We have no clue whether it was a planned motherless family or whether he and his partner stepped in to give a motherless child a family--since he will not say.
But he and his partner are proud to announce they were both "very excited to become new parents."
90 Comments
As he cruises the river Denial we can only hope that Rep. Jared Polis will take a moment and contemplate the prospect that he may have lost connection to his humanity.
It is a tragedy when a child grows up in a home without a mother and a father. If they grow up in a home where the people raising them (in this case a couple of practising homosexuals) don't have any respect for God's laws, how can they inculcate a sense of morals and values into their children? They cannot and the child will grow up not knowing the difference between right and wrong, even if they don't turn out to be homosexuals themselves.
Congratulations! Really. As long as they're happy!
Wow, attacking a child because you don't selfishly approve of who his parents are. Are you going to provide anything for this child? A home? Education? Healthcare? Food and water? Clothes? Insurance? No? Then why do you feel the need to think you have any say in how this family is formed and insult them? Oh that's right because you think you have a say in everybody's lives. Fascists.
They can't both be the child's "parents." We really need to return to clear definitions. A parent is one of the two individuals from which the child was conceived. All others are non-parents, such as step-parents or adoptive parents.
The kid has a mom; it was just taken away from her to live with two guys, at least one of whom is a complete stranger. I can't think of anything sadder than growing up knowing that I was taken away from my mom.
C'mon NOM - millions more children are raised by single parents than same-sex parents. If you were truly looking out for the motherless and fatherless children, as you claim to be, you'd wage war against divorce, not gays.
Study upon study has shown us these children grow up to lead very typical lives. The only difference, as pointed out by the Prop 8 trial (that you try oh-so-hard to keep hush-hush), is that children raised by unmarried same-sex couples are at a disadvantage due to the benefits their peers' parents receive.
If you truly cared about the children, you'd make sure they received equal treatment under the law.
Congratulations to Jared Polis and Marlon Reis!
We care enough about the children to feel that they are entitled to NOT be subjected to the custody of same-sex "parents".
NOM, your horns are showing.
You have no idea whether this child was adopted or not. No idea of the circumstances surrounding this child's coming inot the world. But you charge in to stigmatize him from birth. Not very Christlike. Btw, should gay couples (gay people?) by barred from adopting? Is that a NOM position?
Louis--WHY? Have you ever known a child raised by same-sex parents? I know several and they are all happy and well-adjusted people. They are all much better off for having grown up with the love and support of two committed caretakers than they would have been with a struggling single parent, or in an institution, or getting bounced around from foster home to foster home. What exactly is it you think children are missing out on when they are raised by gay couples? What makes you think it's more important than what they would miss out on otherwise? Can you back any of this up with things you have actually witnessed?
No baby has ever consented to losing his mom.
"You have no idea whether this child was adopted or not."
So, both dudes could be the mother and father?
The child must be adopted by at least one of them, if they are both dudes.
It is one thing to bring up the fact that many children are brought up in homes lack a mother or father, and in some cases children are adopted into already constituted families. But it is quite another thing to create broken homes on purpose, and to declare such incompleteness normal. Yes, it is true that we should provide assistance to the handicapped. But it is no compliment to them to create handicapped people on purpose. IT is sad that Mr. Jones cannot walk. It is evil for Mr. Jones to have his healthy legs removed because he feels that he is a paraplegic trapped in a whole body.
It is wrong to create orphans and fatherless and motherless homes on purpose. It is good to help orphans and love the fatherless and the motherless. But to do the latter, the first judgment is essential.
What is his point? Sexually disoriented people should not have access to children; having children in their custody does not make them suitable parents and NO, no same gender marrige.
EvolveAlready: "millions more children are raised by single parents than same-sex parents."
Why is it that ss advocates always justify themselves by pointing to other harmful trends? Yes, there are millions of children raised in single-parent homes; and the research on them doesn't look good. NOM already acknolwedges the harms of divorce, cohabitation, and single parenting.
"Study upon study has shown us these children grow up to lead very typical lives."
There is no data on the outcomes of children raised by ss couples. The research done on those families is rife with methodological problems, and unacceptable as a basis for public policy; none of them follow the children into adulthood, i.e. when they "grow up." If we were to accept the studies as valid, we would have to acknowlege the harms to children demonstrated in those very studies.
Nice way to slam single fathers by your statement. How do you think a single dad would feel about your statement that just loss his wife during child birth.
Do you really have a soul somehere in your body to make such a RUDE post. Like my mother always said, "if you don't have anything nice to say, then keep your lip shut."
I understand you are disgusted by same-sex couples, but can't you wait just a couple of days before you slam the couple? Shameful.
Another change of definition and , presto, they are "parents" (plural). No they are not. They are delusional and hope to get people pat them on the back and tell them they are not alone. Of course, having no mother is as believable as Jesus having no father. Who am i to say it is not possible...
It's not enough to get a dog pet. They have to get a baby human to play "family". To each their own, but it is not what it pretends to be.
"No baby has ever consented to losing his mom."
Good point Lefty.
Andrea, comparing apples to apples instead of same sex couples to single parents or no parents, do you think a child notices when they are denied a mother or father by design? Two dads can never adequately replace a child's mother in the life of that child.
Here's an example of a gay couple raising 12 kids -- kids nobody else wanted.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/azliving/articles/2011/05/02/20110502gay-dads-ham-family-12-adopted-kids.html
Congratulations to them
Andrea,no child who has been brought up not to recoil from the idea of a same-sex sexual relationship is "well-adjusted".And a child conceived with the firm intent of having only one parent,or "parents" of one sex,is being abused.
Tiki, and how do you know nobody else wanted them? There have been many cases I know of personally where gay couples were favored over qualifying families by state adoption bureaucracies. One set could provide a mom and a dad, the other couldn't, but for the cause of political correctness, children were denied access to the families with both a mom and a dad. Is that the world you'd promote as well?
As Mike Huckabee said: "Children are not pets."
Indeed, they should have gotten a dog.
You don't deserve your children.
TC Matthews, why don't you go read the story?
The first siblings (five of them) wanted to be reunited. That was how the family started. Nobody else would take all five. Read the article, it takes a few minutes.
And I call bull**** on your claim of 'many' cases where gay couples were favored over heterosexual couples. And on second thought, don't go read the story, TC. In your case, there's no point.
Quote from the article TC won't read:
"Steven could not refuse the call in February 2008 from a caseworker asking whether they would take a 6-month-old boy found abandoned behind a Phoenix discount store. No one even knew the name of the big-eared baby clutching a blanket. Steven named him Cooper. When police found the boy's mother, her parental rights were severed and Cooper was adopted by the Hams."
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/azliving/articles/2011/05/02/20110502gay-dads-ham-family-12-adopted-kids.html?page=4#ixzz1ZkpFwPY8
I read the article when it came out a while back. It was interesting, but I wondered if you had some additional information that the article did not have, namely that the kids were not wanted by anyone else.
Most interesting that many NOMmers do not believe that 'broken homes' should be created on purpose, YET, these same NOMmers are the first to try and deny an abortion to a mother whose life is in peril, thereby CREATING a motherless home themselves should the mother perish.
Congrats to the gentlemen, and their beautiful baby.
Those 12 kids and many more like them certainly aren't wanted by Brian Brown or Maggie Gallagher.
And apparently NOM isn't and won't do anything about children whose straight fathers don't want them or can't care for them.
Polis and his husband at least WANT their baby boy. They have the wherewithal...and I'm sure MANY females in the family, who can provide the influence a woman would bring to a family. Lots of gay men have mothers, sisters, aunts...and dedicated female friends in that regard.
Why not concentrate on the bigger issues? Like UNWANTED and UNLOVED children? Or those who are outright assaulted and abused by their parents?
Complaining and ASSUMING there isn't the right female influence in this situation is petty and without merit.
When there are children who have NO ONE to love them at all, that matter MUCH more.
Look to YOUR OWN HOUSE before casting those stones folks.
wow, bully much?
TC Matthews, you make it sound as if every kid in the foster system is adopted. In fact, there are hundreds of thousands that are not adopted every year around the nation. Many of those are in foster homes, others are in group homes. Many more are just on the street fending for themselves. There are simply not enough people out there who have the capability and the willingness to foster or adopt. What's worse is that there are many straight couples who are capable, but just not willing. There are many same-sex couples who are capable and willing, and not 1 study has shown that kids with same-sex parents do worse in general than kids with opposite-sex parents.
THIS IS COMPLETE SHAMEFUL...WHY DOES NOM ATTACK REP POLIS AND HIS FAMILY? THIS TRULY SHOWS THE INTENT OF NOM - TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SAME SEX COUPLES AND THEIR FAMILIES AT ANY COST
Is it discrimination against someone to point out that they are choosing to deny this child a mother? and that perhaps that is not a good idea? What does that have to do with the person? It seems to me that has more to do with the person's choices than any socio-political alliance the person may or may not also have. Let's not run to the caps quite yet Ryan.
Alan-- There are many problems with the foster system, I've seen a lot of those problems first hand having worked in the system and having built my family by adoption myself. Creating pseudo barriers and competition for families who CAN provide the best environment and DO desire to adopt is not the answer to those problems.
What a hateful way to welcome a new and very wanted child into the world. NOM staff should be ashamed. Do you not know that this young child could even be Christ returned? With any luck, this child will be.
Your shameful comments are truly hurting the cause of Christ in this world and will damage the ability of the church to reach out to humanity for generations.
Thanks, but, no thanks, NOM.
TC, it is a nasty thing to assume that this child will not be supported and loved simply because he is in a same-sex environment. And that's exactly what you are doing because neither you nor anyone else has anything backing up their ugly comments. Why was it necessary to pick on this family? NOM comes across as playground bullies.
And do you also consider yourself mean and a bully when you disagree with someone, Alvin? These two people are denying a child a mother. I disagree with the idea that this is a good idea, or something to be celebrated. No doubt they will do their best, at least I hope they will, but this situation is not an adequate substitute for a mom and a dad. If a mom or dad can't be part of the picture for this child because of divorce or death, we would all agree it was a catastrophe in the life of this child, yet because someone chooses to put a child in that situation on purpose and you agree with their politics, that makes it ok? I don't think it is the same either for the child or for the society that is being asked to consider this relationship as equal to a family with a loving mom and dad for that child. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise.
@Scott Lumry
You think Jesus is in favor of separating mother and child?
I'm not a Christian, and you seem to be saying that you are, so please explain your religion to me on this point.
"Is it discrimination against someone to point out that they are choosing to deny this child a mother? " You are assuming the mother wanted to raise the child. Not every woman wants to do that. And what about the women who are completely incapable, like a woman losing her fight with addiction. Of course, all of this speculation, except it seems whoever the mother was, she was either incapable, didn't want the child or was content to have the child raised in a home with 2 loving parents.
"I don't think it is the same either for the child or for the society that is being asked to consider this relationship as equal to a family with a loving mom and dad for that child. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise."
It's more foolish to ASSUME that a same-sex parented family does not offer everything a opposite-sex parented family offers. How can you even draw that conclusion? Did you grow up in a same-sex household?
"Why is it that ss advocates always justify themselves by pointing to other harmful trends?"
er because they are being judged by people who have no right to judge
Lillie, There are lots of ways to acquire children, one of them could have had a previous relationship, paid a surrogate to have a baby for them, or they could have adopted a baby. There are many ways for the baby to have gotten there, what I merely point out is the wisdom of these two men in arranging or creating a situation where this child will intentionally be denied a mother, not just her own biological mother, but ANY mother. At this point, the best this child can do is have aunties, grandmas and female friends in the picture who will hopefully help give him or her an idea of what a mother would be like if he or she had one.
I would like to see the LGBT activist community take into consideration the rights of the child at least equally with their own much touted "rights". You may have the right to create this situation for a child, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Lillie, if the people on the opposite side of the argument from you have no right to an opinion, in your view, how else would we have a discussion on the issues?
"It's more foolish to ASSUME that a same-sex parented family does not offer everything a opposite-sex parented family offers. How can you even draw that conclusion? Did you grow up in a same-sex household?"
There's no assumption about it. The genetics show that there is a stark contrast between men and women, physically, emotionally and developmentally, on many levels. We're just different. Assuming men and women are cookie cutter replacements for each other is the dogma making assumptions. No random number of adults can adequately replace a mom or a dad in the life of a child, no matter what their politics.
I am going to say this and I said this on your facebook page! I am a lesbian me and my partner have raised two children one is 18 years old he graduated this year with honors he is a decent trust worthy young man! the second boy is 11 years old he is following in his brothers foot steps he does very well in school and is also an outstanding young boy of his age! now I want someone here to tell me that it takes a man and a woman to raise decent trust worthy and respectfull children! but all you will do is repeat your mantra "one man one woman" or say your usual disgusting things!
Erin, many single parents can say the same thing. They did their best and in spite of difficulties, were able to raise a healthy child. Should single parenting be touted as equal to family parenting with a mom and a dad? Why not?
Of all the hateful bigotry this organization has put out, this takes the cake.
"Of all the hateful bigotry this organization has put out, this takes the cake."
Agreed Dexter. How dare anyone stand up and speak for the rights of the child?
And anyway, what's going to happen when you can make babies without a mother, we're almost there.
Seems we better be good at defining what makes us human once we arrive at that point, that being recognizing our compassion as fundamentally important - not our sexuality, sexuality is a superficial facade.
We need laws that do not allow same sex couples to raise children as their personal pets.
We need laws that do not allow homophobes to raise children as their personal drones.
We need laws to educate people about the sanctity of same-sex families, because obviously there's a great deal of ignorance floating around.
Jen,I am strongly in favor of abortion rights.There is no more "equality" between a zygote and a live-born infant than between a same-sex couple and a bona fide marriage worthy of the name.If you're for SSM you are too far "left" to see things as they really are,and if you're anti-abortion you're too far "right".
Lillie Ruby,there is no excuse for defending the existence of same-sex households!
Why is it people are so convinced same sex couples are raising their children as "pets"? Keep talking that way and you'll win the battle for equality whether you want to or not.
Everyone has a mother, and the right to know her, and that half of the family tree.
So if the mother dies at childbirth, should we just drown the baby since it's got no hope of being normal without a mother? What if mom dies, or abandons the baby later in life?
The idiotic simplicity of the small-minded never ceases to amaze.
Jen, your rhetoric about abortion is so faulty and inaccurate that I actually had to do a double-take. I USED TO support abortion rights until I started looking into what abortion TRULY is and how agencies (like Planned Parenthood and Delta Clinic) are ABUSING AND KILLING women.
The kind of abortion that you are talking about - if a mother's life is in danger - is truly taken into consideration. Sadly, a former manager (current friend) of mine had that EXACT issue happen. Her uterus was badly damaged from a childhood disease and ANY pregnancy would actually kill her. No less than 2 years ago, this woman got pregnant. Within the first few weeks of her pregnancy (less than a month), she was in so much pain that she HAD to be rushed to the hospital. The precious little zygote had no chance of surviving, where it had attached itself.
The abortion that my friend had to endure was wretched. The pain she was in was inexplicable. It hurt to see her come back to work and still be in so much pain.
Now - the commonplace abortions that are being hotly contested are the ones that have proven to be evidence of abuse on an epidemic scale. There are abortionists who start the process, kill the fetus in utero and then tell the poor women to drive to another state to get the procedure finished - ALL at the woman's cost, AFTER having paid the abortionist THOUSANDS of dollars. And then you have people like Kermit Gosnell - who deliver babies that are fully alive and then sever their spinal cords just moments after birth, and call it "abortion". You also have places like Planned Parenthood who approve of getting teenagers to hide statutory rape from their parents and force the girls into abortions. This company also has the nerve to claim to provide FULL women's health services, when in fact, I can PERSONALLY ATTEST TO THIS LIE. When I was on public assistance for healthcare - the VERY limited kind that only covered family planning/reproductive health - I was sent to PP, not to any other place of my choosing. In my late 20s and NOT knowing my family or family health history, I sincerely expressed concerns for getting mammograms done. You know what I was told? "We don't provide those, but we can refer you to somewhere else." Planned Parenthood is full of LIES AND DECEIT. In my time there, sitting in that waiting room, I saw too much encouragement for teenagers to have sex and not tell their parents about the consequences. It SICKENED me.
Now that I am FINALLY able to start getting SOME answers about my family history, my biological mother could have EASILY obtained an abortion while she was carrying me. If it weren't for her boyfriend at the time (who would later marry her and put his name on my birth certificate), I would have been subjected to some rather harsh treatments.
Also, as a survivor of molestation and rape, and after having done the research on abortion - which includes watching various types of abortions - I cannot help but see abortion as rape. It's the same thing. Something is being forced inside of the uterus (most often because the woman was coerced and forced into this position) with the sole purpose of destroying part of the woman's body. The invasion is done usually as a form of control, profit and satisfaction of the one performing the invasion. At the end, a very important part of the woman is removed with damaging force, leaving her feeling violated, dirty, unloved and unwanted. Abortion IS rape.
Erin Fuller, congratulations on bragging about your EXCEPTIONAL parenting skills and for putting yourself ahead of your children's successes. Congratulations on indoctrinating your children into a world where most women utterly despise men and think they're the plight of society. Congratulations on denying your children the right to grow up in a home where they know their father(s) or have had SOME kind of father figure.
As a child who's survived domestic abuse (including rape and molestation), I'm VERY happy to know that I wasn't raised by people like you and your "partner".
Keep up the great self-congratulatory parenting skills that you have. You truly are a legend in your own mind. Congratulations.
Mitch, if the mother dies at childbirth, it's a tragedy. Why should we celebrate another child being brought (by choice no less) into a motherless situation? Isn't that what these LGBT activists are asking us to do? Every time a child is forced to live life without a mother or father, no matter what the cause, it is a tragedy. Your politics shouldn't change that.
@TC Matthews
Yes, it's discrimination when laws are enacted and enforced that DO discriminate against a gay couple to marry (whether they are parents or not).
It's wrong because no adult is denied the option to marry based on their ability or desire to parent, or when they actually ARE parents or if one or neither parent is biologically related to the child.
Yes, it's discrimination when the Constitution is used, SOLELY against gay taxpaying and contributing citizens to KEEP them from fully realizing their self reliance and custody for each other and children if they have them.
A situation not seen since SLAVERY, when the status of slave kept blacks from taking and keeping custody of each other and their children.
And similarly cruel separations and denials of the relationship between each other and their children have occurred between gays and lesbians when outsiders have interfered in their lives.
And yes, it's discrimination when DOMA is enforced even against those gay couples legally married in the six states that allow it that doesn't protect those couples with the over one THOUSAND benefits that op sex couples have without restriction.
Gay couples in America are only legally married in six states.
Op sex couples are married anywhere they happen to be in the world.
That IS discrimination, it's unfair and unworkable double and changed standards and treating the children of gay people SO profoundly different from other children is mean and inexcusable.
So yeah, saying this is about 'disagreement' is dishonest at best. Illegal at worst.
This is about Jim Crow like laws designed specifically to screw up and endanger gay lives. So YES, it's discrimination and always HAS been about that purpose.
NOM's entire reason for being is to assure that discrimination. NOT protect marriage.
If fact, NO amendment can or has protected marriage from what actually damages marriages and families. So the point of them existing at all proves my assertion.
Indeed, the Constitutional protection of a minority FROM the tyranny of a majority should be enforced at this point and hopefully SCOTUS will realize just how much damage to the Constitution and mission statement of the Bill of Rights, NOM is doing as we speak.
Regan -
People who engage in homosexual behavior are not being denied the right to get married. The only requirement for getting married is partners of the opposite sex, regardless of what kind of person the partners prefer to have sex with. This is the rule that all of us are subjected to; there is no unequal treatment.
All women have the choice of spouse from the same pool of men, and all men have the choice of spouse from the same pool of women with the same restrictions on close family members. Completely equal treatment.
There is a misperception that marriage requires love or compatability or physical attraction or happiness. It doesn't. Those aspects might help make marriage easier, but none have ever been a requirement. All that's required is two people of the opposite sex, the implication being that the husband and wife will have sex and might produce offspring.
This is one of the worst trends in our society, beginning in the 1970s: adult desires superseding the interests of children. It's time for us to reverse this trend, and to not be intimidated by whining adults who try to label us as "hateful" or "bigoted."
Amazing.
There are so many unwanted children in this world that need a home, and by your bigoted, self-righteous definition of family, would deny the opportunity to them if an available, loving set of parents happened not to fit within what you think is morally right.
Newflash for you NOM: heterosexual does not automatically mean a good family.
I was adopted by two Christian parents and spent the first 18 years of my life neglected, physically and psychologically abused. The people that have helped me work to overcome that trauma and teach me that I am a worthwhile individual? Are two sets of gay men, who are more family to me now than the people that raised and hurt me ever were.
So chew on that bit of irony for a while. It's a bitter pie to you, I'm sure.
People have different definitions of marriage. The definition of marriage has changed in the past, and continues to do so! Different cultures have different definitions, and people of different belief systems do also.
In MY belief system, same-sex marriage is permissible. You are preventing me from marrying another man. Therefore, you are taking something away from me. You are also preventing any marriage I have in my state (CT) from being recognized at the federal level, which would directly impact my financial situation.
Therefore, you are depriving me of marriage, and by defending DOMA, you are directly harming same-sex couples with marriage licenses.
Respect what other people believe, and I will have respect for you! I respect people's right to choose their beliefs, but you do not. You want to limit choice, to limit freedom, to limit belief. That, my friends, is completely devoid of the spirit of this great country!
I can not ascribe any value whatsoever to an institution of marriage that does not completely exclude same-sex relationships,and I am not religious.An exclusively opposite-sex civil marriage is the only kind I can attach any value to or enter into in good conscience.Any society is bettered by the formation and maintenance of opposite-sex and harmed by the formation and maintenance of same-sex couples,and marriage must guarantee preferential treatment to the former to serve any useful purpose.Opposite-sex relationships may or may not be good,but being same-sex is automatically bad.
Other than hyperbole about how children "deserve to know both their mother and their father", can anyone give solid proof that children in stable homes fair worse than children in unstable homes?
And can anyone give good solid proof that a same-sex household is inherently less stable a household than an opposite-sex household?
Any solid proof that children raised by two people of the same sex (or grandparents of the opposite sex, or a single dad and aunts and uncles, a la "Full House") are any worse off?
Can anyone address those specific situations?
Emily,stable or unstable,it is better for a household to be opposite-sex than same-sex.That opposite-sex households can have problems doesn't create an opening for same-sex households to be legitimized.
Oh Louis E, you intrigue me.
In many of your posts you make these grand pronouncements such as: "society is...harmed by the formation and maintenance of same-sex couples" and yet have no idea why or can provide a reason.
Your arguments just get curiouser and curiouser...
OMW,you have a comprehension problem.The mere presence of same-sex couples constitutes a harm to a society in which the opposite-sex composition of sexual relationships ought to be uniform and without exception.That our species has two sexes makes same-sex relationships always to be deplored.
Congratulations to all three, may they live long and prosper.
Emily, the benefits of natural marriage cannot be overstated. It benefits the married couple, their children, our economy, and the nation as a whole. In fact, natural marriage serves as a kind of national immune system. When our marriages are strong, our nation is strong and our social problems are few. When our marriages are weak, so is our nation.
For instance, children from natural marriage homes are:
Seven times less likely to live in poverty
Six times less likely to commit suicide
Less than half as likely to commit crime
Less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock
Develop better academically and socially
Healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Projects/Marriage-Poverty/Marriage-and-Poverty-in-the-US
These positive results of marriage are not new to our twenty-first century culture. Since virtually the dawn of humanity, marriage has been the bedrock of human social structure. In fact, British anthropologist J.D. Unwin studied eighty-six civilized and uncivilized cultures spanning five thousand years and found that the most prosperous cultures were those that maintained a strong marriage ethic. Every civilization that abandoned this ethic, including the Roman, Babylonian, and Sumerian empires, experienced demise soon after liberalizing their sexual practices.
I think you are all missing the point here, the most important thing in the world for a human being is LOVE. Tragedy would be if a child grows up without it, LOVE no matter where it comes from is always
LOVE. So congrats to these new parents that are willing to LOVE this child.
Love is indeed important, but so is family. Destroying family, denying this child a mother by design sounds a lot more like selfishness rather than love.
When two parents love their child unconditionally, and can provide a loving home, proper nutrition, education, etc., it is a good thing. Many same-sex couples can do that, and all studies have shown that they raise happy healthy children. There are also opposite-sex couples who cannot do that. Just today there was a story in the news about a heterosexual couple who kept their 7 year old boy in a diaper in the basement, and often locked him in a Halloween prop coffin. It troubles me to think that there are people who are so narrow-minded that given the choice between that boy's parents and a loving gay couple, they would choose the boy's parents... solely on the basis of their gender. That is NOT what's best for the child. Whether a child has a mother and father, or two mothers or two fathers is irrelevant. What matters is the love and nurturing the child will receive.
The whole idea that all children need is Love has been crushed by decades of social science evidence which states that the greatest form of well-being for children is being raised by their married mother and father. Yes, the ideal is not always possible, but that doesn't change the facts.
The "love makes a family" idea is used by adults who want to justify their selfish choices. It's not limited to gays, but includes single mothers by choice, and those who indulge in frivolous divorce.
Adam and Eve have motherless also.
Cecilia,if those men loved that child,they would not be conspiring to deny it a mother,or to delude it that same-sex sexual relationships can be justified.
THIS IS A GREAT DAY!!!
NOM is finally seeing the light! NOM finally sees the truth: that motherless or fatherless, a FAMILY is a FAMILY!
And just by the simple act of acknowledging that lesbian and gay couples can be considered as family already proves the point that Rep. Jared Polis's child will grow up to be happy and loved. Because he will grow up in a family. A family, that's all a child needs. A family, period.
Bottom line is.... Either same sex marriage is right or same sex marriage is wrong. Both can't be right. Just like 2+2=4. Only one is right. I believe it is wrong. Let me have my opinion and I will let you have yours. And those calling me narrow minded just confirms that I am right.
Thanks for slamming single dads! You jerks!!!! Shame on you!!!!
Bob, everyone would do their best to parent in whatever situation life put them in, however, no one can deny -- and science also shows--- that kids do best with a mom and a dad. No one would ever hold up single motherhood or single fatherhood as the ideal we should all strive for. Just the same, we shouldn't be asked to support or celebrate as ideal any circumstance that denies a child their right to a mother and father.
Alvin,
Could you please explain to us why it is better to have a Father or a Mother or two Fathers or Two Mothers rather than both a Father and a Mother?
Bob, no one is "slamming" single parents here!
There is a unique, unalterable phenomenon in nature: only one man & one woman can produce one child. (No 2 men, or 2 women, or 2 men & 1 woman, or 2 women & 1 man, or any other combination or variable can replicate this. This fact has nothing to do with personal choice or sexual orientation.) It is natural for that couple producing 'bone of their bone' & 'flesh of their flesh' to be the most concerned & responsible for said offspring's well-being. 'Marriage' has been the word coined to honor this unique process.
Society's recognition of this has led to a special and exclusive designation called 'Marriage'.
Barb, post #24:
'As Mike Huckabee said: "Children are not pets."
Indeed, they should have gotten a dog.'
Right...so if an opposite-sex couple adopts a child, it's cos they want to give a loving home to that child. Whereas if a same-sex couple adopts a child, it's 'cos they want a pet.
Right?
TC Matthews, post #36
"Is it discrimination against someone to point out that they are choosing to deny this child a mother?"
They're not choosing to deny this child a mother. They're choosing to give this child a home and a loving family.
Art (re post #87).
Marriage is not sex. You appear to be confusing the two. Two people can have sex without getting married. Two people can get married without having sex.