Legalising same-sex marriage would "legitimise and encourage" the existence of fatherless or motherless children, according to a report.
A Free Church of Scotland study panel examined the issues surrounding marriage, divorce and remarriage.
The study comes as responses to the Scottish Government's consultation on gay marriage are evaluated.
Referring to same-sex couples, the Free Church report said: "By getting the right to marry, they get more respectability for bringing up children (they already have the right to foster and adopt).
"This is a huge social experiment in which the guinea pigs are children. That is not fair or just to children and does not safeguard their rights. It is really being pushed in a doctrinaire way by the gay lobby without any consideration of the harm that it will do."
The church said that civil partnerships already give same-sex couples the same legal rights as marriage, and therefore there is no need to introduce same-sex marriage.
83 Comments
Finally, the children, the children, the children. Kids have a right to their moms and dads. So-called SS"M" will cause more children to be conceived for the selfish desires of the couple who don't care that they are not only depriving a child of a mom or a dad or both, but also the right to have a complementary pair of male-female parents to help them learn to live in a male-female world. Marriage is all about the children, not the lovey-dovey fantasy that the homosexual radicals like to portray it to be.
Sexual deviants are notorious perpatrators; not victims. This "who are you going to believe; me, or your damn lying eyes" routine needs to be put down sooner rather than later.
Tyrannts throughout history relied on various forms of the lie and swear-to-it approach to public governance; with each comming to the the same inevitable bloddy end. It appears those pimping this lates round of repression believe they will be dead and gone before they ever have to answer for their treason.
"Legalising same-sex marriage would "legitimise and encourage" the existence of fatherless or motherless children,"
Indeed, the manufacturing of children with the premeditated intent of separating them from at least one of their rightful parents is already being perpetrated by many same-sex couples. Redefining marriage would normalize this practice. It is anything but normal. It's a crime against children.
"Considering all the evil that exists in the world, the fact that all of religion's condemnation is focused on expressing disapproval of two people loving each other proves just how evil religion is." — Jan deBoer.
No scientific proof has been found that same-sex marriage harms children. In fact, often children in same-sex married homes have found to be more emotionally healthy and psychologically sound than in some heterosexual homes.
And Herb, thumbs up to you for using a quote that expresses exactly how many people are starting to feel. Even those who belong to the religions themselves.
Randy - You have serious issues. Please for your sake and ours deal with them.
Funny, nobody mentioned religion except for "Herb."
Marriage unites children to their mother and father. So-called same-sex "marriage" is the vehicle that separates a child from at least one parent.
Nothing religious about that. People who do not practice any faith can still understand the lack of ethics involved in this practice.
Herb,
Now you are equating sex with love? Yet more proof that marriage corruption supporters seek to legislate the absolution of their sins through the misapplication of language.
News Flash:
Everybody can see that the emperor is not wearing any clothes.
Randy,
Herb is not equating sex with love. He is talking about love. Just because you can't stop thinking about hot man on man sex, doesn't mean that is what others are talking about.
News Flash:
Everyone can see that you are both projecting your obsession with gay sex on others and simultaneously dehumanizing same-sex couples by treating their years of loving commitment as just a physical sexual act.
John,
Nobody is saying queers cannot love what they want to love. The debate is about the complementary nature of man / woman pairings vs. the perverted nature of same gendered pairings as they relate to sex; not love.
We the people do not have a vested interest in whom, or what you may love, but we have an undeniable interest in what same pairing create. Whereas opposite sex parings possess the ability to create life; same gender pairings will only ever be able to create stains within the construct of their relationship.
I can see why you would not like to address this discussion honestly; the actuals do not speak well of your depravity.
Including in the legal meaning of marriage same sex couples has the obvious consequence of severing the legal ties between biological parents and children.
Since biological parenthood will have no legal meaning, the governments will be entitled to decide who is allowed to be a parent and who is not.
Those who want to change the meaning of marriage are not actually interested in benefiting those people living the experience of homophilia.
They are just trying to force on everybody a tool to give the governments totalitarian powers on the life of the people.
Gay is not a sexual orientation, it's an ideology to the benefit of the elites.
Funny, nobody mentioned religion except for "Herb."
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it.
Are you sure?
I agree, John. Randy has a gay obsession as do many other here.
Faith or no faith, black or white, straight or gay, all of us united to provide children with the best possible environment, a marriage of their one mother and one father.
