Published: Sunday, April 6 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
Utah lets single people adopt, I don't see complaints about that. Why does
it only matter when it's gay people?
You are not required to have children if you get married. So why are children
being brought into this debate?I guess the ideal situation for a
child would be;A household that has adequate access to health
insurance. Republicans are against this.Access to quality education.
Republicans in this state are against anything with education unless they can
line their pockets.The ability of the parents to care for the child
when it is born or adopted. Remember the Family Medical Leave Act that allowed
the parent(s) to take off time from work to care for a new born. Republicans are
against this.It seems to me that gay marriage is not the problem but
how republicans do not support what is important to families.
Excellent article, I completely agree with it!!
Since children in single-parent families do far worse on the average than either
children in conventional marriages or same sex marriages, why isn't their a
big outcry to do something about that? It affects far, far more children than
does same-sex marriage. Problem is, the only solution would be to require
biological parents to marry as soon as the woman becomes pregnant, and to
prohibit divorce until the children are of legal age. Or do we focus only on
gay couples because they're a much easier target?
It is plainly obvious that this lengthy editorial is making one simple point,
and that is: "that intact biological families tend to produce
the best results for children".So what! My first cousin was
raised by my grandparents, my grandmother was raised by her step father, my
wife's cousin was raised by a kind neighbor lady who took him in, my cousin
and her partner are raising an orphan from South America.My point is
that maybe the ideal is the Cleavers, but life intrudes and we all do the best
we can to make families work, why demonize family structures that don't
fit someones definition of the "perfect family unit"?
And so it continues: The refusal to acknowledge facts and information contrary
to one’s position; the cherry-picking of language and data to support an
insupportable argument. I don’t know why this should upset me
– it’s clearly a weakness to be expected amongst us humans. But it
upsets me when it is done in the service of religion – a type of belief
system that purports to represent the height of morality and wants to be treated
as more special than other perspectives.I am an atheist but I
believe in Jesus. I don’t think he was a god and I’m not even
certain that he actually existed. It doesn’t matter if he did. I believe
in the message he is said to have espoused. This op-ed represents the opposite
and it sickens me.If you have the truth on your side, there is no
need to ignore, mislead, and cherry-pick.More to come…
The Child Trends article. I Googled it and found that the cover page consists
of a single paragraph:"Note: This Child Trends brief summarizes
research conducted in 2002, when neither same-sex parents nor adoptive parents
were identified in large national surveys. Therefore, no conclusions can be
drawn from this research about the well- being of children raised by same-sex
parents or adoptive parents."Loren Marks and Douglas Allen
testified at the trial in Michigan. Here’s what the judge concluded about
their testimony: “The Court was unable to accord the testimony
of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight. Marks’s testimony is
largely unbelievable…The most that can be said of these witnesses’
testimony is that the ‘no differences’ consensus has not been proven
with scientific certainty, not that there is any credible evidence showing that
children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual
couples."Another post to come...
“Ad hominem attacks” is a reference to sociologist Mark Regnerus.
Here’s what the Michigan opinion says about his testimony: “The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and
not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated
that his 2012 ‘study’ was hastily concocted at the behest of a
third-party funder, which found it ‘essential that the necessary data be
gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds
of family arrangement are best for society’ and which ‘was confident
that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this
study…While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his
impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The
funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged. Additionally, the
[Regnerus study] is flawed on its face, as it purported to study “a large,
random sample of American young adults (ages 18-39) who were raised in different
types of family arrangements” (emphasis added), but in fact it did not
study this at all…”
And how do the graduation rates of children compare on the other types of
parenthood?Children of SINGLE MOTHERS?Children of SINGLE
FATHERS?Children of ROTATING CUSTODY between parents?If
the State of Utah really wants to address graduation rates, then you focus on
the most critical aspects of childrens' upbringing & education. Every
gay person that I know from the neighborhood where I grew was raised by OPPOSITE
SEX PARENTS, and graduated from high school ON TIME.How does the
percentage of couples that HAVE NEVER HAD CHILDREN impact the state laws of
against couples who DESIRE to get married?And what about couples who
CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN? Why should the State of Utah block my 84 year old widowed
mother from marrying a Woman versus marrying a Man?
You may be correct, if you cherry pick your research. What you also don't
state is how infrequently your ideal traditional family succeeds in staying
together, leading to all kinds of problems today. Maybe the commitment a gay
couple make to overcome the hurdles, scorn and ridicule should be celebrated; it
might even represent a great committed, stable relationship in which to raise a
child. As for the efforts of the governor and attorney general, you are free to
support them, but they're unconstitutional.
If reason really needs to hold sway, your side needs to come up with a better
argument than "God says homosexuality is gross." You guys can huff and
puff and tap dance all you like, but you haven't really done this yet.
