Published: Sunday, March 24 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
I absolutely agree. The best home for children is a home with two parents who
are in a caring, committed relationship. Maybe it is time we allow gay marriage
so that more children can be in the two-parent families that they deserve.
Allowing same-sex marriage will increase the number of stable homes with married
parents raising children. When looking at children being raised by
same-sex parents, it is important to accurately define the situation. The
choice for children in same-sex parent headed households is not same-sex parents
or opposite-sex parents - the choice is married parents or unmarried parents.
Most same-sex couples with children know the importance of gender appropriate
role-models for their children and provide opportunities for mentoring
relationships. Liberals have long recognized the importance of
marriage to stable societies - which is why Liberals have long supported
same-sex marriage. As for the findings of the Regnerus Study, before
anyone decides to use that as an argument against same-sex marriage, I suggest
you read what Regnerus actually concludes about that study and same-sex
I don't believe in same sex marriage, but I think you need a different
argument. I know many instances of a single parent being better for a child than
keeping a dysfunctional family together. As a single parent that has
raised my fine upstanding children into responsible adults, I resent the
implications of this article.
I donn't know why I even read the dnews anymore. It isn't news or
even relevant opinion; just an outlet to promote LDS teachings. What does that
even mean that our ancestors instinctively knew? This opinion focuses on
correlations, not causal relationships. Until the difference is understood,
real change won't be possible.
Pertinent editorial. My sense is that while many may see gay marriage as a
culprit in breaking down the family, the roots are far deeper, and they've
been growing for some time.As a nation we've thrived via
taxation for public education. There's a major inconsistency in how
education for young children is viewed, vs other governmental programs. Nobody
is vilified for sending their young kids to school, even though as younger
adults they can't afford their education costs directly. This program
works, and works well.Similarly, we need to stop the demonization of
citizens who benefit from other social spending. Better yet, we need to mask
the direct payments of governmental assistance and have those benefits applied
via indirect means. There should be no shame in a young father who
is underemployed trying to be the father his kids need. Kids don't need to
self-stigmatize as they interact with other kids, thinking their dad is a
loser.We need to detoxify our society from this demonization, while
buttressing the American Dream and our historic work ethic. This is
particularly important as our economic system increasingly assigns winners &
losers much more sharply.
I think the reason I liked math in school was because all the teachers followed
the same logic to arrive and the answer. In terms of personal
success and happiness in this world, it’s hard to find two or more people
who have the same logic. It seems that when someone is telling others what to
do, they have an ulterior motive of asking for the action that most benefits the
teller. The family, because of it’s inborn instinct to favor
it’s own, is often deemed to be the best way to start on the road of life.
It is logical to think that the desire to help their own will override any
ulterior motives of the parents. But, the family is a dictatorship. And even
if the family is a benevolent dictatorship, that fact holds true. From other quarters of our world comes the council and teaching that the
individual must be his own man and not depend on others. Associations are
discouraged as evil forces that would take away the persons freedom and rights.
Gangs, cartels, conspiracies and that most vilified workers union are shunned
and sometimes violently discouraged.
When you tell gay couples that marriage isn't that big of a deal, so
it's ok that you discriminate against them and don't give them access
to it--the message you send to everyone else is "marriage isn't that
important because not everybody needs it". You have been shooting
yourselves in your own foot for decades now.
I fail to see how same sex marriages will do anything but further destabilize
the traditional family. It will open the door to more strange relationships such
as a mother and her son, two men and three women, etc. etc, etc. Gay parents
cannot provide the ideal of both a masculine and feminine role model in the
lives of the children. If we want a society of well adjusted children who grow
up to be responsible and wise citizens with strong character, then we had better
get back to the traditional family of father, mother and their children.
If the traditional family of a man and woman could guarantee the upbringing of
children to be desirable adults in this world, it would win out every time. But
the fact is that it can’t. And the problems associated with same sex
marriages is only a part of the reason it is failing more and more. The master/slave relationship between parents and children has been weakened
and sometimes destroyed by the technology and the explosion of contacts with
people outside the family. In order to regain and maintain their guidance over
their wards, They need to be more intelligent, logical and wise, rather than
relying on brute force to cover up their weaknesses. I support the
notion that marriage between a man and a woman is the best choice for parents
because of the availability of the knowledge and wisdom from having both male
and female parents. I don’t care what adults do with their
lives, but I suffer pain when I see or even think I see children being deprived
of their portion of the good life.
JSB,"I fail to see how same sex marriages will do anything but further
destabilize the traditional family. It will open the door to more strange
relationships such as a mother and her son"That made me chuckle.
Gay marriage opponents want "one man one woman". Unfortunately,
"mother and her son" falls perfectly into that category. This is why you
don't rely on slippery slope arguments. This fearmongering
campaign over gay marriages destroying traditional ones is completely
ridiculous, particularly when considering how tiny of a minority of marriages
this will amount to. Your marriage is safe. And there are many bigger
quantifiable problems for children besides whether they have two moms or two
Now that I've read the editorial, I'm not sure how this got turned
into another gay marriage debate and why the editorial board decided to conflate
two separate issues. The study results cited by the editors didn't address
gender roles of parents or the effectiveness of same sex couples in raising
children. It addressed the disparity between committed heterosexual couples and
failed heterosexual couples. The editors ran with the study
conclusions and stated "The study makes it abundantly clear that marriage is
a social good". No, it makes it clear that committed stable households are a
social good. To some that is a minor distinction but it shows the editors
letting their bias get in the way of proper analysis. As does this: "That,
as our ancestors instinctively knew, is the only logical course away from
disaster". Scratching my head on that one. Some of our ancestors
"instinctively knew" that mixed race marriages were wrong. or that
polygamy was right. Speaking of "pushing the magnetized needle
round until it points to where we wish the North Star stood".
I find some lack of clarity where the author is challenging the subsidizing of
'uneducated' young men. How did the 'less educated' being
talked about earlier in the article suddenly become 'uneducated'? This
reveals a very strong bias that is not supported by the argument. Would like to
also suggest that a child from a small, single parent family might have better
educational chances than the tenth child from a traditional family, where the
funds are not available to send every child to college or university. That being
said, I still would not trade my traditional upbringing for the new reality of
our more modern and less spiritual world.
As several of the responses here shows, the effort to push the compass needle
somewhere other than North is a persistent one. And, one not much influenced by
reason.It's a sad truth that there is none so blind as s/he who
will not see.Sadly, with the inevitable effects of a continued
breakdown in the family structure, there will be ever more blind people.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments