Quantcast

Comments about ‘Doug Mainwaring: I'm gay and I oppose same-sex marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, April 1 2013 3:00 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
amazondoc
USA, TN

This is the guy who said that "denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil" -- even though he himself adopted a child and **then got divorced**, thereby depriving his OWN child of both parents.

He also condemned gay marriages because gay couples can't have biological children within the couple -- even though he HIMSELF adopted a child.

Why should anyone listen to such a blatant hypocrite?

Further -- Mainwaring also said: “As a young man, I wasn’t strongly inclined toward marriage or fatherhood, because I knew only homosexual desire.”

Do heterosexuals "know only heterosexual desire"? No, of course not. Homosexuals are just as capable of desiring the stability of marriage and the rewards of parenthood as anyone else. In fact, Mainwaring's "desire" probably had more to do with his age than his orientation. If homosexuals DIDN'T want families, we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place!

Finally -- Mainwaring recalled a scene where his adopted son kissed his wife. Then he claimed that couldn't happen with gay parents. Why not?? Why does he believe that gay men are incapable of showing physical affection towards their children?? The thought is ludicrous.

jeanie
orem, UT

He ended up giving his children the opportunity of having both a dad and a mom by denying himself physical intimacy. He ended up putting his own needs second to those of his children. You can read about this in the complete article.

He recognizes that same gender attraction does not negate the need for both genders when it comes to creating and raising a family. He dares go against the current "politically correct" tidal wave and speak to his experience which is different than what is safe to say.

As a young man he recognized that it takes a man and a woman to produce a kid, therefore fatherhood wasn't in his thoughts because he wasn't attracted to women. It seems it might have been more about logic than youth.

For a "hypocrite", he has everything to loose by stating his opinions, and he has given up what many adults would not for the sake of his kids. I believe his thoughts are worth considering.

observator
east of the snake river, ID

@ amazon. Let me address your claims point by point:

1. Divorce: He then pulled his family back together over several years, recognizing the strength that it brought.

2. Adoption: We don't use exceptions to establish policy. MOST marriages, traditionally defined, produce children. NO homosexual union ever will without outside assistance.

3. Desire isn't the question; it's what is the most stable relationship for the family unit including the children. If you had read the entire linked article, you would have seen that Manwaring spent several years as an adult following his "desire"...hardly a childhood fantasy.

4. You missed the affection point. A mother's affection with a son will be DIFFERENT than that of a father. Capability does not remove the uniqueness of a mother/son affection that cannot be duplicated in a homosexual-couple-led unit.

Again, if you read the linked article, Manwaring doesn't dismiss homosexual unions out of hand, but he does assert that such unions are not identical to married, heterosexual unions w/respect to raising children in a family unit. If they are not identical, they shouldn't use the same designation, even if recognized as equal under the law.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@observator --

Actually, I read the full Mainwaring article several days ago. I'm quite well aware of what it says, thanks.

"1. Divorce: He then pulled his family back together over several years."

He was divorced for **10 years**.

"2. Adoption: We don't use exceptions to establish policy."

And "we" don't condemn others for doing what "we" do ourselves, either. Unless we want to be called hypocrites.

Many straight couples adopt or use artificial means when they wish to raise children. Nobody condemns them for doing so, and nobody decries the complications of adoption papers and such that are attendant on these procedures. It's hypocritical, therefore, to turn around and condemn these very same procedures when they happen to be undertaken by gay couples.

"3. Desire isn't the question; it's what is the most stable relationship for the family unit including the children. "

In states and countries where gay marriages are legally recognized, the divorce rate for gay couples is the same as for straight couples. Which is not really saying much, since the **straight** divorce rate is around 50%.

Marriage increases family stability. If we value stability, we should be **encouraging** gay marriages.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@observator --

"4. A mother's affection with a son will be DIFFERENT than that of a father."

1. One mother's affection will be different from another mother's. Every individual will be different from every other individual. There is no perfect combination of parents -- each individual will bring their own strengths and weaknesses to the family.

2. Several groups of child development experts -- including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, amongst others -- have come out in support of gay marriage. These **experts** recognize that children raised by gay couples in stable homes do just as well as with straight couples in stable homes. The essential elements are love and stability, not gender.

3. The argument about straight couples being superior for children is a red herring. Gay couples aren't stealing children from stable straight homes. They are mostly from broken or abusive straight homes or unwed mothers, or children from previous marriages. They don't have straight homes to go to. Whatever they may "deserve", there just aren't enough stable straight homes out there. Gay couples are actually picking up the pieces from FAILED straight couples, and helping children that straights FAILED to raise.

jeanie
orem, UT

Gender matters. This is what the author of this article recognizes. No matter how compassionate and caring a man is they cannot replace a mother, a woman, and neither can a woman replace a father. A gay couple can love and nurture, no question, but it is best for children to have both a mom and a dad.

There are many "straight" couples who would love to adopt but have to wait years for a baby. I don't know that there is a shortage of stable, straight homes.

Gay marriage is a social experiment. We don't know the results and won't for years. We do know that for thousands of years a stable family that consists of a loving father and mother has proven to be highly successful for the raising and nurturing of children.

observator
east of the snake river, ID

Contrarius:

1. Yes, there are differences between individual's affections. But, there are also some general interactions between mother/child that are categorically different than father/child or other person/child. To look at interactions solely as between individuals only is to see the trees and not the forest.

2. There are other "experts" that will claim the opposite of your experts, by the way...I think it's probably too early to say one way or the other since there's too little data available.

2. In the ideal, a biological mother and father raising and loving children should be the fundamental unit in society. Does this always work? Unfortunately not, in too many cases; and yes, you can make a case that stable is better than not stable...certainly single parents or a homosexual couple can love a child. But that doesn't mean that the traditional family unit shouldn't remain the ideal. When we conflate the term marriage to cover numerous types of societal relationships we lose the ideal.

It is obvious that neither of us will convince the other today, but we can have a pleasant conversation. Drop the caps...there's no need to yell. :-)

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@observator --

" Drop the caps..."

I wave my arms a lot when I talk in person, too. Just picture arm-waving over the keyboard. ;-)

1. "interactions between mother/child that are categorically different...."

I dispute the extent of these purported differences. Men can be just as nurturing as women. Men can, for example, be nurturing pediatric nurses, day care workers, teachers, therapists, social workers......and, yes, parents.

But, again, this is a red herring. It's irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage. Gay marriage won't mean fewer stable straight families, or steal babies away from stable straight families. The **only** thing that gay marriage will do is to improve the stability of GAY families.

"2. There are other "experts"..."

There are **no** groups of child development experts that have come out in opposition to gay marriages. If you think I've missed any, please name them.

"When we conflate the term marriage..."

According to this argument, unhappy marriages should not be called "marriage" because they are not ideal. Arranged marriages should not be called "marriage" because they are not ideal. Marriages between drug addicts should not be called "marriages" because they are not ideal. Don't be a marriage elitist.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@jeanie --

"I don't know that there is a shortage of stable, straight homes. "

Foster care statistics:

USA, September 2010 -- 408,000 children in foster care. Only half of those children are ever returned to their biological parents or primary caregivers. More than half are in foster care for over a year. A third are in care for more than 2 years. More than 90% of foster kids are over a year old, with an average age of 9 years (most straight adoptive families want babies, as you yourself noted).

Every year, 20-30,000 US kids age out of foster care. This means that these kids were NEVER adopted. They grew up in foster care because nobody wanted them.

Across the world, there are an estimated **150 MILLION** orphans.

It is very safe to say that there are not enough stable straight homes for all these kids.

More 2010-2012 US statistics: 100,000 gay couples are currently raising children. 80-85% are raising biological children, 20-30% have adopted children, for a total over 100,000 children. 4% of all US adopted kids have gay parents, even **without** gay marriage. They aren't going away.

Samaritan01
Yuma, CO.

If there is a more intelligent, reasoned and balanced approach to the question of same-sex marriage I have yet to read it.

Due to my career I have met many homosexuals in my lifetime, they would routinely relate the sad statistic that very few homosexual relationships survive even for short periods of time. If one adds children to this mix it makes for results that are heart-breaking.

The same-sex marriage debate is often cluttered with emotional baggage while Mr. Mainwaring's experience is both reasoned and, not surprisingly, effective.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Samaritan01--

"very few homosexual relationships survive even for short periods of time."

In reality, in states and countries where gay marriages are legal, the divorce rate is the **same** for homosexual and heterosexual couples. This is a fact, not emotion.

I am constantly surprised that people criticize the perceived instability of same-sex relationships -- while at the same time these same people turn around and try to deny gay couples the tools they need to encourage more STABLE relationships. How does that make any sense??

If you think that family stability is important, then you should **encourage** gay marriage. It's the logical thing to do.

Samaritan01
Yuma, CO.

@Amazondoc

"In reality, in states and countries where gay marriages are legal, the divorce rate is the same for homosexual and heterosexual couples".

Sorry to disappoint you however the vast number of homosexuals I knew who were "married" in name only. Stepping outside the bonds of marriage, such as they were, was very common. A well known couple, whom I had seen interviewed on T.V. a number of times as "models" of gay marriage, had by their own admission cheated on one another on their "wedding" day.

Encouraging "more stable relationships" is meaningless if individuals aren't determined to build a stable relationship despite the temptations of the world.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

Well said Sir.

You are a brave individual as I'm sure you've been attacked relentlessly by those who supposedly support diversity of opinions.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Samaritan --

"Sorry to disappoint you however the vast number of homosexuals I knew who were "married" in name only."

Since gay marriages are legal in very few states, and you don't live in one of those states, it's extremely unlikely that you have actually personally known a "vast number" of legally married homosexuals. ;-)

US statistics find that roughly 40% of unmarried **straight** couples experience infidelity at some point in their relationships, and roughly 20% of married couples do. Again, we see that marriage increases the odds for a stable relationship.

Also, straight men are roughly twice as likely to cheat as straight women within marriages. More than half of all men surveyed admit to committing infidelity during at least one of their relationships (including married and unmarried). Naturally, gay men are also more likely to cheat than gay women -- especially when they are not allowed to legally marry.

No matter how many ways you try to slice it -- marriage increases family stability. Family stability is good for children. Children are **already** being raised by gay couples. Allowing gay couples the means to increase their family stability is **good** for those children, and good for society.

Samaritan01
Yuma, CO.

@Amazondoc

"Since gay marriages are legal in very few states, and you don't live in one of those states, it's extremely unlikely that you have actually personally known a "vast number" of legally married homosexuals".

Wrong assumption, I was raised and worked in Los Angeles and the "married" couples were, in fact wed in a local church. Homosexual marriages were quite common, then and now, do your research re: the religious right to marry as opposed to a legal acceptance of that marriage.

While I agree that far too many people violate their wedding vows by their own admission my homosexual acquaintances would bluntly state that if one was seeking a long-term monogamous relationship a homosexual relationship was NOT the way to go. They could not name one "couple" who had not repeatedly involved in cheating.

Making homosexual marriage legal won't increase one's desire for a monogamous relationship or, if my acquaintances are correct, reduce the transmission of AIDS.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Samaritan --

"and the "married" couples were, in fact wed in a local church."

Samaritan, these debates are about **legal** marriages. Homosexual marriage was only legal in California for **4 months**, back in 2008. I'll repeat my earlier statement, since you've shown us no evidence to the contrary: it is extremely unlikely that you actually personally know "vast numbers" of legally married homosexuals.

"Making homosexual marriage legal won't increase one's desire for a monogamous relationship"

We already **know** that legal marriage increases the odds of fidelity *and* increases family stability, just by looking at the statistics already available to us (I would point you towards some good web sites with data, but we're not allowed to post links here). You haven't provided us with any evidence to the contrary.

I'll also repeat: gay couples are **already** raising children, even without the benefit of legal marriage. Legally recognized marriage will help these kids by increasing family stability. People who think that kids are important should ENCOURAGE gay marriage.

Vince here
San Diego, CA

Why is this viewpoint any different from heterosexual marriage who don't believe in marriage?

It's inconsistent to think that well, a straight person doesn't believe in marriage, so let's run that story --- because there is a double standard to the gay community, that's why.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments