays should stick with civil union, because what they want is to have their lover acknowledged and to gain legal sanction and legitimacy.
Marriage is more than just that; marriage was and is and always will be an institution that is primarily about making a family, and to make children you need to have a member of the opposite sex! Otherwise as they say on the internets "ur not doin it right"....
All children should grow up with one of each type of parent. It's becoming increasingly clear that it's much better if those parents are both living in the same home, with the child.
From the same-sex parent the child gets a role model and learns about what it means to be a man or a woman.
From the opposite sex parent, the child learns what he or she will need to interact with and eventually marry and procreate with a member of the opposite sex.
A child who is forced into accepting a man for a mother is not being well cared for. The child's needs are far more central to why marriage exists than the temporary and fleeting pleasure of sexual gratification.
We have had several decades of pure hedonism, selfishness, and totally ignoring the kids' needs to prioritize sex and pleasure and desire. But it is now obvious that this excess has harmed children and families and neighborhoods. It's time to reclaim what marriage is and what it is for.
On Lawn, I feel really sorry for you husband or wife because you openly admit that there need be no sexual spark or connection in a marriage.
Why is that?
She is actually relieved and feels like I'm a more stable and reliable person for it. But what is your take?
but there needs to be a spark to begin with.
Why? Is it a faux or counterfeit marriage if there isn't one to begin with?
No, both parties will be miserable because of biology.
You can blame the intolerance and discrimination on biology, everyone knows the white segregationists used the same excuse. And it even helped them gain state recognition and protection of that self identified that caused intolerance.
let’s say tomorrow the government the world changed and children came out of same sex unions.
Wow, you ascribe real god-like powers to the government or world...
Its an interesting hypothetical. I'd still value for myself the equality of integration.
I find it really comical that you are relating this to slavery.
No doubt. I realize that talking to the intolerant now is probably as successful as talking to the intolerant then was.
But I know which side will eventually win, or should win at least. The side of marriage equality -- the equal recognition of the rights of all involved in the human practice of mating.
On Lawn, I'll say it again, but I think you understood what I meant the first time.
I feel really sorry for you husband or wife because you openly admit that there need be no sexual spark or connection in a marriage.
Sex is a very important part of life not just because it can create life, but because it is enjoyable and it can add a deep intimacy in a relationship like no other. It's also been proven for both men and women that sex has many health benefits. If one doesn't enjoy having sex with their partner, then you are less likely to have sex. For women in particular, it's kind of hard to have sex when you're not aroused. You claim that arousal means nothing.
"Why? Is it a faux or counterfeit marriage if there isn’t one to begin with?"
No, I'm not trying to define marriage for anyone like you are. People who aren't attracted to each other can get married. I don't care. However, I think you're deluding yourself if you think that most people who marry weren't attracted to each other sexually at one time in their relationship and that it isn't a factor in what makes a relationship stable and intimate.
"You can blame the intolerance and discrimination on biology, everyone knows the white segregationists used the same excuse. And it even helped them gain state recognition and protection of that self identified that caused intolerance."
Gays deserve civil rights just like blacks deserved civil rights because they can't change their biology. This has to do with the fact that almost all animals have a segment of their populations that are homosexual. This is biological.
Just out of curiosity though, how does letting gays get married put heterosexuals into slavery?
"Its an interesting hypothetical. I’d still value for myself the equality of integration."
So you admit you couldn't be attracted to someone of the same sex? That's exactly how gays feel.
"I realize that talking to the intolerant now is probably as successful as talking to the intolerant then was."
Thanks for name calling again. Have I called you a bigot once? Have I tried to liken NOM's cause to that of the nazi's or the KKK? NO, I haven't. I think I've kept my tone pretty civil, even considering how condescending you've been to me. Once again, kudos to you.
By the way, how can I be an intolerant, married heterosexual? Have I been so oppressed by the big bad gays that I just can't see the truth? It couldn't be that I just have a different opinion than you could it? It couldn't be that not everyone views the world the way you do? No, it couldn't be that.
I’m not trying to define marriage for anyone like you are.
Oh, the old rubber-and-glue tactic. To be honest I'm not defining marriage for anyone else either.
I'm simply presenting the purpose of marriage as something that should not be neutered for the sake of people who want a special pleading for their intollerance of the other gender. People who cannot love, honor, and cherish another gender -- because of their gender.
Umm, did you guys watch the entire Colbert clip? Sorry, but Steven is NOT a double agent.
"Remember, when the gay community is granted personal freedoms, ours get taken away. How? Shhhhhhh..."
On Lawn, Civil marriage is a contract. It isn't about trying to make the sexes equal. I said this in the other forum.
Gays getting married is sex discrimination as much as two white people getting married is racist. The fact that interracial marriage and non-interracial marriage coexist doesn’t make everyone who is in a same-race marriage a racist.
On Lawn, Civil marriage is a contract. It isn’t about trying to make the sexes equal.
To me its not about what it is or isn't, but what you want to recognize or not.
But I notice you are having a fun time breaking marriage apart into pieces and giving us back the fragments as if they themselves are a whole
Marriage involves a contract, but it is so much more. For instance do you know of any contract which requires recognition of people who are not signed or mentioned in the contract?
Yet gay people want marriage not for what they promise each other, but for what others must give them who are not named on the contract.
I hate to butt into an arguement but....
On Lawn,
The fundamental fallacy of your logic lies in the following statement:
"People who cannot love, honor, and cherish another gender — because of their gender."
If you honestly think that homosexuality is simply a lifestyle choice, then there is really no arguing you. But you do realize that homosexuality has been present in every culture and every SPECIES throughout history. Saying that gay people discriminate based on gender is just as ridiculous as saying that straight people discriminate by not being romantically involved with gays.
Please repeal that arguement
the thought of telling our future children about the family structure should be a scary thought if gay marriage is allowed. instead of talking about how mommy and daddy are the parents and that is how families are made up, as in the natural order; instead we will have to talk about how society will stagnate itself as same sex couples continue to become more "popular" and teach how we as humans are above nature and God, if you believe, and that somehow we will have a gay society that creates offspring through test tubes and artificial insemination. outlook is good...
F. Rottles on calling in-tact marriages a “sham”:
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/03/f-rottles-on-calling-in-tact-marriages.html
(quoting from the blogpost)
Contrary to the stereotype, most married men had already shared with their wives that they were attracted to other men. Of that group, most of the wives and girlfriends were accepting of the attractions. The issue on the table was not one of coming to terms with attractions, but rather of behavior. [...]
The group also [included] gay-identified men who were coming to terms with their attraction to women. … this situation is more common than many people realize. Many of these gay men had positive relationships with the women in their lives, but the thought that sexual attraction could be part of those relationships was new for them. Some found themselves falling in love with a female friend, but struggling to come to terms with the stereotypes, misunderstandings, misogyny and ambivalence about bisexuality (and about women’s bodies and sexuality) present in gay male communities.
[...]
Meanwhile, same sex householding, like same-sex union, is a fringe lifestyle even inside the homosexual population. Only about 10% of the adult homosexual population lives in same-sex households. Of those, only about 25% have children resident.
And same-sex householding is strikingly more common among formerly married homosexual people than among never married homosexual people.
* * *
The entire blogpost is worth a read.
Also see another which touches on the religious liberty aspect:
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/03/post-by-f.html
Child Custody and Disparagement.
(quoting)
One parent decides to identify as a homosexual, breaks up the marriage, and eventually moves in with a same-sex partner. Eventually, the parent who identifies as homosexual sues for custody, claiming it is not in the child’s best interest to remain in the custody of the non-homosexual parent, because that parent (often a Christian) cannot in good conscience condone or remain silent about the departed parent’s homosexual behavior.
[...]
Since it is not uncommon for [...] nondisparagement clauses to place a duty on the parents to ensure that third parties do not disparage the other parent in the presence of the child, taking the child to a conservative church that preaches the Biblical message on homosexual behavior can become grounds for losing custody.
(end quote)
FIRST OF ALL: This is NOT an issue of civil rights, its a moral and ethical issue based on Liberty; and it is that gay (*#@*%*) judge that is interfering with our right to pursue HAPPINESS. We just want to get away from something that is revolting, disgusting, and immoral. We oppose that gay judge attacking our beautiful women, our values, and making us unhappy with exposure to his disgusting immoral sewage. Now, Just in case Donald Trump decides against Carrie Prejean, this should be our response: Carrie's RIGHT to support the (NOM) and marriage between a man and a woman is based on the Declaration Of Independence (that the USA is founded upon), which states that “We The People” have the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the [[ PURSUIT ]] of [[ HAPPINESS ]]. In litigation thereafter, the U .S. Supreme Court declared in,( Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1); that, the freedom to marry is recognized as a vital [[ PERSONAL RIGHT ]] essential to the pursuit of happiness. As a result, that gay judge has violated the liberty rights of Carrie Prejean by condemning her pursuit of happiness to marry a MAN. The (NOM) can file suit against that gay judge, who slandered Carrie Prejean, because of her support for traditional marriage and because of her pursuit of traditional happiness; because, that gay judges slanderous attack is meant to destroy Carrie's career, and livelihood, because of her LAWFUL pursuit of happiness (Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) 262 US 390). You see, Carrie didn't attack him, he attacked and slandered Carrie because she rejected his method to pursue happiness, and this the way it always is, gays exist to give us a problem, where we have none.
If you honestly think that homosexuality is simply a lifestyle choice, then there is really no arguing you.
Allow me to be clear then. I don't care what homosexuality is.
Marriage is a lifestyle choice. If homosexuals feel that they are incapable of that choice (loving, honoring, and cherishing your children and the person you combine with to create those children) then that has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with their own intollerance.
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let marriage be marriage, and let homosexuality be homosexuality.
Saying that gay people discriminate based on gender is just as ridiculous as saying that straight people discriminate by not being romantically involved with gays.
Again, gender means something -- even to gays. But for one side it is an opportunity to discover the equality of integration, and the unique capacity that gender integration provides. With that comes responsibility, and because of that we have marriage.
For the other side, gender is an opportunity to segregate, to show intollerance. That is their free will and association, but it is not "equality".
I wasn't born yesterday, in my youth, I tried to date a lesbian, and she was a horrible irrational monster that strained every ounce of human goodness and consideration I had. But, it didn't stop there, I tried to get to know several others since then, and the only opinion that they gave me is MAN-HATER. I had a boss who was a gay man, and women thought he was attractive; however, he admitted to me that these women made him sick, and he would not even give them the time of day. So, to a man, a lesbian is a true Heart-Breaker; and, to a woman, a gay man is a true Heart-Breaker. GOD did NOT create a heart-breaker for either a man or woman,...Satan did!!
===========
Now, since the gay movement has been on the rise for the past 20 years, the Heart-Breaker routine has increased in traditional man - woman relationships. So, ... do the math, who is corrupting who? And, who is a threat to traditional marriage? This is why the (NOM) existe, they see the threat and the growing trend, and they are taking action.
Joshua, might your issue with Gays and Lesbians be your own attitude. I personally know several loving couple...all who are 'good people' and are in LOVE, not lust. Your attitude, and I'm sure apparent disgust, WILL effect how you are treated.
As for for this issue being about Civil Rights...that ALL it is. If you stop and think for a moment, you might start to see that. Are you married? If so, you get _civil_ benefits that are denied to SSM's. YOU are allowed to be at the side of a dieing spouse in the hospital. YOU get tax breaks. YOU don't get criticized by any church. These are just a few of the benefits YOU get from being 'married'.
So...before you rant on to me. Take a moment, breath deeply. Relax, even if just a touch. And THINK about the issue instead of screaming the same 'popular' statements.
By the way, Church and State are _supposed_ to be separate. The one is not _supposed_ to interfere with the other!
On Lawn, please cite the U.S. law that says marriage is what your opinion of marriage is...
"Marriage is a lifestyle choice. If homosexuals feel that they are incapable of that choice (loving, honoring, and cherishing your children and the person you combine with to create those children)"
On Lawn, please cite the U.S. law that says marriage is what your opinion of marriage is…
DOMA...
1 U.S.C. § 7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
On Lawn, did I miss something? DOMA doesn't say anything about doesn't say anything about procreation being the core/sole purpose of marriage.
do you ever see "purpose" encoded in directly in legislation?
I really don't understand the reason for this debate.
This issue seems clearly divided between young and old. Do old people believe they are protecting us young by denying our friends and fellow Americans equal rights?
I simply don't understand the point to being against equal rights? What is it that makes someone want to deny someone else the same freedoms and liberties that everyone else enjoys?
I also have another fear. As an active Methodist I believe one can be both Christian and open minded, but if some "Christians" are allowed to make laws on religious grounds, then what is to stop them from legalizing their own form of morality? I'm afraid if these people are allowed to deny rights to one group than they might come for me next! Perhaps a Baptist/Evangelical/Mormon version of Islamic law.
Though I respect debate, I will never vote or agree with any attempt to limit another persons liberty/freedom/rights/equal protection.
I appreciate your efforts on behalf of preserving marriage! In the coming weeks and months, as more state legislatures consider lifting bans on "gay" marriage, I hope you will concentrate your message on exactly what damage such measures would do to people in traditional marriages. People are leaving that part out entirely! Specifics, details, hard facts about the damage -- that's an approach that will, I hope, open some eyes before it's too late. Give 'em the details now!
Jeff,
I agree Jeff....so just what ARE the specific damages to marriage you are referring too? If you want to win people over, then cite specifics, and leave the hysterics for when they are warranted.
I've looked for specifics, on the web, and I have yet to find one that I find unacceptable. Some are regrettable, BUT based on assumptions (made long ago) that Church and State work together, changing when it suits one or the other. Once that starts to happen, somebody looses. What will _you_ (personally) loose? Think about it...
"Rabbi Jeffrey Bennett of Temple Sinai, a Reform synagogue in Newington, “My goal is to create Jewish families and holiness - kiddushah - within a Jewish family,” he said, “and that certainly can be done best in a marriage situation, whether it is between a man and a woman, or two men and two women.”
Rabbi Fuchs said that he believes that Jewish same-sex couples should be able to marry, “While I know what the Torah says about homosexual union, I think that the Bible really knows no case of a loving, committed homosexual union. They only speak of homosexuality at least overtly, in terms of war and rape. And there is a prior and superseding instruction that we are created in God’s image. I believe homosexuals are homosexuals because that is the way God made them, if that is how God made them, who am I to question their rights to all of the comforts and privileges of a meaningful life, and to live with the inclination that God planted in them.:
On Lawn, you just proved my point. It isn't the government's right to encode into law the purpose of marriage between parties who are able to consent to contracts under the law. Therefore, marriage doesn't have to be between a man and a woman.
Matt, I couldn't agree with you more. Although I'm not religious. I fear for freedom of religion in this country. We can't have a free society without it and yet people in NOM would like to base our laws on their religious beliefs. At what point does it stop and we become a Christian version of the Taliban?
Jeff, please enlighten us with your "specifics, details, hard facts about the damage".
I'm struck by the Orwellian inverse of the NOM (and friends) arguments.
The most recent rallying point for those opposing marriage equality is that it is their right to deny marriage. Furthermore, they believe it is a violation of their freedom to allow equality in marriage. One might deduce this argument into a simple Orwellian statement, "Freedom is intolerance." This is clearly illogical as the proper statement is, "Freedom is equality."
"Freedom is intolerance" demands a special place next to the statements made famous by George Orwell in 1984,
"War is peace/freedom is slavery."
I stand committed to a future where all may pursue marriage and the benefits it provides society. Not some marriages but all marriages benefit society and strengthen our country.
There is absolutely NO BENEFIT that accrues to society by having two people of the SAME SEX "marry" one another! Anybody who says otherwise is a flat-out liar who lives a life of DENIAL of REALITY. This whole ridiculous scheme of "same-sex marriage" has ONE major goal: To redefine marriage as a stepping-stone to redefining FAMILY and PARENT, so that the homosexual community can ARTIFICIALLY PERPETUATE ITSELF into the future.
This is sick and absurd, and people should stop being gullible and naive as to BELIEVE the garbage being blasted to us daily about the "civil rights" of same-sex "marriage." There is NO CIVIL RIGHT for homosexuals to wed. Period.