Comments

  1. JoyZeeBoy says

    During the Spanish lesson I understood one line from the happy song. “Jesus de Nazarene.”

    Is this a pro-heteronormative marriage rally or a papal visit?

  2. Steve Talbert says

    Maybe HRC could sponsor a month-long March for Marriage!! and get gay people to marry in March every year. There wouldn’t be so much competition for venues with straight people in May and June. plus there is the added benefit that maybe they could all meet up afterwards at the White Party!!

  3. shanemedia says

    Last time NOM Marched for Marriage in DC Brian Brown reported 15,000 attended but the Parks Service officials said there were probably 2,000 people. The March for Marriage website showed 22 buses going to DC. So even if every bus were filled up that would mean approximately 1100 people. Watching the feed it is interesting that the camera never cuts to the crowd. NOM is famous for stealing photos from big DC mass rallies of other groups and posting it to their site as their own pics of the event.

  4. RR says

    All I heard from watching about 20mins of this was that their truth is the only truth in marriage matters. Against nature is often sighted but nature is full of same sex love. Most of the reasons they use to bolster straight marriage could be used to promote any marriage such as love, commitment, companionship, trust, friendship, devotion and having a family. But as they imply repeatedly these are only straight values and do not apply to us. They do not have one good solid example of how a married gay couple will change their current marriage. They truly are afraid of us and NOM exploits that with misinformation and hate. I can’t help but wonder who or what the next generation will target to rally hate. Hopefully none, but history has shown many targets, be it ethnic, religious, race or sex.

  5. Dave says

    One of the reporters live tweeting at the rally says that there are 2000 people at most an most are hispanic. She says it looks like an immigration rally. Take it fwiw.

  6. Scott S says

    I like how Reuben Diaz promised low-income Latinos from the disadvantaged Bronx neighborhood how they would enjoy an all-expense paid trip to the nation’s capital for attending a short event (never telling them it was an antigay rally or even that it was NOM who organized the event). Way to build credibility, NOM!

  7. simon says

    2000 out of a nation of 300 millions. It is a monumental failure.
    With one fifth of US population, Manif pour tous in France rallied millions of people. They didn’t succeed either.
    Some fringe religious nuts of the GOP may be there, more and more are staying away from this failure. What is left is their God who won’t go away because he was not there in the first place.

  8. I'm layla miller i know stuff says

    “First they came…” is a famous statement and provocative poem attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the sloth of German intellectuals following the Nazis’ rise to power and the subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

    There is some disagreement over the exact wording of the quotation and when it was created; the content of the quotation may have been presented differently by Niemöller on different occasions.

    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

    Then they came for the socialists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

    Then they came for the Catholics,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Catholic.

    Then they came for me,
    and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Martin Niemöller was a German pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892.
    Niemöller was an anti-communist and supported Hitler’s rise to power at first.

    But when Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned. He became the leader of a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler.

    In 1937 he was arrested and eventually confined in Sachsenhausen and Dachau. His crime was “not being enthusiastic enough about the Nazi movement.” Niemöller was released in 1945 by the Allies.

    He continued his career in Germany as a clergyman and as a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World War II.

    His statement, sometimes presented as a poem, is well-known, frequently quoted, and is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy.

  9. I'm layla miller i know stuff says

    The Paranoia Switch by Martha Stout (amazon.com)

    These familiar history McCarthyism, the World War II internment of Japanese-Americans, and the rise of the Klu Klux Klan after the Civil War – are three American examples of what I have called “limbic wars.” Every limbic war can be divided into six stages.

    These stages do not have distinct beginning or ends, but rather merge, almost imperceptibly, each into the next. The first phase always involves a traumatizing event, usually a war or an attack. The five subsequent stages are essential reaction to the fear instilled in people minds by the initial tragedy.

    The second stage is the all-important one. If leaders willing to us the paranoia switch are not embraced by the people, a limbic war may not occur at all, and the unhappy unfolding of Stages 3 through 6 can be avoided. If they accept the fear brokers, the process continues into its third stage.

    The Six Stages of Limbic War
    1. Group Trauma
    2. Fear Brokers
    3. Scapegoatism
    4. Cultural Regression
    5. Recognition & Backlash
    6. Regret & Amnesia

    Ten Behavioral Characteristics of Fear Brokers
    1. Fear brokers speak to us of fear, dangerous people and frightening situations
    2. Fear brokers are not limited by facts; they use alarming “unfacts”
    3. Fear brokers tend to accuse those who disagree with them of being unpatriotic or naïve
    4. Feat brokers look good
    5. Fear brokers behave like archetypal parents
    6. Fear brokers shame us over sex
    7. Fear brokers praise us for being moral and heroic, contradicting as it is
    8. Fear brokers project personal infallibility
    9. Fear brokers are secretive, and are certain that other people too, are keeping dangerous secrets
    10. Fear brokers use language that pulls for primitive affect

  10. Matt says

    I love the speaker from the Conservative Council of something or other who screamed out that “this is the end of civilization!” and the crowd didn’t even react.
    What kind of hate crowd is this? Get into it! Civilization is over, now make some noise!

  11. simon says

    His holiness can talk about “truth” and “god” until the cows come home while the “gay army” is going to sack Rome when CU and gay marriage sweep to the doorstep of their “holy city”.

  12. JackFknTwist says

    Who is this delusional bigot and complete traitor Dough Mainwearing ? He says he’s gay.

    He talks about same sex marriage doing irreparable harm,……where is that evidence ????

    There’s only one camera,,,,,with no shots of the crowd, however small.
    it’s all nonsens. Don’t these people have jobs or are they all over 65 and on Social Security ?

  13. Matt says

    And, the best was that gay/ex-gay/gay again/sort of ex-gay again, Doug Mainwaring dude.
    He thinks it is imperative that we strengthen the marriage culture, but only between men and women.
    This from the guy who claimed to be ex-gay, got married and then divorced his wife after discovering he was gay again. But I guess is straight again?
    They only let him speak for a few minutes. I think they were afraid he was going to come out.

  14. says

    Gee, the videographer’s camera must only have zoom capabilities, cause the frame is consistently focussed (during the time I’ve had it running with the sound off) really really tight on Brian and his band of lunatic speakers. You’d think he’d want to show off the massive crowds in attendance. Because of this oversight, Brian will be forced to photoshop in the exuberant masses after the fact.

  15. Matt says

    Brian Brown just admonished the crowd for not being more into it. “I know it’s hot out there, but come on!”

    Dude, they just aren’t that into it. Or maybe that last guy who spoke in tongues for a minute scared them. He terrified me.

  16. simon says

    I don’t know shitt:
    The only truth in your rant is “When they came for the Jews, the Catholics did nothing.”
    Not so sure about the part “they came for the Catholics”. Hitler invoked his Catholic faith in denouncing the Jews in “Mein Kampf”.
    The violence against Jews first occurred in 1938. In 1939, Archbishop of Munich, celebrated his escape from assassination with a
    special “Te Deum”. You figure.

  17. JackFknTwist says

    @ MATT :

    Thanks or the heads-up on that dude Manwearing…….what a dull turd……..as if anyone is the slightest bit interested in anything he has to say…..and that’s his newly embraced hate crowd.
    What an oaf.

  18. Just_a_guy says

    How shameful to be a part of this. What an embarrassment and a shame. The list of their names should be published somewhere if possible. They are proud of their hate or they wouldn’t be there contributing. Eww.

    Granted, they are clearly bored, texting and such ignoring the lead hate monger. But they deserve the consequences of contributing to this hateful message. Disgusting.

  19. Just_a_guy says

    How shameful to be a part of this. What an embarrassment and a shame. The list of their names should be published somewhere if possible. They are proud of their hate or they wouldn’t be there contributing. Eww.

    Granted, they are clearly bored, texting and such ignoring the lead hate monger. But they deserve the consequences of contributing to this hateful message. Disgusting.

  20. sparklekittens says

    Who from Towleroad is there taking pictures of the crowd? I really wanna see how few people were there. NOM LOVES photoshop and stealing images from other rallies. Expose those fools, Towleroad
    !!!

  21. Mike Brooks says

    Children should have the best shot at being brought up by the men and women who created them (moreover, it makes sense that whomever creates a child should be responsible for his/her upbringing), and marriage is the institution that was created for those very purposes. That’s all these people are saying.

    It’s easy for singles to not consider how children play into marriage, perhaps even easier for people whose parents have failed them, but for those who have had solid mom-dad-children families, the purpose and value of marriage couldn’t be clearer and the non-procreative nature of homosexual couples is counter to those purposes and value.

  22. Brian1 says

    @Mike Brooks

    No, that’s not at all what they’re saying. The entire point of the march is to say that people of the same sex should not be allowed to form families, no matter how deeply they love one another, or how many children they have. Gay marriage will never threaten to tear apart “traditional families” to use your lingo. But the main aim of the anti gay marriage movement is to rip apart same sex families. Exactly how does that help the affected children again?

  23. Mike Brooks says

    @Brian1 –

    There’s some pretty strong evidence that the real drivers of the marriage equality movement are really out to destroy marriage because it reinforces gender roles and creates protections from state control. While I don’t believe that most homosexual couples are of that mindset, I understand the fear, especially when you look at how no-fault divorce laws, ostensibly enacted to protect women, have led to what is essentially a temporary marriage culture and has left thousands, nay, millions of children to lose the tutelage of a parent.

    The suggestion that officially redefining marriage to exclude procreation, by virtue of allowing implicitly non-procreative couples to marry, will have no negative impact on society is dubious at best. Indeed, look at all the children that are intentionally being created by homosexual couples (through artificial birth methods) to be taken away from the people who created them and to further deprive them of the unique upbringing that only a child’s genetic parents could give them.

    I get that it sucks to form a close friendship with someone of the same sex and that that coupling is objectively non-procreative, but a lot of things are unfair. I wish I had the ability to be an Olympic runner, but that’s not what biology had in store for me. That said, there’s nothing I could do to be a fast runner, but every person who has same-sex attraction has the option to forgo that attraction and get married and have kids with someone of the opposite sex. Marriage always involves sacrifice and in many or even most cases, the biggest sacrifice is the sex life that we previously had.

  24. Tanner says

    Mike Brooks:

    Just one question for you. Heterosexual people often create children outside of marriage. What should their penalty be? If what you say is correct, don’t we have an obligation to punish them, to discourage the practice?

  25. Brian1 says

    @Mike

    There is zero evidence that the marriage equality movement has anything to do with destroying straight marriages. That is entirely made up by your side to motivate donations and scare gullible voters. And why do you have to hypothesize that same sex marriage will lead to the destruction of straight marriage and all sorts of negative outcomes for children? Gay marriage has been in effect for over a dozen years with none of the negative repercussions your side is always warning about.

    The obvious truth here is that gay marriage will never have any impact on straight marriage. It has, however, dramatically improved the stability of the millions of gay families that have benefited from it. These include millions of children abandoned by their straight genetic parents that you idolize so much and are now cared for by loving gay parents rather than raised in an institution. If you really only cared about children, it’s a no brainer to be in support of same sex marriage. If instead you’re motivated by hatred of homosexuality, you’ll latch on to the anti gay marriage movement because it’s the only game in town at this point.

    Brian (married to my “close friend” since 2001)

  26. simon says

    Mike Brooks:
    You sound funnier than Mel Brook except you seem crazier than his movies. You think everybody has to procreate to serve the “Motherland”. It is more like Orwell’s 1984. You want United States like Africa where their population outstrips their resources?
    Don’t tell me you are not anti-immigration. In many countries they use immigration to boost their labor force. Except you may feel they are “different”.
    My advice to you is don’t reproduce. You seem to have a stupid gene, even worst some “mentally disconnected” genes. Now that is biology which not even your God can modify.

  27. simon says

    Also you may not know where China is. They use draconian measures to do the opposite. They discourage procreation. The so-called “one-child” policy.

  28. Paul B. says

    @Mike…I’m married 30 years in August to one man…raised 2 kids & now have 5 grandkids. Oh, yes…he’s the biological father of our kids. His ex-wife gave up custody 32 years ago. They love us, think we’re cool and sleep over a lot. Booga-booga-boo!

  29. simon says

    Brian1:
    I think his whole point seems to be gay marriage is not affecting straight marriages. Gays should marry women to boost the population which he himself seems doesn’t know why. His brain was so rotten by the indoctrination of his Church which is not known for rational thinking.

  30. Brian1 says

    @ Simon

    Partly agree, except that he started his last post by saying gays don’t really want to marry. The gay marriage lobby really just wants to sabotage straight marriage. He even has “pretty strong evidence” of this diabolical plot. But then he goes into not being able to be an olympic runner so it’s not that easy to follow his “logic”.

  31. simon says

    Yes, in the Middle Ages the Church might have reasons to encourage procreation in an agricultural society. Now they are stuck in the past. And that Brook guy was just parroting the Church’s “traditional” view. He may believe you if you tell him the Earth is flat and the children of Adam and Eve were fukking one another which resulted in imbeciles like him.

  32. Will says

    The thing I don’t understand about this is the white republicans are actually making an effort to translate into Spanish. What’s up with that? I thought the biggest threat to the US was the Mexicans?

  33. Mike Brooks says

    @Paul, Simon, et al.,

    If you don’t think it’s important for children to be united with their parents (the people whose genetics they share), and of course you don’t because you think it’s fine for homosexual couples to create children and take them away from a biological parent for your own selfish desires, then we’re talking past each other.

    Marriage supporters are interested in making sure kids have moms and dads in stable, happy households; this, to them, is the ideal for kids and has proven across all civilized societies and culture to be the ideal for a stable society. I get that you’ve been saddled with an attraction that renders your sexual relationships non-procreative and that to compensate for that you have convinced yourselves that it’s just fine to foster a society that deprives kids of a mom and a dad, that exposes them to sexual relationships between their caretakers that will in all likelihood be counter to their own sexual attractions. Many people don’t think that’s a good idea, and thousands of years of civilization agrees.

    Are heterosexuals depriving kids of moms and dads? Sure they are, and it’s one of the issues that marriage supporters are fighting to fix. Single parenthood is an indicator of a child’s failure to succeed in life and destiny for a life in poverty. Divorce disrupts a child’s life and leads to the likelihood of failure in the child’s own marriages. Severing marriage from procreation removes any incentive to fix these gross injustices to innocent children; after all, if marriage has nothing to do with procreation, then there is no reason to get married before having kids. It’s bad enough that 40% of kids are born out of wedlock; codifying it in statutes and judicial holdings just exacerbates it.

    Marriage supporters look at urban Black culture where marriage is no longer an institution of procreation and 70% of children are born to single moms and they see the country’s future. Marriage is important for kids, not just as children but as future candidates for marriage. And that is important to society.

  34. Mike Brooks says

    And can I just say that the pictures on this site is another reason why marriage supporters see a problem with redefining marriage for homosexuals. If you believe in marriage as an institution to improve the lives of children, then the idea that the individuals pictured on this website are potential “spouses” is quite disturbing. These aren’t pictures of people who are interested in marriage, monogamy and stability.

  35. Mike Brooks says

    @Paul B –

    Just a quick comment to you: I don’t think that being perceived as “cool” by children is any badge of honor for adults. Frankly, I think that’s a lot of the problem with parents today: they want to be friends instead of parents to their children. Bugga-boo indeed.

  36. Derrick from Philly says

    @ MIKE BROOKS,

    please see the Julianne Moore DVD movie “Far From Heaven” or Kevin Spacey’s “American Beauty”. Then come back to this blog and tell us ALL about what American familes should be.

  37. simon says

    “thousands of years of civilization agrees.?:”
    For two thousand years, your Church thought the Earth is the center of the Universe.
    There is simply no way to fix stupidity.
    And the Earth is six thousand years old?
    On matters of morality, your Church has no legs to stand on. Shame on you.

  38. Brian1 says

    @mike

    You’re just repeating your talking points instead of answering any challenges to your very tired, much ignored points. One thing I’m pretty sure you don’t understand is that gays can have children inside or outside of marriage. You seem to think that stopping us from marrying will stop us from having children. So your mention of “urban culture” is strange. Prior to marriage equality gay families were like the “urban” families you criticise, unmarried with children. Now that we are getting the right to marry, you want to take that away and put us back with the “urbane”. What gives?

    Oh, and as for your second comment about the photos on this site not being suitable for marriage, I scrolled down the front page and saw Megyn Kelly of Fox News, failed republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, your ally in hate Tony Perkins and that Harvey woman who also heads some anti gay group. Oh, and a guy holding a baby shark that I think is also straight. If you want to take their right to marriage away as well as ours, go for it (well, the shark guy seems harmless)

  39. simon says

    Your nonsense is going nowhere. You are just “mentally disconnected”. Don’t tell me you are a good parent and I am sorry for your children if your have any. They deserve better. Maybe some social service can help.

  40. Mike Brooks says

    @Derrick –

    I’ve spoken here about the failures of heteros in marriage and its detrimental impact on children (of course, movies aren’t really a good gauge of what’s going on in society, are they). But, as they say about our government, the system is not perfect, but it’s the best that we’ve got.

  41. Mike Brooks says

    @Brian –

    Every child raised by a same-sex couple has been taken away from at least one of his/her parents. We used to call that a tragedy, now we celebrate it or something like that. Frankly, I think that allowing any child to be created with the intention of taking it from the birth mother/father should be illegal, whether the child is intended for a same-sex couple or opposite sex couple. I see all separations of children from parents as tragic and societal failures.

    As for the site; you make strawman arguments. Most of the pics are of guys half-clothed. Put some clothes on and maybe people will take you more seriously and not view you as sexually obsessed.

  42. Mike Brooks says

    @Simon –

    I get my education from anatomy, physiology, evolution, and the history of civilized cultures. No God necessary to see which sexes are complementary, which combination of sexes have contributed the most to society.

  43. Brian1 says

    @Mike

    You may have heard of these things called orphanages? They’ve been around for a couple of millennia, and they’re full of kids abandoned by their straight parents. The baby wasn’t “taken away”‘; it was abandoned. And gays have adopted them for a long time now. Get your facts straight.

    And I’m not making straw men arguments. I just mentioned the photos on the site just now, no more or less. All of them were fully clothed, thankfully. You may be looking at some ads, but those are different for everyone. Perhaps you visit more risqué websites than I do so you get raunchier ads?

  44. Paul B. says

    @Mike…well dear, the “kids” thinking we’re cool has worked just fine for 30 years…along with the mutual respect we have for each other.
    I’m very proud of what my husband & I have done…esp. since the “biological mom” abandoned the kids when they were very young.
    You’re sure full of yourself aren’t you Mikey!
    You really need to get out more and don’t be so afraid of what you might find that doesn’t fit neatly into your little box.

  45. simon says

    Mike you seem very ignorant. Let’s say there is a lesbian couple. One of them gets a sperm donation from a man. Is the man still the parent of the child? By the way, it could also happen to heterosexual couples. Millions of sperms are discarded when you jerk off that mean you kill millions of children. I suppose you don’t do that. Even in heterosexual intercourse, a lot of sperms are wasted. Another millions of children lost. Maybe we need to get rid of hetero sex altogether.

  46. simon says

    So if you are also against heterosexual adoption or artificial insemination, then you will be disappointed. Not even the Church has the gall to crusade against it. Your ideal world only exists in heaven which is probably where you belong.

  47. simon says

    Please explain how your “knowledge” of evolution being relevant to the questions of adoption and artificial insemination. Knowing the name doesn’t mean you know shitt.

  48. MIke Brooks says

    @Paul –

    Apparently your “husband” and his ex-wife are pretty screwed up to begin with. He marries her, has five kids and then opts for a sodomy relationship with another guy and deprives his kids of having a mom and a dad. Then she walks away from her kids. Sounds like a big tragedy that you and he have done your best to fix. I’m fine with fixing tragedies, but I believe in ideals, and your whole scenario there is not one that should be emulated. Making a tragedy less of one does not mean that all men should divorce their wives and shack up with another guy; yet, that is what you promote when you use that an argument for same-sex “marriage.”

    Avoiding having to cleaning up big messes is one of the reasons that lifetime marriages between a men and a women has been so successful in forming stable societies. Those must have been some very difficult time for the kids, adjusting to a dad who likes guys and a mom who ditched them. ANd not one of them needed therapy!

  49. simon says

    I bring in the Church because your so-call civilizations must include Christianity which was a large part of Western civilization for thousands of years. Unless you want to contradict yourself by backpaddling the statement “all civilizations agree”.

  50. Paul B. says

    Dear Mike…read carefully before you spew. As I said…we have 2 kids…5 grandkids. Got the math Mikey? So, yeah…you’re partially right…their mom was pretty f’d up. We did our best to clean up her mess though and ended out with a great family. She’s history. And the best news is that we get to do it all over again with the grandkids…teaching them that the world is not a scary place unless we make it one. I love the grandkids…it’s an opportunity to change the world for the better if we do it right.

  51. Paul B. says

    Thanks Simon…I appreciate your help! One of the many sad things about mike…the list is long…is that he’s not even aware of how ignorant his position is. Willful ignorance is such bore and absolutely not worth the effort to challenge. Gotta move on now…it’s almost dinner time and we’ve got the oldest grandson for two weeks again this summer…he loves my cooking!

  52. Johnnybegood says

    Just reading through these comments and I’m once again reminded how important it is for us to tell our stories. To our families, friends, kids & cousins and anyone else that’s listening or watching. We’ve been married, been parenting, delivered their babies, buried family & friends. It’s all there and has been there for a long long time. It’s just that the “Mike’s” of the world are being forced to acknowledge it now…and it’s making them pissy!

  53. MIke Brooks says

    @simon –
    I’m for adoption when there is a tragedy of lost parents; I don’t believe in intentionally creating the tragedy of a child being removed from a parent. I think the Catholics would agree with that.

    Evolution (you skipped anatomy and physiology, I see) assumes procreation; if there is no procreation, there is no evolution, the species dies out. We evolved as a two-sexed race in which one of each sex is required to procreate. We didn’t evolve as a single-sex species nor as a species in which sex is irrelevant. Some species evolved that way; we did not.

    My family is of the ideal variety. I’m very lucky. My wife and I serve as an example to our 3 kids of how a man and a woman interact, raise their children, handle conflict, and maintain a marriage. Being of different sexes, my girls learn how to be a woman from their mom and how to relate to men from me. They also learn about the attributes of the different sexes from each of us; things that the schools could never teach. Being our natural children, we know them better than themselves because we have lived with the genes that define them. We understand their personality quirks, we know which talents they likely have, we know potential health issues. If we have doubts about these things, we have extended family of people who share their genes. All of this gives them great advantages that being raised by non-relatives could not.

    I think this sounds mean until I realize that everyone has the same ability to have the family that I have; to conceive and raise their own children. They need only get over their own selfishness and make a sexual sacrifice. My sacrifice was that I gave up a variety of sexual partners over the years. Many have given up engaging in sodomy with others of the same sex in exchange for this ideal life.

  54. simon says

    Johnnybegood:
    Not really. He is also against heterosexual artificial insemination and adoption which obviously is endorsed by the Catholic Church. He is just one lunatic who is against everything, whose opinions are just irrelevant. His “ideals” are even more “exotic” than the Church. He is one abnormal person whose “ideas” at at odd with everyone in this world. That is a mental disorder.

  55. simon says

    What are you talking about. Why artificial insemination by both heterosexual and homosexual couples not “procreation”? The physical processes are the same except it goes through more steps than the “natural” process and omit the physical sex part. There is no difference in the babies that are produced.
    Tell me why it promotes or impedes evolution.

  56. simon says

    That means you don’t understand evolution. Procreation is production of a new life. The end is the new life. Everything else are just the means to reach the same end. I am just curious how you can relate it to evolution. It is just something you use to inflate your empty arguments. The course of evolution is completely indifferent to whether it is artificial or “natural”.

  57. simon says

    To educate yourself, read some real science books on evolution. Evolution is much more than procreation. If it is just that, we don’t need a Darwin. A Mike Brooks will do for such a simplistic theory.

  58. Paul B. says

    OMG, Mikey’s back…but I’m not nibbling.
    I’ve got a family, a real family…and that’s where I’ll be. Maybe a little sodomy by moonlight if I’m lucky!

  59. simon says

    I actually would argue artificial insemination is potentially superior to “natural” procreation. The simplest way to promote advantageous genes is to genetically modify the genes in a test tube before implanting them back into a woman’s body. Of course there are always moral concerns about actually doing it. If it is only a scientific decision, it will improve the genes of human species and increase its chance of survival, hence changing the course of evolution. If men live longer and have more offspring, it will naturally strain the resource of this planet. If your emphasis is on producing more, I don’t see how your argument about “natural better than artificial” has any merit.

  60. simon says

    His family must be one hell of a madhouse. With two crazies and a bunch of unattended dirty children. Some may be even handcuffed to the fence with dead chickens around their necks.

  61. Paul B. says

    Simon…you’re funny…thanks! My 16 year old grandson has been sitting with me reading some of these comments. He has always been full of spit & vinegar and has the wit of a wizard. His question to me after reading this garbage from Mike is this…Grandpa, what does a married “straight man” know about any of this? Of course he said this in the language of a 16 year old, so you know it was more colorful.
    I kissed him goodnight, told him I loved him to death, knew he would be a famous rocket scientist someday…and send some of that money home! God, I wouldn’t trade in my perfect family for anything in the world.

  62. 1♥ says

    @MIKE BROOKS
    What your post obviously shows is that you don’t believe marriage and families are about love.
    You see, love is something you will never understand, and something you will never be able to teach your children. I do feel sorry for your children, they will love you, but you will never, ever, be able to return that love to them because you’re not capable of it.
    That is the sad truth of your life.

  63. MIke Brooks says

    @Simon – Read my comments. I’m not against artificial insemination, I’m against taking children away from their (“biological,” that’s how you refer to them, right?) parents. I’m not against adoption; but I see adoption as a solution to the tragic loss of a child’s parents. What happens is when we tout the good results of resolving such tragedies, it inevitably needs to the intentional creation of tragedies to satisfy selfish desires of adults at the kids’ expense.

    I have a biology degree from one of the best schools in the country. I know what evolution is: we evolved as a sexually-reproducing species, and we evolve through reproduction. No reproduction, no evolution. I’ve never heard of a species evolving to not reproduce for population control. Interestingly, the alarmingly high incidence and spread of deadly STDs amongst homosexual men relative to straights suggests that evolution is antagonistic towards sodomy, weakening immune systems for non-procreating individuals.

    I think you may have confused my evolution argument to be about artificial insemination, not about complementary sexes.

  64. MIke Brooks says

    @1heart –

    Marriage is about uniting parents and their offspring and creating stable societies; sometimes there is romantic passion between the spouses, sometimes there is a very strong friendship, sometimes there is hatred. Such emotions ebb and flow, but the marital bond continues out of obligation and commitment. We PROMISE to love in our marriage; we don’t make marriage contingent upon the presence of love: we know that emotions are unrealiable.

  65. MIke Brooks says

    I’m going to sign-off and leave you to your site and kind.

    Just wanted to open your eyes to the possibility that there really is no hatred of people involved in the support for marriage. There are plenty of non-animus reasons, notwithstanding your knee-jerk self-defense attitude and propensity to resort to emotional argument and name-calling.

    Do what you want to yourselves and to one another. Just don’t force the rest of us to do contortions of logic to accommodate what many see as incompatible with common sense, science, and history. Remember, marriage is unselfish: it’s about doing the best that we can for our offspring and for our society; it’s not for making people feel good or about confirming one’s love for one another. You can do that without marriage. Peace all.

  66. Johnnybegood says

    Now that Mike has left the site (yeah, right)
    we should all say a prayer for his wife who we know lives with this prick 24/7. If she could just take it deep & hard maybe he would stay home more…off the gay web…and give her the business she deserves. His ideal family would be ever so grateful!

  67. Brian1 says

    Mike

    You seem to be operating under the misunderstanding that you’re the first anti-gay visitor to this site, and that your “play nice” attitude somehow means you’ve won. We get people like you here all the time, and more often than not they adopt the same approach as you. You seem to think you’re morally superior to us because you maintained a more civil tone, but you’re fooling yourself. I certainly have absolutely no animus toward straight people, and the large majority of my friends are straight. But they’re worlds apart from the anti gay marriage fringe. People who devote a big chunk of their time to denigrating us and destroying our families don’t deserve civility, regardless of their tone. (I know you’ve mentioned several times how pro-marriage people aren’t anti-gay, but that’s a load of crap. You can see heaps of really nasty language all around your movement. You may honestly not feel that way, but your movement sure does.)You even come onto a gay rights website to drone on about how superior your family is because your children came from your sperm and that your marriage is better than ours because your genitals match or something. You can see why, regardless of your civil tone, your messages are irritating. Imagine walking into a minority neighborhood, and in the nicest tone possible, sitting down and explaining to the residents why they’re inferior to whites. Do you think they would respond civilly? And do you think they should? Of course not, they would, and should, be enraged. So when you come here and tell us that our feelings and needs and relationships don’t matter, that we have to take a back seat to your family, well, f*ck off Mike. We don’t and thankfully most of the country agrees with us.

    Lastly, I’ll bore you with my personal story to show you that the marriage question isn’t as narrow as your obsession with matching kids to their original sperm and eggs (which by the way is a total vote loser. I can’t imagine anything ruder to say to the millions of straight couples trying unsuccessfully to have children than your “tough luck” condemnation.) I’ve lived with my husband for seventeen years outside the US, because he’s from another country. Your anti-gay friends saw fit to enshrine DOMA as the law of the land while they could still muster an anti-gay majority. We don’t have children, so your sperm obsession doesn’t enter into this at all. But for seventeen years I paid my taxes to the US and waited and waited for permission to return to my country, which I finally did last year once that stupid law was declared unconstitutional. What purpose did that exile serve other than to make my life miserable? Did anybody benefit from that, other than the gay haters rubbing their hands together with glee that they could inflict a bit more pain on the “sodomites”? Again, excuse us if we weren’t the nicest hosts for your visit here, but I hope you can understand why.

  68. simon says

    HaHaHa. Mike Brooks attended the Liberty University in which his biology class taught creationism renamed as “evolution”. Let me quote you Richard Dawkins whom you may not know:
    “natural selection, driving gradual evolution over immensities of geological time.”
    Have you ever heard of “natural selection”. I repeat. “natural selection” not “reproduction” is the keyword. I am not going to re-iterate again what I said in my previous posts which you may not understand. As they put it, you can’t fix stupidity. You must have slept through all your biology classes.

  69. simon says

    Oop. I didn’t see his sign-off message, Bye Bye. You will not be missed. Your posts are just one big fart which accomplished nothing other than contaminating the air.

  70. billy wingartenson says

    BRown is a queer – the lips of disgraced minister Ted haggard is a sure thing exposure

    the cueness /femininity in his cuteness suggests he’s a bottom.

    Good riddance to this pig, He’s as bad as his predecessor Maggie Gallagher whose traditional marriage included 2 illegitmate kids

  71. billy wingartenson says

    BRown is a queer – the lips of disgraced minister Ted haggard is a sure thing exposure

    the cueness /femininity in his cuteness suggests he’s a bottom.

    Good riddance to this pig, He’s as bad as his predecessor Maggie Gallagher whose traditional marriage included 2 illegitmate kids

  72. billy wingartenson says

    BRown is a queer – the lips of disgraced minister Ted haggard is a sure thing exposure

    the cueness /femininity in his cuteness suggests he’s a bottom.

    Good riddance to this pig, He’s as bad as his predecessor Maggie Gallagher whose traditional marriage included 2 illegitmate kids

Leave A Reply