The Canadian study is severely flawed. Since it was done only 8 years ago, most
of the children of gays have not even reached high-school age. Gay marriage was
made legal in Canada in 2005. Before then same-sex partners raising children and
single gay parents were put in the same category as single parents. Children of
single parents do have more struggles. Gays just made up a small percentage of
that classification, so it is unfair to lump them with all single parents. No
one is arguing that the traditional family is not more ideal than single parent
families. But it is very valid to argue that children in same-sex partner
households would do better if they were in a legally recognized family. There
are already about 8 million such children, and they would fare much better if
their "parents" (one of which is biological) had all the benefits and
protections marriage affords.
Happy to have you express your opinion. In Utah that may matter. Elsewhere, not
so much. The train has left the station and same sex marriage will be the law
of all the land. I have a gay son who has felt the oppression of the religious.
All that is being minimized as this new generation is saying "no more"
and believing that gays aren't second class people.
DN, even if we all agree that mom-and-dad homes are the best environments to
raise children, many children will still be raised in single-parent and
same-sex-couple homes. And these children should not be disadvantaged by the
State by a law that puts their homes in a second-class category. For
all the chest-pounding by the DN - "it's about the children!" - it
really isn't. If it were about the children, ALL children in all
circumstances would be treated with dignity and respect. Your position is really
about religion, and the discomfort that is felt when civil law and religious
dogma become out of sync.
Based on this research, should the government eliminate divorce? Should the
government require couples always remain together? Should we take it a step
further, and require religions to eliminate divorce? After all, research shows
that would be best.
There is strong correlation between a couple being opposite gender and
fertility. (I did not say that there is a 100% correlation where every single
opposite gender couple has children, I just said that there is a really strong
correlation.) On the other hand, the correlation between same gender couples
and fertility is zero. Not small, not tiny. Zero. There is a reason for that
which is clear to most people.So, if we are going to give marriage
benefits to non-procreational couples to recognize their love I would ilke to
get my aunt and uncles social security benefits when they die. I love them a
lot. They love me a lot. (For those who grew up in dysfunctional homes, I did
not say that I am sleeping with them. Just because you love someone does not
mean that you have to sleep with them.)If we give benefits to one
class of non-procreational couples based on their shared love, then we need to
do that to all other non-procreational couples. Don't argue that it should
only be based on romantic love. Love overcomes all.
Zach Wahls on this issue (quoting his testimony from his website): Well
actually, I was raised by a gay couple, and I’m doing pretty well. I score
in the 99th percentile on the ACT. I’m an Eagle Scout. I own and operate
my own small business. If I was your son, Mr. Chairman, I believe I’d make
you very proud. I’m not so different from any of your children. My family
really isn’t so different from yours. After all, your family doesn’t
derive its sense of worth from being told by the state, “You’re
married, congratulations!” The sense of family comes 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.
... But not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized
independently that I was raised by a gay couple. And you know why? Because the
sexual orientation of my parents has had zero impact on the content of my
I have to disagree with this article. My daughter is adopted. Are you trying to
tell me that My daughter is going to be hurt by living in a loving, two-parent
adoptive household? Just because a child is in a two parent, biological family,
does not mean that it is a "low-conflict marriage." My
husband and I have always wanted to adopt, and health issues made it the only
way that we could become parents. Living in the church, we have repeatedly been
treated as though we are lesser members and people because we didn't have
children and now because we only have one child. Stories like this are only
going to have adoptive families treated and feeling like they are less because
they are not providing the "two biological parents" that this article
claims is healthiest for children. There is enough prejudice going around
without having articles like this adding fuel to the fire.
It does not take more than a minute to look up the research that is cited here
as evidence to ascertain that this research is thoroughly discredited. It was
and is biased from the beginning, dated, and, by the admission of one of the
researchers, fails to prove its conclusions based on the evidence it
provided.Now, there may be religious or cultural reasons for
believing that same sex marriage and child rearing are wrong. However there is
no creditable research that shows that children in same sex parented homes fare
any worse than those raised in so-called traditional "Father Knows Best"
type homes.That paper cites discredited and obviously biased
research to make it claims that children in same sex parented homes are somehow
disadvantaged renders it unworthy of thoughtful consideration by its readers.
Facts are pesky things that must not be ignored. You are entitled
to your own beliefs, but not your own fact.
My problem with so called 'scientific data' is we assume the people
involved used complete integrity and had no subjective agendas, but often this
is not the case. That is why we are taught that we should not put our faith in
the 'arm of the flesh'. It only takes one person involved to falsify
the data for their own personal or political gain. Even peer reviews can deceive
due to men's inherent weaknesses. To me, its obvious what is
right and what is wrong. I would ask how does the act of homosexuality benefit
society? Obviously there is no way for a homosexual couple to create a family,
the real, and pure, purpose for sex. What is it's purpose? How does it
benefit communities, cities, and nations? I would argue there is no benefit to
society. It is inherently selfish.Heterosexual relationships, if
they have a dedicated and righteous desire to create and raise a family, is
vital in building strong communities, cities, and nations. Thus it puts this
type of relationship in a special and protected class, something a homosexual
relationship can never have no matter what study comes out next year.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments