Great Kid Raised By Two Women Speaks Out For Gay Marriage
He's speaking to the Iowa House of Representatives January 31 in a video that's gone viral:
"Our family really isn't so different from any other Iowa family," he said, speaking out against a ban on gay marriage that nevertheless ended up passing in the Iowa House, 62-37, in vote Feb. 1.
Shame on you, Iowa. Gay parents -- and gay people -- deserve the same rights as straight parents and straight people. How about this: As long as we give them only partial rights, they should only have to pay partial taxes.
More from his speech:
"If I was your son, Mr. Chairman, I believe I would make you very proud," Wahls, who says he is an engineering student, Eagle Scout and small business owner, said at the hearing. "I'm not really so different from any of your children. My family really isn't so different from yours. ... The sense of family comes from the commitment we make to each other to work through the hard times so we can enjoy good ones. It comes from the love that binds us. That's what makes a family."
The measure next goes to the Iowa Senate where the Majority Leader, Democrat Michael Gronstal, has promised to block it from a vote.
via Lenore Skenazy
I can hear the Divorce lawyers reving their motors,I can see a Bitter Divorce battle between a lesbian couple over who gets custody of the toys and for how long.The genie in the bottle is half way out its just a matter of when.
RexRedbone at February 4, 2011 5:57 AM
I can hear the Divorce lawyers reving their motors,I can see a Bitter Divorce battle between a lesbian couple over who gets custody of the toys and for how long.The genie in the bottle is half way out its just a matter of when.
Huh?
Did you listen to the video? Are you talking about this couple? Do you think that one of the kid's mom's is going to ditch the other -- the one diagnosed with multiple sclerosis? And if so, how are you able to predict this, by reading between the pixels with your 3-D glasses?
If gay people get married, yes, there will be gay divorce. If we used the possibility of straight people getting divorced to deny them marriage, we'd have nobody getting married in this country.
Amy Alkon at February 4, 2011 6:14 AM
Because being straight means never having to say you're getting a divorce...
Chunks at February 4, 2011 6:16 AM
I didn't watch the video, so I assume the kid was adopted. To be raised by a loving but unconventional family, or the state. I wouldn't spend too much time choosing if it were me, but there are still people who trust the government to look out for them.
MarkD at February 4, 2011 6:39 AM
Trouble is, as Quentin Crisp once said:
"They go around saying they're ordinary people - which is never going to work because ordinary people never go around saying they're ordinary."
lenona at February 4, 2011 7:02 AM
According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%
Follow this link and educate yourself: http://www.divorcerate.org/
Yeah Rex you're correct. No way could a gay couple do better than these statistics. Fighting over there toys? Are you in the 8th grade and if so does your mommy know your not in school.....
Ed at February 4, 2011 7:08 AM
Sadly, pols will fight over this and totally ignore the beam in their eye: single motherhood.
Because that brings them money.
Radwaste at February 4, 2011 8:21 AM
Wow. Just Wow. Is public speaking genetic? Amazing for a nineteen year-old. Amazing for forty year old. My introvert heart would love to have had a little of that man's ability years ago.
Dave B at February 4, 2011 8:54 AM
I am from Iowa, and the politics have been frustrating. It's terrifying to vote for Democrats because they wreak absolute havoc on the budget. The stereotype of them is true in this state, especially for our waste of space Senator Harkin. They think a bloated, expensive government program is the solution to everything.
Yet when you elect Republicans to get some fiscal sanity in place, they trot out the gay marriage issue again and again and again.
We even had a candidate for governor run solely on that basis. He lost, but then made it his life's work to get the court justices who allowed gay marriage ousted. I get so sick of seeing the bigotry on the front page of the paper several times a week. The people here seem nice! So where does all this come from?
I'll just have you know that no one in Iowa under the age of 50 sees gays as sick or immoral. Unfortunately there are still a lot of old, prejudiced people living here. (The young people mass exodus from the state to get away from them - we even lost a representative this year after the census count was taken.) As cold as it gets here, the old bigots never seem to run out of steam on this issue. Maybe it keeps 'em warm in the winter.
Pirate Jo at February 4, 2011 9:02 AM
The tide of public opinion will resolve the issue of its own accord in a handful or two of years.
The juvenile comment about toys notwithstanding, the commentor has a point, it will be a field day for divorce lawyers to have another 1-3% of the population getting married and divorced and fighting destructive custody battles.
Robert at February 4, 2011 9:23 AM
To paraphrase PT Barnum: No-one ever lost votes underestimating the intelligent [or character] of the American public.
DaveG at February 4, 2011 9:37 AM
...intelligence
Grajooaded frum collage did I
DaveG at February 4, 2011 9:38 AM
Very noble, very eloquent...
Eric at February 4, 2011 9:54 AM
"Trouble is, as Quentin Crisp once said:"
Yeah, well Lenona, Quentin Crisp was a professional flamer. He had a financial interest in remaining marginalized. Initially the strongest opposition to SSM was among gays.
Pirate Jo, the whole West Coast is full of the sane and reasonable peolle you describe leaving Iowa. Our gain, your loss.
Jim at February 4, 2011 10:08 AM
>>Yeah, well Lenona, Quentin Crisp was a professional flamer.
Indeed he was, Jim.
Crisp was also a terrific writer and (as Lenona showed) especially good at snappy quotes.
I always liked: "Some queers are really tough - and some toughs are really queer."
Jody Tresidder at February 4, 2011 10:20 AM
this was a beautiful speech.
lemondrop at February 4, 2011 10:48 AM
I just don't understand why people are so oppossed to gay marriage. What the hell are people so afraid of? It can't be the "protect the sanctity of marriage" (Ahem... Liz Taylor) argument flown about so often because if that was the case, divorce itself would be banned, not gay marriage. It's homophobia plain and simple in my opinion. This ban also ultimately goes against the separation of church and state, because the naysayers are also the ones touting "marriage is between a man and a woman." Well that may be what the BIBLE says, but you can't use the bible to make law in today's govt. Them's the rules.
I would think if anything, gay marriage would be benefical to the economy. It would generate revenue wouldn't it? With the marriage tax that some states have, the fees to file for a license, the wedding for the ones that want it, and all the things that come with the wedding, I would think that fiscally, allowing gays to marry would actually be quite smart. Their odds of marital success are no better or worse(pun intended)than the rest of society so there would be money spent on a divorce too if it comes to that. Economically, it's kind of a win win.
I agree that if homosexuals are only going to be allowed partial rights, then they should only have to pay partial taxes. It's not right to tax them at 100% but only allow them 90% of the freedoms and protections those taxes pay for.
Sabrina at February 4, 2011 11:19 AM
I cannot get this video to play on my computer. My speakers work fine (I can hear other videos) but not this one! I turned the volume all the way up on my computer and speakers and NOTHING. I'm miffed; I really want to watch this.
Gretchen at February 4, 2011 11:36 AM
Lets look at the alleged gay divorce boondoggle if we allow gay marriage. Starting with 1 to 3% of the American public is gay, I’ll use 2% as the median. Assuming gay men or women wouldn’t marry any more or less than the heterosexual population which now is at only 49.7% (2 x 49.7% = 0.994%) Lets also assume that the divorce rates for gay marriages would be the same as first time hetero marriages which is 41% (0.994 x 41% = 0.40754). The total of the American population is 310,756,634 times that by 0.40754% and you get 1,266,457 potential gay divorces over the course of there marriages’ . Now take 1,266,457 against the yearly hetero divorce rate of 4.95 per 1000 or 0.495% (1,266,457 x 0.495% = 6,268.9621).
6,269 gay divorces per year (roughly 0.00002% of the population) hardly seems like something lawyers will get all hot and bothered about (an average of 125.38 per state). Now I know I made a lot of assumptions, but you get the point. It also occurs to me that given the scrutiny that the gay population now live in, there is no way that 49.7% would even consider marriage in the first place, so 6,269 per year would probably be much smaller.
I find it hard to believe that we still segregate any percentage of lawful American citizens from any rights that the rest of us take for granted. Shame on those who seek to keep them segregated from the rest of us…..
Ed at February 4, 2011 11:45 AM
My big issue is with the idea of what Americans consider to be their rights.
Marriage is a form of legal contract to form a larger entity (the family) out of two smaller entities (the individuals), it is governed and regulated by law for a variety of reasons, but the best to mention is the governing self interest of our government, and that is the continuing production of new citizens for the tax base, the economy, and the national infrastructure.
Limiting it and its legal benefits to only those who may add to the aforementioned interests is only logical.
There are some circumstances where dick and jane won't make a jim and judy, but there are no circumstances wherein adam and steve or eve and evita will produce any new citizens at all.
Marriage has never been a constitutionally protected absolute right.
Now mind you I'm not saying that I oppose its implimentation as such across the board. I don't give two fucks what two consenting adults do on their own time behind closed doors. As Denis Miller said, as long as your neighbor is getting off somehow with another adult, he's probably not out offing people somewhere.
What I am saying however, as that I would prefer the "pro" arguments at least be factual and accurate rather than just passionate.
Robert at February 4, 2011 12:26 PM
There are some circumstances where dick and jane won't make a jim and judy, but there are no circumstances wherein adam and steve or eve and evita will produce any new citizens at all.
Maybe not with each other. But this fine young man in the suit had to come from somewhere. At the time of his birth, he, too was a "new citizen."
sofar at February 4, 2011 12:38 PM
Turkey baster kid? Is that the message we want to send to normal kids that it's ok to come out of a turkey baster?
Crusader at February 4, 2011 1:19 PM
Interesting point, Robert. Essentially, marriage exists from the government's perspective as a way to subsidize people for breeding. Yet one out of every eight people on the globe experiences fresh water shortages. There are already not enough jobs to go around for the people already here. As backwards as it is, in this context, for taxpayers to subsidize the breeding of more people, maybe ONLY gays and sterilized people should enjoy the legal benefits of marriage.
Pirate Jo at February 4, 2011 1:21 PM
Equal rights means just that...equal.
I'm a conservative. I don't believe the government has any business butting into private lives, as long as those involved are over 18 and consenting to their situation.
My motto has always been:
I don't care what you do, or who you do it with. Just stay the hell away from my money, my property, and my gun, and we'll get along fine.
UW Girl at February 4, 2011 1:58 PM
Marriage is a form of legal contract to form a larger entity (the family) out of two smaller entities (the individuals), it is governed and regulated by law for a variety of reasons, but the best to mention is the governing self interest of our government, and that is the continuing production of new citizens for the tax base, the economy, and the national infrastructure.
I find this argument totally unpersuasive, and I doubt the people who make it really believe it, either. Robert certainly would argue that a man and woman who could only conceive through artificial methods – for example, by using a surrogate because the woman is infertile – should be allowed to marry, but a gay couple who could conceive in the same fashion should not. I suspect he'd even support a totally infertile hetero couple marrying, even though their only path to having a child is adoption. He'd probably even argue that an elderly couple who are well past their fertile years should be allowed to marry, if and only if they are a man and woman. It's not the ability to reproduce that matters in this argument; it's the genders. Don't pretend otherwise.
Christopher at February 4, 2011 2:59 PM
"....is governed and regulated by law for a variety of reasons, but the best to mention is the governing self interest of our government, and that is the continuing production of new citizens for the tax base, "
I keep hearing this and it's ahistorical bullshit. People drop spawn in or out of wedlock; the production of new citizens has bnever been issue. Besides in the US we have human waves stroming the borders anyway and human beings are cheap and abundant. Especially in California. So come up with a new one, because a dead fly cna see the flaws in your argument.
Marriage has always been about settling inheritance, about making the right kids legitimate to inherit and clearing away the claims of all the ohters. That's why unitl recently peasants didn't need to get married, they could just have a big feast in the center of the village and then move in together. The Church didn't even perform weddings for its first thousand years. Saw married life as distinctly inferior to the life of prayer and contemplation.
And now it's about inheritance for the surviving spouse and al the other government-ensured benefits of marriage. Equal equal regardless of the kind of marraige.
"Turkey baster kid? Is that the message we want to send to normal kids that it's ok to come out of a turkey baster?"
The weakest one yet.
Do we want to send the message to normal kids that its ok to come out of a mixed marriage? for instance that it doesn't matter that daddy is a gentleman but mommy's daddy worked in the mines? Because we used to have laws that made all those hook-ups illegal too.
Jim at February 4, 2011 3:38 PM
Look, everyone, we have to deal with something here. The situation as we know it: We know, because we've studied it, that it's very important for children to grow up with a father figure in their lives. (A mother figure too, but lack of mothers isn't much of a problem.) However, the data is also indicating (still needs more study, but this seems to be what is emerging) that children of gay parents are basically as well off as children of intact hetro families. So we have a paradox. Are fathers important, or are they not?
Here's what I think the answer to the paradox is. I need to try to find some data on this, but: in a lot of gay couples, one of the pair will adopt some, maybe most, of the opposite-sex role. (This isn't necessarily indicated by that partner's physical appearance, although there might be some correlation.) Is it possible that a gay parent adopting the opposite-sex role can adequately substitute for the missing opposite-sex parent? If it's true, it would resolve the paradox.
Cousin Dave at February 4, 2011 4:26 PM
Here's what I think the answer to the paradox is. I need to try to find some data on this, but: in a lot of gay couples, one of the pair will adopt some, maybe most, of the opposite-sex role.
That's an interesting idea Dave. I haven't seen any data on it, but it seems to be the case with the gay couples I know that there are differences between the partners that do seem to break on masculine/feminine dimensions. More so with the gay men than with lesbians, it seems.
I had a different, or perhaps complementary, thought about the data showing that children of gay parents seem to do as well as intact hetero families; that the real issue is simply having two parents. When there isn't a father in the home, children just don't get as much attention, because the mother is usually working full-time. More time to get into trouble, avoid homework and be away from a watchful and loving eye. Lots of dads work long hours or travel a lot so that the mom can stay home. I suspect it matters that there is one parent whose primary role is caregiver, at least during the early years.
Christopher at February 4, 2011 5:13 PM
“Is it possible that a gay parent adopting the opposite-sex role can adequately substitute for the missing opposite-sex parent? If it's true, it would resolve the paradox.”
There is no paradox involved at all. There could only be a paradox if all children otherwise would have both parents in the home. Since we have 40% of our children being born out of wedlock, mostly to mothers who can scant afford to take care of them, the question is moot. I would think a child would take a loving, safe, financially secure home with two adults, regardless of gender, over the hardships that most single parent homes suffer through. It also occurs to me that whoever is playing the role of the father is far better than not having one at all.
"Marriage is a form of legal contract to form a larger entity (the family) out of two smaller entities (the individuals), it is governed and regulated by law for a variety of reasons, but the best to mention is the governing self interest of our government, and that is the continuing production of new citizens for the tax base, the economy, and the national infrastructure."
This is absolute drivel. The only argument against gay marriage is one wrought with discrimination and prejudice against a group of people who’s sexual identity offends you. If you are a homophobe just stand up and admit it. I have far more respect for that then all the demagoguery and posturing in an attempt to not admit what we already know. That you simple see homosexuals as deviant and therefore not entitled to all the benefits that we heterosexuals enjoy.
A homophobe is just a racist wearing a different suit…..
Ed at February 4, 2011 5:20 PM
The other possible explanation is economic well-being. Although some here have suggested that studies prove that the single-parent = bad outcome always holds true, even among higher socioeconomic levels, I've always doubted that. The biggest reason children in single parent homes do poorly is because they are more often in poverty, not solely because they are lacking a father.
The gay couples I know are almost all stable financially, and I believe, statistically, as a group, their incomes are higher than average. Especially with male couples, you typically have 2 highly-educated, accomplished breadwinners, who have spent years building a strong financial base before they even consider bringing children into the picture.
lovelysoul at February 4, 2011 5:27 PM
Another explanation to the paradox is that whenever there is forethought and planning that goes into parenting, the outcome tends to be better. Gay couples, unlike heteros, don't typically just mess up and become parents. Those children are wanted and planned for. Therefore, the investment and dedication that exists towards them is stronger, no matter what the gender make-up of the parents are.
That is really true with single parents, as well. If the same dedication exists, the outcome is usually quite good. One parent just has to work harder than two, and when poverty is added into the mix, that makes it even worse.
lovelysoul at February 4, 2011 5:38 PM
It really irks me when people try to pull out the "we paid a lot for our kids so we love them more " meme. I know some great oops parents and some really shitty IV parents. I know IV parents who wish they'd listened to nature and not ever had the kids. Not coincidentally, the kids have issues. I don't know any great single parents though, except one who loves with her parents and therefor has a support system much like a marriage in the home.
I don't care if you're 2 women or 2 men or 1 of each, shelling out tens of thousands for your child doesn't make you love them more, or make you a batter parent.
momof4 at February 4, 2011 6:54 PM
That would be lives, not loves.
momof4 at February 4, 2011 6:55 PM
I wasn't talking about IVF, M4. I was talking about the difference between those who consciously plan to have a child vs those who just mess up and have one. Planning might include adoption, IVF, surrogacy, or just discussing, saving, and making sure the situation is right and appropriate to have a child.
Sure, there are accidental parents, who are also good ones, but it's hard to dispute that, statistically, those who are careless or lax about birth control make up the majority of neglectful parents.
When my parents adopted, for instance, they were put through a series of interviews and home visits to assure that they had the financial and emotional capacity to be good parents and provide for my well-being long-term. I've often wished that were mandatory for all parents, but unfortunately, it's not.
And I don't know where you live that you know no good single parents. You must be very isolated.
lovelysoul at February 4, 2011 7:15 PM
I don't care if you're 2 women or 2 men or 1 of each, shelling out tens of thousands for your child doesn't make you love them more, or make you a batter parent.
You're correct, but I don't think that's the implication. I think that people who intentionally have a child are more likely to be prepared personally and financially for the responsibility of caring for a child than the average couple who have an "oops" baby. But there are certainly no guarantees.
Christopher at February 4, 2011 7:40 PM
Realistically -- marriage is a just a pre-defined contract between the state (and by extension the federal government) and the individuals involved.
I have no problem with consenting adults arranging or joining into a multiple marriage, homosexual marriage, etc.
The other half is that the federal government -- technically -- has no jurisdiction in the individual marriage laws as recognized by the individual states. DOMA at the federal level actually should have been found unconstitutional. And a reading (the IRS helpline) I got many moons ago when I was living my lady, but not married, I could file as head of household even without common-law marriage in the state.
I do approve of the Loving v. Virginia decision as a moral and constitutional choice, but in a way it violates states sovereignty. The founders created the fed as a summation of "These United States". Each state has the right to define what they consider marriage in their individual state. So if you are in Utah and want to allow plural marriage -- but as only between one man and several women -- it should be legal. If NY wants to allow any combination of marriage (multiple men to one woman, vice-versa) it should also be legal. But if New Mexico wants it to be one man plus one woman that is that New Mexico's decision. They have that right. If a multiple marriage isn't legally recognized in NM -- the individuals should not be harassed for it, but at the same time they shouldn't get NY tax benefits in NM.
Now before you berate me for my view -- look at the state laws on health care. Taxachussets with mandatory coverage, versus Ohio requiring breast reconstruction for breast cancer; to Louisiana not requiring insurers to cover pre-existing conditions. Same with drug laws (CA on pot vs other states).
The United States were set up to be their own individual experiments -- if you didn't like it go to another state. SCOTUS overruling the Texas sodomy laws a few years back was again a step over the line. The other issue is that the SCOTUS has over the years overridden the individual state's rights to sovereignty.
Where this ties back to the Loving v. Virginia case -- If Virginia doesn't want to recognize a white/black marriage as legal it should have that right. This is in the same way that New Mexico can say they will recognize the first marriage in a plural marriage, but not the rest. If you don't like it, leave New Mexico.
The problem is that SCOTUS made decision years ago with Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott, and not overturning the Jim Crow laws that led to Loving. If they had ruled different ways back then -- 99% of this would be a dead issue.
Jim P. at February 4, 2011 8:29 PM
I don't know any great single parents though, except one who loves with her parents and therefor has a support system much like a marriage in the home.
My mother did fine raising me. She divorced my Dad when she was three.
As I understand it, homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle, at least for men, due to anal sex. I also regard it as an abnormal form of attraction, not because I'm mean or bigoted, but because it seems to be. So why should I support giving the legal benefits of marriage to such a lifestyle?
I'll admit, some of the stuff I have read on here would make it easier for me to accept gay marriage, but I must nonetheless ask the question.
mpetrie98 at February 4, 2011 8:32 PM
As I understand it, homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle, at least for men, due to anal sex. I also regard it as an abnormal form of attraction, not because I'm mean or bigoted, but because it seems to be. -- mpetrie98
Can I ask where you got these ideas. Not trying to be disagreeable -- but citations always help us explain what the other side is saying.
Jim P. at February 4, 2011 9:02 PM
As I understand it, being a human is a dangerous lifestyle, due to: war, crime, vehicle accidents, smoking, drinking, bacteria, viruses, storms, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, giant fire-breathing radioactive dinosaurs...
Chunks at February 4, 2011 9:32 PM
As I understand it, homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle,
And where does your understanding come from?
at least for men, due to anal sex.
So, are you saying anal sex is bad for the guy getting pegged, or the guy doing the pegging? Also why is anal sex not dangerous for lesbian women with dildos, or heterosexual men ass fucking hetero sexual women, or for kinky hetro guys who liked to be pegged by their female partners?
I also regard it as an abnormal form of attraction, not because I'm mean or bigoted, but because it seems to be
Expalin away homosexual behavior documented in other mamal species, or birds, or reptiles then
lujlp at February 4, 2011 10:13 PM
Abnormal: not typical, usual or regular. Last time I looked Amy had an "abnormal" hair color, so does that mean she should be treated as less deserving of rights, decency and respect than "normal" people?
Chunks at February 4, 2011 11:12 PM
trunk-butt is always a worry with anal. Not all gay men like anal, though.
I wouldn't say I'm isolated, LS. I'd say I know single parents who want to leave their kid with whoever is willing when they want to go out. Or, I did. Now I live in an area far and away filled with married middle class parents. If we lived in a poorer area, my current exposure to single moms would be higher and some would no doubt be good. Statistically, not the majority, though.
There was the alcoholic stripper mom, who earned enough to rent here. She was a massive example of the not-good mom.
momof4 at February 5, 2011 5:56 AM
Repeat after me: Marriage is not a right.
Love doesn't enter into it. Nor does sex. The state inserted itself into marriage as a way of incentivizing reproduction. They should never have done so. Homosexuals want to get in on this to legitimize their lives - to literally force everyone else to accept them as normal. In other words, infringe upon other people's rights of free speech and free association for their own self-aggrandizement.
Dominance. Your dog doesn't hump your leg because he loves you, he's trying to tell you who's in charge. If homosexuality was "normal" then there wouldn't be two sexes. Nature doesn't do anything it doesn't need to do.
brian at February 5, 2011 5:58 AM
I see, so when two female kola's fingerbang each other to orgasm its because they are trying to establish dominance over each other
lujlp at February 5, 2011 6:14 AM
Also explain hemaphodites, people with no biologial urges to reproduce, or androgen insensitivity syndrome
lujlp at February 5, 2011 6:23 AM
"If we lived in a poorer area, my current exposure to single moms would be higher and some would no doubt be good. Statistically, not the majority, though."
That's my point. Single parenthood is linked to poverty, and wherever there's poverty, you're going to see a certain number of alcoholic stripper mothers.
But THAT is what causes the damage, not necessarily the absence of one gender or parent.
In higher socioeconomic levels, there are many stay-at-home single moms, or those who can afford to work only part-time, or place their children in excellent daycare programs, not "leave their kid with whoever is willing".
These kids have the same level of opportunity, education and cultural stimulation as kids with two parents. That's where the outcome gets much trickier to predict because some with two parents feel neglected/unloved, while some with one don't.
You'll see this more when your kids get older. In high school, you'll often see the single-parent child stay off drugs and make great grades, while the two parent child - that you assumed had the perfect family - becomes a mess. Then, you'll understand there's a lot more to it than the number (or gender) of parents involved.
All other things, such as finances, being basically equal, I mean. Of course, odds are the alcoholic stripper's kid probably won't even make it through high school.
lovelysoul at February 5, 2011 7:15 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/02/04/great_kid_raise.html#comment-1837437">comment from lovelysoulSingle parenthood is linked to poverty, and wherever there's poverty, you're going to see a certain number of alcoholic stripper mothers. But THAT is what causes the damage, not necessarily the absence of one gender or parent.
Actually, when studies control for income, single parents' children still come out much worse.
Amy Alkon at February 5, 2011 7:28 AM
In defense of mpetrie, I think even those of us who support gay marriage, and have many gay friends, still have to battle the impulse to view it as odd at times. I appreciate his (or her) honesty and willingness to be open because that's where we all start in gaining acceptance.
But acceptance, at least for me, doesn't mean that I still don't feel awkward, sometimes, when one of my lesbian friends kisses her lover in front of me. It is different, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Kind of like traveling to a different culture. They may do things, and consume things, that you aren't familiar or comfortable with, but that doesn't make it wrong. For instance, you may never entirely get over your discomfort seeing them eat some strange, icky (to your mind) food, and you may think you would never eat that yourself, but this is the beauty of it..you don't have to! All that's required is an understanding and acceptance that your cultural programming is different, not better.
lovelysoul at February 5, 2011 7:34 AM
"Actually, when studies control for income, single parents' children still come out much worse."
It's another debate, but I'd like to know the breakdown used in those studies. Are we talking about unwed mothers, who've been single all along, or divorced parents, or just all singles grouped together?
I tend to suspect it makes a difference how long a child has been in a single parent home, and also the reason the child is in a single parent home.
lovelysoul at February 5, 2011 7:55 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/02/04/great_kid_raise.html#comment-1837450">comment from lovelysoulChildren of widowed parents do better.
Amy Alkon at February 5, 2011 8:11 AM
And probably children of divorced parents who get along do better, as well as those whose single parent has an involved, loving partner. There are just so many gradients. Even that stat alone - children of widowed parents do better - says to me that it isn't the singleness alone that matters because, if it was, that wouldn't be the case. The "why" matters more.
I mean, it could be argued (controversially) that single people are less emotionally stable to begin with. Many have mental issues or substance abuse, which is why they can't maintain a long-term relationship, so a child is going to be at a disadvantage with a parent like that anyway, whether single or not, just that the offshoot of that is a parent who will likely be single. It's a symptom rather than the cause.
lovelysoul at February 5, 2011 9:52 AM
Homosexuals want to get in on this to legitimize their lives - to literally force everyone else to accept them as normal. In other words, infringe upon other people's rights of free speech and free association for their own self-aggrandizement.
You are SO right. Gay people want to infringe upon your right to hang around with whomever you please by getting married! The logic of it is infallible.
Christopher at February 5, 2011 10:39 AM
Homosexuals want to get in on this to legitimize their lives - to literally force everyone else to accept them as normal. In other words, infringe upon other people's rights of free speech and free association for their own self-aggrandizement.
Um, gay people can't force you or anyone to change your thoughts about them, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether they are granted rights available to the rest of us.
I know gay parents -- including Republican gay parents. They want to get their kids into a good preschool, get them to eat their vegetables, and teach them right from wrong. They aren't interested in the slightest in stopping your free speech or free association. Why would they be?
If your church doesn't want to marry gays and lesbians, that's their prerogative. The state doesn't get to keep one group of people from having a right granted to the rest simply because those people are attracted to people the religious don't approve of.
Don't believe in gay marriage? Don't marry a person of the same sex. There. Glad that's settled.
Amy Alkon at February 5, 2011 11:00 AM
@Amy Alkon: "I know gay parents -- including Republican gay parents. They want to get their kids into a good preschool, get them to eat their vegetables, and teach them right from wrong."
