Heather Has Two (Married) Mommies
A friend of mine once explained why she was against gay marriage: "It's weird. It makes me uncomfortable."
Come on, for how many of you arguing here is that the real reason you're against it? And sorry, "It makes me uncomfortable" isn't a good reason to deny people rights.
As for the argument that gay parenting is somehow inferior to straight parenting, Saletan has a great piece on Slate, "Lesbians of Mass Destruction: The empty case against Mary Cheney," referencing studies, some of which I've read in the past, that "suggest that qualities of family relationships are more tightly linked with child outcomes than is parental sexual orientation."
Saletan rips into the irrational arguments of the gay marriage/gay parenting critics:
If you believe, as Focus on the Family does, that we should stop creating families in which one parent is biologically unrelated to the child, then gays are the least of your worries. By professional estimates, 40,000 babies are born each year from donated eggs or sperm. You want to stop nonbiological parenthood? Go chain yourself to a sperm bank.For that matter, if you want every child to have the benefit of two parents, you're picking on the wrong Cheney. Mary's sister, Liz, just had her fifth kid. All things being equal, Liz's baby will get one-fifth as much parental attention as Mary's will get. But nobody complains about that.
And let's not forget that the case against nonbiological parenthood is based on averages. Averages make bad law. The best critique of gay parenting studies is that because many homosexuals are closeted, those who are found by researchers and who agree to participate are disproportionately white, well-educated, and female. But that's exactly what Mary Cheney is. She's a vice president of AOL. Her partner's current occupation is renovating their home. Should they abstain from motherhood because they're above average?
The same goes for gender averages. James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, says Cheney's pregnancy is a bad idea because a father "makes unique contributions to the task of parenting that a mother cannot emulate," such as "a sense of right and wrong and its consequences." You must be kidding. Cheney's partner is a former park ranger. They met while playing collegiate hockey. If they want a night out to catch an NHL game, Grandpa Dick can drop by to read bedtime stories about detainee interrogation.
And come on, how many of you have actually met any children of gay parents? I have; for example, the husband of a relative of mine has a lesbian sister -- a very well-to-do Republican in Beverly Hills with two older teenage boys, amazing kids who appear happy, well-adjusted, and grateful to be raised with all they have, and who do all the things boys do (play video games, play sports, chase girls, etc.). These kids would be better off with some heterosexual couple? Why?
> isn't a good reason to
> deny people rights.
No one's being denied any rights. Gays have the same rights as anyone.
> Saletan rips into
Saletan's a nimbus...
> If you believe, as Focus
> on the Family does
He cherry picks his adversaries, just as you do with your "uncomfortable" friend. She may have meant a thousand things more than "uncomfortable", but didn't have time to explain them to you at the line in the supermarket or whatever.
> By professional estimates,
Whose?
> 40,000 babies are born
> each year from donated
> eggs or sperm.
We don't necessarily have to be happy with that, either. Some of this think far too much is made of genetic ties, even partial ones. The fact that lesbanoids would pursue this avenue in order to pursue this process in the most 'authentic' way available to them demonstrates the rot and ego at the heart of their efforts.
> You want to stop nonbiological
> parenthood?
The tone of this is twisted. It presumes to bluntly speak to the goals of the adversary, when actually it dilutes and distorts them. It's amazing that a rhetor could whip out a phrase like "nonbiological parenthood" without recognizing that that the first thing to come to mind will be adoption, a blessing no less admired at Focus on Family than anywhere else. Instead, his imagination drifts into to a typically white-bread middle-class post-war temple of solipsism, the fertility clinic.
> one-fifth as much parental
> attention
Again, you don't get to pick your adversary's arguments. Who's making the argument that this is about the volume of parental attention? This is about the texture.
> The best critique of gay
> parenting studies is that
> because many homosexuals
> are closeted
Yes, the data turns to shit. It's hidden, so you shouldn't therefore decide on that basis alone that if favors you. See also, Vegas.
> Should they abstain from
> motherhood because they're
> above average?
No; they should abstain from motherhood because they're not married to loving men.
> bedtime stories about
> detainee interrogation.
BOOSH! Chimpy McFlightsuit!
> I have;
This'll be good.
> a very well-to-do Republican
> in Beverly Hills
OK, then everything worked out OK. It's not anecdotal, or a circumstance that's off the charts anyway.... Whew.
Now, Amy, I wanna get back to the part where you say "this shouldn't be left up to the voters."
Its seems unlikely that you would be able to resist using your superpowers just in this context. What are the other things about life on this planet that you think are too important to be left up to the people who'll actually be leading lives?
Not that you haven't struck at the beating heart of the human experience in this instance, I'm just sayin'... You probably imagine other extensions of your fascist muscle as well, and I want to be ready for them.
C'mon, Amy... What is your view of history? Exactly who do you imagine imposed the freedom of blacks and whites to intermarry on our society? Who is this "we" you talk about?
Crid at May 17, 2008 9:59 AM
Exactly who do you imagine imposed the freedom of blacks and whites to intermarry on our society?
"Imposed"? Well, the Supreme Court decided it, despite the opinion of a lot of racist assholes who were "uncomfortable" with it, and found it "weird," and any other number of adjectives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
We have "equal protection" and laws cannot be passed that deny rights granted in the Constitution. If they are, they should rightly be overturned.
Amy Alkon at May 17, 2008 10:12 AM
"This is about the texture." ????
WTF????
That's as bad as saying you're just "uncomfortable" with the whole idea.
"they should abstain from motherhood because they're not married to loving men."
OOOOooh do let's hear from millions of other hetero women like me who married and had children with men who were anything BUT loving (or responsible). Still and all, I was legally sanctioned to marry and thus legally able to go after him for he child support he owed me.
That's the point. Rights and responsibilities, same as everyone else.
So Crid are you going to actually argue that gay people cannot marry - on what evidence? We're waiting.
RS at May 17, 2008 10:19 AM
> That's as bad as saying you're
> just "uncomfortable" with the
> whole idea.
Nobody said "just" uncomfortable. There's no better clue by which you can know how someone's mind works than knowing whether someone is a man or a woman. The genders bring very, very different experiences of the world to children (and everyone else).
> had children with men
> who were anything BUT
> loving
Well, if you're gonna be crass about it, then by all means: "let's hear." Why did these women choose a bad man as sex partner and father to the children? What were they thinking?
> legally able to go after him
> for he child support he owed
Is this the basis on which we're expected to admire your parenting impulses?
> on what evidence? We're waiting.
You came in late. I've been making this case for here for five years. Sit quietly in the back until you get your bearings, OK?
Crid at May 17, 2008 10:36 AM
I've been making this case for here for five years. Sit quietly in the back until you get your bearings, OK?
Although to be clear, the evidence isn't there and the arguments are the same old, same old. What it ultimately boils down to, is that heterosexual couples are imbued with some sort of cosmic force, that magically makes them superior parents and legitimate couples. Which is why hetero couplings deserve some special rights that no matter how many times and how many ways Crid says they do, homosexuals do not have (in most states).
It should also be noted that rather than having an interest in the lives of the children of gay couples and providing them with the stability and security that the children of straight, married couples have, it is much more important to make sure that everyone knows that the queers (and their kids) are second class citizens.
DuWayne at May 17, 2008 12:50 PM
Okay, Crid, I haven't been part of this blog for anywhere near five years, so if you've answered my following queries previously, I apologize, but I do want to understand where you're coming from.
I believe - correct me if I'm wrong - that adoption is easier (though not easy in any case) to achieve if you are part of a marriage - and yes, rightfully so, I feel.
There are an awful lot of kids out there awaiting adoption. Even babies, especially those of varying ethnicities.
I understand your argument that people should be responsible and not bring biological offspring into the world without two loving parents.
However, people continue to do so, and many end up in foster care. So, isn't it better for a well-rounded, educated, responsible gay couple to adopt these children, than for them to be farmed out to foster care (which doesn't have any requirements, at least in Texas, where I am, for marriage)?
I agree with you that this business of artificial insemination is all about ego. I think adoption is definitely a better option. I don't like fertility treatments, either, and become especially irritated with the religious people who are anti-abortion yet are pro-fertility treatment.
I recognize that as slightly off-topic, sorry, but I'm really trying to understand your perspective, here. And since I do generally listen to everyone on this blog with an open mind I guess I'm hoping you'll do the same, and at least consider the ramifications involving a lot of unwanted kids that might have a better chance of being adopted by parents better than any they've known previously.
Jessica at May 17, 2008 1:26 PM
Folks, the next wave will be single-father adoptions and surrogate arrangements. That is the only way that a man who wishes to enjoy the joys of fatherhood can be guaranteed that HIS child, and then his money, won't be taken away from him because a certain someone woke up one morning feeling "unfulfilled." If you pencil it out, hiring a nanny is a LOT cheaper than obligating yourself to a mother -- all costs and risks considered.
And I'm SURE that the feminists who praise all of the independent, heroic single-moms-by-choice will also lavish praise on the idea of heroic single-dads-by-choice, right? They are into gender equality and stuff ... aren't they?
Jay R at May 17, 2008 2:20 PM
> What it ultimately boils
> down to, is that
Son, you must master the comma. We know you're not a book-learnin' schoolboy.. but you're bigger than it is, and it shouldn't be such a challenge to you.
> sort of cosmic force
Nope, the difference between men and women is earthly and commonplace. And pivotal.
> no matter how many
> times and how many ways
DuWayne, you silly galoot, in what states are gay men forbidden to marry women as their straight brothers are? Or are their opportunities identical under the law?
THERE'S A REASON YOU'RE AFRAID TO ADMIT THAT YOU'RE MAKING A CHANGE TO A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN INSTITUTION.
(I think that reason is that in your heart of hearts, you know it's a shitty idea, but you're certain you won't be around to deal with the unpleasant consequences. So, for you, like, whatever.)
> it is much more important
> to make sure that everyone
> knows that the queers
This gets back to what I discussed the other day, the imaginary heroism at work the first-person American mind. It's not enough for you to disagree with someone, you have think think of yourself as a bold champion of dignity, and those who disagree as brainless vermin.
