Home > love > NY Times Young Adult Essay Contest

NY Times Young Adult Essay Contest

March 16th, 2011

The New York Times description of their contest:

Three years ago we invited college students to tell us the truth about what love was like for them in this age of 24/7 communication, blurred gender roles and new attitudes about sex and dating. The response, from students at more than 365 colleges and universities nationwide, was overwhelming and eye opening.

So we’re asking again. If you have a personal story that illustrates the current state of love and relationships, e-mail it to us at essaycontest@nytimes.com. The winning author will receive $1,000 and his or her essay will be published in a special “Modern Love” column on May 1, 2011, and on nytimes.com.

The deadline is March 31st. We encourage young adults to:

a.       Enter the contest with a good, pro-marriage, pro-authentic love story. Send your entry to us as well. We cannot promise you coverage like the NY Times! But, we will happily consider publishing worthy entries on the Ruth Institute site, even if the Times doesn’t give you a prize.

b.      Write a blog post, critiquing the past winners, who can be found here.  Again, we will be glad to consider these posts for our site. I am frankly suspicious that out of all the entries they received, they couldn’t find anything remotely pro-marriage. As one of my colleagues put it to me, “I read two of the essays from last time and they are just…tragic.”  The Love and Fidelity Network is already all over this contest! And I do hope you all will get involved with this.

Send your entries and your critiques of past winners to Ruthinfo@ruthinstitute.org.

Be Sociable, Share!
Categories: love Tags:
  1. March 16th, 2011 at 12:52 | #1

    Betsy, what exactly do you mean by “pro-authentic”? Authentic means truthful, original, genuine. But pro-authentic doesn’t really mean anything, as far as I can tell, other than being anti-plagiarism. Just curious as to whether you mean something else entirely.

    A friend of mine had an essay published in the New York Times’ Modern Love series, about her twin brother. So it’s not necessarily even about couples’ love, but rather all the myriad forms of love that we experience in these modern times. Perhaps this is why they haven’t picked as finalists or winners essays about more traditional marriage.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/fashion/02love.html

  2. Sean
    March 16th, 2011 at 14:49 | #2

    Is anyone actually anti-marriage, other than the recently divorced? I think it would be cool if TRI could find someone in a traditional marriage, and have them describe that and how they chose that path, in a non-traditional marriage country like the US.

  3. March 17th, 2011 at 06:58 | #3

    @Sean Anti-marriage are the SSM proponents who want to destroy the institution of marriage. Give it a rest, Sean.

  4. March 17th, 2011 at 11:44 | #4

    I’m still curious about this pro-authenticity thing.

    Also, supporting marriage rights for all couples is hardly anti-marriage.

  5. JT
    March 17th, 2011 at 15:47 | #5

    True to form, Sean attempts a red herring by discussing “anti marriage” rather than the contents of the post. I’ll demonstrate how to discuss the post, first from my side, then the other side. You’ll notice that I only discuss the contents of the post and I don’t bring in side issues in an attempt to control the conversation.

    From my side:

    A contest like this is a good idea. It seems that young people today don’t have much incentive to take marriage seriously. I hope this contest helps them to do so.

    From the other side:

    The contest doesn’t say it has to be about traditional marriage, and I think that’s great. I think this sort of thing is good for young adults; it helps them express themselves and to get in touch with their feelings. Maybe they couldn’t “find anything remotely pro-marriage” because people don’t believe in marriage any more. We don’t know how many of the entrants have been hurt and disillusioned by divorce but it seems fair to assume it would be a lot of them, even most of them. No wonder they don’t want to write about marriage; my guess is it just hurts too much.

  6. Bob Barnes
    March 17th, 2011 at 16:35 | #6

    JT :
    True to form, Sean attempts a red herring by discussing “anti marriage” rather than the contents of the post. I’ll demonstrate how to discuss the post, first from my side, then the other side. You’ll notice that I only discuss the contents of the post and I don’t bring in side issues in an attempt to control the conversation.
    From my side:
    A contest like this is a good idea. It seems that young people today don’t have much incentive to take marriage seriously. I hope this contest helps them to do so.
    From the other side:
    The contest doesn’t say it has to be about traditional marriage, and I think that’s great. I think this sort of thing is good for young adults; it helps them express themselves and to get in touch with their feelings. Maybe they couldn’t “find anything remotely pro-marriage” because people don’t believe in marriage any more. We don’t know how many of the entrants have been hurt and disillusioned by divorce but it seems fair to assume it would be a lot of them, even most of them. No wonder they don’t want to write about marriage; my guess is it just hurts too much.

    JT, re-read Sean’s post and address the content.

  7. Bob Barnes
    March 17th, 2011 at 16:41 | #7

    Glenn E. Chatfield :
    @Sean Anti-marriage are the SSM proponents who want to destroy the institution of marriage. Give it a rest, Sean.

    Glenn, let’s review what we already know…. there was this trial a while back, the one about Prop 8. Remember, not one person had evidence that SSM would or could hurt anyone’s marriage. No one defending Prop 8 could show/prove potential harm. In fact, claiming that SSM was more than shot down, expert witness, David Blankenhorn came around to day people would benefit by SSM.

    If the experts can’t back these claims, and you certainly haven’t would’n t be best to stop giving out that falsehood? That dead horse you are beating, is now mincemeat.

  8. March 17th, 2011 at 17:19 | #8

    @Bob Barnes
    I think he only said it would benefit gay people, which was obvious. I think he said it would harm society, or might harm society, and people living in society.

    It didn’t come up at the trial, but all the SSM proponents I’ve encountered want to strip procreation rights from marriage which would destroy it. They refuse to accept that a married man and a woman should have any more of a right to offspring than a same-sex couple. That could lead to marriages being pressured not to create offspring from their own genes, and also open the door to genetic engineering, and further entrench gamete donation, and cause more infertility and commercialization and industrialization of reproduction.

  9. Ruth
    March 17th, 2011 at 17:19 | #9

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    Some may simply not be thinking it through, seeing their own desires as paramount.
    Along with many in our depraved society, they interpret “the pursuit of happiness” to mean “the pursuit of whatever I may feel like doing at any given point in time”, rather than “the pursuit of what a moral society agrees will lead to personal and social happiness”.

  10. March 17th, 2011 at 19:57 | #10

    The winning essays from the past contest had nothing to do with gay marriage, or the definition of marriage. The essays were heart-breaking, in my opinion. The people writing them were not happy. You could tell some of them have given up on love, or that they have a very distorted idea of love.
    Just FYI: the reason I am against the sexual revolution is very simple. The sexual revolution hasn’t made people happy.

  11. Bob Barnes
    March 18th, 2011 at 06:22 | #11

    John Howard :
    @Bob Barnes
    I think he only said it would benefit gay people, which was obvious. I think he said it would harm society, or might harm society, and people living in society.
    It didn’t come up at the trial, but all the SSM proponents I’ve encountered want to strip procreation rights from marriage which would destroy it. They refuse to accept that a married man and a woman should have any more of a right to offspring than a same-sex couple.

    Seriously? So saying anything is permitted here?

  12. March 18th, 2011 at 08:01 | #12

    @Emma It is anti-real marriage to demand special rights for faux SSM.

  13. March 18th, 2011 at 08:03 | #13

    @Bob Barnes The real information to demonstrate the destruction to society was not permitted, and the judge was very, very biased and should have recused himself. The evidence is as plain as the nose on your face.

  14. March 18th, 2011 at 08:54 | #14

    Jennifer Roback Morse :
    The winning essays from the past contest had nothing to do with gay marriage, or the definition of marriage. The essays were heart-breaking, in my opinion. The people writing them were not happy. You could tell some of them have given up on love, or that they have a very distorted idea of love.
    Just FYI: the reason I am against the sexual revolution is very simple. The sexual revolution hasn’t made people happy.

    So you only support things that make people happy? I actually think your reasons for not supporting the sexual revolution are probably quite a bit more involved and nuanced than that.

  15. March 18th, 2011 at 10:43 | #15

    Glenn E. Chatfield :
    @Emma It is anti-real marriage to demand special rights for faux SSM.

    No it’s not. I’ve been to many weddings, both gay and straight. I have stood at the altar for some, have knit chuppahs for others, have written toasts for others yet. All those couples (in my eyes, in the eyes of everyone there, and in the eyes of the governments where they took place) are fully and equally married, and eventually those marriages will all fully and equally be recognized by our federal government.

    I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one. :)

  16. Heidi
    March 18th, 2011 at 10:45 | #16
  17. March 18th, 2011 at 11:57 | #17

    @Emma Again, what the governments make legal does not thereby make them moral or right before the eyes of God. Nor does it change the real definition of marriage when Leftist activist judges claim these faux “marriages” are real. You still try to call a dandelion a rose, when it is still just a weed.

    When you demand that these weeds be recognized as roses, you are anti-rose.

  18. March 18th, 2011 at 11:59 | #18

    @Emma The only people who are happy by the “sexual revolution” are the minority of the population who want to use sex strictly for recreational purposes. God intended it as a function of marriage between a man and a woman for uniting the two as one flesh, and as a way of procreating.

  19. March 18th, 2011 at 12:31 | #19

    Glenn E. Chatfield :
    @Emma Again, what the governments make legal does not thereby make them moral or right before the eyes of God. Nor does it change the real definition of marriage when Leftist activist judges claim these faux “marriages” are real. You still try to call a dandelion a rose, when it is still just a weed.
    When you demand that these weeds be recognized as roses, you are anti-rose.

    Well, your honesty about viewing same-sex couples as weeds is refreshing, at least. Keep on saying stuff like that, please.

    But yes, let’s keep your analogy going. Roses are somewhat overrated, in my opinion. Beautiful, sure, but also stuffy and staid and not nearly as prettily scented as I imagined them to be as a young girl. So much of life has been bred out of them. Dandelions are vibrant and cheerful and bright, and dandelion greens make a delicious salad. The best kinds of yards and gardens have lots of different kinds of flowers, each beautiful in its way and all collected under the umbrella term “flower.”

    And as far as the sexual revolution is concerned, I made no comment on it one way or the other — was just curious that Dr. Morse would say the only reason she did not support it is that it did not make people happy. This seemed facile and, ultimately and most importantly, inaccurate.

  20. Bob Barnes
    March 18th, 2011 at 15:14 | #20

    Glenn E. Chatfield :
    @Bob Barnes The real information to demonstrate the destruction to society was not permitted, and the judge was very, very biased and should have recused himself. The evidence is as plain as the nose on your face.

    Again, you are mistaken, Glenn. The pro-Prop 8 side not one shred of evidence that SSM hurt anything. The judge is irrelevant the lack of evidence and really bad testimony is.

  21. Sean
    March 18th, 2011 at 15:25 | #21

    JT, again, I suggest you consult a dictionary and find out what a “red herring” is.

    “Enter the contest with a good, pro-marriage, pro-authentic love story.”

    Again I ask, is anyone anti-marriage? Some people might not want to get married but I doubt they are against it for anyone else. I have not read about anyone wanting to outlaw marriage, just same-sex marriage (for reasons that continue to be unarticulated!).

  22. March 19th, 2011 at 08:06 | #22

    @Emma Ah, you either don’t read and understand the English language or you intentionally twisted what I said. I never said homophiles were weeds – I said SSM was the weed and real marriage is the rose. Put away the victim card.

    If you think Roses are overrated, fine. The rose is traditionally recognized as a beautiful flower, which is why the red rose has become symbolic of love. Dandelions may be useful, but I don’t know anyone who wants them in their yards.

    But if you want to get picky, then real marriage is a beautiful flower and SSM is a worthless weed.

  23. March 19th, 2011 at 08:07 | #23

    @Bob Barnes The evidence was there, the judge just denied such evidence existed. That puts him right up there with Holocaust deniers.

  24. March 19th, 2011 at 08:08 | #24

    @Sean SSM promoters are anti-marriage. They want faux marriage. Homosexualists from the beginning have stated they want to destroy the institution of marriage. That is a bit of historical truth!

  25. March 19th, 2011 at 11:45 | #25

    @Sean
    Sean :
    Is anyone actually anti-marriage[...]?

    Sure, even when (or especially when) they try to replace it with something with the same name :)

    Do you support having an institution (that we understand to be marriage) that equally recognizes the contribution of a man and a woman in each marriage? If you don’t then you are anti-marriage. You might be for forms of marriage, like civil unions or domestic partnerships, but when you want to knock out explicit recognition of the unique needs of the man, woman, and children they potentially have together, you are anti-marriage.

    But maybe I’m wrong about you Sean, perhaps you do support recognizing homosexual relationships legally with benefits as marriage? If so then since that is a form of marriage, you support it. But perhaps you don’t support that either, leaving you completely anti-marriage.

    Bob Barnes :

    Glenn E. Chatfield :
    @Sean Anti-marriage are the SSM proponents who want to destroy the institution of marriage. Give it a rest, Sean.

    [...] there was this trial a while back, the one about Prop 8. Remember, not one person had evidence that SSM would or could hurt anyone’s marriage. [...]

    And that would be false….

    About the only evidence that came from the decision on that trial was that Walker was incredibly biased. But the evidence presented in the trial is definitely there.

    I can prove it too, if you are willing to work with me on this. Are you?

    Emma :

    Glenn E. Chatfield :
    @Emma It is anti-real marriage to demand special rights for faux SSM.

    No it’s not. I’ve been to many weddings, both gay and straight. I have stood at the altar for some, have knit chuppahs for others, have written toasts for others yet. All those couples (in my eyes, in the eyes of everyone there, and in the eyes of the governments where they took place) are fully and equally married, and eventually those marriages will all fully and equally be recognized by our federal government.
    I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

    To me marriage means you have the humanitarian desire to integrate with the other gender, to love honor and cherish the person you potentially create children with (as well as those children you two create) to form the only unit which completely recognizes the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman, and children they potentially have together.

    How are all of those “equal” in that, when a subset are sex-segregated and choose a relationship that won’t produce children together?

    I’m very curious about your answer. And if the government sees them as the same, then what about its ability to protect and preserve those rights in kinship?

    Same-ness is the least form of equality, it is the eye-for-an-eye equality that makes everyone the same, and as Ghandi said, makes the whole world blind. There is a better equality where everyone is recognized for their uniqueness, and yet one is not valued more or less than the other.

    Marriage equality is not same-sex, but probably best described by this quote from Virginia Wolf… “Men and women are different. What needs to be made equal is the value placed on those differences.”

    That is marriage equality, where the rights, responsibilities of the man, woman, and the child they potentially have together are all valued equally.

  26. Sean
    March 19th, 2011 at 14:37 | #26

    “SSM promoters are anti-marriage.”

    That doesn’t make a lot of sense, since gay couples want to get married! That’s like saying the women were against voting because they wanted the right to vote!

  27. Sean
    March 19th, 2011 at 14:48 | #27

    “Do you support having an institution (that we understand to be marriage) that equally recognizes the contribution of a man and a woman in each marriage?”

    Yes. I strongly support straight marriage. But I also support gay marriage. There’s nothing about straight marriage that requires that gay couples not marry. Each marriage is separate from the next, and unaffected by it. But I also believe that Christians can worship on Sunday, and be unaffected by Jews worshipping on Saturday. I also believe that right-handed people are unthreatened by left-handed people. I think white people can live happy, productive lives, even while black people do the same.

    I can’t be against something that doesn’t affect me, generally. And I am unaffected when same-sex couples get married.

    OnLawn, there was no evidence presented in the Prop 8 trial that same-sex marriage harms opposite-sex marriage or marriage generally. That’s why Judge Walker’s hands were tied: with no evidence from the defendants, he had no choice but to rule for the plaintiffs. There were opinions, like “children need a mother and a father,” where are nice but that’s not evidence. Besides, prohibiting same-sex marriage does nothing to give children a mother and a father; same-sex parenting, like single parenting, is legal in all 50 states.

    “To me marriage means you have the humanitarian desire to integrate with the other gender”

    Exact, “to you”. That’s your opinion and you are perfectly within your right to limit yourself to an opposite-sex marriage partner. Others feels differently. Like most Americans, who believe marriage is for two people in love to create a legal bond.

    “Marriage equality is not same-sex”

    Marriage equality refers to equal access to marriage for both straight people and gay people.

  28. March 19th, 2011 at 21:59 | #28

    Sean :
    “Do you support having an institution (that we understand to be marriage) that equally recognizes the contribution of a man and a woman in each marriage?”
    I strongly support straight marriage. But I also support gay marriage.

    Dillema solved. Marriage already exists, and CU’s and DP’s can exist in a way that they equally recognize all same-sex couples (even the ones that aren’t homosexual).

    There’s nothing about straight marriage that requires that gay couples not marry.

    …aaaand there you have it folks. Sean apparently thinks that the government can “equally recognize[] the contribution of a man and a woman in each marriage” even when there is no man or woman in the relationship.

    So Sean, exactly how can it hold the contribution of a man and a woman as equal in each marriage, when that marriage excludes a man or excludes a woman?

  29. Sean
    March 20th, 2011 at 07:18 | #29

    “Marriage already exists, and CU’s and DP’s can exist in a way that they equally recognize all same-sex couples (even the ones that aren’t homosexual).”

    There’s no need for, and it is illegal to have, separate but equal accommodations for straight people and for gay people. Marriage works just fine for everybody. A quick look at Massachusetts, Connecticut and other states which have marriage equality demonstrates this.

    “So Sean, exactly how can it hold the contribution of a man and a woman as equal in each marriage, when that marriage excludes a man or excludes a woman?”

    You’re working with a false premise, OnLawn: that a marriage has to contain a different-sex couple. You’ve mistaken what equality means here. If you misunderstand what a marriage is, then it’s hard to have a discussion with you about it.

    When marriage was neutered many years ago, gender no longer mattered. There was no more coverture, whereby the woman becomes subordinated to her husband; neither sex had a defined role. Neutering marriage is what made marriage entirely appropriate for same-sex couples. So now that there are lots of same-sex couples, it just makes sense to include them in marriage.

  30. March 20th, 2011 at 18:32 | #30

    Sean :
    [...] separate but equal accommodations for [whomever] and for gay people.

    And that is your problem, Sean. For you it is a world of “and for gay people”. Never considering anyone else, or anything else. Even calling such consideration “illegal” and “no need for”.

    You don’t consider “and for a mother and daughter who need benefits to help raise a child” or any other domestic situation. Nor do you consider marriage equality, the need to equally value and recognize the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together explicitly in marriage.

    Lets review this again…

    On Lawn :

    Sean :
    There’s nothing about straight marriage that requires that gay couples not marry.

    …aaaand there you have it folks. Sean apparently thinks that the government can “equally recognize[] the contribution of a man and a woman in each marriage” even when there is no man or woman in the relationship.
    So Sean, exactly how can it hold the contribution of a man and a woman as equal in each marriage, when that marriage excludes a man or excludes a woman?

    So Sean, exactly how can it hold the contribution of a man and a woman as equal in each marriage, when that marriage excludes a man or excludes a woman?”

    You accepted the premise when you said, “There’s nothing about straight marriage that requires that gay couples not marry.” You can’t back out of that now. Your contradiction is your own to explain.

  31. March 21st, 2011 at 08:12 | #31

    @Sean It does make sense. SSM is an oxymoron and is an attempt to undermine and destroy the institution of real marriage. That makes it anti-marriage.

  32. March 21st, 2011 at 08:13 | #32

    @Sean The evidence of harm to real marriage was indeed there, and the judge denied it existed. As I said before, that puts him – and YOU – right there with the Holocaust deniers.

  33. March 21st, 2011 at 08:14 | #33

    @Sean Sean it is you who are working with the false premise that marriage can be anything OTHER that opposite sex couples!

  34. Sean
    March 21st, 2011 at 15:39 | #34

    Onlawn, it is only on the basis of sexual orientation that some people are being denied the right to marry. It’s hard not to talk about gay people in this context, since they are the ones being discriminated against.

    “Nor do you consider marriage equality, the need to equally value and recognize the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together explicitly in marriage.”

    Absolutely false. I am entirely in support of straight people getting married. Nothing about same-sex marriage has an impact on straight couples getting married, as we’ve seen in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, and any other jurisdiction where gay couples are allowed to marry.

    “exactly how can it hold the contribution of a man and a woman as equal in each marriage, when that marriage excludes a man or excludes a woman?””

    Simple: if there’s a man and a woman in the marriage, they’re equal. That’s because marriage was neutered earlier in the century, to put males and females on an equal footing in marriage. Now that marriage is neutered, it is perfectly suited for same-sex couples, since gender no longer matters.

    “You accepted the premise when you said, “There’s nothing about straight marriage that requires that gay couples not marry.” You can’t back out of that now. Your contradiction is your own to explain”

    There’s no contradiction to explain. If it’s a different-sex marriage, the partners are equal. If it’s a same-sex marriage, the partners are equal. What could be easier to understand?!

  35. March 21st, 2011 at 17:25 | #35

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    That’s kind of like saying that Led Zeppelin couldn’t be anything other than Page-Plant-Jones-Bonham, which in many ways is true, but nevertheless they reformed without Bonham for Live Aid and some other disappointing sets. Was that Led Zeppelin? Yes, it was billed as Led Zeppelin and Page and Jones and Plant get to decide what is Led Zeppelin, not fans. Fans could bitch and moan that it wasn’t really Zeppelin, but their opinion is worth absolutely nothing, even if it is widely shared and had history and tradition on its side.

    The same is true about opining that marriage can’t be anything other than a man and a woman. Maybe you’ll find lots of people to agree with you, but if there is a same-sex couple with the rights of marriage and a marriage license, they’re married and it’s pointless to say they aren’t.

    The state certainly can allow marriage to same-sex couples and/or give them the same rights as marriage, but the state should not do that, because in order to create offspring, which is the essential right of marriage, same-sex couples would need to unethical tampered with gametes and deny the child their right to natural origins of a mother and father.

  36. March 21st, 2011 at 19:49 | #36

    @Sean

    Running away from your problems doesn’t solve them :)

    You can’t run away from the fact that marriage includes every man and woman, and expects one of each for the sake of equality. No one is barred, unless you can argue that homosexuals aren’t men or women. But that wouldn’t be the first time you argued that homosexuals are somehow less than human.

  37. March 22nd, 2011 at 07:53 | #37

    @Sean Partners being equal does not make the marriages equal. SSM will never be equal in quality as real marriage. It will never meet the definition of marriage.

  38. Sean
    March 22nd, 2011 at 18:19 | #38

    @On Lawn
    I don’t think I’m running away from my problems. I don’t understand how your statement applies to anything I’ve said. I think you have a problem in comprehending that same-sex couples can get married, and are getting married, in some states and countries. It’s real, It’s happening and denying it by proclaiming your own personal definition of marriage, seems surreal.

    I don’t understand why people like you and other NOMsters insist that marriage has to be YOUR way, imposed on everyone. You don’t expect everyone to be your religion, or your profession, or wear the same clothes you like, or speak English, or drive the same car you drive, etc. I wish I could understand why this particular issue is so important, especially considering all the downside associated with illegal same-sex marriage.

  39. March 22nd, 2011 at 19:02 | #39

    Glenn E. Chatfield :
    @Sean Partners being equal does not make the marriages equal. [...]

    Correction:

    Partners being equal is a laudable goal, but marriage especially works to ensure the equality of not just the partners but the children they potentially have together. It is the interest of the state to protect the rights of the children and the two people who created the child, and that is what marriage is for.

    It is why it specifically expects a man and a woman in each marriage.

  40. March 23rd, 2011 at 14:02 | #40

    Sean :
    @On Lawn
    I don’t think I’m running away from my problems. I don’t understand how your statement applies to anything I’ve said.

    Another appeal to ignorance and excusing yourself because of your inability to understand?

    Another frank admission!

    But what you don’t understand is still real anyway.

    Amazing how much you expect people to follow you, when all you do is admit that you don’t see, don’t understand, and don’t care.

  41. Sean
    March 23rd, 2011 at 15:40 | #41

    “It is the interest of the state to protect the rights of the children and the two people who created the child, and that is what marriage is for.”

    1. What is the evidence for this? What rights do the children of married couples have, that the children of unmarried couples don’t have?

    2. How does this change when same-sex couples get married?

  42. March 23rd, 2011 at 19:43 | #42

    Sean :
    “It is the interest of the state to protect the rights of the children and the two people who created the child, and that is what marriage is for.”

    1) The second part of the question answers the first.

    2) Well, unless you can answer how the following doesn’t change, it the change is apparent to anyone who doesn’t pretend they can’t see, can’t understand, can’t care…

    On Lawn :
    Lets review this again…

    On Lawn :

    Sean :
    There’s nothing about straight marriage that requires that gay couples not marry.

    …aaaand there you have it folks. Sean apparently thinks that the government can “equally recognize[] the contribution of a man and a woman in each marriage” even when there is no man or woman in the relationship.
    So Sean, exactly how can it hold the contribution of a man and a woman as equal in each marriage, when that marriage excludes a man or excludes a woman?

    So Sean, exactly how can it hold the contribution of a man and a woman as equal in each marriage, when that marriage excludes a man or excludes a woman?”
    You accepted the premise when you said, “There’s nothing about straight marriage that requires that gay couples not marry.” You can’t back out of that now. Your contradiction is your own to explain.

  43. Sean
    March 24th, 2011 at 18:30 | #43

    You’re seeing contradictions where none exist. You make up the rules you want, and declare that something violates those rules. I don’t think that’s really how the world works.

    Legally, marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. Many states are prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying, based on no rational reason or public purpose. That’s a problem. Several states have figured this out, and have corrected the problem.

    Few, if any, institutions are defined by the gender of the participants. Tennis is still tennis, whether played by males or by females. Nursing is still nursing, even after men have entered the field. Only old people refer to a man who practices nursing as a “male nurse;” everyone else just calls him a nurse. Voting used to be practiced by only men, and I’m sure when women lobbied for the right to vote, the same kind of people who object to same-sex marriage objected to women voting.

    Your objection is to change, or to something that violates your personal sense of the way things ought to be, or some religious belief, or straight supremacy. But there is no rational, logical reason that same-sex couples cannot marry. In fact, they’re doing so in some jurisdictions, making the arguments against it even more amusing.

  44. March 25th, 2011 at 08:20 | #44

    @Sean Let’s see, you accuse someone of making up rules – talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

    You made up a rule of “equality” in marriage, meaning SSM has to be allowed!

    You have been given your “rational reason” for denying the oxymoron of SSM, yet you deny said reasons exist.

    You have grave logic fallacies. You compare games, professions, voting all with marriage! Apparently you don’t know the difference between marriage and a game, or between marriage and a job, or marriage and voting. Which explains a lot about you demands for SSM! You have no clue what marriage is!!!!!

    The fact that some places liberal judges, paid off by the homosexualists, have approved same-sex faux marriage doesn’t make it rational.

    There are rational reasons which have been explained to you many times on many posts and you pretend they don’t exist. It isn’t just about religious belief – it’s about thousands of years of society and you want to turn it upside down.

  45. March 25th, 2011 at 09:20 | #45

    Sean, is there a reason you are running away from the question and points I raised?

    I mean, you basically just restated the points that were already discredited, and are refusing to move past any point which causes you to acknowledge their errors.

    Is there a reason for that?

    You can’t run away from your problems.

    Lets review this again…

    On Lawn :

    Sean :
    There’s nothing about straight marriage that requires that gay couples not marry.

    …aaaand there you have it folks. Sean apparently thinks that the government can “equally recognize[] the contribution of a man and a woman in each marriage” even when there is no man or woman in the relationship.
    So Sean, exactly how can it hold the contribution of a man and a woman as equal in each marriage, when that marriage excludes a man or excludes a woman?

    So Sean, exactly how can it hold the contribution of a man and a woman as equal in each marriage, when that marriage excludes a man or excludes a woman?”

    You accepted the premise when you said, “There’s nothing about straight marriage that requires that gay couples not marry.” You can’t back out of that now. Your contradiction is your own to explain.

  46. Sean
    March 25th, 2011 at 19:23 | #46

    “You made up a rule of “equality” in marriage, meaning SSM has to be allowed!”

    No, the equality comes in treating straight people and gay people equally, for lack of a rational public purpose to do otherwise. Does it make sense to deny gay people a driver’s license? What about a medical license? Well it makes no sense to deny same-sex couples a marriage license either.

    “There are rational reasons which have been explained to you many times on many posts and you pretend they don’t exist.”

    I have not read ONE rational reason to prohibit same-sex marriage. Not one. Enlighten me.

    “it’s about thousands of years of society and you want to turn it upside down.”

    Your fear of change is unfounded. Just take a look at the places where marriage equality is the law. They were, are and will be, quite settled and secure.

  47. Sean
    March 25th, 2011 at 19:30 | #47

    “Sean, is there a reason you are running away from the question and points I raised?”

    Probably because they make no sense. You keep repeating that marriage has to be between a man and woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s a tautology, and senseless.

    “you basically just restated the points that were already discredited, and are refusing to move past any point which causes you to acknowledge their errors.”

    Discredited? Where? How? No one has discredited the concept, enshrined in the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment, that all citizens are to be treated equally under the law. There’s no exception for gay and lesbian Americans.

    “You can’t run away from your problems.”

    I’m not running away from anything.

    “So Sean, exactly how can it hold the contribution of a man and a woman as equal in each marriage, when that marriage excludes a man or excludes a woman?””

    Exactly why does a marriage have to be between only a man and a woman? If you want equality within marriage, that equality is genderless. There’s no need to be opposite-sexed to achieve equality: two men can be equal to each other; two women can be equal to each other. I recommend studying marriage equality in Iowa or Massachusetts, where such equality is amply demonstrated.

    “You accepted the premise when you said, “There’s nothing about straight marriage that requires that gay couples not marry.” You can’t back out of that now. Your contradiction is your own to explain.”

    There’s no contradiction: if a straight couple marries, their marriage is unaffected by the marriage of any gay couple. The idea of straight marriage is unthreatened by the idea of gay marriage.

  48. March 26th, 2011 at 07:21 | #48

    @Sean Sean, are you even paying attention? You have some of the most skewed logic. Homophiles ARE treated equally, but no one has a right to something they are not qualified for.

    By comparing marriage to a driver’s license or a medical license demonstrates the inanity of your arguments.

    You keep denying there are legitimate sociological reasons for denying SSM. Are you reading anything John Howard has posted? Are you reading any of the links I have posted which examine in detail the issue? I’ll try again:
    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2607
    http://www.frc.org/testimony/peter-sprigg-testifies-before-rhode-island-house-judiciary-committee
    http://www.creators.com/opinion/dennis-prager/california-decision-will-radically-change-society.html
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/jul/10072006
    http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/how-would-the-legalization-of-same-sex-marriage-affect-your-liberty/

    The fact that it is a “deathstyle” is reason enough alone!
    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

    Again, come over to my blog and look at all the punishment people have received for not wanting to give personal sanction to such perversion.
    http://sanityinanupsidedownworld.blogspot.com/ And look at those labeled “homosexual agenda.”

  49. March 26th, 2011 at 07:24 | #49

    @Sean The Constitution DOES NOT say people can have “equality” for something they are not qualified. A circle doesn’t have the right to be called a square! Marriage has a definition – always has, always will – and that is between members of the opposite sex. To make up something and call it “marriage” is the same as calling a circle a square.

  50. March 26th, 2011 at 13:59 | #50

    Sean :

    On Lawn :
    Sean, is there a reason you are running away from the question and points I raised?
    I mean, you basically just restated the points that were already discredited, and are refusing to move past any point which causes you to acknowledge their errors.
    Is there a reason for that?
    You can’t run away from your problems.
    Lets review this again…

    On Lawn :

    Sean :
    There’s nothing about straight marriage that requires that gay couples not marry.

    …aaaand there you have it folks. Sean apparently thinks that the government can “equally recognize[] the contribution of a man and a woman in each marriage” even when there is no man or woman in the relationship.
    So Sean, exactly how can it hold the contribution of a man and a woman as equal in each marriage, when that marriage excludes a man or excludes a woman?

    So Sean, exactly how can it hold the contribution of a man and a woman as equal in each marriage, when that marriage excludes a man or excludes a woman?”
    You accepted the premise when you said, “There’s nothing about straight marriage that requires that gay couples not marry.” You can’t back out of that now. Your contradiction is your own to explain.

    Exactly why does a marriage have to be between only a man and a woman? If you want equality within marriage, that equality is genderless. There’s no need to be opposite-sexed to achieve equality: two men can be equal to each other; two women can be equal to each other. I recommend studying marriage equality in Iowa or Massachusetts, where such equality is amply demonstrated.

    There’s no contradiction: if a straight couple marries, their marriage is unaffected by the marriage of any gay couple. The idea of straight marriage is unthreatened by the idea of gay marriage.

    So sum it up for me, exactly how can it hold the contribution of a man and a woman as equal in each marriage, when that marriage excludes a man or excludes a woman?

    That you can hold a man and a man as equal is as useful as setting up an all-white school for education equality.

    How can you hold the contribution of a man and a woman as equal in each marriage, when that marriage excludes a man or excludes a woman?

    I’m asking pretty straight forward how you plan to protect marriage equality — the equal recognition of the man and the woman and the child they potentially have together — when you exclude one gender or the other from a marriage.

    The answer is you can’t, obviously.

    But you dance around the question anyway, and watching the dance has been fun. First you said that there is no marriage equality until recently because, men and women in some histories and cultures not equal. Then you said it the marriage equality of a man and woman longer exists, because marriage was recently neutered anyway.

    That you keep constructing these spurious advents where marriage equality doesn’t exist between the man, woman, and child they potentially have together is your way of saying it can’t exist. And that is anti-marriage, and only shows you wish to replace marriage with something else as just a way of tricking the american public.

Comments are closed.