Published: Thursday, July 17 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
And the Desperation Express just keeping chugging along...Considering that there is no requirement that a married couple have children,
pulling out the old "every child deserves a mother and a father" claim
in order to outlaw same-sex marriage is particularly pointless. This debate has
been going on for years and we have yet to see the anti-equality crowd give any
argument stronger than "God says homosexuality is a sin." If I had to
guess, I don't think we're going to be seeing one. I'm sure that won't stop them from trying, though.
I agree, so in consequence everyone who is not an upper middle class asian
married couple should be sterilized. I want the best for children and the couple
I mentioned are statistically proven to be the best parents. I assume the
author would agree.
This article is right on. At the bottom of this issue is the fact that kids need
a mom and a dad. Society should recognize and support that need.
Thank you for stating so clearly why marriage between a man and a woman must be
upheld. Our society must consider the consequences to children of redefining
marriage. I am also an advocate for social justice AND marriage between a man
and a woman. Well said!
If you are going to quote studies, you should quote them without selectivity.
Recent studies of children raised in stable same sex households don't show
adverse outcomes. You are being intellectually dishonest by not citing them in
your opinion.Also, lets talk about gender roles. Modern marriages
do not all conform to traditional male and female roles. There are men who are
the care givers to children of the marriage. Do the children in this
arrangement suffer? Where is the research on this, and does it not need to be
mentioned? Be intellectually honest.In same sex marriages, the
parties must establish new roles for the household. Choices are made by couple,
and nothing is necessarily held to strict gender roles (can't be). Men are
certainly capable of providing the emotional support that a mother can provide.
And a woman can coach a team as well as can her male neighbor. We have evolved.
Try to be intellectually honest.So, it appears you have an
intellectual blind side that refuses to even evaluate evidence to the contrary
of your natural disposition. That is not the scientific method, nor is it
This author's opinion will actually hold water once he writes a follow up
article in which he advocates for the passage of laws that immediately remove
all children from the custody of parents when the parents get a divorce.
Clearly, if the most ideal situation in this author's mind cannot be met
then it will be nothing at all - social justice inverted. Also, the author must
explain to us his reasons for opposing adoption by single parents. Until that
time: pure hypocrisy. There is no existing law that gives non-existent future
children the "right" to a mother and father - it's fictitious, made
up... while the right to marry is fundamental under the COTUS - when
"future" children's non-existent right goes up in court against
actual people's actual rights to marry, guess who wins? Oh, and what about
SSM couples that just want to be married but don't want kids?DesNews - You do realize this position has been soundly rejected by the court
systems and has literally no sway in the SSM debate? Perhaps, in the future,
hold off on publishing anti-family rhetoric until the author has overcome
his/her own cognitive dissonance.
Great article!! That was so clear and well-spoken. I totally agree. Thank
goodness for common sense!
Translation: "When I stand on my head and twist this way, my argument looks
like the righteous one!"I hope the author has a better defense
for his Ph.D. dissertation. One suggestion: Stay away from discredited
Regardless of laws, there will always be gay people in committed relationships
and some of them will have children.In the DOMA case, Justice
Kennedy said that law "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being
raised by same-sex couples... The law in question makes it even more difficult
for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family
and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily
lives."I personally know a young gay couple and an older lesbian
couple each raising children born to unmarried mothers in their extended
families. These couples had the love and resources to provide for those children
and keep the child in the extended family close to the biological mother. Would
it be better for these children to have been sent to other families?A close friend has always known he was gay. He married a woman trying to do
what was right and had two beautiful children. His wife tragically passed away.
He will not enter another mixed orientation marriage, but would consider
marrying a man. Is it better for these children for their father to remain
Same inane generalizations.Referencing one source from 16 years ago that
seems to fit the position being stated.(By the way this is the only source
listed in the entire op-ed.)Saying "that children of same-sex parents,
once grown, have significantly poorer physical and mental health and lower
educational outcomes than children from intact biological families." Where
are the references proving this?Saying "Legalizing gay marriage
implicitly requires the government, public schools and the media to perpetuate
the narrative that homosexual couples provide the same benefits to children that
a married mother and father provide to biological children. This is simply not
the case." Again what proof do you offer to back this up?"Decades
of scientific research show", what research? References please."Other studies have showed" (shown?), what studies. Again references
please.This op-ed is just another one in a long line that offers no
substance only an opinion. More desperation for a cause with ever dwindling
Some studies show that about 5% of the populous is gay. Out of this number how
many do you think will want to get married?And then out of that
percentage how many will have children?Is it really worth predicting
the collapse of western civilization over a "problem" that could affect
one or two percent of the America's marriages?Maybe we should
use more of our collective outrage over children damaged by divorce, hunger, and
lack of proper healthcare.
When I was working on my PhD, I was expected to cite the most recent, and most
comprehensive studies in the field, not older, largely discredited studies. In
this case, the more relevant research was very recently published by Dr. Simon
Crouch, at the University of Melbourne. It concludes that children in same sex
families fare significantly better than children in the general population. May
I suggest that the DN publish an op-ed piece citing this new Australian
"The children, born and unborn, who will reap the consequences of current
political choices."--- Pray tell, what would be those dire
consequence of which you speak? Equality for all Americans? Oh, woe is society
when Equality is a negative "consequence"."Decades of
scientific research show that children need both a mother and a father. "--- Repeatedly debunked.How does preventing LGBT couples
from marrying encourage opposite sex couples to actually marry and raise
children? That is a question you anti-marriage folks (yes, you are actually
anti-marriage) never, ever answer. "Traditional adoption
makes the best of an unfortunate situation for a child. But when same-sex
couples create children through artificial reproductive technology, they create
a separation between the child and his or her parents. "How is
that any different than a straight couple doing the same thing? It still
separates the child from one or more of it's parents.
"...deprive children of their most foundational relationships without any
consent from the children."What about children born in poverty,
did they "consent" to being born into that family/situation? What about
children born into abusive households, did they "consent" to being born
into that family situation? This OPED failes to address these situations, they
seem to be perfectly dandy, but God Forbid a child be raised, without it's
"consent" by two loving parents who happen to be the same gender."David Hunsaker is a marriage advocate and Ph.D student at the
University of Utah."David Hunsaker is NOT a marriage advocate.
He is an anti-marriage advocate.
Every gay couple I know, already had kids from previous heterosexual
marriages that failed.Like the Brady Bunch - only this time
with a Mike and Ike, or Carol and Caroline.Are you
saying that those kids should be denied being a "Family"?BTW
-- Kudos for the plug on Social Justice, now prepare for the
dog-pile by the Tea-Partiers.
Artificial reproductive technology? Gays both bear and sire children from the
normal processes. The low estimate is that there are at least 300,000 children
in same-sex partner households in America. As many states ban adoptions by gay
couples, a small percentage are from adoptions. Most of these children were
produced from prior sexual relationships (yes, many homosexuals have tried to
live a heterosexual lifestyle) or even seek out conception while within a
same-sex partnership. I personally know a woman who has twice sought out
donation (sexually) from the same man and gave birth to two girls. She has a
female partner. Would not these children fare better if they were in a
two-parent family with the protections and benefits of marriage? Preventing
those partners from marriage is forcing those children into what is the legal
equivalent of a single-parent family.
I believe the author's intent was to show that his beliefs ARE supported by
studies, and the fact that humans have existed for thousands of years in
traditional families adds to the cause. Marriage in all aspects is being
redefined and regardless of what is said about it, the whole thing is a big
experiment. It's disappointing to see so much disrespectful dialog on this
subject; no wonder so many people are quiet about their support of traditional
marriage. Anyway, I also support marriage between one man and one woman
and I'm not ashamed of it. Well said, David Hunsaker!
Children do best when raised by their married biological mother and father.That's why I was encouraged when a decade ago Utah voters
overwhelmingly passed Proposition 4, that outlawed divorce. I was pleased when
Utahns poured millions of dollars into California's Prop 9 campaign to
eliminate divorce there as well. I was ecstatic to see the bakers and
photographers rally to withhold their services from divorcees (un-Biblical, they
said). Even the pregnancy resource centers stopped advising girls to put their
babies up for adoption and the adoption brokers closed shop.Oh,
wait--none of that happened.Gays make up about 5% of the population
(plus or minus). One in three or four gay couples have children, so maybe 1-2%
of kids are in gay households. Straights constitute the balance, and about half
of straight marriages end in divorce, so figure 40-48% of kids are in broken
homes.Simple math suggests that the greatest return on investment
for improving child welfare comes from reining in divorce rates and improving
straight family function. SSM has a trivial effect on overall child welfare.
So why the vastly disproportionate political effort against SSM?
Fantastic article! The author did a great job defending children. Some
situations that children are in we cannot control, but the author does a good
job explaining how this policy is one place we can defend children's
Great article. It brings back common sense to a nation reeling with social
trends.As someone who has spent most of his life in the academic
world, and heavily involved in scientific research myself, I know it's
difficult to find sources that are not biased in some form. Hence, no matter
what research is quoted, I would question the motives of the research and how
strong the correlations are. The closer we get to the edge of man's
understanding, the muddier things become and less clearly we understand. I say
this simply to state that in my opinion, the research is still pretty shaky in
both directions.Hence, each of us will have to rely on common sense
and our own conscience until the waters clear. And my conscience says that
procreation is important to mankind, natural procreation only happens between a
man and a woman, and we should advocate such unions.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments