Both Sides See Same-Sex Marriage as Winning Issue in 2012

Reader Comments
Back to article

In no was does allowing SSM to be recognised by the state "bad laws that benefited the few at the expense of the many." It gives SSMs a value equal to HSMs, it doesn't lessen the value of my sister's marriage to my brother-in-law, the marriage George Bush, or any other HSMs. Allowing us to marry will not lead to the end of the human race, mainly because the only people getting SSMs will be the LGBT community. Heterosexuals are still free to marry the opposite sex partner of their choice.
Also, SSMs are nowhere near the divorce rate of HSMs (last I read, ~2% for SSMs, ~52% for HSMs). Comparing your "domestic violence" statistics to any other group is noot building a straw man, you using it as justification for not allowing SSMs, however, is.
All that said, if we really are going to hell, I'll see you there for continually bearing false witness.

Mr Planeman of WA 1:31AM July 28, 2011

look im 19 years old and im not going to write a whole book about this topic .The simple fact of the matter is people will be gay with kids as if they are in marry rather you like it or not.Now gay people want to get marraied because of equal rights and protections just like straight couples.I see it this way if you really dont like same sex marraige then dont marry someone of the same sex so GET OVER IT to hear people say gay marriage is hurting straight couples thats beyond insane the only thing that is hurting thm is there own marriage not gay marriage kids wont turn crazy or gay buy having to parents of the same sex.So people might as well let this go give people there human rights because gays are everywhere rather you like to or not and been a african american i find it very odd and crazy if i must say.When they dont like two people who are in love to get married when blacks fought so hard for equa rights.i hope the ugly doma gets repeal and gay marrige becomes a federal law #I SUPPORT GAY PEOPLE

darrius of FL 1:31AM July 28, 2011

1 of 2
Never in the history of our country have we passed laws based on anything but facts. Even if the facts turned out to be false or contrived, and were replaced by real facts, they've always been the basis for passing, enforcing, or overturning law.
Having struggled under the tyrannical rule of an aristocracy, the founding fathers understood this concept better than anyone else and how good law was inseparable from the full set of facts. Without them, we'd return to the bad old days of a select few (whether it was the former aristocracy of Old Europe or the former totalitarians of Eastern Europe) imposing laws out of nothing more than whim and narcissistic self-interest. The result was bad laws that benefited the few at the expense of the many.
Whether they realize it or not or acknowledge it or not, this is the exact process to which proponents of same-sex marriage would have us return. Just look at the posts favoring same-sex marriage and criticizing mine. With one possible exception, none of the statements in these posts contain one supporting fact or cite a reputable source (including the baseless screed left by Ned Flaherty in response to “The Case for Limiting Government Recognition to Traditional Relationships”). To his credit, Scott of OR was that possible exception, since he did cite one reference, stating how African Americans couples had 35% more violence in their relationships than did whites. However, he did it only to construct a straw man argument, claiming that if higher violence among homosexual couples was a reason to deny them marriage, then why shouldn't higher violence among African Americans or people of a lower social class be a reason to deny them the same?
The problem with this argument, like all arguments favoring same-sex marriage, is that it ignores the facts. For one, the people to whom Scott of OR refers have a much greater chance of originating from broken homes in poor neighborhoods, where violence is more common - something that has absolutely nothing to do with their sexuality, which lies at the core of marriage. Through self-awareness, counseling, and associating with the right group of people (including churches) these tendencies can be significantly reduced or reversed. Second, heterosexual marriage can be performed a wrong way and a right way. The wrong way is to mistreat your wife or husband due to familial or cultural baggage from the past. The right way is to do the opposite, wherein the two sexes compliment each other because of their different temperaments and because human physiology is specifically designed for sexual relations between people of the opposite sex to produce children and for physical enjoyment.

semyon_suslov of CA 12:28AM July 28, 2011

2 of 2
The result, according to research on the subject, is better health and financial well being for the couple and a better and more stable environment for the children, especially since children need to learn the characteristics and attributes of each. Such relationships also channel the more promiscuous nature of men into the more sexually stable nature of women, reducing to almost zero the chance for STDs.
In comparison, almost none of these benefits accrue to same-sex behavior because it can only be done the wrong way and for the wrong purposes. For one, involving physiology that's not designed for same-sex interaction, homosexuals are far more prone on a per person basis to serious disease and bodily damage than heterosexuals, even among those, who are non-monogamous. Second, since such relationships involve two people of the same-sex, they do nothing to compliment the strengths and weaknesses of each. Consequently, even though it reduces it, promiscuity and non-monogamy is still the norm among homosexuals, who consider themselves married or committed to someone else, and it does nothing to reduce the more aggressive nature of males (hence the greater potential for violence).
But if the posts on this comment string and others are any indication, proponents of same-sex marriage don’t care. All they want, according to josh of GA (@ Jul 27, 2011 12:59:31 PM) is to marry someone of the same sex and to hell with the facts, which is why the argument for same-sex marriage is so deeply and fatally flawed. Because it totally ignores the basis for making good law, it takes away society’s basis for controlling human behavior. Now with facts no longer a hindrance, the government has no basis for denying legal recognition and incentives to those who want them for other behaviors, since they can make the same claims that proponents of same-sex marriage have made for themselves. For example, even though they wouldn’t realize the physical, psychological, and familial benefits of monogamous marriage, proponents of polygamous or polyamorous marriages could force the government to provide them with legal and financial incentives, because it could no longer deny them on the basis of facts.
Consequently, in their obsession for same-sex marriage, proponents seek to force society into officially recognizing same-sex behavior as something it’s not (healthy and beneficial) but will severely weaken the basis for good law. In doing so, proponents of same-sex marriage will have brought us full circle – back to the bad old days of making law, in accordance with whim, instead of fact.

