-

The Observer is a Student-run, daily print & online newspaper serving Notre Dame & Saint Mary's. Learn more about us.

-

viewpoint

A misconceived position: Traditional marriage

| Monday, December 8, 2014

Gay rights and the marriage debate. Few other topics are more polarized in our society. This debate is often depicted as a battle between good and evil. On one side we have young, enlightened and open-minded individuals that fight for the equality and acceptance of all members of society. On the opposing end we have close-minded people, raised in a bigoted tradition and too set in their ways to see the goodness of change. But is this really a true representation of either group? Does supporting a traditional view of marriage automatically imply bigotry and ignorance?

I will state two things: I support traditional marriage, and I love gay people. These statements may seem contradictory to some, but they needn’t be. I have always held the beliefs of the Catholic Church, the most important of which I consider to be the law of love. It was only a matter of time before I became confused about how the Church expected me to love everyone, yet deny happiness to my homosexual brothers and sisters. For a while I supported the idea of civil unions and almost that of same-sex marriage as a whole. But had I done that, it would have been out of confusion and not conviction. I did not understand the debate at hand. My faith told me I should oppose same-sex marriage and society told me the only way to love my neighbor was by supporting it.

Then, in the midst of a very confusing time, I ran into book called, “What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.” It eloquently explained the position of traditional marriage supporters with purely secular arguments. Although the authors were Catholic, their reasons for traditional marriage were not just based on religious conviction, but on a logical reasoning about why society has and needs marriage. It was a life changer for me. Not only was I, for the first time, truly convinced by the traditional marriage argument, but I transformed the way I look as marriage as a whole. I learned that marriage can only be between a man and a woman not because society decides so, but because it’s in the basic essence of it. To say marriage is also between two members of the same sex, or between more than two people, or not a permanent and exclusive union would be to redefine the understanding of marriage itself. It would no longer be marriage, just something called by the same name. The debate is not about equality (who can marry) but rather about redefinition (what it means to marry).

Nevertheless, my intention in this letter is not to defend traditional marriage, but rather to defend the well-intentioned group of people who fight for it. President Obama himself has said that there are people of goodwill on both sides of this legitimate debate. I do not deny that there are also mean-spirited people fueled by anti-gay sentiment supporting traditional marriage, but that’s not everyone and I dare say the hateful are probably the minority. I oppose those ill-intentioned people entirely and think they are wrong in their reasoning. Yet, I can say with full certainty that many people who support traditional marriage do not do so out of hatred or intolerance, but rather out of love for society. I know I do. I believe traditional marriage is essential for the sake of children and their families, and I would be betraying the members of society who I am called to love, gay and straight alike, if I did not defend what I believe to be right. May I add that many gay and bisexual individuals also share this point of view.

I do not expect all people to agree with me on what marriage is and what it isn’t. Diversity of ideas is key to a healthy society. What I expect of people, especially of the members of this great University, is to respect the ideas of others and to listen to them. Let’s do away with hate speech on both sides of the debate and instead promote the tolerance we all so fervently desire. Let’s be open to respectful dialogue on the difficult questions and keep in mind that good-intentioned people can hold different ideas and perspectives.

Luis Erana Salmeron

sophomore

Keough Hall 

Dec. 2

The views expressed in this Letter to the Editor are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

About Letter to the Editor

Letters to the Editor can be submitted by all members of the Notre Dame community. To submit a letter to the Viewpoint Editor, email viewpoint@ndsmcobserver.com

Contact Letter
  • no

    “I believe traditional marriage is essential for the sake of children and their families…”

    Are gay couples that get married forcing straight couples to divorce or refrain from marrying? If not, then you have no point here.

    I’d also ask about children being raised by gay parents who have people like you telling them that their family is inherently less than. And then there is also the matter of children who realize that they are gay. I’m not sure how this policy benefits those children. The secular arguments against marriage equality are nonsensical (curiously, you don’t really provide any of them here). That’s why the dominoes are falling the way they are.

    • ND Senior

      Also, the sound research has shown that outcomes are equivalent between children of heterosexual parents and children of homosexual parents. Children and their families are not put at risk or at a disadvantage by being raised by gay parents. The author may personally believe that traditional marriage is essential for the sake of children, but the evidence is to the contrary and numbers don’t lie.

      Examples:
      http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15504280802177615
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20879687
      http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/126/1/28.abstract

      • homemadepasta

        I’m glad you were able to get these facts posted here.

        • disqus_PBnOP0sXke

          *Alternative facts.

      • JoeNCA

        Of course they’re the same. The idea that if Bob and Mary raise a kid it’ll be fine, and if Doug and Jane raise a kid it’ll be fine.

        But suddenly if Bob and Doug raise a kid, and Mary and Jane raise a kid, then suddenly these exact same parents go from perfect ideal to raising criminal hellions makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    • Luis Erana Salmeron

      “no”,
      I appreciate your comment and hope that, although you clearly
      disagree with my position, we can share our ideas respectfully and
      productively.

      Towards the end of your comment you say that I did not provide any arguments against the redefinition of marriage. That is true, and as I state in my second to last paragraph, “my intention in this letter is not to defend traditional marriage, but rather to defend the [the] people who fight for it”. There are only so many issues you can address in 800 words. The arguments are extensive, beginning here:
      http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GeorgeFinal.pdf.

      Furthermore, to address your and “ND Senior’s” comments: While the gay couples that get recognized as marriages do not themselves force straight couples to divorce or refrain from marrying, redefining marriage in our law and culture indeed results in couples who have children (that is conceive and bring into the world) in refraining from marriage and/or not staying together. If we redefine marriage to be based on an emotional union and not a comprehensive union of man and woman (in short a union of mind AND body- which may result in a child being born), then there is no longer a link between children and marriage. You see, the reason the state recognizes marriages is because there is an interest in providing stable families for children who are born out of those relationships. There is an expectation for the parents to raise their child and be responsible for them. If we redefine marriage, then that expectation is gone; more children are born out of wedlock and the odds of the father not being present are dramatically higher, as he has no commitment to the mother of his child. Furthermore, children become a commodity and a “right”. Adoption is no longer a way of providing care for children who have lost their parents due to unfortunate circumstances, but rather an industry to provide children to couples who desire a child, specially homosexual couples who out of simple nature cannot have children of their own. That is not to say that I believe a homosexual individual or couple are unable to care for a child if the circumstance need be. But to guarantee them a child as a commodity is a whole different issue in which the well being of the child is no longer the priority. Our law shapes our culture (that is simply a sociological fact), and if we redefine our marriage law, then we shape a culture that lacks any clear responsibility to the upbringing of our children.

      I wish I could elaborate more, but truth is that a comment section is a limited space for discussion. Yet I am more than willing to talk over a coffee in lafun and discuss our different points of view. This is after all a university, so in all honesty let’s talk.

      • no

        I assume you think infertile couples should not be allowed to marry then (probably not, but the pretzel logic people use to distinguish gay and infertile couples in this respect is disingenuous at best)?

        I just think it’s odd that people talk about how gay marriage hurts children when gay couples have to make huge, life-changing efforts if they make the decision to have a child. They can’t have one by accident. And I don’t understand how that leads you to the conclusion that gay marriage is a bad thing. A gay married couple may be more likely to adopt a child. And that gives a child a family who might otherwise not have one. It’s not “making a child a commodity,” it’s adding to the pool of potentially stable families for children that need them. Gay couples are also more likely to adopt children who are more difficult to place, for whatever reason (age, race, disability, etc.).

        You need to think about this as a practical reality and not in a theoretical vacuum. Is the ideal situation a child being raised by two biological parents? Not always, but even if we accept that premise, it’s obvious that this isn’t possible for everyone. Denying gay people the right to marry does nothing to promote biological parenting. It creates a second class of citizens. And it reminds children of gay couples that there are people in this country who don’t think their family is worthwhile, regardless of how loving and stable it is.

        And try to avoid pulling the “I have gay friends” card. I can pull the “I am gay” card, and I think mine trumps yours.

        • disqus_vTaYmcGqrH

          Very well articulated “no.” It is easy make blanket, unsupported, theoretic statements about why same-sex marriage hurts tradition marriage. You explained the issues with this theory very well.

        • Tom

          You repeatedly ignore the main thrust of the article in favor of emotional and irrational arguments. Do better.

          • disqus_vTaYmcGqrH

            “Emotional and irrational arguments” How did you arrive at this conclusion? What about the above argument is “emotional and irrational”?

          • homemadepasta

            Opponents of marriage equality routinely try that little bit of “projection” when they become emotional and irrational as normal, non-h0 mopho bic Americans debunk their propaganda.

          • Nathan

            You could do to learn from “No”‘s arguments. Yours just seem to be a bunch of potshots at your opponents personal intelligence and mental state.

          • Bri O’Brien

            Instead of criticizing others’ comments/arguments, why not make one for yourself? Telling “no” to “do better” implies that you can do better. So, do better then.

          • scottrose

            The chief thing to understand is that anti-gay bigots appoint themselves the unwarranted right to use demeaning anti-gay rhetoric. They need to learn that if they don’t keep their traps shut, there are going to be serious consequences for them in the form of social marginalization.

            Virtually all gay bashing is rooted in religion-based prejudices.

            Not that long ago, many whites-only churches taught that the Bible and therefore God told them that whites are superior to others.

            It was hateful bunk when used against blacks, it’s hateful bunk when used against gays.

            Equality is undebatable.

          • no

            There is no “main thrust” of the article. Other than “I want to deny full civil equality to a minority group because of my own personal view about what marriage is but I swear I’m not a hateful bigot.” I think I’ve taken that on.

          • NDaniels

            There are no minority groups when we recognize the self-evident truth, that regardless of race or ethnicity, human persons are in essence, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers. Human persons are not objects of sexual desire/orientation; to classify human persons according to sexual desire/orientation, demeans the inherent Dignity of all persons.

          • no

            No it doesn’t.

            See how easy that was.

          • NDaniels

            Saying no to a statement that is true cannot transform a true statement into something that is false. Truth is true, whether you believe it is true or you do not.

          • homemadepasta

            Your anti-gay propaganda is NOT “true statements.” YOU are the one with the problem with cognitive dissonance, NDaniels. Psychologists report that the most commonly observed symptom of the mental disorder homophobia is cognitive dissonance, an inability of those so afflicted to accept documentation that contradicts their deep-seated phobia and hatred of LGBT Americans.

          • NDaniels

            Psychologists often mistake lust for Love in relationship.

            https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/alfred-kinsey-was-a-pervert-and-a-sex-criminal

          • homemadepasta

            Your source is a a right-wing, anti-gay, Christianist source–impeachable. Telling us other people are fooled by the lies you think will advance your anti-gay agenda will NOT advance your anti-gay agenda. Anyone who can get to that–or THIS–web page can find the facts that debunk all anti-gay propaganda.

          • homemadepasta

            Jonathon van Maren is the author of many anti-gay Hate Speech articles posted by that anti-gay website. Spare us your spamming Psychology Today articles, NDaniels. They do not advance your anti-gay agenda.

          • Nathan

            Technically then, they DO advance an anti-gay agenda…

          • Charlie Ducey

            I’m just confused as to why all of the ad hominem attacks and vitriol are coming from the people who allegedly stand for equality and tolerance. You’ve swapped your (blank)-bashing for (blank)-bashing. Why are there no calm, clear arguments emerging from the side against which the author of this article situates himself?

          • scottrose

            Gay people don’t have to answer to anybody who uses a Vatican symbol as their avatar. Go read the Reichskonkordat or something.

          • Charlie Ducey

            I will humor you: thank you for validating my claim–you resorted to an ad hominem attack instead of presenting an argument. And, you do realize Notre Dame is a Catholic university, right? Vatican Catholic? Are you even a student here, or do you just patrol various comment threads spouting abject vitriol?

          • scottrose

            The Catholic Church is the world’s single largest anti-gay hate group.

          • Nathan

            Is that technically relevant? We don’t require people to prove love in order to marry…

          • homemadepasta

            Word salad…

          • JoeNCA

            So if I sexually desire to marry someone of a different race, I should be to prohibit that, just like the desire to marry someone of the same gender?

          • Nathan

            If you sexually desire to marry someone from your immediate family, I should be able to prohibit that, just like the desire to marry someone of the same gender?

          • JoeNCA

            So you do believe in discrimination on the basis of gender and race?

            Which of course is totally different than discrimination on the basis of familial relationships. The first two are not allowable. The latter is. You can say, “Sorry, can’t hire you because your brother already works here.” Totally legal. Racial or gender discrimination? Not so much.

          • Nathan

            I’m not saying you’re wrong, but how does it demean them any moreso than defining them as sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers (traditional family unit members) instead?

          • Nathan

            Humor your opponent that they aren’t inherently Satan and consider that there might be more to it than that…

          • no

            It’s like advocating for segregation while maintaining that you love and respect black people. I’m not going to try to educate you about race here though.

        • scottrose

          There’s also the absurdity of alleging that one is helping children being raised by gay parents by denying marriage to the parents who are raising them.

      • scottrose

        You need to drink a long tall steaming glass of S T F U. You aren’t friends with any long-term same-sex couples, yet here you are, arguing against same-sex couples’ rights on the basis of religion and literal ignorance of gay people. Many long-term same-sex couples have been together longer than you have been alive. Your “thought” as to the value of their relationships is worth less that rat excrement.

      • homemadepasta

        Sorry, Mr. Salmeron, but your attempt to hide your reference to the debunked, fraudulent “Regnerus” study failed. I posted the debunking of the authors of your propaganda at the top, so all readers would note your attempts to deceive others.

        • Nathan

          Author posts studies, you refute the studies, call out author for intentionally deceiving reader. Classy >.>

      • Nathan

        Interesting argument, but is there actually any research that legalization actually increases childbirth out of wedlock? That seems to be an issue that existed and was problematic WAY before the gay marriage debate even was on the radar.

  • NDaniels

    There is order in truth, as there is order in Love, which is why a man does not Love his wife in the same manner as he Loves his daughter, or his son, or his mother, or his father, or his friend. Love is ordered to the inherent personal and relational inherent Dignity of the human person, who is not, in essence, an object of sexual desire/orientation, but a son, daughter, brother, sister, husband, wife, father, mother.

    One should never underestimate the value of a Loving relationship that is ordered to the Good of all persons.

    The ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife is the necessary requirement for a valid marriage contract, and one of the necessary requirements for the Sacrament of Marriage. To remove this necessary requirement for marriage is to promote marriage fraud and the sin of adultery.
    If p=q, not p= not q. Existing in relationship as husband and wife = marriage! thus if a couple is not existing in relationship as husband and wife, that particular couple cannot be married to one another.

    Truth is not a matter of opinion.

    • no

      Tell that to all the homosexual married couples.

    • NoPlaceLikeDome

      Man, you seem to really have your beliefs down to a science. Almost as if someone else had created that argument for you and you just said, “Yep, that looks good, I agree with that.” If that’s how you make all of your decisions, than I am glad to report that people like you are waning in favor of people making decisions based on intellect, reason, experiences, and judgment. It’s easy to believe what your parents believed and then never think for yourself ever again. It’s much harder to make decisions and determine your beliefs on your own accord using reason and intellect rather than repeating mumbo jumbo CCC bullshit. It’s really just a form of intellectual laziness if you ask me.

    • R34lly

      Your pseudo-logical reasoning is nothing more than a tragic, pathetic joke, that only has an integral validity that is apparent to you or jokers like you.

    • homemadepasta

      “The ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife is the necessary requirement for a valid marriage contract”

      Please show us just where in any jurisdiction in America that heterosex is required for legal marriage.

    • scottrose

      “The sacrament of marriage.” Before the French Revolution, the French government, i.e. the king only recognized Catholic marriages. Jews or Protestants living in France were not considered married. Take your “sacrament” and shove it.

  • ND Senior

    But what about the fact that romance in marriage is a relatively new concept? For most of history marriage was a political move to ensure heirs, make new alliances, acquire land, etc., so our idea of marriage for love is far from traditional. What about the fact that interracial marriages used to be banned in some U.S. states? What about the fact that until recently, wives were expected to completely submit to their husbands? What about the prevalence of polygamy, even in the Bible? Marriage has been defined and redefined throughout history and across cultures. “1 man, 1 woman” is far from a “traditional” marriage.

    • NDaniels

      This does not change the fact, that regardless of race or ancestry, every man is free to choose a woman to be his wife, and every woman is free to choose a man to be her husband, as long as that particular man and woman have the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife.

      • R34lly

        Your point exactly?

        And still there is no good, substantial reason to deny one gay person the right to marry another gay person of their choosing, other than “I don’t like it, it is icky, and therefore I should have the right to forbid it”.

        • NDaniels

          A valid law is one that is based upon a statement of fact. If p=q, then not p=not q. We are not free to marry anyone we choose because the necessary requirement for marriage is the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife. Marriage is existing in relationship as husband and wife thus not existing in relationship as husband and wife cannot also be marriage. We can know this truth by both Faith and reason.

          • scottrose

            No, you only know that through bigotry and ignorance.

            If you were long-time friends with long-term same-sex couples, then you would realize that their relationships are marriages, previously in all but name and now more and more often in fact and in law.

            The fact that you are an anti-gay bigot, yelling and screaming that same-sex couples’ legal marriages can’t possibly be marriages, doesn’t stop their marriages from being marriages.

            Prior to the French Revolution, only Catholic marriages were recognized as marriages by the French government, at that time, the King. Jews and Protestants were told that it was impossible for them to marry unless they converted to Catholicism.

            You are no better than that on the bigotry scale.

          • Charlie Ducey

            Please actually READ the article before you spout hot air, sir.

          • scottrose

            I did read it, for your information.

            You’re being exceedingly fatuous to imagine that I don’t monitor anti-LGBT hate speech on the internet.

          • Nathan

            Scottrose and Homemadepasta are hot heads. Recommend sticking to the others if you want reasonable responses.

          • homemadepasta

            NO, NDaniels, a valid law is one the United States Supreme Court says is valid. The US Supreme Court ruled DOMA was INVALID, and now the federal government recognizes the marriages of about one million American same gender legally married couples.

            “Marriage is existing in relationship as husband and wife”

            You’re entitled to define your own marriage that way, but you have no business trying to “define away” the legal marriages of same gender American couples.

          • JoeNCA

            So prohibitions on race are also valid because those were also requirements?

        • NDaniels

          “Gay” is not a person.

      • JoeNCA

        Just as until not that long ago every man was free to choose a woman of the same race to be his wife and vice versa. Right?

      • Bri O’Brien

        on what/who’s authority is this factual? Because if you are attempting to root this “fact” in secular points, there is no evidence, empirically or otherwise, to support your claims. If it is according to Christianity, well, according to Paul, it is not your job to worry about converting other people. So others do not have to ascribe to your religion. Further, because we live in a supposedly free country, others do not have to ascribe to your religion. So again I will ask, on who’s or what authority is this a fact? Traditionally, this is not factual either…since for the majority of human history, women did not “choose” their husbands. Women were property.

        Are you simply quoting something you have heard from a priest or what? cause, you keep repeating the same things over and over as if you are unable to produce anything to substantiate your claims..

        • homemadepasta

          I’d say his source is more likely to be Brian Brown of NOM or Tony Perkins of FRC. Most Catholic priests now recognize the anti-gay Hate Speech the bishops force them to read from the pulpits is destroying the Church in America. A majority of lay Catholics support marriage equality.

    • NDaniels

      Love in marriage is not a new concept for those who believe that our call to Holiness has always been a call to be chaste in our thoughts, in our words, and our deeds.

  • Luis, A well-articulated statement not only of your beliefs but also your F/faith. Your earnestness is apparent, as is the depth of your feelings on and about this issue. Yours is a genuine and pure heart working in concert with a thoughtful mind. Which is just what one hopes mindful prayer is.

    While we disagree profoundly on this issue, I support you in your search for truth wherever this search leads you.

    Pax vobiscum.

    • scottrose

      It’s not well-articulated at all. It’s just anti-gay bigot blather. Anti-gay bigots have been making these same arguments in courts, and losing.

      • As humankind evolves, we all “win”.

        Like with race, the question is: Does one have the right to be {blank} – gay/straight/bi/none/other – and not be discriminated against? And as such, be afforded the rights & protections the “majority” has? Settled law is becoming settled law on this issue. That’s fairly apparent.

        Churches – creeds, dogmas, practices – will act/react as they interpret their relation to their “god”. Why? Because churches are human constructs and will act/react to how culture/society acts/reacts much in the way people do – “for’ or “against” this onward evolution of humanity.

        Personally, I am not too concerned about what any “church” has to tell me to think or not to think about the evolution of humankind – this evolution is happening with or without “churches”.

        • scottrose

          Actually, many churches did not stop saying that all Jews had to pay for the death of Jesus until the details of the Holocaust became known.

          The Vatican specifically got independent nation status from Mussolini by agreeing to go along with his fascist program, part of which included sending homosexuals to concentration camps.

          For some reason, Catholics still feel free to gay bash, even though they realize that they have to keep their hatred of Jews quiet.

  • NoPlaceLikeDome

    I support same-race marriage, but I love black people. You just sound stupid saying something and then contradicting yourself in the next sentence. You cannot love somebody then turn around and deny them basic human rights. It just doesn’t work like that. Instead of spending all that time praying, try spending a little more time learning about the different arguments from those within the Church and just as importantly, from those people who live and struggle with this exact discrimination that you clearly support. You don’t support Sacramental Marriage within the Catholic Church fine? Everybody chooses their religion and beliefs and that is yours, but to deny marriage altogether outside of your church to those that are different than you is a bigoted statement and should not be tolerated. You shouldn’t be able to hide behind your religion saying you “love” these people that you want to treat as a lesser human being than yourself. You are a sophomore and are young, hopefully you don’t graduate with such an ignorant, discriminatory attitude and meet people that offer different life experiences than those of whom you are constantly surrounded.

    • Tom

      It’s not a basic human right to be able to call any type of relationship marriage.

      For future reference:

      big·ot ˈbiɡət/ noun – a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

      • Bri O’Brien

        Bigot: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

        According to this definition, given by Marriam-Webster, the author of this article is bigoted, as are those who stand in direct opposition to affording LGBTQ individuals the right to be treated equally under the law.

        It is not a a fundamental human right to “call any type of relationship marriage,” and this is not what the Guest claimed. Basic moral reasoning, which fully functional human beings are capable of and what distinguishes us from “animals,” calls for the respect of human dignity. Those who do not respect basic human dignity are unfairly rejecting other people and ideas. Those with anti-gay sentiments, which, regardless of what the writer claims, are present in this article, are therefore bigoted, for future reference.

        The Organization of American states, which is comprised of 34 different countries and is under the United Nations, released a statement in 2008 outlining that the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights is extended to cover sexual orientation and gender identity. Since the HRD includes consensual marriage as a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT, committed homosexual relationships, the same as heterosexuals ones, should be “able” to participate in marriage.

        • Nathan

          Disagreement is not the same as hate: I don’t hate my friends when I disagree with them. This idea that rejecting foreign ideas as hate is ludicrous.

          • Bri O’Brien

            “hates or REFUSES to accept”……..this article refuses and rejects homosexual individuals through denying them basic respect of human dignity and their civil rights. Homosexuality is not an idea. It is an identity that millions share.

            When one of my friends explained that she is undocumented, she lost many “friends” out of bigotry and hate. They refused to accept her as a person because of her undocumented status. It is an unfair judgment.

            To deny someone rights based on an identity (which causes no harm to others) is rooted in strong dislike of said individual and hence bigoted.

            Do I have to break it down further? The given definition was pretty clear. Disagreeing with an opinion is not hatred or bigoted. Disagreeing with an identity is. Disagreeing with basic human rights and respects is (since those are not opinions, but basic rights for the mere fact we are humans).

          • Nathan

            I think the disagreement being posed here is with gay marriage, which is an idea. I may be an unjustified disagreement (I tend to think that it is), but I don’t buy this idea that it inherently makes someone a bigot.

          • Bri O’Brien

            Okay, another breakdown is in order here.

            There are fundamental human rights. According to the UN (and the US), which we are a part of, that includes the right to consensual marriage.

            It is scientifically evidenced that homosexual relationships are not much different (in terms of the effects of brain chemistry, effects on society, effects on children, etc) than heterosexual relationships are.

            Your identity as a heterosexual does not go challenged in society. Your sexuality is not able to be refuted, since it is a concrete part of yourself. Your right to marry does not even cross your mind.

            Homosexuality, on the other hand is constantly questioned. It is an integral identity of homosexual individuals and is just as concrete as heterosexuality.

            Therefore, by denying the basic human right of marriage to homosexuals, you are denying homosexuality. You are opposing the evidence that shows homosexuality as an identity equitable to heterosexuality. You are rejecting homosexual families; you are being a tremendous bigot.

      • JoeNCA

        I’m not intolerant of your opinion. I’m intolerant of your need to force it on me via the law.

    • NDaniels

      There is no inherent right to marry every person you Love; marriage by its inherent nature is restrictive to begin with because not every couple can exist in relationship as husband and wife.

      • homemadepasta

        There IS a right to Equal Protection Under the Law, and federal courts are enforcing that Equal Protection by revoking the state anti-gay Hate Votes and Hate Laws, one by one. Your opinion of the relationships of same gender American couples is irrelevant.

      • JoeNCA

        So laws banning people of the same gender and different race are constitutional?

  • disqus_vTaYmcGqrH

    I completely respect your right to believe what you believe. It is good to have firm beliefs and practice those beliefs in your life. The problem comes when you put your beliefs about what is best onto others. If there was scientific evidence to say that same-sex marriage is harmful to society and children, then it would make sense to advocate for traditional marriage. However, because the scientific evidence actually contradicts that notion (ND Senior posted resources in a comment – refer to those), placing these beliefs onto others is not loving. Rather it promotes internalized homophobia for those struggling to accept their identity, and adds fuel to those who speak hatefully of LGB individuals. You say that you love gay people, but this is very inconsistent with you saying that traditional marriage is the only marriage there can be. To believe that traditional marriage is what is best for you is completely within your rights. It is not disrespecting anyone, and it is you exercising your right to chose what is right for you. When you suggest that traditional marriage is the only correct form of marriage, you are deny those gay people that you love their basic rights to make the a decision you are free to make.

    The argument you are making feeds into the denial of basic rights to LGB people all over the world. That is not love. You did not explicitly say that gay marriage should not be legal, but in saying that “I learned that marriage can only be between a man and a woman” it is strongly implied that you do not believe it should be legal. Your personal beliefs do not trump human rights. If you truly loved gay people, then you would not attempt to interfere with them exercising their rights as a human being.

    • Luis Erana Salmeron

      Dear “disqus_vTaYmcGqrH”,

      I invite you to read the answer I posted above to “no” and “NDSenior”’s comments. You will see that I do not base my arguments on homosexual couples being “unfit” for caring for a child, but the issue of redefining what it means to marry and how it is connected to childrearing. Furthermore, I am in no way “placing my beliefs” onto others. I do not hold a position of power over others and dictate the law. We instead live in a country that runs on democracy. I advocate for policies that I belief are right, as so do you by simply commenting on this thread. The policy that gets enacted by our votes and appointed officials will depend on the results of our debates. So I am not imposing my ideas on anyone.

      Although you may find it hard to believe, I argue what I argue truly for the sake of children and for ensuring they are born in a family that will care for them. I sincerely do not have a vendetta against people who are homosexual. I do not argue for laws against people being in homosexual relationships. I have no issue with facilitating legal ways in which homosexual couples may have medical decision rights over one another and other similar legal arrangements. I have friends who are gay- some disagree with me, and others actually agree.

      You are not the first nor the last to accuse me of “not loving”. It is likely our disagreement is rooted in different definitions of love. One of them which I personally like from Merriam-Webster is “unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another”. I don’t think love is just agreeing with whatever people want to do and telling them it’s ok. Imagine if that’s how a parent educated their child! I think love is a permanent commitment to people and to selfishly do right by them. And in that case, because I love our children as much as I love gay people, I will seek to do right by them and promote their wellbeing, even if it means disagreeing with the popular opinion.

      Nonetheless, like I stated in my comment above, I am more than willing to get together over coffee at lafun and have a conversation about our different points of view.

      • disqus_vTaYmcGqrH

        You have yet to provide any evidence as to why you believe this is what is best for children. I saw your comment to “no”, and there is no evidence to support the blanket claims you made. In advocating for policies that deny others their basic human rights (a right you have), you are placing your beliefs on others. You cannot wash your hands clean of that. As you said, we live in a democracy. By participating in it, you are affecting the decisions made. You do not live in a vacuum where you advocating for your beliefs has no affect on others. It is beliefs like yours that have created a society that sees same-sex couples as second class. The repercussions of this have been immense for those of us who are in the queer community and are in same-sex relationships.

        Before this discussion can go any further, there needs to be empirical evidence presented for the “issue of redefining what it means to marry and how it is connected to childrearing” and how same-sex marriage does not promote “ensuring they [children] are born in a family that will care for them” Otherwise, this is a pointless discussion to be having.

        Quite frankly I don’t care how many gay friends you have and how many of them do or do not agree, claims like this are offensive and degrading because there is no empirical evidence to support them.

        • Nathan

          “In advocating for policies that deny others their basic human rights (a right you have), you are placing your beliefs on others. You cannot wash your hands clean of that.”

          I cannot fathom why you think this is a bad thing. How on earth is hearing an opposing viewpoint, particularly in an environment that has no policy implications and is purely hypothetical. I actually disagree with the author’s conclusions, but for goodness sake can people stop pillorying her as some closet KKK member?

          • disqus_vTaYmcGqrH

            I’m not sure if you keep up with the news and what has/is happening various states around the country, but these are the same viewpoints that are used to develop discriminatory bills in the legislature. There is no evidence to support them, just enough people that agree with the viewpoint to pass the bill. As I said, we don’t live in a vacuum.

            I don’t recall pillorying him as some closet KKK member. It is quiet far fetched from pointing out the implications behind this argument and the consequences it has had in society. If that is what you got from the comment, you missed the point entirely.

          • Nathan

            I understand how this sort of opinion is at best naive and at worse can lead to disastrous and wrong policy decisions. I don’t just don’t like the general attitude being raised in the comments though that opposition to gay marriage inherently makes you a hateful bigot. I understood the gay rights movement to be about gaining acceptance for gays in society, and making moral judgments of anyone whose views on the issue differ hurts that goal in the long run imo.

          • disqus_vTaYmcGqrH

            You are pretty much defining bigotry, but then denying that it is bigotry…Again, we do not live in a vacuum where opinions have no affect on what actually happens in the legislature. Stating opinions that suggest depriving individuals of their rights is what is best for children without empirical evidence to support is flat out insulting and degrading to those it affects. When challenged to provide that evidence, failing to do so, but still arguing that it is what is best for children, the individual sends a clear message that non-fact based opinion is more significant than the actual facts and rights of individuals. That is bigotry.

            If you understand the gay rights movement, you would understand that it is about gaining equal rights for all. It is not about having a discussion about non-fact based opinions that deprive individuals of equal rights. The gay rights movement says that your opinions on gay marriage and gay rights are yours to have for your life, they are not to be used to guide others lives or the legal sector. The overwhelm evidence shows that same-sex couples are amply equip to raise children. There is no evidence to show that allowing same-sex couples to marry is degrading to the institution of marriage and the best interest of children. Throwing around opinions that contradict this evidence without evidence to back it up is bigoted.

            I’m not sure how else to explain this. You have every right to not like the tone of the comments. That doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with them. If you feel that you know how to properly comment on an article like this, feel free to do so. It would be a better use of your time than telling others why the tone of their comments “hurts” the goal.

          • Nathan

            I just feel too often that the phrases bigot and hate speech are thrown around frivolously to shut people up and it always irks me. In this case they may be accurate (I don’t know, I generally tend to give people a lot of benefit of the doubt with regards to motivations), but I think there is more than enough evidence to win the argument without having to even bring the author’s moral character into it.

            I did post a comment for the author though. That point was very fair.
            Cheers, and I appreciated you being respectful and thorough in your responses!

      • scottrose

        Give us the names and telephone numbers of your alleged gay “friends” so we can get their views of you on the record.

        This would not be the first time that an anti-gay bigot alleged he had gay friends.

        • homemadepasta

          Good point. 50 years ago, Mr. Salmeron would have claimed he had [African American] friends. Anti-gays routinely tell that same lie.

          • JoeNCA

            “I am not a Negro hater. I’ve played with them. I’ve eaten with them, and I’ve worked with them–but I still believe in segregation. You can say that some of my best friends are Negroes.” – Albert Lingo, Director of Alabama Department of Public Safety under George Wallace

            If these bigots don’t want to be called bigots, they should stop stealing their material.

        • I know all MY gay friends don’t want to get married, have rights, have children, protections or respect. They all look the other way about the fact that i view them, their relationships and families as second class because I always have the best pot luck dinners. #truefriendship

          *snark*

      • scottrose

        The oppressor does not get to define “love” to his victim. In any abusive relationship, the victim has to understand that what the perpetrator calls “love” IS NOT LOVE.

        Your fake expressions of “love” for gay people are just utter horse excrement. You should tell The Horse Marines that you “love” gay people.

      • JoeNCA

        LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling had a black girlfriend. Does that means he not racist?

  • Guest
  • Bri O’Brien

    Oh, and not to mention that there are plenty of biological parents that suck and do not act in the best interest of their children.

    Should we make a national test that couples are required to pass before being allowed to marry and have children? What about the people who have children outside of marriage, though? I guess we would have to force women to take birth control until they are in a suitable relationship for marriage and raising children. Seems like the only plausible solution to this ‘war on children,’ No one is allowed to have children or get married unless Luis approves. That’ll do it.

    • scottrose

      Yes, anti-gay bigots use a variation on the Blood Libel to hate-monger against gay people.

      The Blood Libel says that Jews kidnap Christian babies and then use their blood to bake matzo.

      The anti-gay bigot “all gays are dangerous to children” argument is no better than that.

      • Nathan

        You are familiar with the concept of a strawman argument, right?

        • scottrose

          Are you familiar with it?

          The above post from an anti-gay bigot alleges that when same-sex couples marry, direct harm is done to children.

          Ergo, his gay-bashing argument is directly related to the blood libel.

          Both are based on falsehoods wherein it is alleged that all members of a minority are dangerous to children.

  • Bri O’Brien

    Keeping in line with your supposed premise that this viewpoint is not an opposition to homosexuality/gay marriage and is instead based upon what is “best” for children, it is reasonable to conclude that not only are you against homosexual marriage because of ‘adverse’ consequences for children, but are also against the impoverished being able to marry, since growing up in poverty could not possibly be in the best interest of children. Unmarried individuals should not be permitted to reproduce since the “traditional” family structure is not afforded to their children.

    Not to mention that “marriage” has been redefined throughout history. There is nothing “traditional” about marriage. Marriage, for most of history, was literally for the sole reason of women being owned and regarded as property by men. Then, those women were expected to reproduce for those men. If you want traditional marriage, well, I hate to break it to you, but the United States, where gender equality is supposedly a thing, is just not the place for “traditional” marriage.

    There are many reasons for state/federal sanctioned marriage, with “child rearing” being just one of them – actually, the biggest reason, as is typical in the US, is economics (namely, taxes).

  • Bri O’Brien

    You want to move past hate speech? This article is hate speech. Picking and choosing who you deem as fit for parenthood and consequently marriage is judgmental in nature and absent of factual evidence. Are you a parent? Are you gay? Have you ever been married? What credibility do you have that gives you the sense of authority to make these statements? Why on earth should anyone take what you have said as being a reasonable argument?
    I’d love to hear from these homosexual and bisexual individuals who you claim agree with your viewpoint. In my GAY experience, gay people do not typically agree with your views, as your views perpetuate the stigmatization of gay people. Those who do agree are most likely the victims of internalization of the hatred that articles such as this one perpetuate. Gays, like most everyone else, have opinions that fall on a bell curve. The majority of gays will not agree with what you have had to say.

    Your interests are for children? Well, clearly not for gay children.

    • scottrose

      I repeat; many long-term same-sex couples have been together longer than the writer of the above hate-speech screed has been alive.

    • Nathan

      IS THERE ANY form of disagreement that the author could have made that wouldn’t have qualified as hate speech?

      As for credibility, it’s an opinion piece in a college newspaper. Everything you read here is the product of some 20-something. I think you may be setting the bar a little high

      • Bri O’Brien

        No, people have credibility based on experience and knowledge. Because the author is not gay, is not married, does not have children, he has no credibility. There are plenty individuals in college who are married, have children, or are gay that can write on such issues with credibility. Luis cannot.

        A disagreement rooted in opinion and not against someone’s identity would not be hate speech. Stating that homosexual parents are inherently bad for children, based on their identity of homosexuality, instead of an opinion regarding something flexible such as single-parent households (which has empirical evidence to substantiate it) is hate speech. It is quite simple really. Persecuting, criticizing, judging someone based on their identity is hateful.

        • Nathan

          So what you’re saying is that any opinion piece disagreeing with gay marriage is inherently hate speech? I’ll repeat myself from a prior comment: is a discussion even possible then?

          I think you were missing my point about credibility: I don’t see why there’s any expectation of an expert opinion in a college editorial.

          • Bri O’Brien

            there shouldn’t be discussion surrounding my rights as a human being. People do not get a say in who deserves to be treated as a human and who does not. So yes, disagreeing with gay marriage, unless there is actually evidence to prove it being harmful to others (which there is not and never will), is inherently hate speech. Disagreeing with who I am, who I was born, is refusing my humanity. It seems as though you do not understand this.

            I am not expecting an expert opinion. I expect the writer of an opinion piece refuting a population’s rights to actually have some sort of knowledge and experience regarding his opinion’s effect on said population.

          • Nathan

            And societies recognition of human rights have evolved over time to what they are today BECAUSE they were discussed. And how would such evidence of harm even come to light if the very questioning of the concept is hateful?

          • disqus_vTaYmcGqrH

            The author did not question the concept, he asserts that he believes allowing gay marriage is harmful to the institution of marriage and children. No question was brought up.

  • Bri O’Brien

    I would suggest you remember that it was less than 50 years ago when “traditional” marriage was defined by requiring only those of the same race to marry. And it is racist sentiments such as that, much like your anti-gay sentiments, that continue to perpetuate today. For example, the biracial couple depicted in a cheerios commercial fueled much controversy from those who still uphold the “traditional” definition of marriage from 47 years ago. People deemed it anti-American, unnatural, etc. People let hatred fly from their mouths like you have done here. That is what you are contributing to in regards to homosexuals. You are perpetuating the stigmatization of homosexuality that will remain an inherent part of society for years to come because of microaggressions such as this article. You may believe you are being loving, but you most definitely are not. And if you think having a cup of coffee with the hurt, degraded gay people who disagree with you will change their minds, you are most definitely wrong.

    • scottrose

      I completely agree that tyrannical heterosupremacist theocRATS are disgusting.

  • Bri O’Brien

    We are called “progressives” for a reason. Most every societal advance (the abolishment of slavery), has been a result of progressives following moral values of human dignity- not traditionalists. The argument for traditional marriage is moot because 1.) there is no such thing as “traditional” marriage unless you regard women as property and 2.) strictly maintaining tradition accomplishes nothing besides perpetuating ideas that harm other human beings.

  • Bri O’Brien

    Moral Hypocrisy: where people impose strict moral standards while behaving less morally

    arguing that homosexuals are inherently unable to contribute to the well-being of children and are instead a threat to children when, at the same time, claiming that you have good intentions = moral hypocrisy.

    The ability of humans to displace personal moral responsibility by minimizing the negative consequences (I can say this because I think they are bad for children; so it is for the common good to say such things) of doing so and by criticizing the target (homosexuals) of immoral actions is absolutely amazing. If one can honestly believe oneself in saying the intention behind denying equal rights to homosexuals is rooted in good intentions, then I feel bad for this person living in an alternate reality where evidence, facts, logic, and morality ceases to exist.

  • NDaniels

    At the founding of this Nation, our Founding Fathers recognized the necessary requirement for marriage, which is, the desire and ability to exist in relationship as husband and wife. Just as a rose by any other name, is still a rose, one cannot remove the necessary element of marriage, the desire and ability to exist in relationship as husband and wife, without changing the essence of marriage.

    • no

      Then the essence has changed. As it has countless times previously. American civil law cannot be concerned with what the vatican has to say on the issue.

      • NDaniels

        The fact that our Founding Fathers recognized the essence of Marriage does not make our Founding Fathers members of the Vatican.

        • no

          I was referencing your other post. Which is pretty useless to the discussion here. And the “Founding Fathers” were wrong about a lot of things. Obviously.

        • homemadepasta

          Repeating that same falsehood won’t make it true.

    • homemadepasta

      Please show us just where in the Constitution it says that.

    • JoeNCA

      “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” -Thomas Jefferson

      • homemadepasta

        This is why right-wing Christianists want to remove Thomas Jefferson from Texas school books.

        • JoeNCA

          You should look up Religious Freedom Day, which is celebrated every January 16 as the day Thomas Jefferson lobbied for the first religious freedom ordinance in Virginia. The ordinance specifically rejected making Christianity the official religion of Virginia, so that no one would be coerced into practicing any religion they wanted so that “within the mantle of its protection, [included] the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohametan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” It later became the foundation for the first amendment.
          http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/12/the-christian-right-does-not-want-you-to-know-about-this-day/

  • NDaniels
    • homemadepasta

      Impeachable source…

  • scottrose

    You are an anti-gay bigot. Your letter reflects the views of an anti-gay bigot. You are a tyrannical heterosupremacist theocRAT. The notion that the pamphlet you read is not in fact based on religious anti-gay bigotry is transparent and idiotic. You are an anti-gay bigot.

    • chill

      I think concerning the actual argument of marriage, you have many valid points, arguments, and connections. However, don’t you think it goes against the point of this article to repeatedly call each other bigots?

      I personally have different opinions than this article, but why does the topic of gay marriage have to erupt into feuds and fights? I only desire more calm debate.

      • disqus_vTaYmcGqrH

        Because we “gay people” are sick of having to justify ourselves at every turn. A person who feels it is appropriate to write articles that deny the basic rights of other human beings based on their opinion and no empirical evidence are bigoted. That person may try to mask their bigotry by saying things like “I have gay friends” before making statements that suggest certain people should not have the same rights as them, but it doesn’t change what it is. It has the same effect of saying, “no offense, but…” before saying something offensive. When one puts their beliefs on what tradition marriage is over the individual rights of others to choose who they marry, that is bigotry.

        Gay people have spent enough time hiding and remaining silent or passive about these issue. It is past the point of productive conversation. We deserve the same rights as straight people. Feel free to have whatever opinion you want to have about human rights. But, the moment that opinion is put onto anyone by yourself, you are placing yourself above them.

        • chill

          hahaha yo when did I say any of that dawg. I didn’t express any opinions yet; you don’t even know where I stand on the situation *or* my own sexual orientation

          • disqus_vTaYmcGqrH

            I was referring to the author, “dawg.” I used “you” in the last small paragraph as a general reference to anyone reading it. However, even if I was interpreted as being directed at you ‘chill’, I did not claim to know your sexual orientation or opinion. Hense the “feel free to have whatever opinion you want..” When that opinion is put on anyone but the person asserting the opinion, a shift of perceived status and power occurs.

      • scottrose

        You seriously expect me not to call anti-gay bigots anti-gay bigots?

        If anti-gay bigots don’t want to be known as anti-gay bigots, they should stop being anti-gay bigots.

  • NDaniels

    Since it is true that one cannot remove the necessary requirement of both the marriage contract, and The Sacrament of Marriage, the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife, and it is true that it is not unconstitutional for a man and woman to exist in relationship as husband and wife, the only question before the court should be, whether or not it is unconstitutional for those persons who exist in relationship as husband and wife, to receive special benefits for the sake of marriage and the Family.

    • homemadepasta

      No one is every going to force the Church to perform marriages of same gender American couples. That sacrament is irrelevant in the eyes of the Law. Catholic bishops have actively tried to subvert the United States Constitution and force their peculiar “beliefs” onto all Americans.

      You should stop thinking about what loving, committed same gender couples who merely want the same legal protections other couples enjoy do in the privacy of their homes.

    • Since it is true that one cannot remove the necessary requirement of both the marriage contract, and The Sacrament of Marriage

      So you’re saying my marriage means nothing if I do not get married in a church with a religious ceremony?

      The millions of straight and gay agnostics and atheists who are married will be shocked to learn this

  • scottrose

    In my observation, the worst enemies of gay rights are self-loathing closet cases.

    • homemadepasta

      Readers who would like to see the scientific evidence for why anti-gay posters are so obsessed with what they IMAGINE same gender couples do in private should Google “Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”

  • homemadepasta

    “not to defend traditional marriage, but rather to defend the well-intentioned group of people who fight for it.” Sorry, Mr. Salmeron, but throwing elections is NOT the action of a “well-intentioned group.” The federal judge who revoked the 2008 California anti-gay H8te Vote had in his possession an email written by Catholic bishops to Mormon leaders in which they both agreed to violate California campaign finance laws to throw the H8te Vote by making secret, illegal cash and in-kind contributions to the H8te Vote. The email serves as proof positive they knew they were breaking the law; the email itself is an act of criminal collusion. Here is documentation about that email:

    latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/documents-show-close-links-between-prop-8-campaign-and-mormon-catholic-churches.html#comments

    The email was included in the evidence the US Supreme Court reviewed before that Court affirmed the revocation of the 2008 California anti-gay H8te Vote. Clearly, the criminal acts committed by Mormons and other anti-gays failed. It is believed Justice Scalia is holding this document to prevent the State of California and the IRS from using it to prosecute the miscreants.

  • R34lly

    The problem for Luis’ comment is that he has gone to just one source of supposed validation for his bias and bigotry to merely support that bigotry which he already holds dear to his heart. He thinks that by alleging that the aforesaid source is allegedly secular in nature belies the simple fact that the authors of it wrote it, expending a lot of effort and cost in doing so, to merely support their opinion, just like Luis’, that marriage and the definition of it belongs to something called “Gawd”. To suggest that the views expressed are borne out of genuine secular belief is thoroughly dishonest. That book wasn’t written by secularists, even though the lead author is very diligent at hiding his true convictions.

    • homemadepasta

      I’m having trouble posting factual information here that debunks Mr. Salmeron’s deceptive “documentation.” Anyone who can get to this web page can see what the American Academy of Pediatrics says about same gender parents. America’s leading experts on adoption, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Agency, urges that more same gender parents be utilized more because their studies going back 35 years show same gender parents are just as good. Interested readers can also see that The New England Journal of Medicine urges government to establish marriage equality for the health of the millions of American children of same gender parents.

      • homemadepasta

        Conversely, anyone who wants to debunk the fake “Regnerus” study that purported to show same gender parents are “bad” can read what U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman, a Reagan appointee, wrote about it after Regnerus testified in his court.

        • scottrose

          “The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 ‘study’ was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it ‘essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society’ and which ‘was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.’ … While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged.”

          • homemadepasta

            If I were an attorney advising an anti-gay client about to appear in court to give “expert testimony,” I would direct that client to this ruling as a warning that anti-gays are going to be charged with perjury should they continue to lie to courts the way Mr. Regnerus did.

      • scottrose

        Further to what you are saying, anti-gay bigots point to an alleged “Golden Age” of a marriage culture that they say existed in the 40s and 50s but stopped existing in the 1960s.

        The question for them, though, is that if everything in society was so hunky-dory in the 1940s and 50s thanks to a “marriage culture,” then why were the orphanages full to exploding and why were there so many scandals exposed of children being neglected and/or otherwise abused in orphanages?

        Surely all those orphans did not come from gay adults wishing to marry.

  • homemadepasta

    Mr. Salmeron’s source that apparently appears somewhere in a blog on a Harvard University website is impeachable. Here is some basic information about the three authors:

    “Sherif Girgis, a leading academic opponent of same-sex marriage,” said the Washington Post.

    The Public Discourse reported that “Robert P. George is the Herbert W. Vaughan Senior Fellow of the Witherspoon Institute.” The Witherspoon Institute is the anti-gay group that paid Mark Regnerus to produce that fraudulent study that purported to demonstrate same gender parents are “bad.”

    Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at The Heritage Foundation,” says the Heritage Foundation.

    Any rational person can see Mr. Salmeron’s sources are deeply biased against LGBT Americans. It would have been more honest of Mr. Salmeron to admit Regnerus’s fraudulent study is his source instead of trying to hide that with that Harvard URL.

    • scottrose

      To be more specific, Robert George founded NOM, which has held anti-gay hate rallies where its chosen speakers yell through megaphones that homosexuals are “worthy to death.”

      Robert George also argued to the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas that homosexuals should be jailed for their intimacy.

      Robert George, moreover is a board member of The Catholic League.

      As far as The Witherspoon Institute goes, it was founded in the same room and at the same time as NOM. The president of Witherspoon, Luis Tellez, is a NOM board member. The founder of NOM, Robert George, is a Witherspoon “senior fellow.”

      And oh, Witherspoon president Tellez is the regional representative of Opus Dei, the Catholic Church’s secretive political group.

      • homemadepasta

        Thank you for pointing out the blood on Robert George’s hands. His NOM has been found guilty of violating Maine campaign finance laws. The US Supreme Court has upheld their conviction, but NOM is STILL in violation of Maine law, and committed the same offense in 2012 as their 2009 offense for which they were convicted. Why should we believe a fugitive from the Law, Mr. Salmeron?

        • scottrose

          Even worse, Boehner (another Catholic gay basher) appointed Robert George to the egregiously misnamed U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

          Needless to say, Robert George does not support the freedom of clergy to marry same-sex couples if they wish to do so.

          The evil bigot Robert George –as Chair of that commission — has been helping to spread anti-LGBT hate to foreign countries. His NOMzi colleague Brian Brown traveled to Russia to hate-monger against gays there. (Previously, Robert George sent his employee Thomas Peters to an event hosted by a Holocaust denier).

          The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom made itself exempt to Freedom of Information Act requests, which allows Robert George to export anti-LGBT hate around the globe with no transparency in what he is doing.

          People can call their elected officials to demand that the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom be made subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.

          • homemadepasta

            I’m glad to see how well-informed you are. Anti-gays just can’t wrap their minds around the concept that we’ve heard ALL their LIES before.

    • scottrose

      And a word about Ryan T. Anderson of The Heritage Foundation. He is a cheap little prostitute for hate. His boss, Jim DeMint has stated that homosexuals should not be permitted to teach school.

  • This kid – and let’s be real, he is a kid – is simply just naive. He says the anti gay haters are “the minority”. Go volunteer for a week at the Ali Forney Center in NYC kid. Go to an anti gay rally, a southern baptist church. Go listen to the crack pots who testify in front of councils and committees when LGBT protections and equality are being debated. Go check out how many followers Bryan Fischer, Todd Starnes, Mat Barber, and all those professional haters have. You have no idea about what it’s like to be gay. (And trust me, I’m not saying I do. I am straight. But I at least have the decency to admit I have no idea and recognize the hardships and the disgusting amount of haters).

    Gay marriage doesn’t change straight marriages. No one, and I mean NO ONE is getting a divorce because John and Matt got married. No one is NOT getting married because Linda and Harriet got married. Gay marriage doesn’t effect anyone else’s marriage. It helps protect all families, gay and straight alike and helps prevent closeted gay and lesbian people from entering into shame straight marriages to seem “normal”, or to have children they might want.

    You’re young. So so young. And you come off as though you seem to think at 20, going to a Catholic college, you know it all, have seen it all. You haven’t. It’s woefully clear you don’t know any gay people in long term, committed relationships, raising children. you don’t know any gay couples who have medical challenges dealing with the legalities of health insurance. You don’t know any gay people who have been kicked out of their homes or jobs because in 29 states, that’s legal. You’ve never volunteered at an LGBT youth center and heard the horror stories about young women being raped by her uncles to ‘show her how to be a real woman”, or young gay men running away after their parents beat them for catching them with another boy. You’ve never met a gay teen who has been bullied and tried to commit suicide.

    Your world is tragically sheltered, kiddo. You are up on a soap box telling the world all about a life, a culture, a legal situation you clearly know absolutely nothing about. It’s embarrassing. My only hope is as you get older, you’ll figure it out.

  • You should revisit this topic when you’re about twice your age now.
    Either you will have ingrained your bigotry… or you will have evolved.
    Peace.

  • scottrose

    The worst enemies of gay rights are self-loathing closet cases.

    • homemadepasta

      Readers who would like to see the scientific evidence for why anti-gay posters are so obsessed with what they IMAGINE same gender couples do in private should Google “H0 moph obia is apparently associated with h0 mose xual arousal that the h0 moph obic individual is either unaware of or denies.”

  • Consistency101

    The comments below are a complete vindication of the importance of Mr. Salmeron’s primary thesis.

    “Let’s be open to respectful dialogue on the difficult questions and keep in mind that good-intentioned people can hold different ideas and perspectives.”

    I’m somewhat in shock at the display of intolerance and vociferousness by those who favor redefining marriage. Queue the ad hominem attacks, insults, emoting, and vacuous arguments.

    • homemadepasta

      Get real, that, too, is a standard anti-gay LIE. Yes, we know your anti-gay handlers have told you to claim that your intended LGBT victims are “the real bigots.” Just WHEN did anyone cook up a Hate Vote to deprive anti-gays of your right to legal marriage? Spare us your attempt to use that Psychology 101 “projection” trick,” no one is fooled.

      • homemadepasta

        “The comments below are a complete vindication”

        It’s so much easier to attack normal, non-homophobic readers than to provide any trustworthy sources that support Mr. Salmeron’s routine anti-gay lies.

    • no

      Personally, I’ve tried to stay away from that sort of thing because I anticipate responses like yours. But you really need to think about what is being done here. On one side you have an oppressed minority, and on the other side you have the people who advocate for that oppression. Is it really that hard to understand why the oppressed would be upset? Imagine if someone felt comfortable publicly advocating for laws that blatantly and unapologetically discriminate against you. Would you feel all that charitable to people who supported those laws?

      • Consistency101

        This “oppressed minority” is exercising their substantial political clout by suing businesses into oblivion and getting people fired. No one is accusing them of being charitable.

        http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-a-heretic-ctd/

        You can already see the responses to my post confirming Mr. Salmeron’s inclination.

        Charity would suppose that he’s not trying to oppress anyone, but rather that he may simply hold a different understanding of what marriage is and why that is important to society.

        • homemadepasta

          Quick, change the subject, huh, 101? Sorry! Last year, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of a New Mexico anti-gay photographer who was convicted of a similar crime. That’s after the US Supreme Court has examined many such anti-discrimination laws and found them fully Constitutional.

          But a group of anti-gay lawyers from the so-called “Alliance Defending Freedom Of Faith” just can’t accept this settled law, and are on a fool’s errand trying to get these laws declared unconstitutional. These anti-gays are going around the country looking for anti-gay bakers, photographers, florists, and other wedding industry suppliers to violate these laws, promising to defend them for free and pay any fines involved. Research this and any other of these cases, and you will see these “Alliance” lawyers are involved in ALL these cases.

          This “Alliance” is also involved in agitating in former Soviet Bloc countries for draconian laws attacking their LGBT citizens similar to what Russia has passed. It has a hefty budget for Europe, spending more than $750,000 on its European programs last year.

          As bad as it is for hapless anti-gays to be posting the nonsense rhetoric of the shameful lawyers here, the lawyers themselves are inciting these crimes, and should be investigated, and disbarred in some cases.

        • no

          He is free to hold that opinion. He is not free to discriminate against people based on that opinion.

          And Eich was fired because he held a position his company found distasteful. As I’m sure they would have had he supported laws banning interracial marriage. That’s the free market at work, my friend.

          • homemadepasta

            No, Eich was allowed to resign, and given a very lucrative retirement package. This was because he was unable to do the job. His Hate Speech simply came to light at the same time.

            “Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community.”

            https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-ceo/

          • Consistency101

            I think I’ll rest my case there. William Saletan at Slate has an exceptional reply. Good luck purging all the anti-gay bigots. Your tolerance is commendable.

            http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/brendan_eich_quits_mozilla_let_s_purge_all_the_antigay_donors_to_prop_8.html

          • no

            I don’t need to tolerate those who pass laws that discriminate against me. As long as I am not advocating for their imprisonment, which I am not.

            At what point does something become intolerable? Would you tolerate a CEO who favored segregation?

          • Bri O’Brien

            It must be nice to continue on in your ignorance and disregard for the emotional/psychological well-beings of homosexuals who express their pain in ineffective ways sometimes (as is human nature) as a result of being oppressed by people like you who could not care less.

          • Tom

            Refusing to redefine marriage does not equal oppression. I can lovingly support gay friends without changing what marriage means. Your rhetoric clearly reveals your own intolerance however.

        • homemadepasta

          “You can already see the responses to my post”

          More attacks on those who didn’t fall for his lies…

        • JoeNCA

          And yet opponents of gay rights keep fighting for the right to fire us. Why, pray tell, should we worry about your rights when uou can’t be bothered to give a rats behind about ours?

          • homemadepasta

            That’s just one more special right anti-gays demand, in addition to their special right to decide who gets Equal Protection Under the Law–and who DOES NOT.

        • Bri O’Brien

          I love how you put oppressed minority in quotes. It just really emphasizes how this entire population seems to be feeling victimized without due reason.

          So, I’m sorry, but please do share your personal experiences of being persecuted for being who you are – since that is what oppression looks like. If you’re white, you are not targeted by police as potential suspects. Yet the mere fact of being black makes those individuals targets. For being themselves they are persecuted.

          Tell me how the 8 transgender individuals who were brutalized and murdered last year were not members of an oppressed minority. Tell me how “corrective” rape is not targeted at an oppressed minorty.

          Really, please explain how you have conjured this up. Being that I am a member of said “oppressed minority,” I’d love to hear how someone from the majority can accurately express the atrocities done against minorities.

    • JoeNCA

      Yes, clearly us heathens, sinners, “haters of God”, “evil doers,” Sodomites, and “pedophiles” who are “as bad as murderers” are the ones who need to be respectful.

      • Tom

        None of those quotes can be found anywhere in these comments. The following can however:

        “sock puppets”
        “self-loathing closet cases”
        “crack pots”
        “cheap little prostitute for hate”
        “Catholic gay basher”
        “evil bigot”
        “tyrannical heterosupremacist theocRAT”
        “pathetic”
        “hate speech”
        “STFU”

        Based on the bile in the comments this article must have been linked by online activists or something because most aren’t even ND students. This is the tolerance of the marriage redefinition movement.

        • homemadepasta

          Would you like to know the source of the comments Joe posted, Tom? Take a look at the website of any anti-gay Hate Cult.

          • homemadepasta

            Here’s what the Southern Poverty Law Center says about anti-gay Hate Cults:

            “Even as some well-known anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family moderate their views, a hard core of smaller groups, most of them religiously motivated, have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities. These groups’ influence reaches far beyond what their size would suggest, because the “facts” they disseminate about homosexuality are often amplified by certain politicians, other groups and even news organizations. Of the 18 groups profiled below, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) will be listing 13 next year as hate groups, reflecting further research into their views; those are each marked with an asterisk. Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.”

          • homemadepasta
        • scottrose

          If the shoe fits.

          The Catholic Church is the world’s single-largest anti-gay hate group.

          Bigots are in fact evil.

          Anti-gay hate speech is in fact anti-gay hate speech.

          Ryan T. Anderson really is a cheap little prostitute for hate. (You forgot to copy the part of that same statement correctly reporting that Anderson’s boss DeMint says that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to teach school).

          Why is it worse, in your mind, to call somebody a “cheap little prostitute for hate” than it is to say that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to teach school?

          You evidently find it acceptable for a person in a position of power to fan the flames of anti-gay hate by saying that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to teach school.

          You’re just a propagandist, upset when the cheap little prostitute for hate Ryan T. Anderson is called a cheap little prostitute for hate.

          • Tom

            The bigoted position here is obvious enough to any reader.

          • homemadepasta

            Still desperately trying to “project” your own animus onto your intended LGBT victims? Why bother, “Tom”?

          • scottrose

            You’re right; the position of the anti-gay bigots is clear.

            The heterosupremacy delusion is every bit as bad as the master race delusion.

        • Bri O’Brien

          JoeNCA is quite obviously quoting the stereotypical, biblical, religious-oriented slurs directed at homosexuals. “self-loathing closet cases” are actually a thing. Most gay people experience it at some point before coming out and accepting themselves. “hate speech” is not a “bile” word, so that is simply irrelevant. “Catholic gay basher(s)” actually do exist. So, again, irrelevant. People who make arguments without evidence or support achieve, at best, a pathetic attempt at an argument. And it is pretty pathetic to judge an already oppressed group without using logic. It’s like kicking a kid when the kid just fell off the swings.

    • scottrose

      There is nothing “civil” in arguing against LGBTers’ basic civil and human rights.

      I repeat that even if the anti-gay-rights arguments are expressed in “polite” terms, there is STILL nothing “civil” about gay bashing.

      Bigots don’t have good intentions towards gays. If they did, they wouldn’t be making arguments against their basic civil and human rights.

      Get that one through your thick skull, that when an anti-gay bigot claims that they have “good intentions” towards gay people, their claim is bull excrement.

      • homemadepasta

        Our Courts recognize the evil intent of the anti-gays as well. Courts have found the sole purpose of anti-gay Hate Votes was to express animus, or hatred, against LGBT Americans. The new rash of falsely labelled “religious freedom to discriminate” bills are just as sure to be revoked by courts–but only after wasting billions more in taxpayer dollars nationwide.

  • homemadepasta

    Ever notice the ones who claim that those who support marriage equality are “the real bigots” typically have 10 posts or fewer? Sock puppets…

    Sorry, we are not attacking anti-gays when we debunk their deceptions.

    • Consistency101

      If you looked at my previous posts you’d note that they are defending gay people and opposing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, but hey, don’t let that ruin your narrative.

      • no

        You want a medal for saying homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military?

        That’s a pretty good example of why we’re still fighting to be treated as equals.

        • Tom

          Or you could just not accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a bigot.

          • no

            I haven’t done that. But I do believe that a desire to discriminate against a minority group based on an immutable trait is bigoted. Is everyone who holds a bigoted view a bigot? Maybe on some level, but it’s pretty irrelevant to the conversation. Anti-gay activists get so bent out of shape about being called a name. You could call me any name you wanted if you would agree to me obtaining full civil equality. It’s much more important. And the whining about being called a bigot is so very petty when viewed through that lens.

          • Tom

            You claim that sexual orientation is immutable? Well that’s absurdly anti-scientific.

            http://www.advocate.com/health/love-and-sex/2014/02/11/exploring-umbrella-bisexuality-and-fluidity

            Also, being able to redefine marriage isn’t a civil right.

          • no

            Yes in some cases sexuality is fluid. In most (especially in males) it isn’t. Unless you are going to claim that all homosexuals will one day become heterosexuals, nothing in that article is relevant to this conversation.

            And I have the right to equal treatment under the law. Take a step back and ask yourself why you care about this. Why is it so important to you to discriminate against gay people?

          • Tom

            Marriage is the cornerstone of our society. I see the destruction wrought in the last half century by rising divorce rates, increasing out of wedlock pregnancies, and a view of the institution that emphasizes individual happiness over responsibility or self-sacrifice. I would speak just as passionately about any of those issues, but this seems to be the one garnering most discussion at the moment. I offer that as a view into why I think we should have serious pause as a society about making the male and female nature of marriage merely an accident and removing the emphasis on child-bearing/rearing. I’m sure you disagree with my perspective, and I’m sure you have had to deal with untold hardship as a gay man. I admire your perserverance and courage in the face of that difficulty.

            For myself however, the intent is not to oppress a group (as you perceive it), but to defend an orientation of marriage that is focused on the raising of children as its primary good (as opposed to personal fulfillment). Also, science makes abundantly clear the complementarity of the sexes, and I think this is an important consideration as well.

            Forgive me, but I truly believe that it is a dangerous endeavor (and the last half century bears this out) to redefine such a fundamental social institution. Either way, you side has won. All that remains is to see how the losers will be treated. Whether they will be hounded out of jobs and pushed out of society, or accepted as caring individuals who sincerely and in good will disagree.

          • no

            Why aren’t you starting a movement to outlaw divorce?

            And regardless of whether your intent is to oppress a particular group, that is exactly what you are doing. If your focus was where you say it is, you would be looking to outlaw divorce and screen couples regarding their willingness and desire to have children before permitting them to marry. You aren’t doing that. Why?

            And as countless people have repeated countless times, marriage has evolved plenty of times. It wasn’t always what it was in the United States in the 1950s or whatever.

            And lastly, I take great offense at the assertion that me marrying my longtime partner so as to partake in a loving and stable relationship that contributes positively to society is “dangerous.” Keep in mind the fact that you are talking about actual people and not abstract concepts.

          • Tom

            I’d happily support changing no fault divorce laws – but there’s not a chance of those changing.

            Failing to redefine marriage is not discriminatory. There is no law that prevents gays from marrying. Any male is free to marry any one female. There is no discrimination merely definition.

            The understanding of marriage as being between one man and one woman is overwhelming to the point of being nearly universal. The exception does not prove the rule.

            You marrying your partner is not dangerous. Changing the definition of marriage so that mothers and fathers are an accident of chance is very much so.

            I hope you understand that I engage in this discussion in good will and wish you all the best.

            Peace.

          • disqus_vTaYmcGqrH

            If you were engaging in this discussion in goodwill, then you would consider how harmful your assertions about marriage are and the PEOPLE (a.k.a. human beings with dignity and rights) that it is affecting. The effect of “changing the definition of marriage” is that ‘no’ and his/her/their partner can legally marry and have equal rights in respect to marriage and the benefits to come with it. Thats is. That does not mean that “mother and fathers are an accident of chance.” Two men and two women can be a family and provide a loving an stable home to children. I would really like to see the empirical evidence that backs up your claims on why “changing the definition of marriage” is so dangerous.

          • scottrose

            You are an obnoxious anti-gay bigot.

            Not a single one of the lame arguments you are giving in favor of marriage discrimination against gay couples has held up in the courts.

          • no

            I didn’t ask about changing no fault divorce laws. I asked about outlawing divorce. Jesus didn’t say “divorce is wrong but ok in certain circumstances.” Pretty clear on that one, as opposed to his silence on homosexuality.

          • AbigailTea

            You paranoid nuts have no clue that all of this supposed catastrophe waiting to happen is all in your head. You perceive it that way because it embarrasses you to admit your argument rests on no valid standing.

          • Bri O’Brien

            okay so in order to correct the destruction of the last half century we need to: ban the impoverished since they cannot raise functional children, change the legal age of consent so we can marry girls away at puberty in order to prevent childbirth out of marriage, force feed birth control to those girls who no one wants to marry for whatever reason, outlaw divorce even in cases of domestic/physical/sexual/emotional abuse, and well, actually, we might as well go back to regarding women as property so that men are able to marry, abuse, and impregnate them at will without fear of consequences. It seems to me that women’s acquisition of civil rights is to blame, especially since it occurred within the last half century, which is a time that evidences the destruction of marriage.

  • homemadepasta

    “Our analysis found that this increasingly diverse Catholic community is strongly supportive of acceptance of and rights for gay and lesbian Americans. Generally speaking, Catholics are at least 5 points more supportive than the general population across a range of issues. For example, nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of Catholics favor laws that would protect gay and lesbian people against discrimination in the workplace; 63 percent of Catholics favor allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the military; and 60% favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children.

    On the more contentious issue of same-sex marriage, the evidence is also stacking up for solid Catholic support at both the national and state levels. A Washington Post/ABC News Poll recently found that fully 63 percent of Catholics supported making it legal for gay and lesbian couples to marry, compared to 53 percent of the general population.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/why-do-catholics-support-gay-rights-when-the-hierarchydoes-not/2011/03/24/AFqObxVB_blog.html

  • Tom

    Wow, this is really crossing a line. Now the commenters are stalking the author of this article online and posting offensive photos of him. This is the new tolerance. I’m at a total loss as to how to even respond to stuff like this.

    https://twitter.com/ScottEqualityRo/status/542384222317461505

    • Bri O’Brien

      yet another comment based in fact….
      “the commentators of this article” are not stalking the author. This is one commentator’s twitter account and it is linked to a tweet that has received one retweet…

      and do I need to define stalking for you? accessing public profiles is not stalking. To equate the serious, violent and pathological nature of stalking to this twitter post is a degradation to the survivors of being stalked and those currently experiencing it.

      You obviously are not at a loss for how to respond, because instead of commenting on the blurring of lines of social etiquette, you decided to attack commentators with opposing opinions, equate them to stalkers, and call them intolerant.

      • Tom

        You’re defending this? You can’t write this stuff. You’re beyond the pale.

        • Bri O’Brien

          ya got me man. People who defend and advocate and strive for progress are typically seen as being “beyond the pale.” I will not idly sit by and watch as you actively participate in perpetuating rape culture through trivializing stalking. Do I think this picture was made in poor taste? yes. Would I do it? no. Is it any worse than this article? definitely not. Does that make it acceptable? according to my personal values, no. But, that was not my point. My point was, which I made earlier, that you continue to perpetuate and trivialize oppression in your comments through sexist, homophobic rhetoric. Your inability to, even to a small degree, realize how your actions and words may affect others and society is astounding, but an unfortunately commonplace phenomena today, as evidenced by our current electorate.

  • Nathan

    Thank you for referencing the book that changed your opinion. I personally think that the biggest issue of the arguments in favor of traditional marriage is that the bulk of its arguments tend to appeal to religion or emotion rather than hard data. I definitely would be interested in exploring a more logically grounded case.

    • Bri O’Brien

      Hi argument/opinion is not secular….

      http://ndsmcobserver.com/2013/04/the-institution-of-marriage/

      nor logically grounded. It is actually not based on any facts that I can find to be substantiated by science.

      • Nathan

        Ouch, shame. Might still try to find it (16 hour flight coming up), but it looks like the search will likely continue >.<

    • Tim

      Ah, a book written by three Christianists who refer to equal marriage with scare quotes around the word, none of whom list a wife in his biographical material, so I assume they are celibate men, or hypocrites who do not live the sexual morality they espouse. My husband and I have been together 34 years, have been legally married for 3.5 under the laws of the state of New York, were the sole caregivers for our parents for many years, and are dads to three adopted sons. We have been together for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and health and will remain so until death due us part. You want to know about marriage? Ask us. We’ll be happy to share our recipe for a long, loving and happy one.

      • disqus_vTaYmcGqrH

        Thank you for contributing your personal experience. These theoretic argues severely lack human experience, so I definitely appreciate your comment. My partner and I have been together a year and a half, and we have dealt with a lot of things (and by things I mean negative things) that opposite-sex couples have never even had to consider. While the environment here is changing and progressing, it is very hard to be out and openly in a same-sex relationship. I wouldn’t go back and undo being open about our relationship, but there were points over the past year and a half that I really wished I could. It had nothing to do with feeling ashamed, and everything to do with the consequences of being open and the response (or lack there of) of those whose job it is to look out look out for students best interest and ensure they’re safety.

        I think it would be really amazing for you or someone in similar circumstances (in a long-term, committed, loving and happy relationship) to write a view point. I hope you might consider writing one.

  • Nathan

    I mean, she does reference a book in her article (though obviously how much evidence is in said book is unknown).

    Also as an aside, the types of blanket claims are EXACTLY the sort of things that you WANT to come out of a respectful dialogue. They highlight the differences in opinion so everyone is aware of the points of disagreement. Yes, they may be offensive, but this seems to be from ignorance, not malice. In short, when you’re dealing with someone who claims to want a discussion, overlook tactlessness, and instead use them as the points to start discussion.

    • disqus_vTaYmcGqrH

      I’m pretty sure the author is a male.

      Referencing a book does not provide empirical evidence to the reader of a short article such as this. If there is empirical evidence presented in the book, that is what should be presented as the evidence. Presenting the claims made in the book without any evidence to back them up only provides subjective opinions.

      When the claims being made undermine basic human rights, the discussion that can be had is limited. Right from the get go, the opposing party has already made it clear that they do no believe you have the same rights as others. In this case, the author tried to put himself in a neutral position and boost his credibility but stating that he has gay friends. Some may buy into this, I do not. This is how hateful rhetoric becomes acceptable in society. First establish neutrality and a some sort of connection with the reader, then state opinions. I understand the use of this tactic and think that it can be used for good, but it is problematic when the underlying message is offensive and those who do not see these messages buy into the authors claims.

      As shown in a number of comments, commenters tried to state why they disagreed and ask for clarification or evidence to back up claims. I was not shown any evidence, only more blanket claims. You cannot have a productive dialog when one states their offensive claims, is asked for evidence, and then again asserts their offensive claims with no evidence. At some point, it needs to be called what it is. The author does a good job of continuing to playing the “I love gay people” card following the statement while something that completely undermines loving gay people. Because he loves gay people, it really does not matter how many different ways someone explains why his claims undermine gay people’s rights, he loves them so that makes what he is saying okay.

      I get the point you’re trying to make, but productive discussions do not happen when one party places themselves over the other. While it isn’t the intention of the author, he is failing to realize that it is precisely what he is doing. Until he realizes that his theoretical claims lack the element of reality (and thus seeks out that element), he will not be able to see why these claims trample all over the rights of gay people. *Having gay friends does not constitute reality.

      • Nathan

        Lol oooops, have him written as her in all my comments 😛

        I understand the frustration, and my issue isn’t with people calling out the argument as weak, naive, or offensive. I just feel that too many people are going beyond that and attacking the moral character of the author, which I think is uncalled for (or at the very least isn’t in good faith). I know this isn’t so much the case for you, my post was more just a general expression of frustration.

        • scottrose

          The author has no moral character; he is a malicious anti-gay bigot.

  • chill

    @NDaniels, stop being uninformed; it makes your argument look bad. @scottrose when you are so inflammatory calling people “bigots” it makes you sound…bigoted.

    @homemadepasta be careful of stating “proven studies” with 100% confidence and then ripping apart other “proven studies”.

    I think that there are a lot of qualitative elements to these studies so it is difficult to use them entirely, if at all. Yes, data helps and statistically significant data is better, but if stats class has taught me anything, it’s that ‘confidence ratios’ are another way of saying ‘i’m have no idea’.

  • Nathan

    Luis: I appreciate the overall message of your article and understand that your focus was on outlining the fact that reasonable people exist on both sides of the argument. I personally am of the same opinion.

    That said, the discussion that you’ve prompted has gotten bogged down over what is seen as a failure to back up your points about traditional marriage being for the benefit of society and families with hard (empirical) evidence. I know this isn’t the argument you were looking to get into, but I think it would give you message a lot more credibility if you were to try to explain these points of controversy with some sort of statistic or some such.

    Cheers, and even if I don’t agree with your conclusion, I appreciate the message.

  • Why can’t we be friends?

    Recent research has shown the empirical evidence for globalization of corporate innovation is very limited. And as a corollary, the market for technologies is shrinking. As a world leader, it is important for America to provide systematic research grants for our scientists. I believe there will always be a need for us to have a well-articulated innovation policy with emphasis on human resource development. Thank you.

    • Why can’t we be friends?

      THAT is how you debate.

  • InformedStudent

    I disagree that “many gay and bisexual individuals share this point of view”, some (as in very few) share this viewpoint and they only do because of their dedication to the Catholic faith. The representation of LGBT individuals at this university is skewed compared to the rest of college life and LGBT society.

  • NDaniels

    How long will this University continue to allow The Word of God to be vilified?

  • NDaniels