I am pro-traditional marriage. I think we all agree that Family is important,
particularly where benefits to children are concerned. However, I see merit to
the idea that gay-marriage might be considered a stabilizing force in an
otherwise destabilizing world. The contention is rather simple: children are
going to come into the world regardless of marital relationships. Homosexual
couples can already conceive (though it is through non-traditional means such as
surrogacy, in-vitro, etc.). As such, shouldn't we provide
additional stability for their children? Are we comfortable denying their
children the apparent benefits of nuclear families in good conscience simply
because of who their parents are?I don't think this idea
necessarily impinges on marriage in its current (admittedly sub-optimal) state.
An argument can definitely be made for idealized marriage, but as long as our
society fails at the ideal (and may indefinitely) perhaps we should seek to
improve rather than prohibit stability. An argument can be made for
more research prior to codifying any "new" marriage, but it doesn't
change the status quo. Homosexual people can have children. Should their
children be afforded marriage stability?
Thanks for this article. The deterioration of families is the elephant in the
living room that some in society refuse to acknowledge. Yes, it's not cool
- do your own thing, but there are consequences. Family integrity is ancient and
not a new concept.
@patriot --"I suspect your list of reputable professionals here
happen to be ALL gay activists as well...correct?"Um, nope.
Sorry to disappoint ya. ;-)Supporting groups include:American Academy of PediatricsAmerican Academy of Family
PractitionersAcademy of Child and Adolescent PsychiatryAmerican
Psychological AssociationAmerican Psychiatric AssociationNational
Association of Social WorkersFrom AAP's position statement:
"“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".From
APA's position statement: "Research has shown that marriage provides
substantial psychological and physical health benefits due to the moral,
economic and social support extended to married couples. Conversely, recent
empirical evidence has illustrated the harmful psychological effect of policies
restricting marriage rights for same-sex couples. Additionally, children raised
by same-sex couples have been shown to be on par with the children of
opposite-sex couples in their psychological adjustment, cognitive abilities and
social functioning."Still waiting for those "statistics"
you claimed to have, patriot! :-)
This was a wonderful commentary!My favorite part..."David Brooks of the New York Times goes further, explaining how
maximizing personal freedom does not necessarily give people what they want.
Rather, he argues, individuals are better served "when they are enshrouded
in commitments that transcend personal choice - commitments to family, God,
craft and country.""Every night I worry and hope for these
things to improve. I don't think I'm strong enough to withstand some
of the consequences I see around the corner if they don't. I know that the
work continues to help as many as possible. But as much as I understand it in
principle it can be hard to retain it in my memory. Men's hearts are truly
failing them today.After a recent personal slump, this scripture
recently has helped me to regain hope and faith..."Wherefore,
whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a
place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to
the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in
good works, being led to glorify God."
re:Contrarius"children do just as well with two parents of the
same gender as with two parents of opposite genders"This is
nonsense and you have absolutely no proof. Homosexual marriage is only a few
years old and the adoption of children into a homosexual home is certainly NOT
condoned or supported as a healthy and normal situation for children except by
gay-activist's. The ONLY thing we can go by are the facts regarding the
self destructive nature of homosexuality (high suicide, high drug abuse, high
depression and other forms of mental illness). These are FACTS and throwing
innocent children into this toxic mix and calling it normal is ridiculous."Every reputable professional group of child-development experts in
this country *supports* gay marriage"I suspect your list of
reputable professionals here happen to be ALL gay activists as well...correct?
You live in a small world Contrarius.
@patriotYou are certainly free to have your own opinions on this issue you
are not however free to make up your own "facts" rod distorts the
comments of the people I the article and expect other will not challenge your
claims. The research is very early not in support of your claims and the experts
quotes in this article also do not support your claims.
@Gregorio --"We are a nation under God."Just a
note -- the phrase "under God" was only added to the Pledge of
Allegiance about 50 years ago. It's a johnny-come-lately compared to the
long history of this country.@patriot == "Any study
on society and the family prove overwhelmingly that the most successful families
are those that have a father and a mother. "This is not actually
true.What studies do show is that children do best in homes with
**two parents**, compared to just one. This isn't news to anyone. However, studies have ALSO shown that children do just as well with two
parents of the same gender as with two parents of opposite genders.Every reputable professional group of child-development experts in this
country *supports* gay marriage -- because they know that what children really
need most is STABILITY. Marriage promotes stability -- and that includes gay
marriage -- so gay marriage is good for kids."Every attempt at
some 'other' form of association whether it be homosexual or other is
a dismal failure and statistics prove that out."Where?? Please
show us some of these supposed statistics. Thanks in advance!
We are a nation under God. We are families of a great nation that will only
continue to be great if families stay strong. Government should be a guardian of
family life and right living people her citizens, under moral law.
re:GeorgeGeorge - every citizen has the right - in America at least
- to campaign for and vote for the kind of society that they want to live in and
that they want their children and grand children to grow up in. That is called a
'free republic'. I see marriage as the foundation of society and I
refer to the LDS Church and its proclamation on the family where they state that
children have the best chance of a healthy and happy life with a father and
mother in the home. Now I'm not stating anything new here George. Any study
on society and the family prove overwhelmingly that the most successful families
are those that have a father and a mother. One more thing - marriage is ordained
of God our creator and it was He that said marriage was ONLY between a man and a
woman. Our creator knows alot more about what works and what doesn't work
George. Every attempt at some 'other' form of association whether it
be homosexual or other is a dismal failure and statistics prove that out. Too
many people confuse political correctness with truth - most the time they are
@patriot and johna couple of the quotes from the article.“This isn’t a moral issue,” Kotkin continued. “This is
a societal issue.”“Marriage is not a Christian thing,
it’s not a Mormon thing, it’s not a Jewish thing, it’s a human
thing,” Wilcox said.Using it to push your religion onto others
despite the facts only serves to further harm families.
@patriot and john I see nothing in the statements by the people quoted
speaking to your claims. The not once suggest that the gender of the married
parents has any bearing on the results. Probably because the research clearly
shows there is no difference. They never once mention abortion but they do
mention economic stratification which is what the affordable care act is hoping
to try to better bridge in some small way but nice attempt at standing on the
old soap box.
Patriot, John Charity Spring, and All,We would do well do not
politicize this issue. It is one where we can and must ally ourselves with good
folks around the country. This will require crossing lines of religion,
politics, culture, etc.It is too important to become simply an
"I am right and the rest of you are wrong" issue.
It is occasionally surprising what the censors let through in comments. Indeed,
for a purportedly pro-family media organ, it is also apalling what censors let
through on the other end of the spectrum, while they typically squelch this end.
Criticism of the organ is n'er allowed.And, so it makes it
difficult to fight the anti-family commentators who are permitted more of a free
hand here, in an attempt to accomplish a supposed Solomon "split the
baby" in half feat. After all, the organ claims neutrality. But can anyone
on such important issues be truly 'neutral'?One thing we
also cannot be neutral in is human reproduction. And I'm not talking
abortions. I'm talking about allowed things, medications and procedures
that are not really discouraged much any more.Last Sunday, I met a
couple uho use to be in our same word, who had but two children. They said to
me, "Two is enough for us." I am supposing they could have more, but
choose purposely not to. IMO, they are cheating themselves. People, not money,
are our true wealth. Our values, IMO, have become twisted, even perverse.
Patriot's statement is absolutely correct.. However, it is surprising that
the censors let the comment through.The left-wing extremists in
charge of the national government have an open and stated agenda of attacking
traditional marriage and family. Indeed, every social policy adopted by the
Obama Administration is designed to break down the traditional family
relationships that have held this Country together for well over 200 years.Specifically, the left-wing has forced employers, even religious ones,
to pay for birth control on demand. This encourages wanton and uncontrolled
sexuality, and encourages young people to avoid marriage. The irrefutable result
is that a large segment of the younger generation now has now more morals that a
group of excited rabbits on a Spring day.We can no longer pretend
that strong families are unimportant. We already have enough crime, substance
abuse, and immorality. We must return to electing morally strong leaders who
will support marriage and family.
Yes America needs strong families and that is why....Barack Obama is
firmly behind the following....1. Homosexual marriage2. Late
term abortion3. Government paid contraception4. The
"un-afordable" health care act infamously known as Obamacare or as Harry
Reid and other senate democrat's called it - a train wreck. 5.
Planned parenthood (better know as drive through abortion)Yes
America needs strong families but America needs first a president who is
pro-life and has the moral courage to stand for Christian principles.