Quantcast

Comments about ‘Redefining marriage changes its purpose’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, April 20 2013 11:20 a.m. MDT

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

More than 100,000 US gay couples are **already** raising children, with or without marriage -- and that isn't going to change.

Gay couples produce children in the same ways that infertile straight couples do. Giving those couples the tools they need to provide stable homes for their kids is a GOOD thing. Marriage encourages stable families -- and THAT is what helps kids, no matter who their parents love.

Multiple groups of professional child-development experts -- including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, AND the National Association of Social Workers -- all **support** gay marriage. There is NO such professional group that opposes them.

The AAP's position statement declares: “There is an emerging consensus, based on extensive review of the scientific literature, that children growing up in households headed by gay men or lesbians are not disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents" and "Marriage strengthens families and benefits child development".

Yes, children are important. If you SUPPORT gay marriage, you're supporting more stable homes for those kids.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

I couldn't agree more, children need more than a good parent or two good parents. What is needed is a mother and a father. If one parent dies the child still has a mother and father, but one is alive and one is dead. I support civil rights for people who are gay including hate crime laws and housing and employment laws as well as strict harassment laws. When one gay person is attacked the entite community feels it and the sense of insecurity. This is the logic of hate crime laws. As a society we need to learn once and for all not to needlessly discriminate. But in asking to adopt children, this is going too far.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@cjb --

"But in asking to adopt children, this is going too far."

Gay people can *already* legally adopt, even in Utah.

In fact, *single* gay people can adopt in Utah -- but stable gay couples can not. How does that make any sense?

In Utah, there are roughly 4 children in foster care for **every qualified adoptive home**. There simply aren't enough straight adoptive homes out there. Allowing gay couples to adopt gets more of these foster children into loving homes -- and allowing the gay couples to marry will improve the stability of those homes. That's GOOD for the kids.

The APA has declared that "not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents," and concluded that "home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth."

I just saw a new estimate saying that, nationwide, the total number of children living with at least one gay parent is 6-14 **million** children. Child raising IS important -- to both straight AND gay couples.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

I guess the children of GLBT couples don't matter.

Marriage is about creating a familial bond where none previously existed. "Redefining" marriage isn't going to affect heterosexual marriage in the least. Not to mention that the meaning of marriage has changed many, many times throughout history.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

"I'm a sixth-generation Iowan, an Eagle Scout, and I was raised by my two moms, Jackie and Terry.
People want to know what it's like having lesbian parents. We're like any other family. We eat dinner, we go to church, we have chores. But some people don't see it that way. When I was 12, watching the 2004 Republican convention, I remember politicians talking about protecting marriage from families like mine. Governor Romney says he's against same-sex marriage because every child deserves a mother and a father. I think every child deserves a family as loving and committed as mine. Because the sense of family comes from the commitment we make to each other to work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones. It comes from the love that binds us; that's what makes a family. Mr. Romney, my family is just as real as yours."

(Zach Wahls 2012)

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@amazondoc "'[C]hildren growing up in households headed by gay men or lesbians are not disadvantaged in any significant respect...'"

One would expect that this arrangement will have repercussions across generations. Not all of its effects can be known immediately. It's not wise to just roll the dice, and hope that everything turns out well for society.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Nate --

"One would expect that this arrangement will have repercussions across generations. Not all of its effects can be known immediately. It's not wise to just roll the dice, and hope that everything turns out well for society."

That genie is already out of the bottle. There are roughly 6-14 **million** children in the US being raised by at least one gay parent already. They aren't going away.

We can't make these kids disappear, even if we want them to. What we **can** do is help them to grow up in stable homes -- by supporting gay marriage.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Nice try, the old 'think of the children' dodge. Truth is, given the state of so called 'traditional' marriage today, the commitment of two loving people willing to go through the problems and harassment that gay couples must endure, especially in a place like utah, might be a nice improvement in the overall condition of marriage.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

More of the same old red herring. If you can't find a way to prove that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage, make it about children. How many people are raising children alone, how many are in orphanages or other institutions? It seems to me that those situations are potentially more damaging than a gay couple raising children.

Lets face it, this gay marriage opposition is more about simple homophobia than anything else.

KJB1
Eugene, OR

The DN can run as many of these stories as they like, but they can't stop the momentum of history. More and more people are seeing that the opponents of same sex marriage don't have any argument stronger than, "Because God said so." Single parents are legally allowed to raise their children, infertile couples are allowed to marry, and soon gay couples will be able to legalize their unions. The world won't end and the family won't be destroyed; life will go on. Ob-la-di, ob-la-da.

In fifty years, people will look back at this wonder what the big deal was, and hopefully the DN will be wringing their hands over topics that really matter. Hopefully.

EDM
Castle Valley, Utah

This argument about what "children deserve" is SO tired. Banning gay marriage does not strengthen families any more than it guarantees a nurturing mommy-plus-daddy home to all children. Please spare us the deflection.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Children have the right to be raised by their biological parents when at all possible. Two people of the same gender who 'marry' will never bear children. Through marriage society says that men should be responsible for the procreative actions.

Snowdude
South Jordan, UT

Again, the arguments about NO experts believe same sex marriage is not as advantageous as traditional marriage for children. Google "The Regnerus Controversy: Children In Traditional Families Do Better Than Those Raised In Non-Traditional Settings" by W.M Briggs. Briggs is a professor of statistics at Cornell. Check his credentials on his blog. There are actually "experts" that don't believe same sex marriage is as good for children as a stable marriage with a mom and dad.

Mention the Regnerus study and the gay community will immediately come unglued. However, this article points out the numerous problems and biases in the criticisms of the Regnerus study. You might also note that the University of Texas audited Regnerus based on all the noise and found no scientific misconduct. **None**

I like the position, "don't talk about the affects on children--it has nothing to do with this conversation." Sorry, but it does.

Snowdude
South Jordan, UT

On the subject of experts agreeing--there are experts in the American College of Pediatricians that do not support gay parenting. It is said their membership is small, therefore their opinions do not matter in the vast political environment. There is also a professional organization called NARTH, comprised of licensed mental health experts. They are also criticized because they do not agree with the popular view. The problem is, if experts do not espouse what is popular, they cannot possibly be experts. See the Briggs article noted earlier.

Ask anyone in the NASW or APA if their membership is lock step on these issues. They will laugh. The organizations have recognized bodies representing the gay community; and so we should not be surprised when their positions are gay affirmative; but the organizations in no way represent all members.

I'm not saying the world will be idea where all kids get a mom & dad. Sometimes accidents happen (death, divorce); but why purposely race down a path where we set these situations up by design? Moms and dads are different. Are we really making the argument those differences don't matter in raising children?

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

They are bigots. How else can they be classified? If two men or two women want the same legal rights as a man-woman relationship, it does absolutely nothing to take away from the man-woman relationship. It has no bearing on their lives at all so it can't be anything but bigotry.
The way polygamous relationships worked in Utah were far worse than man-man or woman-woman who desire the same legal rights.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Snowdude --

"Google "The Regnerus Controversy: Children In Traditional Families Do Better Than Those Raised In Non-Traditional Settings" by W.M Briggs."

That blog entry says nothing to alleviate the centrally fatal flaw in Regnerus' study. In fact, Briggs admits that it's there. Specifically, Regnerus compared **unstable** homosexual homes with **stable** heterosexual homes. He fatally confounded his results.

Many studies have confirmed that stable homes are better for kids than unstable ones. That is no surprise. So it isn't any surprise that Regnerus got the results he did. But he did NOTHING to prove any conclusions about orientation -- only about stability.

Incidentally, one of the findings of the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, an ongoing 30 year study, is that kids growing up in **stable** lesbian homes are SAFER than in stable heterosexual homes, and that kids in those homes do just as well.

"There are actually "experts" that don't believe same sex marriage is as good for children as a stable marriage with a mom and dad."

Errr....no. Briggs didn't actually make any conclusions about marriage himself. And, of course, he's a statistician -- not a child-development expert.

EDM
Castle Valley, Utah

Snowdude,

Even if it is true that, overall, children do better in a two-parent heterosexual household, how on earth does the ban on sme-sex marriage achieve this? Gay people will still be gay, settle into partnerships, and sometimes raise children together. I find it very odd that some of the very people who hold marriage so high for its important role as a stabilizer in society, would also deny some children the benefit of growing up with married parents.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@Snowdude --

"there are experts in the American College of Pediatricians that do not support gay parenting."

That's a tiny ultra-conservative group of roughly 60-100 people who banded together **specifically** to fight the issue of gay adoption. It can hardly be considered a representative sample of *anything* aside from homophobia.

"There is also a professional organization called NARTH"

These are conversion therapists. They ignore "the global scientific consensus, the holding of the world's major mental health organizations, and scientific research into the topic which show that homosexuality is not a disorder."

They've even had their 501(c)(3) status revoked by the IRS.

They are also no longer accredited to provide CE credits to therapists.

Yeah, they sound **really** reputable.

"Are we really making the argument those differences don't matter in raising children?"

EVERY family is "different". Some are rich; some are black; some are educated; some are from Texas instead of Vermont. We don't restrict marriages or child-raising because of differences.

Millions of children in this country are ALREADY being raised by at least one gay parent. We need to help these children by making their families more stable. That means marriage.

Older Than I Once Was
South Jordan, UT

Contrario, why was no one surprised when you rejected the expert opinions you requested? NARTH lost their 501c3 status--yes, they you need to file a 990 each year and they missed it. Therefore, they must be charlatans. They don't offer CE credits--they decided that wasn't their mission.

It appears because you disagree with them, none of them went to college...or got licensed. Here's a comment from an NASW website--"...It’s important to express our opinions and help the Association realize not all its members vote or think one way. Yes Virginia, there ARE conservatives in NASW (alongside progressives, apathetics, centrists, fanatics and a variety of others)" Again, get a feel for who runs the organizations and their pronouncements won't surprise you.

As Briggs pointed out, you can only be tolerated if you think the same as the gay community. Case in point - the Sacramento theater director who was fired after opponents of Proposition 8 publicized his campaign contributions.

I wish kids in same sex families the best and I believe their parents love them. Wouldn't it be nice if we could strive to give children both a mom and a dad wherever possible?

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Snowdude;

Not only has the Regnerus study been fully debunked, but he can hardly be considered an unbiased source as it has recently come to light that he had INSTRUCTIONS to find the results he did from his partons. Not only that, he had INSTRUCTIONS to hurry the study as quickly as possible.

He's also provided an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on the anti-marriage cadre.

As a result, ANY reading of the Regnerus study should be suspect.

to comment

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