Watch Live: Obama’s Counterterrorism Speech

Watch Today’s BlazeCast With Your Questions, Comments & Live Chat!

Faith

NFL Player Matt Birk Pens Anti-Gay Marriage Article: Silencing Those Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage Is ‘Un-American’

Oct. 2, 2012 8:22am Billy Hallowell

Ravens Center Matt Birk Pens Article Against Gay Marriage

Matt Birk (Photo Credit: AP)

Baltimore Raven’s center Matt Birk is attracting attention over a controversial article he published in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. In it, the player offered his support for free speech and voiced his opposition to same-sex marriage.

Birk opened the piece by issuing his support for the National Football League’s policy that allows players to share their personal views on matters of social and political importance. However, he quickly dove into the debate surrounding gay marriage, highlighting what he sees as inconsistencies and a false framing of the issue as a whole.

“But the conversation during the last few weeks on the subject of same-sex marriage has told a different story — one that appears to be drawing a false connection between supporting true American values like free speech and the institution of marriage, our most fundamental and important social institution,” he wrote.

The purpose of his article is plainly laid out in its third paragraph, in which Birk explains that he intends to discuss “what the marriage debate is and is not about” and clarify the fact that not all NFL players believe that gay marriage is a “good” societal phenomenon. At the center of the debate, Birk claims that marriage between a man and a woman is “privileged and recognized by society as ‘marriage’” because of the institution’s value to children. He explains:

Children have a right to a mom and a dad, and I realize that this doesn’t always happen. Through the work my wife and I do at pregnancy resource centers and underprivileged schools, we have witnessed firsthand the many heroic efforts of single mothers and fathers — many of whom work very hard to provide what’s best for their kids.

But recognizing the efforts of these parents and the resiliency of some (not all, unfortunately) of these kids, does not then give society the right to dismiss the potential long-term effects on a child of not knowing or being loved by his or her mother or father. Each plays a vital role in the raising of a child.

Birk went on to lament the fact that “marriage is in trouble,” though he said that gay unions have little to do with the problem. At the heart of the issue is a larger societal issue, he contends — a “do it if it feels good” mentality that has taken prevalence. As a result, marriage, Birk claims, has been impacted by “no-fault divorce, adultery, and the nonchalant attitude” that exists toward the institution.

Building upon his belief that gay nuptials aren’t the root cause of the problems America faces when it comes to marriage, the football player expressed fears, regardless, that same-sex marriage will impact his children. — members of the nation’s next generation.

“Ideas have consequences, and laws shape culture. Marriage redefinition will affect the broader well-being of children and the welfare of society,” Birk wrote. “As a Christian and a citizen, I am compelled to care about both.”

In his attempt to reasonably discuss his views on the issue, the Ravens center derided those who label people opposed to gay unions as “bigots” and “homophobic.” He called assaults on free speech, particularly when it comes to attempts to silence those opposed to same-sex marriage, “un-American” and dismissed the name-calling that often results.

In concluding, Birk made appeals to people on both sides of the debate, while sticking closely to his contention that gay marriage simply isn’t beneficial for society:

A defense of marriage is not meant as an offense to any person or group. All people should be afforded their inalienable American freedoms. There is no opposition between providing basic human rights to everyone and preserving marriage as the sacred union of one man and one woman.

I hope that in voicing my beliefs I encourage people on both sides to use reason and charity as they enter this debate. I encourage all Americans to stand up to preserve and promote a healthy, authentic promarriage culture in this upcoming election.

See Birk defending traditional marriage on video, below:

Birk’s comments on the issue of gay marriage follow other public statements from NFL players on the contentious social issue. The Jackson Sun provides a recap of the comments from NFL players that led Birk to take his very public stance on the matter:

After Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo supported gay marriage, state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote a letter asking Baltimore owner Steve Bisciotti hip to limit such comments from players.

That led Vikings punter Chris Kluwe to pen a profane letter to the delegate defending both free speech and gay marriage.

Now Ravens center (and former Viking) Matt Birk has penned an opinion in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune supporting free speech and opposing gay marriage.

But the back-and-forth didn’t end there. On Monday, Kluwe responded in a separate post to Birk, attempting to debunk his opposition to gay marriage. On his blog, he opened by letting readers know that he knows Birk well and that he respects his fellow player for all he’s done for the community; Kluwe also makes it known that he respects divergent opinions.

Chris Kluwe (Photo Credit: AP)

That said, Kluwe writes directly to Birk, telling him that he is wrong and states that, “the argument you presented in the Star Tribune simply does not stand up to logical inspection.” Through a series of “problems,” which Kluwe outlines as main arguments against Birk, the player takes aim at Birk’s Minneapolis Star-Tribune article. Here’s a snapshot:

Problem the first – Your argument lacks facts, sources, or statistics. You can’t just say “Same -sex marriage is bad for kids because I think it’s bad for kids, and I think it’s bad for kids because it’s bad for kids”. That’s called circular reasoning and it’s a logical fallacy. If you want us to understand why same-sex marriage is bad for kids, you need to provide some sort of substantial evidence. Tell us that children from same-sex couples are more likely to grow up broke and miserable and alone and will end their days starving in a gutter. Just don’t use a study like this one, which displays clear source and confirmation bias (as outlined neatly in this article from Slate). Use something like this(sadly behind a paywall, but the abstract should give you the high notes). I’ll sum it up for those who don’t want to click on links: there’s no difference between children raised in heterosexual relationships and same-sex relationships, as evidenced by a meta-study of nineteen different LBGT studies. [...]

Ultimately, while your letter is respectful and polite (and I’ve tried to keep mine the same way, no SPARKLEPONIES in this one), I remain unconvinced by any logical reasoning you have so far brought to bear on the subject. I encourage you to keep speaking out, as we should never be afraid to espouse our views, but from a rational standpoint I simply cannot agree with discrimination against a subset of our citizenry.

Read Kluwe’s entire argument against Birk, here. What do you think about this debate? Should NFL players be so vocal about these contentious issues? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (223)

1911CK
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:45am
19 LGBT studies show….oh yeah, those wouldn’t be biased at all.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- johnjamison
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:52am
  The bigger point is Marriage is a religious institution so the Government has NO RIGHT to either grant or deny homosexual marriage. Fact is government needs to get out of the marriage and divorce business entirely.
  
  Report this comment
- DoseofReality
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 11:35am
  So John….if your not religious you should not be able to get married?
  
  Report this comment
- 98Bravo
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 11:38am
  JohnJamison, you HIT THE NAIL on the head, Marriage is one of the 7 sacraments.. talk about separation of Church and State. The State should stay out of this, in fact there is a growing movement (although small) among pastors to not marry couples who get a marriage license.. and you can do it:
  
  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2011/09/06/there-are-two-marriages/
  
  http://ncrenegade.com/education/how-do-i-get-married-without-a-license/
  
  Marriage has existed for thousands of years before the USA or any modern government. Lets get the state out of marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 11:42am
  Just as long as the government isn’t also forcing others to accept the definition of marriage.. say Catholic Hospitals, Private Adoption Firms, etc… for example
  
  Report this comment
- cessna152
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 12:01pm
  Johnjamison,
  
  Exactly correct. Government should not be involved in the RELIGION institution… there were a “few” leaders that mixed religion and state and it did not turn out very well. ***Cough**** Hitler ****cough****
  
  Report this comment
- pdw
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 12:02pm
  Our Government is not allowed to mess with Religion at least that is what they keep saying so just maybe they need to **** out. But if they want to make same sex marriages legal then why don’t they just have a legal contract where those same sex persons are protected by a legal contract instead of trying to destroy the Religious beliefs of others? They could care less about why religious persons do not want the sanctity of marriage be destroyed. They want to destroy the belief in God so that the only god will be the government.
  
  Report this comment
- lawrench
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 12:29pm
  @Dose
  
  Marriage is a Religious ceremony. If atheist with to “Marry” then it should be a Civil Union and not considered a marriage. The thing that is funny to me is that there are some churches that do recognize same sex marriage, and as a principal of religious freedom, should allow their members to marry other same sex members.
  To me, the problem is about definition and not about gay hating. If two people are married in a religious ceremony, then it is Marriage. It two people take vows in a non-religious ceremony, then it is a Civil Union. There would basically not be a difference except one was a religious ceremony, and the other was a government ceremony.
  
  Report this comment
- red_white_blue2
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 12:49pm
  You read my mind with that – unbelievable
  
  Report this comment
- colt1860
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 1:11pm
  Marriage is not necessarily defined by religion. It has its basis in natural law, civilization, and morality. It does not matter how much I may “love” someone, that gives me NO right to marry them. I may love my mother, that does not mean I have a right to marry her, even if she was divorced and free. That is unnatural. You must understand the concept of Natural Law, from which Natural Rights are recognized. Natural Law does not recognize any natural right for a man to marry his mother, his toaster oven, or his dog Pete. People are NOT free to engage in any relationships freely among each other. My uncle can NOT marry my six year old cousin. Society nor natural law sanctions or permits that. You can’t lump everything into Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness and call it a right. I agree that Government should not be in the business of handing out marriage licenses, for that is subject to the authority of families and the Church. However, Marriage has always been recognized, PROTECTED, and preserved by Law, e.g. our Common Law. The Government must not license, grant or redefine marriage. Marriage came before any worldly Government. Marriage is an ancient, NATURAL institution. Marriage was not made by man, but for man. Government is only to recognize and accept these self evident truths.
  
  Report this comment
- PATTY HENRY
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 1:12pm
  OKAY, that’s it. I do NOT want to hear NFL players talking about anything but FOOTBALL. OKAY? especially in UNIFORM. OKAY? FOOTBALL… diversion from what we have to deal with daily…
  Sorry, but that’s How I feel! :)
  
  Report this comment
- colt1860
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 1:14pm
  In the 1885 Utah Territory case of Murphy v. Ramsey, the United States Supreme Court recognized the fundamental importance of the traditional institution of marriage:
  
  “For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.”
  
  Report this comment
- DoseofReality
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 1:48pm
  Lawrench. should muslims be allowed to join in marriage? Hindus? Buddhists? Since you feel their god is false (possibly even satan) do you not consider their marriage to be before god? And who the hell are you to tell me as an agnostic that my marriage is somehow less than yours? I just dont understand you guys…..try to live and let live, stop being suck d*cks about EVERYTHING and republicans would win every election in a landslide. But you guys are just sucks d*cks about virtually everything you disagree with.
  
  Report this comment
- Shreknangst
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 1:50pm
  Marriage became officially a Church rite only about 500 years ago.
  
  As a teaching, St Paul said “Do NOT marry — stay single” That was his command to the Gentiles to whom he was appointed Apostle … check out “Saint Paul’s Joke” … it gets into history and scriptural data from that period, and the Vatican considered it important enough to request draft copies (the pre-publication thank you note is on the “Saint Paul’s Joke” FB page).
  
  The book points out that being Gay is not prohibited — which is why Paul needed to specify male-with-male sex when he prohibited male-with-female sex. It also points out that gay marriage was legal under Roman law … it was only outlawed about two hundred years after Christ…. and then by a Pagan, not Christian or Hebrew.
  
  Report this comment
- super_delegate
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 1:55pm
  Marriage is not just a religious institution, in fact many marriages are performed outside of churches, in town halls, on beaches etc. Marriage is a biological and sociological reality. what’s more the gay marriage issue is really about the normalization of abnormal behavior. Once legal gay marriage is universally accepted the next step is to infiltrate school curriculums to to teach children they can love who they want, whether it’s incest, beastiality, polygamy or whatever. It is an assault on civl behavior and society as it is now constructed. Obama only wants their votes and will embrace whatever he has to in order to gain power. I predict he will abandon or ingnore the issue if he is re-elected.
  
  Report this comment
- DogTags
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 3:02pm
  Government does not need to get out of promoting natural marriage. Marriage is a cornerstone to society. Promoting marriage benefits society. Protecting marriage is a duty of government. Destroying marriage by recognizing and privileging any type of relationship is something government has no authority to do. Same-sex relationships do not benefit society like marriage does, therefore they ought not be privileged. The fact that their relationships are not beneficial may make some people feel bad does not give people the right to destroy marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- colt1860
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 3:04pm
  In all instances wherein Marriage or the relationship of such a union is mentioned in the Bible, reference to a man and women, or husband and wife, is always made.
  
  There is in our human species only two genders, man and woman. Males were made to mate with females, wherefore a man has a right to marry a woman, likewise the woman has a right to marry a man. They were made for each other. We don’t need a Government or any man made laws to tell us that a man may marry a woman. THAT’S NATURAL.
  
  Homosexuals through the lusts of their own hearts, are given up to uncleanness, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves. Even women change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leave the natural use of the woman, while burning in their lust one toward another, and work that which is unseemly, receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which is meet. And though they know the judgement of God concerning the matter, have pleasure in it.
  
  Report this comment
- Bryansblog
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 3:44pm
  Same sex marriage does has a negative effect on children! It is very simple… let me put it this way same sex marriage has the similar effect on children as does abortion! It does away with children! One by destroying them the other by making it impossible to create them. Facts!
  
  Report this comment
- flyingpeters
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 5:14pm
  In the beginning there was the Mother, the Father, and then the Children to make a up the family……generations later, came all of the other garbage.
  
  Report this comment
- colt1860
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 5:36pm
  @Shreknangst Paul did not command celibacy. He said of those that chose such a lifestyle that it was not a sin, for the practice was for the purpose of making oneself holy both in body and spirit for the Lord. He admonished those that were unmarried, to not become celibate if they had not the will power or gift for it, but to get a wife.
  
  “It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”
  
  “For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”
  
  “Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.”
  
  “…and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”
  
  “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled.”
  
  Report this comment
- lawrench
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 7:04pm
  @DOSE
  
  Since you are too stupid to read, let me reply by saying that I stated marriage is a Religious ceremony, I did not define it as a Christian ceremony. Hindu’s, Buddhists, and yes Muslims all have a religious ceremony to marry. Now, what I said is that since marriage is a religious ceremony, Civil Unions are the answer to those that are of the same sex and even people like you who are not religious. If you think I am wrong then state that I am wrong. But if you want a Christian answer to my statement of Civil Unions, one only has to look to the Bible when it says “render to Ceasar what is Ceasars, render to God what is God’s” and also ” Obey the laws of the land”. Since marriage is a religious ceremony, why is the Government involved in those religious ceremonies? That is the real question! Again, if governments say Civil Unions are just like marriages, then anyone who took vows outside the religious ceremony is not a marriage, but a Civil Union. Nothing has changed for anyone, and no one is demeaning your Civil Union. Do not demean my marriage by forcing my religious ceremony to includes things that my religion does not practice or believe.
  
  Report this comment
- Whatifga
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 8:42pm
  @ Shrieknangst, you obviously have never read or studied the Bible. Thus I would ask you refrain from commenting on things you have limited or no knowledge. As you add nothing but white noise to an argument that your lack of understanding at best drowns out wisdom.
  
  Report this comment
- black9897
  Posted on October 3, 2012 at 11:51am
  John is correct.
  
  Report this comment
lynnwleonard
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:45am
It seems to me that the word “marriage” is the simplest form of the issue. “Marriage” is a term used in the Bible from God that means a union of a man and woman. Therefore, we have, as faithful people used the term. Years ago, people began to say they were “married in the church” or married “civilly”. The civil union is given by the state, not by God. The civil union term means the same exact thing, though without the sacrament from God. I keep pondering why same sex couples want a sacrament with God that He specifically says is wrong. Sex was made by God to be enjoyable so we as His people would create more people. I love all my gay friends, of which I have many, but I still believe that those that cannot create new lives are called by God to be celibate.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Vladia
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 11:29am
  Lynn, what then is your belief about women are now past childbearing age? What if they’ve been married for decades? What about young men and women who are infertile? Should they remain celibate? Should they be banned from marrying?
  
  Report this comment
- LibertarianForLife
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 11:53am
  What god are you speaking of? Your imaginary religion is certainly not the first to hold marriages, so go ahead and drop that foolish idea now.
  
  Report this comment
- pdw
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 12:09pm
  I believe that those who do not bare children are not for us to judge as there is no way we know enough to judge them or why we need to do so. I believe a legal contract for same sex persons could be given by our government not by Religious organizations. Protection of same sex persons needs to be provided as there have been cases where the parent of one after that child’s’ death has taken everything away everything claiming everything belonged to their child.
  
  Report this comment
- Shreknangst
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 2:21pm
  Marriage was a civil act, in biblical times. It is mentioned in the Bible in that context. In the first century, even Caesar married a man. As a Church rite, Religiously sanctioned marriage is only a few centuries old — prior to that there was marriage by copulation… what we now call Common Law Marriage.
  
  However, if you were a Gentile, converted to the faith taught by Jesus, you fell under the Gospel of Saint Paul (See, Saint Paul’s Joke, http://www.amazon.com/dp/B009DVS4QE) and therefore were to be celibate — NOT marry at all. Marriage was a weakness of the flesh. Those who were under the Gospel of Peter married — but they were also required to maintain ALL the laws (so no pork, good hygiene, etc). If you followed Paul, and therefore were a Gentile, you took all the laws or none of the law… but the role model was DO NOT MARRY. People who read his teachings focus on the Faith & Grace, but ignore the fact it is conditional on obedience to The Law…. or not referring to any of The Law at all. So scrub references to ten commandments etc. and deal with the real issue that, for Christians, marriage is out (unless you obey all the laws). But none of that alters the fact that Marriage was a civil rite, and the biblical marriage included polygamy — unless you followed Christ, via Peter..
  
  Report this comment
- allyn211
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 4:15pm
  Shreknangst, go back and read I Corinthians 7. NOWHERE in the Bible does Paul tell Gentiles that they cannot marry. He does say, in I Corinthians 7:8, that is is good for a man to remain unmarried, as he was, but also says that “it is better to marry than to burn with passion”.
  
  Report this comment
- Whatifga
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 8:53pm
  @shreknangst
  
  Again your statements clearly show you’re Biblical illiterate and unwise in the ways of the one true Go. Additionally, you don’t even have a firm grasp on history for that matter. Your lack of truth and discernment clouds your mind and thoughts. I pray that you may come to know God’s truth and love and recognize the deception to which you have fallen victim. The truth, God’s truth, shall set you free.
  
  Report this comment
- ThriCeSLewis
  Posted on October 3, 2012 at 12:48am
  @LIBERTARIANFORLIFE
  
  “What god are you speaking of? Your imaginary religion is certainly not the first to hold marriages, so go ahead and drop that foolish idea now…”
  
  If you want to get technical, I don’t think you intended to call religion imaginary – as it is certainly a real human phenomena – but perhaps the ‘God’ idea that all religions attempt to shed light on – which you apparently scoff at as an atheist (I presume)? But I digress… I do have a question: Am I crazy for addressing you as a real person with a real mind (and an invisible one at that) with a real presence in the real world – or am I delusional? Are you really an ‘imaginary’ person – perhaps I am mistaken? Am I really interacting with mindless binary through my computer? (Try as you might to prove to me that you’re a person – its an impossible task. To believe so requires faith – which we all exercise). DNA is quite humbling. Also, it’s not a good idea to start out your argument by attacking your intended readers with a condescending rhetorical statement if you want them to listen to you. Unless your motive is to ruffle feathers – which then renders your voice hollow. Second, your statement ‘its certainly not the first to hold marriages…’ is false in light of the Bible’s opening words “In the Beginning…” Presuppositional biases exist. Peace.
  
