Spot on again, Richard and Linda! Thank you for being a voice of reason on the
topic of marriage and family.
Re Candied GingerI am not offended as you say. My feelings are
simply that kids should have a mother and a father where possible.
It is amazing to read some of the comments that decry the lack of support for
so-called same-sex "marriage" in an article that clearly points out the
destruction of the family and one of the reasons is SSM. An article in "the
Federalist" titled "Bait and Switch: How same-sex marriage ends family
autonomy" addresses the destructive purpose behind the SSM push. Children
are entitled to be raised with a Father and a Mother by design. The two are
complimentary yet very different. To be raised by two of either is not the ideal
and never will be. Why lower the bar for children with regard to how they are
raised? We have lowered the educational standards and the moral standards of
society and I suppose the family is the last great push on the downward spiral
@cjb -- You are free to disagree. Don't get upset about my beliefs.---Thanks. I appreciate that. If my side
"wins" and I can marry my partner you will still be married, hetero
marriages will still, happen, children of hetero couples will still have moms
and dads. The only real result is that you will be offended. If your
side "wins" and I can't marry my partner you will still be married,
hetero marriages will still happen, children of hetero couples will still have
moms and dads. But my partner and I won't have the protections
for our family that we should have. And Gay and Lesbian couples and families
will still be treated as second class, moved to the back of the bus, blocked
from protections and benefits. Your side talks about "changing
the definition of marriage." Our side talks about living the reality of
marriage and family. IF your side wins or loses it does not change
your family or situation one bit. For us? A big impact on so many
legal and practical levels. For us, it isn't theory, it is real.
@cjbCandied Ginger never claimed to be a father. She and her partner are
both women. Her children have two loving mothers. The kids' biological
fathers failed them.Two kids who didn't have parental support and
were on track for failure are now in a loving family and doing great.What
would you do differently?
@PopsIf I can marry my partner we get legal protections for our
relationship, our children, our family.If we can get married it has
no effect on your marriage. None. You still have all the legal benefits and
protections you currently have. If we can't get married, we
will have legal paperwork and expense to approach a pale imitation of the
benefits you got by buying a license and saying "I do."If we
can get married you may be offended because you don't like same-sex
marriages. If we can't get married we have appreciable harms to
our family, to our children.If you want to "preserve
marriage" then work to lower the divorce rate. Work to encourage straight
parents to get and stay married. Do that and I will applaud you - I very much
support marriage and think it should encouraged. When you work to
actively block me from protecting my family the way you have protected yours,
that is animus. When you talk about "the children" while
ignoring the very real children of same-sex couples, it is animus.
Re Candied GingerYou may be a good person with skills to be a good
parent. Your partner likewise. If so your children will no doubt be better off
than if it were otherwise. You and your partner however are not a mother and a
father. This is unfortunate for them.You are free to disagree.
Don't get upset about my beliefs.
The lie implicit in the "supporters of gay marriage" is the notion that
same sex "marriage" is not a threat to traditional marriage.It is.Granting legal status to same sex marriage WILL redefine
marriage.Moreover, gay marriage advocates argue on the one hand that
their support for "gay marriage" can NOT be equated with animus against
heterosexual people (who aspire to preserve marriage). Yet on the other hand,
they equivocate by implying and (falsely) assuming that the desire for marriage
preservation is an attack (motivated by animus) against gay people.It is not.And such arguments betray the hypocrisy of the
(typically irreligious) gay "marriage" advocates.
Candied Ginger, I too commend you for your exceptional compassion and dedication
to the well being of your children.
@Candied GingerI applaud you and your children's other mother. Thank
you for sharing these details.
@PopsI don't understand how putting children at psychological and
emotional risk is something the state should advocate. --------My daughter was abandoned by her mother, her father is unknown. Family
did not want her due to her medical condition. My son was hurt pretty badly by
his biological parents. They ended up in the system. Unwanted.
Bounced from foster to foster. Now they've got two moms and are
doing well. Daughter's problems are managed, she will grow up to have a
family of her own. Son's scars are healed, mentally and emotional he is
getting better. The state thinks we're a stable couple who are
good parents raising some good kids. The kids see me stay home, see my wife
work, see nurturing and discipline, they get attention and fun and are shown how
to do all the things a person needs to do. We are a couple raising
children to be adult humans. That is what we model, that is what they see in us
and in our friends, who are gay, lesbian and straight and are (mostly) couples
raising kids too.
@cjb: "Children should have a mother and a father. Meaning that adoptable
children should go to homes where they can be raised by a mother and a
father."I am having trouble typing this. My hands are shaking
with rage.Two moms. Two kids. One adopted, one will be later this
year. Daugher, special needs. In the system most of her life.
Medical condition was had inconsistent treatment and she was getting worse.
Behavior problems because of chaotic life in the system. She is now medically
stable, mostly mainstreamed at school and doing well. She has friends, is in
Girl Scouts, and loves Sunday School and kid's choir. Son, also
special needs. Has a "mother and father" who left him with physical
scars and nightmares. Has a medical condition that is now diagnosed and being
treated. Nightmares and behaviors are getting better, he isn't in school
yet but is doing well in playgroup. I am curious about your meaning.
My kids should still be in the system because we aren't fit parents? We
should be allowed to adopt because they weren't "adoptable" by
hetero couples?Please explain.
@Pops: "You apparently missed the first part of my comment. Left-handedness
isn't relevant to my workplace, whereas gender roles are a fundamental and
indispensable aspect of parenting."Didn't miss that.
Treated it as an assertion rather than a fact. To my knowledge studies claiming
that have either been discredited or compared apples to apricots – they
looked at children in stable two parent homes and compared them to single
parents, or kids who lived with one parent and had another parent that was gay,
or some other thing. Again, to my knowledge, there has not been a study
examining the experiences of children raised by two married gay or lesbian
parents. Claiming that one is better than the other is like claiming that Ford
is better than Chevy because it's Ford. Several studies have
shown that low conflict families who have enough resources to meet needs and
where the parents are engaged fully with the children are ones that actually
have kids who turn out okay. None of that is about gender.
"Families" are not at risk. Those who recognize that a man and a woman,
within the confines of a committed and covenant relationship, who procreate and
bring progeny into that relationship, understand the importance of a
"family" and will continue to live such realities.What is at
danger here is societal functioning. Those who advocate "changing with the
times" fail to recognize the stability and security offered by the
traditional understanding of "families." Such "open mindedness"
fails to consider the ramifications that such re-definitions create by inventing
conflicts that don't exist under the traditional definitions - while
creating additional conflicts which are currently not foreseen or intended by
politically correct thought.God has a plan. That plan contains
safety and peace - regardless of man's invented "wisdom."
PopsYeah because no criminals and no bad people come from homes
where they have 2 parents to raise them. Nice try. I am all for families, and
have one of my own. But to suggest that dropping your child off at daycare will
somehow diminish that family and that child is a ridiculous and insulting claim.
There are many 2 parent homes who have no values, and plenty of single parents
who instill great values in their kids. Your comments are short sighted, with a
side of tunnel vision.
Once again: The sky is falling.
@PopsYou made an analogy of bonus for good job, no bonus for
mediocre job, therefore that straight couples should get the bonus of marriage
because they can do good job in marriage and parenting, and by that standard,
same sex couples should not allow to be married.But that analogy is
irrational. First, same sex couples can be just as good parents as straight
couples. Second, even if some people are not willing to acknowledge the
conclusion above, how about some facts that people all know: Low
income people are more likely to divorce.People with no college
education are more likely to divorce compared to people with college degrees Race-wise, the divorce rate from high to low: Black > Hispanic >
white > AsianYour logic is rebutted by Judge Friedman in his
Michigan case ruling: "Taking the … position to its logical
conclusion, the empirical evidence at hand should require that only rich,
educated, suburban-dwelling, married Asians may marry, to the exclusion of all
other heterosexual couples"I doubt people on this comment board
are qualified to that standard.
Of course, there will never be mention of the damage done to families by Mitt
Romney, the Koch Brothers, and other members of the 1% who are actively working
to decimate the middle class. If we had more equality of opportunity, and if we
would do our duty to punish the "success" that Romney, Koch, et al are
having at destroying the middle class economy, we would have more marriages, we
would have more children born in two parent families, and we could have single
income households because it would be possible to actually make ends meet on a
@Stormwalker,You apparently missed the first part of my comment.
Left-handedness isn't relevant to my workplace, whereas gender roles are a
fundamental and indispensable aspect of parenting.@Don$1000I'm not sure how you inferred a focus on material wealth on the part of
Richard and Linda. I also think you vastly underestimate the ability of what we
as humans are capable of accomplishing if we are committed to correct principles
and have the freedom to live our lives as we see fit, which is the direction
Richard and Linda are promoting.
I know many young people who do not want to get married because that is when the
fighting and problems begin. It is sad that the fundamental principle of family
is being diminished by people who are misunderstanding family life.It takes commitment, love, and forgiveness. It is a place to learn and grow.
It is hard, but it is an important work! Believe in Family! It is the building
blocks of our society!
The lie implicit in the "supporters of traditional marriage" is the
notion that same sex marriage is a threat to "traditional marriage".It is not.Granting legal status to same sex marriage will
NOT "redefine (traditional) marriage" one iota.Moreover,
Traditional marriage advocates argue on the one hand that their support for
"traditional marriage" can NOT be equated with animus against LGBT
people (who aspire to marriage equality). Yet on the other hand, they equivocate
by implying and (falsely) assuming that the desire for marriage equality is an
attack (motivated by animus) against "traditional marriage".It is not.And such arguments betray the hypocrisy of the
(typically religious) "traditional marriage" advocates.
Children should have a mother and a father. Meaning that adoptable children
should go to homes where they can be raised by a mother and a father.That said, if defending traditional families is the goal, then be respectful
of people who choose differently. Years ago there was so much shame with being
gay that many gay people chose to enter into heterosexual marriages to hide the
fact they were gay. Churches who today claim to be defenders of tradional
marriage even encouraged this. It goes without saying that any time a person
marries another person they can't be attracted to, that marriage can not
blossom. Nor is it fair to the other spouse.
If all we can do is embrace a vision of the past then we shall forever be
disappointed because it is gone. We should try to figure out how to be who we
are instead of who we were.
Earth's climate, as well as culture and civilization evolve, ever changing.
Mr. Eyre may think his way of living is best, "eternal", but
that's a perverted view of history. Few humans have enjoyed his
privileges, attending Harvard, raised by decent folk not far removed from
agriculture, in America, in Utah, a large family, a fancy house and suburbans,
etc. There are not enough resources on planet Earth for everyone to live the
utopian vision he sells. When America was the dominant economic power,
coincidentally the same time the author and baby-boomers lived, many were able
to enjoy excess. Now that the whole planet has woken up, thrown off the yoke of
imperialism, and compete for jobs and resources, the authors way of life is soon
to be unattainable for his grandchildren. Sad to see people living in fantasy
land memorializing their excess picture-perfect lifestyle. Western Civilization
started dying in the late 1700's. Today its on its death bed, barely
conscious, with oblivion nearing at a much faster rate, soon to be overtaken by
rising Eastern, Arabic, and quasi-Latino civilizations. In a few centuries
people will wonder what it was like to live in Western Civilization.
I believe two adults (man and women) should raise children. The man is the role
model for the boys, and the woman is the role model for the girls. Would you
want the women playing the man role in a same sex marriage raising your boys?
What type of family life do we want to teach our children, because it will
affect many generations to come?
I, for one, am for traditional marriage and against any redefinition of it. I
also am interested, even intent, on trying to find out how I can make my voice
heard. I will welcome what the Eyre's want to share to help me do that.
Realizing I will be in the minority, I nevertheless feel as strongly about this
issue as the opposition; however, I hope to keep my actions and words civil and
courteous, something that I've noticed is also not as valued by the
"vocal majority".Thank you, Eyres! Keep up the great work!
@PopsMy boss gives a bonus to people who work hard, except the left
handed people don't get a bonus, no matter how hard they work. Boss wants
to encourage traditional right-handed workers. If he gives lefties a bonus too,
then the right handed people won't be encouraged. How about we
recognize families who are raising kids?
A "family" with two "parents" of the same gender is not the same
as a traditional two-parent family. You get one gender role repeated twice, and
it's not even a gender role that is relevant to the majority of children. I
don't understand how putting children at psychological and emotional risk
is something the state should advocate. It's useful to spend
energy to stop the redefinition of marriage because if marriage is redefined,
there will be one less tool available to the state to incentivize traditional
family relationships that have proven beneficial to the state. Here's an
analogy: my employer gives bonuses for extra effort. But if those who don't
get bonuses were to rise up and argue the converse, that not having received a
bonus is an unjustifiable punishment, thereby forcing the company to give
bonuses to everyone, there would no longer be any point in giving bonuses to
@dellMr. and Mrs. Eyre should really read your number, and focus on
those 99% of children and their parents, how those families are doing, advise
how to keep them together, other than spending so much time and energy on how to
stop same sex couples from getting married.
"About 8 million children, the biological children of a gay person, are in
same-sex partner households in the United States"Source,
please?There are 74 million children in the US, you are claiming
that 11% of all children are in same-sex households.According to the
US Census "Out of the 594,000 same-sex couple households, 115,000
reportedhaving children." (http://www.census.gov/prod
/2011pubs/acsbr10-03.pdf) So for the 8 million children number NOT to have been
pulled from thin air, each same-sex couple would have to have 69 children in
their household. The reality is that less than 1% of the nations
children are in same-sex households and any contribution to the stats reported
in the article would be minimal. The stats also show that a small minorty of
same-sex couples raise children (19.3%).
I'm with you on the importance of strong families and working to make sure
the family maintains its place as the most fundamental unit of society.I
do wonder how our brothers and sisters who experience same-sex attraction and
support families fit into this and what options we are giving them if both being
single and being in a same-sex marriage are characterized as being
anti-family.In our families and churches, how to do we support single
people who experience same-sex attraction and choose to remain single and
celibate? Would you characterize a person in that situation as pro-family or
anti-family? It is important to remember that our culture generally discourages
these people from being public about their feelings, so we most likely will not
know the reason why they are single.Because of this, I am always concerned
when I see people characterize single people as anti-family.
The Eyre's credibility diminishes by lumping the familial problems of
single parent homes with eager same-sex couples willing and able to raise
adopted children. The status of the "nuclear" family is interwoven into
the larger fabric of society, with one problem influencing many others. It is
both irresponsible and naive to propose a broad set of expectations by which we
can then judge individuals without also approaching the variety of factors that
may inhibit pursuing those expectations.
When my brother and I were young teens, we discussed what we thought our futures
would bring. During the conversation, he made a remark that surprised me:
"The fact is, we are the marrying kind." After a little thought, I
agreed with him. Fame and fortune didn't mean that much to either of us,
but being married to loving wives and having a family was our top ambition.Now 50 years later, I can see that what he said was so true. Both of us
have been married for 40 years, with children and numerous grandchildren who
draw strength from each other. It really makes a difference.
Interesting is that if same-sex partners were allowed to marry it would actually
increase the number of two-parent families. About 8 million children, the
biological children of a gay person, are in same-sex partner households in the
United States. But due to opposition to marriage equality a vast majority of
them are not in a legally-recognized family. Would it not be society's best
interest for them to have married parents, with all the benefits and protections
Uh... Hello world? Stop destroying yourselves by destroying the family
structure!!! If you guys think marriage is not "cool" because
cohabitation is so much easier and cheeper, go on ahead and do that! Just think
about how happy you will feel in 50 years compared to a married couple of 50
years. Trust me, there is a difference between pleasure and happiness!
Wow. A problem and... wait for it... a book. And, they will keep talking about
the book in future columns until it is published, and then will continue to sell
I'm grateful for people like Richard and Linda who understand the
fundamentals of what makes society work and who are tireless in promoting that
which will preserve and strengthen society. It often seems like an uphill
battle.I remember the flak President Ezra Taft Benson received when
he talked about the importance of mothers being in the home to raise their
children. But he was right, and now we're reaping the harvest, and a bitter
one it is. Each time I read in the news of a mass shooting, of stabbings, of
murdered infants, of lying, stealing, corruption, I wonder if the perpetrator
was raised at home by a mother who taught them proper values, or whether they
were dropped off at daycare and were simply tended during their formative years,
or if they even knew their father. Of course we've become quite good at
shifting the blame (to guns, for example), but the bottom line is that people
who commit crimes have not learned proper values regardless of their implement
of choice. And we will not survive without proper values that can only be taught
in the family.