NOM BLOG

Marriage Matters Blog: What We Need Are Not Generic Parents, but Married Moms and Dads

 

Dave writing for the Marriage Matters blog:

Moviemakers may like us to believe that “The Kids Are All Right,” but global evidence to the contrary is mounting.

Mitch Pearlstein, a former officer in the department of Education and now the president of the Center for the American Experiment in Minneapolis, has been gathering the results of family research from all over the world for a long time and has compiled the data in his latest book, From Family Collapse to America’s Decline (Rowman and Littlefield, 2011). What he has found is that “family fragmentation”—today’s preferred term for “out-of-wedlock births, churning relationships, separation, and divorce—is the source of a lot of the deep problems facing America. Children in these situations are at a much higher risk of a whole host of maladies: medical, economic, social and educational. Pearlstein’s thesis is that the economic weakness shown by the United States, as well as the growing failure of people at the bottom of the economic rungs to move up, are largely (though not completely) attributable to the breakdown of the family.

... Pearlstein does lightly touch on the movement for same-sex marriage and how it relates to his own thesis in his book. What his studies have shown is not that children are not simply better off with any two adults:

. . . I would also argue that one of the unfortunate byproducts of the campaign for same-sex marriage is that commentators of all sorts often work overtime at avoiding words like “mother” or “father” when they can get by with the safer and all-encompassing “parents” instead. It’s as if they fear supporters of same-sex marriage—be they gay or straight—are apt to be offended by the more gender-based terms, so they neutralize the two by generically combining them. Glossing over and sometimes denying the distinctive and vital contributions of men-as-fathers and women-as-mothers is an unfortunate idea whose time should not have arrived but has.

I often hear the claim that we don’t have much data showing that kids raised by same-sex parents are worse off or “harmed.” This may be true given the small number of such children and the newness of the phenomenon. Yet, this was the same argument given when no-fault-divorce and other legal “innovations” were being put forth. Given the massive amount of information we do have on the critical importance of “women-as-mothers” and “men-as-fathers,” what we get from studies like Pearlstein’s is a warning about gambling with family structures that have already been shown to be something more than simply culturally conditioned curiosities. In fact, since Pearlstein’s book has come out, yet another peer-reviewed study has been released showing that, across cultures, the differences in personality traits between the sexes is larger than previously thought. What we need are not generic parents, but married moms and dads.

46 Comments

  1. David
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    This idea that kids need women as mothers and men as fathers is so true. The last sentence I also agree with and believe both are great examples of why marriage equality is a wonderful idea. With all the HETEROSEXUAL divorces some kids end up with two dads and one mom, two moms and one dad, or even two moms and two dads. It seems that nom's idea the it's so paramount that kids have each sex present as parents one would think they condone polygamy AND poly andry

  2. David
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    This idea that kids need women as mothers and men as fathers is so true. The last sentence I also agree with and believe both are great examples of why marriage equality is a wonderful idea. With all the HETEROSEXUAL divorces some kids end up with two dads and one mom, two moms and one dad, or even two moms and two dads. It seems that nom's idea the it's so paramount that kids have each sex present as parents one would think they condone polygamy AND polyandry because what better to have more parents of both sexes. Right? Nom says kids need moms and dads. Homosexual pairings provide them in duplicate. Problem solved. Nom should then be satisfied with this situation as homosexual couples who want children fulfill nom's criteria: some kids have moms AND some kids have dads. I'm confused where nom then is so adamant about refusing to allow homosexuals to marry as the marriages of the above stated homosexual pairings will provide so many legal and financial and social protections for the kids of these parents. We are only left to see then that nom is singling out homosexuals specifically, even though the government condones homosexual parenting and parenthood, single and paired, since it is currently legal for homosexuals to adopt kids in every state. No? The purpose of prop 8 going to court was to find out the reasons why the people wanted to single out homosexuals against the vast knowledge of the government, and more specifically why the people think their reasons in opposition should trump the government's reasons for supporting homosexual parenting and parenthood. The ultimate reasons Cooper came up with when directly asked what the parade of horribles marriage equality will present humanity with were, and I'm paraphrasing extremely close to verbatim, "I don't know" and "We don't need proof." Such responses to a simple question by a judge answered in such a manner will not be viewed as convincing in any regard, except to convince the judge that the individual who answers in this manner believes they are not subject to following the rules of basic elementary court and/or trial questioning. Nom truly believes it has ALL the answeres as to why homosexuals should not be afforded the same legal rights afforded heterosexuals, the right to legally and/or religiously marry another single adult not related to them who consents because they are in love with one another. Most in the legal profession might suggest ALL of these individuals be present in court as witnesses to GAURANTEE the court hears the parade of horribles and rule in nom's favor. Is there a limited number of witnesses allowed for the defense? I believe not. If this hits scotus nom would be strongly advised to produce as many witnesses as legally possible with as many reasons to speak of on the witness stand to ensure the results they seek. We will see how strength in numbers plays out in this regard as nom relies on the belief that more oppose marriage equality with stronger arguments against it.