semyon_suslov of CA 12:26AM July 28, 2011

Suslov is a right wing ranter. He probably subscribes to the various hate groups like NOM, FRC and AFA.
FRC and AFA are filled with southern evangelicals with a history of contacts with segregationists etc. And the founder / head of FRC, one George Reker follows a path tread by many homophobes like Gay hating mInister Ted Haggard, Minister Barns, toe tapper Sen Craig, Rep Foley etc etc etc. Even our own Democrat in the MD senate, Dyson, who is anti gay yet its an open secret about him of his orientation.
Reker - from FRC, one of the most virulent groups was recently caught taking a gay male prostitute to Europe. the boy, one Jo-Vanni Roman was "rented" from rentboy.com. the big deal is that reker, besides being just another self hating gay, was able to pay $15000 just for the boy, let alone other expenses
Hate capitalist style - its a good biz
As for Suslov, I've seen his rants, most of which parrot various hate groups. the guy is either secretly gay or approaching being a psychopath.
I am very involved in the gay rights movement. A few objectors have said I must be gay. To which I've answered "I wish I was". It all but disembowels them.
I have many gay friends. Almost all were suicidal, allmost all knew gays who committed suicide.
All thanks to so called Xtians, the catholic hierarchy of supporting life, and even the orthodox Jews. People who should know better as their close relatives shared hitlers ovens with the gays of germany etc.
But that right wing religion for you. People living in the dark ages, always needing someone t o hate to sell their ideas.
And its so interesting - people who love people are hated in the name of God.

KatieMurphy-ex cath family of CT 10:45PM July 27, 2011

A 2004 Congressional Budget Office report concluded that less than $1 billion (B) in additional tax revenues or foregone expenditures would be realized, if gay couples married throughout the US.
About $1 billion (B) a year for 10 years. That was based on the 2000 Census, that is said to have grossly under-counted or estimated the number of gay couples in the US.
Can North Carolina's GOP do simple math? Or does "protecting" and "defending" straight marriage from the gays preclude that economic reality? What does the Republican party stand for anymore?
Delete

Leslie of CA 8:48PM July 27, 2011

It's not right to mess with people's lives. It's inhumane to use this topic as a tool for political fighting. Gays are human beings and need to be treated as such. What I find funny is that Obama--and other politicos out there--probably do support gay marriage but are so involved in getting the vote that they don't understand how this hurts some people. They need to understand that their son or daughter or sister or brother could be (and maybe is) one of these people that are being unjustly treated.

Alex of GA 6:10PM July 27, 2011

If you google "semyon suslov," it seems that Mr. Suslov only cares about same-sex marriage. Someone's clearly obsessed.

Vincent of IL 5:10PM July 27, 2011

Luckily, Semyon's histrionics are falling on deaf ears.<<<<
Well here they seem to be but unfortunately all too many people listen to that kind of rhetoric and cling to it vehemently. I know the stuff I do about the Bible because from a young age I had an interest in knowing what scripture said free from a translators bias and so I studied ancient culture, learned to read Greek, Hebrew, even Aramaic to a limited degree, I studied the history of Biblical writings and policy, and I kept my mind as open as I could because I didn't want to take as gospel something that someone simply tells me. I learned a LOT but primarily I learned that the Bible in English and the Bible in its original languages are largely two completely different books.
When I discuss such things with a real hardcore religious person who clings to that Bible I can sit them down and point out this mistranslation here, and that mistranslation there. I can show them precisely what the original words used were and explain in depth what their meaning were in technical terms and according to the norms of society at the time. I can hammer them with so much irrefutable evidence that they simply cannot stand their ground in a debate. Want to know how many people of that sort I have actually convinced? None. Not a single person. No matter how much smoking gun evidence I put in front of their face they flat out refuse to accept it. I understand to a degree. It's tough to accept that everything everyone has told you in your life, by your parents, by your church, etc about something you cling to so strongly is actually a bunch of BS. But it is what it is.
Unfortunately, when it comes to gay marriage those who oppose it based on religious ideals are the very sort of people I describe. They will just never, ever be convinced even with all evidence to the contrary that the Bible is silent on the issue of homosexuality...among many other things. And it's sad and shameful.

Scott of OR 5:08PM July 27, 2011

I was going to respond to Semyon's hate-mongering diatribe (yet again) where he tries valiantly to demonize other human beings that happen to have a different sexual orientation. But Ned Flaherty already did a terrific job of doing so, posted right on Semyon's blog. Nothing more needs to be added. Suffice to say, anyone that believes that sexual orientation is simply a chosen behavior has zero credibility.
Semyon, and his ilk, will end up in the historic dustbin of American bigotry, just like those that supported McCarthyism. I have no doubt that if it were 50 years ago, Semyon would be presenting us with selective bits of data to prove how interracial marriage will destroy the very fabric of society. Luckily the younger generation is slightly less homophobic than him. They have friends and family that happen to be gay; and it would be inconceivable to discriminate against them, because they know they are REAL HUMAN BEINGS, not some sort of faceless monsters that are out there spreading diseases and sleeping with anything that has a heartbeat. Luckily, Semyon's histrionics are falling on deaf ears.

David in Houston of TX 3:59PM July 27, 2011