But what's "more important" is that every child have a loving mother with a loving father. Many of you are willing to raise and set children loose into the world without a lifelong, dynamically intimate experience of both genders, that most powerful of human distinctions. I think you're fucking insane, and not very nice besides.
> adoption is easier (though
> not easy in any case) to
> achieve if you are part
> of a marriage
If you say so. I have no idea if that's true, never having never tried to adopt anyone...
> So, isn't it better for a
> well-rounded, educated,
> responsible gay couple to
> adopt these children, than
> for them to be farmed out
> to foster care (which doesn't
> have any requirements, at
> least in Texas, where I am,
> for marriage)?
Jessica, I like you a lot. (I have a niece named Jessica, and I love her a lot.)
I can't argue with your point in any way. It's a *specifically* good idea. If all these very responsible and admirable gay couples were going to help us clean up this mess, I'd give them plenty of social status and tax breaks and all the rest.
I've welcomed discussion of gay adoption in these comments from very early on... If not here specifically, then in discussions that followed shortly. What's amazing is that at the end of some of these gay marriage fisticuffs --and I could Google through the archive to find them if you want-- I've had to be the one to suggest it.... Everyone seems more eager to be awarded their Cub Scout Civil Rights medals than to actually think about what might be best for society as a whole.
Of course responsible gays will have a part in raising young families. They have since the dawn of time. My point is that we have to ask what's best for kids.
I think what's best for a child is a loving mother and a loving father. And all of them deserve what's best.
Before you say you want something else for kids since they're not going to get what they deserve, you'd better make a convincing case for why they (and we) should be expected to tolerate compromise. (And adult fulfillment will not be a big part of your answer.) If kids are in desperate conditions --as so many minority, troubled, and somewhat grown foster children are-- then of course we want loving gays to be part of the solution.
But I want what's best for kids.
Rather than bringing new value to society, gays seem eager for all the Britney-in-Vegas foolishness that straights are part of. (See Ehrenstein's jokes about Elvis in earlier comments... He wants marriage, but at first opportunity, he'll use it for mockery.) And consider the snot, condescension and backhanded humor at work in these comments. I'll never forget one frequent gay commenter here (well, he commented frequently, but he was gay 24/7) who said "Gays just want the right to be as clumsy with their kids as straights are."
And thanks for taking the point about fertility clinics... It's flattering as hell to know that someone actually reads this. And heartening to know (presumably) this comes from a parenting-minded woman.
Seriously, Jessica, you're my new blog-hearthrob. Texas really seems like a different kind of America, and we should talk about it. I visited Houston about ten years ago and saw some really interesting things in how they care for poor people there, and have thought of it often since Katrina.
Crid at May 17, 2008 5:02 PM
In her columns Amy often has to beat people over the head to understand that the sexes are diffrent, by the force of nature not some social construct. Why are we okay with homosexuals having biological children that will denied this experience? The only argument I hear is that gay couples deserve to be as fulfilled in every way as everyone else. Um...nobody deserves that at least it's not my duty or societys to approve of everything you do.
I'm not ok with single women, the obease, the depressed, having biological children. I also include homosexuals in this list.
I'm ok with gay adoption.
PurplePen at May 17, 2008 5:18 PM
What did I miss about fertility treatments.
christina at May 17, 2008 6:34 PM
> The only argument I hear is that
> gay couples deserve to be as
> fulfilled in every way as everyone
> else.
Purp comes through like a sister.
(I'm cool with fat girls, though)
Crid at May 17, 2008 6:44 PM
What about polygamy? If the genders of the marriage participants don't matter, why should the number? What's so special about the number 2?
My view is that there should be a Constitutional amendment not banning gay marriage but releasing states from full faith and credit when it comes to gay marriage. Let the states hash it out individually for themselves.
I don't believe all of the doom and gloom predictions concerning gay marriage nor do I believe it is a right. Marriage is not a private affair, it is the societal recognition of a union. Society has the right to determine what type of unions it will recognize (such as polygamy, which is globally and historically much more common than gay marriage)
winston at May 17, 2008 7:58 PM
"Many of you are willing to raise and set children loose into the world without a lifelong, dynamically intimate experience of both genders,"
This is not automatically guaranteed with a hetero marriage nor is is automatically nullified with a gay one.
Marriage is not exclusively about having children or property rights any more.
Please join the 21st century.
RS at May 17, 2008 11:07 PM
> This is not automatically guaranteed
Nothing is guaranteed. Some children are born without brains or eyeballs. Others die painfully of cancer before learning to count with more than two fingers. The planet can always deliver *more* harsh stuff, and will deliver it to anyone who lives long enough... I say that kids deserve a loving mother with a loving father from the word go, after which these risks seems, after which running these risks is acceptable.
> it is the societal recognition
> of a union.
Another one understands. Have you met Purp?
If it was about property rights, there'd be no argument here.
Crid at May 17, 2008 11:19 PM
Sorry for the belch (Trisuits with pepper jack, turkey and spinach, high in sodium but very tasty)
Crid at May 17, 2008 11:21 PM
THERE'S A REASON YOU'RE AFRAID TO ADMIT THAT YOU'RE MAKING A CHANGE TO A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN INSTITUTION.
How many fucking times do I have to say it?
I am all about making radical changes to a human institution that is broken at best and fundamentally discriminatory.
I support the abolition of marriage as a civil institution and implamenting a non-discriminatory legal standard by which people entering a domestic partnership can secure their legal rights.
I am not afraid to say exactly what I support and I'm well aware that it's fairly radical. Disagree with me all you want, but don't claim that I'm afraid of what I support.
(I think that reason is that in your heart of hearts, you know it's a shitty idea, but you're certain you won't be around to deal with the unpleasant consequences. So, for you, like, whatever.)
What would ever give you that idea? I goddamn well hope I'll be around to deal with it. It's a large step shy of equality, but I am looking forward to a couple I love very much being "unionized" in July. A great many of my friends will be doing the same over the next few months.
At some point in the next couple years, my partner and I will be registering for a civil union. We may not be a same sex couple, but that's just splitting hairs. We will have the same rights and legal protections that married couples have and we will not be getting married.
It's not enough for you to disagree with someone, you have think think of yourself as a bold champion of dignity, and those who disagree as brainless vermin.
No, no, no. I do not think that people who disagree with me about gay rights are brainless vermin. I don't even assume that a good many of them are bigots, though they use bigoted arguments. I think that people who disagree with me on gay rights are ignorant.
And I am not a bold champion of anything, I'm just sick and tired of people deciding that it is somehow any of their business what the relationships of others look like. I'm sick and tired of other people telling me that if I want legal security for my family, I have to partake of an odious institution that was absolutely obliterated by heterosexuals a long time ago, sanctity gone. I'm sick and tired of people who really and honestly don't have an interest, telling my friends that they do not deserve the same legal security for their family, because we can't possibly pretend that gays are anything more than second class citizens.
I am assuming you're not gay. This means that if you can find a partner you are sexually attracted to, who likes you, you can get married to that person. OTOH, a gay person doesn't have that right. Sure a gay guy can go out and marry a women if she'll have him, it happens all the time. But he can't go out and find a person that he is sexually attracted to and can actually find fulfillment with and marry that person. That right does not exist for gays.
But what's "more important" is that every child have a loving mother with a loving father.
Even if we concede that a man and a women raising a child is the ideal, it's never going to happen for a lot of kids. And then you actually say this;
If kids are in desperate conditions --as so many minority, troubled, and somewhat grown foster children are-- then of course we want loving gays to be part of the solution.
Great! Now let's give their parents the tools to provide them with the most stable home possible, according to most marriage advocates. Argument over.
And by the way Purple Pen and Crid, gay people are still going to have biological children. They will do it the old fashioned way, they will do it using science. Whether you agree with it or not, whether you approve of the parent's decision or not, it's going to happen.
I think you're fucking insane, and not very nice besides.
Honestly, I am not going to try to argue the finer points of sanity with you. You can have that one. But I am actually a reasonably nice guy...
DuWayne at May 17, 2008 11:44 PM
Christina, the part about fertility treatments was me going slightly off-topic. I said in an earlier post that I can't stand religious zealots who are anti-abortion yet pro-fertility treatments. It's hypocritical. Plus I was agreeing with Crid that artificial insemination is all about ego.
Okay, I agree that the optimum environment for a child is to have a motherly AND fatherly influence in his or her life. Additionally, I'm glad we all seem to agree that adoption often provides a better solution for many kids than what they're biologically given, regardless of the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents. Since adoptive parents actually have to apply, be responsible, and plan, they're likely to be better than the crack whore who doesn't take birth control, regardless of sexuality.
So now for the mother/father thing. DuWayne, I do have people close to me that are gay, for the record, family members. And I'm afraid they perpetuate the stereotype of gay male relationships - one of them is in the masculine role, one in the feminine. "Mark" is an RN, loves to take care of people, very feminine and motherly, IMHO. "Logan" is the masculine half, is a CEO for some big company, frequently travels, does the finances, in charge of retirement fund, etc. Now, neither of them has ever wanted to have biological children. They have essentially raised some family members not given much of a chance by their biological parents, and those kids have turned out very well. Yes, yes, I know, anecdotal evidence, I recognize it is flawed. And yes, Crid, I know you've said that you recognize cases like this and just don't consider these individual cases sufficient grounds for the marriage business. But I did want to point out, one more time (surely not the last, I'm so sorry) that perhaps "mother" and "father" roles don't always have to be defined by chromosome.
My particular family members are not especially interested in biological reproduction, and I've asked them, and they see no reason for the word "marriage" to come into the equation at all. They have gay friends who have adopted, too. The reason adoptions are more readily available to married couples is because it is simpler to ensure that both parties have a vested financial interest (that can be upheld in the court system).
However, I don't understand why civil unions can't accomplish the same thing. What exactly is legally different about civil unions?
And I'm with Purple Pen on the biological reproduction issue; it's kind of weird that people have to have a license to hunt or fish but any idiot can reproduce. However, I don't want the government to lean any more toward fascism than it already is, so I have to sacrifice this rather wistful ideal...but you and I are on the same page.
Crid, Texas would love to have you, as would I, but, gotta admit, I hate the Texas white flight suburbs. Houston proper is interesting enough, and I have a lot of respect for their ASPCA (I admit to liking animals better than people), but I grew up in the 'burbs of Houston and they are dominated by ignorant white southern baptists. Go to San Antonio for history, Austin to get laid and find good, diverse food, and El Paso if you're looking for STDs. :) Oh, and the tiny town of Bandera, if you have always wanted to be a cowboy...
Jessica at May 18, 2008 6:53 AM
> fundamentally discriminatory.
See the nearby thread in which the liberal habits of heroic pose and the invention of new rights are discussed. This is part of that. When unimaginative people decide to be heroic, they do what the last heroic person did, even if the context no long applies. So the problem on the Montgomery bus in 1955 was 'discrimination'? Then let's fight discrimination now, too!'
To discriminate is to take note of difference. Men and women are not the same: It's OK for me that marriage acknowledges this... That's kinda the point.
> How many fucking times do
> I have to say it?
As often as necessary for it to make a lick of sense, or at least sound interesting.
> don't claim that I'm afraid
> of what I support.
You might be too distracted to be as afraid as you should. But the point is that the popular rhetoric propelling this thing is too cowardly and mild... See "ban overturned" headlines, etc.
> It's a large step shy
> of equality
There's an even bigger one: Human biology. Men and women aren't the same.
> a couple I love very much
This always descends into making the Daddy state pay attention to our little crushes...
> being "unionized"
Oh, I'm all for interpersonal "unionization." I'm happy to attend "union" ceremonies with a giftwrapped toaster and kiss (multiple) brides, etc. But if you look at the headlines carefully, what we're talking about is "marriage."
> that's just splitting
> hairs.
Nope. Longterm heterosexual merging can have a very special consequence, so I think they deserve special certificates.
> people deciding that it
> is somehow any of their
> business
Again, we're back to the Rosa Parks fantasy of private heroism. Only a few people in this thread (or in this country) seem to recognize that marriage is a contract with the community, not just a trade between two individuals.
> odious institution that
> was absolutely obliterated
You could be a nice boy and help put it back together.... Or are you grateful to those desanctifying heterosexuals for destroying something odious? Pick a team, DuWayne.
> if you can find a partner
> you are sexually attracted
> to, who likes you, you can
> get married
An unmarried, unrelated, sane woman at age of majority. Right. As it happens, sexual attraction isn't part of the law, though sexual access sometimes is.
> a gay person doesn't
> have that right.
Your understanding is imperfect, but I'll acknowledge that you perceive the general outlines.
> Even if we concede that
> a man and a women raising
> a child is the ideal
Well Gosh, DuWayne, don't take too many huge risks just on behalf of an argument, OK?
> it's never going to happen
> for a lot of kids
You think you're being wise and thoughtfully resigned as you say that. I think you're being a squealing fuckhead: There's apparently a teeming throng of defenseless children out there whose needs will never be met because of the behavior of adults. And you're OK with it, and now you demand that the kids get over it, 'Because that's the way it is, Babe' (Literally.)
> let's give their parents
> the tools
Indeed. Let's make sure those parents adhere to important standards before the process begins. Standard one: Know your identity, sexual and otherwise.
> they will do it using
> science.
That stuff (fertility treatments) will always be the province of rich, coddled, white egomaniacs. Maybe it'll become less expensive and more competent, but across most the globe the economics won't pan out. We can't even refrigerate AIDS meds in Africa, fer Chrissake. And more to the point, women are so eager to have babies (and men so eager to impregnate them) that the financial challenges of those delicate, plodding procedures simply erode women's preciousness about the father's identity. Women who want babies routinely convince themselves that some nearby buffoon will get the job done... At least until morning sickness sets in.
> it's going to happen.
I don't approve. As noted elsewhere, there was an hour when the African slave trade was a new, growing industry. And the first guy who said "Let's put Jews in ovens for easy disposal!" was congratulated by his friends for thinking efficiently. There are lesser examples, too. History takes detours.
This liberal propensity to say "Y'know, we're going to take your money and do what we want anyway" nourishes conservatism more than Fox and Limbaugh and Coulter and the religious right could in their wildest dreams.
> I agree that the optimum
> environment for a child
> is to have a motherly AND
> fatherly influence in his
> or her life.
Well, you don't agree with me: Kids deserve a loving mother with a loving father.
"Optimum influences"? Please.... Don't try to lowball your argument through fancypants language. (Just like that, my crush is broken.)
> adoption often provides
> a better solution for many
> kids than what they're
> biologically given
No, you're being glib; It ain't biology that gives bad parents to children.... It's bad policy, bad culture, and the weak character of adults.
> adoptive parents actually
> have to apply, be responsible
Well, that's our hope, anyway. The trend in contemporary America seems to be toward letting anyone do whatever they want with kids, and gay marriage is part of that trend. (Aren't the Texas Mormons kind on an embarrassment for everyone?) Amy here likes to argue that gays are better by that mechanism, a point that probably had some statistical muscle. As gay status normalizes, that power will atrophy... There's no inherent reason for gays to be more responsible than straights.
> one of them is in
> the masculine role,
> one in the feminine.
This is the sick wording of our times. It's about "masculine and feminine roles" rather than men and women. The actual distinctions between them are too scary for people do face... We might be compelled to discriminate! Aiiiieeeee!
> that perhaps "mother" and
> "father" roles don't always
> have to be defined by
> chromosome.
That's grotesque, and all the paired parentheses in the world won't help you. Nature demands that mothers and fathers be defined by chromosomes. It is unconcerned with "roles". Women don't inseminate. Even if --in some rarefied white-coat laboratory of a Gen X'ers brushed aluminum daydreams-- this fundamental truth can be overwhelmed, the baby is still delivered to a biology where that's how things are expected to work: When the kid looks up from the floor of the cave, he'll see a mother and a father if he's in the best circumstance. Exactly how much of life do you think is subject to our clever management?
I don't think marriage is a natural state. It's synthetic as hell, and requires tremendous, continuing investment from all signatories (including the community) to be sustained. The only reason it works at all is that it makes peace with nature rather than ignoring it. Medicine is like that too. And nutrition and all the rest.
The essence of conservatism is knowing how far you can push things.
(PS- There was once a great weekend in Galveston.)
(1248 words, maybe a new record.)
Crid at May 18, 2008 10:52 AM
Well, geez, Crid, I didn't mean to use my language to be pretentious or to hide my thoughts...
Sorry I offended you. Good god, I thought we agreed on a few things. I still think we do.
But frankly now I'm kind of scared of verbalizing any agreement with you ever, cause I find myself defending myself and apologizing just as much as when I vehemently disagree with you!
Jessica at May 18, 2008 12:33 PM
Crid -
When unimaginative people decide to be heroic, they do what the last heroic person did, even if the context no long applies.
But the context does in fact apply.
To discriminate is to take note of difference. Men and women are not the same: It's OK for me that marriage acknowledges this... That's kinda the point.
No, to discriminate is to take an arbitrary factor and use it to deny rights to people to whom that factor applies.
You might be too distracted to be as afraid as you should. But the point is that the popular rhetoric propelling this thing is too cowardly and mild... See "ban overturned" headlines, etc.
I'm not to distracted to be afraid, I'm just not afraid and I'm see no reason to be. It's slow going, much slower than I'd like, but my side's winning this one. Less and less people really see any reason not to have full marriage equality and the recent spate of constitutional amendments that were rather dishonestly passed in many states, including my home state of MI have contributed greatly to more people supporting marriage equality.
There's an even bigger one: Human biology. Men and women aren't the same.
Completely and utterly irrelevant.
This always descends into making the Daddy state pay attention to our little crushes...
Which it already does, we just want to make that recognition equal. Millions of people already make the state pay attention to their little crushes and provide legal security for the people who's little crush developed into a larger commitment.
Oh, I'm all for interpersonal "unionization." I'm happy to attend "union" ceremonies with a giftwrapped toaster and kiss (multiple) brides, etc. But if you look at the headlines carefully, what we're talking about is "marriage."
I see, so your happy to allow gays the legal security, you're just against calling it the same thing that straight people are allowed to call their relationship.
And how exactly does this not confer second class citizenship on gays? If all we are talking about is what to call it, what business is it of the state at this point? The states role is defined, the rights enumerated and protected are the same. But because some of the population believes that hetero pairings are somehow superior to homo couplings, we have to call it something different.
Nope. Longterm heterosexual merging can have a very special consequence, so I think they deserve special certificates.
You keep saying that, but never seem to actually define what that special consequence is. Longterm homosexual pairings can also have very special consequences and are just as deserving of special certificates.
Again, we're back to the Rosa Parks fantasy of private heroism. Only a few people in this thread (or in this country) seem to recognize that marriage is a contract with the community, not just a trade between two individuals.
I am most certainly recognizing that. The community at large has recognized that supporting domestic partnerships and providing legal security to those relationships is a good idea, because strong partnerships like that have a value to society. This is an argument for conferring those legal securities to more relationships, not less. That way society has even more of those strong, secure relationships to help make for a better society.
You could be a nice boy and help put it back together.... Or are you grateful to those desanctifying heterosexuals for destroying something odious? Pick a team, DuWayne.
Why would I want to help put back together an institution I abhor? I honestly don't care if people want to call their relationship a marriage - it's not my concern. What is my concern is the legal rights that are currently conferred on hetero, sexual/romantic relationships. Like I said, I support such rights and legal securities. I think that relationships that are supported by law are very good for society.
I also don't believe that it is the states place to decide that some relationships are going to be separated out as superior to others, even if the rights are available to everyone.
I will finish parsing this later. The five month old is expressing his desire for a bottle and a nap rather loudly at the moment.
DuWayne at May 18, 2008 1:18 PM
marriage started as a way to prevent the parents of daughters from having to raise a gazillion bastards.
Marriage was a societal need.
Liberals have been doing their best to make big brother pick up as much of the tab as possible, in order to break families, and eliminate the need.Gay marriage is just another hit.
And if gay marriage is so great, why the hell does it take liberal Jewish judges to force it on us, when we keep voting against it all over the country?
Smarty at May 18, 2008 2:03 PM
> to be pretentious or to hide
Help me understand. Did you say exactly what you mean? Because if you did, we're not in agreement. It's nothing personal.
There's a line in my favorite Tennessee Williams play wherein a troubled heroine says "I have always admired the spaces between people...."
(Not really.)
Consider this clip at 3:55.
Crid at May 18, 2008 6:50 PM
Well Gosh, DuWayne, don't take too many huge risks just on behalf of an argument, OK?
I'm reserving judgment on that, until better data has been acquired. Gays haven't been raising kids long enough in great enough numbers for reasonable studies to be generated. Too, most of the gays that are raising kids have to work a lot harder to do so than straight people do. They have to really, really want it. It doesn't happen to them on accident (usually) so they are far more likely to have a much stronger investment in their children's lives and studies to date reflect that.
So I have no problem giving that all other things being equal, it is quite possible that a mom and dad is the optimal situation for a child to be raised in.
None of that changes the fact that when it comes down to it, no children get the absolute optimum situation. Even the very best parents out there are imperfect and therefore are going to be imperfect parents. The fact of the matter is that many gay parents are raising well adjusted, productive members of society. Many of them invest more of themselves, more of their lives in their children's lives, than a lot of straight parents do. And like straights, many of them are probably shitty parents, whether they try or not.
That stuff (fertility treatments) will always be the province of rich, coddled, white egomaniacs. Maybe it'll become less expensive and more competent, but across most the globe the economics won't pan out. We can't even refrigerate AIDS meds in Africa, fer Chrissake.
To be quite honest and blunt about it; what's wrong with the notion that even conceiving a child will cost the parent a lot of money? I mean obviously that is never going to be the case for most people. But I actually kind of like the idea that procreation might be limited by the income of the perspective parents. Much less likely that the state will have to help pay the way.
I don't approve.
Guess what? Your approval doesn't mean squat in this context. Thankfully the state doesn't tend to ask you if it's ok, before they avoid draconian attempts to prohibit a segment of the population from reproducing.
As noted elsewhere, there was an hour when the African slave trade was a new, growing industry. And the first guy who said "Let's put Jews in ovens for easy disposal!" was congratulated by his friends for thinking efficiently. There are lesser examples, too. History takes detours.
So now not only are gay marriage proponents likened to supporters of chattel slavery, we are also likened to the fucking Nazi's. And you think I'm fucking insane? Wow!
This liberal propensity to say "Y'know, we're going to take your money and do what we want anyway" nourishes conservatism more than Fox and Limbaugh and Coulter and the religious right could in their wildest dreams.
What fucking money? We are talking about expanding marriage rights. While this may have some small cost in tax savings (which I'm all about removing across the board, with the possible exception of breaks for people raising children) and also a little more cost in court, it is also going to provide the same benefits that married hetero couples provide society with now. No different than extending marriage rights to mixed race couples did about fifty years ago.
DuWayne at May 18, 2008 7:09 PM
I meant that I agree with you that the most desirable - or whatever, I don't know how else to say it - setting for having a child is for the child to have a mother and a father. That much we agree on, as we agree on the selfishness associated with fertility treatments and artificial insemination.
Where we differ is my opinion that it is possible those roles can be filled by same-sex parents, because some men are motherly and some women fatherly.
However, even though I know you disagree with that, which I accept (and do take your thoughts into consideration), I thought you were at least willing to consider the possiblity that since irresponsible morons will continue to have unplanned children, gay adoptive parents can be a decent alternative stable option (as opposed to a life in the foster care system), regardless of gender, because of the planning required.
All I thought was that you were willing to entertain that as a possibility. And I'm sorry that my choice of words apparently doesn't clearly communicate my thought or intent.
Jessica at May 18, 2008 7:20 PM
Dammit, I missed the interesting one;
Indeed. Let's make sure those parents adhere to important standards before the process begins. Standard one: Know your identity, sexual and otherwise.
Like fucking hetero couplings do that. Sure, it's a great idea, but who exactly would determine those standards and who is going to make sure that potential parents qualify? Does this mean we get to tell heteros that they can't have kids until they can pass?
Lets look to a brave new world, where instead of Amy Alkon determining the fate of the universe, it can be Crid determining who can procreate and who cannot.
I like you Crid, and I honestly don't think your a very nice person. That's not all bad and I don't hold it against you. I also think that at least when it comes to the gay marriage discussion, you're the one who's fucking insane. Don't think this is my fancy way of using heroics to slide out of your accusation that I'm insane - like I said, I'll give you that one. But when it comes to Teh Gay marriage, your just not coherent.
DuWayne at May 18, 2008 9:22 PM
> I'm reserving judgment
> on that
That's enough. Your comments have always been too boring to answer, and here we are at the center of your thoughtfulness. You're apparently 23+ years old, living in the central-western United States. You've had as many profound experiences as most people have, we'd suppose. Your vibe seems kinda whitebread American... Many good things to be grateful for, and some dark stuff, both in your heart and in the hearts of those you've dealt with... Public grade school, employment, family, moderate attention to public affairs, etc...
And after all of that, in the year 2008 AD, you're waiting for "better data" about whether the best thing for kids is a loving mother and a loving father.
Fabulous. Be sure and stay in touch.
> the most desirable -
> or whatever, I don't know
> how else to say it
Well, what are you describing> You know those old time volume meters that they used to have in radio stations when you were a little girl, where the spade-shaped things on the end of a needle that would fly back and forth real fast? (This may be a career thing for me. Sorry.) Now you're asking about what's "most desirable", where the needle pegs at the far end of the arc. Well, that would be an extended family of profoundly decent people living in tremendous wealth and featureless good will in spotless health and perfect weather among stable, unthreatened societies until very old age, all of 'em. It doesn't happen very often.
I'm marking the needle at a standard. Below this mark (kids deserve a loving mother and a loving father), I don't want to hear about how tough life can be, or how so many things can go wrong that people weren't expecting. Above this marking, I'm eager to help out, because the kids are a good investment, and their committed, admirable parents are on the line for much more than I am. And you gotta help a brother out sometimes.
Shit fuck, people. Men and women, who are so famously cranky and impatient with each other, are on this planet struggling together for a reason. That doesn't mean it will be fun or fulfilling. Each has an important clue to the puzzle. We should no more send a kid into the world without intimate evidence of both clues than without food and clothing.
> irresponsible morons will
> continue to have unplanned
> children
Moron-ism can be cured. One of the best things that can happen to a person is that someone insist that they do well.
> gay adoptive parents can
> be a decent alternative
> stable option
Absolutely. If the society, by which I mean smarter people than me, agreed that the best option for loving, disciplined support for these less-than-perfect adoptables is gay parents, I'd sign off very, very quickly. I'm eager to believe.
But what's best for children is a loving mother with a loving father.
Crid at May 18, 2008 9:54 PM
No Crid, the problem is that you can't fucking answer them. I've waited through innumerable threads for you to actually respond to anything. But instead I hand you your ass every time we get here and you slink off, whining that I'm mean, I'm boring or that I use too many commas.
Whats boring is your inconsistent, incoherent ramblings about the mystical superiority of hetero relationships. Can't explain it, but it's apparently inherent to hetero couplings. But low, now you defend the dissemination of marriage rights, as long as we call it something other than marriage. At the same time, you seem concerned about the financial burden on society. What financial burden could possibly come from what we call it?
DuWayne at May 18, 2008 10:16 PM
> I've waited
You mean waded.
Crid at May 18, 2008 10:44 PM
Through massive, stinking piles of your shit. Just before you slink away and pretend you win. Pat bullshit phrases don't make what I said go away, it just says that you have nothing show.
DuWayne at May 18, 2008 10:56 PM
I have much show!
Are you pissed or something?
One novel thought per comment, DuWayne, that's all we ask!
Crid at May 18, 2008 11:06 PM
I have much show!
No. No you don't.
Are you pissed or something?
Honestly yes. I always get to thinking that as strongly as you feel about gay marriage, you might actually have a substantive argument against it. Yet when I try to actually pin you down, rather than revealing the substance you whine that I'm mean, that I'm boring or that I use too many commas.
It gets me wondering about that substantive argument you continually fail to make.
One novel thought per comment, DuWayne, that's all we ask!
One substantive response is all that I ask. Yet it fails to appear. Finally you resort to the mocking.
Oy, you've also failed to connect us pro-marriage equality types with communism. I mean come on, we're apparently much like the Nazis and slavers. I think you should go for the gold and work the fucking pinkos in there Crid.
DuWayne at May 19, 2008 12:00 AM
I want to know how moron-ism can be cured. I have people I want to innoculate immediately.
:)
Jessica at May 19, 2008 6:12 AM
I want to know how moron-ism can be cured.
Eugenics, Jessica?
:)
(Rather like Crid's arguments, eugenics rests upon unproven ideas about what is best for society while disposing of an individual's right to pursue love, equality and happiness. And that's a crib from the wonderful genes and ethics author Matt Ridley.)
Jody Tresidder at May 19, 2008 7:30 AM
I've taught high school. The successful kids had two parents that were fairly functional. The kids with no dads (proper male role models) were messed up. This held true like crazy, and any honest teacher would report the same trend.
Smarty at May 19, 2008 8:11 AM
Smarty -
The successful kids had two parents that were fairly functional.
No shit? Kind of like the children of gays have two loving parents.
The kids with no dads (proper male role models) were messed up.
And how many kids with no dads, but two loving parents have you taught?
DuWayne at May 19, 2008 9:12 AM
>> I have much show!
> No. No you don't.
Duwayne, so far as I can tell, that expresses your whole approach to these discussions. You say something tremendously boring. Someone makes a joke about it, and you retreat into a championship round of didso/didnot. Who, over the age of twelve, would want to play this game with you? People stop playing that game in sixth grade because it's not fun, DuWayne. It's not productive. Nobody doubts you're a champion.
Share an interesting thought. Present a metaphor. Calculate a relative value judgment. Polish a shade of meaning. Recollect a formative encounter or the testing of a boundary. OK? Spill some blood (yours; anyone's) and give us something to work with. But don't be DULL.
Maybe it's just me, and you're thoughtful opinion leader, cutting a straightforward path to compelling insights under a bold new dawn of peace and prosperity. In that case, I certainly wish you and the others on your wagon train the absolute best of luck. You need any whale oil or paraffin or any other provisions? No? On your way then, and Godspeed, son. The desert valley awaits your crossing. Carry lots of water.
> eugenics rests upon
I can't believe it. That's a spectacular expression of the confusion at work here: 'People who don't support gay marriage are eugenic-minded baddies'. As if two people of the same sex ever made babies together; as if homosexuality (for whatever it's intrinsic, non-socialized distiveness would be worth, which ain't much) weren't so obviously the product of sexual reproduction anyway. The one thing this is NOT about is eugenics.
Swear to God, if Marty McFly ever lends me his time machine, I'm going to start a concession taking liberals back to Alabama in the 1950s. They'll be able to burn through their fantasies of standing up to oppression without constructing these imaginary horrors, and I'll make a gazillion dollars.
> And that's a crib
As Tressiderian Britishisms go, Jodester, that's a pretty weak effort. Telly! Bollocks! Pudding! Holiday (on!)!
Crid at May 19, 2008 9:14 AM
More whining, still no substance. Apparently we will be waiting an eternity to learn of Crid's reasons for being against Teh Gay marriage. Whine on Crid, whine on.
DuWayne at May 19, 2008 9:26 AM
They'll be able to burn through their fantasies of standing up to oppression without constructing these imaginary horrors...
Crid,
You seem to be the one constructing "imaginary horrors" in this thread. It appears to be the basis for your disapproval of gay parents.
Jody Tresidder at May 19, 2008 9:30 AM
Jody, if you affirm that your femininity has no impact on the intimates in your household, how would anyone argue?
Crid at May 19, 2008 9:57 AM
Jody, if you affirm that your femininity has no impact on the intimates in your household, how would anyone argue?
Crid,
My femininity counts for fuck all - zero- nothing whatsoever - to the junior inmates of my household if I am not also a decent, motivated parent.
I can do Blanche DuBois 24/7 - I can give you femininity until you puke, you can drink my femininity like a milkshake - but that's no guarantee on its own of my suitability as an adult in the business of brat extruding and raising.
You need to measure energy, commitment, time, resources, support, love, responsibility, expectation and all the rest if you want to even begin to evaluate a parent's impact.
Jody Tresidder at May 19, 2008 10:26 AM
Oh shit!!
I rewrote Crid's "intimates" as "inmates".
Whoops a-Freudian Daisy!
Jody Tresidder at May 19, 2008 10:29 AM
What, that wasn't on purpose?? Heh! I would've done! o_O
Flynne at May 19, 2008 10:32 AM
Flynne,
I'm dying here!
(Yup, I really am that stupid!)
Jody Tresidder at May 19, 2008 10:40 AM
> if I am not also a decent,
> motivated parent.
Necessity vs sufficiency. This is freshman philosophy stuff. Of course parents are supposed to be decent and motivated. That's necessary but not sufficient. I also want your sons/daughters to see your womanliness and your husbands manliness at work, and working with each other, all the time. You're making the same apples-and-oranges logical error that's made divorce talk such mundanely hideous topic for the last forty years.
Logic, OK? Reason. Relevance. In parlance, "do the math."
Also, Jelly Babies! Toff! Loo! Blokes! Bloody! Knickers! Crisps! How 'bout that Lady Di, wudden she sump'um?
Crid at May 19, 2008 10:51 AM
Crid,
The issue I have with arguing against gay marriage primarily because of a correlation that a child is necessarily better off with two parents of each gender rather than two parents of the same gender - is that it implies that society has the right to judge based solely on potential, rather than actuality.
If statistics show that children from higher-income families are much more likely to be law-abiding and literate members of society, why not ban marriage with lower-income people, since children from poorer families have a higher likelihood of growing up to become violent criminals?
Isn't it a similar line of thought, except it's not gender-based?
If the logic held true that secular marriage should be permitted unless the conditions are ideal, why draw the line at gay people?
My whole issue with the argument is that parents - in all other criteria - are judged based on quality of care at the time - not based on potential quality of care. If Children's Services gets called on your ass, it's because they believe something bad to be going on (substantiated or not), not because there's that potential - based on your demographics. Otherwise adults raised by abusers wouldn't be allowed to have kids - since they're more likely to abuse themselves.
Society/common law/government has provided for legal responses when a grievance has already been committed...but is seriously fucked up when it's doing so in the name of grievances not committed yet. Sounds too "Minority Report" to me.
At this point, I'm not even arguing for or against gay marriage...that's getting beat to death here. But I am willing to pick at your most frequently stated reason for being against it - mainly because I think it's an inconsistent moral high-horse.
Jamie at May 19, 2008 10:55 AM
I also want your sons/daughters to see your womanliness and your husbands manliness at work, and working with each other, all the time.
Eeek, Crid.
You really do sound like one of Eugenicist Charles Davenport's little army of unqualified clipboard snoops.
Y'know, knocking on people's doors, asking them impertinent questions, tabulating your unhinged observations - (how manly is he? how many of the womanly qualities does she display? do their kiddies have big, flapping "criminal" ears?) - all for the benefit of an ideal society!
And, frankly, the only thing you really seem to want from my children is for them to keep out of your way in airports!
Jody Tresidder at May 19, 2008 11:08 AM
> how manly is he? how many
> of the womanly qualities
> does she display?
That's the point: We can let nature do its own lifting, as biology demands, without being busybodies.
> to keep out of your
> way in airports!
You've mentioned that before, the idea that your children and I (or maybe Amy) might cross paths in transit. Whassup with that?
By all means, yes, keep them out of my way. Keep everyone out of my way... Let's all observe some thoughtful boundaries.
Maybe it's time for Amy to get into another coffeehouse or parking lot altercation.
Soon enough, we're sure.
(Plimsolls! Lollies! Notecase!)
Crid at May 19, 2008 11:24 AM
> a correlation
My argument is not about new science and highfalutin' Excel calculations. My argument is that what's best for kids is a loving mother with a loving father, and I want what's best for kids. Don't you? (The "loving" part is what the Jody-types try to ignore as they argue.)
My best friend was named Jamie, but he switched to Jim in 9th grade, so I'm gonna guess that you're a woman. If you're reading Amy's columns and blog, you're probably a comfortable, middle-class woman in good health with typical experiences and aspirations, including those toward childrearing.
Do you really think that two competent, loving fathers can give a child the same experience that you can, that your gender confers no powers to you in this regard?
It's OK if you think that.
But I think you should have the clarity and courage to say it in a small number of short words, like maybe, "Motherhood is nothing special, and my femininity is/will-not-be a distinctive blessing for my children."
Then you stop talking. That's it. No qualifying conditions or explanations, no run-on sentences, no ifs, ands, or buts.
(Then the guy from state office pricks your finger for a blood sample, you sign the form under oath before a notary public, they take your picture like at the DMV, and you're on your way and living your life. There's really nothing to it... I don't see why people make such a big deal out of this minor procedural responsibility.)
The preceding paragraph having been satiric, I don't see how your "minority report" metaphor holds. GM proponents are the ones asking for a variance to ancient parameters of this institution. No one's previously tried to exclude the poor from marriage any more than there's been a huge historical enthusiasm to permit marriages between gays (or between sisters, or parents to their children). Why would they? Being petitioner doesn't mean you get to ascribe any nasty intention that you like to the status quo people.
BTW, I have no special insight about when the state should step into private homes. What do you think of the Texas Mormons? I think they're probably heartless assholes, but there are apparently several dozens kids who've been ripped away from loving care, and I'm not happy about that, either.
> marriage should be permitted
> unless the conditions
> are ideal
Oh, you naughty girl. I'm going to assume you meant "shouldn't", in which case you're guilty of Tressiderian misdirection. I don't want children raised only in "ideal" circumstances, I want them raised by a loving father with a loving mother because that's what's best, and I want what's best for kids....
Maybe I should try to say that more often. It doesn't seem to be getting through.
Crid at May 19, 2008 12:16 PM
".... Let's all observe some thoughtful boundaries..."
Excellent, Crid!
Yes, let's!
Let's stop squinting at the very "texture" of parenting for some elusive, potential insufficiency in gay parents!
Jody Tresidder at May 19, 2008 12:18 PM
It was a mistake, I should have gone the "components" route... The components of the best parental love are a loving mother and a loving father.
People seem eager to read that wrong.
Crid at May 19, 2008 12:20 PM
"My argument is that what's best for kids is a loving mother with a loving father, and I want what's best for kids. "
Get off that high horse before you get light-headed, please.
Do you really believe that the MOST important factor - out of every good factor in raising children - is just having a mother and father?
I'm excluding "loving" because that's not at issue here, is it? You aren't making the case that unloving men and women shouldn't get married, right?
I don't see you wanting to prevent people that are dirt poor from having children or getting married. I think being able to feed and clothe your children is more important, don't you?
What's best for kids isn't JUST a loving mother and loving father. What's BEST is a laundry list of items, and I think it's silly to focus so much on one, that you've made it seem it's overrides all else.
I think it's more important that they have loving parents (regardless of gender) that can financially and emotionally provide for their children, and view that responsibility with the same, or more, importance than I do. A mommy and daddy don't guarantee success, see WAY too many failed examples of that to think otherwise.
I've never diminished the benefits to having a mother and father, but can you say that it's guaranteed that ANY same-gendered parents are going to be less capable than ANY two-gendered parents? If you can't, then you're talking about potential, not absolutes.
That's where the "minority report" example comes into play. In that book, people are arrested before they commit the crime, because they were predicted to do so.
Preventing gay marriage because you think it's POTENTIALLY bad for kids is condemning before the bad parenting is committed. It's just as silly as proposing a psych exam, full gene workup, and financial prospectus before allowing someone to get married. Since a healthy mind, no genetic diseases, and being able to financially provide are also very important to raising healthy children.
"My best friend was named Jamie, but he switched to Jim in 9th grade, so I'm gonna guess that you're a woman."
I have links to my videos when you click on my name - you've criticized my hairstyle previously - so I presumed you'd remember. So I'm going to chalk that "guess" up to laziness. Jamie was the name I was given, I'm fine with it, and my sense of masculinity isn't threatened by the occasional gender mix-up, so I guess it's moot. I wouldn't have bothered if not for the "Oh, you naughty girl" bit.
Jamie at May 19, 2008 12:49 PM
But I think you should have the clarity and courage to say it in a small number of short words, like maybe, "Motherhood is nothing special, and my femininity is/will-not-be a distinctive blessing for my children."
And I have yet to hear you say, "Nothing matters more than having a Father and Mother for children." then proceed to shut up about it and walk away. So fair's fair, right? Besides, this is more fun.
"If you're reading Amy's columns and blog, you're probably a comfortable, middle-class woman in good health with typical experiences and aspirations, including those toward childrearing."
Been reading, and have posted fairly regularly. I'm guessing advanced age has impacted your memory, but not your ability to pontificate and make up such spiffy terms as "Tressiderian misdirection."
I've spoken at length about the kids I already have. From personal experience, my wife was a FAR better parent on her own than her ex and his new wife has ever been to their children. I think I bring something of value to the situation, but I don't think my maleness is my most important contribution, either. In my case, it's that I am annoyingly consistent, and make a sincere effort at being objective. I've seen many people not possessing penises have such traits.
Jamie at May 19, 2008 1:03 PM
Jamie, don't be an asshole.
> Do you really believe that
> the MOST important factor
If I'd believed that, I'd say that. But what I said, and meant, is: What's best for kids is a loving mother and a loving father.
There's a reason that nobody can challenge this argument with twisting the wording in silly ways. To wit:
> What's BEST is a laundry
> list of items
This isn't about perfection, it's about what's the best way to go, because...
> can you say that
> it's guaranteed
...nothing is guaranteed. Who said anything about guarantees? Didn't we
cover that in here recently? There was a kid born without a brain in my hometown twenty years ago. It was a cause celebre among insane Reaganauts, but it wasn't a policy problem.
A loving mother with a loving father is my standard. After that, a lot of problems will be taken care of. Without that standard, I'm on the hook for a lot more baggage --both financial and interpersonal-- than I want to be burdened with. If you want a contract with me as a fellow citizen to help care for your kid, that's my threshold of support. Get the picture?
> because you think it's
> POTENTIALLY bad for kids
This reasoning could as well be applied to a father and son marrying, or two sisters, or a 9-year-old girl and her insane elderly uncle.
PS- It's fun to think I've hurt the feelings of total strangers in forgotten ways, but I'm pretty sure you're confusing me with someone else. I don't usually worry about haircuts, and have worn worse than that.
Crid at May 19, 2008 1:13 PM
Crid,
Is it possible you cannot see what we're saying?
Any schmuck can get a cheer from the gallery by asserting - while squeezing out a single tear - that a capably lovin' mom 'n pop is what every kiddie deserves, bless!
But when did the laundry list item - as Jamie correctly put it - of "lovin'" become automatically attached only to a mother and a father?
Or maybe I should venture a simpler question!
What do you fear gay parents will do to the kiddies?
Jody Tresidder at May 19, 2008 1:20 PM
"This reasoning could as well be applied to a father and son marrying, or two sisters, or a 9-year-old girl and her insane elderly uncle."
If I had meant that, I'd say it. I haven't. Crid, don't be an asshole.
I think there are MORE important criteria for good parents than their gender identity. That, and potential parents shouldn't be judged unfit by gender roles unless you're going to include other equally important - possibly more so - factors.
"If I'd believed that, I'd say that. But what I said, and meant, is: What's best for kids is a loving mother and a loving father."
I guess I'll just disagree and think you're so grossly oversimplifying the issue to just short of parody.
"I don't usually worry about haircuts, and have worn worse than that."
You weren't being serious, and just posted it to include me in the conversation.
Jamie at May 19, 2008 1:21 PM
> If I had meant
I remember now... You were up against DuWayne at Didso/Didnot invitationals in Cleveland in '98.
That was a nail-biter.
Crid at May 19, 2008 1:36 PM
Jamie -
I think there are MORE important criteria for good parents than their gender identity. That, and potential parents shouldn't be judged unfit by gender roles unless you're going to include other equally important - possibly more so - factors.
Oy, but that would be boring and require thinking. It would also lend itself to the notion that gay parenting might not be just as reasonable an option as most straight parenting (or what people claim is parenting). We cannot get into the meat of it, because once we do that, gay parenting doesn't look nearly as bad. And that could lead to gay marriage being even more palatable.
DuWayne at May 19, 2008 1:45 PM
What do you think of the Texas Mormons? I think they're probably heartless assholes, but there are apparently several dozens kids who've been ripped away from loving care, and I'm not happy about that, either.
FLDS cults aren't loving care by a stretch. Unless men who are middle aged impregnating young teen girls qualifies as loving care.
DuWayne at May 19, 2008 2:02 PM
TO: Crid
RE: The Return of Memo Format
"I remember now... You were up against DuWayne at Didso/Didnot invitationals in Cleveland in '98."
This is apparently have to look forward to in old age? Becoming a grumpy curmudgeon that hallucinates his own conversations when he's not too busy critiquing the use of commas on blogs. Fun! :)
- Jamie
[some pithy quote]
Jamie at May 19, 2008 4:21 PM
Nope... Still nothing. Sorry. We can tell it stuck in your craw, though. What did you say that got critiqued?
Crid at May 19, 2008 4:44 PM
"Nope... Still nothing. Sorry."
I wasn't speaking of my own personal experience. Just that you tend to pick apart other people's sentence structure (might drive Conan the Grammarian out of a job) - frequently when you don't have a counter-point and are bored with simple namecalling.
"We can tell it stuck in your craw, though."
So are you a royal now, or have you gone the way of Sybil? I don't have a craw to have anything stuck IN at any rate. This is still fun for me anyhow, I know better than to take anything here too personally.
Jamie at May 19, 2008 5:49 PM
Dude, people who don't think a loving mother with a loving father are what's best for children should say so, in as many words... Without qualifications or codicils or special pleading.
Nobody wants to say that for some reason.
Crid at May 19, 2008 6:05 PM
"Dude, people who don't think a loving mother with a loving father are what's best for children should say so, in as many words... Without qualifications or codicils or special pleading.
Nobody wants to say that for some reason."
Sorry that those you think needs to say what you want thinks it's far more complex and not as black and white are you're trying to paint it.
Jamie at May 19, 2008 6:32 PM
> it's far more complex
At the top of the seventeenth century, the Catholic church was building ever-more complicated machines to depict the motion of everything in the sky around the Earth. As telescopes became more common, people kept finding new bodies up there that moved weirdly and had to be explained. Eventually the machines just wouldn't work anymore, because they were too "complex".
Galileo was under house arrest, but his simpler explanation was correct: The complexities were irrelevant. The Earth was not the center of the Universe.
Neither is adult fulfilment. I wish everything could be made to work so that every joy felt by straights could be felt by gays without cheating children, but this isn't so. The religion of our age, liberalism, won't make peace with the truth.
So when it's said that what's best for a child is a loving mother and a loving father, people start trying to jerk the wording around to explain other things. People start asking about what's meant by 'loving,' usually by comparison to someone who isn't... But if the straight parents are *bad* to the kids, then that's not good, is it? And they start playing around with the idea of a man and a woman... Don't you really mean a masculine personality and a feminine, one no matter what their genders? And then they go after the idea of the best, or of any standards at all... Well you can't really *guarantee* that everything will go perfectly with a loving mother and a loving father, can you?
I feel bad that many gays are hurt by this. But the natural world is against them. No matter what the churches tell you, no matter what Hollywood tells you, the natural world doesn't promise happy endings in every context.
Crid at May 20, 2008 1:40 AM
So when it's said that what's best for a child is a loving mother and a loving father, people start trying to jerk the wording around to explain other things.
So you keep saying, Crid.
Without ever articulating why "loving" can't be attached to "gay parents".
Society tends to splutter along more happily when individual fulfillment is aligned somewhere along the arc of common good. You seem awfully comfortable with disposing of this notion, by changing the notion of "fulfillment" to something beastly, trivial and possibly unhealthy when it refers to gay parents.
DuWayne said recently - and it was fair, I thought - that non-parents can talk great sense about raising kids, despite the lack of direct experience.
But when you start giving us your version of "the Truth" (my capital 'T'!) and best parenting, - well, it comes across as a non-parent's dogmatic abstraction too far!
Jody Tresidder at May 20, 2008 5:20 AM
> Without ever articulating why
> "loving" can't be attached
> to "gay parents".
Not only have I failed to articulate that, I don't even believe it... So I never said anything of the kind.
Dance, little girl, dance! You're unable to challenge this wihout mischaracterizing it. You're dying to say it's wrong, but you know if you do so head-on, you'll be a heartless fool, so you scurry about for a disqualifying technicality....
Children can attach to anything.... Many attach to violent alcoholics. Simple "attachment" isn't the goal. We want to do what's best for them, right?
What's best for kids is a loving mother with a loving father.
> it comes across as a
> non-parent's dogmatic
> abstraction
Speaking of non-parents, let's talk about gays. Now, historically, gays haven't been able to live as loving parents without doing a whole lot of intimacy with less-preferred partners, and apparently that's the part that's so upsetting to you.
But if What's Best For Kids Is A Loving Mother With A Loving Father, then a choice between competing interests must be made. I'm more eager to protect the needs of children than the preferences of adults. You're trying to put the Earth at the center here, but WBFKIALMWALF....
Crid at May 20, 2008 10:43 AM
Good, Better, Best,
Never Let it Rest -
'Til the Straights Are Better,
And the Gays Are Best!
(Sorry, Crid! You totally cracked me up with that "Dance, little girl, dance!")
Jody Tresidder at May 20, 2008 11:33 AM
It was from a lesser Stones album. Anyway, these are generous times, so your backhanded concession will be recorded in the in the registry at full market value. Thanks for your participation, and remember to Vote Republican... That will be all.
Crid at May 20, 2008 11:42 AM
Crid -
Since I bore you, short version first;
Even if a loving mother and father is best, second best is two loving parents in a stable relationship. Marriage advocates claim that marriage makes the relationship more stable. So if you really give a shit about whats best for kids, you should support gay marriage so that those relationships and the children's lives are more stable.
You keep telling us what is best for kids, and seem to insist we avoid any discussion beyond that. Fucking great for kids that get it. Thus far the studies seem to contradict you as far as gay parents go. I disregard the studies because though they seem to support my stance, I think there are serious flaws to them. Not the least being that the most definitive studies (based on outcomes) are out of Sweden - not U.S. culture. Then there is the simple fact that gay parents have strong motivation to really go all out on taking care of and parenting their kids. They rarely have kids by accident.
My assumption would be that gays aren't much better or worse for kids. And much as you hate to talk about those complications, when you factor in everything else relating to childhood and what causes a child to evolve into a good, bad or indifferent adult, the sexuality of the parents is not very significant.
Children of gay parents are just as likely as their straight raised counterparts to be straight or gay. Quality of outcome is largely determined by financial stability and stable, two parent households, just like in straight parent families.
And no matter how you feel about it, it's happening anyways. The only ways to enforce laws against gay procreation would be totalitarian and absolutely unconstitutional.
Finally and most importantly; Even if we give that straight parents are the ideal, the children of gay parents deserve the same stability that straight kids are (supposedly) afforded when their parents are married. Even if you're right, it is also true that stability of the two parent relationship makes a huge difference in outcomes - even if the parents are "inferior" gay parents.
DuWayne at May 20, 2008 6:43 PM
> Since I bore you,
> short version
That's 361 words.
> a loving mother and father
> is best, second best is...
...Should we care? Which kids don't deserve the best? The African ones? The Mexicans? The Muslims? Is it racist to ask? Presumably not, since you think it counts for nothing anyway.
> Fucking great for
> kids that get it.
We can insist that more kids get it... If we want to. Also, the cynicism of the "Fucking" earns you no persuasion. You've already said such clumsy things about marriage that I'd trust you with no authority over the families of others anyway. You're a grim guy, DuWayne.
> Thus far the studies seem
> to contradict you
I doubt it. Secondly, it's funny/pathetic that your experience of the world is such that you're waiting for a distracted, probably-incompetent Ohio State sociology major to give you instruction on genesis. What else have you spent your life thinking about?
> gay parents have strong
> motivation
I conceded this earlier. It's a self-diminishing argument. They've had that motivation to date, but as gay parenting grows more normalized, it's participants will need to be ever - less disciplined about it.
> the sexuality of the parents
> is not very significant.
If you believe that, you're a fool.
And just as a point of procedure, that's what's to be proven in this discussion. You should offer reasoning, not just an assertion.
There was a great book about the history of aspirin several years ago. Doctors were studying the impact of prophylactic doses in adult males, and had neatly sorted the cardiac risk groups: By age, men who'd had merely elevated risks, one cardiac event, two cardiac events etc. The study was aborted in early days because the numbers showed that control groups were immoral. If you knew an aging man who'd had one event plus risk factors, the Hippocratic Oath compelled you to prescribe daily aspirin. So we'll never know the deeper numbers.
On Planet Cridmo, so it is with gay parenting. As Paglia says, "Sex is nature in man." It's such a profound expression of our deepest identity, a fingerprint on so many enthusiasms, affinities and behaviors, that it's laughable to announce that it's "not very significant" to children. I think that if any meaningful percentage of children in humanity's past had been raised by equally competent and loving second fathers instead of mothers, history would not be where it is today... I don't think we'd have even made it into caves out of the rain, let alone out of them and into houses.
> Children of gay parents
> are just as likely as their
> straight raised counterparts
> to be straight or gay
I agree completely. Some percentage of the normal human population is gay. That's what made Tressiders comment's about "eugenics" seem so ridiculous.
(I shouldn't say that. There are so many forces at work in that woman's thinking that make things ridiculous that it's arrogant to single out a particular cause.)
> Quality of outcome is
> largely determined by
> financial stability
That's preposterous. It's a bullshit lie. And it's one of the cornerstones of liberal thought... The left wants to pretend that it's all about the Benjamins. The short response to this is that if poverty caused crime, Bel-Air would be a seminary. But it's not. I could do a half-hour on this.
> The only ways to enforce
> laws against gay procreation
> would be totalitarian
Silly man, natural law doesn't bother with ham-fisted enforcement. It prevents gay procreation anyway.
> absolutely unconstitutional.
To be blunt... No, I'll be nice. But "constitutional" doesn't mean what you think it means in any respect.
> most importantly; Even if
> we give that straight parents
> are the ideal, the children
> of gay parents deserve the same
> stability that straight kids
> are (supposedly) afforded
This can hardly be your most important argument. I contend that straight, loving parents are so important that other arrangements should be disallowed or intensely discouraged, barring some nightmare circumstance. On Planet Cridmo, there aren't enough children of gay parents (parents *not* leading heterosexual households, whatever their sexual inclination) to worry about. Besides, no one (in my argument) is telling gays they can't stay together for as long as they want.
Let's break for a second here.
Take a look at the color scheme at the top of this page. Bright yellow, chartreuse and pink, all under the command of a firey, um, remarkably red-headed woman. For all her testicular fortitude, Amy's a girly girl.
Except for you and me, who would you expect to come to a blog with that color scheme? Two types: Gay men and middle-class women.
The gays probably dropped out when Amy started getting huffy about those boring A-rabs.
But where are the women in this comment stack? There are several fertile-seeming women who read this blog all the time and will comment on anything at all. But they're sitting this one out. I think I know why.
Women aren't like normal people. They have weird feelings about stuff, especially reproduction. And those feelings don't just appear at some monthly interval... they happen all the time. Women watch other women carrying babies around in the grocery store and at the bank and the picnic tables and their brains are doing all sorts of math, making all sort of very harsh judgments about what they see. (They think I wouldn't or didn't hold them that way, I wouldn't or didn't let them read that, I wouldn't or didn't feed them that stuff.) Meanwhile their husbands are doing something useful like reading the sports page.
Where are those women in this thread?
I suspect that they're thinking consciously about whether a man --even an especially nice and loving gay one-- could do as good a job as they could. Especially since nature did so much to configure their biology and character for it.
Women, often accused of talking too much (Hi, Oprah!), do their deadly thinking silently.
Indeed, DuWayne, this thread is aging and participants of all sorts are dropping out. Take as much time in replying here as you want. But if you do it under a hundred words, I promise to respond.
(For anyone else at any length: cridcrid at gmail dot com)
Crid at May 21, 2008 1:22 AM
By the way, what's best for a child is a loving mother with a loving father.
It's important to be clear.
Crid at May 21, 2008 1:35 AM
"Some percentage of the normal human population is gay. That's what made Tressiders comment's about "eugenics" seem so ridiculous."
Feeble argument, Crid.
Eugenics - as embraced in the US - was a curtain-twitching movement which concerned itself with the fitness and social suitability of breeders based on inexact assumptions about the transmission of traits, both physical and moral, and the welfare of the next generation.
It lends itself perfectly to the thrust of your assertions here.
(Love your appeals to the silent but deadly majority of women. Pure small town politician!)
Jody Tresidder at May 21, 2008 5:07 AM
That's 361 words.
Actually, the first paragraph was the short summary of the whole comment.
...Should we care? Which kids don't deserve the best? The African ones? The Mexicans? The Muslims? Is it racist to ask? Presumably not, since you think it counts for nothing anyway.
All kids deserve the best, none of them get it.
You should offer reasoning, not just an assertion.
I did, apparently it was too boring for you. Your giving mixed signals here, on the onE hand, you claim you want simple statements, on the other hand you want the reasoning. I've provided the reasoning for this on more than one occasion on more than just this thread.
BTW, the exact same thing could be said of you.
That's preposterous. It's a bullshit lie. And it's one of the cornerstones of liberal thought... The left wants to pretend that it's all about the Benjamins. The short response to this is that if poverty caused crime, Bel-Air would be a seminary. But it's not. I could do a half-hour on this.
And yet study after study finds that the higher the income level of the parents, the less likely a child is to end up in jail, end up in poverty, have a substandard education or to have serious drug problems.
It does not stand to reason that just because there are rich people in jail and poor people who end up wealthy and wise, that the statistics are just wrong.
Silly man, natural law doesn't bother with ham-fisted enforcement. It prevents gay procreation anyway.
Then presumably letting gays get married isn't going to hurt anyone. Excellent.
BTW, gays do in fact procreate. Many other gays just adopt.
To be blunt... No, I'll be nice. But "constitutional" doesn't mean what you think it means in any respect.
To be blunt; bullshit.
This can hardly be your most important argument. I contend that straight, loving parents are so important that other arrangements should be disallowed or intensely discouraged, barring some nightmare circumstance.
Ok, so when are you going to open the office of procreation regulation? When are you going to push for taking kids away from shitty parents?