Barb, please. You make it sound as if when two men ( or women) marry a child is ripped from the arms of two straight parents. Try bring honest because your bumper sticker claims would get you laughed out of court.
"Since biological parenthood will have no legal meaning, the governments will be entitled to decide who is allowed to be a parent and who is not."
This is quite a leap. Surely you know that family law heavily favors biological parents in any dispute involving guardianship. Why in the world do you think this would result when same sex couples are permited to marry? Has anything remotely like this happpened in states that currently permit such marriages?
Bruce,
"Has anything remotely like this happened in states that currently permit such marriages?"
You are kidding right...? Do you not follow the news; are you not familiar with the court battles now under way where in one such case a judge awarded custody to the non-biological partner because the biological partner refused to allow the non-biologic visitation rights?
VT Judge Awards Custody to Non-Biological Mom
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc3=&id=99531
"Pay no attention to that man behind the green curtain"
Obama/Biden 2012
"Who are you going to believe; me, or your own damn lying eyes?"
Obama/Biden 2012
Queer As Folk
Obama/Biden 2012
Show me a same-sex couple in possession of a child, and I'll show you a child that has been ripped away from at least one of her biological parents.
Remember that the next time you see such a scenario. The child is living a lie.
Randy E. King,
One case doesn't make a trend. Furthermore, in the case you cite, the non-biological parent behaved in an abhorent way. The outcome would have been the same had the parents been opposite sex.
Sorry. The BIOLOGICAL parent behaved badly.
Barb Chamberlan:
"Show me a same-sex couple in possession of a child, and I'll show you a child that has been ripped away from at least one of her biological parents."
I'm so tired of hearing how evil gay parents are ripping children from the bosoms of their loving, opposite sex parents. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. Sadly, people die, and people mistreat their children. Others willingly surrender parental rights.
One thing is mathematically certain.
Every single child acquired by a same sex couple, is a child who has first been deprived of their own mother, father, or both.
There are no exceptions to this rule.
the issue with children really has nothing to do with marriage laws at all. since same sex couples can not procreate as it has well argued, this seems like there needs to be adopted regulations in place. after all, not all married couples qualify for adoption. so when it comes to the same sex couples raising children the issue is adoption not marriage. by not allowing gay people to marry it will not stop same sex adoption or egg or sperm donors.
Now we've come full circle:
"Legalising same-sex marriage would "legitimise and encourage" the existence of fatherless or motherless children,"
Excellent
This is almost correct, but not quite. Same-sex PROCREATION is an experiment in which the guinea pigs are children, and same-sex marriage either approves and allows labs to experiment manufacturing children for same-sex couples, or, if that is ever prohibited, it means that man-woman marriage no longer approves and allows the couple to conceive offspring together.
The fact is that same-sex marriage has no effect on same-sex couples raising children that were created normally, as the offspring of a man and a woman, they do that already. Marriage has nothing to do with a right to raise children, it only has something to do with the right to CONCEIVE children.
The entire question is exactly the same as it was with Loving v Virginia and bans on inter-racial marriage: whether we should approve and allow the conception of children form that kind of couple. We should not allow people to conceive children with someone of the same sex, it would be unethical and make children into guinea pigs in needless experiments. There is simply no right to manufacture children by any method, and we should prohibit attempting to create a child by any means other than joining a man's sperm and a woman's egg.
My point is, same-sex couples who want to raise children can freely do so if they wish. By not allowing them to marry will not discourage same-sex couples building a life together. Likewise, I'm doubtful the legalization of same-sex marriage would increase the number of child rearing same-sex couples. Either they're going to or not. I would like to ask: Could a same-sex couple and their adopted or biological child be called a "family"? Or should we start amending constitutions defining "families" as groups of people who are biologically related without the inclusion of any same-sex partnerships?
Albert - didn't you read JHoward's post? Marriage is about conception of children, nit child-rearing.
I've mentioned in other posts here that the proper venue for same-sex couples seeking rights is either through adoption laws or foster care laws, where the issues there are child REARING not child CONCEIVING.
I think the word family should be reclaimed for biologically related persons and qualifiers such as "adopted" and "step" be used for variations of "families" involving non-related persons. It makes for a clearer understanding of relationships.
"Legalising same-sex marriage would "legitimise and encourage" the existence of fatherless or motherless children,"
No it wouldn't because marriage has never legitimized or encouraged the couple to have children using donor sperm or eggs, and it has never had legitimized or encouraged adoption of other people's children. It is all about the right to conceive children together. That must be preserved, and same-sex procreation should be prohibited.
And what about the single heterosexual man who can't find a suitable spouse? Should there be laws prohibiting him from hiring a surrogate if he wants to raise a child of his own?
John, same-sex couples cannot make a baby. No prohibition is necessary. They can adopt an orphaned or neglected child from an opposite-sex couple, or through sperm/egg conception via surrogacy or sperm donor (which barren heterosexual couples do).
Overcame, I agree with you except for the "marriage/conception" correlation. Since same-sex couples can't conceive, then conception is a non-issue. Otherwise, you're absolutely right!
Albert, they can't make a baby naturally, but a lab might be able to create a baby for them somehow using stem cells or some other method. Mice and pigs have been created by labs already, that have two "parents" of the same sex. We don't have to say that it should be legal just because it is unlikely, we know that it would be unethical and bad public policy and it is silly and irresponsible and cruel to demand the equal right to make a baby together when it probably will never be possible anyway.
Regarding single men using surrogates, yes, I think all unmarried intentional reproduction should be prohibited, including sperm and egg donation. But again, it has nothing to do with marriage.
I agree John, no telling what birth defects can occur with that kind of artificial engineering. Human life is too precious to experiment with.
Are all of you who are opposed to gay people producing children through insemination, surrogacy, or in vitro fertilization going to take on fertility clinics after you get same sex marriage banned? Are you going to sponsor alaws and constituional amendments to ban these practices on the grounds that they rip children from their biological parents? It seems that if you oppose gay people having children for this reason, you also ought to oppose fertility clinics in general.I look forward to the debate about this subject. They will be very interesting. I am trying to envision the campaign signs and slogans. I
"Albert, they can't make a baby naturally, but a lab might be able to create a baby for them somehow using stem cells or some other method."
The sheer insanity of those both ignorant of and obsessed with the gays.
Susan, I made a sign to carry at an environmental rally BioDevestation2000 that read "Every Child a Natural Child" - yes, I've been at this over 22 years now!
Regarding prohibiting ART, I think first we need to stop going further down the slippery slope by at least banning stuff that we haven't started doing yet, such as same-sex procreation and transgender procreation and genetic engineering of designer babies, and we need to affirm that marriage is about the right to conceive offspring together. Then, once marriage is preserved and meaningful again, we can start to tackle sperm donation and surrogacy and posthumous conception and all these terrible unethical things. We will start to preserve fertility by reducing extra-marital sex and we'll see people's health improve and more people marrying and having children at a younger age, and there will be less use of ART and IVF and then it won't be so hard to ban that stuff completely. It's unsustainable and expensive and harms human dignity and we need to end it as soon as we can.
oh wait, that was only 12 years ago. Phew, I don't know how I got so confused...
Pete, yeah, it's insane to demand a right to conceive a child with someone of the same sex when it might never be possible and will certainly be unethical. Stop demanding equal marriage rights, accept that people should only be allowed to make a child with someone of the other sex.
"Pete, yeah, it's insane to demand a right to conceive a child with someone of the same sex when it might never be possible and will certainly be unethical."
Yep, you are certifiable.
Pete, do you accept that there is no right to attempt to reproduce with someone of the same sex? Or do you demand an equal right to reproduce with either sex?
Rick writes: "Every single child acquired by a same sex couple, is a child who has first been deprived of their own mother, father, or both."
By the mother who voluntarily donated her eggs or gave up the baby she didn't mean to create and wasn't capable of raising, the man who voluntarily donated his sperm, or the man and/or woman who were neglectful, abusive, or irresponsible parents. Plenty of heterosexual couples adopt or use egg or sperm donors. Should they be constitutionally barred from marriage because of it? Did Maggie rip Patrick from his bio father when she got knocked up and didn't bother to marry the dad? Why is she still allowed to marry? Keep looking for an argument that validates your animus - like all the rest this one just ain't working.
So, to summerize, the official marriiage corruption position is:
"No it won't"; followed by "So What?"
Well now I believe that pretty much clears things up for everybody. Thanks for playing! Bye bye now!
"Que music..."
Bruce asked:
"Has anything remotely like this happpened in states that currently permit such marriages?"
And when an example was given Bruce replied:
"One case doesn't make a trend." with "The BIOLOGICAL parent behaved badly."
Followed by:
"I'm so tired of hearing how evil gay parents are ripping children from the bosoms of their loving, opposite sex parents. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN."
Translation:
"No it isn't" and "So what?"
These tactics were not acceptable when you were five years old and the most certainly are not acceptable today.
Randy,
A married heterosexual couple is unable to conceive due to the infertility of the husband. They turn to IVF to start their family. When their beautiful daughter, whom they both love immensely, is three years old the wife converts to Islam. She divorces her infidel husband and steals their child away to another state. After repeatedly disobeying court orders to allow the child's father visitation (a crime), the court grants custody to the father with visitation rights for the mother. Horrified at the prospect of her daughter being raised in a Christian home, the woman flees with her daughter to Iraq.
This is, in essence, the case you've chosen to use to prove the dangers of allowing gay couples to marry. If you feel that Lisa Miller's actions are justifiable, you're nutters.
(I'm hoping this response does not fall in the "no it isn't," or "so what" categories)
It would also be correct: 'The church said that civil marriage already gives all qualified individuals the same legal right to marriage,...' This points out that no qualifying adult is excluded from marriage. It is when they change the qualifications for marriage that they are changing the definition of marriage. But how they complicate the matter with irrelevant assumptions.
What is the world coming to?
Michael,
The case I used was in response to an assertion -a lie- that no such conflicts exist; and is just one of many available. The fact remains that the child in question has no real connection to non-biologics as governed by the laws of nature.
The example I provided was that of a women who came to realize that she was not "born that way" and turned back to her Christian faith; a faith that is immutable under the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Your feeble attempt at dismissal is nothing more than a "So What?" response.
Michael,
The man in question in your example is not the child’s father; anymore than the woman in the example I provided is in any real way the mother. Children are not commodities governed by a bill of sale. They are living breathing human beings governed by the laws of nature; laws you refuse to acknowledge as immutable.
Your response is yet another “so what?” defense.
Gay couples with children should be charged with child endangerment. It is the height of narcissism that gays ignore Gender Identity Deficits which children suffer in these arrangements.
@Craig
That's going a little too far. I believe that Marriage is between a man and a woman and should be codified into our constitution, however I also believe having two parents is better than one parent.
Though I suspect it would very difficult to explain to a child while one of their parents is constantly with another partner other than the one they wanted to stay with.
For the record...I was only disagreeing with your first sentence Craig.
Albert - The essence of our disagreement is bout the essence of marriage being founded in the fact tht the sole means for procreation for human beings is the union of a man and a woman. If you disagree with that, how then do you account for the fact that marriage has always been about joining one man and one woman? Bigotry, he, he?
Once homosexuals figure out that there is a profound difference between male-female couples and same-sex couples; once they figure out that only a man and a woman can procreate and that is the basis for marriage; only then will we come to agreement on marriage. Of course, the homosexuals like to discount the complementary nature of man and woman, because it makes them outcasts from civilized society. I respect their feelings of inherent inequality, but we can't make it better by lying about the nature of humanity, perpetuation and stability of civilization, and the best interests of children, just to make outcasts feel better about themselves.
Homosexuals like to call attention to the failures of marriage as an argument for why society should recognize same-sex couples as the same as male-female couples. Ridiculous.
We don't do away with laws that are not 100% enforceable; we recognize their weaknesses and enforce as best as we can. We don't get rid of speed limits because people still speed. Likewise, we don't redefine marriage because marriages fail.
Marriage is an ideal that creates stable societies where children have their moms and dads, and families for economic units that are independent from government. Same-sex couples cannot fulfill the ideal, because same-sex couples are always non-procreative; they cannot give children a mom and a dad, cannot create a genetically linked family, inextricably linked through DNA and blood.
Randy,
Let's see, "queers", "perverted" and "depravity". Well, Randy, I have no problem discussing this issue openly and honestly. Unlike yourself, I am able to stay on topic, defend what I wrote- rather than change the subject, and don't need to engage in personal attacks. I do not, however see any point in attempting honest, rational discussions with one in the throws of anti-gay bigotry, which your own word reveal you to be.
Good day to you, sir.
John,
Queer: eccentric or unconventional
Perverted: deviating greatly from what is accepted as right, normal, or proper
Depravity: a morally corrupt or wicked act
Unlike you; I have no problem what-so-ever with the historic descriptive of the proclivity you champion. If you truly believed same-sex sexual activity was proper you would not be insisting he be called what it is not.
I refuse to surrender the moral high ground, or my 1st Amendment protections. You folks declared this war on the right of conscience and the free execise thereof and a war you will get.
Randy,
Surrender the moral high ground? Please! You are so very far below any moral high ground, that I doubt you can see it, yet alone hold it!
John,
As you cruise the river Denial we ask that you take a moment and consider the possibility that your support of corrupt politicians, judges, and the decadent media elite has eliminated any chance you may of had convincing others that your intent is anything but sinister.
Yes Randy, my sinister intent to be treated with respect and decency as an equal. Thanks for clearing up EXACTLY what motivates the NOM crowd!
Respect is earned John; not mandated. Thanks for proving once again that you are out for revenge and not justice.
@OvercameSSA, well stated in 51 and 52.
@Doug, I'm perverted and depraved and queer, but I've never been gay or homosexual.
Great!
@Overcame: except this needs to be rephrased: "Same-sex couples cannot fulfill the ideal, because same-sex couples are always non-procreative; they cannot give children a mom and a dad, cannot create a genetically linked family, inextricably linked through DNA and blood."
That's not necessarily true, in theory a same-sex couple can create a genetically linked family using stem cell derived gametes. But they cannot ETHICALLY create a genetically linked child, just as a brother and sister can reproduce, but cannot reproduce ethically. It just needs to be prohibited, like incest is prohibited.
"By divine design, both a man and a woman are essential for bringing children into mortality and providing the best setting for the rearing and nurturing of children."
Divine design. Meh.
Doug,
To act as if a point is laughable is to insist on being irrational.
Randy: that makes no sense whatsoever. I'm sorry your own struggles with homosexuality have you hating gays so.
I don't think we should conduct social experiments on children. In fact, plain common sense says we keep children away from homosexuals.
M. Jones, I agree but that has nothing to do with marriage. Stopping SSM will not protect children from homosexuals, at least not by itself, and it's using marriage to send a message in a way that I think makes things worse, and distorts the meaning of marriage. Marriage is not about a right to parent children, it does not affect custody or support. Marriage is about the right to conceive children, and the obligations that come with being given that right. We don't even need to get into
Marriage is an acknowledgement of the procreative nature of one man one woman pairings; the joining of opposites.
Randy, I would go on to say that, while includes the Godly template of procreation, it's, at once, beyond the procreative. It goes to the joining of opposites in so many other ways, too, and that kind of joining doesn't happen in SS joining.
@Randy, by that logic a brother and sister should be allowed to marry, since they can procreate and are a man and a woman.
Marriage is about whether we approve of that couple procreating or not. We should not approve of same-sex couples attempting to procreate, ever, it is always going to be unethical and unsafe and unnecessary and reduce human dignity by making us all manufactured products instead of human beings.
Please start arguing that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry because attempting to procreate together would be unethical and should not be allowed. People should only be allowed to reproduce with someone of the other sex.
Hi M.Jones, why should we be keeping children away from homosexuals?
Michael, children are notoriously dirty and have unrefined tastes and are terrible at witty conversation. They're just such boring little obnoxious smelly things.
John,
Brothers and sisters are procluded from marriage because of procreation; in that these pairings commonly produce children with birth defects.
"Procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings."
Folks, let's be honest. There is no difference between Randy and the Al-Qaeda that fly planes into buildings. He is just that effed up.
@77
That's pretty low.
You know you are right over the target when you start receiving flak.
That's pretty good.
John Howard, you might just be channeling Oscar Wilde. I may or may not have snorted just now. As smelly and uncouth as my nephew may be, I'd sure miss that little rascal.
Thanks for getting my joke Micheal C.
My kids are actually pretty witty, but they are dirty. Some days it's like a mud puddle is talking back.
@Randy "Brothers and sisters are procluded from marriage because of procreation; in that these pairings commonly produce children with birth defects."
Right, and so would same-sex procreation probably produce birth defects. And there are other reasons we don't let certain relationships marry, than risk of birth defects, and in fact mere risk of birth defects alone is not enough to preclude a couple from marrying (indeed there is always a risk of birth defects). But the point is we preclude marriage where there is a general feeling that procreation would be unsafe and unwise and unethical for that TYPE of relationship (not for a specific couple, but for a type of relationship). Same-sex couples are a TYPE of relationship where procreation would be unethical, like siblings are, and so should be precluded from marriage like siblings are.
Do you understand my point? Your answers seem to suggest that you think we should not prohibit same-sex procreation, but leave it legal.