    I sincerely nom posts this out of basic respect and fairness as there is zero profane content. Thank you.

  3. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    Every child has one mother and one father. There's no sane reason for anyone to be offended by reality.

  4. Greg
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    This idea that kids need women as mothers and men as fathers is so true. The last sentence I also agree with and believe both are great examples of why marriage equality is a wonderful idea. With all the HETEROSEXUAL divorces some kids end up with two dads and one mom, two moms and one dad, or even two moms and two dads. It seems that nom's idea the it's so paramount that kids have each sex present as parents one would think they condone polygamy AND polyandry because what better to have more parents of both sexes. Right? Nom says kids need moms and dads. Homosexual pairings provide them in duplicate. Problem solved. Nom should then be satisfied with this situation as homosexual couples who want children fulfill nom's criteria: some kids have moms AND some kids have dads. I'm confused where nom then is so adamant about refusing to allow homosexuals to marry as the marriages of the above stated homosexual pairings will provide so many legal and financial and social protections for the kids of these parents. We are only left to see then that nom is singling out homosexuals specifically, even though the government condones homosexual parenting and parenthood, single and paired, since it is currently legal for homosexuals to adopt kids in every state. No? The purpose of prop 8 going to court was to find out the reasons why the people wanted to single out homosexuals against the vast knowledge of the government, and more specifically why the people think their reasons in opposition should trump the government's reasons for supporting homosexual parenting and parenthood. The ultimate reasons Cooper came up with when directly asked what the parade of horribles marriage equality will present humanity with were, and I'm paraphrasing extremely close to verbatim, "I don't know" and "We don't need proof." Such responses to a simple question by a judge answered in such a manner will not be viewed as convincing in any regard, except to convince the judge that the individual who answers in this manner believes they are not subject to following the rules of basic elementary court and/or trial questioning. Nom truly believes it has ALL the answeres as to why homosexuals should not be afforded the same legal rights afforded heterosexuals, the right to legally and/or religiously marry another single adult not related to them who consents because they are in love with one another. Most in the legal profession might suggest ALL of these individuals be present in court as witnesses to GAURANTEE the court hears the parade of horribles and rule in nom's favor. Is there a limited number of witnesses allowed for the defense? I believe not. If this hits scotus nom would be strongly advised to produce as many witnesses as legally possible with as many reasons to speak of on the witness stand to ensure the results they seek. We will see how strength in numbers plays out in this regard as nom relies on the belief that more oppose marriage equality with stronger arguments against it.

    I sincerely nom posts this out of basic respect and fairness as there is zero profane content. Thank you.

  5. Randy E King
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    Biology dictates the intent of our reproductive organs; yet, marriage corruption supporters view these truths we hold to be self evident as a malicious insult to their sensibilities.

    In the 'Alice in Wonderland' world of the marriage corruption supporter up is down and down is up, what you do is who you are, and civil rights are completley dependent upon your proclivity; as opposed to those charchteristics that are distinguishable at birth.

  6. John Noe
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    I think any sane person can agree that childen are worse off in same sex households. It is pretty much standard knowledge that children do better with a monther and father.

