Slog
News & ArtsSunday, April 5, 2009
Hetero Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father
Posted by Dan Savage on Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Today's lead story in the NYT national news section today is about the increasingly successful push for marriage equality across New England. The story, on page 13, is illustrated with a photo of anti-gay-marriage protester at a rally at the statehouse in Vermont holding up a sign that reads "Every Child Deserves a Mom and a Dad." There's an easily-missed, five-paragraph story on the lower-right-hand corner of page 18 of today's NYT headlined "5 Children Found Dead." Five children in Graham, Washington, between the ages of 7 and 16, were murdered by their father while their mother was at work.
Moms and dads are great—I had one of each myself, and I love my opposite-sex parents. But a child deserves more than a set of mix-matched parental genitalia. A child deserves what my siblings and I had growing up: fit, capable, attentive, sane, non-abusive parents.
1
why is fit the first thing on your list? equality for everyone but fat people now?
guess the gays have to hate someone.
guess the gays have to hate someone.
2
"fit" as in "fit to be parents", @1. But, you know, go ahead and think that Dan hates all fat people if that makes you happy.
3
@1: Wow, check a dictionary. In mine, the first four definitions have to do with being appropriate, competent, prepared, etc. So yes, I think a parent should be fit. Definition #5 is "in good physical condition."
4
... even more peculiar to me is the premise on which the haters make their "every child deserves a mother and a father" argument: the notion that marriage is primarily about raising children.
My person argument for wanting a same-sex marriage has nothing to do with children. I don't want any. And no matter how hard my partner and I try, it ain't gonna happen.
And if the haters insist marriage is about children, I'm still waiting for their legislative proposal preventing post-menopausal women from getting married.
My person argument for wanting a same-sex marriage has nothing to do with children. I don't want any. And no matter how hard my partner and I try, it ain't gonna happen.
And if the haters insist marriage is about children, I'm still waiting for their legislative proposal preventing post-menopausal women from getting married.
5
Parents or parent. Lot's of single parents do a great job, though the anti-equality people really don't care about them...
6
"mix-matched parental genitalia"
this just cracked me up! parading out the "it's good/bad for the children" tripe is so old, but they keep doing it! I want to tell those anti-gay-marriage haters that if they really want to help children, work against the effects of poverty, being poor is the worst thing for a child.
this just cracked me up! parading out the "it's good/bad for the children" tripe is so old, but they keep doing it! I want to tell those anti-gay-marriage haters that if they really want to help children, work against the effects of poverty, being poor is the worst thing for a child.
9
I was equally baffled by that sign, Oneway. It even looks professionally printed, instead of marker, and that caused me to wonder if it came from one of these well funded anti-marriage groups. Do they test these slogans in focus groups? Did that one do well? Maybe because it is so irrelevant and beyond logic that it is difficult to argue against seriously, they think it's effective?
12
Having a functional mother and father gives children the best opportunity to learn appropriate gender roles. Which helps continue the species.
13
@12, because having a mother and father makes people want to fuck? They don't need any other encouragement?
7,000,000,000 people later, I think we've got the hang of the idea.
If you're being sardonic, you're really bad at it.
7,000,000,000 people later, I think we've got the hang of the idea.
If you're being sardonic, you're really bad at it.
14
@12:
Yet another specious argument. Humanity isn't going to die off because a few children are raised by same-sex couples, just as the human race hasn't stopped procreating like horny bunnies in a meadow (currently 6.77 billion and increasing by about 6.5 million per month) just because some children are raised by single parents.
And please define exactly what constitutes an "appropriate gender role". Appropriate for whom? The child? The parents? Society in general? Maybe, if society, parents, et al stopped PUSHING their narrow interpretation of "appropriate" gender roles on kids (girls MUST wear dresses, be demure and submissive! Boys MUST wear trousers, be aggressive and dominant!!), and they were just allowed to develop their own sense of their own "gender role", a lot FEWER children would end up being completely fucked up as adults, ever think about that?
Yet another specious argument. Humanity isn't going to die off because a few children are raised by same-sex couples, just as the human race hasn't stopped procreating like horny bunnies in a meadow (currently 6.77 billion and increasing by about 6.5 million per month) just because some children are raised by single parents.
And please define exactly what constitutes an "appropriate gender role". Appropriate for whom? The child? The parents? Society in general? Maybe, if society, parents, et al stopped PUSHING their narrow interpretation of "appropriate" gender roles on kids (girls MUST wear dresses, be demure and submissive! Boys MUST wear trousers, be aggressive and dominant!!), and they were just allowed to develop their own sense of their own "gender role", a lot FEWER children would end up being completely fucked up as adults, ever think about that?
15
@12
I'm pretty sure our species doesn't need any help propagating itself. I think we've got enough horny heterosexuals in the world that we won't have to worry about the continuation of our species. I'm also curious what you mean by "appropriate gender roles." What are appropriate gender roles anyway, and is this something you learn only by having both a mother and a father?
I'm pretty sure our species doesn't need any help propagating itself. I think we've got enough horny heterosexuals in the world that we won't have to worry about the continuation of our species. I'm also curious what you mean by "appropriate gender roles." What are appropriate gender roles anyway, and is this something you learn only by having both a mother and a father?
16
Homosexual and heterosexual couples are differently situated.
The latter is the one better equipped to provide healthy societal behavior to children by way (as Will pointed out) of appropriate and healthy gender roles. The former is not because procreation is essential for the existence of society and in turn it is intrinsically related only to heterosexual couplings. The possibility of procreation is structurally missing in same-sex couples, therefor heterosexual and homosexual couples are differently situated in their aptitude for the rearing of children. As the French government has stated in it's sound argument for maintaining prohibitions against marriage, adoption, and access to medically assisted reproduction for same-sex couples:
"children "now have rights and to systematically give preference to adult aspirations over respect for these rights is not possible any more."
The latter is the one better equipped to provide healthy societal behavior to children by way (as Will pointed out) of appropriate and healthy gender roles. The former is not because procreation is essential for the existence of society and in turn it is intrinsically related only to heterosexual couplings. The possibility of procreation is structurally missing in same-sex couples, therefor heterosexual and homosexual couples are differently situated in their aptitude for the rearing of children. As the French government has stated in it's sound argument for maintaining prohibitions against marriage, adoption, and access to medically assisted reproduction for same-sex couples:
"children "now have rights and to systematically give preference to adult aspirations over respect for these rights is not possible any more."
17
"A child deserves what my siblings and I had growing up: fit, capable, attentive, sane, non-abusive parents."
No, Dan -- they deserve HETEROSEXUAL parents. Anything that happens to them is OK if their parents are straight. Duh.
No, Dan -- they deserve HETEROSEXUAL parents. Anything that happens to them is OK if their parents are straight. Duh.
18
Again, can someone please tell me what these appropriate gender roles are? Gender roles vary dramatically by group, culture, etc.
@4 You make an excellent point. Not all gay people seeking marriage equality even want to have children. It's just another excuse for not granting certain citizens equal rights.
@4 You make an excellent point. Not all gay people seeking marriage equality even want to have children. It's just another excuse for not granting certain citizens equal rights.
19
About the kids killed in Graham: from the Seattle Times & Tacoma News Tribune articles it becomes clear that the father was very domineering, and that neighbors had contacted authorities more than once seeking help.
I suspect that the lack of foster parents willing to accommodate older kids with a load of issues might well have hampered the authorities ability to help.
Can we identify new groups of adults, in stable family situations, willing to help here?
I suspect that the lack of foster parents willing to accommodate older kids with a load of issues might well have hampered the authorities ability to help.
Can we identify new groups of adults, in stable family situations, willing to help here?
20
@12, @16 There's no evidence that heterosexual parents are better at parenting than gay parents. There's no evidence that children of gay parents are any less well adjusted than children of straights. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people are almost all raised by straight people; there's no evidence that their sexual orientations or their gender identities, or even that the gender expression of straight kids, for that matter, is really "learned" from their parents.
This stuff is a lot more complicated than that. It feels like you're drawing silk curtain around a bowl of bigotry to me, as someone recently said...
This stuff is a lot more complicated than that. It feels like you're drawing silk curtain around a bowl of bigotry to me, as someone recently said...
21
@ 10,
Because the dip-shits are still using the "gay people can't be good parents, only heterosexual's can be good parents. Any heterosexual couple, even an abusive or negligent one, is better than the best gay couple" argument. That's what Dan's post was about. Did you read the whole thing?
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ar…)
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-da…
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12306…
Because the dip-shits are still using the "gay people can't be good parents, only heterosexual's can be good parents. Any heterosexual couple, even an abusive or negligent one, is better than the best gay couple" argument. That's what Dan's post was about. Did you read the whole thing?
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ar…)
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-da…
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12306…
22
18 The appropriate gender roles are the ones that lead to your existence.
No amount of sodomy no matter how repeatedly it was done would've led to the miracle of life that produced your existence.
The answers are very simple once you open yourself to the truth.
No amount of sodomy no matter how repeatedly it was done would've led to the miracle of life that produced your existence.
The answers are very simple once you open yourself to the truth.
23
Loveschild - Your answer was very funny and also true. You are absolutely correct in saying that I owe my existence to heterosexual parents. I am capable of understanding that homosexual partners cannot reproduce with eachother. However, I fail to see why people that can't have children together should be prohibited from adopting or marrying.
So what you are saying is that the appropriate gender roles that we must teach are children are that a penis goes into a vagina? That's it? Whew, that's really easy. I was worried that parenting might actually be hard!
So what you are saying is that the appropriate gender roles that we must teach are children are that a penis goes into a vagina? That's it? Whew, that's really easy. I was worried that parenting might actually be hard!
24
And on another note...how about ONE fit, capable, attentive, sane, non-abusive parent?
I grew up with a mother who fit all those criteria. No dad.
This "every child deserves a mother AND a father" thing always pisses me off. It seems to belittle my mother's accomplishment.
I grew up with a mother who fit all those criteria. No dad.
This "every child deserves a mother AND a father" thing always pisses me off. It seems to belittle my mother's accomplishment.
25
23 for that to happen courtship, gender roles and the recognition by society of such sexual union through marriage needs to be observed.
Then for a healthy child upbringing that timeless and universal union needs to keep observing those roles in order for their offspring to learn the same behavior so that they also once they reach adulthood contribute to the continuum of human existence.
You may not like it and I'm all for respecting your choosing of not taking part in the continuity of the human race but this is how the world works.
The union of two people of the same gender has no skin in this matter. Therefor they cannot adequately teach and be examples to children for their proper formation in this essential part of growing up.
Then for a healthy child upbringing that timeless and universal union needs to keep observing those roles in order for their offspring to learn the same behavior so that they also once they reach adulthood contribute to the continuum of human existence.
You may not like it and I'm all for respecting your choosing of not taking part in the continuity of the human race but this is how the world works.
The union of two people of the same gender has no skin in this matter. Therefor they cannot adequately teach and be examples to children for their proper formation in this essential part of growing up.
26
@21: I love how the Miami Herald article discusses differences in opinion between the American Academy of Pediatrics (60,000 members, been around since 1930, reputable, focused on medical issues first and politics only insofar as they are informed by medical information and myths) and the American College of Pediatricians (membership uncertain, but definitely *much* smaller than the the AAP, founded in 2002, specifically in opposition to AAP positions that its members found socially or politically objectionable, and consequently focused solely or almost solely on political issues) as though the two were equally authoritative.
@23: First off, gender roles and sexual practices are not the same thing. Second, not everyone agrees that continuation of human existence is a worthy goal, much less such an essential one as to define "appropriate" behavior - see The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Third, and most importantly, asserting that we need some humans to reproduce to maintain the species, and therefore the only appropriate sexual practices are those that facilitate reproduction, makes about as much sense as asserting that we need some humans to grow food so we don't starve, and therefore the only appropriate careers are those connected to agriculture.
@23: First off, gender roles and sexual practices are not the same thing. Second, not everyone agrees that continuation of human existence is a worthy goal, much less such an essential one as to define "appropriate" behavior - see The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Third, and most importantly, asserting that we need some humans to reproduce to maintain the species, and therefore the only appropriate sexual practices are those that facilitate reproduction, makes about as much sense as asserting that we need some humans to grow food so we don't starve, and therefore the only appropriate careers are those connected to agriculture.
28
@25: Leaving aside homosexuals for the moment, why do heterosexual courtship processes and roles within marriages have to be gendered?
29
@25 What about all the children raised by a single parent because one has died or left? Even our President was raised by a single mom and he turned out all right. And unconditional love. Don't forget unconditional love because it can make all the difference. So many children need loving homes whether it's by a single parent or two parents of the same gender. Open your mind.
31
Loveschild @ 25,
These are for you.
Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052- 1069.
Presents an overview of research on the family lives of lesbians and gay men. It is noted that the family lives of lesbian and gay people have been a source of controversy during the past decade. Despite prejudice and discrimination, lesbians and gay men have often succeeded in creating and sustaining family relationships. Research on same-gender couple relationships, parent-child relationships, and other family relationships are reviewed here. In general, the picture of lesbian and gay relationships emerging from this body of work is one of positive adjustment, even in the face of stressful conditions. Research is also beginning to address questions about individual differences among the family relationships of lesbians and gay men. It is concluded that future work in this area has the potential to affect lesbian and gay lives, influence developmental and family theory, and inform public policies. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63, 1025 -1042.
Reviews research on the personal and social development of children of gay or lesbian parents (CGLP). Beginning with estimates of the numbers of such children, sociocultural, theoretical, and legal reasons for attention to their development are then outlined. In this context, studies on sexual identity, personal development, and social relationships among these children are reviewed. Evidence does not show that the development of CGLP is compromised significantly relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in comparable situations. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
Perrin, E. C., & the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2002). Technical report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109, 341-344.
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
More...
These are for you.
Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052- 1069.
Presents an overview of research on the family lives of lesbians and gay men. It is noted that the family lives of lesbian and gay people have been a source of controversy during the past decade. Despite prejudice and discrimination, lesbians and gay men have often succeeded in creating and sustaining family relationships. Research on same-gender couple relationships, parent-child relationships, and other family relationships are reviewed here. In general, the picture of lesbian and gay relationships emerging from this body of work is one of positive adjustment, even in the face of stressful conditions. Research is also beginning to address questions about individual differences among the family relationships of lesbians and gay men. It is concluded that future work in this area has the potential to affect lesbian and gay lives, influence developmental and family theory, and inform public policies. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63, 1025 -1042.
Reviews research on the personal and social development of children of gay or lesbian parents (CGLP). Beginning with estimates of the numbers of such children, sociocultural, theoretical, and legal reasons for attention to their development are then outlined. In this context, studies on sexual identity, personal development, and social relationships among these children are reviewed. Evidence does not show that the development of CGLP is compromised significantly relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in comparable situations. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
Perrin, E. C., & the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2002). Technical report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109, 341-344.
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
32
Loveschild @ 25,
Here is more.
A review of 21 studies...
Stacey, Judith, and Timothy J. Biblarz. 2001. "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review 66(2): 159-183.
Pdf here: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/soc522a/PDF%2
Here is more.
A review of 21 studies...
Stacey, Judith, and Timothy J. Biblarz. 2001. "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review 66(2): 159-183.
Pdf here: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/soc522a/PDF%2
33
Loveschild @ 25,
I am still interested in your empirical research that shows that people can change their sexual orientation.
I am still interested in your empirical research that shows that people can change their sexual orientation.
34
28 They have to be 'gendered' because females are attracted to masculine traits and males are attracted to feminine traits.
And when these traits are detected by those of opposing sexes they cause the interaction of those of opposite sexes into the types of unions that lead to procreation.
I've never heard of a heterosexual woman being attracted to a feminine looking male or of a heterosexual man being attracted to butch looking women.
And when these traits are detected by those of opposing sexes they cause the interaction of those of opposite sexes into the types of unions that lead to procreation.
I've never heard of a heterosexual woman being attracted to a feminine looking male or of a heterosexual man being attracted to butch looking women.
35
"I've never heard of a heterosexual woman being attracted to a feminine looking male or of a heterosexual man being attracted to butch looking women"
Well Loveschild, sounds like you need to get out, open your eyes and explore the real world a little more instead of this fake world that you think exists. The situation you described happens all the damn time.
Well Loveschild, sounds like you need to get out, open your eyes and explore the real world a little more instead of this fake world that you think exists. The situation you described happens all the damn time.
