About

March 18th, 2013

Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Faith
    August 11th, 2010 at 18:13 | #1

    This website makes me sad. It’s so full of hate!

  2. Humility
    August 17th, 2010 at 02:27 | #2

    It is disingenuous to blanket label people who disagree with you as “Haters,” that’s intolerance. Honestly, there might be some who do but most by far do not. And there has been some pretty nasty behavior on your side, documented, toward us. The people who oppose you are not willing to participate in the social engineering experiment that is “Gay marriage.” They understand the disastrous consequences for society that it would eventually produce and they forsee the loss of their free speech and religious freedom that would also surely follow. We are very concerned! Marriage is one man and one woman. Not same-sex, not polygamy, not minors, not anything else. Ultimately, one can’t change truth to fit one’s desires. I know this will probably not change your hearts but I do pray it will help you understand some of us better.

  3. Sean
    August 24th, 2010 at 21:04 | #3

    There’s no rational reason to limit marriage to dual gender couples. There are many good reasons to extend marriage rights to single gender couples. I can’t imagine why anyone would devote one minute of time trying to defend marriage exclusively for straight people.

  4. September 22nd, 2010 at 11:19 | #4

    I think those are great core values, Ruth Institute. We need values like that to survive the climate emergency. Dual income families and single households and reproductive technologies are all very bad contributors to global warming.

    Also, respect for cooperation and respect for men’s contributions to the family should start with respect for both sexes being necessary and cooperating in the creation of new life. Leaving things like same-sex procreation and cloning legal, and even leaving gamete donation legal, are very disrespectful to men and to marriage and cooperation.

  5. Michael Cooley
    September 24th, 2010 at 08:59 | #5

    When it comes right down to it, we do not need gay marriage. Marriage is already having problems and is struggling to survive. Gay people are, for the most part, a destabilizing influence, not only to society in general, but most especially to the family. Most people feel that gay marriage is a threat to the well-being of families in general and certainly to their children. It is particularly indicative of the gay movement to place their rights, as they see them, above even the survival of the family and children. What do they offer in return, after they have destroyed these institutions?

  6. Sean
    September 29th, 2010 at 14:34 | #6

    We do need gay marriage: same-sex couples would be more secure, as would their children. In addition, out nation’s constitution requires that we treat all citizens equally.

  7. jason taylor
    September 30th, 2010 at 14:57 | #7

    @Sean

    Our nation’s constitution requires that we treat all citizens equally? And presumably you think the writers of the constitution would have thought-in the eighteenth century-that this meant the acceptance of gay marriage.

    Treating all citizens equally has many different meanings. No culture can afford to treat all behavior patterns equally.

  8. October 2nd, 2010 at 13:47 | #8

    I’ll correct Sean’s remarks to be more representative of the argument he is making…

    Sean: > “We do need [recognized commitment such as Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships]: same-sex couples [including many non-gay or non-sexual committed relationships raising children] would be more secure, as would their children. In addition, out [sic] nation’s constitution requires that we treat all citizens equally.”

    Jason hit the citizen part on the head, I’ll only add that marriage already treats everyone equally. I think everyone should equally be recognized for their rights and responsibilities, and each relationship may have different sets (though intersecting) of rights and responsibilities.

    I’m for recognizing the gay relationship for everything they say it is and call it civil union, domestic partnership or reciprocal beneficiaries. And I also think we should recognize marriage for what it is — unique to the special needs and responsibilities to the relationship type (biologically speaking) where kids come from.

    All people are equal, and all relationships should be fairly treated for what they are and their own needs.

  9. Sean
    October 5th, 2010 at 18:54 | #9

    “I’ll correct Sean’s remarks to be more representative of the argument he is making…”

    OnLawn, you have enough trouble making your own arguments, let alone Sean’s.

    Sean’s argument, since we speak in the third person on this website, is that same-sex couples are no less valuable to society as opposite-sex couples: both create families and raise children. Since procreation is not connected to marriage legally (no one has to be fertile and reproduce to get or stay married), opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are, for the purposes of marriage, identical. Given that our nation’s constitution requires that all citizens be treated equally, and given that children are better off with married parents, there’s not really much to argue about here, is there?!

  10. Sean
    October 5th, 2010 at 18:57 | #10

    “And presumably you think the writers of the constitution would have thought-in the eighteenth century-that this meant the acceptance of gay marriage.”

    I’ll bet they never anticipated a black President either. Or women voting.

    “Treating all citizens equally has many different meanings. No culture can afford to treat all behavior patterns equally.”

    No it doesn’t. Equally means equally. Unless you can think of a rational public interest in treating gay citizens differently from straight ones, it is constitutionally impermissible to offer marriage licenses to one group but not to the other.

  11. Cathy Poindexter
    December 15th, 2010 at 09:02 | #11

    I went to the marriage library and saw articles on many topics surrounding the issue BUT, not any under the heading Marriage. Please post some on the old fashioned title. Just an article that talks about the benefits would be great! Thanks.

  12. January 7th, 2011 at 14:08 | #12

    To Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse,

    Thanks for allowing me to interview you about the Reel Love Challenge. Here is the link:

    http://www.christianpost.com/article/20110107/video-contest-asks-youths-is-lifelong-marriage-possible/

  13. Cathy
    January 11th, 2011 at 05:56 | #13

    After spending time in considerable thought I have only one thing to say. If one has been touched by the Amazing Grace of God, and we live to love and serve HIM, we will want what is good and pure and right and He will bless us with our heart’s desires. Open your heart today to HIM who holds every piece of our body together with love. This sort of love is a painful love, a love that asks us to trust HIM even though our desires pull us elsewhere. I have begun the ordeal of trust with our lord, to be open to life, even when when it seems so wrong. How blessed I have been with beautiful children. We need to ask if the desire to have children is for our own self fulfillment or are we co-operating with our Creator to give them back to HIM for all eternity. God loves you…

  14. Heidi
    February 6th, 2011 at 16:50 | #14

    And God loves you too Cathy. What does that have to do with equality under the law?

  15. February 13th, 2011 at 16:10 | #15

    @Zach
    So let’s just call it hate and bigotry and silence the opposition, right? No, it is neither hate nor bigotry to say that same-sex unions – or just same-sex behavior – is wrong.
    http://sanityinanupsidedownworld.blogspot.com/2010/11/dismantling-homosexual-agenda-part-3.html

  16. February 13th, 2011 at 16:11 | #16
  17. February 13th, 2011 at 16:13 | #17

    @Sean
    Then give me a rational, logical reason to restrict marriage to just couples – why not polygamy or polyandry? Why not a man and his adult daughter, or a woman and her adult son, or brother and sister? Once you redefine the word “marriage” to include same-sex unions, there is no logical reason to prevent any other type of union.

  18. February 13th, 2011 at 16:15 | #18

    @Sean and all other pro- same-sex “marriage”- there is great harm to society for giving state sanction for same-sex unions.
    http://www.frc.org/testimony/peter-sprigg-testifies-before-rhode-island-house-judiciary-committee

  19. February 13th, 2011 at 16:19 | #19

    Equality under the law does not mean legal sanction of every type of sexual behavior. Should bestiality or pedophilia then be given “equality” under the law? You don’t redefine the word “marriage,” the historical institution of “marriage” to mean something else than what it has always meant, and then claim equal treatment. You have to be qualified for marriage. Same-sex unions don’t qualify. But you do have equal rights to marry someone of the opposite sex.

  20. Manuel
    March 6th, 2011 at 01:36 | #20

    I am gay, but i am not of homosexual behavior. I am happy, but that does not make me gay.

  21. Manuel
    March 6th, 2011 at 01:40 | #21

    Dr. Morse is a sociologist, and her arguments are statistical. People of homosexual behavior, who argue from their presuppositions will not be able to understand statistical arguments. Though you can possibly win in Las Vegas, it is not probable that you will. That’s the kind of mathematical arguments Dr. Morse is highly qualified to make.

    People of homosexual behavior have every right to voice their opinion, but it is another matter to debate their cause successfully.

  22. Bob Barnes
    March 7th, 2011 at 06:30 | #22

    @ Leland. Dr. Morse has a PhD in economics and taught economics at Yale and Geo. Mason. She has a religious interest in these cultural matters, no formal training that I can find.

    I have a Masters degrees in Anthropology, and currently work as a researcher.

    And now for your credentials, Leland.

  23. Bob Barnes
    March 7th, 2011 at 06:31 | #23

    Manuel :
    Dr. Morse is a sociologist

    No, she isn’t.

  24. Leland
    March 7th, 2011 at 15:56 | #24

    @Bob Barnes

    [Note: Bob, As I have no comment for you to respond to on this thread, I'm assuming your comment was unintentionally posted here, but was actually meant to be part of the discussion on the “Dr J’s comments to the Rhode Island State Legislature” thread.]

    And now for your credentials, Leland.

    I was beginning to wonder if you would ever ask. Well let’s see: I graduated from High School at the top of the bottom third of my class; served a few unremarkable years in the Army; dropped out of college a couple times…

    But here’s my most important ‘credential’ in this matter Bob: On the one hand, I do indeed acknowledge that when someone has acquired a diploma (or diplomas) and earned the right to add letters to the end of their name, that is in and of itself a very admirable accomplishment. (I always tell young folks how much I wish I had taken my formal education experience a lot more seriously).

    However, when it comes to the assertions one makes, I learned a long time ago that those diplomas and letters at most only indicate that it may be worth the bother to pay attention to what the individual has to say long enough to see whether or not their professions hold water in the real world, whether or not their arguments are logical or (as is almost always the case with you and most of your allies who post on this blog) their theses are predicated on ad hominem, argument from ‘authority’, straw men, equivocation, non sequitur, etc…

    But if, in addition to academic credentials and sound reasoning, someone has actually done something of note in their field, then hey, now we’re talkin’…

    Jennifer Roback Morse first got my attention not because she has a degree in economics (or because of any degree she has in anything, for that matter) but rather because of the way she applied economics to real world issues (as opposed to the way most economist make a career of actually doing harm to the economy with their goofy prognostications). Just one example: She was the first one I noticed who actually took account of how the social capital generated by solid marriages makes a very tangible and crucial contribution to the overall economic health of a nation. (Admittedly, for all I know, there may have been others before her who applied economics to the family in a similar way, but Dr J and company are definitely the ones who are doing the best job of putting ideas like that into the political mainstream, where the rubber meets the road.)

    Bottom line, Bob: Dr J has the diplomas, the letters, the books, the accomplishments… but I wouldn’t even give her a free pass for anything she says because of all that, much less you. While, on the one hand, I’m tempted to admonish you, Sean, Mark, and company to try to focus on the substance of our arguments once in a while instead of just attacking people’s character, on the other hand, the more you guys ‘argue’ the way you do, the more obvious it becomes to everyone with an open mind that there must be nothing of actual substance to support your position on same-sex so-called ‘marriage’, just acrimony for anyone who refuses to kowtow to your agenda. And that works great for we who are defending genuine marriage, by the way.

    So, as weary as I am of watching you and yours malign the character and affront the dignity of Dr J and friends, go ahead and keep up the good work you’re doing for our team anyway, geniuses…

  25. judith
    July 10th, 2011 at 15:08 | #25

    @Sean
    Same-sex couples, by definition, do NOT procreate. There is always a father and a mother to any child; it’s a biological reality. IVF or other artificial aids to conception merely subvert the personal, face to face nature of such a biological reality. Ovum plus sperm = child. Every child has a mother and a father.

  26. July 11th, 2011 at 10:57 | #26

    Judith, Sean thinks we should let labs try to make babies from same-sex couples, using whatever technology the lab thinks might work. They have already made mice from same-sex parents, first the fatherless mouse Kaguya was created in Japan in 2004, and then a motherless mouse in Texas last year (actually that one had some sort of chimera mother with transplanted transgenic eggs but neverthless it shows they are working on it).

    The question is, should we approve and allow people to conceive offspring with someone of the same sex. The answer is obvious to me that we need a simple federal law prohibiting attempts at creating a human being by any method other than joining a man’s unmodified sperm and a woman’s unmodified egg. I hope you will agree and say so, because we need to break through the libertarian programming that makes people resistant to federal laws. But it is absolutely essential.

  27. October 28th, 2011 at 11:15 | #27

    Has the Ruth Institute actually decided to not allow comments anymore on the blog posts, or is that temporary or just a mistake? Seems a shame to cut off comments, as there are often pretty interesting dialogues there.

  28. November 17th, 2011 at 16:58 | #28

    I have a plan for a book about God the Father’s love for special-needs children and their parents. I am seeking testimonies from parents who have been touched in a special way by God’s love for their children.

    Thank you,
    Cami Murphy

  29. Jedediah
    February 12th, 2012 at 13:37 | #29

    Thank you Ruth Institutes and NOM for your work to outlaw divorce in our Christian nation.

    Divorce is contrary to G*d’s Divine Will, and should not be “legal”. It is an abomination.

    Until divorce is outlawed, ours is a Nation of shame.

  30. Pastor Vincent X. Shaw
    February 18th, 2012 at 17:08 | #30

    What’s natural isn’t obvious. Some see, but do not observe. Thank you for shedding light, to those who close their eyes to the truth surrounding them, that none of us would be around without mother and father both. Kids deserve both.

    I fear we are becoming post-human, arguing not listening. Some of us are barely here, inhumanly denying the good of 1 husband to 1 wife: saying it is equal, when one naturally procreates, but the other fails. It’s a good work you do. Thank you.

  31. Jedediah
    February 20th, 2012 at 04:48 | #31

    Pastor Shaw – good comment!

    Newt Gingrich has been a serial adulterer, spousal abuser through his deviant s*xual habits, as well as a tax cheat. And yet, he is hailed by the Main Streme Media as a valid candidate for the Office of President.

    Until divorce is finally outlawed, America will suffer from similar acts of philandering and spousal abuse.

    Only then will “One Man/One Woman/One Marriage” be the cornerstone of our Nation.

    Serial adulterers have NO place in our governing!!

  32. Jedediah
    July 21st, 2012 at 07:14 | #32

    I se that NOM is now fighting against the scourge of Gay Marriage Billionaires!! It is with a thankful and prayerful heart that I rejoice in this defense of marriage.

    Your work towards making divorce – which is an abomination and hurtful to G*d – fully against the laws of our Nation is something to take pride in. Until ALL divorce is banned, marriage will be a sham.

    One Man/One Woman/One Marriage – truly, the only way to save our Nation and restore it to G*d. Thank you for being brave enough to take on the Gay Billionaires!!!

  33. Jedediah
    November 25th, 2012 at 08:32 | #33

    Thank you for supporting NOM and the Ruth Institute, Paul of Alexandria! This Nation has an overwhelming MAJORITY of citizens who also support One Man/One Woman/One Marriage, and we will pray daily until the scourge of divorce is outlawed!!

    The radical homosexual agenda will destroy America or Americans will destroy the radical homosexual agenda!! There is no other choice!!

    Contact your legislators to press them on where they stand on outlawing divorce!

  34. Paul H
    January 15th, 2013 at 15:14 | #34

    I still enjoy the blog, but I wish that comments could be turned back on for most posts, at least on a trial basis. Just my two cents.

  35. Betsy
    January 17th, 2013 at 17:38 | #35

    Paul, I’m glad to see that you’ve still stuck around despite the no comment rule. Honestly, though, moderating comments was too time-consuming (and often infuriating). I’m sorry, buddy. I don’t think it’s going to happen. :(

  36. Paul H
    January 21st, 2013 at 16:31 | #36

    Hi Betsy,

    Thanks for the reply, and I do understand.

  37. Ginny
    January 30th, 2013 at 12:29 | #37

    @Sean
    What children? Homosexuals cannot procreate. (Adoption not the same.)

  38. Cathy
    February 21st, 2013 at 16:58 | #38

    We should not be abdicating our position by calling something “marriage” which is not marriage. What we object to is redefining marriage. There is only one real definition of
    marriage, and that is what unites a man and a woman and any children who may come from their union. Anything else is not marriage and must not be called by that name. Period. For the sake of children, who have a natural right to know and be known by the mother and father from whom they came, we must not redefine marriage, either in our language or in our law, so that it no longer unites children with their mother and father. When we change our language, we are in danger of changing our law. Marriage is too important, both to society and to children to redefine it.

Comments are closed.