  7. roger
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    Robert George ID's three negative effects of Same Sex Marriage:
    1) Obscuring the Hetero Parent Ideal
    2) Increased Marital instability
    3) Loss of Religious liberty

    The only one that has been concretely proven in jurisdictions with SSM is the Loss of Religious Liberty. But without the ill-effects of #1 or #2, nobody will care if a "bigoted" religion is driven from the public square.

    Unfortunately, I am very skeptical that a highly politicized Social Science field can prove the ill-effects of same sex parenting, or an increase in Marital Instability. The Data can always be massaged.

    Only a demographic collapse of Europe/Western Civilization will convince people of the necessity for Marriage. Hope I'm wrong.

  8. Ken Cauld
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    Barb, still over 144 million orphans in the world, still waiting for your plan.

    Rodger, discriminating against fellow citizens is not a religious liberty.

  9. Publius
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    Of the 132 million children classified as orphans, only 13 million have lost both parents. The majority of orphans are living with a surviving parent, grandparent, or other family member. 95% of all orphans are over the age of 5.

    Taking these children from their natural parents, extended families, and cultures to place them in situations likely to be contrary to their biological and cultural identity to satisfy the LGBT agenda would be an injustice to them.

    Even if the must be placed in new homes for their safety, those homes should resemble their original homes and the wishes of their parents as far as reasonably possible.

  10. Publius
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Civilization is based on discrimination between proper and improper behavior.

    Advocates of the unrestrained state would have us believe that government power is unambiguously superior to all other claims, but it is not so. The claims of the natural family, the claims of religious liberty, and the claims of a democratic society are senior to the novel claims of an increasingly assertive and unchecked left-wing judiciary.

  11. Ken Cauld
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    Publius, if a child is living with one parent, they are not considered an orphan. if they are living with a relative they are not considered orphans. Check any adoption site, they will tell you that there are 144 million children in need of a home. Let's try to he a bit more honest about this.

  12. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    Don't know about everyone else, but I tend to believe Unicef's definition of orphan over "Ken's." Publius is correct.

    http://www.unicef.org/media/media_45279.html

    Ken, let's try to be a bit more honest about this.

  13. Ken Cauld
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    "Civilization is based on discrimination between proper and improper behavior."

    Lawrence v Texas, sorry small minds, gay is legal.

  14. bman
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    Ken Cauld writes: Lawrence v Texas, sorry small minds, gay is legal.

    But its not moral.

    Society still has a right to discriminate against immoral conduct, even if it can't criminalize that conduct.

  15. Posted February 11, 2012 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    The mistake SSM advocates make is to say diversity of sexual orientation is more important than diversity of gender in a marriage. The move to segregated genders in marriage is a disservice to children regardless of the parents' sexual orientation. Let children grow up within the diversity of gender-integrated marriage.

    See: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/shifty_words

  16. Ken Cauld
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    But its not moral. Rubbish!

    Touching a frog will give you warts, breaking a mirror means 7 years of bad luck. Etc.

    Superstitions to guide the ignorant.

  17. Leviticus
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    Incest is also immoral and like homosexuality they are not superstitious.

  18. Publius
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

    Barb,

    Re statistics on the number of orphans.

    Thank you.

    Ken,

    Would you like to apologize?

  19. Publius
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    bman and Leviticus

    Thank you.

    The Lawrence decision determined what was legal in the eyes of the court, not what civilization has to consider proper. The Lawrence decision made no claim as to the value or propriety of sodomy, only that is was a private affair. Adultery and watching pornography are also private but improper and immoral behaviors. Civilization is founded on such judgments.

  20. Mr. Incredible
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    Drug abuse, accomplished in the bedroom, behind closed doors, is also private.

    Wifebeating, too.

  21. bman
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    But its not moral. Rubbish!

    First of all, is for the voters to decide if men having sex with men is immoral. You do not not get to decide that for them.

    Second, you ignored the key point that society has a right to discriminate against what it deems immoral conduct, even if it can't criminalize that conduct.

    Third, whoever votes for gay marriage also votes to legislate immorality.

  22. Ken Cauld
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    Publius, that was a 7 year old report The numbers have increase tremendously. The orphans are still without homes and parents.

    "143 million children are officially classified as "orphans" today.  They live in orphanages and foster care group homes. "

    http://www.theorphanfoundation.org/

    You still can't tell me how you connect these millions to a mom and dad.

  23. Ken Cauld
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

    Again, 143 million per the Christian Post

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/cry-of-the-orphan-kicks-off-media-blitz-30055/

  24. bman
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

    Ken Cauld->...if a child is living with one parent, they are not considered an orphan.....

    The Unicef site that Barb linked explains this.

    It states:

    UNICEF and global partners define an orphan as a child who has lost one or both parents....Evidence clearly shows that the vast majority of orphans are living with a surviving parent grandparent, or other family member....This definition contrasts with concepts of orphan in many industrialized countries, where a child must have lost both parents to qualify as an orphan. UNICEF and numerous international organizations adopted the broader definition of orphan in the mid-1990s as the AIDS pandemic began leading to the death of millions of parents worldwide...So the terminology of a ‘single orphan’ – the loss of one parent – and a ‘double orphan’ – the loss of both parents – was born to convey this growing crisis.

  25. Zack
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    @roger

    "The only one that has been concretely proven in jurisdictions with SSM is the Loss of Religious Liberty. But without the ill-effects of #1 or #2, nobody will care if a "bigoted" religion is driven from the public square. "

    Actually #2 is correct.

    https://same-sex.web.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf

    In the study provided in the link, it was discovered that male homosexual couples were twice as likely to divorce as heterosexuals with female homosexual couples 3 times more likely.

  26. Greg
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    Pub,

    The purpose of adoption is to make sure the infant is placed in a home that in no way whatsoever resembles the "home" or "relationship" or "complimentary" situation or any other status provided by the original biological parents. If the individuals wanting to adopt a child were to resemble the child's biological patents as close as possible in any significant or important, they would be immediately disqualified by the adoption agency.

    I apologize if I forgot to mention that ALL infants up for adoption EVERYWHERE are ALWAYS the result of extremely irresponsible heterosexual sex by extremely irresponsible heterosexuals.

  27. TC Matthews
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

    Greg, not necessarily. We put in an application for adoption of a sibling group of three orphaned because their parents both died of cancer. Life happens.

  28. Greg
    Posted February 12, 2012 at 3:36 am | Permalink

    TC,

    Wonderful that you would open up your home to unconditionally love a child in need. Oh wait, I got that wrong. That you would instead open up your life to dedicate your prejudicial, judgemental and maliciously conditional love to a child who may be homosexual. One who would besubsequently taught to feel the same hate for an intrinsic part of themselves, or another child, that you feel for them before you even peer into their innocent, blameless, formidable, trusting beautiful eyes that longingly yearn to be loved for who they are. A beautiful young human. Those children expect nothing more, yet your own heart's love constrains itself to only those children you believe are the same as you. That one variance causes you an amount of disdain that you think even homosexual teenagers, yes-they exist, should be told point blank they have no right to believe of themselves as worthy, deserving, loved unconditionally and respected, by even their primary gaurdians, as people capable of a wondrous, beautiful, magical, eye opening, soul enriching, satisfying, respected, exemplary, boundless, motivating, recognized, selfless purpose inducing and life changing love for another person exceeding the love they could ever feel for themself because you think homosexuals are less than you. Ya, that's a great idea. I challenge you to fully and honestly inform the adoption agency you're going through of your intentions so they can have insight of how exactly dedicated your love will be for 100% of the possible infants or children who may find themselves in the prejudicially and discriminatingly outstretched safety of your conditionally loving arms.

  29. Greg
    Posted February 12, 2012 at 3:51 am | Permalink

    Further more, TC, I'm quite interested in the verbage you would employ to inform the aforementioned adolescents and teens you may adopt of your views on homosexuals and homosexuality, as they do have quite a chance of being gay. Will you say these things with a firm voice so they share your thoughts out of fear, or nonchalantly in passing so they assume everyone thinks this, even though they will discover this to be contrary to reality? I'm genuinely interested in your response. Ease feel free to just open up, let your truths be told so we can know what TC's goals are for any kids you adopt who may be homosexual.

  30. Leviticus
    Posted February 12, 2012 at 4:17 am | Permalink

    Many parents help their children develop a conscience and teach them the difference between what is right and what is wrong.

