NP | 1:02 p.m. Jan. 28, 2011 South Jordan, UtahYou don't even
have to be religious to understand that a functioning married mother &
father are the best thing for children.============Ahh,
and the key word here is 'functioning'. Gays exist, NP. They always have and
they always will. They're around you right now. Do you label a gay man's
marriage to a heterosexual woman 'functioning'? Maybe it 'functions', but do
you think he, or his poor wife, is really happy? And if not, what does this do
to their children?Of course men and women have different 'qualities'
and yes, both are important to the raising of children. Single parents and gay
parents do not raise their children in a vacuum. They rely on family and
friends to provide that needed counter weight. That's just how it works. And
it works well.
Independent | 12:21 p.m. Jan. 28, 2011 Henderson, NVI wish to
live in a society who holds, to a reasonable degree, those things as moral the
same things that I do. And it's getting beyond reasonable.============I'm sure there were many people who thought that
mixing the races was not a moral thing to do either. And we know how that
argument was tossed out by all good people decades ago. This issue
will be no different.
Dear zoar63You stated "Traditional marriage between OPPOSITE SEXES
has been around since the beginning of time. The majority does not want this
tradition changed". Actually zoar , no one has ever said
anything about eliminating marriage between opposite sexes. No one wants
marriage between opposite sexes eliminated.What people want is to
expand the benefit of the marriage institution to all responsible adults who
love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. They want to
make sure that their loved ones are taken care and receive the benefit from
their mutual efforts as a couple. When one of them is gone or unable to make
decisions by themselves. Just like mother and father did when their time
came.Nothing more nothing less. If you are in love, you can marry that
person because you love him or her.
@PaganThe claim that marriage is 'traditional' is false.My examples to support this are:BigamyPolygamyArranged
marriageInteracial marriage------------The common
denominator in these marriages is that they are between opposite sexes.
Traditional marriage between OPPOSITE SEXES has been around since the beginning
of time. The majority does not want this tradition changed.
"smoke your way into the WH"Oh no, he smoked, how could we
possibly let him win the election? (get over it, so he smokes, big deal, every
president drinks, you think we should reject them all?)"surround yourself with czars that have not been chosen by any one other
than yourself"No different than bush but nobody complained
then."brush aside the views and wishes of the majority of your
country"You mean the majority of the country that elected him?
The majority of people support obamacare or oppose it because it's not liberal
enough (you know...public option)."and then completely destroy
most of the major sectors of the economy"Banking crisis averted
with bailouts, auto industry saved, bailout money being paid back, record Q3
profits for corporations in 2010, -700k jobs Jan 2009 that bush left obama, now
on a 12 month private sector job gain streak. That's destroying? In the words of
Inigo Montaya "I don't think it means what you think it means.""drag your countrys reputation through the dirt with your
allies"Not true...except Israel.
Also, is this part of the reason why conservatives hate Obama? I mean, he was
successfully raised by a single mother. Oh yeah, really
successful!!!!! yah right-duh! When are you guys going to wake up? When your
broke? Very successful.... now we understand the real meaning of
success, smoke your way into the WH and then destroy a country with radical
views and policies, surround yourself with czars that have not been chosen by
any one other than yourself, brush aside the views and wishes of the majority of
your country, and then completely destroy most of the major sectors of the
economy, drag your countrys reputation through the dirt with your allies, and
then smile on tv and tell everyone that the past two years have been the most
successful in the history of the country.Congratulations!WAKE UP BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE- STOP DENYING.A traditional marriage
brings together the power to create and bring a child into the world, ANY OTHER
TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP is simply not natural and IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE in the eyes
of GOD. WAKE UP.
I think that as so many on both sides devolve into an argument about granting
marriage certificates and benefits to homosexual couples a larger view is being
missed in the comments.Why does marriage exist? Why does the
s/State take any interest in marriage at all?There are basically two
competing theories to answer this question.The one side claims
(implicitly if not explicitly) that marriage is primarily about benefits for the
married couple: legal protections, inheritance, medical rights, next-of-kin
rights, etc.The other side argues that the s/State's interest in
marriage is NOT merely because marriage provides benefits to the couple.
Rather, it is because marriage provides benefits to the community.I
happen to advocate this latter point of view. As an analogy, we do not grant
tax benefits for buying a car or ATV even though doing so obviously benefits the
person who bought the vehicle. We do provide tax benefits for buying a home.
That is because home ownership provides benefits to the community and so the
community has reason to reward and encourage it.What are the
benefits to the community from same-sex "marriage"?
@Coach Biff | 12:22 p.m. Jan. 28, 2011 [ Wouldn't you say that all
of the above "sources" come from left leaning organizations? ]No, I would not.@Uncle Charles | 1:00 p.m. Jan. 28, 2011 [ The "intelligence" on these threads states that men and
women are interchangeable, that there is no difference between the sexes. ]I'm not saying men and women are interchangeable. I'm merely agreeing
with multiple medical and psychological associations that same-gender parenting
can be just as successful as parenting by opposite sexes. There are numerous
male and female role models - grandparents, aunts and uncles - that make up a
family. [ Just as these same elitists try to tell us that abortion
isn't killing a child they also claim that homosexuality is the same as
heterosexuality. ]You won't find me saying that. I would never
advocate aborting an unborn fetus if it were not life-threatening to the mother,
especially if that fetus were somehow mine. And I don't believe homosexuality
is the same as heterosexuality. However, homosexuals and heterosexuals should
have the same rights.
This expert says this, this expert says that. Blah blah blah...who cares?
Traditional marriage between a man and a woman is of divine design. It is the
bedrock of our society and is under attack for a reason. I don't care what the
experts say, I know the difference between right and wrong.
re - Just Truth | 2:44 p.m"Just because some unfortunate children
have been subjected to an experiment outside the natural structure of a loving
husband and wife doesn't mean it should be advocated"ok, just
truth... so tell us - what do you propose to do with all the children currently
being raised in gay households? do you really have room at your house? you do
understand that there are tens of thousands of kids being raised in gay
households, right?and so you ban gay marriage. do you think that
will stop the lesbian that wants a child to fulfill her life? and so do you
suggest she just be alone with her child and no partner?and if you
agree that it is better to have two adults in the household rather than one,
wouldn't it be better if they were married? that's what the article says - two
is better than one and married is better than not. are you going against
that?we all know gays will have kids through many means. do you
propose to outlaw that? and if not, isn't it better for the children if the two
people are married?
"Not saying it's impossible to do it alone and many good mother's have done
a wonderful job on there own, just saying that it is an easier experience when
we are both there as we bring different things to the table. "The question becomes though... is it that there's someone of each gender there
that helps or is it the fact that there's two loving parents that helps? I'd
wager that even if same sex couples had lower child-raising results on average*
they'd still be higher than setups like single parenting because having two
loving parents of the same gender is closer to a married straight couple
situation than it is to a single parent situation. *Why are we
discriminating based on average results? Do we ban poor people from getting
married because poor children are disproportionately more likely to end up
committing crimes? No. Heck, in this state we allow single parent adoption but
not gay couple adoption which is odd since the former is the one that studies
have shown to be lower than average while the latter... even the speaker in this
article doesn't know for sure.
Just Truth: "The bottom line is that traditional marriage has proven the
MOST EFFECTIVE model... Furthermore, loving traditional marriages also show how
the union of a man and a woman accentuates gender roles in the unity of two
persons BETTER THAN ANY OTHER relationship..." [emphasis added]Basically, your argument is that straight marriage is the optimal child
rearing arrangement. Generally agreed. However, our society and legal system
allows suboptimal arrangements (single parenthood, divorce). With respect to
gay marriage, there is a question of fundamental fairness. Logic suggests that
any two parent family is better for kids than a single parent one, even if it is
not the most optimal one. So where is the equity and logic in allowing an
extremely suboptimal arrangement (single parenthood) while denying the
moderately suboptimal? The only way for the optimality argument to work and be
logically consistent is for gay marriage opponents to also push for laws banning
divorce and illegitimacy. So far, I haven't much of that.Two wrongs
don't make a right, but one wrong isn't right, either. If gay marriage should
not be legal because it is suboptimal for kids, then neither should single
I was at the presentation. Dr. Wilcox (as someone already pointed out) is not
affiliated with BYU. He's not Mormon. He's one of the most respected academic
family researchers there are. His talk was not about gay marriage. The entire
presentation was based on data comparing heterosexual married parents,
cohabiters, and single parents (longitudinal as well as cross-sectional...he's
not stupid, he learned about correlation/causation in college just like everyone
else). "Gay parenting" only came up when an audience
member asked about it. His answer was that existing research shows basically *no
difference* between children of heterosexual and homosexual parents, but of
about 40 studies only 1 can be considered a good sample, etc. (there are
relatively few homosexual parents so it's hard to get enough in a representative
sample). He *hypothesized* that, based on what we know about men and women in
heterosexual relationships, there would be differences. But he was very open
about the fact that social scientists just don't know, and so far children of
homosexual parents don't seem to be worse off. Maybe google the guy
before you start hating on him because of a newspaper article?
So no one is really arguing that there is a better relationship out there for
children than a loving father (male) and mother (female) married to one another.
That's good! How can you argue against that reality? Neither religion nor
science support that fallacy.Yes, we've heard the arguments of how
an alternative is better than a broken marriage, but that logic is flawed since
that isn't the comparison here. Fact is, two wrongs don't make a right. Just
because some unfortunate children have been subjected to an experiment outside
the natural structure of a loving husband and wife doesn't mean it should be
advocated.The bottom line is that traditional marriage has proven
the most effective model; if it were possible for every child to be born or
adopted into such a relationship that is easily the option we should all
encourage, first and foremost.Furthermore, loving traditional
marriages also show how the union of a man and a woman accentuates gender roles
in the unity of two persons better than any other relationship: as evidenced by
families being the base foundational unit at the center of any thriving
societies throughout history.
My husband often works shift work, which means that for a couple of weeks a
month I am somewhat a single mother. I can testify, from experience, that it is
much easier to parent when both of us are in the house. Not saying it's
impossible to do it alone and many good mother's have done a wonderful job on
there own, just saying that it is an easier experience when we are both there as
we bring different things to the table.
We can't really argue for certain that it would be better for gay couples to
marry based on a study that shows that kids do better in families with married
straight parents. It's a reasonable hypothesis, but you have to compare apples
to apples. Some say it would probably turn out the same for gay couples, because
the important determining factor is that there are two parents, that are
married. But others would argue that the determining factor is the fact that the
married couple is a man and a woman. I don't think the gender of the parents can
be glossed over so lightly in this study.
So basically, this guy presents evidence that broken and single-parent homes put
children more at risk - which seems to support heterosexual AND homosexual
marriage - but then hypothesizes at the end that, based on no evidence, he
thinks that homosexual marriages will exhibit the same problems.Cognitive dissonance, anyone?How did this guy ever achieve any
prominent position as a researcher making unfounded assumptions like that?
Let's lay to dignified rest a significant misconception* running through this
debate, that gay relationships cannot issue children. While technically true,
gay couples can get around it the same way other infertile couples do, through
artifical insemination, in vitro, surrogacy, and adoption. In addition, many
gays have children from previous straight marriages (perhaps they married out of
social pressure or were late in acknowledging their orientation). According to
figures published recently in the other newspaper, 30% of gay households in Utah
have children. I have seen a similar figure cited nationwide.I
fully accept the data cited in the article that children of married, two-parent
families have better outcomes than those in unmarried and/or single parent
homes. The reasons are obvious-- marriage provides someone to share the
workload and incentive to remain together. Yet those who use those data to
oppose gay marriage are knowingly denying the children in those relationships
the very real and tangible benefits of married parents and condemning them to
the negative outcomes cited in the article. Where is the concern for the
children in that?* Pun not intended when I wrote the sentence, but
I'll go with it.
"that children born to co-habitating parents have a 50% chance of having
their father leave by age 5, but if the parents are married it is only a 15%
chance."Therefore, it is best for society to have gay marriage
be legal."Since sex between people of the same gender is not
going to produce children, the society has no interest in regulating it and
therefore no reason to recognize it as a marriage."which is why
we require all married couples to have children."To be
acceptable a rule does not have to be the best, it only has to have a reasonable
justificaiton."Since gay people can raise children (heck, a
single gay person in Utah can adopt) there does not seem to be such a
"reasonable justification" in the limits on marriage since you don't
care about "what's best on average for children" with regards to
single people adopting.
well 90 percent of all marriages end up in divorce due to financial reasons, are
the children better off in an unhappy home? Not sure about that. As far as the
traditional marriage as opposed to the common-law marriage what is the
difference? I think children are fine as long as you know how to raise them
properly. I love my son and my grandkids. Yeah, my son was ticked when I left.
Kids are not that difficult to raise, they respond to love, patience and
discipline. There is a difference between discipline and abuse.
'Let's look at Ronald Reagan, the conservative hero. He was divorced, but he had
two successful wives.' - truthlover | 10:36 a.m. I'm going to use
my last post on this. The debate was over after this point. To use someone who
was factually DIVORCED... as an example for 'traditional'
marriage. Divorce, is the END of a marriage. You cannot
have 'two successful wives' unless you are a polygamist. And Polygamy has been
another change to marriage, besides amendment 3 in '04... for 120
years. 50% divorce rate, before gay marriage was even legal. 5yrs after gay marriage is legal in 5 states, no change. The claim that
gay marriage will 'harm' 'traditional' marriage is proven false. If
you 'defend' marriage, do not look to others. As gay people cannot even GET
married in 45 states. Look to yourself, as you could not control
another persons life regardless. The claim of 'traditional' marriage
is even false. The last major changes came 7yrs ago. (Amendment 3 in '04) which
CHANGED marriage from 'two people' to 'one man & one woman.' You
only have on real option to try to 'defend' marriage. Work on your
As clearly evidenced by the long line of highly predictable criticism in these
posts, it does not matter how much evidence or how many studies strongly support
the encouragement of traditional marriage. The opposition will continue to
ignore the facts, try to explain them away, or attempt to discredit the
messenger. They are not listening. They do not care. Experts are not allowed
to be called experts unless they support their views. Opponents to their views
are belittled for where they live or what religion they belong to, as if that
automatically discredits their views. They would sooner see the country spiral
into oblivion before theyll accept anything but their own unsupported
self-serving way of life. Most of us did not need a study to tell
us the obvious - that traditional marriage, between a man and a women, is the
only marital relationship of any value to society.
@silas: You can lean on the philosophies of men all you wish and even claim they
are experts.I'll rely on those who are teaching eternal doctrines
and truths.Man and woman were created for specific reasons. The "intelligence" on these threads states that men and women
are interchangeable, that there is no difference between the sexes.Just as these same elitists try to tell us that abortion isn't killing a child
they also claim that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality. Again, He who knows all has already spoken on these issues. Marriage between a
man and a woman is correct. Children are to be raised in love and righteousness
by a husband and wife. Homosexuality is immoral and detrimental to all who
participate.You cling to your "consensus" all you wish.
Your "wisdom" which leans unto your own understanding is foolishness
when compared to the teachings and wisdom of God. But continue to
argue amongst yourselves...it's so funny to read!
Rox, I really hate to use my last comment for this, but you are showing
major confusion. W. Bradford Wilcox, the professor of sociology at
the University of Virginia, is a different person than Brad Wilcox, the
professor of education at BYU. W. Bradford Wilcox is at time cited by his full
name William Bradford Wilcox. The BYU professors full name is Bradley Ray
Wilcox. They have similar names but should not be confused. It
might have been worth pointing out these are not the same person, but since no
one ever calls Brad Wilcox, W. Bradford Wilcox (since his name is not Bradford
at all) it probably did not cross the nimd of the article author that someone
might be confused. Pagan, your claims about the change of
marriage in Utah in 2004 are false. Marriage has always been defined in Utah as
the union of a man and a woman. Some will yell "polygamy", but that
does not work. In polygamy there are just multiple marriages involved (and
whether they had state recognition is also an issue). Each marriage involves a
man and a woman and can be disolved independent of other marriages.
alt134, You are proposing that we turn the current generation of children
into guinea pigs to see if an unprove system of child rearing will work. You are willing to risk major disruptions of society for your narrow
point. This is not a good position. Clearly the constitution does not require
the government to adopt programs that will be detrimental to the overall good of
In an article in the "National Review" leading up to Father's Day in
2009 Wilcox pointed out that children born to co-habitating parents have a 50%
chance of having their father leave by age 5, but if the parents are married it
is only a 15% chance. The point of man/woman marriage is to create
a societal connection between child rearing and marriage. Since sex between
people of the same gender is not going to produce children, the society has no
interest in regulating it and therefore no reason to recognize it as a
marriage. Some will try to poijt out that we allow people who we
know can not have children to marry. This is because the man/woman line is the
simplest and easiest to enforce. To be acceptable a rule does not have to be
the best, it only has to have a reasonable justificaiton. Beyond
this by having all marriages have the man/woman form, which is clearly meant to
emphasize reproductive potential even when there is no actual reproduction the
social institutions purpose of marriage is carried out.
Is he comparing same-sex households with households where there the husband
beats his wife on a regular basis? Really?
charlie90210 says, "wow. way to cut and paste exactly what your church
leaders have told you, word for word. good job.now if we can just
get you to think for yourself, then we can be making progress"just a couple questions for you....Have you ever quoted anyone for
any reason?Can you share for us all where you have derived your own
thoughts and wisdom on any issue?For you to be a true free thinker
you will have to have never read any book, listened to any speakers, read a
newspaper, watched any TV, DVD, movies or been influenced by anyone at
anytime.In other words, you are just living in a cave with no
connection to humanity but here you are sharing all your thoughts on each and
every subject. How is it that I've heard everyone of your comments
before if you are someone who thinks for himself?Please, do share
where you gain your wisdom and knowledge since you don't get any input from any
It does the body good to see a historian standing up for marriage.
Dr. Wilcox's arguments are of the type that really ought to have been made
widely some time ago. We need to keep the message of the proper and broad role
of marriage spreading. I would also reccomend to people who want to
understand the true effects of marriage reading the works of Sandra Hofferth and
Kermyt Anderson. Their study shows the positive goods of caring fathers
directly connected to marriage. Since, as Monte Neil Stewart points out in such
works as "Genderless Marriage and Institutional Theory", the social
goods associated with marriage will be altered or destroyed if it is changed
from its current man/woman form, we need to see that we are risking its positive
benefits to our society by shifting to a genderless definition of marriage.
listen up, people. NO ONE on either side of the argument has EVER disputed that
the IDEAL is traditional marriage.but that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to
do with same sex marriage. how could it?gay people are NOT going to
marry someone of the opposite sex - and if they do it is almost always a big
mistake. so can anyone tell me what traditional marriage has to do
with same sex marriage? I'm going to guess that some people think
that either:1 - allowing same sex marriage will turn some people gay...
huh?2 - banning same sex marriage will make gays marry the opposite sex...
huh?so can anyone tell me how same sex marriage has ANY impact on
traditional marriage, or any impact on anyone except gay people?or
is it still just the "icky" factor?
silas, if you're going to quote statistics, at least quote them from a
non-biased source. Wouldn't you say that all of the above "sources"
come from left leaning organizations? See who the above endorses for political
office. Go ahead. The info is readily available.
"Even the speaker said they don't have any evidence on gay families, but
apparently some of you have the missing evidence somewhere in your
basement."You missed my point. My point is that we shouldn't
need evidence for everything. I understand that there are very many people who
only believe what is proven by science. What I am saying is that we shouldn't
have to prove everything with a scientific study, and when we get down to having
to prove whether or not it is best for children to have a mother and a father
through scientific studies before a sizeable portion of our population accepts
it, we do not hold enough common values to be considered a nation. I do not wish
to live in a society that only accepts that which has been proven true by the
scientific method as moral any more than I wish to live in a society that
imposes upon me what I consider to be a false religious morality. I wish to live
in a society who holds, to a reasonable degree, those things as moral the same
things that I do. And it's getting beyond reasonable.
re - Cats | 8:56 a.m. Jan. 28, 2011 Somewhere In Time, UTyou
are located in "somewhere in time, utah"? what, like 1950 Utah?you state "it's not fun to hear that you are living a lifestyle that is
injurious to society. No one wants to hear that."of course no
one wants to hear it, especially when it isn't true and it is simply your
religion coming home to roost..cats, girl, it gets really old
reading you demean other people that you know nothing about and only do it
because you happened to be born straight and born into a strict religion. what
are you going to say to your child if (heaven forbid) one of them turns out to
be gay? your attitude and 1950s beliefs will certainly drive them away. I hope
for your sake you can someday accept that just because some people are
different, you are actually no better than them.good luck, girl.
somehow I think you are going to need it. because your god loves to test
people, and that would be a great test for you.
re - Utah Mom | 7:55 a.m"Thanks for your research! If we just look
around, it is not very difficult to see the negative impact non-traditional
marriage is having on the future generation"negative impact?
really? I look around and the ONLY impact I see of non-traditional (ie-same
sex) marriage is a lot less bigotry of people that are different.are
you saying that is a bad thing? since when did a reduction in discrimination
and bigotry become a bad thing? personally I am glad to see the youth of
america dropping the old stereotypes and accept ALL people. It's a lesson you
will have to learn at some point, Utah Mom.re - Belching Cow | 8:08
a.m"Supporting the traditional family is the best way to make our
society stronger. The breakdown of the traditional family unit is the greatest
threat we have ever faced."wow. way to cut and paste exactly
what your church leaders have told you, word for word. good job.now
if we can just get you to think for yourself, then we can be making progress....
(and no, I'm not gay. 53 yr old white hetero)
"As an aside, do the people in this forum (who I assume are LDS) consider
polygamy an alternative lifestyle or something that is harmful to
children?"Pretty sure the LDS people in this forum don't
practice polygamy, so I'm not sure why you're asking, since we could only
@Cats | 8:56 a.m. Jan. 28, 2011 [ These people ARE experts who have
mountains of research to back up what they say. Unfortunately for some, the
research just doesn't support their alternative lifestyles as being beneficial
to society. In fact, it does just the opposite. ]An associate
professor of sociology, even from my venerable alma mater, is not an expert in
child psychology.I'll repeat for your benefit the real experts, who
support rights for same-gender parenting:American Academy of
PediatricsAmerican Academy of Child and Adolescent PsychiatryAmerican Psychiatric AssociationAmerican Psychological AssociationAmerican Psychoanalytic AssociationNational Association of Social
WorkersChild Welfare League of America If you believe the
opinion of Mr. Wilcox outweighs this consensus, fine, but you should note that
even he was saying there is little data one way or another, and that he was
hypothesizing. I'll disagree with him regarding the scantiness of
the data, I'll reject his hypothesis, and I'll defer to the above organizations.
'I thought the article said there wasn't enough data about same-sex couples to
talk about their effects as parents.' - truthlover | 11:18 a.m. Jan. 28, 2011
That's because the 'experts' on this issue are from a school funded
by a religion. 'Defending traditional marriage doesn't need to begin
or end with a discussion of faith in order to make a point about its deep social
impacts, a leading scholar said Thursday at BYU.' - Article This
newspaper, is funded by the same religion. And yet, I found
information from the American Acadamy of Pediatrics. (9:04 a.m.)
Here's some from the American Psychological Association: 'Can
lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals be good parents? Yes. Studies comparing
groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no
developmental differences between the two groups...' APA website:
RESEARCH SUMMARY - Adopted by the APA Council of Representatives July 28 &
30, 2004. So, do I think I am 'smarter' than the 'experts'
because I found information that supports gay parents are ok? No. I think the MOTIVATION for a BYU professor to find info on healthy gay
parents is: zero.
@Brave Sir Robin: "If anything, Obama helps to prove Wilcox's point.
Wilcox cited studies that show children raised by a single mother are more
likely to be substance abusers. Obama smokes - smoking is substance abuse."
Yep, that proves it, Brave Sir Robin. Obama was raised by a single
mother and Obama smokes. Few children raised in traditional families smoke. So
there you have it. Facts are facts, what can I say. Good mind you have there,
Brave Sir Robin.
Anne26, I thought the article said there wasn't enough data about same-sex
couples to talk about their effects as parents.As an aside, do the
people in this forum (who I assume are LDS) consider polygamy an alternative
lifestyle or something that is harmful to children?
@truthlover.No one is saying that being raised by a single mother
means you will never amount to anything. There are many examples to the
contrary. What the studies suggest is that children raised in a home with both
a father and a mother have a greater advantage than those raised by a single
parent, or in a same sex household.I actually did a paper on this
subject 20 years ago when I was a student at the U, and the information was much
the same. Interestingly, when I was giving my report before the class, the male
teacher took offense to the idea that a child needed a father in it's life and
even went as far as to say that as long as a woman had enough money, she didn't
need a man to help her raise a child. I felt bad then and still do that the
value of fatherhood was reduced to a paycheck. Men and women are
uniquely different and each bring qualities that bless the lives of their
children. By the way, I was raised by a single mom.
Obama smokes. So does Rush Limbaugh and so did Ronald Reagan, the great
conservative in the sky. Limbaugh and Reagan came from two parent homes.About him not being succesful: besides being elected President, he was
president of the Harvard Law Review, married a successful woman who was Vice
President at the University of Chicago Hospitals (and earned more than he did),
and is the father of two daughters who seem to be doing just fine considering
all the spotlight.Let's look at Ronald Reagan, the conservative
hero. He was divorced, but he had two successful wives. He had what five kids?
At least three have been divorced. And Reagan had two parents in his home.
His wives' parents were divorced, though.If Obama's not successful,
re: Independent. I could post your argument almost word-for-word except use
the words "Global Warming." The difference between the global warming
science and this science is that in peer-reviewed journals (in other words,
articles that are checked for accuracy by other scientists...not political
opinion pieces paid for by a political group), there is consensus on global
warming, while this "science" is very much disputed (put two
statistics together and say their causal=bad science). Even the
speaker said they don't have any evidence on gay families, but apparently some
of you have the missing evidence somewhere in your basement.
Cats: Tell you what: You provide your mountain of evidence for your case, and
I'll provide my mountain of evidence for my case. I'll bet you I have just as
much evidence as you do. In every single lawsuit in this country, for every
expert there is for one side of a case, there is an expert with an opposite
point of view. Who are you to say who is right and who is wrong. It comes down
to opinion, and we hear your opinion loud and clear.@Brave Sir
Robin: Where are you going to draw the line on what constitutes a
"substance"? Caffeine is a substance, and many devout people continue
to drink beverages with caffeine, which would also be substance abuse.
Right wrong or indifferent...in 10-15 years this will be a non issue in the
public sector. In religious bonds of matrimony, homosexual marriage will not be
allowed by god. As a religious person who sees homosexuality as opposed to Gods
law, I don't care what civilly happens with homosexual marriage in the public
sector. Religiously there are a lot of things I see as against God's will that
are allowed in the public sphere; pornography, alcohol, adultery, taking god's
name in vain, etc. You can't outlaw everything and true conservatives should be
for freedom of choice not restricting rights.
How stupid do these so-called experts think we are? - If cohabitation isn't as
good as marriage, why deny marriage to couples who want it? And how on earth
will the prohibition of gay marriage increase the likelihood that there will be
fewer broken homes? - It hasn't stopped them from occurring yet.
The intense opposition to Mr. George's comments and others of the same point of
view is astounding. It's pointless to argue. If we can't even agree that the
best thing for children is to grow up in a home with a loving mother and father,
what do we have in common that is enough to bind us together as a society? The
fact that we even have to have scientific data to back this up and persuade
people to beleive it is beyond amazing to me. The fact that half of the people
who see this comment will be rolling their eyes and laughing only proves my
point, that we just don't have enough in common anymore to be a cohesive society
Whether or not gay marriage is approved, gay couples are having and raising
children. So if gay marriage is not legal these children will be growing up in
cohabitating homes, whereas if gay marriage is legalized they'd be growing up in
two parent married homes. Thus the evidence Wilcox quotes in support of
traditional marriage actually supports the legalization of gay marriage.
Here we go again, another article meant to do nothing but bring out the worst in
our society and cause the hatred of two groups to bash out thier beliefs on the
web. God save us all (If you believe in God)Darwin save us all
(If you believe in evolution)One day it will all end and someone
will be left standing there going, "Huh"?Just leave each
other alone and quit trying to force your OPINIONS on someone else.
Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As
the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of
world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what
he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as
society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no
society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has
survived. Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands
of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that
virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were
preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by
the cultures acceptance of homosexuality.
'Families with functioning mothers and fathers do the best.' - pat1 | 7:06 a.m.
Jan. 28, 2011 This is 'defense' of the traditional family, but what
evidence is there, factual evidence that gay parents are somehow 'bad' or
'worse?' None. From an article published in the NY Times
on 05 Nov 2009 titled, "Whats Good for the Kids"These
children do just fine, says Abbie E. Goldberg, an assistant professor in the
department of psychology at Clark University, who concedes there are some who
will continue to believe that gay parents are a danger to their children, in
spite of a growing web of psychological and sociological evidence to the
contrary." 'The overall goal in caring for youth who are or
think they might be gay, lesbian, or bisexual is the same as for all youth: to
promote normal adolescent development, social and emotional well-being, and
physical health. If their environment is critical of their emerging sexual
orientation, these adolescents may experience profound isolation and fear of
discovery, which interferes with achieving developmental tasks of adolescence
related to self-esteem, identity, and intimacy.'- PEDIATRICS Vol.
113 No. 6 June 2004, pp. 1827-1832- American Acadamy of Pediatrics
"These people are experts." - 'Cats | 7:29 a.m. Jan. 28, 2011 And yet, we have differing views from other experts. *'Historian
testifies in Prop. 8 trial' - By Lisa Leff - AP - Published by DsNews -
01/12/10 'In her second day of testimony, Nancy Cott, a U.S. history
professor and the author of a book on marriage as a public institution, disputed
a statement by a defense lawyer that states have a compelling interest to
restrict marriage to heterosexual couples for the sake of procreation.' The claim that marriage is 'traditional' is false. My
examples to support this are: Bigamy Polygamy Arranged
marriage Interacial marriage Also... John and
Kate plus 8. Artificial incimination for 6 children. And, Bristol Palin.
Single mother who had a child outside of marriage who NOW advocates
absitnence. Also, the last factual CHANGE to marriage in Utah was in
2004, when Amendment 3 passed. Changing marriage from 'two people' to 'one man
and one woman'. So that 'traditional marriage' has been around since
the 'begining of time?' More like 7 years.
@ Belching Cow 8:08AM"Supporting the traditional family is the best
way to make our society stronger".As a liberal I agree 100% with you.
In a perfect world, where there were no minorities, where everybody had the
expected sexual attraction, It would be insane to disagree with your statement.
But Fortunately, we live in a very diverse world with a lot of challenges and
things to learn and overcome.Following the model of traditional marriage
and/or family, now other people would like to follow the model as close as their
abilities allow. That is why same sex people would like to join as maariage and
raise a family just like your traditional stereotype.Single parents face a
bigger challenge when they decide to raise a child on their own. Sometimes the
decision is made for them (death, divorce, etc.) But even though is difficult,
many, many single men and women are extraordinary parents.Yes, I think
everybody wants the support and acceptance that traditional marriage brings, we
are not there yet. But we will get there and we will be a better planet because
of it. Families come in different shapes and forms, all deserve love and
Ooh boy!! This article has certainly stricken a lot of nerves here. As I
stated earlier, it's not fun to hear that you are living a lifestyle that is
injurious to society. No one wants to hear that.These people ARE
experts who have mountains of research to back up what they say. Unfortunately
for some, the research just doesn't support their alternative lifestyles as
being beneficial to society. In fact, it does just the opposite. Alternative lifestyles are not healthy for those participating in them or for
society in general. Thousands of years of experience have taught us that
traditional marriage and traditional families are what lead to a healthy, stable
and successful society. civilizations who have chosen a different course have
all crashed, burned and gone by the wayside.I know you don't like to
hear it. But it's the truth.
Loved the part about "domesticating men" but didn't see a time line or
a project completion date on that lofty goal. I guess castigating
lesbians for not wrestling with their sons, is a more attainable goal in the
"Wilcox cited studies that showed young men from single-parent homes were
twice as likely than their two-parent peers to end up in prison, and girls whose
fathers left before they turned 6 were nearly seven times more likely to become
pregnant as a teenager than their two-parent family peers."If
you give a young man two Dads, does that make the young man 4 times as UNLIKELY
to end up in prison?Wilcox presentation is flawed, most of his
comments stem on 1 adult role model in the home, OR two people in a uncommitted
relationship. Which means, that homosexuals in committed
relationships should be just as good of parents as anyone else who wants to be a
parent. And yes, I am drawing a big distinction, between WANTING to be a good
parent, and some knucklehead couple who do not want to be good parents.IF IT were not for religion, society would not have such a deep seeded
aversion to homosexuals.
I'm going to give this guy the benefit of the doubt and blame it on editing.
Because this guy did nothing but throw out assumptions of what data may show in
the future based on current data that has nothing to do with same sex
relationships.What will the argument be when data does show that
children in same sex marriages are just as well-adjusted and healthy as those in
opposite-sex households? I suppose it will have to go back to the "God said
Re: truthlover"Also, is this part of the reason why
conservatives hate Obama? I mean, he was successfully raised by a single
mother."If anything, Obama helps to prove Wilcox's point.
Wilcox cited studies that show children raised by a single mother are more
likely to be substance abusers. Obama smokes - smoking is substance abuse.
@Cats | 7:29 a.m. Jan. 28, 2011 "These people are experts. They
know what they're talking about."Is that a fact? So then,
you'll certainly accept the resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental
rights by the following professional organizations: American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the
American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the
American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers,
the Child Welfare League of America, among others outside of of the U.S.Do these organizations count as "experts" to you?
Supporting the traditional family is the best way to make our society stronger.
The breakdown of the traditional family unit is the greatest threat we have ever
faced. Bigger than global warming or terrorism by far. I know I will be
labeled intolerant or a hater or whatever. I've heard all the lies before so I
really don't care.
Thanks for your research! If we just look around, it is not very difficult to
see the negative impact non-traditional marriage is having on the future
generation. If things continue as they are going without more support of
traditional marriage and raising healthy, well-adjusted children, we're in
@Pat1: There is no evidence or data about marriage at the point where history
began, unless you are trying to take something straight out of the Bible and
apply it to Adam and Eve. If so, after that point, "traditional"
marriage consisted many times of multiple wives. Not quite a
"traditional" marriage. And the evidence about what the man's versus
the woman's duties were, I'm sure, lacking.@Cats: Are you telling
us these speakers at this event are "the" experts, and that it is
their/his word that is the end all be all on this matter? If so, we're in a lot
of trouble, as the buy basically admits he's only guessing as to what children
of homosexual couples will turn out to be. By the way, you use terms like
"lifestyle" and "traditional." What lifestyle are you
speaking of. Hopefully not a homosexual one, because the data is still not
there to make a determination as to its effects on society, except the fact that
the religous right want the evil government involvement to get involved. As
some of us here in Colorado say: Focus on your own family!
As Emajor eluded to earlier, there is a serious lack of justification for this
being causation, and not just correlation. It's just as likely, or probably
more likely a result of economic factors, not the presence of two parents. You
need to separate the results out by economic class. Is a child of a wealthy
single mother more likely to go to jail than the child of wealthy married
children? It seems more likely that single parent homes are more
common amongst the poorer populations. Also, poorer populations are more likely
to engage in crime--why would a rich kid hold up a 7-11?Here's an
equally relevant hypothesis: people in Beverly Hills eat more organic foods and
have a lower probability that those in Compton of going to jail. The result
must be that eating organic foods lowers your chance of going to jail.
Truthlover, I guess if you consider what is residing in the Whitehouse as
successful. Just because a person rises to a social status does not indicate
that they are successful. Many "successful" persons end up in less
than desirable circumstances - suicide, mental institutions, etc. Success is an
Well there..W. Bradford Wilcox (if that really IS your first name) religion has
nothing to do with this? Sorry... I thought you were at BYU.
These people are experts. They know what they're talking about. Too bad it's
not politically correct. It's not nice to hear that your lifestyle is damaging
to children and society in general. Not when you just want to do whatever you
want no matter if it's right or wrong. Selfishness is always a lot easier,
isn't it. We need to listen to these people. Our society is in
serious trouble and the breakdown of traditional marriage is one of the main
reasons. If we keep on this self-destructive path, there might not be much time
left for us.
So rough-housing and wrestling with your father are required for a good
childhood?Also, is this part of the reason why conservatives hate
Obama? I mean, he was successfully raised by a single mother.
Thanks for this article. It seems strange that we have to defend traditional
marriage,which has been the norm since history began. Families with functioning
mothers and fathers do the best.
...something we've always known. Can't wait to see RanchHands response to this.
[Such children (those raised by same-sex couples) often miss out on the unique
father-provided benefits, like wrestling and rough-housing, activities where
children learn self-control and appropriate expression of aggression.]That's it? Two women are inferior parents because those kids won't get to
wrestle and rough-house? Please tell me there was an error on your web page and
the article was truncated.
I wonder if the relationship between childhood problems and broken
households/single parent/cohabitation cited by these researchers is causation or
merely correlation. That's an important distinction.And for a
scholar, Wilcox isn't impressing me in the last few paragraphs. There is little
data on same sex marriages, but by golly he is going to make assumptions anyway.
And roughhousing/wrestling is a needed father-provided activity? I hope that is
an out-of-context quote. What if one of your two fathers provides this? Is that
different? What if your straight father does not? Is he being negligent?
Sigh... Why DNews? Why do you keep running these absurd opinion pieces. You are
on the wrong side of the issue, and history will flush it out in time.
"While there's limited data on the effects of same-sex marriage on
children, Wilcox hypothesized that in a few years, research will show that
children in lesbian or gay family situations will exhibit some of the same
problems as children from father-less or cohabiting relationships."So in the meantime we're just going to guess? You know, why does this
state allow single people to adopt but not allow a homosexual partner to adopt?
Anyway, most studies lately are showing children of lesbian couples
do the best (lower rates of abuse and such than straight couples).