36
Loveschild - WHERE DO YOU LIVE? You've never heard of a heterosexual woman being attracted to a "feminine" looking male or a man being attracted to a "butch" woman? That is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Thank you for giving me a good hearty laugh!
37
Loveschild, You can say what you think all you want. It doesn't make it true, just because you repeat it over and over. The Bible doesn't particularly give much parenting advice except not to spare the rod or provoke your children to wrath(and that's father's by the way, not mothers). You are simply saying what you believe, with nothing to back it up (even though I have asked repeatedly). Your pastor may have told you that (mine does, repeatedly), your mom may have told you that (mine does, repeatedly), but God did not say it. I'm a straight, fairly conservative Christian who has done lots of research into this. Think for yourself, read the Bible, and then let's chat.
39
33 Hi, Kim, if I give you the links you will rebuff them as being from a bias source.
You know what they are.
It's not a matter of me showing them to you, it's a matter of you accepting what people who have left that lifestyle behind them say. And you're not willing to do that.
You know what they are.
It's not a matter of me showing them to you, it's a matter of you accepting what people who have left that lifestyle behind them say. And you're not willing to do that.
40
@39 Give me a break. I could post your arguments. I've looked them up. Stop being an idiot and present your argument or shut up. "You know what they are." I hate it when people like you make all Christians look this stupid. The reality is there are studies on both sides and both sides studies are biased. The other reality is that Kim and I would look at your posted arguments and you didn't bother to look at any of Kim's.
41
You probably didn't look up your own studies either, just watched an interview on t.v., otherwise you could easily trot them out for us here. God gave us brains to use, and you're lack of intellectual honesty is shameful.
42
"I've never heard of a heterosexual woman being attracted to a feminine looking male or of a heterosexual man being attracted to butch looking women"
How do you explain the current swooning over Robet Pattinson [Edward Cullen in 'Twilight'], then? A more feminine-looking male I have never seen.
How do you explain the current swooning over Robet Pattinson [Edward Cullen in 'Twilight'], then? A more feminine-looking male I have never seen.
43
Loveschild @ 39,
You're wrong about me for many reasons.
1) "You know what they are." No, I don't unless you tell me.
2) I would read them, because I am aware that I don't know everything. I am willing to learn.
"When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom." Proverbs 11:2
Lastly, you leave with the impression that you don't have them either, that you are just repeating the contents of "Silencing the Christians". If this is the case, and I hope that it isn't, than I am disappointed. Just because something claims it is Christian doesn't make it correct, good, just or righteous.
You're wrong about me for many reasons.
1) "You know what they are." No, I don't unless you tell me.
2) I would read them, because I am aware that I don't know everything. I am willing to learn.
"When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom." Proverbs 11:2
Lastly, you leave with the impression that you don't have them either, that you are just repeating the contents of "Silencing the Christians". If this is the case, and I hope that it isn't, than I am disappointed. Just because something claims it is Christian doesn't make it correct, good, just or righteous.
44
Loveschild, If what you say about male/female attraction characteristics were true, hundreds of thousands of effeminate, but nonetheless quite het fanboys wouldn't have spilled literally tons of their seed over posters of Lucy Lawless dressed in leather and wielding a broadsword, and equal numbers of "butch" but nonetheless quite het teenaged girls wouldn't be spending untold millions of dollars to see Robert Pattinson in "Twilight".
You really have no fucking clue, do you?
You really have no fucking clue, do you?
45
29 I'm sorry but I just couldn't let this one pass, our President has always had both a maternal and a paternal figure in his life.
After his father left his mother remarried and her Indonesian husband took him as his son. After she died his maternal grandparents occupied that position and provided him with the appropriate examples he needed to follow into adulthood.
That does not mean single parents can't raise children properly. They have.
But the correct principles and set of values that will enable them to have families of their own once they grow up need to be taught to them.
40 41 Kim has seen other links I have provided and she has rebuked them immediately.
After his father left his mother remarried and her Indonesian husband took him as his son. After she died his maternal grandparents occupied that position and provided him with the appropriate examples he needed to follow into adulthood.
That does not mean single parents can't raise children properly. They have.
But the correct principles and set of values that will enable them to have families of their own once they grow up need to be taught to them.
40 41 Kim has seen other links I have provided and she has rebuked them immediately.
47
Loveschild @ 45,
Do not call me a liar. I do not know what links you are posting about.
So, please post them again.
I forgive you.
Do not call me a liar. I do not know what links you are posting about.
So, please post them again.
I forgive you.
48
Appropriate gender role models are not about getting pregnant. It is about the 18 years that follow.
Having kids is easy. Raising them to be fit, capable, attentive, sane, non-abusive adults and parents is very tricky, and our society is failing at it, as evidenced by the folks Dan parades thru here daily.
Men and women are biologically, physiologically and emotionally different and bring their own particular skills to the parenting process. They compliment each other (ying-yang) and together form a complete set.
No matter how sensitive, a man cannot be a 'mother'. He can be a great parent but not a 'mother'. Likewise, no matter how butch she is a woman cannot be a 'father'.
Are homosexuals going to teach their kids that homosexuality is a dead end 1% aberration in human behavior and they should grow up to be heterosexuals?
And studies comparing homo and hetero parenting are next to useless; the entire pool is contaminated. With the sky high out of wedlock birthrate and divorce rate most hetero 'families' are damaged goods anymore.
Let us imagine an ideal; where people postpone having children until married, educationally and emotionally prepare themselves to be parents before they have children, are committed to marriage (demonstrated by actually staying married), sacrifice their own whims for the good of spouse and children, are emotionally and sexually faithful to their spouse. A very stable family life, would you agree? A tiny proportion of actual families in our society. Statistically kids from families like that would (and do) have fewer problems. It is an ideal but one that society used to and should still promote and encourage and foster. If every family lived up to the ideal the need for spending for social welfare by the government would drop greatly.
(While we're playing 'what if' let's play another scenario of 'what if everyone did what I do...'. What if everyone was a homosexual. Not just any homosexual but your mother's dream: decent, kind , monogamous and in a stable lifelong relationship. Everyone. How would the world fare? For about 40 years. Homosexuals need to face the fact that from the standpoint of the (literally) vital task of maintaining the species they are freeloaders living off the fat of the land. It is not a specious argument, one can not assume there will always be a steady stream of 'breeders' having kids. We took climate for granted for a long time but how did that work out. )
The sad state of the (hetero) family is a big reason the "Every Child..." series grates. No one denies that the family is in terrible shape- depravity abounds. However to folks who believe homosexual behavior to be biologically unsound and emotionally harmful the idea of institutionalizing and legitimizing the ultimate depravity is not terribly persuasive.
And getting back to the 'ideal' society used to strive for, you can't have competing 'ideals'. If the family is in trouble and needs massive help what message does it send to say "We need strong families to bear and raise society's families, but if you choose to go in a totally different direction that is cool too, and here, have a bundle of subsidies to go with that...".
Gay marriage may not be the biggest threat to the traditional family but at a time when the family is in worst shape than ever and resources are disappearing gay marriage is a fatuous indulgence society cannot afford.
More...
Having kids is easy. Raising them to be fit, capable, attentive, sane, non-abusive adults and parents is very tricky, and our society is failing at it, as evidenced by the folks Dan parades thru here daily.
Men and women are biologically, physiologically and emotionally different and bring their own particular skills to the parenting process. They compliment each other (ying-yang) and together form a complete set.
No matter how sensitive, a man cannot be a 'mother'. He can be a great parent but not a 'mother'. Likewise, no matter how butch she is a woman cannot be a 'father'.
Are homosexuals going to teach their kids that homosexuality is a dead end 1% aberration in human behavior and they should grow up to be heterosexuals?
And studies comparing homo and hetero parenting are next to useless; the entire pool is contaminated. With the sky high out of wedlock birthrate and divorce rate most hetero 'families' are damaged goods anymore.
Let us imagine an ideal; where people postpone having children until married, educationally and emotionally prepare themselves to be parents before they have children, are committed to marriage (demonstrated by actually staying married), sacrifice their own whims for the good of spouse and children, are emotionally and sexually faithful to their spouse. A very stable family life, would you agree? A tiny proportion of actual families in our society. Statistically kids from families like that would (and do) have fewer problems. It is an ideal but one that society used to and should still promote and encourage and foster. If every family lived up to the ideal the need for spending for social welfare by the government would drop greatly.
(While we're playing 'what if' let's play another scenario of 'what if everyone did what I do...'. What if everyone was a homosexual. Not just any homosexual but your mother's dream: decent, kind , monogamous and in a stable lifelong relationship. Everyone. How would the world fare? For about 40 years. Homosexuals need to face the fact that from the standpoint of the (literally) vital task of maintaining the species they are freeloaders living off the fat of the land. It is not a specious argument, one can not assume there will always be a steady stream of 'breeders' having kids. We took climate for granted for a long time but how did that work out. )
The sad state of the (hetero) family is a big reason the "Every Child..." series grates. No one denies that the family is in terrible shape- depravity abounds. However to folks who believe homosexual behavior to be biologically unsound and emotionally harmful the idea of institutionalizing and legitimizing the ultimate depravity is not terribly persuasive.
And getting back to the 'ideal' society used to strive for, you can't have competing 'ideals'. If the family is in trouble and needs massive help what message does it send to say "We need strong families to bear and raise society's families, but if you choose to go in a totally different direction that is cool too, and here, have a bundle of subsidies to go with that...".
Gay marriage may not be the biggest threat to the traditional family but at a time when the family is in worst shape than ever and resources are disappearing gay marriage is a fatuous indulgence society cannot afford.
49
Loveschild @ 45,
Sorry if post 47 reads harshly. I think you are confusing me with another poster.
Even if you are talking about links to Christian web sites who openly ask for money to stop the "Gay Agenda", I will still read them.
Sorry if post 47 reads harshly. I think you are confusing me with another poster.
Even if you are talking about links to Christian web sites who openly ask for money to stop the "Gay Agenda", I will still read them.
50
43 Once again you're quoting something that I would urge you to consider applying to yourself before you ask me to do so.
As for the evidence, I have already told you of the tragic incident with my friend that thanks be to God first and foremost has ended well.
I have talked to people who have had to struggle with that and who have victoriously overcome it through their faith, churches and with the aid of helpful groupss that have been ridiculed in sites like this.
They are well know by gay activist that don't want them to provide the services they do to those that seek them and want to better lives.
I do not need to quote any film to tell the truth.
As for the evidence, I have already told you of the tragic incident with my friend that thanks be to God first and foremost has ended well.
I have talked to people who have had to struggle with that and who have victoriously overcome it through their faith, churches and with the aid of helpful groupss that have been ridiculed in sites like this.
They are well know by gay activist that don't want them to provide the services they do to those that seek them and want to better lives.
I do not need to quote any film to tell the truth.
51
Loveschild @ 50,
That scripture was for me. Stop assuming that you are being attacked.
Yes, you shared your personal story. Well guess what? You are not the only person who has had their best friend married to a closeted gay man. I have more than one friend, too. In their cases ex-gay ministries didn't work. Even electroshock treatment didn't work.
Great, you have talked to be people who have overcome it. I have listened to stories and talked to people who could not overcome it. Some became so desperate to change that they attempted suicide. They didn't find God's peace untill they accepted themselves.
So, now we each have our own personal stories. That is all. I don't doubt yours, and I don't care if you doubt mine.
You aren't telling the truth, your only telling the truth of your own story. Don't ever confuse the two. Only God knows the truth. Neither of us can speak for everyone.
That scripture was for me. Stop assuming that you are being attacked.
Yes, you shared your personal story. Well guess what? You are not the only person who has had their best friend married to a closeted gay man. I have more than one friend, too. In their cases ex-gay ministries didn't work. Even electroshock treatment didn't work.
Great, you have talked to be people who have overcome it. I have listened to stories and talked to people who could not overcome it. Some became so desperate to change that they attempted suicide. They didn't find God's peace untill they accepted themselves.
So, now we each have our own personal stories. That is all. I don't doubt yours, and I don't care if you doubt mine.
You aren't telling the truth, your only telling the truth of your own story. Don't ever confuse the two. Only God knows the truth. Neither of us can speak for everyone.
52
there are are a few main arguments made against same sex marriage and each are logically wrong.
1. marriage is about creating children (your own children) and raising them and so only those that can have kids (ie man and a woman) should be allowed to marry.
yet, older non-procreative age heteros are able to get married as are couples who never intend to have kids. and so are sterile individuals or couples who are sexually incompatible.
2. children have to be raised by a mother and a father
yet plenty of children are raised perfectly well in the united statates by single parents, both mothers and fathers. or grandparents. or neighbours. no child is ever raised in isolated. if loveschild is soooo concerned about gender roles being learned, society will teach them its values before long. you dont raise a kid inside a locked box! another, entirely different discussion can be had here about gender roles and their basis, but even conceeding the point about individuals needing the correct gender roles can be demonstrated as logically false.
3. marriage is a religious based institution and letting homos marry infringes on my religious rights.
actually, if you look back in history, the state married people WAY before relgion ever got its hands on it. the purpose of marriage can really be seen as a way to structure society, sure, but it also has a lot of legal rights and civil rights around it. the right to transfer property or make decisions about other persons life. people get married in city hall all the time. people who are not christian can get married. i'm an atheist. im not about to run into a church and demand you marry me - thats absurd. no one is getting forced to marry anyone here.
4. you are changing the definiton of marriage.
the definition of marriage is not static. it started off as a way to gain property - a man literally 'gave his daughter away' to another man. people got married for economic reasons. then it became all about 'love'. then inter-racial marriage was no longer illegal. and divorce is legal. you can't say that marriage is about a man and a woman married together forever because that is just not the actual definition. plenty of heteros worked to change the very definition of marriage WAY before homosexuality was even begun to be accepted. marriages for convience, gold-digging marriages, quicke las vegas weddings that get annulled 55 hours later.
5. if gays get married, they will make their children gay.
again, thanks to a greater understanding about biology, its obvious that most gay-identified people have no chosen this as a 'lifestyle'. straight people dont wake up one more and say 'a ha i am straight!'. all those church groups claiming that they can turn people straight just force people to suppress who they are through guilt and coercion. it could be argued that gay parents would be more understanding if their child was gay but would also be more understanding that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to 'make' their child one of the other. remember, children identifying as gay come out of straight people. if people think its the parents fault that a child turns out gay - then how can many parents have multiple children, but only 1 is gay ?
lastly, the arguement in favour of 'civil unions' instead of marriage is insulting. its the same kind of argument that was used during segregation. 'but you do have a water fountain - its over there'. having different rights is not the same as having the SAME rights, which is what everyone in the United States deserves. the entire purpose of the Constitution and Court System is to make sure that the rights of minorities are not taken away by the tyrannical majority.
More...
1. marriage is about creating children (your own children) and raising them and so only those that can have kids (ie man and a woman) should be allowed to marry.
yet, older non-procreative age heteros are able to get married as are couples who never intend to have kids. and so are sterile individuals or couples who are sexually incompatible.
2. children have to be raised by a mother and a father
yet plenty of children are raised perfectly well in the united statates by single parents, both mothers and fathers. or grandparents. or neighbours. no child is ever raised in isolated. if loveschild is soooo concerned about gender roles being learned, society will teach them its values before long. you dont raise a kid inside a locked box! another, entirely different discussion can be had here about gender roles and their basis, but even conceeding the point about individuals needing the correct gender roles can be demonstrated as logically false.
3. marriage is a religious based institution and letting homos marry infringes on my religious rights.
actually, if you look back in history, the state married people WAY before relgion ever got its hands on it. the purpose of marriage can really be seen as a way to structure society, sure, but it also has a lot of legal rights and civil rights around it. the right to transfer property or make decisions about other persons life. people get married in city hall all the time. people who are not christian can get married. i'm an atheist. im not about to run into a church and demand you marry me - thats absurd. no one is getting forced to marry anyone here.
4. you are changing the definiton of marriage.
the definition of marriage is not static. it started off as a way to gain property - a man literally 'gave his daughter away' to another man. people got married for economic reasons. then it became all about 'love'. then inter-racial marriage was no longer illegal. and divorce is legal. you can't say that marriage is about a man and a woman married together forever because that is just not the actual definition. plenty of heteros worked to change the very definition of marriage WAY before homosexuality was even begun to be accepted. marriages for convience, gold-digging marriages, quicke las vegas weddings that get annulled 55 hours later.
5. if gays get married, they will make their children gay.
again, thanks to a greater understanding about biology, its obvious that most gay-identified people have no chosen this as a 'lifestyle'. straight people dont wake up one more and say 'a ha i am straight!'. all those church groups claiming that they can turn people straight just force people to suppress who they are through guilt and coercion. it could be argued that gay parents would be more understanding if their child was gay but would also be more understanding that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to 'make' their child one of the other. remember, children identifying as gay come out of straight people. if people think its the parents fault that a child turns out gay - then how can many parents have multiple children, but only 1 is gay ?
lastly, the arguement in favour of 'civil unions' instead of marriage is insulting. its the same kind of argument that was used during segregation. 'but you do have a water fountain - its over there'. having different rights is not the same as having the SAME rights, which is what everyone in the United States deserves. the entire purpose of the Constitution and Court System is to make sure that the rights of minorities are not taken away by the tyrannical majority.
53
Kim in Portland is correct - only I know the truth. And the truth is that I really don't give a shit what you all do. I've got just a few more important things on my plate, thank you very much.
54
@30: What are you replying to? AFAICT, I have replied to anything you've posted prior to now.
@44: Twifans are butch? Seriously? Most of them strike me as irritatingly "feminine," in the worst sense of the word. I'm not sure that I'd call the average Xena fan "effeminate" either. The gendered characteristics of two people in a relationship, or of an individual and whomever he/she is attracted to, do not have to sum to zero.
@34: I'm a heterosexual male who's attracted to butch women, assuming that by that you mean women who behave in a relatively masculine fashion, don't shave their legs, have good muscles, etc. So . . . you're wrong.
@48: No matter how sensitive, a man cannot be a 'mother'. He can be a great parent but not a 'mother'. Likewise, no matter how butch she is a woman cannot be a 'father'.
And I'm sure you have the research to support these claims and aren't just pulling broad, sweeping generalizations about human behavior out of your ass. Right?
Are homosexuals going to teach their kids that homosexuality is a dead end 1% aberration in human behavior and they should grow up to be heterosexuals?
It's only a dead end in a reductive biological sense. Some of us, straight and gay, feel that we have things to give to the next generation apart from our gametes. But to answer your question: Of course gay parents, unless they're self-loathing, aren't going to tell their kids that they should grow up to be straight. They're also not (with the exception of the occasional head case who pops up in any group) going to tell their kids that they should grow up to be gay. And so the kids . . . will end up dating, and eventually marrying, the people they're attracted to, which for the vast majority of them will be members of the opposite sex.
With the sky high out of wedlock birthrate and divorce rate most hetero 'families' are damaged goods anymore.
But most families with same-sex parents are imperfect as well. So we're comparing real-world (not ideal) heterosexual couples to real-world (not ideal) homosexual couples, which seems like a fair comparison to me.
It is not a specious argument, one can not assume there will always be a steady stream of 'breeders' having kids. We took climate for granted for a long time but how did that work out.
At the present time, humans are breeding too much. The climatic analogy to your position is if I were to say that we need to encourage everyone to keep pumping out CO2, to guard against the dangers of global cooling. Once the human population starts declining (it'll have a long way to go before we're in any danger of reduced quality of life, much less extinction - and some population reduction would be good, both for human quality of life and for the planet), then we can consider whether we need to encourage more reproduction - although with modern artificial insemination technology, even that wouldn't require encouraging more heterosexuality.
And I agree, we shouldn't have competing ideals, and I don't - I merely have a slightly broader notion of what's ideal than you do. My position is not "We need strong families to bear and raise society's families, but if you choose to go in a totally different direction that is cool too," as you snidely put it, but "We need strong families, regardless of whether those families are headed by same-sex or by opposite-sex couples."
More...
@44: Twifans are butch? Seriously? Most of them strike me as irritatingly "feminine," in the worst sense of the word. I'm not sure that I'd call the average Xena fan "effeminate" either. The gendered characteristics of two people in a relationship, or of an individual and whomever he/she is attracted to, do not have to sum to zero.
@34: I'm a heterosexual male who's attracted to butch women, assuming that by that you mean women who behave in a relatively masculine fashion, don't shave their legs, have good muscles, etc. So . . . you're wrong.
@48: No matter how sensitive, a man cannot be a 'mother'. He can be a great parent but not a 'mother'. Likewise, no matter how butch she is a woman cannot be a 'father'.
And I'm sure you have the research to support these claims and aren't just pulling broad, sweeping generalizations about human behavior out of your ass. Right?
Are homosexuals going to teach their kids that homosexuality is a dead end 1% aberration in human behavior and they should grow up to be heterosexuals?
It's only a dead end in a reductive biological sense. Some of us, straight and gay, feel that we have things to give to the next generation apart from our gametes. But to answer your question: Of course gay parents, unless they're self-loathing, aren't going to tell their kids that they should grow up to be straight. They're also not (with the exception of the occasional head case who pops up in any group) going to tell their kids that they should grow up to be gay. And so the kids . . . will end up dating, and eventually marrying, the people they're attracted to, which for the vast majority of them will be members of the opposite sex.
With the sky high out of wedlock birthrate and divorce rate most hetero 'families' are damaged goods anymore.
But most families with same-sex parents are imperfect as well. So we're comparing real-world (not ideal) heterosexual couples to real-world (not ideal) homosexual couples, which seems like a fair comparison to me.
It is not a specious argument, one can not assume there will always be a steady stream of 'breeders' having kids. We took climate for granted for a long time but how did that work out.
At the present time, humans are breeding too much. The climatic analogy to your position is if I were to say that we need to encourage everyone to keep pumping out CO2, to guard against the dangers of global cooling. Once the human population starts declining (it'll have a long way to go before we're in any danger of reduced quality of life, much less extinction - and some population reduction would be good, both for human quality of life and for the planet), then we can consider whether we need to encourage more reproduction - although with modern artificial insemination technology, even that wouldn't require encouraging more heterosexuality.
And I agree, we shouldn't have competing ideals, and I don't - I merely have a slightly broader notion of what's ideal than you do. My position is not "We need strong families to bear and raise society's families, but if you choose to go in a totally different direction that is cool too," as you snidely put it, but "We need strong families, regardless of whether those families are headed by same-sex or by opposite-sex couples."
55
Loveschild, if your arguments are "empirical" then you'll find them presented on neutral (that is, non-ax grinding) sites. Do a google search.
56
@48:
Your entire line of reasoning is invalidated by the fact that, if het child-rearing is so fucked up - it's 100% the fault of the hets doing the rearing. If we were to follow your "logic" to it's conclusion, one would have to consider outlawing heterosexual child-rearing completely, by virtue of the large numbers of het parents who fail to attain the ideal you describe.
Your post isn't an indictment of Gay parenting, which seems to have been your intention, but it sure calls into question the efficacy of straight parenting...
@54:
That was my being facetious; although you must admit, 30 year-old, overweight, pasty-faced Xena fanboys certainly wouldn't fall toward the "manly he-man" end of the male gender spectrum.
And I didn't mean to imply that ALL "Twilight" fangirls were "butch", but I can imagine there are some who would fit that description in the demo nonetheless.
Your entire line of reasoning is invalidated by the fact that, if het child-rearing is so fucked up - it's 100% the fault of the hets doing the rearing. If we were to follow your "logic" to it's conclusion, one would have to consider outlawing heterosexual child-rearing completely, by virtue of the large numbers of het parents who fail to attain the ideal you describe.
Your post isn't an indictment of Gay parenting, which seems to have been your intention, but it sure calls into question the efficacy of straight parenting...
@54:
That was my being facetious; although you must admit, 30 year-old, overweight, pasty-faced Xena fanboys certainly wouldn't fall toward the "manly he-man" end of the male gender spectrum.
And I didn't mean to imply that ALL "Twilight" fangirls were "butch", but I can imagine there are some who would fit that description in the demo nonetheless.
57
@56: True, but they don't really fall on the feminine side either - they're not really on the spectrum, so much as fallen off of it and too out of breath to get up.
58
Well, thank Warren Ellis they're all at NWCC this weekend, and for once are probably too far enough away from their computers to flame us! :)
60
Once he could no longer control his wife (who was leaving him for a new boyfriend), the 300+ lb. father decided to exert control over his kids:
Candy Johnson, an aunt of Angela Harrison who also lives in the Deer Run Mobile Home Park, described James Harrison as a strict, controlling husband and father who didnt allow his wife to make any decisions without first asking him.
My niece has been so controlled from the time she was young, Johnson said, adding that James Harrison had impregnated Angela when she was 13.
Candy Johnson, an aunt of Angela Harrison who also lives in the Deer Run Mobile Home Park, described James Harrison as a strict, controlling husband and father who didnt allow his wife to make any decisions without first asking him.
My niece has been so controlled from the time she was young, Johnson said, adding that James Harrison had impregnated Angela when she was 13.
61
@60
Everyone who ends up on the "Watch" falls far short of the 'ideals' described in @48. A society that wanted to protect children would devote effort and energy to fixing the 'traditional' family rather than dumbing down the definition to include any collection of humans cohabitating in the same place.
Everyone who ends up on the "Watch" falls far short of the 'ideals' described in @48. A society that wanted to protect children would devote effort and energy to fixing the 'traditional' family rather than dumbing down the definition to include any collection of humans cohabitating in the same place.
62
I am still amazed by how many people argue that homosexuals will lead to the end of the human race because they "can't have kids." Um, no. They are still *biologically capable* of having children. As long as they are fertile, they can have children -- if not necessarily with the sex they're programmed for. In-vitro, anyone? Artificial insemination?
Even every laboratory in the world collapsed and burned to the ground, I'm quite sure a majority of the gay population could bring themselves to fuck the opposite sex if it meant the survival of the entire freakin' human race.
Or barring that, how about a fucking turkey baster, yeah? We do it with horses, don't we?
Even every laboratory in the world collapsed and burned to the ground, I'm quite sure a majority of the gay population could bring themselves to fuck the opposite sex if it meant the survival of the entire freakin' human race.
Or barring that, how about a fucking turkey baster, yeah? We do it with horses, don't we?
63
Gee, I wonder where James Harrison got the idea that he needed to be such a controlling husband/father. Good thing he wasn't raised by some set of queer dads who would have failed to teach him such healthy, necessary masculine gender roles, right guys? Wouldn't it be a shame if we allowed gays to get married? Who would teach our male children the gender roles that they need to learn in order to grow into manly men like James Harrison?
Now I'm not saying that there are absolutely no differences between men and women. But I do think that society misuses these differences in a few different ways:
1) We give them way too much importance, going so far as to persecute anyone (gays, transgenders, etc) who "violates" them.
2) We attribute way too many of these differences to biology, and are usually inaccurate in doing so. Yes, men are naturally stronger, women are naturally more equipped to give birth and nourish an infant. That doesn't, however, mean that it's therefore only natural for men to run around fighting each other, neglecting their kids, and beating up their wives. Nor is it only natural for men to be the sole breadwinners of any family, and for women to stay at home and cook and clean and play with dolls. If gender roles really were as innate as people like Will keep running around saying they are, then where did all these gays and transgender people come from in the first place? Why do we have women's basketball or male chefs? Househusbands? Nobody would ever argue about equal wages for equal work, because there would be no women in the workplace. The entire debate about whether or not gender roles are entirely innate is evidence that they are not. If they were, there would be no need for debate because the roles would never be violated. We would live in a big, gendered utopia where everyone's role is what it should be.
3) We take these other misuses and carry them over to the gay marriage debate, as if it's at all relevant. Like someone else said, people don't raise their children in locked boxes. Well, maybe social conservatives do, but nobody else. People raised by two dads don't go through life having no idea what a "woman" is. Again, ironically enough, it is actually much more common for a child raised by social conservatives to have no idea what a "woman" is. People are able to socialize, date, marry, not marry, etc etc etc just fine without learning about John Wayne from their father or Betty Crocker from their mother. And god forbid, apparently, that anyone should learn both. Apparently it will cause their tits or dick to rot off, whatever the case may be.
The only reason that gender roles and "The Children" ever come up in the gay marriage debate is because it's a conveniently vague, nebulous concept that conservatives can always allude to whenever they don't have any real argument.
More...
Now I'm not saying that there are absolutely no differences between men and women. But I do think that society misuses these differences in a few different ways:
1) We give them way too much importance, going so far as to persecute anyone (gays, transgenders, etc) who "violates" them.
2) We attribute way too many of these differences to biology, and are usually inaccurate in doing so. Yes, men are naturally stronger, women are naturally more equipped to give birth and nourish an infant. That doesn't, however, mean that it's therefore only natural for men to run around fighting each other, neglecting their kids, and beating up their wives. Nor is it only natural for men to be the sole breadwinners of any family, and for women to stay at home and cook and clean and play with dolls. If gender roles really were as innate as people like Will keep running around saying they are, then where did all these gays and transgender people come from in the first place? Why do we have women's basketball or male chefs? Househusbands? Nobody would ever argue about equal wages for equal work, because there would be no women in the workplace. The entire debate about whether or not gender roles are entirely innate is evidence that they are not. If they were, there would be no need for debate because the roles would never be violated. We would live in a big, gendered utopia where everyone's role is what it should be.
3) We take these other misuses and carry them over to the gay marriage debate, as if it's at all relevant. Like someone else said, people don't raise their children in locked boxes. Well, maybe social conservatives do, but nobody else. People raised by two dads don't go through life having no idea what a "woman" is. Again, ironically enough, it is actually much more common for a child raised by social conservatives to have no idea what a "woman" is. People are able to socialize, date, marry, not marry, etc etc etc just fine without learning about John Wayne from their father or Betty Crocker from their mother. And god forbid, apparently, that anyone should learn both. Apparently it will cause their tits or dick to rot off, whatever the case may be.
The only reason that gender roles and "The Children" ever come up in the gay marriage debate is because it's a conveniently vague, nebulous concept that conservatives can always allude to whenever they don't have any real argument.
64
Will @48:
"No one denies that the family is in terrible shape- depravity abounds. However to folks who believe homosexual behavior to be biologically unsound and emotionally harmful the idea of institutionalizing and legitimizing the ultimate depravity is not terribly persuasive."
So let me get this straight. You think that our collective ability to form functional families is "in terrible shape." But at the same time you would also deny people who are willing to give it a go, just because they happen to be gay. I guess "the state of the family" isn't all that bad, because you haven't become desperate yet.
By the way, stopping gays from marrying won't stop them from forming families, it'll just make their families harder to manage. Put another way, banning gay marriage won't stop what you seem to think as a problem (gays marrying), it'll just contribute to what you seem to view as a much greater problem (families performing poorly).
Or are you also proposing that gays should be banned from coupling and/or adopting?
"It is not a specious argument, one can not assume there will always be a steady stream of 'breeders' having kids."
Ha ha, what? Everybody alive is the spawn of an unbroken succession of people who have successfully bred. We are each only one degree of separation away from a breeder, and you're predicting massive worldwide shortages? I did a quick Google search of headlines and couldn't find any from the past month about any kind of infertility epidemic or widespread infant shortage, but a very casual glance at the last week's worth of headlines turned up many references to stories involving large families. Hell, Nadya Suleman alone is existence proof that even if we have a shortage of breeders, we're probably going to get through the crisis just fine.
"And getting back to the 'ideal' society used to strive for, you can't have competing 'ideals'. If the family is in trouble and needs massive help what message does it send to say "We need strong families to bear and raise society's families, but if you choose to go in a totally different direction that is cool too, and here, have a bundle of subsidies to go with that..."."
Uh, huh. That's how things were in feudal societies, too. Most people had one possible career: subsistence farming. They couldn't be allowed to go screwing around creating art or fine goods, because everybody had to eat, dammit. And crank out plenty of kids, because most of 'em will die and the ones that don't will be needed to help bring in the harvest. Man, I'm glad we live in a modern, capitalized economy.
Maybe your "everybody must form model families and procreate" ideal is a little misplaced because you seem to have an irrational fear of sudden massive depopulation. How about this as an ideal: "We need strong, healthy individuals to contribute to our collective well-being. Some of you may choose to form families, and we need you to do it well and with an eye toward the future and the health of any offspring. Some of you may choose to go it alone, or couple and not reproduce, (and good for you, we've already got plenty of kids around - consider adopting if you're the nurturing type) and we'd like you to contribute your productivity in a conscientious way to our stewardship of our collective home."
Hey, look at that! A call to moral action without needing to force anybody into a role that they're unsuited for.
More...
"No one denies that the family is in terrible shape- depravity abounds. However to folks who believe homosexual behavior to be biologically unsound and emotionally harmful the idea of institutionalizing and legitimizing the ultimate depravity is not terribly persuasive."
So let me get this straight. You think that our collective ability to form functional families is "in terrible shape." But at the same time you would also deny people who are willing to give it a go, just because they happen to be gay. I guess "the state of the family" isn't all that bad, because you haven't become desperate yet.
By the way, stopping gays from marrying won't stop them from forming families, it'll just make their families harder to manage. Put another way, banning gay marriage won't stop what you seem to think as a problem (gays marrying), it'll just contribute to what you seem to view as a much greater problem (families performing poorly).
Or are you also proposing that gays should be banned from coupling and/or adopting?
"It is not a specious argument, one can not assume there will always be a steady stream of 'breeders' having kids."
Ha ha, what? Everybody alive is the spawn of an unbroken succession of people who have successfully bred. We are each only one degree of separation away from a breeder, and you're predicting massive worldwide shortages? I did a quick Google search of headlines and couldn't find any from the past month about any kind of infertility epidemic or widespread infant shortage, but a very casual glance at the last week's worth of headlines turned up many references to stories involving large families. Hell, Nadya Suleman alone is existence proof that even if we have a shortage of breeders, we're probably going to get through the crisis just fine.
"And getting back to the 'ideal' society used to strive for, you can't have competing 'ideals'. If the family is in trouble and needs massive help what message does it send to say "We need strong families to bear and raise society's families, but if you choose to go in a totally different direction that is cool too, and here, have a bundle of subsidies to go with that..."."
Uh, huh. That's how things were in feudal societies, too. Most people had one possible career: subsistence farming. They couldn't be allowed to go screwing around creating art or fine goods, because everybody had to eat, dammit. And crank out plenty of kids, because most of 'em will die and the ones that don't will be needed to help bring in the harvest. Man, I'm glad we live in a modern, capitalized economy.
Maybe your "everybody must form model families and procreate" ideal is a little misplaced because you seem to have an irrational fear of sudden massive depopulation. How about this as an ideal: "We need strong, healthy individuals to contribute to our collective well-being. Some of you may choose to form families, and we need you to do it well and with an eye toward the future and the health of any offspring. Some of you may choose to go it alone, or couple and not reproduce, (and good for you, we've already got plenty of kids around - consider adopting if you're the nurturing type) and we'd like you to contribute your productivity in a conscientious way to our stewardship of our collective home."
Hey, look at that! A call to moral action without needing to force anybody into a role that they're unsuited for.
65
LOL@ "the end of the human race" Why do people bring this argument up? I mean if the whole planet turned gay, I'm pretty sure that as long as cups and And are bisexuals on planet Fag too or are they gone as well? and ,um hello? While you are talking about the 'unrealistic possibility' of the world becoming underpopulated because 'the ghey is spreading, our world is actually OVERpopulated with little resources to go around for everyone and yet we keep. making. more. people! So whose more of a threat to the continuation of the human race again? 'Cause with impending wars, fod shortages, and disease that loom around the corner for us, I doubt its the people who choose not to spawn.
Being straight or gay really doesn't matter. Just because your idenity is so wrapped up in the notion of 'MOTHER' and 'FATHER' doesn't mean that everyone else is or agrees with your exact definition of those terms. Cool, you think having opposite sex parents are awesome (And of course, this goes to show you how slow some of the anti-ghey people are because you can still have gay parenting and gay marriage and have opposite sex parents... they just aren't with each other silly, lol. Like most people's parents, OMG, I Know rite?). But life isn't simple like that, most people want their own biological kids when we have kids begging for homes. So, yeah keep your 'ideals' all you want. But can we gays have ideals for our families too? Is that allowed or should we just accept our 'lesser than' status and lead the effed up lives religious folks believe we do anyways? Sorry, didn't get the memo...
Being straight or gay really doesn't matter. Just because your idenity is so wrapped up in the notion of 'MOTHER' and 'FATHER' doesn't mean that everyone else is or agrees with your exact definition of those terms. Cool, you think having opposite sex parents are awesome (And of course, this goes to show you how slow some of the anti-ghey people are because you can still have gay parenting and gay marriage and have opposite sex parents... they just aren't with each other silly, lol. Like most people's parents, OMG, I Know rite?). But life isn't simple like that, most people want their own biological kids when we have kids begging for homes. So, yeah keep your 'ideals' all you want. But can we gays have ideals for our families too? Is that allowed or should we just accept our 'lesser than' status and lead the effed up lives religious folks believe we do anyways? Sorry, didn't get the memo...
66
@65:
I think it gets brought up a lot, because most of the so-called "breeders" aren't in fact doing any actual breeding.
They'd LIKE to be, but they're not. Does it SOUND like the Right Wing Wackos trolling here lately have something better to do with their time, like maybe getting laid?
I think it gets brought up a lot, because most of the so-called "breeders" aren't in fact doing any actual breeding.
They'd LIKE to be, but they're not. Does it SOUND like the Right Wing Wackos trolling here lately have something better to do with their time, like maybe getting laid?
67
LOL @ 25 (Loveschild).
Courtship! Gender roles! Yes, making men resentful that they have to buy their way into a woman's heart, and making women resentful that they have to pretend they're stupid and helpless in order to win male attention, has made all of us so happy. The sooner we dump gender roles, the better. Lots of us manage to find someone of the opposite sex to love and have procreative sex without them.
And that's just the damage to cis-gender straight folks -- gender roles have done a lot worse to people who didn't fit into Loveschild's boxes and got harassed, assaulted and killed for it.
Courtship! Gender roles! Yes, making men resentful that they have to buy their way into a woman's heart, and making women resentful that they have to pretend they're stupid and helpless in order to win male attention, has made all of us so happy. The sooner we dump gender roles, the better. Lots of us manage to find someone of the opposite sex to love and have procreative sex without them.
And that's just the damage to cis-gender straight folks -- gender roles have done a lot worse to people who didn't fit into Loveschild's boxes and got harassed, assaulted and killed for it.
68
I once dated a guy who had two moms. Believe me, he was very avidly heterosexual. Not to mention a huge jerk, trying to control me.
But, youŽll say (this is you, Loveschild), how could he have learnt this "traditional male role" of controlling the woman without a father figure in his life?
But, youŽll say (this is you, Loveschild), how could he have learnt this "traditional male role" of controlling the woman without a father figure in his life?
69
68
If he had had a fit, capable, attentive, sane, non-abusive father he might have learned how a man/husband should behave.
If he had had a fit, capable, attentive, sane, non-abusive father he might have learned how a man/husband should behave.
70
For quite a bit of his life, Obama was raised by his single mother and grandmother. He only had his father and stepfather in his life for a few years before he was sent to live with his grandmother. Single parents, gay parent, nuclear family parents - as long as you raise your children to be loving, respectful, and open, you've done your job.
Oh, by the way, Jesus says nothing about the gays in the new testament. Sodom and Gommorrah were smited not because there were gays there, but because the angels couldn't find 10 righteous people within their borders. The religious right needs to get their facts straight. And when I say that, I mean learn ancient hebrew and read the original bible, not the english version, which is rife with poorly translated passages. The English version must be taken with a grain of salt. Anything translated from another language loses some of the meaning and intent of the original words. It's a man-written book, full of personal interpretation and subject to just as much.
Love thy neighbor: that includes all of them.
Oh, by the way, Jesus says nothing about the gays in the new testament. Sodom and Gommorrah were smited not because there were gays there, but because the angels couldn't find 10 righteous people within their borders. The religious right needs to get their facts straight. And when I say that, I mean learn ancient hebrew and read the original bible, not the english version, which is rife with poorly translated passages. The English version must be taken with a grain of salt. Anything translated from another language loses some of the meaning and intent of the original words. It's a man-written book, full of personal interpretation and subject to just as much.
Love thy neighbor: that includes all of them.
72
I wish I were gay so that I could prove Loveschild wrong. My hetero parents are messed up and gave us to other people to raise (babysitters, other employees, boarding schools, etc.) But hey, they are hetero!
What is his/her argument for allowing infertile hetero couples to be married? Or hetero people with no chance of reproduction? Should they be shut out of the marriage game?
What about people whose children would have a high risk of genetic diseases? Should they not be allowed to marry because they can't/shouldn't reproduce together?
Loveschild, stated simply, you are wrong.
What is his/her argument for allowing infertile hetero couples to be married? Or hetero people with no chance of reproduction? Should they be shut out of the marriage game?
What about people whose children would have a high risk of genetic diseases? Should they not be allowed to marry because they can't/shouldn't reproduce together?
Loveschild, stated simply, you are wrong.
73
The sins of Sodom, as explained in the NIV in English.
1) "Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom; listen to the law of our God you people of Gomorrah!
The multidue of your sacrifices - what are they to me?, says the LORD.
I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts?
Stop bringing me meaningless offerings! Your incense is destestabe to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations - I can not bear your evil assemblies. Your New Moon festivals and you appointd feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread our your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deed out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow." Isaiah 1: 10-17
2)"And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah." Jeremiah 23:14
3)"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
Ezekiel 16:49
4) The entire story of Sodom as found in the book of Genesis chapters 10-19. In chapter 19:5 they announce their intention to rape the two angles in Lot's home.
So, to sum up the sins of Sodom.
1) They made a mockery of the justice system. They denied equal rights to the oppressed. They refused to care for the vulnerable in the community, the widows and orphans.
2)They were adulterers and liars.
3)They were arrogant, wealthy, and didn't care for the poor and needy.
4)They threatened to rape visitors to their city. A common practice amongst ancient cultures in that area of the word, done to humiliate the loosing side in battles.
No where do the scriptures claim that Sodom or Gomorroah was destroyed because the people were homosexual. The word sodomy is an English word, it isn't found in ancient Hebrew or Greek.
The saddest part, Sodom sounds a lot like the U.S.
More...
1) "Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom; listen to the law of our God you people of Gomorrah!
The multidue of your sacrifices - what are they to me?, says the LORD.
I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts?
Stop bringing me meaningless offerings! Your incense is destestabe to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations - I can not bear your evil assemblies. Your New Moon festivals and you appointd feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread our your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deed out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow." Isaiah 1: 10-17
2)"And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah." Jeremiah 23:14
3)"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
Ezekiel 16:49
4) The entire story of Sodom as found in the book of Genesis chapters 10-19. In chapter 19:5 they announce their intention to rape the two angles in Lot's home.
So, to sum up the sins of Sodom.
1) They made a mockery of the justice system. They denied equal rights to the oppressed. They refused to care for the vulnerable in the community, the widows and orphans.
2)They were adulterers and liars.
3)They were arrogant, wealthy, and didn't care for the poor and needy.
4)They threatened to rape visitors to their city. A common practice amongst ancient cultures in that area of the word, done to humiliate the loosing side in battles.
No where do the scriptures claim that Sodom or Gomorroah was destroyed because the people were homosexual. The word sodomy is an English word, it isn't found in ancient Hebrew or Greek.
The saddest part, Sodom sounds a lot like the U.S.
74
I'm a Christian, and other than the awesome comment left by "God," I must say that Kim in Portland is my hero of this conversation. I don't believe you can use the Bible as an excuse to infringe upon the rights of others, and I don't believe that being gay is a sin. (So I guess I'm not a 'traditional' Christian, but a Christian I am.)
So I'm with you in every way, Kim, and I respect you for making your points so eloquently.
So I'm with you in every way, Kim, and I respect you for making your points so eloquently.
75
My mother (and stepmother) are lesbian, my dad (and other stepmother) are straight. Me and my siblings are straight, and were very well parented (actually my mother was a way better parent than my dad, although my dad was fine).
Although I am straight, I find all the arguments against gay marriage laughable, it just seems bizarre to me that people even give a shit about who other people fall in love with (or fuck) and want to spend their lives with.
I was blessed to have good parents, and my children (yep, managed to learn 'appropriate' gender roles from my lesbian mother) are ultra blessed to have so many wonderful caring grandparents in their lives. My first dd was conceived in a hetero union and her piece of shit father left us when I was 7 weeks pregnant, why is that better than a loving stable union between two women or two men? Luckily for my daughters not all hetero men are assholes and they have a wonderful loving father, my husband.
Who cares how people's families are made up (when my first dd was a newborn our family unit was my mother and her girlfriend and me and my daughter, an eccentric household by some standards, but one which provided her with a wonderful, secure, loving environment in which all her physical and emotional needs were comprehensively met. Would she really have been better off with her useless ambivalent heterosexual biological father?
Although I am straight, I find all the arguments against gay marriage laughable, it just seems bizarre to me that people even give a shit about who other people fall in love with (or fuck) and want to spend their lives with.
I was blessed to have good parents, and my children (yep, managed to learn 'appropriate' gender roles from my lesbian mother) are ultra blessed to have so many wonderful caring grandparents in their lives. My first dd was conceived in a hetero union and her piece of shit father left us when I was 7 weeks pregnant, why is that better than a loving stable union between two women or two men? Luckily for my daughters not all hetero men are assholes and they have a wonderful loving father, my husband.
Who cares how people's families are made up (when my first dd was a newborn our family unit was my mother and her girlfriend and me and my daughter, an eccentric household by some standards, but one which provided her with a wonderful, secure, loving environment in which all her physical and emotional needs were comprehensively met. Would she really have been better off with her useless ambivalent heterosexual biological father?
76
Oh, also, my mother and stepmom haven't had a civil union (the poor cousin to gay marriage that we have here in New Zealand), but are considering doing so as otherwise there could be big problems for them if my mother becomes sick and my stepmother can't make medical decisions, if for some reason me and my siblings decided to be assholes about inheritance etc. My mother and her partner have not (and will not as they are both past menopause) reproduced with each other, but there are lots of very practical reasons that marriage is important in the long term unions of people of the same sex, medical decisions, property rights etc... those are actually the things (legal) marriage is about, not living together, loving each other or having babies, all of which can be done without marriage.
P.S. I am het, married, and plan for my marriage to be forever. I am not religious, but as long as it doesn't affect me and how I live my life, I don't care what other people do (and have some very religious conservative friends, and some atheist non-conservative friends etc.)
P.S. I am het, married, and plan for my marriage to be forever. I am not religious, but as long as it doesn't affect me and how I live my life, I don't care what other people do (and have some very religious conservative friends, and some atheist non-conservative friends etc.)
77
73
You can find a version of the Bible to justify just about anything you want these days. Some one has confused 'translate' and 'editorialize'.
You can find a version of the Bible to justify just about anything you want these days. Some one has confused 'translate' and 'editorialize'.
78
A useful resource regarding Sodom and Gomorrah: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombib…
In my own studies the story of these two cities is representative of the obsolescence of Mosaic morality: God used weapons of mass destruction and committed genocide, which, in contemporary times we regard as crimes against humanity, regardless of the sins of those nuked.
This is a significant as an indicator of the arbitrary nature of morality as dictated by divine command; "it's in the bible" has been used to justify countless atrocities from ethnic cleansing to female oppression to slavery to racial discrimination. Arbitrary adherence to scripture is as corrosive to just morality as much as scientific discovery is to dogmatic viability.
In my own studies the story of these two cities is representative of the obsolescence of Mosaic morality: God used weapons of mass destruction and committed genocide, which, in contemporary times we regard as crimes against humanity, regardless of the sins of those nuked.
This is a significant as an indicator of the arbitrary nature of morality as dictated by divine command; "it's in the bible" has been used to justify countless atrocities from ethnic cleansing to female oppression to slavery to racial discrimination. Arbitrary adherence to scripture is as corrosive to just morality as much as scientific discovery is to dogmatic viability.
79
77
Okay, so which is the Zondervan New International Version Bible or the NIV? Is it "translated" or "editorialized"? Scriptures taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permision of Zondervan. All rights reserved. General Editor: Kenneth L. Barker, Associate Editors: John H Stek, Walter W. Wessel, and Ronald Youngblood. I am unaware of the NIV being considered "editorialized". Feel free to look the verses up yourself.
Okay, so which is the Zondervan New International Version Bible or the NIV? Is it "translated" or "editorialized"? Scriptures taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permision of Zondervan. All rights reserved. General Editor: Kenneth L. Barker, Associate Editors: John H Stek, Walter W. Wessel, and Ronald Youngblood. I am unaware of the NIV being considered "editorialized". Feel free to look the verses up yourself.
82
80
I don't know. I just think if you are going to reference the story of Sodom you should look at all its references. Use scripture to understand scripture.
I don't know. I just think if you are going to reference the story of Sodom you should look at all its references. Use scripture to understand scripture.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (83) RSS