  31. Chairm
    Posted February 12, 2012 at 4:39 am | Permalink

    Greg, why the ad hom attack?

    In the USA most of the children in fostercare are no eligible for adoption for various reasons including those already cited.

    SSM does not resolve the problem of millions of orphaned children in the world.

    Meanwhile the original blogpost at the top is simply describing objective reality.

  32. TC Matthews
    Posted February 12, 2012 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    Greg, I'm not sure what fantasy you live, but because I hold different views from you does not mean I view anyone, anywhere, as less than they are--- in fact, just the opposite. I am sorry if anything I said offended you, but I suspect your reaction is not to me personally, but simply rather because I disagree with your political views. I think that's kind of sad.

  33. Randy E King
    Posted February 12, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    Greg,

    These "views' are the expressed ideals of God as dictated in the guiding sacred texts that are as universally accepted today as they were some five thousand years ago when they first materialized on earth.

    Any child brought up in a Christian hosehold should be made aware of said texts in their entirety with the knowledege that the ideals noted in the pages of these books are the proported word of God; not man.

    Freedom is the greates gift God has given unto man, or so it is written. It is not for man to recind from their children a gift that is not theirs to deny.

    Translation:

    Your child is free to choose the path of death, but it is the parents obligation to inform their children on the traps and pitfalls that exist if the were to freely choose the path to life.

    "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have life eternal." John 3:16

    This is what the U.S. constitution is all about, but Thomas Jefferson stated this truth better then I when he penned on the front pages of his Christian Bible.

    "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator."

    These are, after all, the truths we hold to be self evident. The laws of nature and natures God stand in opposition to your rediculous assertions.

  34. Greg
    Posted February 12, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    TC,
    Telling someone they are less than you is patently not "political," yet is thoroughly and patently personal. Telling ANYONE you think they don't deserve the same rights as you, are less worthy and deserving as you, have not the same ability to parent as you, have a love less respectful than your's is, without any shred of something that might even resemble doubt, a personal attack on someone's WHOLE person.

    Is there anything else you'd expect a person to feel, or think, after your, and this site's, barrage of belittling, disparaging, incorrect, hateful, negative and ugly comments directed SOLELY at homosexuals ONLY because they are homosexual individuals who may or may not be in love, and sharing their life, with another homosexual of the same sex and children that are or are not biologically their's? I'm acutely curious to know what you would like me, and the every other homosexual human, to feel about myself and glean from your views, incorrect as they may be, of homosexuals and homosexuality. No one would say about another person what you, and your ilk, have said about us homosexuals without the clear desire and intent to induce feelings of shame, subjugation, insecurity and self hatred in ourselves. Seriously. Ease tell us what else you wanted us to think of ourselves if it is different than what you have already expressed toward us in such a defamatory manner. Spell out for us unaware homosexuals your views of us that you believe should be standard knowledge, as you-clear as glass-have stated you believe us so ignorant of and incapable to understand regarding ourselves. With your breadth of knowledge of the intrinsic and highly numerous inabilities of homosexuals to complete the parenting tasks you are adept and passionate of, please tell us how you wish my dear friends Dudley's and John's son Robert how he should feel about the two men who rescued him from the filth ridden, pathetic life of his biological heterosexual mother and father. Please tell us why you think John, an international scholar and former speech writer for President Jimmy Carter, why he and the love of his life-Dudley, a teacher, couldn't or didn't or aren't aware of how to love their wonderful son Robert enough to satisfy YOU?!?!

    Shall I give you another example, or did I provide you with enough information. Because I'm more than happy to tell you about Tracy's and Jan's beautiful family of three gorgeous children so you can tell everyone how wrong, unnatural, unacceptable and wrought with future screw ups and pathologies these great women and their kids are too.

  35. Spunky
    Posted February 12, 2012 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    I think it's clear from Barb's link that there are around 13 million, not 132 or 146 million, orphans who need parents.

  36. Posted February 13, 2012 at 12:55 am | Permalink

    Greg, may we remind you that the subject isn't "homosexual parenting," it's opposite-sexed vs. same-sexed parenting. Even children who identify same-sex attraction early on need and have a right to be raised by both their mother and father. They need the support and love of both. Would you begrudge them that? Your attack on TC was so angry--and anger is so often a secondary emotion to cover fear.

  37. Greg
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 1:57 am | Permalink

    Where's the anger. You and TC are telling homosexuals they are less desireable, capable and proficient as parents than heterosexuals, which of course the government of the USA and peer reviewed science proves incorrect. I dare you tell my friends John, former speech writer for Jimmy Carter, and his husband Dudley, a teacher, and their adopted son Robert they are not a decent loving family, not as good as a heterosexual headed household with children and flawed in any way because of any aspect of the family they are. Or tell Tracey and Jan and their three kids they're doing their kids an injustice because they have two moms. Or tell Amy and Katarina their newborn and three year old son their family is wrought with a parade of horribles because they too are a family headed by two loving mommies

  38. Greg
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 2:06 am | Permalink

    TC,
    Then exactly what feeling or line of thought of the self were you attempting to elicit from homosexuals as you tell us how we should't have the same rights as you. You really don't expect we will rethink our situation and relinquish our kids to another family solely on the basis they are heterosexual and therefore better at raising kids than we are because were homosexual. I'm also going out on a limb to suggest you don't expect homosexuals to feel a more positive sense of self esteem as you point out our families don't deserve the same legal and social protections as your family because you believe homosexuals are generally less worthy of you.

  39. Greg
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 2:10 am | Permalink

    TC,
    Then exactly what feeling or line of thought of the self were you attempting to elicit from homosexuals as you tell us how we should't have the same rights as you? You really don't expect we will rethink our situation and relinquish our kids to another family solely on the basis they are heterosexual and therefore better at raising kids than we are because were homosexual. I'm also going out on a limb to suggest you don't expect homosexuals to feel a more positive sense of self esteem as you point out our families don't deserve the same legal and social protections as your family because you believe homosexuals are generally less worthy of you.

  40. TC Matthews
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 2:11 am | Permalink

    "You and TC are telling homosexuals they are less desireable, capable and proficient as parents than heterosexuals"

    Greg, not at all. I happen to believe that kids need a mom and a dad. Your ability to parent has nothing to do with your sexuality.

  41. Posted February 13, 2012 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

    You know, Greg, as a general rule, I prefer to speak for myself. You have damaged your credibility with melodramatic misspeak, and putting words in my mouth. Allow me to clarify your misrepresentations of my views:

    Greg said, "You and TC are telling homosexuals they are less desireable, capable and proficient as parents than heterosexuals, which of course the government of the USA and peer reviewed science proves incorrect."

    Actually, I'm confident a person with a same-sex attraction is perfectly capable of being a wonderful mother or father. If that individual is choosing to engage in homosexual behavior, I believe they're putting themselves at grave risk for disease, physiological damage, and possible psychological damage, which is really a shame when the risks are so well documented, but I believe that person can be a dedicated, loving parent. Next:

    Greg said, "You really don't expect we will rethink our situation and relinquish our kids to another family solely on the basis they are heterosexual and therefore better at raising kids than we are because were homosexual."

    No, I doubt highly that you would do that. I've never even implied that you would do something like that, or that you ought to. If you can find a direct quote of me saying such a thing, you'd strengthen your assertions. I wouldn't waste the time looking, though. Your time is more valuable than that. Next:

    Greg said, "I'm also going out on a limb to suggest you don't expect homosexuals to feel a more positive sense of self esteem as you point out our families don't deserve the same legal and social protections as your family because you believe homosexuals are generally less worthy of you."

    I agree--you did go out on a limb. I wonder if you could find a quote from either me or TC claiming individuals who claim to be engaging in homosexual behavior or have a same-sex attraction are less deserving of legal protections than other individuals. The fact of the matter is, if you choose to raise children with a person of the same sex, you've already invited extra govt. involvement in your family, via court order, than a family consisting of a mother, father, and their offspring. You've done that to yourself. TC, having adopted children, has also experienced govt. involvement in that process. But TC is providing what was lost through natural causes, which is a mother and father to children whose own mother and father died of cancer. Unlike you, TC doesn't try to pretend that a relationship with both a mother and a father is inconsequential. You're so obsessed with homosexuality, that you forget that not all same-sex couples raising children are homosexual. Some may be two sisters, or two brothers raising a niece or nephew, or a grandmother helping a single daughter raise a grandchild. Are you suggesting we let them get married, so they can qualify for govt. benefits? Next:

  42. Posted February 13, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    Greg said, "I dare you tell my friends John, former speech writer for Jimmy Carter, and his husband Dudley, a teacher, and their adopted son Robert they are not a decent loving family, not as good as a heterosexual headed household with children and flawed in any way because of any aspect of the family they are"

    Again, allow me to speak for myself. I'm sure such a home can have any amount of love in it; however, the fact of the matter is that a relationship between a mother and a son, and a father and a son are unique and special relationships, that are not interchangeable with the sexes. As a father, those men aren't individually flawed, and neither is the son they raise; however that boy has a mother out there somewhere and he is missing out getting to know her and her entire side of his family tree, which is part of his heritage. Children have a right to know and be raised by the two individuals who bring them into the world, which is always through a mother and a father, whether naturally conceived or in a lab. Parents have a responsibility to their offspring and to each other to work together as a married pair to raise their own children, wherever possible. If that man and woman happen to have a same-sex attraction, that is irrelevant in my opinion, and I have no doubts that a person with a same-sex attraction can make a wonderful mother or father. They simply cannot replace the opposite-sexed parent and the unique relationship that that parent has with their child. You are so fixated on homosexuality to the point that you can't see the real argument for what it is: opposite-sexed parenting vs. same-sex parenting. I'll say it again: not all same-sexed couples raising children are homosexual; some are already related to each other, and suggesting they all get married is quite the legal stretch, even, I imagine, for you.

  43. Posted February 13, 2012 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    Now, to follow up, same-sexed couples raising children may require special legal protections for the kids in their care, but, as aforementioned, not all same-sex couples raising children are homosexual; many include grandmothers helping single moms raise children. They could benefit from powers of attorney, revocable living trusts, perhaps reciprocal benefits; but watering down marriage to nothing more than "Partner A" and "Partner B," which benefits only homosexual partners and purposefully excludes non-homosexual same-sexed couples such as siblings and parent/child couples, doesn't help those same-sexed couples raising children, where the couple is already related by birth, etc.

    So, the issue at stake isn't about homosexuality; it's about defining marriage based on sex and natural relationships.

    It's not about "worthiness," it's about common sense. Marriage between a man and a woman, is the simplest way to protect men in their paternity rights, women in their maternity rights, and children's natural and legal ties to both their natural parents. It's also the simplest way, with the least govt. involvement, to require a both men and women to take full responsibility for the daily care of their own offspring. Other unions can be loving, can care for children, etc., but don't need to be categorized as marriage. And it has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the individuals involved.

  44. AM
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    DoE
    Excellent points!

    "Other unions can be loving, can care for children, etc., but don't need to be categorized as marriage. And it has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the individuals involved."

    This is especially true for foster care, where cohabiting or single people can provide a loving home.

  45. TWINGIRL2
    Posted February 16, 2012 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    Thank you, DoE, for clarity. Here is a live example of the negative effects if ANY parent denies that biological ties to a mother (or father) exist or matter: A mother dies and within a year the father remarries a nice widow. The step-mother tells the step-children (sisters, age of 8) that she and her husband (their father) have decided not to ever talk about their deceased mates. (No clear reason given). She tells the children they may not talk about their deceased mother, either; later she becomes angry if they do. The father does not oppose her wishes, and tolerates her subsequent paranoia. Here are the results for the kids: 1) Delayed and abnormal grieving process 2) Tension and alienation from their entire birth mother's family 3) Feelings of betrayal by their father 4) Lifelong psychological issues. The public needs to understand, loss of one or both biological parents has great potential to destroy an entire kinship network for the child. This is exactly what same-sex marriage demands: you have either no birth mother or no father you can identify with, and you can NEVER talk about it without jealousy or paranoia emanating from your "substitute" samesex parent. What a cruel thing to do to an innocent child!

  46. TWINGIRL2
    Posted February 16, 2012 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    The children were age eight when the father remarried. The smiley face was an electronic error, apparently.