Marriage Watch / Maggie Gallagher
Heather McDonald has just published a very thoughtful and brave piece on National Review online.
It begins this way:
An image from a TV ad for gay marriage, reproduced in the January18 New Yorker, provides a Rorschach test for reactions to America'songoing revolution in family structure. Two men in black suits stand shoulder-to-shoulder in a group of people, looking into each other'seyes. In their arms are two newborns in white baby clothes and blankets. Though it's not immediately apparent from the photo, the men are at a baptism for their infants. The ad, still being test-marketed, is called "Family Values," and is intended to emphasize the "conventionality of gay couples," explains The New Yorker.
If your reaction to the image is: "Where's the mother(s)?" you may not yet be fully on board the "conventionality" bandwagon. If your reaction to the foregoing question, however, is: "Why does it matter?" then you are keeping pace with the revolution. "Why does it matter?" may ultimately prove the more appropriate response, but no one should pretend that it represents anything other than a radical revision of the traditional relationship between parents and children - one whose consequences no one can predict.
55 Comments
And?
Yep, anything to hide the fact. Make it "LOOK" normal...what looks normal is normal. "Everything that glitters is not gold".
WOW! Now that's digging way down there to contemplate gay marriage as possibly the final straw in the complete disintegration of the family. Anyone feeling a little scapegoated?
Lets not be blinded by such a manufactured concern when possibly, in a world without hate, prejudice, wresting of scripture, and fear mongering, same sex orientation might turn out to the the solution (maybe even God's own design) to providing care for the many unwanted and special needs children abandonded by one form or another of the breeding population.
As much as I hate the prejudice that is evident in the way this article is presented, I must say it has its "fair and balancing elements" no matter how offensive its premise.
I simply do not have time to digest the entire article, so my apologies if I have missed the point.
Thanks Maggie! You're right, this truly is a very well thought-out article. I don't believe I've ever seen these ideas explored as well or in as much depth in a single place as Heather presents them. She did a terrific job!
Excellent article. Thanks for spreading the information.
Adam Bennett, your response to this obviously well considered article as a scapegoating product of hate, prejudice and offensive bias really illustrates where you're coming from rather than where the author has been. I think it's safe to say that yes. You have missed the point.
"the breeding population"? Wow Adam. If that's not a sign of disgust for marriage and families, I don't know what is.
Great article! Loved it start to finish! I especially loved the summation of Olsen and Boies' petty arguments. Excellent.
Also of note it isntersting that 2 men appear with a baby is totally against biology. If the baby could only express interest in receiving natural milk we may suddenly see the 3rd person in the article. Of course this couple is just a show, using the children for a gay agenda. look look, we are normal, now just rewrite all of mother natures laws and things will be just fine.
Gay activists keep insisting they arent out to "destroy the family", and yet!
I'm not the least bit concerned about your sexual orientation, what goes on in your bedroom, and I know and love a great many gay and lesbian people.
But to intentionally deprive a child of his mother or father because of YOUR OWN bias against the opposite sex? That's where I draw the line.
What a cruel and unusual thing to do to a child!
And as many activists (and commenters on this blog) have claimed -- this sort of thing will continue happening with or without legal gay marriage.
To which I would answer, perhaps, but even if legal it is still something that should be stigmatized and discouraged -- not rewarded and encouraged with a State Seal of Approval.
I celebrate the natural diversity of life, not petty gender bias and cruelty to children.
Sorry, how is this a "radical revision of the traditional relationship between parents and children"? If you want to run your family in the way that you consider right and good and traditional, no one is stopping you or asking you to radically revise any part of it.
Let me repeat that. No one is asking you to accept a radical revision of any part of your values or lifestyle. All anyone wants is for their family not to be treated as inferior to anyone else's.
One more thing. Even if this is a radical revision, as you say, it's not "one whose consequences no one can predict" -- same-sex couples have been getting married for years now, in Massachusetts, and if I'm not mistaken, Spain, South Africa, among other places. I've yet to hear about any traditional marriages that have been ruined or redefined or affected in any way in those places.
1. These children pictured could be adopted, (something other than a “radical revision of the traditional relationship.”) If so, the article, if honest, would seek to undermine adoption by same sex partners or single parents. It does not.
2. This phrase has me puzzled --“Every time a homosexual couple conceives a child. . .” Homosexual couples cannot conceive a child. Possibly one of these partners and a “parent offstage somewhere” conceived a child. To discuss inclusion or exclusion of the biological parent in this context exploits the emotions against the various methods of conception for the purpose of transferring those emotions to animus toward same sex marriage. Even if unintentional. (Nope, just finished the article, its intentional.) Same sex marriage can exist with or without adoption and/or non traditional forms of conception. But the topic of the day is same sex marriage. Why else site the article here. Not for its support of same sex marriage.
3. Gays have merely piggybacked on procedures that heterosexuals created for themselves.” That’s fair. Gays, straights, wedded couples, non wedded couples do it, so how can it have anything to do with gay marriage. Gay marriage could actually create additional families to provide care for the unwanted and special needs children that traditionally are more difficult to adopt. I don’t know if gays would, but it seems logical and worth exploring. Now if someone wants to say something derogatory about the prospect of a homosexual adopting a child at this point, by all means do so, no one will notice that this façade of “animus free” concern solely for the “traditional” definition of marriage is flimsy. If you are so minded to go there, perhaps you would be better served by a website provided by the National Organization for Adoption. Why is this article here? Simply to co-opt any and all disinformation or biased points of view against same sex marriage. Thanks NOM for drawing the line at this level and not stooping further to propagate your Mr. Tam’s view that same sex marriage will lead to lowering the age of consent. Possibly being the “last straw” in the disintegration of the traditional family is far enough. I think that was the implied gist?
4. Genes and intent. I believe provable paternity will trigger a state enforced obligation toward a child when the biological parent is unwilling to participate willingly. If we are discussing the advisability of anonymous conception, and the lending or renting of wombs, that is a worthy discussion. But to connect the issue, however graspingingly, to a discussion of same sex marriage, and in doing so garnering additional animus toward that cause, is just, oh, it don’t know, a stretch? There is much well presented information in this article. But it seems she in trying to undermine support for same sex marriage. Yup, just got to that part, see is. This isn’t an article about a “phenomenon . . . increasingly common among the less educated”! It makes its’ statement by asking a question. It conveniently leaves out the possibility that gay marriages might provide families for less adoptable children and focuses only on those that purposely initiate new conceptions.
5. "Gay child-rearing undercuts “another” understanding. Another? So whatever this has purported to be about, we see what it is actually about—Gay child rearing. That is refreshing honesty. It’s not about gay marriage then? But why is it here? This site stands to oppose same sex marriage. Not necessarily adoptions, not necessarily employment rights, hate crime legislation, or even permitting gays to live. No, it’s about the “traditional definition of marriage” and “preventing one group from defining it for all the others.” Get real. Gay marriage is the holy grail lynch pin that must be effectively banned in order to legitimize the systematic rollback of gay rights. If I am wrong, I at least know that it couldn’t be accomplished without co-opt(ing) the votes of the Fred Phelp’s crew, and those who WOULD seek a final solution to the gay problem.
6. "Mothers and Fathers bring complementary attributes to child-rearing.” Ok, let’s be fair. Is anyone really disputing this? But would a child NOT born at all be better off. Or, would a child born under such circumstance be better served by the exclusion of its same sex parents from the institution of marriage? NOM is prepared to visit a lot of harm upon the children of gays to further its objective. It seems that NOM’s concern is not about what is best for all children, just what might be best for some children. I am being too generous. NOM’s concern is how to effectively coordinate the forces of hate, prejudice, stigma, older generations long held beliefs, misapplied scripture, radical militant religion, and other unsavory but crucially important forces toward the goal--ban same sex marriage at all cost. Look, if Maggie is as intelligent as she appears, she has to know that there’s more to it than what is represented on this little “definition of marriage” site.
7. “Proponents of gay child-rearing proclaim that boys do not need fathers and male role models”. See number 6.
8. Ahh! This part is so nicely written. -- The primary challenge to traditional notions of parenthood comes from gay conception, not gay marriage. Even if gays never gain the right to marry, the practice of gay conception will presumably continue apace. Given that continuation, gay marriage at least preserves one strand of traditional child-bearing arrangements: raising children within the context of marriage.“ “Second, the rout of traditional parenting roles that fertility technology has set in motion is arguably so powerful that gay marriage will add little to the ongoing changes in how we think about parents and children. Designer babies engineered by heterosexual parents are in our future, no matter what parenting institution the law grants to gays.”
Thanks Heather. I guess I should read the entire article before going on a diatribe. But Maggie, why reference the article here? This is an article about “gay conception” and “fertility technology.” Very strategic to co-opt it. Do you co-opt Fred Phelps? Do you co-opt Iran? Do you co-opt Uganda? Do you co-opt Mr. Tam? Do you co-opt that Hotze guy from Houston? Who must you co-opt to prevail Maggie? Certainly not God, or Ghandi, or Dr. King!
Opps, from these statements it seems I spoke to quickly - “The facile libertarian argument”, “Equally specious is the central theme in attorney Theodore Olson’s legal challenge”, “Anyone with the slightest appreciation for the Burkean understanding of tradition”. OK Heather, I see presented lots of questions with an answer in mind. Thanks, it’s not an easy or unimportant issue. That is very helpful. I’m not sure I agree with your ever so gauzily concealed conclusion—harm the gays and their children in an over abundance of caution. Does that about sum it up?
And Maggie, just a few minor modifications and this article could be an excellent piece in support of gay marriage. Would you post it to your blog then? Gee, I hope that “co-opt(ing) thing is a real word or at least a recognizable concept, I don’t want to appear ignorant and have people shaking their heads. But I think most will get the point.
My apologies for that reference to “breeders” in earlier post. Gay people are continually on the receiving end of such vile Kwrap that it is natural to lob a retaliatory strike against the gathering storm of forces that make of the “other side”. I have great respect for mothers and fathers, good ones that is. But an abused, neglected, or abandoned child is better off with any loving parent than no parent at all. But still, apologies as needed. Sorry for the length.
Where does it say that heteros have to sign over a baby to a gay couple? The children they are adopting were unwanted... Your arguments are unfounded.
As long as people are bashing CBS for allegedly taking sides on a political issue (when actually it seems they're just allowing an ad that affirms something positive about life; if that has an obvious political implication, oh well . . .), we should note that the web's dominant search engine, Google, explicitly prohibits sponsored links for one particular side of the same-sex marriage issue. As a matter of policy, Google only permits ads that favor SSM.
In 2004, Google briefly ran an ad link to an essay called “Same-Sex Marriage: Challenges and Responses” by Greg Koukl of the conservative Stand to Reason organization. However, Google then pulled the ad, based on its absurd characterization of the (remarkably civil) STR site as a “hate” website. In light of the current movement to criminalize “hate” (or anything so-called “liberals” can tar as such), this bit of viewpoint exclusion is a lot creepier than CBS running a spot with Pam Tebow saying she’s glad she didn’t abort her kid.
(Re: previous post: That "political" issue at CBS being the Tebow Super Bowl. ad, of course.)
Google's pro-SSM political advocacy (and viewpoint discrimination/exclusion) also speaks volumes to Boies and Olson's quaint claim last week that gays are oppressed in California . . .
What is the justification for deliberating creating a child to be denied her mother?
The answer can not be the best interests of the child for that child would not have been conceived if not for the adultcentric decision to go so far out of the way.
Doing this to more than one child -- as in the photo to two children -- no more justifies it than doing it to one child.
What could be the justification, really, for making this normative for all of society through the use of marriage for a nonmarraige purpose?
"Equally specious is the central theme in attorney Theodore Olson’s legal challenge to California’s Proposition 8: that only religious belief or animus towards gays could explain someone’s hesitation regarding gay marriage."
Thank you, Heather MacDonold.
I also subscribe to The New Yorker and read the article that she refers to. The author (of the New Yorker article) seemed to think that in 10 years or so that the country would be ready to accept gay marriage. Or perhaps we'll see a shift back toward what would be in the best interest of children. Heather MacDonold did deal with the fact that heterosexual couples using biological technologies as well as getting divorced have truly broken down the institution of marriage. She just asks how adding one more straw to the camel's back (normalizing gay couples using biological technologies to create man-man or woman -woman households with children) is going to help. It won't. Children are happier and do better in school within the traditional family structure. Adam (comment #9) seriously, wouldn't those babies like to nurse with their moms? And don't underestimate the symbol of baptism in that propaganda piece (the "family values" ad). 2 men and 2 infants without a mom is not just good, it's holy, right? Anyone who doesn't agree is a "bigot" right?
Chairm, obviously it has nothing to do with homosexuality or same-sex love either -- having a child is a decidedly heterosexual act.
Deliberately depriving a child of his mother or father in this manner can only be accounted for by simple bigotry and gender bias.
I agree, we should outlaw single parenting.
Marty, you make it sound like you think these two men snatched the baby from it's mother's loving arms -- do you think that's what adoption is all about? They're not depriving the infant of its mother -- the mother gave it up. The depriving occurred at that moment, not when these two men opened their homes and hearts to the child.
On the one hand you guys argue that homosexuals are "deliberately depriving children of their mothers," but on the other hand you encourage women to put their babies up for adoption rather than have abortions.
Isn't it a good thing to allow these babies put up for adoption to be adopted into caring, loving homes -- given that their biological mothers have already rejected them, why does it matter whether the adoptive parents are gay or not?
There is no shortage of parents who wish to adopt---especially babies and young children. What we're setting up here is not a situation where SS couples are "saving" the unwanted children of "the breeders", we're setting up a situation where SS couples are taking children away from an opportunity to be matched with one of the thousands of natural families, ready and waiting for these children to be available.
So, is the question what is best for same sex couples? or what is best for the children?
Emma: "given that their biological mothers have already rejected them, why does it matter whether the adoptive parents are gay or not?"
It matters not in the least whether or not they are "gay", but it DOES matter if they are male and female. Gender bias is no excuse for depriving a kid of a mom AND a dad.
Also, what TC Matthews said.
Attitude surveys show that there are more married couples (husband and wife duos) interested to adopt than there are children in fostercare. The priority ought to be on recruiting homes that can provide both mom and dad. Exceptions might have merit, as exceptions.
Certainly, adoption is for making up the shortfall experienced by children in need, not for satisfying the desires of needy adults.
The 2 gentleman are gay activists raising twins. They likely go home have a nanny raise the child. 20 years later, the babies will be represented as normal healthy kids raised by 2 gay gentleman. See we told you so attitude. That picture will not be the last reproduction.
tc and chairm,
again, why are you doing this?
you two infer such dramatic hyperboles in here as if when gay marriage becomes legal, and it will, we will be:
concieving by homosexual sex,
stealing infants out of their cribs in hetero headed households across the nation,
storming schools whole corcing each student to marry only a person of the same sex,
adoption agencies will only adopt to homosexual couples,
every heterosexual marriage performed prior to the legalization of gay marriage will inevitably fail via spontaneous cumbustion wrought by an angry god,
children of homosexual couples will not have a chance to be normal, like all the other kids raised by heteros-since they have no problems at all,
etc.
where are your independent studies of homo headed households? you two have no scientific proof to support your arguement. the scientific proof we have is that homophobes like you go out of your way to paint a picture that has nothing to do with the reality of what gay marriage means. the defense counsel said it best when asked what are the consequences of gay marriage, by Walker no less, and he replied, "I don't know."
by what hetero-assumptive mental power do you two arrive at the conclusion, from the scientific proof given as well as the defense counsel's I don't know, and the defense witness admonissions of the reality of gay marraige and parenting, that gay marriage is bad and wrong and unnatural and all the other negative descriptors and fake scenarios you two can conjure?
chairm writes:
"Exceptions might have merit, as exceptions.
Certainly, adoption is for making up the shortfall experienced by children in need, not for satisfying the desires of needy adult."
your assertion also applies to heteros as well. did you know that? or do you really think that homosexuals, not engineered to pass your inspection to be considered and exception whatever that is, by a percentage that just might match that of the hetero population-want to and will adopt vs don't and won't-just couldn't inherently want to provide a good loving stable home for a child.
why aren't you going after married heteros that do adopt kids because of a desire to satistfy their needy whatever? seriously. you have no merit in that claim without anything to back up the inference that that is the only reason all homosexuals adopt kids. WHY DO YOU INSIST ON PAINTING A PICTURE OF HOMOSEXUALS AS IF WE'RE ONLY CAPABLE OF FAILING OR DESTROYING ALL THAT IS GOOD?????????????????
your hyperboles and generalizations are spweing and many, while your solid knowledge and/or use of facts and logic are clearly not.
idiots.
is there a reason my posts have yet to be listed. to truthful and irrefuteable?
hi there
to much reality for your site, huh? I hope you find comfort being able to show only the posts that don't really point out what idiots these nom folks are.
chairm writes:
"Exceptions might have merit, as exceptions.
Certainly, adoption is for making up the shortfall experienced by children in need, not for satisfying the desires of needy adult."
your assertion also applies to heteros as well. did you know that? or do you really think that homosexuals, not engineered to pass your inspection to be considered and exception whatever that is, by a percentage that just might match that of the hetero population-want to and will adopt vs don't and won't-just couldn't inherently want to provide a good loving stable home for a child.
why aren't you going after married heteros that do adopt kids because of a desire to satistfy their needy whatever? seriously. you have no merit in that claim without anything to back up the inference that that is the only reason all homosexuals adopt kids. WHY DO YOU INSIST ON PAINTING A PICTURE OF HOMOSEXUALS AS IF WE'RE ONLY CAPABLE OF FAILING OR DESTROYING ALL THAT IS GOOD?????????????????
your hyperboles and generalizations are spweing and many, while your solid knowledge and/or use of facts and logic are clearly not.
David please,
I'm on your side with respect to marriage equality for gays and lesbians, but I have to say --- you're not helping here. Drop the all caps and weird punctuation stuff and offer coherent arguments. As it is now, you're coming off like a 14 year-old.
If you're going to continue to post here try to sharpen your thinking and reconsider your bizarre posting style.
David,
The earliest evidence of a nuclear family, dating back to the Stone Age, has been uncovered by an international team of researchers, including experts from the University of Bristol. The researchers dated remains from four multiple burials discovered in Germany in 2005.
The 4,600–year–old graves contained groups of adults and children buried facing each other — an unusual practice in Neolithic culture. One of the graves was found to contain a female, a male, and two children. Using DNA analysis, the researchers established that the group consisted of a mother, father, and their two sons aged 8–9 and 4-5 years: the oldest molecular genetic evidence of a nuclear family in the world (so far).
Why should we re-engineer the family now?
David, Thank you for speaking the truth...if you are expressing anger it is well founded and only a reaction to the continuious hate speech presented by these people. They may never get it which is fine...as you will notice there are only a handful of them the spout off on this site (and other) dissapearing fast as they realize one day their children and/or grand children will discover that Grandma Marie or Granpa Adam, Charm or TC were terrible discriminatory bigots back in the early 2000's of which they will be ashamed. We should feel sorry for them.
Richard's Crystal Ball History Maker ™ New from Gay Agenda! Now you don't have to think of what's best for the future, We Tell the Future For You! This message is a registered trademark of Crystal Ball History Maker inc. Any forecasting, visions, deviations or soothsaying by anyone other than us etc is expressly prohibited. ®
You totally got me TC.
love it!
Still confused about the devastating implications of homosexual or lesbian "marriage"?
Check out the website http://www.massresistance.org
See what radical homosexual activists want to do to YOUR children and what they are already doing to children in MA.
The quality of the pro-SSM comments here has descended into chaos with self-immolating rage.
And you'd be filled with more than rage if someone treated you the way you speak of homosexuals for an immutable inborn characteristic. Talk to us, we'd be more than happy to show you how people like you have been trying to knock us down every step of the way. We'd be more than happy to comminucate to you what the resultant emotions are, and justifyably so at that.
Your attempt at clicheing this issure is representative of your arguements weak existance and its faulty logic. The APA disagrees with you, and so does the rest of the medical community that represents REPRODUCTION, BIRTH, INFANTS, TODDLERS, KIDS, AND ADOLESCENTS! What room do you think we should believe you have to contradict the medical communities that support gay marriage? Seriously.
David,
Your rage aside, can you accurately restate the actual disagreement on the marriage issue?
Not the gay issue. Not the homosexual issue.
The marriage issue.
"Your rage aside, can you accurately restate the actual disagreement on the marriage issue?
Not the gay issue. Not the homosexual issue.
The marriage issue."
Please clairify sentences 2 and 3 for those of us who are gay and/or homosexual. As much as you are trying to separate this into minute parts to insinuate you're depth of knowledge and perception, your own questions make your attempts to appear so broadly enlightened again make you look like a simple minded bigoted idiot.
Please accurately restate the actual disagreement on the marriage issue.
Demonstrate that you are not operating on a simple-minded basis. Display your enlightened understanding of the marriage issue. Show that you can focus on marriage instead of other stuff.
Four days later and counting.
All of the "no difference" between genderless parenting and man-woman parenting studies have failed to meet standards for scientific validity. So, the APA is basing it's assertions on bad science.
http://protectmarriage.com/files/HarvardMarriage.pdf
see p. 41-42
The article as a whole is a good comparison between the institution of marriage and what is being proposed as a radical redefinition of it.
excellent article.
chairm,
Having still refused to present your educational credentials you have proved yourself to be a truely vituperate individual. It's funny when stupidity comes with pretention.
Here it simply put: those against gay marriage are bigots. Against equal rights=discriminitory bigot. I'm not name calling charim, that is in fact what one who opposes equal rights is. A bigot.
"It’s funny when stupidity comes with pretention."
David, the irony here is making my sides ache.
Five days.
I learned in history class that once upon a time in america, like within the last years, women were told they weren't as good as men, black people were told they weren't as good as white people.
why don't you nomers, more like anomolies, in here just say it-you don't think homos deserve equal rights, because that's what you're doing? jesus christ, at least you could be honest about it.
"why don’t you nomers, more like anomolies, in here just say it-you don’t think homos deserve equal rights, "
Actually David, what we've been discussing here has nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with marriage, family and children. I oppose calling single mothers married also. Does that mean I am a monophobe? I'm against children marrying adults, am I now a pedophobe? As convenient as it is for you to believe marriage laws are all about hate, that's just not the case. It's not about you. Try to see the bigger picture.
Someone said this on another thread, but it's applicable here: "Everyone is equal. We all have the same rights. There is no litmus test for sexuality when you get your marriage license. As much as you hate marriage, you can’t force it to change just so it suits you better."
Amen to that.