____________
My one and only hang up about gay marriage has to do with it's affect on the mother/father structure of the family (which, to be fair, heterosexuals have done a remarkable job of mucking up all by themselves). I don't take this concern lightly, nor do I take it with any malice towards gays.
It's one of those issues where I usually end up arguing with both sides and fully supporting neither. I quoted the statement above because that is an excellent quote. Though I'm concerned with the absence of a father, it is obvious that two gay woman can be excellent mothers. Similarly, though I'm concerned about the absence of a mother, two gay men can be excellent fathers. Anyone who argues they can't be because they happen to be attracted to members of the same sex (an attraction that I do not believe is their choice), is unfairly insulting fellow human beings for no justifiable reason.
Though I admitted both my hang up with the issue, as well as my defense of gays as human beings who can be good parents (just not the balance of a mother and a father), let me say that this certainly isn't an issue that is going to mark the end of civilization. Anyone who thinks gays are the number one threat to the family unit is not only kidding themselves, they must have had blinders on to what has been done to the family unite the past half century with absolutely zero blame to be placed on gays.
This video is a good video, and if there was ever one that could change one's mind, this is it. Concerns aside, these women appear to have done a remarkable job raising children.
I'm sure I've given enough comments to have people on both side annoyed with me. :)
I hope everyone is enjoying their weekend.
Trust at February 5, 2011 11:54 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/02/04/great_kid_raise.html#comment-1837556">comment from TrustThe mother-father/nuclear family structure of the family is relatively new in human history. I'm going to a conference this spring mainly to hear anthropologist Sarah Hrdy, whose focus is mothering/parenting.
While I believe it's important for children to have male and female role models and figures in their lives (as a major and consistent and meaningful part of their lives), it's my guess that having more than one person involved in raising/parenting children (on a consistent basis, as a family unit) may be what makes the difference. When humans evolved, we lived in tribes -- like hunter-gatherer tribes still around. Collective child rearing and child care is a feature of that.
Amy Alkon at February 5, 2011 11:58 AM
There was just a study released that found that kids do better when their fathers "parent less and play more". The study found that there was greater tension between the parents when both were equally involved in childcare, rather than situations where the mother was handling most of the childcare and the father was spending time tossing the ball or other fun activities.
I found that interesting because, too often, fathers seem to take on such a strict disciplinarian role and forget the fun part. With my kids, that was the case. Their dad didn't really know how to enjoy just being with them. He thought his job was to be teaching them a lesson all the time, which was ultimately detrimental to their relationship.
It seems best if one parent is kind of fun and the other is the tougher one (but not too tough). If a child has that balance and structure, gender probably isn't that important.
In general, two good parents are better than one...but one good parent is far superior to two bad ones or one good/one bad.
Yet, kids have managed to survive and thrive under all these scenarios.
lovelysoul at February 5, 2011 12:26 PM
I'll admit a measure of bias on my part, as my twin daughters are adopted. They were very close to being raised in a fatherless home. There are many studies and statistics that show that children brought up by a mom and a dad fare much better. I'm admittedly ignorant as to the statistics in a two-parent home where the parents are gay (i.e., two moms or two dads, but not one of each). I'm guessing they do better than single parent homes, but not as well as a mother/father two parent home. But I can't prove that.
I read an interesting stat a while back that children raised by a single father do better than children raised by single mothers. I don't think it is because men make better parents, I believe it is because a father has to be much more exceptional far above what is required of a mother to win custody. I'm guessing this may be reflected in gay parent stats as well... for a gay couple to get custody, i'm guessing they have to be stellar to a level heterosexuals do not have to be.
I really appreciate your comments and discussion on this issue. I'm not black and white on it. I don't let go of what I believe is the mother/father ideal lightly, but I also do not think one's same-sex attractions somehow invalidate them as parents.
Thanks again,
Trust
Trust at February 5, 2011 12:26 PM
Sorry, no defedning mpetrie until he explains his reasononing like a few people have asked of him
lujlp at February 5, 2011 12:43 PM
My problem with the single parent studies is that they suggest that the singleness itself is the risk factor, but, as Amy notes, children of widows do well, so that can't be it.
In keeping with your argument, Trust, it's more likely that there are risk factors that lead to single-parenthood that would also make someone a poor parent.
By the same theory, there are factors involved in gay parenthood, such as the demand for better planning, like adoption or surrogacy, which would tend to promote better parenting. It's not as easy for gays to become parents, so the least capable and dedicated individuals are less likely to try.
That might help explain the paradox that Dave brought up. Studies repeatedly show that children of gay couples do as well, or better, than those raised in straight homes.
Yet, are they comparing two parent to two parent homes - gay and straight? That might make a big difference. Do you know this, Amy?
If we're comparing kids of statistically better educated and financially better off gay families to the entire population of kids of straight parents, including those from single homes, then these studies may not be proving the stellar results they suggest.
As much as I'd hate that to be the case, it's important to have the real facts when we're looking at this issue.
lovelysoul at February 5, 2011 12:57 PM
I'm rolling my eyes at the folks like mpetrie who are against gays getting married because it's not "normal".
The regulars here know I work in an ER. My older sister is a social worker. Sit down and let me tell you about some of the f*cked up s*hit we've seen go down in "normal" families.
Certainly most people out there are healthy and mentally balanced, but there are a hell of a lot who aren't. It's just hard for you to see most of the freaks because they're so well camoflauged with their 3 bedroom home, mom and dad, and VW in the driveway.
I guess what I'm trying to say is at that the gays I know are open about who they are. They engage in relationships with other consenting adults. THAT is normal. A heterosexual accountant of 42 having sex with a 14 year old? NOT.
UW Girl at February 5, 2011 3:34 PM
Birth defects. You really wanna go there? Wait until in-vitro screening gets better at detecting subtle damages like overexposure to testosterone. You'll see the gay rights movement jump on the anti-abortion platform so fast it'll make your head spin.
Here's the simple fact of the matter. Until about the turn of the 20th century, marriage was a purely religious ritual. The state co-opted it for many reasons, money not being the least of them. The state has a stake in you being married to someone of the opposite sex: the creation of new taxpayers. The bulk of homosexual couples will never raise children, and they are biologically incapable of producing a child without the assistance of at least one other person. The state has no incentive to offer them anything, so why should it?
Anyone who supports homogamy is asking society to take an arrangement with very specific intentions (no matter how much they have been trivialized by the infantilization of Americans) and turn it inside out to satisfy a diminutive portion of the populace.
Tell it to Canada. And tell it to the supporters of enhanced hate-crime laws that would make it illegal to criticize homosexuality.
It's not about equality, it's about yet another group of leftists who refuse to grow up using the government to make everyone else shut up.
brian at February 5, 2011 3:47 PM
What about 42 year old priests having sex with 14 year old boys? Sexual predation doesn't care about sexual attraction. Pervs are pervs either way. Nobody has the corner on that market.
brian at February 5, 2011 3:49 PM
The thing with all of these studies about single parent homes, gay parent homes, and nuclear family homes is that those studies can't possibly capture all the circumstances surrounding each family. Yes, a male influence is very important when raising either a son or daughter.
Who says there isn't a loving grandfather or uncle in the life of the child of a lesbian couple?
Although my ex-wife qualifies as a single mother of my two daughters, and is an excellent one, she is not without a ton of support from me. Also, though I qualified as a single father of our son (until he recently moved out -- God, I miss my boy!), I didn't do it without a similar ton of support from her. Our children have never had any doubt that they are deeply loved by two very involved parents and that, though Mom and Dad are divorced, we are still very much a family.
My point is, you can't cookie cutter these relationships.
On an unrelated point, if you don't naturally come to the glaring truth that gay people deserve the same marriage benefits that the rest of us enjoy, you're a bigot. That's just a fact. Oh, and if you don't realize that you're a bigot? You're a bigot and an idiot. Sorry to have to be the one to tell you.
whistleDick at February 5, 2011 4:21 PM
@whistleDick: "On an unrelated point, if you don't naturally come to the glaring truth that gay people deserve the same marriage benefits that the rest of us enjoy, you're a bigot."
___________
So, if someone doesn't agree with you, something must be wrong with them. And you insult them in the process? I bet you think you are more tolerant and open minded too than them too. Hate to break it to you, but... (your words)
There are good and bad people on both sides of this issue. I won't stoop to making a blanket insult to those on the other side.
Trust at February 5, 2011 5:33 PM
@lovelysoul: As much as I'd hate that to be the case, it's important to have the real facts when we're looking at this issue.
______________
I agree with that. Real facts are often very tough to get. As an adoptive parent, I know how certain classes of parents are screened whereas others are not, filtering out the bad and/or only enabling the cream of the crop to be part of the statistics. Sort of like if you include an entire population in one statistic but filter out criminals in the other, chances are the statistics for the second group will be inflated, not due to the characteristics of the target group but due to the process.
of course, as I've said, despite my hang ups, I do not think this is the "make or break" issue of our civilization, nor do ascribe any blame to gays for the breakdown of the family--heterosexuals have had a monopoly on marriage for some time, and too many of us have done a bang up job breaking it apart without anyone else to scapegoat.
Trust at February 5, 2011 5:39 PM
Can I ask where you got these ideas. Not trying to be disagreeable -- but citations always help us explain what the other side is saying.
Simple biology. Men and women were meant to mate with the opposite sex, as any good biology class would point out, which makes homosexuality all the more fascinating.
mpetrie98 at February 5, 2011 8:08 PM
@lujlp: Anal sex is dangerous, period. It sounds more dangerous for the catcher than the pitcher, however.
Anal sex (from wikipedia):
"As with most forms of sexual interaction, individuals are at risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases,[8][9] and thus safe sex practices are advised.[8] Anal sex is considered a high-risk sexual practice, and unprotected anal sex is the riskiest of all forms of sexual intercourse,[10] due to the vulnerability of the rectum and sphincter tissues."
Would have included hotlink, but Amy's spam filter kicked out the reply, in spite of that link being the only one.
mpetrie98 at February 5, 2011 8:19 PM
Geez, I can't believe how poorly thought some of these ideas are.
Yes, the 2-parent household is relatively new. A feature of the same English Protestant customs bearing English Common Law to us here in the colonies, it accompanies the ideas of property and inheritance. Villages raising children are notoriously without 401-Ks, capital gains taxes and in fact ordinary probate court.
Yes, the state has a vested interest in your household - the basic economic unit - and in any union which produces offspring, because you have a commensurate obligation to serve the state. That's not because they need jackboots, it's just because if you don't do your part, the state falls apart.
Yes, the Feds have a vested interest in you, your identity and the identity of your offspring, directly because of legislation (Federal tax law, Selective Service law) and indirectly because of the Constitution's reciprocity clause. These are not going away.
To this end, "marriage" can be performed by ship captains, notaries, justices of the peace and "ministers" of all sorts, so long as a license is submitted to the state.
Now: the two biggest issues I've seen are "the surviving spouse" and "benefits" arguments. If you maintain that the State has no business involving itself im marriage, you're simply nuts. Where do you think the benefits come from? Who do you think writes tax law? Who do you think writes inheritance law?
-----
You are alive and participating in the American economic scheme. You are subject to all of its laws, whether or not you know what they are.
The root of this problem is not one of "rights", imagined or otherwise.
It is actually whether the State benefits from extending the definition of "marriage".
Does the State benefit from identifying a second responsible adult in the case of illness or death of one adult, not related by blood? Yes.
Does the State benefit from a decline in promiscuous behavior, assumed from not only the desire to marry but in the observation of the penalties for adultery? Probably.
Is the State penalized by identifying same-gender couples as responsible for each other? No.
If you're against promiscuity, abortion, or populating orphanages, you should probably support same-gender marriage.
And you should probably recognize that if you're against them for some reason, heteros aren't a shining example for you to use.
Radwaste at February 5, 2011 8:35 PM
Some people (of course, if you're not one of these, I'm not talking to you) still have a problem with the "gay marriage" issue which is rooted in the idea that being gay is a choice.
Well, don't be like Ben David. Look up the term, "androgen insensitivity syndrome". Your subsequent research should show you that not only is gender NOT binary, your ability to imagine a mechanical act as repugnant has no bearing on the issue. You don't need someone to point at a "gay gene" - you'll have all the info you can handle, and probably more, searching that term.
There is no handicap or physical feature which prohibits an American from the rights guaranteed him, her, or yes, it by the Constitution. Even though there is fundamental confusion about what constitutes a "right", one person simply cannot be discriminated against because of a feature of their identity once it has been shown they were born here or been naturalized.
Radwaste at February 5, 2011 8:45 PM
Acctually brian marrige was a function of politics, used to solidify peace treaties between nationas and feuding famillies long before it ever became a 'sacred' cerimony of any religion, and continued to function as such even after co-opted by religion.
lujlp at February 5, 2011 11:17 PM
Radwaste: That's a solid conservative case for gay marriage. Well-expressed.
Christopher at February 5, 2011 11:32 PM
Mpetrie: lots of heterosexuals enjoy anal sex. I'm guessing that from a numbers perspective, more heterosexuals do it than homosexuals. I don't think you have a useful point to make.
Trust: you sound pretty reasonable about this to me. Its one thing to have some personal misgivings; it's another thing to turn those personal misgivings into eternal judgments about what is right and wrong. I also appreciate the perspective you bring when noting that that allowing gays to marry is neither our society's ruin nor salvation.
Christopher at February 5, 2011 11:40 PM
@Trust -- "So, if someone doesn't agree with you, something must be wrong with them. And you insult them in the process? I bet you think you are more tolerant and open minded too than them too. Hate to break it to you, but... (your words)
There are good and bad people on both sides of this issue. I won't stoop to making a blanket insult to those on the other side"
On many issues that we face, there are good and bad people on both sides. This is not one of those issues. I never claimed to be open minded and tolerant. In fact, I am extremely intolerant of bigots. They deserve our scorn.
Some things are just so. For example, black people are worth more than 3/5 of a human. There are not good and bad people on either side of this issue and there never were. Yes, if someone disagrees with me on such a fundamental truth, there is something wrong with them.
whistleDick at February 6, 2011 2:24 AM
You can argue about Canada's laws. Fortunately (or unfortunately) 99% of the laws that are in effect in Canada, Mexico, Italy, or anywhere else do not effect U.S. laws.
Hate crime laws are an anathema to the U.S. jurisprudence. If you kill someone with malice for any reason you are guilty of murder. There should not be hate crimes murder instead of just plain murder. I do agree that there should be enhanced penalties because you murdered someone based on race, gender, orientation, etc.
The are asking for equal opportunity -- not equal outcomes. There will be those that abuse the system. Just like hetero couples.
Many moons ago an illegal could get a permanent green card just by being married for a year to an American. I knew several men that would get married -- bring the woman across the border. They would show up in court at a year and a day and file a divorce. He would get $1500 up front and $1500 at the divorce and she would walk away with a smile. They may or may not have had sex. That was part of the deal.
Jim P. at February 6, 2011 4:41 AM
@whistleDick: "Some things are just so. For example, black people are worth more than 3/5 of a human. "
___________
Well, first there is a gulf of difference between supporting slavery and having concerns over what gay marriage will do to the family unit and by exention society. It is dishonest to argue otherwise. We've tampered with fatherlessness with disastrous results, and those who hesitate to add motherlessness to the mix are often not the least big bigoted about it.
Also, brush up on your history in regards to the 3/5 compromise. It was in fact those who were anti-slavery who wanted to excluse blacks from population counts, whereas slave states wanted them counted to increase their electoral influence (i.e., count them as people, but only let slave owners vote). Don't get me wrong...slavery was an inexcusable evil, but the compromise was an attempt limit it not promote it.
Trust at February 6, 2011 5:55 AM
"Well, first there is a gulf of difference between supporting slavery and having concerns over what gay marriage will do to the family unit and by exention society."
The point this young man made is that it will have zero impact. These families are already being formed; they already exist, whether or not the government officially acknowledges them. We're talking about a small percentage of the population that choose to build a family with someone of the same gender. That percentage isn't likely to go up. The law isn't going turn anyone gay.
It is quite different from polygamy, for instance, which might indeed result in hetero males wanting to take on more than one wife. That could seriously change the family unit, but no one who isn't already inclined to do this - and, in fact, may already be in a committed same sex relationship - will be interested in taking advantage of this law.
lovelysoul at February 6, 2011 7:05 AM
@lovelysoul: "These families are already being formed; they already exist, whether or not the government officially acknowledges them."
___________________
Funny, considering what government involvement has done to the family unit, gays may want to think twice about inviting the government in. LOL. As a man who has been married six years and who is a father of two adopted children, if I had it to do over again I would have opted for a church wedding and left the government out. But that's a topic for another day.
What I want to see on this issue is an honest discussion without the insults. Many people have legitimate concerns over gay marriage that are not rooted in bigotry. Likewise, those who are gay don't want to undermine the mother/father structure of the family, they want to commit to the person they love and have a family. Neither side is bigoted or immoral.
Trust at February 6, 2011 7:18 AM
@Trust: Wow. You got me. Your argument that good people were on the side of counting black men as 3/5 of a man caught me by surprise. I'll admit that my history may fall a little short here. Your argument seems to ring true. Perhaps I should have come up with a better example.
It may have been a lot like the 'don't ask don't tell' policy that was a compromise and represented the best we could do under the political circumstances.
I don't think it's dishonest to argue that there is an analogy to be made between gay rights and any other civil rights issues with which our country has struggled. That includes slavery, women's rights, voting rights, Jim Crow, handicapped issues, the whole nine yards.
Ask yourself this: in twenty years, will concerns about how gay marriage would negatively affect the American "family unit" seem silly, backward, and bigoted?
I may have shortcomings when it comes to my study of History, but I'm on the right side of it.
whistleDick at February 6, 2011 7:18 AM
"Many people have legitimate concerns over gay marriage that are not rooted in bigotry"
Please name one such concern.
whistleDick at February 6, 2011 7:31 AM
As a mom of a teen, I actually suspect that some kids now lean more towards homosexuality because it is discriminated against. I know that sounds bizarre, and maybe it's just that there have always been gay teens who were afraid to be "out", but, among my daughter's friends, there are so many that I've begun to question it. Like some of her lesbian or "bi" friends, I really suspect may be mostly straight, but for these kids, this is their civil rights movement. It's almost become cool to be in the "oppressed minority." This is their cause.
Changing the law will change all that. It'll make it humdrum to be gay. And I guarantee they will change it - just as they'll legalize pot - and they'll look back on us as backwards and bigoted. They already do.
lovelysoul at February 6, 2011 7:35 AM
@whistleDick: Ask yourself this: in twenty years, will concerns about how gay marriage would negatively affect the American "family unit" seem silly, backward, and bigoted?
____________
That's a very fair question. Perhaps they will.
I think that question goes both ways though. Think about welfare. Those who argued it's negative affects on society (breakdown of the family, higher crime, permanent underclass, higher debt, etc.) were called bigoted, greedy, etc. Yet a generation later, they were proven at least partially correct. As I've said, two lesbians can be great mothers but they can't be fathers, and two gays can be great fathers but they can't be mothers... we would be announcing as society that mothers and fathers are not both necessary, and I simply can't take that concern lightly.
I hope by now you have realized that my concerns aren't rooted in bigotry. I have many gay friends, two of whom participated in my wedding, who will vouch for the fact that i'm not homophobic. I'm also consistent... i tell heterosexual friends that if they don't want a family then inviting the state into their relationship is pointless unless they want to leverage government to destroy their partner (I understand many gays want a family, but that's not part of the point I'm making).
I do think civil rights is a valid comparison, but I just don't think slavery is. There is nothing about one's race that impacts their capacity to be a mother or a father, but their gender does impact this. If it were a movement to keep gays from voting or being owned by others, I would totally be on board. But that isn't the case.
Our discussion has improved, and I appreciate it. This is a delicate issue. As we learned with welfare, simply saying "it sounds good, sounds fair, sounds kind, lets do it" invites the laws of unintended consequences. Society as a whole really needs to have a very detailed and open dialog before changing a pillar of society. For example, when the birth mother chose my wife and I as parents of our adopted twins, she wanted to have a mother and a father for her babies.... in the future, will that be considered bigotry and made illegal in the future? Given the track record of the ACLU, perhaps.
Best,
Trust
Trust at February 6, 2011 7:40 AM
@whistleDick: "Please name one such concern."
________________
Parenthood. By announcing two mothers are equal to a mom and a dad, then we are announcing fathers are not necessary. By announcing two fathers are equal to a mom and a dad, we are announcing mothers are unnecessary.
My twins are adopted, and we were chosen by the birth mother specifically because we could provide a mother and a father. Would that be considered bigotry in the future?
I won't ask you to say any good point to gay marriage, since I know there are some. Less promiscuity, more commitment, naming one to make medical decisions in the event one is unconscious, being able to call the one you love most "your spouse", etc. As I said, this isn't as back and white as either side thinks.
Trust at February 6, 2011 7:44 AM
"For example, when the birth mother chose my wife and I as parents of our adopted twins, she wanted to have a mother and a father for her babies.... in the future, will that be considered bigotry and made illegal in the future?"
