Home » Video » ...

Marriage equality and other relationship recognition laws Videos

Owen and Jen's marriage equality message.

Owen and Jen comply with the law but allow other voices to be heard. - "The preceding statement, while a legal requirement of this process, should in no way be ...

The Campaign - New Day Films - LGBTQ - Law and Justice

Marriage: The Union of a Man and a Woman Only: The Case Against Same-Sex "Marriage"

FURTHERMORE, ADVOCATES FOR "MARRIAGE EQUALITY" ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT ANSWER AS TO WHY THE STATE SHOULD DENY ...

User Comments

Made You Think commented on 15 Jan 2013

"Proven by what?" Proven by the fact that BOTH men and women are responsible for any children resulting from their sexual relationship. The fact that by nature, same-sex unions are deficient in this area. "gay couples have the same capability to form a legally equivalent family unit as male/female couples." Just like in the video, responsible parenting can easily apply to rooming friends, dorm partners, elderly siblings, three religious monks, orphanages, or any other non-romantic relationships.

Made You Think commented on 03 Apr 2013

As explained in the video, there are plenty of cases involving infertile couples who knew conception between them is highly unlikely yet were surprised to find they were expecting a child. The sex of infertile couples is still naturally oriented to procreation. Also, adoptive parents can care for their children like biological parents, but, the care and nurture of children belong first to the biological parents. The social role of marriage is to reduce absentee parents and illegitimate children.

Made You Think commented on 03 Apr 2013

Deny it all you want, but the sexual relationship of infertile opposite-sex couples is naturally oriented to conceiving children in a way gay sex will never be. Also, as it's explained in the video, responsible parenting cannot explain why adults must commit to each other a lifetime of exclusivity and permanence. In fact, what if the adoptive parents were bachelor brothers raising their incarcerated sister's children? Why should the state deny this non-sexual adult alliance legal recognition?

Derek Auble commented on 03 Apr 2013

"The sex of infertile couples is still naturally oriented to procreation." Sure, if you're having sex to procreate. As surprising as it may seem, some people have sex simply because it feels good, or to express themselves romantically. Crazy concepts, I know. Take your time. The legitimacy of parental care is never affected by biological affiliation. Adoptive parents can raise children just as well, if not better than, many parents. Stop trying to disguise your bigotry. You're fooling no one.

Derek Auble commented on 02 Apr 2013

You contest that same-sex marriage would somehow destroy social order, yet you ignore the fact that these people - the ones whose marriages you are trying to denounce - feel the same type of love for their partners as heterosexual couples do for theirs. Love is the only essential component for marriage, and because of this, it will be legalized. Conservatives (like yourself) might claim it to have chaotic consequences, but in a decade or so, you'll fill the same niche as modern-day racists.

Made You Think commented on 03 Apr 2013

Nobody's doubting the love of gay partners or any other sexual union, but the government doesn't care about romantic lives between consenting adults. The government cares about the sexual relationship of a man and a woman because the inherent responsibilities of biological parents (should children come into being) endure longer than just one night. Revising marriage law to include sexual unions which are not naturally oriented to procreation will make this harder to understand.

Made You Think commented on 03 Apr 2013

And the entire marriage "equality" claim is a misnomer since not every relationship (including non-sexual unions) will be legally recognized. You can't have love without cooperation. If one of the brothers fell ill the other could easily provide care. So again, why should the government deny their non-sexual relationship legal recognition? And if any adult alliance (romantic and non-romantic) can be considered a marriage, then why have a marriage law in the first place?

Made You Think commented on 15 Jan 2013

" and heterosexuals destroyed the sanctity of marriage with a 50+% divorce" Like I've made clear in the video, the promotion of certain social and legal developments (The Sexual Revolution, Radical Feminism, No-Fault Divorce, etc.) have denigrated men and women's view on marriage. By revising marriage law to include relationships NOT naturally oriented to procreation, the state further obscures marriage's social function which is to keep biological families intact.

Made You Think commented on 15 Jan 2013

"Today adoption is recognized as the equivalent of procreation" No, it's NOT. And if that's the modern understanding then it is seriously misleading, because children are a mixture of the bodies of men and women. Biological parenthood naturally occurs between two opposite-sex couples ONLY. By nature two people of the same-sex CANNOT form a single reproductive principle anymore than a single act can unite three, four, or more persons in a polygamous relationship.

Tifany Stills commented on 13 Jan 2013

I've searched the web sires of several states.....and can't seem to find any state marital purposes or mission statements anywhere? Why would "natural" ever be an excuse to limit marriage....when even the Village Idiot knows that the ability to defy nature is what defines humanity. I'm seeing a bunch of silly opinion and a complete lack of logic. The Federal Government separated marriage from procreation 70 yrs ago with the Single Head of Household IRS status.

Derek Auble commented on 03 Apr 2013

You're implying that marriages in which one (or both) partners are infertile are not valid and should not be allowed, while simultaneously saying that all current marriages are of the type that you wish them to be (procreative). You're also saying that biological parents have greater responsibilities, and are thus more prone to stay united. What, then, do you think of adoption? Do you think those parents are less responsible? Your argument isn't even founded.

Made You Think commented on 16 May 2013

The state should recognize marriage as the union of a man and a woman only to promote an objective view of marriage (to hold men and women accountable for the procreative abilities and reduce the likelihood of absentee parents and illegitimate children) rather than a subjective view (a union for adult sexual play. In this understanding, adults are less likely to form and sustain a marriage even after children have resulted from their sexual relationship. )

Tifany Stills commented on 15 Jan 2013

"Men and women are compelled to care for each other because of..." Proven by what? Have you met all married men and women? Have they elected you as their spokes person? A claim of opinion....not fact. "can provide NO reason " I just gave a valid reason......gay couples have the same capability to form a legally equivalent family unit as male/female couples. I do recognize the old principle from centuries past you're referencing......that principle is dead.

Made You Think commented on 15 Jan 2013

"the US government federalized marriage and it became a secular union" However that may be, this "federalized marriage" can give NO principled reason why marriage should be (1) a sexual partnership (2) marked by exclusivity and permanence (3) or give sound reasons why marriage should be legally regulated in the first place (considering the fact that we don't recognize or closely regulate most other forms of emotional unions like ordinary friendships).

Made You Think commented on 15 Jan 2013

"no procreation is required in marriage anyway." As stated in the video, the sexual union of a man and a woman is inherently linked to procreation...even during periods of INFERTILITY. "the ability to defy nature" NO matter how you slice it, children have NEVER resulted from the sexual union of same-sex partners. Even if a woman were to sleep with multiple men, when a child results, only ONE of those men is the biological father of that child.

Made You Think commented on 15 Jan 2013

"Do you mean no principled reason you agree with?" No, it means exactly what I mean: that marriage isn't without a ground or reason why it is. Men and women are compelled to care for each other because of the likelihood for conceiving children. Same-sex relationships (like bestiality, necrophilia, etc.) is a societal dead-end and can provide NO reason that the state should regulate such relationships through the social institution of marriage.

Made You Think commented on 14 Mar 2013

As stated in the video, the sexual union of infertile couples are also naturally oriented to procreation...which explains why many of them usually end up conceiving children. The care and nurture of children belong first to the biological parents. Revising marriage law to accommodate same-sex unions will obscure marriage's social function which is to reduce the likelihood of absentee parents and illegitimate children (by one or more partners.)

Activists converge on Supreme Court for marriage cases

Why Marriage Matters to Katherine

I believe that all people are inherently equal and deserve equal treatment under the law. Queer people should be able to have our relationships recognized as ...

Link for boards:

Link for your site:

Current link: