I don't have children, don't plan to have children, and don't particularly want children. If I were to adopt children, my main criterion would be that they be old enough to operate the vacuum and do some light dusting. So same-sex parenting is not an issue with which I have a deep personal connection.
Except that the religious right is making it personal. Their most popular argument against same-sex marriage goes something like this: to endorse same-sex marriage is to endorse same-sex parenting. Same-sex parenting is bad for children, since it deprives them of either a mother or a father. Therefore, we ought not to endorse same-sex marriage.
It is not surprising that arguments against same-sex marriage quickly morph into arguments against same-sex parenting. For one thing, the tactic is rhetorically effective: indeed, it has more than a faint whiff of "scare tactic." Less cynically, there is a significant connection between marriage and parenting, which is not to say that children are the only reason for marriage or that other reasons (such as mutual support) are insufficient by themselves. In any case, the argument cannot be ignored.
Does an endorsement of same-sex marriage necessarily entail an endorsement of same-sex parenting? It seems not. One does not have to be married to have children, and one does not have to want children to be married. Indeed, we allow people to get married even when everyone agrees that it would be undesirable for them to have children (e.g. convicted felons serving life sentences). So the connection is not automatic.
Still, public policy is often based on averages, not necessary connections. On average, heterosexual couples produce their own biological children; homosexual couples never do. If they want children, they must adopt, use reproductive technology, or otherwise go outside the relationship. This fact is at the crux of the argument.
As an aside, it's worth noting that gays who want children do these things already, even without the benefits of marriage. (So do many straights.) Unless opponents can show that same-sex marriage would increase the prevalence of non-biological parenting, their argument falls short.
But do gay couples "deliberately deprive children of either a mother or a father"? Consider first the case of adoption. It seems to me not merely odd, but foolish and insulting, to describe adoptive gay parents as "depriving" their children of anything, rather than as providing them with something. Of course, specific adoptive parents, like specific biological parents, may deprive their children of all sorts of things (affection, education, material needs, and so on). But when anyone--gay or straight--takes a child who does not have a home and provides it with a stable, loving one, we should not invoke the language of "depriving." To do so is akin to describing soup-kitchen workers who provide stew to the homeless as depriving them of sandwiches.
Oddly enough, many same-sex marriage opponents recognize this. Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family, whom I publicly debate on a regular basis, describes the sacrifice of gays who provide a loving home to orphaned children as "noble" and "honorable;" he has said the same of single parents who adopt. After all, however bad you think being raised by two mommies or two daddies is for children, being raised by the state is surely worse.
So perhaps the deprivation argument applies primarily to those who use reproductive technology. One might contend (for example) that mothers who go to a sperm bank, with no intention of including the biological father in the child's life, deprive that child of a relationship with its father. That, indeed, is Stanton's position, and he holds it whether the sperm-bank patron is homosexual or heterosexual.
Whatever you think of the merits of this argument, it has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage. The vast majority of those who use reproductive technology are heterosexual. Why, then, bother gays about this? As William Saletan wrote in Slate, "You want to stop non-biological parenthood? Go chain yourself to a sperm bank."
Presumably, the same considerations would apply to those who create a child by having sex with a third party outside the relationship. Objecting to their actions hardly provides a blanket argument against same-sex parenting, much less same-sex marriage.
To argue against same-sex marriage on the grounds that it deprives children of a parent is like arguing against same-sex marriage on the grounds that it leads to divorce: yes, it sometimes does, but so does heterosexual marriage, and far more often in terms of raw numbers.
So even if we grant the controversial assumption that deliberately raising children apart from their biological parents "deprives" them of something, the deprivation argument proves both too little and too much. It doesn't apply to most same-sex couples (few of us have children, and fewer still by insemination), and it applies to many heterosexual ones. In short, it's a red herring.
25 Comments for “Gay Parenting and Double Standards”
posted by Craig2 on
Actually, they don’t deprive children of a ‘mother or father.’
According to Judith Stacey and Tim Biblarz’ landmark lit review
on the question of “Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter (American Sociological Review, April 2001), current
research shows that ex-straight lesbians maintain quite good relationships with their ex-
husbands and allow them access without obstruction. Moreover, they often have good relationships with their own parents/grandparents of any kids.
Ergo, those children are not lacking in strong role models of the female or male sex, as the Christian Right maintain.
Most of this research centres on lesbian parenting though, as gay men are perhaps freer to opt out/have been denied parental responsibilities relative to
lesbian communities, where there have often been lesbian mothers groups and custody rights organisations.
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Can’t argue with you John.
Talk about the anti gay marriage faction heading down a slippery slope with the ‘deprivation’, argument.
Those heterosexual couples who take extraordinary means to give birth to a biological child…’deprive’ a child who needs adoption of a home.
In fact, the advent of fertility treatment has done that.
Creates a situation where there is no need for adoption, and no place for the child without parents to go.
One could argue that a diabetic parent is ‘depriving’ their child of a healthy parent.
And heterosexual couples, regardless of genetic defects and illnesses, are free to procreate without restraint or challenge to do so.
But this is what I mean by moving the goal post.
The standards set for gay people in marriage are different than they are for heterosexuals.
As the government is arguing that their standards are static and set, and gay people can never meet them.
The truth is, every time a gay person DOES meet the standard…it’s changed, so that it can’t be and will never be met.
Not even by heterosexuals.
Besides, the man/woman couple is a presumption that the man and woman are not gay.
Again, the standards are not adhered to at all.
So, if the standard really rested on equal for gay people as they are for straight people, there wouldn’t be a slippery slope.
There wouldn’t be any reason to compare what kind of spouse to the number of spouses.
Nor comparisons of human marriage to that of another species.
The discussion would stay in it’s proper camp.
That there is no discrimination against a person to be free to marry, based on a singular and profound characteristic.
In any other discussion, such discrimination would be considered cruel and mean in spirit.
That’s the standard now, and the previous standards for doing so, proved to be cruel and unworkable.
We have history and evidence on our side.
So why is the other side, the side of contradiction, cruelty, hypocrisy and illogic…winning?
posted by John on
As is so common, the author falls into the trap of assuming those who oppose gay rights most ardently and drive the debate in this country argue in good faith – that gay people will really demoralize the military if they are open and honest, for example, that employers would be forced to keep on employees who came to work in drag if anti-disrimination legislation were passed, that hate crimes legislation that included sexual orientation would curtail freedom of religious expression Obviously, common sense aside, they would only have to look at states and countries were such enlightened legislation has been passed to see that their fears are unfounded. They don’t do, of course, because ther real goal is to prevent the passage of any laws, society’s stamp of approval, that would suggest gays are worthy of respect. That’s their real patriarchal theocratic goal. So anyone who thinks reason will win these debates is wasting their breath.
posted by John on
I shoud have said – Anyone who thinks reason will win these debates outside of a court of law is wasting their breath. Outside of a court of law with all their “activist” judges.
posted by Bill from FL on
John..
Do a search on Ake Green who is a pentacostal pastor in Sweden. He was prosecuted under their Hate Crimes laws.
posted by John on
Bill from FL – As far as I know Sweden has never adopted the American Constitution and Bill of Rights.
posted by Bill from FL on
John….
I realize that. I didn’t get a chance to elaborate….sorry.
I wanted to give ONE example the CR often point to, in opposition to hate crimes laws. Didn’t surprise me that Sweden prosecuted Green, given that calling someone a “fag” on the street or doing a nazi salute, etc can get you jailed for a few months. The offense Green was charged with was along the lines of usual European laws against “inciting racial hatred”.
Sometimes I watch religious channels to see what they are up to and sharpen skills at answering their arguments. I think most gays should do that, instead of the same old pablum puked out by HRC, NGLTF and others. Anyway, that Rod Parsley jerk outta Columbs, OH had a “special” “the gay agenda” and how they are “silent no more” on this and other issues. He was ranting, raving and fund raising that we have to “stop these kind of laws so it doesn’t happen here”. Last I heard Ake Green has so far been victorious in the country’s courts.
posted by John on
Bill fron FL – You mention Parsley. I didn’t know much about him until I read the recently published book “American Fascists-the Christian Right and the War on America” by Chris Hedges. He is obviuosly a very dangerous man. I recommend the book highly. Definitely, Know Thine Enemy!
posted by John on
Bill from Fl – Another good book to read is “American Theocracy” by Kevin Phillips. The more I learn the more I wonder if gay people aren’t like lambs frolicking on a meadow as the wolves draw closer. I’m not a paranoid type. These people are really serious.
posted by ReganDuCasse on
Bill makes a point. The CR here says that a few anecdotal incidents of legal action against of the number in other countries is sign of things to come here in the US.
And a mark that their Constitutionally protected free speech will be compromised.
They lie about that.
The CR fail to mention that what happened in Canada and Sweden, was actually editorializing and giving opinions, rather than Biblical passages in their pure form.
It was speech that said that gay people were dangerous, would destroy carefully crafted more civilized structures of society and the equal rights of gay people would destroy those of ‘normal’ people.
This is an excess that DOES cause trouble. That DOES result sometimes in violence against gays and lesbians.
And Sweden and Canada are countries with publicly paid health care, among other things.
At least these governments are willing to take note, that the RR, or CR..CAUSE more problems than they solve with their religious rhetoric.
And the way I see it….unless such conservatives, so certain of their power and values CAN show that doing this to gay people BETTERS society, why let them go off on a toot and slander and libel?
Slander and libel is NOT protected speech.
When such speech causes harm (and it does for gay people in particular) then NO, the consequences SHOULD come down hard on who utters such slanderous speech.
That’s the thing about the RR, CR…they want the punishment and control to go ONE way, towards ONE group.
It doesn’t occur to them that the law of treating others as you expect to be treated is actually enforced sometimes.
And look what whiners they turn into when it is.
posted by Arthur on
The moderator at our Adoption for Gay Men course (here in Toronto) last spring was a bit taken aback at how things had changed.
When he’d started the program, a decade or so ago, most attendees were single. Now they’re mostly couples, and the majority are married. And this despite the strong anti-marriage mind-set in the local gay press, of the “getting married is just aping straight people” rejectionist-left variety.
That’s what the un-Christian Right doesn’t want people to see. If you give LGB people access to the tools to build stable, adult relationships, some percentage will, just like everyone else.
It’s much harder to make up lies about a kind of people when everyone knows that couple with the kids down the street from PTA meetings.
But then, isn’t most of the relgious right’s agenda based on the telling of lies?
You know, like those park guards at the Grand Canyon who are now forbidden by their (federal) supervisors to say the world is more than 6,000 years old, ’cause they’re contradicting the bible.
posted by Bill from FL on
Arthur
I haven’t checked into this yet but I am outraged of a sort of thing. They say that Right-wing PC doesn’t exist in America. Pull yer heads outta yer butts peopls!
I think also that rejectionist leftwing faction is the old guard of the gay bar scenes and stuff like that. I don’t blame them for wanting to make a buck, but they need to change with the times! And be glad these times are changing!
John
Thanks for the suggestions on the books. I always tune these guys in for a good bit of gay news and to see what they are up to. This is a very scary issue and these people really bother me. I think it’s every gay person’s responsibility to speak up and speak out. Those of us who do not in life are responsible for our own suffering at least in part. Makes me SO mad I don’t have more time!
Reagan
Points below
Bill makes a point. The CR here says that a few anecdotal incidents of legal action against of the number in other countries is sign of things to come here in the US.
–They are using this as an alarmist way to raise funds, among other things. Tune them in and listen to them…..it is not just rhetoric anymore. We are real people and these are OUR lives they are legislating against. Disagree with me? fine. Good fences make good neighbors. But don’t legislate against me. We need to speak out!
And a mark that their Constitutionally protected free speech will be compromised.They lie about that.
–They are taking pages out of the gay left’s playbooks and using it against us all! They are getting used to us existing so the whole “hands off that filth or it will burn you” thing disappears and they start to beat us at our own games!
The CR fail to mention that what happened in Canada and Sweden, was actually editorializing and giving opinions, rather than Biblical passages in their pure form.
–I hear ya, but who actually stands there and reads the bible exactly? Should we appoint a Kommisar to appoint this? I think they still have to be able to speak out….but we have to yell back at the grass roots.
It was speech that said that gay people were dangerous, would destroy carefully crafted more civilized structures of society and the equal rights of gay people would destroy those of ‘normal’ people.
This is an excess that DOES cause trouble. That DOES result sometimes in violence against gays and lesbians.
–Nice to be included in anti-vilification laws I suppose, ehhhehehehe but as long as they strongly punish actions not words it’s all good. Rather have my feelings hurt in a debate than my nose broken. And vice versa.
And Sweden and Canada are countries with publicly paid health care, among other things.
–Maybe not so much Canada, but Sweden is a Social Democracy. Erection to Resurrection the state takes care of you!
At least these governments are willing to take note, that the RR, or CR..CAUSE more problems than they solve with their religious rhetoric.
–The other side to this is they want to make everything so perfect that people end up being law abiding criminals. Ya think?
And the way I see it….unless such conservatives, so certain of their power and values CAN show that doing this to gay people BETTERS society, why let them go off on a toot and slander and libel?
De Acuerdo! Speak up often. GAYS=Good As You Shithead. If I have arguments with fundies it’s usually like this for me:
If you have the right to speak out and participate so do I. I ask you for nothing and don’t owe you anything except that you put up with me and I with you! Bottom line: I will lay down my life before I am forced back into the closet just as you would probably do for your God. I will not permit people to have dominion or remove the sovereignty of every individual!
Slander and libel is NOT protected speech.
When such speech causes harm (and it does for gay people in particular) then NO, the consequences SHOULD come down hard on who utters such slanderous speech.
–The issue is it doesn’t meet the standard of Slander usually. Frankly I see where you are coming from, but I think it would be bad to go down this path. The one presently with the gold would make the rules!
That’s the thing about the RR, CR…they want the punishment and control to go ONE way, towards ONE group.
–Yes! They want DOMINION over the culture as the bible says they should have. They have the TRUTH and what WE NEED! And we BETTER get back into the 1950’s because before that everyone had family values, crime was low, sin was punished and non existent, noone wanted what they should not have, noone farted at the dinner table, and children and faggots knew their place. And Dammit we had protestant prayer in schools!
Never mind the thoughts of communist revolution during the depression, prohibition gangs, Tammany Hall, the KKK, abuses of state power. Sex was under control and FILTH!
It doesn’t occur to them that the law of treating others as you expect to be treated is actually enforced sometimes.
–I hear you there. As in don’t tell me I can’t drink at your bar, eat in your diner, or work at your store.
And look what whiners they turn into when it is.
–You bet! They are fast to scream that “seperation of church and state is a lie of the left”. OK it was laws and the supreme court finally enforcing the first amendment at state, local, and federal levels with Judicial Review.
All right I will shut up now. Don’t get a chance to respond. You can email me if you wish, directly.
posted by Bill from FL on
One last thing….
I always love Jon Corvino’s columns. I have to say I am totally on the same page except that FOF with Glenn Stanton have more of an agenda. Do not be fooled by his back-patting “oh it’s honorable the job they do”. He is just trying to disarm our indignation! It’s like a “but other than that Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?” thing.
Same Crap as Former FL Rep. Randy Ball (R-Titusville) tried feeding us in his war with Rosie.
Sometimes I want to call up FOF (which I would never do) and say “Get a grip. The nuclear family isn’t the alpha dog it once was. Thank god it’s not basically mandatory anymore and my mom didn’t HAVE to be a housewife/teacher/secretary/nurse/prison matron. Nuclear family? Great Idea and I still like it but it isn’t the ONLY way! Deal. Kids with No mom and dad? Guess what….raising the kids with the idea that “even if you don’t get what you want, be glad you don’t get what you don’t want” is probably smart! Why don’t you get right up in the faces and reprimand and excorciate the morons in my city that are too busy drinking and buying crack than care for their kids? I will be glad to point them and the kids out. Why don’t you be truly Christian and biblical and pass legislation against In-vitro and Artificial Insemination, and enforce the biblical ideal of CARING FOR THE KIDS WHO have nothing rather than wanting one that looks just like you?!?! Oh wait, then the expensive adoption bureaucracy would need overhaul and hetero’s reproductive rights would be challenged. Tisk tisk.”
Not pragmatic, but at least I could say that I have SAID it despite their deaf ears!
What does everyone else think?
P.S. Check out http://www.florida4marriage.org
Nice read!
posted by C. L. K. Aqurette on
Bill from FL:
FYI ? I don’t know much about the American legal system, but here in Sweden the local prosecutors are free to do pretty much what they want. This is what happened in the case of
posted by Bill from FL on
CLK Agurette
Understood. I figured that the case would not stand….I was using this case as an example of what our Christian Right points to. Thanks for the clarification of what the law was. I knew sort of what the idea was but not the actual one.
Sverige has a special place in my heart….my Morfar grew up in Karlskrona. 🙂
posted by Fitz on
You can have this type of yuppie coupling as our ideal, but it fails to promote (and indeed undermines) the integration of the two sexes as a essential part of marriage. Most people are heterosexual and only opposite sex pairs can concieve children. Your standard explicitly states that a child?s natural Father (or Mother) is non-essential to marriage. That any combination of adult is sufficient.
It further reinforces and locks in the notion that all family forms are inherently equal. They are not.
Yes, there is a philosophical maxim that reads ? ?If it?s everything it?s nothing?. We cant defend what we cant define. You are attempting to severe marriage from its historical and biological heritage, this will have a net effect. (leaving aside the already discernable effects in Europe) That effect is that marriage is outdated and any family form including single parenting is acceptable.
posted by Fitz on
Standard efect behavior… In order to address are most pressing social problems we need to be able to say clearly that parents should be married and children should be raised by their parents in an intack marriage.
“Hispanic women have the highest unmarried birthrate in the country — over 3 times that of whites and Asians, and nearly 1.5 times that of black women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women bore 92 children in 2003, compared with 28 children for unmarried women, 22 for unmarried Asian women and 6 for unmarried black women.
Some 45 percent of all Hispanic births occur outside of marriage, compared with 24 percent for whites and 15 percent of Asians; only the percentage for blacks — 68 percent — is higher, but they are not facing the same population boom.”
Think of others
posted by Bill from FL on
Fitz,
If this thread is still alive, I will debate you on this. If you can pull your head out of yer can for more than a second.
posted by John on
Fitz, explain why your type runs around playgrounds at the age of 10 hurling the epithet “faggot”. Worries about the state of marriage must be innate human burden , it seems.
posted by Bill from FL on
Hello Fitz
You can have this type of yuppie coupling as our ideal, but it fails to promote (and indeed undermines) the integration of the two sexes as a essential part of marriage. Most people are heterosexual and only opposite sex pairs can concieve children. Your standard explicitly states that a child?s natural Father (or Mother) is non-essential to marriage. That any combination of adult is sufficient.
I guess I will chime in while I have time.
Why should this or “yuppie coupling” promote the “integration of the 2 sexes?..”? That’s like faulting Coke for not promoting RC Cola as well! Only Opposite sex partners can conceive? No, it comes down to the Sperm and the Egg in a womb. Not to minimize the process but that is the science. What about In-vitro and sperm banks? Should they not exist also? Where are you and the religious right’s complaints about that? In a free society, I don’t want you or the government demanding what relationship I as a consenting adult MUST enter into with another consending adult. Let alone how it must be recognized. And how we must govern it. Butt out!
It further reinforces and locks in the notion that all family forms are inherently equal. They are not.
Exactly the same? No, I think it’s fair to say gay couples are different than Traditional Marriage. Inferiority-deserving under law? Absolutely not.
Yes, there is a philosophical maxim that reads ? ?If it?s everything it?s nothing?. We cant defend what we cant define. You are attempting to severe marriage from its historical and biological heritage, this will have a net effect. (leaving aside the already discernable effects in Europe) That effect is that marriage is outdated and any family form including single parenting is acceptable.
Yes, I have heard that tired hackneyed saying over and over again by you and your religious rightists. What it boils down to is “we won’t allow anything different than what always was, and what we want”. Defending marriage? That is your problem. The way you kill a social institution is you walk away from it completely, not try to revise it and allow others to build their own wings onto it. Many people in our culture DO think marriage is inconvenient, outdated, foolish, and oppressive. Many use it for the wrong reasons. Why don’t you complain to them and legislate against THEM? The “if it’s everything it’s nothing” argument can be used against anything one opposes?.like Christianity. (Ex: “If THEY who follow Martin Luther still can call it a holy church without Transsubstantiation and 7 sacraments then it will mean nothing”) I say Bullsh-t!
I and others are NOT trying to sever it from anything. Redefine its rules and prerequisites to a degree, yes I suppose but not sever it. Like it or not this has been done and the institution HAS changed over the years. It will continue. Also, WHAT discernible effects are there in Europe? According to who, and whose statistics?
Standard efect behavior… In order to address are most pressing social problems we need to be able to say clearly that parents should be married and children should be raised by their parents in an intack marriage.
“Hispanic women have the highest unmarried birthrate in the country — over 3 times that of whites and Asians, and nearly 1.5 times that of black women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women bore 92 children in 2003, compared with 28 children for unmarried women, 22 for unmarried Asian women and 6 for unmarried black women.
Some 45 percent of all Hispanic births occur outside of marriage, compared with 24 percent for whites and 15 percent of Asians; only the percentage for blacks — 68 percent — is higher, but they are not facing the same population boom.” Think of others.
How is this Gay people’s fault? And Gay people’s problem? Not to mention do gays not bear the effects of having the “net effects” of these kids being born out of wedlock since we are also in society, and not on the fringes as we once were, to your dismay. And also, it begs the question: all of these babies that were born were obvoiusly not aborted. Isn’t that a victory for your side’s in itself? So now that one part of your movement has succeeded what about the other part? What are YOU doing to support these kids and unmarried moms? Not much, because your power has waned over the years. Or are you just too busy barking up the wrong tree, starting with us and eventually you will get to the other evils. And for those kids whose parents cannot or willnot take care of them properly, should they just languish in state care? Why don’t you talk to some gang members and see why they are gang members. Or some kids shuttled around in state care. Then talk to kids who were taken out of state care and placed with gay foster parents.
posted by Bill from FL on
Take a look at what the other side is saying and using against us. Oh boo hoo lady. As if in the 60’s and 70’s let alone now Child Welfare services wouldn’t have at least TRIED stepping in.
http://www.afajournal.org/2005/august/805Stefanowicz.asp
posted by Fitz on
Bill from FL
“How is this Gay people’s fault? And Gay people’s problem?’
Your right, gay people rarely feel accountable for the common good ? they don?t feel (apparently) that they have to sacrifice so that ALL society can set a consistent standard that says children should be married to intact families with their own mother & father.
?What are YOU doing to support these kids and unmarried moms??
Quite a bit actually. And just one of those many things is to try and set a standard that people should not bear children outside of wedlock. That every child should be raised by their married mother & father. To that end I also work mightily to maintain the legal standards that reinforce that notion against narcissistic people who only think of themselves.
posted by Bill from FL on
Responses below.
“How is this Gay people’s fault? And Gay people’s problem?’
Your right, gay people rarely feel accountable for the common good ? they don?t feel (apparently) that they have to sacrifice so that ALL society can set a consistent standard that says children should be married to intact families with their own mother & father.
RESPONSES: That is rubbish. Gay people DO sacrifice for the common good, and YOU KNOW full well that the sacrifices you and your ilk at marriagedebate.com want does not stop at what you cited. You want us to be silent, ashamed, and have no rights as couples, or as a despised minority of people. Admit it. As for “the common good” I make plenty of sacrifices, but I will fight you and your kind to my last breath if you think I will accept the worst of your movement’s terms for living. Why don’t you complain to those who can’t even pay for the kids they squirt out and “reform” them.
?What are YOU doing to support these kids and unmarried moms??
Quite a bit actually. And just one of those many things is to try and set a standard that people should not bear children outside of wedlock. That every child should be raised by their married mother & father. To that end I also work mightily to maintain the legal standards that reinforce that notion against narcissistic people who only think of themselves.
RESPONSE: Bullshit. You work mightily to maintain legal standards to keep us a second class citizens and give lip service to everything else you oppose.It’s not pragmatic for you to do otherwise! Either that or you are not very good at it because you are failing at it. And just how legally do you propose to ENFORCE those standards? Can you sell it to a majority of Americans?
Yes, I think of myself because this is about individual rights, and not letting YOU and YOUR kind trample on them! We will NNOT continue to be societal pariahs. I don’t think it’s narcissisctic (look at the definition of that by the way) for someone to adopt the children someone else will not care for or cannot.
posted by Fitz on
Of coarse I?m going further than that. Mine is not a defensive crouch. I find you to be deeply inhumane and narcissistic in your demands. 40 years of a sexual revolution has given us 50% divorce rates, 70% illegitimacy rates and falling rates of marriage overall, cohabitation and un-chosen childlessness. The social scientific evidence for divorce and Fatherless-ness is in. It leads to sky high crime, depression, suicide, violence, gang activity, and a perpetual cycle of child abandonment.
For you to throw the entire institution up for redefinition is the height of self absorption.
We can and must rebuild the social institution of marriage. Its important that all children are born into married households with their own natural parents. This standard should be advanced not undermined. The institution of marriage is infinitely more important than a vehicle for your inclusion.
posted by Bill from FL on
Of coarse I?m going further than that. Mine is not a defensive crouch. I find you to be deeply inhumane and narcissistic in your demands.
RESP: Mine is both defensive and offensive. Funny that you only answered the arguments that your movement champions the most, but ignored the others. YOU find me to be deeply inhumane? How? YOU find me to be narcissistic? And have you looked at the word’s definition? And if me saying “No, it’s not acceptable to have no legal recognition like a Domestic Partnership or a Civil Union” then you will just have to DEAL! And who made YOU the decider? Your movement wants and will stop at nothing to have DOMINION and PRIMACY over this country.
40 years of a sexual revolution has given us 50% divorce rates, 70% illegitimacy rates and falling rates of marriage overall, cohabitation and un-chosen childlessness.
RESP: Not to mention now that women have a choice to leave the abusive husband, a career outside the home, etc etc. How “dare they”! Women and men have unprotected sex and she gets pregnant and they bear the fault for their irresponsibility. So she either has an abortion, which your movement is against or she has the kid. You know the story. Why don’t you propose using the antiquated laws against fornication?
The social scientific evidence for divorce and Fatherless-ness is in. It leads to sky high crime, depression, suicide, violence, gang activity, and a perpetual cycle of child abandonment.
–That does NOT justify starting out by banning gay marriage/relationship recognition. Your movement is completely misguided. While I am with you on parents not taking responsibility for their kids, it is not the only problem. And it’s not by and large a gay issue.
For you to throw the entire institution up for redefinition is the height of self absorption.
–It is not a major redefinition, and again, if if saying “No, it’s not acceptable to have no legal recognition like a Domestic Partnership or a Civil Union” then you will just have to DEAL!
—
We can and must rebuild the social institution of marriage. Its important that all children are born into married households with their own natural parents. This standard should be advanced not undermined.
–And by and large you will find gays are not trying to undermine this but your misguided movement is picking on US because we are an easy target. Gays are not banging on the doors of married heteros and saying “hand over the kids you are raising” for example. Most anyone agrees that “if you breed them YOU feed them”. Further, you can redefine the “institution” AND reform it AND rebuild it. It has happened before! And once you have accomplished this to at least 80% of your goals, how will you enforce it? Court Orders? Police? Laws?
The institution of marriage is infinitely more important than a vehicle for your inclusion.
–Good. Then first get on with fixing it as it is with the morons who screwed it up from within and quit barking up my tree!