Parents that are committed to providing a loving and educational environment,
protecting them from harms way, do so by using their brain. There are too many
stories of a mom or dad leaving their child in a hot car, forcing them to stay
in a filthy home, abusing and letting them die e.q. Blackstone, MA, and some
saying "God told me to do it". We have learned and are still learning
that good parenting is not about sexual orientation and with all of the single
parents, unmarried parents, same-gender parents, etc. the malarkey about a child
deserves both a mom and dad is simply wrong.
Re Mark:Based on your second comment I'm starting to see where
your coming from. No I don't think there should be a law that allow people
to marry if they can produce children.Quite the contrary.All I'm saying is I really don't care who you want to live with.
That is your right, BUT if it is in a relationship that cannot produce children
under normal circumstances (i.e.: same genders do not produce children ever)
then you don't deserve the benefits that come from a hetrosexual
arrangement. If you are in a hetro arrangement and have some condition that
doesn't make children possible then you should adopt or whatever. You
deserve that right. However, if you are not in that kind of relationship, you
should not be able to adopt or have children. Basically you reap what you sow.
I chose to live with a member of the opposite sex so I can enjoy the blessing of
children. You choose the same sex, good for you. I'm sure you see rewards
that come from that. But you will never produce a child.
HTSetc, I have no idea how people like you are. I don't know you. But you think there should be a law that determines if a couple can produce
children before they can marry? Well, here's what I know about
you based on that statement: you are for a incredibly large, intrusive
government, that has the power to place itself in the middle of the most
personal, private decisions people can make. Well, such is your
right. Myself, though, I like a far smaller government.
I know the state has no such requirement. It should.I'm
thinking our world did not start with two dads or two moms.Just a
guess though; you know how people like me are.
Haha, that's funny, Ranch hand. Yep that would be a situation. But it
really does not matter. HTSetc's argument is meaningless. Marriage does not
require that the people involved be able to produce children, or even have the
potential to. It's an argument based on what HTetc wants to define marriage
as. But it's, of course, a silly argument. The state has no such
requirement. Never has.
HTSJCCAFALG says:"A homesexual couple. Easy. There is NEVER a
condition or situation that they could produce a child."Cloning.
liberal larrysalt lake City, utah"....why demonize family
structures that don't fit someones definition of the "perfect family
unit"?The answer is obvious -- we are about to see the same sort
of thing that took place in the 15-odd years between the latest possible date
for the lds church to accept Black priests and look Christian to the rest of
America(ca 1963)and the date they actually got the revelation.-- Pretty
much everyone of good will knows that churches standing in the way of equality
is not a good idea, and has to do with fear of having to adapt.This
time, information sources are 1000 times better than they were 50 years ago,
including the access to outside information by young lds people. The DN and many
who post here exemplify the "ostrich mentality" that does not work in
2014.I personally believe that if the DN truly understood the best
interests of Utah, it would be helping to open the door to equality.
In years past, the Catholic Church has been of the opinion that marriage is for
procreation ONLY, so that a person that could not procreate, was not allowed to
marry. Persons with disabilities, older persons, persons with no intentions of
procreating were forbidden to marry. This "teaching" seems to have
diminished during my lifetime, and I no longer hear priests forbidding two
people from marrying even though the wife or husband may not be able to bear
children. What a nice change! Are we going back to that definition of
marriage. For many years my wife and I were unable to have children naturally,
so we adopted. Should I now feel bad because I, her father, was not her natural
father? If two same-sex partners raise a child and one dies, is the child
better off being torn away from a loving second "parent" and forced to
live with complete strangers just because they happen to be of oppotite sex? I
think not. Let's do what is in the child's best interest and not let
our prejudice decide the issue.
It's great what a few days does. Now the State of Utah is even backing
away from the "experts" in this article. Please do better research in
the future. It only took a simple Google search to find out that these guys were
not following scientific standards.
For anyone who postulates that the DN, and official lds policy it represents,
prefers to see the world in a fantasy of what 1953 was like:This
editorial provides proof.It does not matter how many Zach Walls
there are, or how many testimonials from Gay parents or their families -- the DN
is going to cater to the worst and oldest ideas of its more conservative
readers.I would venture that few, if any DN editorial writers, or
the commenters we see here, have taken the trouble to go out and meet a few Gay
So the DesNews, with its well-known religiously-based opposition to legal
marriage equality for gay people, now appeals to the authority of science.This, on the same day that the State of Utah files a last-minute brief
distancing itself from the exact same studies (which they previously trumpeted),
now acknowledging this:"First, we wish to emphasize the very
limited relevance to this case of the comparison addressed by Professor
Regnerus."And this: "The Regnerus study cannot
be viewed as conclusively establishing that raising a child in a same-sex
household produces outcomes that are inferior to those produced by man-woman
parenting arrangements."To recap: even the lawyers for the State
of Utah are backing away from the studies that the DesNews opinion is
championing, underscoring the irrelevance of the "for the children" ploy
to justify excluding gay people from legal marriage-- a legal right that has
neither a procreation requirement nor a child-raising one.They'd have been more honest to follow the lead of so many commenters
here: drop the pretense and simply state "we still want to exclude gay
people from legal marriage because we think they are bad."
Children are a blessing or a reward of a relationship consisting of a man &
a woman; it is that simple.If you are in a marriage that can
produce, under normal circumstances, child then you are entitled to that
reward.If you are not, then you are not entitled to that. An
infertile man & woman couple? Easy. Under 'regular' conditions
they could. If you are an older couple? Easy. There are conditions in their
life that they could also.A homesexual couple. Easy. There is
NEVER a condition or situation that they could produce a child. Go ahead and
have a civil union. Go ahead and get benefits like insurance, inheritance,
etc... You deserve that right. You do not, however, deserve the reward of what
your relationship will never produce under any circumstance.
"TObviously 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."--------Obviously there is no
way for a older 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.Obviously there is no way for a infertile 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.-----------May I suggest that
being married has many benefits to society, whether or not the couple produces a
child. They are happier, healthier, wealthier and support one another during
times of trial, rather than rely on society to help them. It is a well known
fact that marriage is good for people. Are children the only reason you got
nbholladay: "However, this arguably should not be used if it cannot be
demonstrated that heterosexual marriage and gay 'marriage' are
equivalent. The overall effect on children is indeed a significant issue that
supporters of gay marriage may either want to argue does not exist or may want
to overlook. "----------What is actually being
overlooked is that gay couples are already raising children - without marriage.
They have adopted them, brought them from previous marriages, used surrogates or
in vitro fertilization. They are there already. Somehow, gay marriage foes
think that by denying gays "marriage," there will be no children.
Wrong.nb, can you tell me how denying these children's parents
from marrying helps these (already here) children? Does it support them in any
way? Does it give them the stability and benefits that can help them become a
stronger family? Why doesn't Utah want to support All families and by
doing so, support the children ALREADY here?What do you expect to do
with these children that your anti-gay marriage laws will marginalize?
@ Liberty: Like Testimony, I also searched the Journal's website looking
for the article you reference and was also unable to find it.In
addition, I searched the site of the publisher for the article - it was not
there.I also did a google search, which also returned no results for
an article of that title.A general google search using the title you
provided as keywords returned numerous hits, but none of the ones on the first
several pages make any claims similar to what you claim - very few of them even
claim to have studied what you claim was studied.Your citation seems
to be faulty. Perhaps you could check your sources?
The issue at stake is whether the Supreme Court can legitimately overturn the
will of the people or the law of one of its States regarding gay marriage on
federal constitutional grounds. The equal protection clause of the Constitution
may be used to argue that gay marriage must be allowed in order to afford gay
couples the same privileges as heterosexual married couples. However, this
arguably should not be used if it cannot be demonstrated that heterosexual
marriage and gay 'marriage' are equivalent. The overall effect on
children is indeed a significant issue that supporters of gay marriage may
either want to argue does not exist or may want to overlook. Unfortunately,
observational evidence (from studies where people are not randomly assigned to
one or the other case, which of course we cannot do with the gay marriage
question) is problematic and can be misused, as is the case with the review of
59 studies mentioned in the article. The DN article brings out a very important
point about the selection process for the studies-- selection bias makes these
results misleading. If the Supreme Court judges in favor of gay marriage based
on misconstrued evidence, the effect will be devastating.
A mom and a dad. Enough said.
To "K" you are wrong. In Matthew 5:32 it states "32 But I say unto
you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of
fornication, causeth her to commit adultery". Seems quite clear that
infidelity is about it for justifiable reasons for divorce.Or does
your Bible say something else?Still, the point remains. If society
worked to keep marriages together, rather than making divorce so easy, do you
think that would help improve society or not?
LibertyForAll,That's an interesting citation you put forth. I
went to the publication's website, where they list the titles of all their
articles. That article's title not only isn't listed, but a search of
google turns up no results at all. Are you sure you're citing the right
article and publication?In fact, the only articles in that journal I
could find remotely related to a spiritual practice involved:--> Use
of Yoga in reducing stress of prison inmates,--> Effect of Yoga
practice on schizophrenia,--> Hatha Yoga in the treatment of major
depression, and--> Suicidal ideation and attempts being lower in those
who attend religious services regularly.On the face of it, the
article you cite doesn't seem to fit the type of research that the Journal
of Psychiatric Research even publishes. It would seem like something more
appropriate for a sociology journal or perhaps a non-scholarly/popular
publication. Can you please check the source of your information and verify
that citation?I am having doubts that such an article would survive
peer review in a scientific journal without being more widely cited
Fantastic Article! Nothing new about the distorting of facts by the gay
marriage side...and the double standard.So very disappointed with
the individuals who rudely speak of 'equal protection' for gay
marriage and yet feel no responsibility whatsoever to protect the rights of
children who will most assuredly end up adopted into gay marriage situations,
proven not to be the best opportunity for unrepresented children. Once again a
Following the lords teaches and adherence to traditional family values matter
the most. The February Journal of Psychiatric Research study titled "Best
Religious Based Environment for Healthy Child Outcomes" ranked 10 western
religious beliefs and performed over 20,000 longitudinal studies ranked the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints with families demonstrating the
overall best outcomes for children. It clearly determined that faith promoting
emphasis on the importance of a mother and father and that families living a
moral lifestyle, were (among 10 variables studied) the two strongest
contributors to stable healthy and overall healthy family units.
Redshirt. The bible also say a man can divorce his wife for any reason. People are not perfect. They are not around perfection. Life happens.
My major problem with this op-ed is the source material that the D-News
referenced in making their case. There have been plenty of posters before me,
especially Karen R from Houston who did a masterful job in detailing these
references, where just to many people and evaluations find fault with this data.
Especially glaring is the Child Trends issue where the researchers tell you up
front that it shouldn't be used in any same sex child evaluation yet it is.
The D-News has the right to state whatever opinions they want. I have the right
to either agree or disagree. But I feel in this case the data which is suspect
at best was picked over and molded to fit the argument. I would have been able
to accept a 'from the heart' or 'we believe' op-ed better
than this one. Judging from the comments shown a majority of the posters share
my opinion. If you are going to rely on data make sure it is sound proven data.
In this case I don't think that happened.
@Mikhail"Most of the comments posted seem to want to create rules
based upon exceptions, rather than to support rules based upon common sense,
experience and biological fact."Common sense says that
there's no requirement that married couples have children, and so if your
issue is with same-sex couples having children, your problem is with same-sex
couples adopting and people outside of heterosexual marriages having in-vitro
fertilization. There's no reason in there to ban same-sex marriage, that
only harms the children being raised by same-sex parent(s) since you're
limiting them to one legal parent. "what is in the best
interests of the child."To have good loving parents/guardians.
You don't get that by stereotyping and assuming all straight white
upper-middle class married couples from New Hampshire are better than everyone
else (I threw in race, class, and state to try and find a more "ideal"
situation based on statistical averages, I mean if it works for sexual
orientation why not use it for other things?).
@LDS Liberal2:47I think that's what the research is saying...
That "a family structure headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict
marriage".... most often provides the things you listed.That
doesn't mean they ALWAYS provide those things. Just more often than the
alternatives.It doesn't mean adoptive parents never do a great
job. Or step parents never do great. It just indicates children get the
things you listed... most frequenly from "a family structure headed by two
biological parents in a low-conflict marriage".I know some
people pretend that's a leave-it-to-Beaver thing that doesn't happen
now.... but it still does. In MANY families.The research just said
that it's the most likely place to get the best outcome for children... not
your absolutist thinking that if it doesn't provide the best outcome EVERY
time we should not strive for it... or something like that.Some gay
parents do great. Some single parents do great. Some step parents do great.
The research didn't say that anything outside the "family structure
headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage" will fail!
@LovelyDesertPlease back up your claim that "one side only cares about
children" with fact. Otherwise, court evidence and findings of fact will
take priority over personal opinion. "State defendants lost
sight of what this case is truly about: people (families). NO court record of
this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two
plaintiffs who seek to ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of
their children and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex couples.
It is the Court’s fervent hope that these children will grow up “to
understand the integrity and closeness of their OWN family and its concord with
other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Windsor, 133
S. Ct. at 2694. Today’s decision is a step in that direction, and affirms
the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the
most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail. -Michigan
Federal District Court Deboer v. Snyder, page 30.
Parental gender plays a limited role, if any, in producing well-adjusted
children.It’s not the gender of the parent that’s the key.
It’s the quality of parenting that’sbeing offered by whoever
is there, husband or wife, two women, two men, asingle parent, as long as
the factors that we listed . . . are present: good mentalhealth, good
parent-child relationships, what we call an authoritative parentingstyle,
which is warmth, stimulation, structure, and the availability of resources.Then we’re going to have a child who is much more likely to be
healthy.Michigan federal district court conclusions of law, findings of
fact page 21 (Deboer v. Snyder)
OK 2 bits -- If all we are going to do is look at what is BEST for
children;Breast Milk, Fruits and Vegatables, limited
Sugar, limit TV, video games and internet, 2 hours of Homework, 9 hours of sleep, not moving, early to bed, early to rise, a
solid sense of security, one on one time with parents, dinner at the
dinner table, every night as a family,household chores and other
responsibilities, A parent who genuinely listens and is concerned, NOW -- Are biological Moms and Dads ALWAYS doing that?Are
biological Moms and Dads the only ones capable of providing that?Being a parent is far more than a providing a sperm cell or egg.
@LDS Liberal,You realise that in your original coment you said
"the research singled out ONLY gay Families"... right?I
quoted the research findings statement from the article verbatum...“Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for
children, and the family structure that helps children the MOST is a family
structure headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage,”Now you say, "Yes - I read the article. And it singled out
biological Moms & Dads being the best situation for children" (which is
not what you originally said).There's a big difference between
singling out "biological parents", and singling out "gay
families".Now you pretend you said it singled out
"biological" Moms & Dads being the best. But you didn't (back
then). Remember integrity. That's all I was saying. ===The research said that "two biological parents in a low-conflict
marriage" is the best situation possible.I didn't say
that's what most American children have today. It's possible what
most American children have today isn't the optimal situation (for
children).Just becasue most have it today... doesnt' mean
it's the best!
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UT10:54 a.m. April 7, 2014Yes
- I read the article.And it singled out biological Moms & Dads being
the best situation for children.But, I deal with the real
world, with real situations.The fact is:Most appearantly
perfect marriages end in a divorce.And the other half that do
survive, 50% are dysfunctional with issues of abuse.I simply
wanted the truth and facts to be mentioned, not someone's pipe dreams
of a perfect world filed with perfect marriages.BTW -- Half of
my counsins were adopted.some are mixed race, other family memebers
who are alcoholics, drugs, and even gay.So, I have a pretty good
idea of what a real family looks like. and it is not some 1950's TV
version.BTW -- Even the Brady Bunch fails your perfect
definition of family.
Lets just go to the source that should make this a clear cut decision. Since a
majority of the US is Christian, lets look at what the Bible says about
marriage.1. It says that marriage is between man and women.
Period.2. It also says that divorce is not acceptable except for
thing like infidelity, and a few other things.Just based on those 2
revealed truths, we know what the best thing is for society. Rather than
looking for new ways to justify sin, how about we look into how to boost
Perhaps a harbinger of things to come, this late-breaking story from the
Christian Science Monitor may be of interest regarding Supreme Court recognition
of religious rights regarding denial of same-sex marriage:"Two
weeks after hearing argument in a case examining whether corporations may be
exempted from providing religiously objectionable contraceptives in their
employee health plans, the US Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up a case
testing whether a commercial photographer in New Mexico has a First Amendment
free speech right to refuse to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony."
@JamescmeyerMidwest City, USA, OKScience says "Mom and dad are
best". That's all there is to it. If you want to try and use science to
justify changing marriage, you have no argument. There is nothing
"progressive" about throwing out truth we've discovered through
study and life experience to justify a personal satisfaction.8:31
a.m. April 7, 2014======== Science says nothing of the
sort.Science [and nature] says survival of the fittest.Marriage is modern, man-made institution.I support it, but let's at
least be honest.
@LDS Liberal 6:55,Did you read the article... or just start writing
with your assumption that it "singled out ONLY gay Families"?The research finding was... “Research clearly demonstrates that
family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps
children the MOST is a family structure headed by two biological parents in a
low-conflict marriage,”Research didn't even MENTION
"gender"!---The research didn't single out
gay families (as you stated). And it did include all the ones you listed (I
took out one because it was irrelevant).Adopted Familes,Single
Parent Families,Divorced Families,Re-Married Families,Step-Children Families, It did NOT single out ONLY gay families
(as you stated).===The research finding was that family
structure matters. And that your whole list... was not optimal (for the
children). It did not just single out gay families.===You said "I read this article, and then check it for integrity".If Integrity is so important to you... why do you violate the one
account per person rule?And if integrity is so important to you...
why do you totally MISREPRESENT the research findings?
re:Mikhail"Why do so many of the comments desire to refute a cited
study that basically sets forth a standard of common sense?"I'll speak to that.I don't believe the study was flawed.
Using the study as evidence against same-sex marriage is a
misapplication/misrepresentation of the findings. As noted by others, the
researchers themselves stated their research should not be used arguing against
same-sex marriage simply for the fact they did not study same-sex
marriage--apples to oranges comparison. As others have pointed out, the
research could also be used to illustrate the harm of many other family
arrangements--adoption etc.Instead, why don't we focus on
improving the lives of children such as reducing poverty, reducing unplanned
pregnancies, improving education etc etc? Because, it isn't as
easy as singling out a specific group of people.
Man... I'm glad I'm not a child growing up in this wacky generation...
The best family situation for children is a stable home led by a mother and a
father.No ones' rights are taken away by this statement of
fact. No one is harmed by this statement of fact. No ones'
children are harmed by this statement of fact. Children are
short-changed when we place them in a sub-ideal home. That is when harm occurs.
I'll take the truth any day, over the ridiculous tirades about
validating people's self-serving lifestyles at the expense of children.General Conference was great, and filled with pure truth!
Why do so many of the comments desire to refute a cited study that basically
sets forth a standard of common sense? Most of the comments posted seem to want
to create rules based upon exceptions, rather than to support rules based upon
common sense, experience and biological fact.As the parent of both
natural born and adopted children, I can say that the preferred situation for a
child is to be born into a committed, loving and stable mom and dad situation.
Children don't have a choice in all of this, but they seem to do better
when this is the case. Everything else is a situation where the facts are
exceptional. If mom and dad can't or won't be parents, then there
needs to be some understanding of what is in the best interests of the child.No questions asked when we brought a child into the world through the
means ordained by God and nature. I was asked plenty of questions about my
ability to parent when we brought children into our family - which children were
brought into the world through the same means as our natural born child.
@Jamescmeyer: Unfortunately for your assertions, science says the exact
opposite of what you claim. If you have any interest in the objective truth, I
suggest you read the 43 page brief you will easily find if you google, "An
amicus brief filed by the American Sociological Association in the Amendment 3
appeal" (With the quote marks.)It not only rebuts, but shreds
the Regnerus brief, a finding further validated by two weeks of bench trial in
Michigan, where Regnerus's testimony didn't stand up in court and his
own school disavowed his work and conclusions. The court even suggested that
his "scientific opinion" was bought and paid for by a conservative think
tank and didn't represent science at all.
I would like to point out a direct quote from the source that this article used:
"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
well-being of children raised by same sex parents or adoptive parents." If the original source does not draw conclusions involving same sex or
adoptive parents it is inappropriate for this article to do so. Show me data
with a large sample size that includes these families and I will take this
stance into serious consideration.
Science says "Mom and dad are best". That's all there is to it.
If you want to try and use science to justify changing marriage, you have no
argument. There is nothing "progressive" about throwing out truth
we've discovered through study and life experience to justify a personal
I'll leave all the what's best for the children argument to others
here, but buried in this mess of right wing thoughts is a real gem from one of
the usual suspects Tekakaromatagi said; "So, if we are going to
give marriage benefits to non-procreational couples to recognize their
love..." , then he/she carry on with a completely non-seneschal thought of
wanting their aunt and uncles social security. The point being he/she dismiss
the thought that we do in fact grant marriage licenses to people to recognize
their love for one another. As a matter of fact we don't even
require a reason to grant a couple a marriage license. They may want one so they
can have children. They may want to marry so they can consolidate family
fortunes. They may want one to create a political dynasty. We don't ask
nor care. So to presume one possible reason is valid and another is not
is....well you fill in the adjective, but valid isn't it.
@LovelyDeseret, who says, "One side cares about what is best for
children..."If by that "side" you mean Conservatives,
Republicans and "religious traditionalists," there's no evidence to
support your claim. Your side:--Opposes nutrition programs such as
WIC and food stamps.--Fights laws that empower women to make the
best reproductive choices for their families, thereby driving many of their
children into poverty. --Opposes domestic violence laws that would
protect women and their children.--Opposes universal healthcare that
would cover every child in America as a matter of right.--Refuses to
increase spending on education.--Opposes universal preschool.--Opposes gun control laws that would reduce the number of children
killed and injured by firearms.--Opposes mandatory vaccinations.--Opposes teaching science, reproduction, or sexual ethics in school.--Favors isolating and repressing children who defy your religious
ideals, and the adults they grow into.--Disowns, exiles and
ostracizes children who reject your religious beliefs.So, no, you
don't favor what is best for children.
I read this article, and then check it for integirty.If this
is REALLY about children, Then the same would apply to:Adopted
Familes, Single Parent Families, Bi-Racial Families, Divorced
Families, Re-Married Families, Step-Children Families, Since it singled out ONLY gay Families, The arguement fails.And MOST Children with Gay Parents, came from previous Heterosexual
marraiges, that ended in divorce.BTW -- Most Heterosexual Families
end in divorce.Clease the inner vessel, Mote eye, Beam eye -- get
Jasonlivy in Orem, if homosexuality is inherently selfish because "there is
no way for a homosexual couple to create a family, the real, and pure, purpose
for sex", then we can assume that the only time you ever have sex is if
you're trying to make a baby. If not, how utterly selfish of you.This might come as a surprise to you, but homosexual couples have children and
One side cares about what is best for children while the other side cares about
the wants of consenting adults.
Intact biological families are only intact until they fail. And 50% of
"traditional" marriages end in divorce. In addition, parents die, or
are seriously injured and can no longer be care-givers, or breadwinners.
Families also fail when they are visited by misfortune, extended joblessness,
homelessness, and violence. These all victimize children.As for
children themselves, some 41% of children in this country are not even born to
intact biological families. They're born to unmarried girls or women. Utah has laws regarding child welfare, and these laws apply to all
children, regardless of their family structure or lack thereof. Utah has
marriage laws, and these laws apply to all marriageable couples, regardless of
their procreational status. It's interesting to note that child welfare
laws are not linked to marriage laws, not in Utah.It's entirely
disingenuous to fabricate a supposed linkage simply to argue a court case when
none of your state laws even mention it.The actual logic
couldn't be simpler:If children are not required by marriage,
then lack of childbearing ability is not a reason to deny marriage.
"An interim report found there was no statistical difference between
children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators
including self-esteem, emotional behaviour and the amount of time spent with
parents.However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the
national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a
family gets along."-- Australian study on same-sex parenting
@Tekakaromatagi"I would like 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....."Sexual orientation has been determined to be
fundamental to a persons identity and person-hood. A requirement to change
someones (heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual) sexual orientation in order to
civil marry is not only unreasonable, but un-constitutional. A right to marry
someone for which there is no attraction or desire of intimacy is no right at
all. Current civil marriage law has a presumption of intimacy, a
type of relationship that is fundamentally different than the one you have with
your aunt and uncles, where a legal family relationship already exists.
Same-sex couples through civil marriage establish the same family relationship
with the presumption of intimacy as opposite-sex couples. Your
social security benefits change request for aunts and uncles can easily be
addressed with the government today, regardless of who can or cannot marry and
will always remain so. Your request has no relationship to civil marriage law.
If you don't like gay and lesbians having children, then adoptive and
reproductive law are the correct legal tools to prevent same-sex couples from
having children. Being against two committed loving same-sex couples
becoming legally civil married does absolutely nothing to make their children
raised in a so called "ideal" family structure. This is
because:There is currently no procreative requirement in civil marriage
law. There is currently no parental fitness test in civil marriage
law.Moreover, convicted spousal, child, drug and alcohol abusers can
enjoy their fundamental right to legal civil marriage, but "oh no" we
can't let same-sex couples marry. Why is this?
Maybe these alarming stats have more to do with the fact the world isn't
kind to a family that doesn't contain two happily married biological
parents. Perhaps if the world were kinder the results would be different?
From the Michigan court conclusions of law and findings of fact:"The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen
any significant weight. Marks’s testimony is largely unbelievable.""Marks, as well as Price and Allen, faulted many of these studies
for their small sample sizes, the non-random methods used to obtain subjects,
and the fact that some lacked heterosexual comparison groups, among other
criticisms. Marks, Price and Allen all failed to concede the importance of
“convenience sampling” as a social science research tool. They,
along with Regnerus, clearly represent a fringe viewpoint that is rejected by
the vast majority of their colleagues across a variety of social science
The authors as wells as Child Trends issued the following statement (available
on-line) about the misleading conclusions about the study that re-appear in this
Deseret News article. "In 2002 neither same-sex parents nor
adoptive parents were identified in large national surveys. Therefore, NO
(emphasis mine) conclusions can be drawn from this research about the well being
of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents"
Great article! It's not just about marriages, but families. while some
people may not feel that they can, or be able to follow an ideal model of a man
and a woman married and having children, it is still something to shoot for as a
society as a whole.
With respect, this op ed is a real head scratcher.We don't dole
out rights based on "ideals".If we did, poor people on
social assistance with hypertension and diabetes who never graduated from high
school and who smoke would not be allowed to marry or raise children. And yet
they are permitted both.Conduct a study that compares the outcome of
children raised by parents such as those with stable, highly educated, healthy
gay couples who neither smoke nor drink. Why not? They do exist. My partner
and I form one such couple. All things are never equal. In fact,
there are no "ideal" couples. There are only real couples, and they
raise kids with or without the advantages that marriage may bring.Why make things harder on any of those couples than it need be?
@joe5"Schnee responds by saying there are already bad family
structures so let's allow another bad one. It end with a whine of
victimization. Neither argument challenges anything in the article"My challenge is that it it bigotry to apply statistical averages to slander an
entire group of people by suggesting they are unfit parents. Want to see stats
on averages for children divided by race? Religion? Income? State (Mississippi
leads in poverty, obesity, and STDs and is near or at the bottom in eduction)?
Do you want to ban all "inferior on average" marriages, or just gay
ones? It's a legitimate argument that you all want to dodge
because it exposes hypocrisy. Tell me you're consistent. Tell me you want
to ban poor people and Mississippians from marrying since their marriages on
average have lower results too. Tell me this isn't just an excuse to
justify a ban on same-sex marriage when you know full well that single gay
people can adopt but two gay people together can't. @zumagirl"In the effort to fight against gay marriage we are now
discrediting adoptive and single parents."And divorced parents
DNews,Every time you beat this drum, you alienate more single
parents and people who were raised by single parents. You alienate adopted
children and people who have adopted children. You are really swinging the
opinions of a great many people.
So......according to this article adopted children are at a disadvantage being
raised by their non-biological parents. . In the effort to fight against gay
marriage we are now discrediting adoptive and single parents. I guess this is
an indirect way of emphasizing how bad it is for gay couples to adopt
In 1998, the DN authored an editorial supporting legislation to raise
Utah's marriage age from 14 to 16. (Bravo) But they NEVER addressed - not
once - the impact of teen motherhood on offspring. The only thing that came
close was, “it is unrealistic and unwise to expect them [a fourteen year
old] to effectively manage the challenges of running a household. They're
simply too young." Today, the ONLY marriage outcome the DN seems
concerned with IS children. (Ahhhh... the difference 14 years makes) Fine.DN cites three sources to argue "that children raised by their
biological parents, on average, fare better." In a nutshell, Allen and
Marks' findings have been widely discredited by peer review. The Regernus
study (DN avoids citing but Allen used his data) was also discredited. Lastly,
DN’s source in the third paragraph has this on the title page of their
study: "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."Failed research. Failed studies. Failed argument. Try
I find it intriguing that people who disagree with factual data tend to try to
discredit it by changing the argument. Both the first two posters do exactly
that. The article claims that family structure makes a difference.Schnee responds by saying there are already bad family structures so
let's allow another bad one. It end with a whine of victimization. Neither
argument challenges anything in the article.Shaun implies that
family structure is formed at marriage as if it was in a vacuum and would never
morph into anything else. That argument is based on a lie since marriages of all
forms often morph into a larger family unit. Certainly the existing extended
family is affected by the union. Also, in many cases the nuclear family changes
over time to include others, usually children (which is the primary focus of the
article). Family structure is a moving picture, not a still photo and, like any
motion picture, it can be ruined in the first scene.
Carol Emig, president of Childtrends, researcher has stated that her research
cannot and should not be used to draw conclusions about children raised by
same-sex parents. If children are better off being raised by bio
parents, isn't this an argument against adoption as well? Of
course, in a perfect world, children will be better off being raised in
emotionally, physically, and economically stable homes by their parents. Should
we adopt more rigorous standards and laws for child-bearing? There are many,
many households which won't meet the necessary standards.
Professor Loren Marks, whose study the editorial quotes, presented his findings
in federal court recently. Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that,
"Marks’s testimony is largely unbelievable." The Court also stated
that Marks was among a small group of scholars that "clearly represent a
fringe viewpoint that is rejected by the vast majority of their colleagues
across a variety of social science fields." DeBoer v Snyder
12-CV-10285 pp 17-18.The Court also noted that the defendants did
not challenge the plaintiffs statement that, "Every major
professional organization in this country whose focus is the health and
well-being of children and families has reviewed the data on outcomes for
children raised by lesbian and gay couples, including the methods by which the
data were collected, and have concluded that these children are not
disadvantaged compared to children raised in heterosexual parent
households."DeBoer v Snyder 12-CV-10285 pp 8.I
suspect we will hear similar skepticism from the Tenth Circuit Court about
We will stipulate these studies show the facts, researched as rationally and
dispassionately as Joe Friday on a case.The Tenth accepts it, ruling
against SSM. And then... what "state policies" are "rational and
beneficial"? For the children, of course.Take children from Gay
parents and put them in low conflict hetero families? "Low
conflict." The state will need to measure and monitor conflict in marriage
to certify hetero families as "low conflict." Probably a rational and
beneficial combination of NSA monitoring and Neighborhood Watchers. If a "certified low conflict" couple has conflict they can be educated
or medicated or both. Beneficial and rational. State policy, you know. Based on
research. For the children, of course.Single people have kids. Not
beneficial or rational. Reassign them to monitored and certified low conflict
hetero couples. And all singles will need mandatory birth control. Because it is
rational and beneficial, after all. For the children. Unless this is
mostly about the Gays and religious beliefs, and not about children or rational
or beneficial. Because rationally the benefits of marriage will help kids in Gay
families and have no impact on hetero families.
This red-herring topic is not relevant to the issue of allowing same-sex
marriage. If it you think it is, then you must also be against laws allowing
divorce (under any circumstances) and against letting older or infertile couples
Yet, this is what the authors wrote on the very first page of the report:"Note: This Child Trends brief summarizes research conducted in
2002, when neither same sex parent nor adoptive parents were identified in large
national surveys."Therefore, no conclusion can be drawn from
this research about the well-being of children raised by same sex parents or
adoptive parents." And it was signed Carol Emig, president,
Child Trends; Kristin A. Moore, Ph.D., senior scholar, Child Trends
All this is interesting (though not without scientific controversy), but at no
point does it prove that it is detrimental for society when two same-gender
persons, who love each other, are allowed to marry. As experience in numerous
advanced countries now show, the small numbers of same-sex married couples are
no threat whatsoever to traditional marriage. If research counts,
than this should be added: If same-sex couples have children, the happiness of
these children is mainly dependent on how the environment reacts. That is why an
article such as this can have a negative effect, by encouraging people to
condemn same-sex marriage and thus also hurting the children in such a marriage.
Propaganda at worst, emotional hysteria at worst. As two others mentioned, you
don't have to have children JUST because you are married, and single people
adopt all the time. So this is a pretty lame attempt to put across a religious
point of view.
Let's try to count how many very important, successful people in world
history have been raised by a single parent, usually a mother. Right.
There are too many to count.
You get no argument from me that a committed heterosexual couple other things
being equal is probably the best environment for kids. But considering the
wretched circumstances to which children are subject, a committed single sex
couple can be a pretty good alternative for them, at lest such seems to me.A meaningful statistic would be one which measures the stability of
single sex parents with kids.This of course leaves answered the
question, what are gays and lesbians supposed to do with their lives? And do
they have something to offer kids?
Studies also show that children are more likely to be successful if their
parents are educated, wealthy, and attractive.So does that mean we
should craft public policy to discourage uneducated, poor, and ugly people from
having children?Gay families are here to stay. Single-parent
families are here to stay. Biological, but non-nuclear, families are here to
stay. Adoptive and step-families are here to stay.It's in the
best interest of children to recognize and legitimize whatever their family
structure is if it is healthy and supportive.Besides, correlation is
not causation and pathologizing certain families is also damaging to these
children. These same arguments could have been made decades ago about mixed-race
families, when society treated them and their children as abnormal.Luckily this world view is dying away more each year, and its only speeding
Shaun,Children benefit from:Choice in educational opportunities,
democrats are against this.A sense of self worth and the feeling that what
you become is primarily up to you and not a government subsidy, but democrats
are against this.Reward for effort but democrats are against this with
their tax p;olives.Financial responsibility with an understanding that
what you receive, you or someone else must pay for and not borrow irresponsibly,
definitely not a democrat belief.A belief that the US is a land of
opportunity and not a land of entitlement, not a democrat core value.
Schnee and Shaun have it right.I suspect it is true that the best
environment for a child is being in a loving and secure family headed by two
parents of different sexes, but what is the basis for believing that same sex
marriages will result in many more children being raised in such families? Both
sides of the question should agree that same sex unions will not produce
children. Single parents can adopt in Utah. Homosexuals can adopt in Utah. A
lesbian can get artificially inseminated and bear a child. What is better for a
child -- to be raised in a stable, secure and loving family headed by two adults
of the same sex, or be raised in a different foster care every few months or in
a governmental institution of some kind. I hope that traditional families get
priority in adoptions, but what if a traditional family is not interested in
adopting a particular child ? Why not a same sex family?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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…”
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...
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…
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"?
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?
Excellent article, I completely agree with it!!
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.
Utah lets single people adopt, I don't see complaints about that. Why does
it only matter when it's gay people?