BTW, your fucking delusional. In effect, you're assertion would mean that we have to make the lives of children who are (according to you) in a less than ideal parenting situation that much harder simply to send a message to single parents, queer parents and every other less than ideal parenting that they shouldn't be parents.
But where are the women in this comment stack? There are several fertile-seeming women who read this blog all the time and will comment on anything at all. But they're sitting this one out. I think I know why.
Sweet, crids a fucking mind reader.
DuWayne at May 21, 2008 9:19 AM
DuWayne, quotations excised, that's 270.
> a curtain-twitching movement
Elevenses, Jody! Punters! Cheeky!
> It lends itself perfectly
---
eu·gen·ics /yuˈdʒɛnɪks/ [yoo-jen-iks]
–noun (used with a singular verb)
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).
---
None of this has been about gene expression, or even sexual expression in the next generations... Hell, for all I know (and care), gay parenting increases the incidence of heterosexuality in children. But nature is the eugenicist here. It has never, ever permitted two people of same sex to make a baby. And ever is a lot.
What we got here is a typical Joderean freak panic response to imaginary stimuli, kinda like that time you thought Steyn wanted to send bricks through shop windows, and it turned out you made it up.
> Pure small town
> politician!
If I was running for something, I'd be nice to people. But I prefer being right and rubbing people's noses in it. It's nothing personal...
But it's true, you can't prove a negative, and this is entirely speculative on my part. So I'm really, really looking forward to the explanation from you guys:
Where are the women who usually claim a piece of discussions like this? Do they quietly agree that motherhood counts for nothing?
Crid at May 21, 2008 9:56 AM
And once again, let me reiterate that what's best for a child is a loving mother with a loving father.
Crid at May 21, 2008 9:58 AM
Give me less bullshit to wade through and I'll keep it brief.
But let me reiterate; Gross oversimplification doesn't make you any less wrong, it just makes you look like an ass and sound like a young earth creationist.
DuWayne at May 21, 2008 10:12 AM
"But nature is the eugenicist here. It has never, ever permitted two people of same sex to make a baby. And ever is a lot."
Bingo, Crid!
The silky public defense of the eugenicist creed...merely helping nature!!
(You really don't know your own country's more potty social history, do you?)
"...kinda like that time you thought Steyn wanted to send bricks through shop windows, and it turned out you made it up."
Didn't, actually.
Where are the women who usually claim a piece of discussions like this? Do they quietly agree that motherhood counts for nothing?
Why on earth should they agree anything of the sort?
As far as I can say, you are the only one getting hot and bothered by the perceived insult!
Jody Tresidder at May 21, 2008 10:56 AM
Or - indeed, and with apologies - as far as I can see.
Jody Tresidder at May 21, 2008 10:57 AM
Potty!
> merely helping nature!!
Jody, we don't *have* to help nature...
> Didn't, actually
Again with the didso/didnot. The cite goes like this: "It's a case for brick through the window of your brown neighbor who makes stinky curry"... a baseless charge that was eventually left to squat there and die.
("Sixth form!" You're so exotic!)
> Why on earth should they agree
Because you're telling them that motherhood is a disposable component of family life.
They do agree, they don't disagree, who knows. I'm asking you to explain their silence.
Crid at May 21, 2008 11:17 AM
Crid,
"The cite goes like this: "It's a case for brick through the window of your brown neighbor who makes stinky curry"... a baseless charge that was eventually left to squat there and die."
As I thought, you falsely spun my line then - you spin it the same fibbing way now.
The "It's a case for..." comment meant simply that it's a justification for, with "its" referring back to "Steyn..laying it on dangerously thick with the brown tidal wave of breeders demographic stuff...".
My point was always - as it remains -that Steyn's overheated, conjecturing rhetoric is nastily provocative.
Steyn doesn't - as far as I know - throw bricks, you berk. He's throws provocative words!
Yes, I should perhaps have sent you a private note with clarifying footnotes - in the midst of trying to explain at the same time - as I then was - why you were getting facts about UK religion horribly scrambled!
You write: "Because you're telling (other women here) that motherhood is a disposable component of family life."
No, I am not.
Only that my definition of a terrific family life certainly includes a child with loving gay parents.
Jody Tresidder at May 21, 2008 12:14 PM
Berk!
Gosh, Jody, you're unusual and distinctive! You're almost like a regular person, but you have a secret language! Americans always think that's just cute. We enjoy learning about Peoples in Distant Lands and Their Customs! Keep up the good work.
There's no "brown tidal wave" in Steyn, either. In his case as in mine, you can't find fault until you've inserted imaginary, sinister, subterranean motives into what you read. Calling Steyn provocative is flattery. Saying he provokes flying bricks is calumny. You've lost this point once before, which should have been enough.
> a private note
If arguments aren't ready for this smallest of fora, private delivery of premises probably won't help.
> No, I am not.
How are you not? If you think two men can do as well for a child as a woman with her husband can, then motherhood is by definition worthless, QED.
> a terrific family life
> certainly includes a child
> with loving gay parents
Maybe this is another of those berky Britishisms... Does "terrific" mean "best"? Because what's best for a child is a loving mother with a loving father.
Crid at May 21, 2008 1:10 PM
Well, I've made a parlour-maid's pincushion with all the fucking bold and ital there. Sorry.
Outta here.
(But good going DuWayne!).
Crid? Quit being a silly sausage!
Jody Tresidder at May 21, 2008 1:11 PM
> Outta here.
No! Come back!
Crid at May 21, 2008 8:33 PM
Haven't posted here in a while, but I need to add my two cents.
Marriage, at least in America, is NOT for the purpose of having children.
Upon marriage, you do NOT sign a contract stating "I promise to have and raise X number of children, for the benefit of society". There are tons of married couples that have no children and never will. There are a ton of people that are NOT married and have LOTS of kids. There are people that have children who are married, but not to the father or mother of their child.
It used to be about kids and sex but it isn't anymore. It's not illegal to go out and have consented sex (and consequently kids) with anyone, unless of course you pay for a prostitute, which honestly I don't think should be illegal either. Unless we go back to the archaic, ancient times when being married meant you are expected to spawn, and where sex is illegal outside marriage, you CANNOT tie marriage to children.
So what IS the purpose of marrige? Not what it should be in a starry-eyed, ideal world, but what it IS, in America? From a LEGAL, secular standpoint, which is what the state provides and uses, marriage is a way for two unrelated adults to permanently join their lives to become one legal entity. There are many benefits to this, including tax benefits, insurance, credit, and recognition in government institutions as a family member instead of an unrelated "friend".
In this case, why do we insist on denying two adults, no matter what gender, the right to willingly and permenantly merge and commit their lives in this fashion and to deny them the benefits which comes with doing so?
Religions that are against gay marriage can turn away gay people from their sanctuaries all they like. No one's denying those religions that right. But not all religions shun gays, and to deny a completely secular right on behalf of any religion is against the constitution, and this is something that needs to be amended.
P.S. Having the "best" parents does not guarantee a good child. There are kids with shitty parents that become fantastic members of society, and there are awesome parents that have bratty, horrible children that end up in jail for life at age 19. Besides, gays and lesbians already have full rights to have biological kids or apply to foster or adopt, so the kids argument doesn't really hold any water.
BadKitty at May 22, 2008 11:19 AM
Fantastic, badkitty. Very smart kitty.
Amy Alkon at May 22, 2008 11:26 AM
> It used to be about kids
> and sex but it isn't
> anymore.
Says you. I don't think the fundamental meaning of bonds like marriage drift completely from one category to another between centuries, any more than it does for son-hood or brotherhood... And would never trust anybody to describe the whole shebang that way anyway. Sociobio types, enamored as they are of pandering, accessible literature for nonmajors, like to think they've got it all figured out... I doubt they do.
> There are tons of married
> couples that have no children
> and never will
Heterosexuality nonetheless speaks to genesis. Those who tell me about making babies --including the most rational, least-emotional, least sparky personalities in my acquaintance-- describe it in terms of magic. Heterosexual union has special meaning for the species, even if no babies will be (or were) made.
And honestly, I don't care about gay marriage except with respect to babies. Gays wanna have cute ceremonies with Elton John records played at the reception? Fine by me... I'll bring a gift-wrapped toaster and kiss the brides.
(Have we discussed this earlier in the thread? Yes, we have.)
> you CANNOT tie marriage
> to children
Nature has "tied" children to heterosexuality. (Also, for the record, we "CAN" do whatever we want... There's no God telling us what laws to write. If you said God wanted mutually married gays, I'd tell you to get lost.)
> permanently join their
> lives to become one
> legal entity.
Not so permanently, nowadays... Unless you're promising that gays will be better at that than straights are, which seems improbable.
> There are many benefits
> to this
Every "benefit" you list is to the married couple. For some reason --who knows what it could be-- it didn't occur to you to list any benefits to the surrounding community for changing the parameters of their certification to include other unions. It's like you'd never given the matter any thought... As if marriage benefits were just a game show prize for people we like.
> Religions that are against
> gay marriage can turn away
> gay people from their
> sanctuaries all they like.
I literally cannot name a single church sanctuary in which gays aren't welcome... The fact that you can name some colorfully erratic sect from the Appalachian holler in no way disguises your naive mis-appraisal of typical American faiths.
> Having the "best" parents
> does not guarantee a
> good child
As noted several times in this thread, nothing "guarantees" a good child. Fabulous homes can bring us monsters. The question is not about who wants to be the parents to whom we offer pleasant benefits.... The question is about what's best for kids.
What's best for children is a loving mother with a loving father.
Good to hear from you.
Crid at May 22, 2008 10:45 PM
My gods Crid, I must be rubbing off on you. That's 389 words -quotes and it was not only wrong but brutally boring. I'm going to grow concerned if I see a drastic increase in your use of commas.
DuWayne at May 23, 2008 6:45 PM
It used to be about kids and sex but it isn't anymore.
Actually, marriage has always been about property and property rights. Marriage is a contract. All the magic and excitement that accompanies that contract is great, but incidental of marriage.
DuWayne at May 23, 2008 10:58 PM
Leave a comment