I think that would be extreme. But adoption is a good example. Look how much adoption has changed. It was unheard of, when I was adopted in the 60s, for birth mothers to choose anybody...or be known about at all, much less have open adoptions. The whole process was secretive and often considered shameful. I know a woman who didn't find out she was adopted until she was 60 yrs old and going through her mother's papers after she died!
But, now, we've evolved to understand that adoptive children have rights to their biological information, and that it's healthier for everyone involved not to hide facts.
It seems backward the way adoption was handled before, and I believe, ultimately, denying a gay person the choice of a legal partner will seem the same.
lovelysoul at February 6, 2011 7:52 AM
"I hope by now you have realized that my concerns aren't rooted in bigotry"
I do. I still think your concerns are overblown and that heterosexual couples cast aside fathers or mothers all the time with varied effects. However, I whole-heartedly concede that your views are not rooted in bigotry.
whistleDick at February 6, 2011 8:04 AM
@whisteDick
Thank you. Perhaps they are overblown, but I don't take them lightly. The same was said when we changed society through entitlement programs, and those concerns were if anything underblown.
Best to you.
Trust
Trust at February 6, 2011 8:09 AM
One more thought. Someone way up the thread said, "marriage is not a right".
That's true. Nowhere in the Constitution is marriage sanctified as a right. However, having a driver's license is also not a right. Having a driver's license sure does make things easier, though.
So, let's say that based on the invalid stereotype that Asians are bad drivers, we make it illegal for Asians to get a drivers license. After all, it's not a right.
How fucked up would that be? Pretty damn fucked up.
This analogy seems silly and extreme, but I don't think it's very far off.
whistleDick at February 6, 2011 8:25 AM
@Trust: I see what you're saying with the welfare thing, but I'm just not feeling it. By the way, thanks for reminding me that I need to renew my ACLU membership :) I've very much enjoyed our discussion.
whistleDick at February 6, 2011 8:27 AM
I've enjoyed our discussion as well.
To oppose interracial marriage is indeed to engage in bigotry, but to oppose same-sex marriage is often not (I won't deny that too many people hate gays, which is indefensible).
The reason I am not persuaded by comparisons between race and homosexuality is that there is no difference between blacks and whites, but there are significant differences between men and women (and between mothers and fathers). It's like comparing having different bathrooms for men and women with having different bathrooms for blacks and whites.
In short, I simply don't think mothers and fathers are interchangeable.
I think I've stirred up enough trouble for today. :)
Trust at February 6, 2011 9:46 AM
Trust please explain how two responsible adults entering into a leagally binding contract is in any way simmillar to rewarding failure with unlimited cash and no repercussions?
Maybe then your 'argument' might hold some shred of merit
lujlp at February 6, 2011 11:53 AM
@lujlp: "Trust please explain how two responsible adults entering into a leagally binding contract is in any way simmillar to rewarding failure with unlimited cash and no repercussions?"
______________
The point was not with comparing responsible gay adults to cash through welfare, it was about altering a core principle of our society. Welfare was a turn onto the road of socialism away from capitalism, and gay marriage is a turn from the mother/father structure of the family to the guaranteed absence of one of those two core pillars in parenthood.
I don't believe everyone who has found themselves on welfare is a failure, just as I don't believe gays make bad mothers or bad fathers. I'm talking about the societal, cultural shift, and the unintended consequences of such changes.
Just to be clear, I never equated gays with failures (and I'm not the one who used that word to describe welfare).
Trust at February 6, 2011 12:14 PM
"As a man who has been married six years and who is a father of two adopted children, if I had it to do over again I would have opted for a church wedding and left the government out."
You do not have a choice in that matter. You can choose the avenue of commerce with society, but you cannot choose not to interact with it. Perhaps you meant something else.
By announcing two mothers are equal to a mom and a dad, then we are announcing fathers are not necessary. By announcing two fathers are equal to a mom and a dad, we are announcing mothers are unnecessary.
This is your take on things - and it totally denies the wishes of literally millions of American citizens. Although Jefferson expressed the equality of men before the law, this is somehow wrong now?
George Takei, for instance, literally does not have the choice to be straight. Yet you dare to call him inferior in some way!
Here's what's going on: somebody is insisting that parenting requires a certain quality. What that is has many names, but given the dismal performance of millions of individuals in the USA who are heterosexual, it damned sure isn't determined by gender!
Radwaste at February 6, 2011 3:07 PM
"Here's what's going on: somebody is insisting that parenting requires a certain quality."
That's the real issue. But almost nobody gets that ideal. We are arguing that every child be guaranteed some ideal mother/father fantasy, but that has proven unattainable for most heterosexuals. We haven't been able to give our kids that, even with laws supporting us.
If we're lucky (and I consider myself such) we are able to finally show our kids what true love looks like, so that maybe they can emulate that -maybe they'll know it themselves when they see it - and that might be with the same sex or the opposite sex, but I'm convinced that kids who see their parents truly in love are better off than those who don't.
That is why this young man has spoken out, because he's seen true love and true devotion, even in the face of illness. And that is what marriage is all about.
lovelysoul at February 6, 2011 7:35 PM
@lovelsoul: "But almost nobody gets that ideal. We are arguing that every child be guaranteed some ideal mother/father fantasy, but that has proven unattainable for most heterosexuals. "
_______________
Of course we can't guarantee kids grow up with a mother/father. There are many reasons this happens: widowed, divorce (which, ironically, the "laws supporting us" you mention makes more common), mistake, etc. Gay marriage does guarantee the absense of at least one of those, and still presents the same single parent risk of divorce or death that traditional marriage does.
Calling mother/father a fantasy is depressing. A generation ago, it was rare that a child grew up without that structure in our society. It's more common today because we have our priorities and incentives all backwards.
Trust at February 6, 2011 8:18 PM
Yes, Trust, but a lot of those homes were not happy ones. It's kind of fantasy to believe things were so much better in the old days. There was an awful lot of abuse, incest, and emotional distance in those families. They weren't all the Waltons. Particularly when people had no choice but to stick it out with a partner, whether they were kind or loving, or good to the children, life could be quite miserable.
I think that although the structure of families has changed, parenting itself has improved overall. Kids today get much more nurturing than they did 100 years ago (perhaps too much). They are not as abused, physically or emotionally, because society is more aware of abuse and willing to address it.
So, I think kids today have it much better than in the past, whether they have one mom, two moms, two dads, or one of each. The number and combination is not nearly as important as the quality of the home life.
lovelysoul at February 7, 2011 5:57 AM
"Gay marriage does guarantee the absense of at least one of those,..."
False.
What "gay marriage" does is guarantee that a relationship cannot be arbitrarily set aside. Nothing more, nothing less.
To state or imply that, except for the presence of a homosexual partner, a heterosexual parent would be present and functioning wholesomely is fundamentally wrong.
You need to correct your error.
Radwaste at February 7, 2011 3:01 PM
How did we get here?
Part of it is a fever dream, one of fulsome citizenship and normality as far as the eye can see - and farther.
But that's not reality.
Radwaste at February 7, 2011 3:04 PM
Leave a comment