NOM BLOG

NOM's Peters: Kids are Central to the Marriage Debate

 

NOM's Thomas Peters spoke with NPR this week explaining the central role children must have in the marriage debate:

Surveys suggest that kids younger than 18 in same-sex families still number fewer than a quarter-million.

"It's a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent," says Thomas Peters of the National Organization for Marriage, a leading group opposing same-sex marriage.

"The difference is that children raised by gay parents are very much in the media's eye," he says. "We see it on Modern Family. We see this hugely blown out of proportion. It's why, by the way, in Gallup [polls], Americans believe that a third to a fourth of Americans are gay."

In fact, studies estimate that it's more like 3 percent to 4 percent. And Peters argues that the media image of gay marriage's impact is misleading. [...]

...Still, children are making their own heartfelt case.

Eleven-year-old Grace Evans, with her long hair in a braid, testified this month as Minnesota lawmakers considered legalizing same-sex marriage.

"I want to ask you this question: Which parent do I not need — my mom or my dad?" she said. She looked up from her paper to a long silence.

And a teen who testified against gay marriage in Maryland last year received online death threats. But Peters says kids are central to this debate.

"As long as the marriage conversation remains focused on, generationally, what's best for children, I think America will find the right way forward," he says.

41 Comments

  1. Richard
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    And the 250,000 children being raised in gay households (your figure) should be denied the marriage of their parents along with all the responsibilities and benefits because one young girl (with parents) can't imagine not having either of them in her life? Talk about elitist and hateful.

  2. Randy E King
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    There is no such thing as a "Gay", Richard. Sexual depravity does not turn you into a species of man unto yourself - unless, of course, you meant promiscuous households.

  3. Richard
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    Randy, is this another example of your occasional break with reality?

  4. Richard
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    If Peters' truly believed that kids are central to marriage debate, he would not so blithely throw off as unimportant the 250,000 children with gay parents he dismisses in favor of a young girl who has her mom and dad. Since when did he get to judge the value of any kid's family? Peters needs to remind himself that every kid matters.

  5. Will Fisher
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    The kids? Was Peters at CPAC last week? NOM drew a crowd of 30 or so. Gay conservative activist draws hundreds. The kids (even the conservatives) support civil marriage rights for same sex couples. 18-29yo: 85%.

  6. Posted March 23, 2013 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    It's why, by the way, in Gallup [polls], Americans believe that a third to a fourth of Americans are gay."

    In fact, studies estimate that it's more like 3 percent to 4 percent.
    ================
    I have been in environments where homosexuals plus bisexuals make up 30-50% of women. Most of them are closeted. I know many who would never admit it in a survey what they are, because they would be uncomfortable. They want to be perverted but not really face it and certainly not admit it to their families and husband - and how easily they would betray their husbands with another woman.

    And if you take many environments of young people, urban and comfortable, it's the same story. They are quite often "into homosexuality/bisexuality" because they think it's normal and it's a way to affirm themselves, their fancied "independence" and a sense that they should seek out any sexual kick that pops into their heads, having been conditioned to think of women sexually thanks to how homosexuality is shoved everywhere in our degenerate, dominant liberal culture.

    There are a lot of women thinking about sex with other women, but they won't admit it. It's hard to say how many act on it. Many are liberal, but there is also a significant number who are so-called conservatives, go to church, etc.

    This really hits the crux of the issue about marriage. Protecting marriage is impossible in a culture that normalizes homosexuality and bisexuality, because perversion is quite attractive to many people. Especially those that are looking for some different kind of kick to fulfill something they are missing in their marriage, in their social lives, in their families. They start turning to same sex pursuits, just like a smaller number of people sexually pursue adolescents or children.

  7. Chairm
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    Of all the children living in same-sex households (census term) about 95% are children of divorced or otherwise separated mom-dads.

    These children already have the protections available for children of estranged parents.

    Now, what would the SSM status of the adults do for the well-being of these children?

    The SSM idea, shorn of its gay emphasis, is really just a plea for protections, rather than the preferential status according the union of husband and wife. Protections for non-marital circumstances, especially those with children, ought not to depend on the fictive presumption that same-sex sexual attraction or same-sex sexual behavior of caregivers is relevant to outcomes for children. No SSMer has managed to provide a social scientific narrative to justify special status based on the gay emphasis. The rest of non-marriage is similarly situated.

    Meanwhile, the societal response to non-marital trends ought to be to promote the marriage idea (and the norms intrinsic to it) to improve the marital trends.

    In the meantime, due to the harm of the non-marital trends, society can also accord protections based on the diminishment (or abandonment) of sex integration and the diminishment (or abandonment) of responsible procreation in these circustmances. But no special relationship status in law is needed. Just provide the protections that are applicable to the circumstances.

    This two-pronged approach is reasonable and shows no favoritism based on identity politics.

    Promotion of the marriage idea does more to stave off the need for these additional protections than would the further degradation and obscuring of marriage in our society. Rather than setting Government against civil society, this sort of policy would get Government out of the way (first do no harm) and the rest of society would do what no Government can do competently, much less do as well as our children actually need it to be done.

  8. Chairm
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    Will Fisher, if 85% of "kids' jumped off a bridge, would you leap with them?

    Come on. Supply more substance in your remarks, please.

  9. Robert
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 12:22 am | Permalink

    Well most Americans believe children should be raised by a married couple. That's because marriage binds the couple together, hopefully forever but at least for as long as it takes to raise the children.

  10. Richard
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 12:24 am | Permalink

    Chairm, if 85% of 18-32 year olds support a gay couple's right to marry, would you ignore them in favor of the much smaller percentage of the elderly to which I suspect you belong?

  11. Chairm
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 12:45 am | Permalink

    Robert, how do you figure that?

    I'd explain how the marriage idea does it, but please explain how you think your SSM idea (with the gay emphasis) might do it.

  12. Chairm
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 12:49 am | Permalink

    It has zilch to do with age, Richard, as my earlier comment strongly suggested.

    I now make this explicit for you: the content of the reasoning, that is what really counts, not the count of ill-reasoned opinion holders. Suppose the SSM idea had little support -- as, say, not so long ago. Did that make it wrong or right, in your view? Ahhh, perhaps the light goes on for you, now.

    There is no actual right to marry based on gay identity politics. You are always barking up the wrong tree. Quiet down and contemplate a little before barking again.

  13. John
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 2:24 am | Permalink

    It seems that all this "progressive" stuff leads to nothing but harm for children. Adults wanted no fault divorce. Divorce rates rose sharply, leaving children with a broken family. Then adults wanted abortion. and over 50 million unborn children became victims. Now, adults want gay marriage, which AGAIN puts children in a situation where they become a by product of two adults of the same sex, thereby depriving them of both a mom and a dad. Kids deserve BOTH. Has anyone even bothered asking the children how they feel about this? Or it is all just about the needs of adults being more important than the needs of children? I have yet to hear anyone answer the question as to which parent a kid should do without..a mom or a dad. Because that's exactly what happens with gay marriage..it states that kids don't need one or the other, since men and women are now exactly the same.

  14. Robert
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    John, a child is always better off if his parents are married. That's what's so strange about these religionists advocating against legal same-sex marriage: they actually WANT children raised without married parents! I never thought I'd see the day when people of faith would want to harm children, but I guess after the catholic church sex scandals, religion ain't what it used to be!

  15. Randy E King
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    Robert,

    You are a religionist activist; you are what you claim to hold with such disdain and resentment.

    What you and your fellow perverts want is to be free from your sense of guilt for your decadent lifestyle choice. Why else would you be claiming as your right that which your proclivity does not naturally provide for.

    You are perpetrators; not a victims.

  16. Richard
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    Chairm, alas, you prove, once again, that reality is simply not a factor you wish to entertain. You speak too often of older and benign terms of a sort such as gay identity politics. You repeatedly refer to the term, gay emphasis, as if you have this overwhelming need to prove to someone that gays do not exist. You wage a battle against no one for the world has moved on your world

  17. Richard
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    Continue...you wage a battle against no one because the world has moved on and yours is receding. It has everything to do with age Chairm because all we are left to conclude is that your world is an inner sanctum that ends at your door: your phobia is a fear of knowledge, to know gay people, to know that gay couples get married, to know that the terms gay identity politics and gay emphasis are not necessary because, and again, your greatest fear is reality.

  18. Randy E King
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    Since when did you become the foremost expert on reality? I mean, for God's sake, you insist that people are born with the desire to masturbate against same gender companions, that children do not need the a mother and a father, that words can mean whatever you want them to mean...

    You are the one that fears knowledge; that fears the truth. Undoubtedly because you know truth will not help you satisfy your wants; your desire to have your victims affirm the appropriateness of your crimes against them via judicial fiat.

    You are too clever by half.

  19. flanoggin
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    Richard----you are arguing with hateful people---Just read Randy's comments: he does not like gays (I am being polite). His comments are rude, mean spirited and uniformed. I applaud your sentiments, but your time (as is my time) is wasted arguing with these people. Have a good day and remember, you are on the right side of history.

  20. Robert
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Randy, children DON"T need a mother and a father, they need two married parents who love them and are committed to them. Gender plays very little role in parenting, if any. There is far more variation among different-sex parents than between same-sex and different-sex parents.

    Oh, yeah, marriage isn't about parenting anyway, since many married couples, straight or gay, won't even raise any children!

  21. Randy E King
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    @flanoggin,

    Dressing up like a fairy-tale princess and declaring yourself queen of the Kingdom of Gay will not turn your fantasy into reality.

    You are just a disgusting human being who likes to masturbate on same gendered companions; not a mythical creature from antiquity.

    When I was but a lad there was no such thing as a "Gay." Yet here you are insisting that there always was, and always will be.

  22. Richard
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    Yes, flanoggin, you are quite right and Randy has proven your point time and time again. I tend to ignore his pubescent diatribes because it is the equivalent of arguing with a child. The best way to distinguish that behavior is to ignore it. What I like to do is "push their buttons" when they are absolutely sure they know the truths of a subject (civil marriage law and gays). Two subjects, by the way, in which they demonstrate profound ignorance.

  23. Marc Paul
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Randy likes to use the word masturbate a lot. it's been noted. He's like, ten?

    Unlike Randy, I've seen how Lesbian or gay parents
    provide all the different aspects of human personality and good parenting that Randy thinks can only be delivered by an opposite sex dyad.

    That is a reality which he may deny but it a tru I have observed and is borne it by social science research.

  24. Randy E King
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    @Marc,

    I've seen the perverts you champion encourage children to adopt the same lifestyle; I've witnessed said children that sought to win their parents approval be praised above their siblings who did not.

    You sir are a predator; not a victim.

  25. Randy E King
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    Sticking your fingers in your ears while chanting "na, na, na, na, na." will not turn the truth into a lie.

    You have refused to address counter points that expose your lies to the searing light of truth because you are not quite ready for your trip down the river Denial to end.

  26. Richard
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Marc Paul. You are absolutely correct in your observations that gay parents can provide a wonderfully nurturing, safe and loving environment for their children. During my 39 years as a teacher, I have been witness to a number of families with gay parents. Every time the families are integral to and involved with the larger school community, open and friendly, respected by teachers and other families and the kids are, well, kids. And, of course, this is exactly what I have in my own family.

  27. Richard
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    And Marc Paul. I have also been witness to too many children who are damaged goods because the parents could never quite grow up, grow out of old fears and hates they carried into adulthood. You know, the type who get their information at check out magazine racks...low information voters who find the best retort is a schoolyard invective worthy only of detention. The kids never stand a chance and are often terribly hurt.

  28. Posted March 24, 2013 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    'gay' couples don't get married completely - they don't get married at the Federal level. So what does that prove? Nothing. Does it prove they shouldn't be allowed to get married? Nope. So what does SSm in, say, Maine, prove? Only that Maine has integrated SSm with natural marriage, for the time being. . .

    Existence or inexistence doesn't prove anything, as Chairm has adequately pointed out on this comment string. Because marriage is not a Constitutional Right (explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution) it must be legislated. That it is being legislated proves it is not a Constitutional 'right'.

    Similarly, a happily ever after SSm couple who adopted a happily ever after child in need, certainly exists. But what does it prove? Only that it is possible, not probable.

    So, if we could just send SSm advocates to Logic school, we wouldn't be even considering SSm. Luckily, SCOTUS Justices went to Logic school. . . and all we have to do is wait.

  29. Randy E King
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    If they were logical they would not be insisting that tab "B" fits into tab "B", or slot "A" fits into slot "A."

  30. flanoggin
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    @Randy---you seem awfully consumed by, and presumably knowledgable of, certain practices......hmmmm

  31. Randy E King
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    @flanoggin,

    Guys talk...you hear things...words get around...!

  32. Richard
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

    Flanoggin, what did I tell you? Randy still lives in the schoolyard. Remember, damaged goods grow up to create damaged goods.

  33. Richard
    Posted March 24, 2013 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

    Little Man, lord I wish you were a litigant for the proponents before SCOTUS. Existence or in-existence ( in a reality) is the struggle Chairm still fights. And yes, he has more than adequately pointed this out to everyone.

  34. Posted March 25, 2013 at 12:51 am | Permalink

    Richard: Thank you for calling me "lord". We agree again. But, it might take you a while to realize what legislated existence of SSm means - that it can be legislated back.

    Chairm has checked-mated you. You just don't realize it (which is why he could).

    Who exactly are the proponents you refer to, before SCOTUS?

  35. Richard
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    Little Man, are you serious that you don't know who the proponents are for Prop 8 and DoMA?

  36. Posted March 25, 2013 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    You mean you don't know either? Which case do you mean, or are you purposefully ambiguous? (i think that's it.)

  37. Richard
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    Little Man, again...are you serious that you don't know who the proponents are for Prop 8 and DoMA? If you can't answer this time I will be happy to enlighten you but, truthfully, if you don't have an answer check with Chairm and let's see if he knows. This should be interesting.

  38. Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    Tell me which case (singular) you meant, and i can give you the proponents. Each case is different. Again, bad in Math, making unequal things 'equal'. I'm bored.

  39. Richard
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

    Little Man you're bored because (and excuse my language) you simply may be intellectually challenged. You need math, here's math. SCOTUS on Tuesday will address Prop 8. Who are the proponents for Prop 8? Wednesday, SCOTUS will address DoMA. Who are the proponents for DoMA? Two questions = two answers.

  40. Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

    Which case do you mean, again? You finally got one math problem right. Great progress!

  41. Posted March 26, 2013 at 1:52 am | Permalink

    Yes, i am intellectually challenged sometimes on this comment blog. But not recently. We agree again!