  Report this comment
AlleyTrotter
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:40am
Matt is obviously gay

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- grobro_h
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:15am
  chriss girl must like all those big boys in the locker room.as they say ,what goes on in the locker room stays in the locker room.
  
  Report this comment
- MIBUGNU2
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:31am
  My Two Dads are for O’Blamer.. Were IN…WHOOO!!!
  
  Report this comment
- ConstitutionFreedomLover
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 11:17am
  alleytrotter…did you mean Chris was gay? Because Matt is Married go back and read the article.
  
  Report this comment
- AlleyTrotter
  Posted on October 3, 2012 at 11:33am
  freedom person
  I didn’t know one had to be single to be gay
  Matt is definitely a f—T
  
  Report this comment
avgconservative
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:39am
The problem with Klewe is he trusts social scientists… I don’t. Have you been in a state institution’s School of Social Work or Sociology? I have. My wife has. Most of her former friends who were social workers at one time have. They all say the same thing… They are dominated by lesbian women and spineless men. Their research is, and will always be skewed.

So, what study can he use, Mr. “I can’t kick a field goal?”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- WSGAC
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:03am
  “Gay marriage” is simply a ploy to legitimize homosexuality. Like the tv sitcom “Will and Grace” it’s all about making homosexuality normative. It’s an appeal to the emotions in order to bless debauchery.
  
  With enough cleverness and appeal to emotion, one could do the same for incest, beastiality, or any other debauched sexual behavior.
  
  Report this comment
- phillyatheist
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:48am
  AVG – well of course you don’t, you’re a conservative, you don’t trust any of the sciences! i do understand the distinction though. social sciences are far more difficult to reach definitive conclusions and most studies are often inadequate or highly subjective. still, it seems that quite a bit of work has been done on this issue and i’m inclined to believe their assessment, even if it’s not 100% accurate.
  
  Report this comment
- jthirteen
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 11:07am
  Sociology is a ridiculous study. People, in general, are unpredictable. There are too many variables and too many studies that contradict every other study. That being said, I agree with the poster about how gay marriage is just a way to further thrust homosexuality into the mainstream. Remember when Ellen first came out? She had a sitcom on during prime time and came out on the show as well. The show was cancelled. Why? Because society knew it was wrong, weird, whatever you want to call it. Now those types of shows are everywhere. I would bet anyone on this board $1,000 that in 50 years sex with animals will be what homosexuality was when Ellen came out. Something that goes on but we just don’t want it on tv. Then 15 years later it will be on tv.
  
  Report this comment
- Sosorryforyou
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 11:11am
  I have worked in a state university’s School of Social Work for many years, and although there are many gay and lesbian individuals at our school, the VAST majority of our professors, staff and students are heterosexual. If those in our school do lean left, it is not because they are gay and lesbian but because they have, in general, more tolerant and open-minded views.
  
  Report this comment
- MrBigBillyB
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 12:13pm
  @SoSorry…
  “If those in our school do lean left, it is not because they are gay and lesbian but because they have, in general, more tolerant and open-minded views.”
  
  How very open-minded and tolerant of you to imply that anyone who doesn’t agree with a “left-leaning” position are intolerant and close-minded. That is the point that I took from Matt Birk’s article. Just like if you don’t agree with Gay Marriage you are labeled as a “bigot and a homophobe” as the article states, if you aren’t a “liberal” or “progressive” then you are intolerant and close-minded.
  
  How intolerant and close-minded of you.
  
  Report this comment
- Sosorryforyou
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 1:03pm
  @MrBig
  
  After rereading my comment, it does seem to imply what you say, which was not my intent, and I apologize. I know there are many open-minded, tolerant, and thoughtful individuals on all sides of this issue. My comments were in regards to AvgConservative’s statement, “They are dominated by lesbian women and spineless men. Their research is, and will always be skewed.”, which implies all state university research on this subject must be skewed because of it’s dominant gay and lesbian community. My comment was about my own experience at a state university’s School of Social Work which does happen to lean left, but not because of it’s gay and lesbian community. I fumbled with my first comment, and any insult was not my intent.
  
  Report this comment
- jthirteen
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 1:18pm
  The reason I hate social research is because it can be skewed to suit whatever view that the organization conducting the study wants it to. Before we had our first child my wife worked for such an organization that would conduct numerous studies that would basically validate their organization so they can continue to receive federal and state funds to run the organization.
  
  Report this comment
- sWampy
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 1:33pm
  It’s so funny, the ignorant liberals those so dumb they think universal slavery/socialism is a good idea, pretend to support science, while every position they back from evolution to global warming is based on fantasy not science.
  
  Report this comment
- avgconservative
  Posted on November 3, 2012 at 2:28pm
  phillyatheist
  
  “You don’t trust any of the sciences…” You mean like the scientist at East Anglia?
  
  I trust all science, and very few scientists.
  
  Report this comment
Dano.50
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:37am
Isn’t Kluwe using the same circular reasoning to say gay marriage is good for kids?

If there’s been been time to get stats to prove Kluwe’s side, then there’s also been enough time for stats to prove the bad effects of gay marriage on kids.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- zorro
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:54am
  Kluwe is a funny guy. He want proof but if it proves him wrong, he won’t accept it. Using any “Slate” article as a way to disprove data is nothing short of imbecilic.
  
  Report this comment
- MrBigBillyB
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:38am
  I agree. I think it is hilarious when Kluwe says, (paraphrasing) don’t go to this study because it’s biased… and then immediately says, here’s your proof ” as evidenced by a meta-study of nineteen different LBGT studies”
  
  I wonder, do you think LBGT studies would be interested in a study that shows nothing wrong with LBGT marriage?
  
  Report this comment
teammommy
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:31am
My question is: WHY IS GOVERNMENT IN MARRIAGE? Marriage is a religious ceremony, a biblical tradition. The government doenst license Bar Mitzvahs, Deacon ordination, Baptism, Last Rites, Communion, etc…so why do they feel they have to be in marriage? Get the government out of marriage, and any legal contract gays want to draw up is their own business. Marriage is a holy blessing and should remain as on between men and women.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- toadicusrex
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:48am
  EXACTLY. You nailed it,
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:12am
  Your confused.
  Get religion out of GETTING married.
  
  Report this comment
- EMUSICMANN
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:34am
  I have been saying this exact thing for years. Thank-you so much. Thought I was the only one who thought this.
  
  Report this comment
- SoCalMom
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:36am
  What Teammommy says here is completely accurate. “Verseofreason”, check the facts; you’re wrong.
  
  Report this comment
- k2weaver
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:38am
  Exactly correct.
  
  Report this comment
- editedforbias
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:40am
  Thank you. This argument is not about equality or legal ramification, though it is attempted to be sold that way. It is about government over God and religion. Government as superior to all. Civil unions have support by vast majorities of the population (at the state level) and they also support the defense of marriage.
  
  However, this does not speak to Mr Birk’s arguments which do bear some additional research. The problem with much of the data is that the traditional family is so replaced by government doctrine and social engineering that studies of heterosexual marriage tend to include those broken homes as well. Birk touches on this downward spiral in his arguments. Study after study shows children from in tact stable homes perform better in school, do less drugs and end up more stable human beings. Does a child benefit form the loving relationship in a homosexual household over a broken relationship in a heterosexual one, probably. Loving stable relationships will always win out.
  
  But I cannot help but see the reality that only a heterosecual relationship can create a child and, as a result of this relationship, the child is better off with an intact relationship between his mother and father. The desire to ignore this fact and discuss only broken homes, orphans, adoptions and the like compares the outlyers. I cannot help but believe that this is a desire to push an agenda.
  
  Report this comment
- DoseofReality
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 11:39am
  Teammommy – so shoudl only Chrsitians be able to get married? Marriage is common through-out the world, not just in biblical cultures. Should buddhists or hindus not marry? Hindus actually have some of the lowest divorce rates in the world, but my guess is in your eyes they arent really married since it wasnt bibilical?
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 11:42am
  Marriage in the United States is a civil issue NOT a religious issue. Hell-O
  
  Report this comment
- Variant_530035
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 12:59pm
  @Verceofreason – wrong again! Marriage is and always had its roots in a religious ceremony. Over the years its been bastardized to include civil unions. If two men or two women want to join in a partnership it is a civil union, not a marriage.
  I find it amazing that the progressives and liberals of this world are trying so hard to call their union a marriage thereby nullifying all religious bounds of the act. Why don’t they (Homosexuals) get their own thing going and call it something else, like a legally binding loving relationship.
  
  Report this comment
teddrunk
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:31am
This makes little difference. If you take the NFL as a whole, it’ll back Obama simply because it’s black players would gladly see America become a Communist country, as the cost to vote for a “brother”. Obama could commit murder on children and they’d still vote for him just as the black community would as a whole.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Esperandopara
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:51am
  Wow, I’m impressed that you could type all that with only a third grade education and while wearing a white hood and cloak!
  
  Report this comment
- D-Fence
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:15am
  They will vote for him because he’s black, but not because they want to be communists.
  
  Report this comment
- MCON29
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:27am
  Fact: Romney/Ryan is estimated to get 0% of the black vote. Is that racist too?
  
  Report this comment
welovetheUSA
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:31am
They are gay as well……..no man speaks up for gay marriage if he is a christian.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- coachsmac
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:37am
  I was thinking the same thing!
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:13am
  How does christianity enter into whether 2 consenting adults can get married?
  
  Report this comment
- Wango
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:17am
  From your mouth to Ted Haggard’s ears.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:20am
  But if the man is a true American and believes that all Americans should have equal rights, than he does speak up for another American’s fundamental right to marry.
  
  From your comment, you are either an American or a Christian but you can’t be both.
  
  Report this comment
- darmeen
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 12:11pm
  @ENCINOM:
  
  No one is taking away their rights. A man, gay or straight has the right to marry a woman, gay or straight. The same rights for all people.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 12:38pm
  darmeen
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 12:11pm
  
  @ENCINOM:
  
  No one is taking away their rights. A man, gay or straight has the right to marry a woman, gay or straight. The same rights for all people.
  ___________________
  I love how you parrot out the same racist argument made by those that defended the laws preventing inter-racial marriages. The Supreme Court has held the right to marry a person ones choice to be a fundamental right.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 2:59pm
  I love how you associate the gay agenda with civil rights. A freedom rider, or any black man today, would have punched you in the face for making such an insulting comparison.
  
  Report this comment
- tnman65
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 5:30pm
  Amen.
  
  Report this comment
- Whatifga
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:02pm
  @ verceofreason
  
  Because for a follower of God and our Lord Jesus Christ, marriage is and was created by God between a man and a woman. For believers and followers of our Savior, God created man and woman and created the two to become one in flesh and spirit through marriage. If you don’t understand that then you obviouslyaren’tt familiar at all with the Bible (OT) which is over 4,000 years old, much less the NT.
  
  Report this comment
GiveUsJustice
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:28am
So how does society reproduce. Simple question. If being gay is natural. Do you defy your “natural order” you think is correct and use the opposite sex?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Verceofreason
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:37am
  There will ALWAYS be plenty of breeders.
  Get a clue.
  And I love love LOVE how pissed you get
  when you feel the WRONG people are having too many kids!
  
  Report this comment
DanB
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:24am
I had to laugh when I read the answering article basically saying “Prove it! You have no facts to back up your claims.” Why do I laugh? I have read about studies that claim to prove much along the point. I have also read about studies that claim the opposite as well. So “proving it” will prove nothing. It would become either a debate of “my study is valid and yours is not”, or one or both sides will simply ignore that the other side of the debate even brought any facts to the table. In debates like these, sadly, facts won’t matter. One side or the other will not care what the facts are even if someone brings them to the table…. And don’t you dare bring any holy books to the table…. I do agree with Matt Birk, the real problem with all this goes a lot deeper than what appears on the surface.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- lvburke49
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 11:00am
  good article on the subject
  http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/growing-up-with-two-moms-the-untold-childrens-view
  
  Report this comment
jasonsmommy
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:17am
We are losing our freedom of speech. Unless we agree with them then we are not allowed to speak.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Wango
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:16am
  Said the woman on a website accessible to the world about a man who published similar opinions in a major city newspaper. Who exactly can’t say anything they want about gay marriage. You all are. This guy who makes a living bent over while some dude puts his hands up his rumpty dumpty, he’s saying whatever he wants. Who’s being silenced?
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:33am
  This started when a Conservative Christian assemblyman in Baltimore attempted to silence a Baltimore Raven player who spoke up for Gay Marriage. Nobody is attempting to silence the Christians, we are just showing you how and why you are wrong.
  
  Report this comment
- MCON29
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:57am
  Nobody wants to be labeled a homophobe, biggot, racist, or islamaphobe. These are the words used anytime someone has any opinion that doesnt fall in line with liberal views as an attempt to stop the debate, silence opposing arguments. Its very cowardly, but effective.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 11:30am
  MCON29
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:57am
  
  Nobody wants to be labeled a homophobe, biggot, racist, or islamaphobe
  ________________
  Yet Beckerheads repeat the arguments of homophobe, bigot, racist, or islamaphobe. If the rhetoric fits.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 2:36pm
  We must reject those bullying words. They must no longer hold any meaning.
  
  Report this comment
2SENSEWORTH
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:13am
Honor your father and your mother cannot happen in a same sex marriage.

And by not giving children the right to a father (male) and a mother (female) means they only have to obey 9 commandments because the 5th commandment becomes irrelevant.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Verceofreason
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:15am
  Groan/
  50% of all US household are single parent households.
  What planet are you living on?
  
  Report this comment
- biggreenboo
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 11:32am
  “Groan/
  50% of all US household are single parent households”
  
  Groans louder and deeper/
  And we wonder why or country is such a mess.
  
  Report this comment
frogg
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:10am
This man is absolutly correct. It is based on thousands of years of facts and Human history. Remember that there are few things that mankind has now tried at one time or another. If same sex marriage worked, it would be in use some where today. But, Alas! Every known group of mankind embrases some form of marriage between a man and a woman. But there is no history of same sex marriage anywhere. There is plenty of history of Homosexial conduct but no where were they stupid enough to make in a marriage!!!!!!! Vote the BUMS out this November! Please! Pretty Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Check out http://www.rescueourconstitution.com/

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Karenshepherd
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:07am
Have read several articles by psychologists outlining a child’s need for a mother and father in their development. In June the New York Times published a peer-reviewed study showing the negative effects of same-sex relationaships on children. As adults children in traditional marriages had the lowest number of problems in current life (drug abuse, depression etc.). Those whose parent had a same-sex relationship fared worse than in any other non-traditional family; less education and more sexual prtners, for example.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
bdandsl
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:07am
The only marriage recognized by God is between a man and a woman. That’s all I need to know.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- coachsmac
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:36am
  And all God’s people said AMEN!!!
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:17am
  This is NOT a religious issue as this is NOT a christian country.
  
  Report this comment
- Wango
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:20am
  And all God’s gays said, “Hold on a second.”
  
  Report this comment
- DoseofReality
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 11:43am
  Then fine – dont recognize it – and you can feel your god doesnt recognzie it – thats your choice. but why stop others from making the choices they see fit for their own lives? My guess is that 100% of gay couples wanting to get married would not give one thought that you dont recognize ther marriage
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 3:03pm
  Unfortunately, it’s not about marriage for gays. Most want to continue with their promiscuous haphazard lifestyle, free from contracts.
  
  But instead, gay marriage is about recognition.
  
  http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/index.html
  
  What kind of recognition? Just imagine your average gay ‘rights’ parade, complete with speedos and whips and chains and S&M gear.
  
  But instead of once a day, that becomes everyday.
  
  That is their goal.
  
  Report this comment
Average_JoeMN
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 8:53am
Chris Klewe is a moron. He’s arrogant, self-righteous and foul-mouthed. Every time he speaks he demonstrates he’s a moron. As a Vikings fan I just wish he’d shut his dirty mouth and kick the ball. We don’t pay for his opinion and don’t want it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- MN NICE
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 12:28pm
  I’ll drink to that
  
  Report this comment
termyt
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 8:49am
Wow, that’s kind’a like what the discussion should look like. Who knew two football players would be so much better at it than our elected representatives, whose job it is to engage thusly. OK, I think none of us are surprised.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
AlFranken
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 8:49am
Of course they should speak their mind… but do we really care what they have to say more than any other random person we come across?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
chris72sax
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 8:48am
Why can’t the State only recognize civil unions or a contract between two adults? My marriage has value because it is a bond between me, my wife, and God, not because of State recognition. Gays are solely focused on this issue. It’s time to let people live their lives and find new allies who believe in fiscal responsibility and individual liberty. It may not even be a majority of gay people, but we could use more voters and money for the important battles like defeating socialism.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- sdan
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 9:00am
  Lots of states do have civil unions already. The reason as I see it for this big push is that the end game is not so 2 men or 2 women can get married. The end game is if this is declared a civil right when a Minister, Priest or Rabbi refuses to perform the ceremony because it violates their beliefs the lawsuits will commence. We already see it happening. There have been stories of bakers, florists and photographers being sued because they refused to work for same sex marriages because of their religious beliefs. Notice I didn’t include Imam because they would not dare.
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:18am
  Because of all the legal RIGHTS hetero couple benefit from – that’s why.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:59am
  But gays have the same rights….?
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 12:53pm
  No gays don’t have the same rights – like hospital visits for NON relatives and inheritance laws and many more.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 1:20pm
  Lol I can’t just visit my best friend in the hospital just because I “wuv him soooo very much”
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 2:38pm
  Or a man cannot visit his secret mistress just because they have bonded.
  
  Report this comment
Meyvn1
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 8:48am
Truth hurts.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Verceofreason
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:36pm
  Just like gays serving openly in the military, THIS is going to happen.
  Find something else to kvetch about.
  
  Report this comment
turfdog
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 8:42am
A huge lacking in our society is a lack of role modeling, especially by fathers, and Birk is right on the money in not wanting our culture and laws to promote that even farther.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Madison2012
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 8:41am
We need more of the silent majority that agrees with Birk to stand up.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Meyvn1
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 8:49am
  and not just stand up, but speak out, in his support.
  
  Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 8:39am
There are serious consequences for telling the truth in America today Matt. I hope you’re ready. If the gays in San Francisco riot and kill some people, Obama will blame your article and you will be cuffed and brought in for questioning.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Verceofreason
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 11:40am
  Whose truth?
  That’s the issue.
  The “truth’ of loons who think the world is 6,000 years old?
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 12:25pm
  There is only one truth, God’s truth. If you don’t like it, take it up with Him…and good luck with that.
  
  Report this comment
Jenny Lind
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 8:36am
Funny how it’s become an unwritten rule for people to have to check their ideals when they hang up their coats at work, and only those who are PC allowed to have opinions and speak them. This young man was calm and respectfull, bet much of what he hears back isn’t. Stats are there if anyone wants to look, kids do better in families with Mom and Dad. The key is a solid relationship, which both parents taking responsibility to keep the relationship solid. That is tough to do anymore, the world seem to work against it.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RightUnite
Posted on October 2, 2012 at 8:32am
Get ready for all the haters….

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Wango
  Posted on October 2, 2012 at 10:16am
  You’re all already here.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.