A Gay Reader Writes…

It seems whenever we have a discussion about gay marriage (or gay-anything, really) a fairly obnoxious false dichotomy is assumed, that the evil, sodomizing, humanity-hating gays are fighting the bigoted, hate-filled, rabidly intolerant Christians. This need not be the case. For all the times this dichotomy has been perpetuated by Christians; I sincerely apologize. Though no words can heal the hurt caused by hatred and rejection, know that my daily prayers are with you. But it must also be realized that not everyone who rejects gay marriage as a viable reality is innately bigoted. Shortly after posting yesterday’s post I received this email, from a man who wishes to remain anonymous:

I just wanted to thank you for your tremendous courage in publishing this article. I am sure you will probably get a fair bit of abuse for doing so (in fact, I just looked at the facebook link to your article, and there are around 15 comments, all negative!)

I am a gay man, who would desperately love to have children (God has given me a great love for kids, which is why I’m a teacher), but I refuse to allow myself that privilege, because I firmly believe a child needs a biological mother and father raising them. My 14 years experience of working with children confirms your conclusions: kids need both biological parents raising them! Yes, obviously there have been exceptional circumstances where single or divorced parents produce fairly well adjusted kids, but that takes a great deal of hard work, something I don’t often see in parents of any kind.

My experience of the gay community also seems to agree with your conclusions. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve come across supposedly committed gay couples, where one or both the partners are messing around on the side. Its as you say, fidelity is not high on the agenda (again, obviously there are exceptions).

Thank you once again for your courage, we need more people like you in the world!

Be blessed!

It need be no insult to individuals with same-sex attraction to reject the idea of gay marriage. Disagree with this rejection, by all means, and disagree as strongly and adamantly as you so desire. But let’s not pretend that we are fighting the fight for ‘our people’, or that any one just really-deep-down wishes the misery of another. Happy Gaudete Sunday everyone!

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

    “For all the times this dichotomy has been perpetuated by Christians; I sincerely apologize.”

    Well, now we know: you’re a hypocrite. It is thoroughly hypocritical -Pharisaically sanctimonious – to argue as you have done that same-sex couples are inferior parents, that their children therefore deserve to be legally and socially discriminated against – and then to look at your own behaviour and assume you have lifted yourself above it, and you’re only arguing for legal inferiority out of the sweetest kindest nicest motives in the world.

    ” Though no words can heal the hurt caused by hatred and rejection, know that my daily prayers are with you.”

    Why are you arguing for hatred and rejection – as you have just done in your past few blog posts – and then claiming that your “daily prayers” are somehow aimed at “healing” the hatred and rejection you wish to perpetuate?

    ” But it must also be realized that not everyone who rejects gay marriage as a viable reality is innately bigoted. ”

    Well, hopefully not innately bigoted. It’s possible for any bigot to realise they were wrong and turn themselves around. Perhaps you may become less of a bigot, over time.

    But it won’t happen so long as you are pluming yourself on how superior you are. You’d have to acknowledge at least to yourself that you have no reason except bigotry to believe same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry. The reasons you have given are based in your bigoted belief that the children of same-sex couples, having as you believe less, ought to be treated worse than the children of mixed-sex couples. You reject; you inflict hurt: you promote hatred. Your apology is meaningless, because it’s clear you have not acknowledged what you have done and now repent it.

    • Jsmithmosdef25

      He clearly states that he DOES NOT perpetuate hatred, only fools do. If those fools happen to to Christians then Mr. BadCatholic and I have been terribly misrepresented. Mr. BadCatholic stands for the standards that are set by the institution that he stands for. If the institution had no standards, or had standards but did not truly stand for them, why should there be an institution at all?

      • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

        “He clearly states that he DOES NOT perpetuate hatred”

        I’ve just read three blogposts by him in which he argues that because the children of same-sex couples will not be brought up as well as the children of mixed-sex couples, that’s a good enough reason to deny same-sex couples marriage. He’s arguing for legal discrimination against children based on his judgement that their parents are inferior. This IS a promotion of hatred.

        “If the institution had no standards, or had standards but did not truly stand for them, why should there be an institution at all? ”

        Well, I think that’s really up to the members of the institution. If the standards of the Catholic church are to promote legal discrimination against same-sex couples and their children, then absolutely, you and Marc are standing up for those standards. Marc said in a previous post he thought Christians ought to be “shining beacons”, and I guess this is the beacon he wants to be – to promote hatred of same-sex couples and hurt those families.

        Which, as I note above, makes his sanctimonious apology really very hypocritical.

        • Anonymous Contributer

          How exactly is it a promotion of hatred or bigotry? Men and women are fundamentally different, precisely because of their different genders, and a mother and father contribute, in their own unique way, to the growth and development of a child in a way that simply cannot be realized for a child growing up in a same-sex household. To insist that a same-sex couple can take the place of a mother and father and perform the roles of both the mother and father with equal capacity, without any negative long-term impacts on the mental development of the child, and without any negative long-term effects on human society as a whole, is to deny the importance of the fundamentally different gender roles in a functioning human society. Such reasoning flies directly in the face of all common sense by attempting to gender-neutralize the family (effectively what the same-sex movement seeks to achieve), which is the first unit of a functioning human society. I fail to see how making this simple observation is a promotion of hatred and bigotry. If you disagree with it, fine, but simply calling everybody who disagrees with your point of view a bigot and a hate-monger won’t get you much of anywhere in a civilized debate. It’s no surprise many of us who are opposed to legalizing “gay marriage” don’t have much patience with people in the gay movement, those like yourself attack us as hate-filled bigots every time we disagree and attempt to point out legitimate societal problems with the gay-movement’s agenda to eliminate all gender-differences and radically transform human civilization as we know it. This issue isn’t just about gay people, it’s about society as a whole, it’s about what’s best for our children, and what’s best for our children is for them to have a mother and father to raise them just as God intended. If that’s offensive to you, take it up with God, don’t shoot the messengers.

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            “How exactly is it a promotion of hatred or bigotry? ”

            Whenever someone argues that a group of people deserve fewer legal rights than others, because in the view of that person this group is inferior, that’s bigotry: and bigotry promotes hatred.

            “….. I fail to see how making this simple observation”

            To argue that same-sex parents always provide an inferior upbringing to mixed-sex parents is, I believe, mistaken.

            To argue that because of that inferiority, same-sex couples ought not to be allowed to marry, and their children ought to be denied the benefit of married parents, that is bigotry.

            “it’s about what’s best for our children”

            How is it “best for your children” if they are not permitted to marry and denied all the benefits of marriage?

            “take it up with God, don’t shoot the messengers. ”

            I’m sorry: whether or not God exists, the message that same-sex couples ought to be denied marriage is not coming from God, but from His messengers. You may believe that the “one rule that Christians must obey” is to promote legal discrimination against gay people, and that God will want to know only what you have done to ensure that same-sex couples and their children were treated as legal inferiors. But you didn’t get this message from God: we get it from you guys.

          • Thomas J. Willis

            Gays have EXACTLY THE SAME rights to marriage as straights. Neither a straight person nor a homosexual person can marry whomever they want! Both are confined, regardless of orientation to a group of potential spouses – those of legal age, those currently unmarried, those of the opposite gender, and those who aren’t closely related to them. Same rights.

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            “Gays have EXACTLY THE SAME rights to marriage as straights.”

            In Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa , Spain, Sweden, yes, that’s true. In all of those countries, a person has a completely equal right to marriage with those of legal age, not closely related, and not currently married.

            The ban on marriage for same-sex couples means that in most other countries, LGBT people do not have the same rights as cisgendered & heterosexual people with regard to marriage, and if you give the matter even a little thought, you will see that it is so.

          • Thomas J. Willis

            “The ban on marriage for same-sex couples means that in most other countries, LGBT people do not have the same rights as cisgendered & heterosexual people with regard to marriage, and if you give the matter even a little thought, you will see that it is so.”

            Hmm. I just pointed out that they do in fact have the same rights. Sexuality & marriage are different issues and no government in existence recognizes an individual’s “right” to “marry” whomever they want. They have strict guidelines. Someone who is attracted to their own gender has the same right to marry that person as a heterosexual has to marry someone of his/her own gender.

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            “Hmm. I just pointed out that they do in fact have the same rights. ”

            Yes, and I pointed out to you that this is the case only in a small yet growing number of countries that have equal marriage legislation.

            Your argument that it’s all exactly the same seems to be based in an extremely limited and joyless notion of marriage, which most people do not subscribe to.

            That you believe that marriage is exactly the same whether or not you are sexually attracted to your spouse, and whether or not your spouse feels sexually attracted to you, is … so sad I find I can’t really argue with you. I am sorry for you and for your wife, if you have one: it’s appalling that you have taught yourself to believe that joyous & passionate love has no place in marriage.

          • Thomas J. Willis

            You just made an ad hominum attack there. The law doesn’t care if you love your spouse. The law has nothing to do with emotion, and we’re talking about what should be LEGALLY allowed. If marriage – as you believe it – is simply an emotional sort of commitment, why does it matter what the lawbooks say?

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            Dear Thomas, if you sincerely mean what you say in previous comments, how can you possibly claim that this is an ad hom attack? You yourself are advocating this kind of marriage: I am sincerely sad for you, but I respect your right to enter this kind of marriage. I just don’t see you have the right to advocate it for others, however contented you are with it yourself. Best wishes.

          • Thomas J. Willis

            Nowhere did i advocate loveless marriage. Maybe if you argue with what people actually say you will get a lot farther.

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            You claim downthread (too narrow to easily read) “Nowhere did i advocate loveless marriage” so I thought I’d bring that claim back to the original comment where you advocate what I identified as an “extremely limited and joyless notion of marriage”. I still think it is, and I’m still sad for you.

          • James H

            Each time someone refutes you points, you come back the same point that was never made in the first place.

            Originality isn’t your strong suit, is it?

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            James, the reason I keep coming back to this point is because no one has yet answered it, let alone refuted me!

        • http://profiles.google.com/reneeaste Renee Aste

          Speaking of inferiority… In female same-sex couples, the biological father is merely a donor, a service provider. He is not equal to the biological mother. He is being paid NOT to be apart of his own child’s lives. He has no parental rights.

          As with male same-sex couples, the mother is merely again a egg donor. Another woman’s body is used for rent, to carry baby, like a product.

          These parents not seen as equals or even as parents. They are inferior. Merely contracted for the purposed of the same-sex couples to obtain custody of a child.

          The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Contents

          “”The Convention deals with the child-specific needs and rights. It requires that states act in the best interests of the child. This approach is different from the common law approach found in many countries that had previously treated children as possessions or chattels, ownership of which was sometimes argued over in family disputes.
          In many jurisdictions, properly implementing the Convention requires an overhaul of child custody and guardianship laws, or, at the very least, a creative approach within the existing laws. The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping, and to have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.”

          No one biological has two moms or two dads. To accept this, the child has to lose rights to one of his or her biological parents. The child is treated like chattel. The child is being treated as ‘inferior’ not by marriage defenders, but by the non-biological adult raising him claiming to be the other parent.

          Whether it be gay-straight-single all egg/donor/surrogacy should be deemed illegal.

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            Well, Renee, regardless of your views on the morality or otherwise of adoption, fostering, step-parenthood, sperm donation, egg donation, or surrogacy, the fact remains:

            Children exist who have, as far as those children are concerned, two mums or two dads.

            The only means of preventing such children from existing are, I would hope, abhorrent to any person with any sense of humanity at all.

            You may believe those children should never have been born, and that their parents should have been treated as criminals for conceiving them. But nonetheless; they exist. They’re real people, real children, and you cannot simply wish them out of existence by trumpeting that it was immoral for them to be born at all.

          • James H

            Well, that’s the nice thing about being Catholic – you can distinguish between the victim of a sin (the child conceived unnaturally) and the perpetrators, who see human life as a commodity to be traded.

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            So Marc is genuinely just a bad Catholic, since he can’t make that distinction?

        • Jake E

          I still fail to see where hatred comes into the equation. I view and treat homosexuals with the deepest reverence. They have my up-standing respect, and not just because Catholicism calls to to act this way, but because I know, naturally, it is the right thing to do.

          You have the argument Marc is writing understood: he believes that homosexuals should not be allowed the sacrament of marriage. Where you falter is in the purpose of the argument. The purpose is to teach, what you would probably call “a side of the argument” and what we call Truth. To teach is to love and in no way hate. So in other words, those last 3 blogs you read were to inform people of an opinion, and in no way express hatred. That’s simply ridiculous.

          Either way all he did was propose an idea and you called him a bigot and accused him a perpetuating hatred. He merely disagrees with you and gay marriage. But a disagreement is clearly bigotry, anyway.

          Did you ever think that maybe you are the one causing hatred? After all, this is a blog and by definition, purely opinion related. Yet here you are calling my dear friend a bigot and a perpetuator of hate, but here’s what it boils down to: Hate is perpetuated by bigots and a bigot is someone who imposes their beliefs. A blogger is physically incapable of imposing anything as he/she is only a writer. Marc’s blogs are not bigotry, which seems to make you the intolerant one.

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            “I still fail to see where hatred comes into the equation”

            Would you find it clearer if I used an analogy?

            Let’s suppose that I argue that Catholics make bad parents. (Be clear, I’m not arguing this – I would think such an argument is as false as the argument Marc is making that same-sex couples make bad parents.) I find a stack of links from anti-Catholic articles and writers “proving” that children from Catholic families are more likely to be molested (Marc actually used this argument!) and more likely to do badly and achieve less.

            And then I take this case I’ve made that Catholics are bad parents, and move from there to argue that this means no Catholic marriage should be legally recognised and that children with Catholic parents don’t deserve any support, financial, social, or legal from the state or from society.

            Having made this public argument, I’d expect three things to happen. One, I’d get a lot of casual agreement from people who read my “case” that Catholics make bad parents and casually agreed with it. Two, I’d get concerned Catholics and defenders of religious freedom showing up to argue against it. But I could dismiss them, as Marc has, by asking them why they can’t show more tolerance for my views, and why they’re being so aggressive and hateful about this perfectly reasonable idea, with lots of data to support it, that no child should be brought up in a Catholic family. Three, I’d get people showing up who would actively argue that Catholic parents ought not to be allowed to have children and that if they did have children their children should be removed.

            Tell me: would you just really not see any hatred involved in the original argument, that Catholics make bad parents? Marc is being hateful and he’s promoting hatred.

            “To teach is to love and in no way hate. ”

            Okay. So do you feel that someone who teaches that Catholics are inferior and that Catholic children are worse off than children from families of other backgrounds, is actually being loving, not hateful? Serious question: do you think everyone who teaches is presenting a message of love, no matter what the content of their message?

            “Either way all he did was propose an idea”

            Yes. So do you feel that anyone proposing the idea that Catholics ought to be banned from legal marriage is really not bigoted?

            “Hate is perpetuated by bigots and a bigot is someone who imposes their beliefs. ”

            True. And if Marc lived in a world where all same-sex couples have the legal right to marry, or if Marc was quite, quite clear that he believes same-sex couples should have the legal right to marry and the Catholic church has no business campaigning against the right, then I’d sort of agree with you. But I didn’t at all get the impression from Marc that he does think same-sex couples should be able to legally marry, or that he thinks the Catholic church is wrong to engage in political campaigns against marriage. I think he does want to impose his views on others…

          • Thomjwillis

            If I saw a blog post like that – and I have seen many of a similar nature, I would roll my eyes. If it was written as rationally as Marc’s is, I wouldn’t accuse the author of perpetuating hatred, but merely misinterpreting facts and coming to a faulty conclusion. There is no reason to accuse Marc of bigotry.

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            “I wouldn’t accuse the author of perpetuating hatred, but merely misinterpreting facts and coming to a faulty conclusion. ”

            Fair enough. And you still wouldn’t have a problem with it if many people were campaigning (sometimes successfully) to ensure that there were states in the US where marriage between two Catholics was not legally recognised?

          • Marc Barnes

            Yay! mwahaha I’ve been unbigoted! (does a happy dance)

          • Thomas J. Willis

            I would have a problem. But that is not the same as calling those campaigners evil and automatically assuming, since I disagree with them, that they have anything but the improvement of society and the human condition at heart.

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            That’s extremely forgiving of you, but I suspect it relates to your lack of attachment to your own passionless marriage that you feel no need to defend it.

          • Thomas J. Willis

            Right. I’m forgiving…because I’m emotionless…because I say the government doesn’t care about emotions…

          • Thomas J. Willis

            Quit it with the ad hominum attacks. Address what people are saying, not what you think they must believe if they disagree with you.

          • James H

            “Okay. So do you feel that someone who teaches that Catholics are inferior and that Catholic children are worse off than children from families of other backgrounds, is actually being loving, not hateful?”

            Well, are they?

            What are the facts? If the evidence of Catholicism causing abuse was as strong as that implicating homosexuality, I’d certainly believe it.

            That’s the problem with the culture these days. People are never taught to ask the question, ‘Is it true?’

    • Marc Barnes

      This is the problem I’m talking about. You assume that disagreement with the introduction of gay-marriage as a social norm is bigotry. Why must it be bigotry? Why can it not be just that — disagreement?

      You call it an argument for social inferiority. Again, your words not mine. I don’t see it as an argument for social inferiority any more than the argument that two entirely unrelated women should not be considered sisters. You may disagree, but to call it bigotry would seem to indicate that it is hatred of all gay people. Considerably awkward then, is the fact that this is a post of a letter of a gay man who holds the same position as I do.

      “Perhaps you may become less of a bigot, over time.” So the more I agree with you, the less of a bigot I am? Why can’t there exist disagreement? Why does the discussion consistently and constantly have to be moved the realm of mutual hatred? Seriously, cannot tolerance be extended to those who disagree with you?

      You’ve taken what you believe to be true and made any one who believes otherwise out to hate you. We don’t. Seriously consider that you are making the claim that I am offensive to gays on a post in which a gay man considers me correct. Your beliefs are not some sacred law which make their violators sinful scum. I’ve interpreted the existing evidence as I see it. If you disagree, that’s more than fine. If you are this annoyed that can’t even consider what the bulk of this post is saying, perhaps your response needs some more thought.

      • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

        “You assume that disagreement with the introduction of gay-marriage as a social norm is bigotry. ”

        Yes. Because I have quite literally never found any argument against lifting the ban on marriage for same-sex couples that was not based on bigotry.

        “Why must it be bigotry? Why can it not be just that — disagreement?”

        Because you are coming up with bigoted reasons – your belief that same-sex parents are invariably inferior parents to mixed-sex couples – to justify legal discrimination against a group of people: same-sex couples, and their children.

        “Why does the discussion consistently and constantly have to be moved the realm of mutual hatred?”

        I don’t hate you, Marc. But you’ve spent considera ble time recently convincing me that you feel hatred and contempt for me. As has, most recently, Cardinal O’Brien and various other Catholic dignitaries in my home country. I’m not arguing that you should be banned from marriage: you’re arguing that I should. This hatred is not mutual: it’s strictly one way only. You feel hatred and contempt. Why?

        “Seriously, cannot tolerance be extended to those who disagree with you?”

        I don’t know, Marc. Why can’t you extend tolerance to those who disagree with you? You are the advocate for intolerance here: and you are arguing that your intolerance ought to be enforced legally with a continuing ban on same-sex marriage. Seriously, Marc; why do you feel it impossible to be tolerant of those who disagree with you and intend to have the ban lifted?

        “Seriously consider that you are making the claim that I am offensive to gays on a post in which a gay man considers me correct. ”

        Yes: a gay man whom hateful people have convinced – heartbreakingly – that he should hate himself enough that he denies himself parenthood because he’d be a bad father. You approve this self-hatred and self-denunciation: you like his belief in his own inferiority. Rather than feeling horror that hateful people have hurt him so much he believes himself inferior, you applaud his own self-hatred. Seriously. Why do you think it’s good for a man to hate himself so much? Is this the “shining beacon” you want to be – hate and hurt?

        “Your beliefs are not some sacred law which make their violators sinful scum. ”

        I’ve never claimed they were – you are the one making that claim! Don’t project your own assertions on to me!

        “If you are this annoyed that can’t even consider what the bulk of this post is saying, perhaps your response needs some more thought.”

        Of course I’m annoyed. You’re arguing for children to be legally discriminated against because you believe their parents are inferior. And you don’t seem to want to give your own argument for discriminating against children any thought at all!

        • Marc Barnes

          I have not based my belief that biological parenting is an ideal on bigotry. I’ve based it on data, as you know. If you disagree with my interpretation of that data, fine. But don’t pretend like I went on some irrational hate-fueled rant. It’s just silly.

          The heterosexual people who believe the general academic consensus that biological parenting is the ideal are bigots, according to you. The homosexual people who believe the same thing are filled with self-hatred, again, according to you. Tell me, if you will, who precisely is allowed to disagree with you, to assert the importance of biological parenting — not exactly a controversial stance — and not be brushed off for reasons that have nothing to do with argument? Or is it, as I suspect, simply not allowed?

          If this is your approach, quite frankly, I don’t care for it. You’ve utterly removed yourself from intellectual discussion and are content with taking emotional potshots. But I am not impressed. Your beliefs are not, I repeat, not some inviolably sacred law, utterly beyond reproach. You may have built yourself an unbelievably intolerant fortress, making those who would oppose you either hate-filled or self-hating, but there are those — myself included — who find this tactic to be little more than timidity.

          When a man disagrees with you on matters of evidence, even if that disagreement might suggest something so drastic as the importance of biological parents, you confront the evidence.

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            “I have not based my belief that biological parenting is an ideal on bigotry.”

            I think your belief that same-sex couples invariably make inferior parents to mixed-sex couples is mistaken – your use of data is strongly selected towards proving the case you wanted to make – but your argument that because same-sex couples are inferior parents, they and their children should be denied marriage, is bigotry.

            “But don’t pretend like I went on some irrational hate-fueled rant. ”

            Well, you have gone on several irrational hate-filled rants: I’ve been reading them. To you, your hate-filled rants may have looked like pure sweet reason, but I think that’s a matter of your perspective. Still, I agree it’s futile for us to argue over your motivations: you’ll argue that you’re not feeling hate, I’ll point out how you’re demonstrating hate, and we’ll never get anywhere.

            “Tell me, if you will, who precisely is allowed to disagree with you, to assert the importance of biological parenting — not exactly a controversial stance — and not be brushed off for reasons that have nothing to do with argument?”

            But Marc, that isn’t the question I’ve been repeatedly asking you. It isn’t anywhere near it.

            What I have been asking you, consistently, is why you have reasoned from your belief that same-sex couples are inferior parents, to the bigot’s stance that this means same-sex couples ought to be denied the benefits of marriage, and their children should be denied the benefits of married parents.

            When you simply say “Those children will be in an inferior position, so I want them to be legally discriminated against!” as you have repeatedly, you do sound hateful.

            Why do you want children whose parents you think are inferior to be legally discriminated against?

          • Marc Barnes

            I’ve never said “Those children will be in an inferior position, so I want them to be legally discriminated against!” don’t put it in quotes, that’s ridiculous.

            But otherwise, excellent. I am happy to see a tackling of the evidence. Honestly, I worry about the state of humanity, when the cycle of YOUR BELIEFS ARE BIGOTED never gets broken. Thank you, thank you, and thank you.

            As this isn’t quite the place for this discussion, i’d love it if you’d email me (the comments tend to get ridiculously thin). But for now — I believe that the legal benefits that are conferred on married couples exist because of the fact that our current society depends on marriages to produce stable children. As I’ve tried to show, as the family goes, so goes the society. If biological parents have been shown to be ideal for raising children — as I believe they have — than it makes sense that those with the possibility of being biological parents are given the incentive to be parents, in the form of tax breaks. If this is bigotry, than so is any reward that isn’t given to everyone. Obviously, this is simply a reason to oppose the government recognition of marriage, and has nothing to do with the socioeconomic, religious, or ‘natural law’ reasons for opposing gay marriage. What do you think?

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            “I’ve never said “Those children will be in an inferior position, so I want them to be legally discriminated against!” don’t put it in quotes, that’s ridiculous. ”

            I apologise for summarising your position in a quote when you didn’t actually use those exact words.

            But that is your position. You’ve said so explicitly and repeatedly.

            “As this isn’t quite the place for this discussion, i’d love it if you’d email me”

            On this blog, you’ve brought up the idea that inferior parents ought to be denied marriage: that the children of inferior parents ought to be legally discriminated against. If you believe this blog is not the place to discuss that idea, why bring it up in the first place?

            “If biological parents have been shown to be ideal for raising children — as I believe they have — than it makes sense that those with the possibility of being biological parents are given the incentive to be parents, in the form of tax breaks. ”

            So you believe that children with inferior parents ought to be financially discriminated against. Same-sex couples make bad parents so their children should be financially worse off than children of mixed-sex couples.

            “If this is bigotry, than so is any reward that isn’t given to everyone. ”

            Well, yes, it is bigotry. You could equally argue that black parents are inferior and so they should be denied tax breaks, in order to encourage only white parents to have children.

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            And I note that you have STILL not explained – or justified – why you think children who have in your view inferior parents, therefore deserve to be made worse off than children who have in your view superior parents.

            You’ve made clear you think there should be legal and financial discrimination against these children. What you haven’t said is why you want these children to be worse off .

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            Well, Marc, it’s been four days since you first advocated that the children of same-sex couples ought to be discriminated against because they have inferior parents, and so far at least four people who read your blog more regularly than I do have responded to my questioning you with arguments ranging from James H’s proposal to kidnap those children away from their parents to Renee’s belief that the children ought never to be born at all. I think it should be clear to you now that what you do when you write these anti-gay posts is advocate and promote hate.

            Is that really “the only rule a Christian must obey” ?

          • Anonymous

            Marc – I will be blunt. To say that I disagree with your “interpretations” of the data is an understatement. Your “interpretations” … and specifically the reliance on studies that aren’t even designed to assess the health of children raised by same-gender couples … are not really “interpretations” … they are transparent misrepresentations. (If anything, the Child Trends and CLASP reports you cite, if you actually had read them and accurately characterized them in your previous article, would tend to support same-gender marriage.) If you sincerely believe your “interpretations” then you are a moron. But you write too well for me to believe you are a moron. So I strongly suspect that you instead have such a deeply-held belief that there is something wrong with homosexuals that you are willing to distort facts in any way you can to support your views.

          • Marc Barnes

            You’re being intentionally dense. The conclusion of CLASP and Child Trends – regardless of the purpose of their article — is that biological parents are ideal for raising children. If you disagree with it, fine, but don’t pretend like its some intellectual heresy to use the conclusions of one report and apply it to another issue. It’s an easy way to avoid confronting the issue, sure, but a pitiful degradation of basic reasoning. If however, you believe that the application of an academic conclusion to (gasp) other issues! is truly moronic, I guess I’d have to ask…why? By your logic, it’d be an absolute idiot who, seeing the study that shows pregnancy reduces the risk of ovarian cancer uses that information to posit that the Pill reduces the risk of ovarian cancer. If however, you are just speaking in reference to these particular studies, again, I suppose the question would be…why? What about the reports makes their conclusion, that biological parents are the ideal, inapplicable in this situation? Was there a “but unless your involved in the gay marriage debate, then they’re no longer the ideal” clause that I missed?

        • Andrew

          I am the person who emailed Marc.

          “you applaud his own self-hatred.”

          EdinburghEye, could you please be so kind as to explain how you came to the conclusion that I hate myself? I didn’t think I gave that impression in my email?

          “Yes: a gay man whom hateful people have convinced – heartbreakingly – that he should hate himself enough that he denies himself parenthood because he’d be a bad father.”

          And can you explain how you conclude that my closest family and confidantes are hateful people?

          Because, you see, nobody forced me to have the views I have. Nobody coerced me to beleive that I would be a bad father should I choose to have kids somehow.

          No, I came to the conclusion myself. As I said, I have spent years working with kids, and my experience has been that kids with a married biological mother and father, generally have a more stable homelife. Yes, obviously there are exceptions, as with anything else.

        • James H

          “You’re arguing for children to be legally discriminated against”

          - on the scale of truth, this rates just below ‘Twaddle’.

    • James H

      I’m continually amazed at your twisting of Marc’s words. Nowhere, once, does he say unfortunate children of gay couples ought to be discriminated against. It’s not even implied!

      What is implied by you, however, is that no matter how unstable, violence-prone, psychologically-damaging a gay marriage *might* be (note qualifier – isolated exceptions do not disprove generalisations), that those children should be left at the mercy of such a ‘family’?

      I find your insinuations quite revolting.

      • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

        “Nowhere, once, does he say unfortunate children of gay couples ought to be discriminated against. It’s not even implied!”

        It’s directly inferred from Marc’s position that there are financial and legal privileges of marriage which he believes the children of same-sex couples ought not to enjoy.

        Marc says he thinks that the children of same-sex couples (it’s kind of rude of you to call them “unfortunate”!) are very likely to experience inferior parenting, and he reasons from this to the conclusion that therefore they should be denied the benefits of married parents.

        You know, you can’t just pretend these children don’t exist, and claim I’m “twisting Marc’s words” when I point them out. Well, obviously you can because you are and you do, but it makes you look slightly ridiculous getting mad at me because you don’t like Marc’s position on this.

        “What is implied by you, however, is that no matter how unstable, violence-prone, psychologically-damaging a gay marriage *might* be (note qualifier – isolated exceptions do not disprove generalisations), that those children should be left at the mercy of such a ‘family’?”

        There you go again, advocating that children should be forcibly kidnapped from same-sex parents in order to “save” them from a family life that your bigoted feelings tell you must be “unstable, violence-prone, psychologically damaging”.

        Before you get all worked-up about how you weren’t ever no no no you weren’t saying “forcibly kidnapped”, please tell me, exactly how else do you propose to remove children from their legal parents, when the only “crime” these parents have committed is that they are a same-sex couple, and you’ve convinced yourself that means they’re BAD?

        Or what else did you mean by advocating that the children of same-sex couples should NOT “be left at the mercy of such a family”? I’m really very tired of your saying such outrageous things and then getting hysterically defensive when you’re called on them!

  • http://twitter.com/oobigan Bruce Roeder

    Whether the government laws on marriage change or not is up to Caesar. As Christians, here’s the thing: our sin does not name us. When God looks at us, He sees His child – the image and likeness of Himself. We are persons; we are not our sin, as much as the evil one would like to accuse us of it. As disciples of the Master, we are called to see that as well and to love one another. So the woman caught in adultery is not simply an adulteress, she is a daughter of our heavenly Father. The thief is not just a thief, but a son of our Father, and so on. In the case of persons with same-sex attraction, the same applies. I think many of the disagreementscome from not making the distinction between the person and the sin. Jesus called us to repent of sin and believe in the good news. He still invites us to do that and we still need to. So whenever we insist that our sinful acts are not sin, we are refusing our Lord’s invitation to repent and believe. This invitation goes out to bigots and hypocrites as well as adulterers, fornicators, thieves, gossips, and so on. Jesus call me to repent as much as anyone else, as much as I want to insist my actions are not sinful.

    • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

      “Whether the government laws on marriage change or not is up to Caesar. ”

      Exactly. Why would anyone who believes in freedom of religion want a religious organisation to rule on whether or not a person can get legally married?

      • http://twitter.com/oobigan Bruce Roeder

        Two thoughts: first, Holy Matrimony is a sacrament and the Church has a duty to clearly teach what it is and what it is not. That said, many marriages recognized by the laws of the US and other countries are not sacramental marriage in the eyes of the Church. So if the laws changed to allow same-sex marriage, it would not be the end of the world, but it would be another step in society’s erosion of marriage as it is understood and taught by the Church. Second, and more importantly in myopinion, by insisting that behavior long taught and considered morally wrong by Christian culture is no longer sinful, it scandalizes people and leads many away from Truth and Christ’s invitation to repentence and forgiveness. So I think for those reasons (and I’m sure there are others) it is reasonable for the Church to weigh-in against same-sex marriage. However, just as the Church weighed in against no-fault divorce, there’s no certainty the teachings of the Church will be respected – more likely the opposite. Caesar’s probably going to give the people whatever beer and circus they want.

        • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

          “So if the laws changed to allow same-sex marriage, it would not be the end of the world, but it would be another step in society’s erosion of marriage as it is understood and taught by the Church. ”

          It is the Catholic Church’s responsibility to foster and teach the Catholic understanding of marriage to members of the Church.

          It is not the Catholic Church’s responsibility to deny legal marriage to people who are not members of the church, nor to church members who marry outside the understanding of the Church.

          “Second, and more importantly in myopinion, by insisting that behavior long taught and considered morally wrong by Christian culture is no longer sinful, it scandalizes people and leads many away from Truth and Christ’s invitation to repentence and forgiveness. ”

          I don’t really care if the Catholic Church thinks that my love for my girlfriend is sinful. I’m not Catholic, and while my girlfriend was Catholic, the Church’s teaching that her love was sinful was only one of the many reasons for her ceasing to be Catholic. That you believe that love is a scandal, morally wrong, and that Christ is such a little god in your eyes that people can turn away because two people love each other and don’t feel it a sin – these are Catholic religious problems, for Catholics to deal with. They’re not problems for anyone who is not Catholic or who, being Catholic, nonetheless does not believe in such littleness of Christ.

          “So I think for those reasons (and I’m sure there are others) it is reasonable for the Church to weigh-in against same-sex marriage.”

          Well, I think that – like the Church’s opposition to contraception, though that was major – the Church inveighing against same-sex couples being legally married, or married in religion in faiths not Catholic – will simply lead people to regard the Church as on the sidelines – not a living religion, but a fossilised one.

          In a century’s time, the Pope of 2111 will have been born into a world where same-sex marriage is taken for granted. What can the Pope of a century from now do to convince anyone that same-sex couples make inferior parents, when anyone can look around and see for themselves that it’s not true?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001060938438 Ioannes Patricius

            Christian marriage is a sacrament, but marriage pre-dates the Catholic Church, it pre-dates Sinai, it is from the beginning. It is a matter of natural law and not religion. We need to stop talking about it as a matter of religious freedom which, incidentally, was a concept condemned by Pius IX in the syllabus of errors…

          • Mpreszler

            EdinburghEye,

            The reason the Church teaches as it does to Catholics and non-Catholics alike is because it believes in a truth that is not only subjective, but also objective and universal to everyone. Meaning – Christ (God) is unchanging and so is His teaching. Love was always the same for Christ in the sense of meeting the following four criteria: The basic definition of love is “to Will the good of another”. Love always has to be FREELY given, FULLLY given, FAITHFUL, & FRUITFUL. Hence, this is why contraception is a moral wrong. (Not that all people using contraception are bad or evil, they may in fact be loving as best they know how), but the fact is there is a deeper fullness of love that can be given to another. Here is an article that I think would give you a deeper appreciation and understanding of why the Church teaches what it does (whether you agree with the stance or not) http://catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0072.html

            Remember, your entire purpose, my entire purpose and everyone’s purpose is to imitate the trinity and by doing that we actually SHARE in His Divinity! –Which is the most incredible thing ever. And when we fail to do that, we fall short of what we were meant for – which is incredible greatness and He wants to lift us up to share in His Divine nature! WOW!

            I hope you find this comforting and insightful!
            In His Everlasting Grip,

            Michael

          • Yonmei

            “The reason the Church teaches as it does to Catholics and non-Catholics alike is because it believes in a truth that is not only subjective, but also objective and universal to everyone. ”

            Well, that’s one opinion, among many. In a country with freedom of religion, the Catholic Church is free to promote this belief. In a country without freedom of religion, a theocracy, the Catholic Church would only be able to promote this belief if the Church was the ruling religion. Of course Catholics might argue that they think the Church SHOULD be the ruling religion and that no other believer should have religious freedom… bring on the Inquisition!

            “‘The basic definition of love is “to Will the good of another’”

            I cannot say that the Catholic inveighing against marriage for gay people, contraception for those who need it, condoms to protect against HIV, and justice for abused children, suggests that the Church is any expert in “willing the good of another”.

  • http://profiles.google.com/reneeaste Renee Aste

    Something to share in the evolutionary role for same-sex attraction. Evolution does not point to same-sex couples raising children, in which to one is not kin, but rather to focus on nephews and nieces.

    Potential Evolutionary Role for Same-Sex Attraction
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144551.htm

    “One possible explanation is what evolutionary psychologists call the “kin selection hypothesis.” What that means is that homosexuality may convey an indirect benefit by enhancing the survival prospects of close relatives. Specifically, the theory holds that homosexual men might enhance their own genetic prospects by being “helpers in the nest.” By acting altruistically toward nieces and nephews, homosexual men would perpetuate the family genes, including some of their own.”

    “Past research has shown that the fa’afafine are much more altruistically inclined toward their nieces and nephews than either Samoan women or heterosexual men. They are willing to babysit a lot, tutor their nieces and nephews in art and music, and help out financially — paying for medical care and education and so forth. In a new study, the scientists set out to unravel the psychology of the fa’afafine, to see if their altruism is targeted specifically at kin rather than kids in general.”

    “Samoan culture is very different from most Western cultures. Samoan culture is very localized, and centered on tight-knit extended families, whereas Western societies tend to be highly individualistic and homophobic. Families are also much more geographically dispersed in Western cultures, diminishing the role that bachelor uncles can play in the extended family, even if they choose to. But in this sense, the researchers say, Samoa’s communitarian culture may be more — not less — representative of the environment in which male same-sex sexuality evolved eons ago. In that sense, it’s not the bachelor uncle who is poorly adapted to the world, but rather the modern Western world that has evolved into an unwelcoming place.”

    • Jpink1019

      This describes a homosexual family member “helping out” or volunteering in the family. The main concern throughout this conversation seemed to lean more towards the raising of a family between two parents exclusively. The conversation has been talking a lot about the family unit and its role in society. That is different from extended family members offering their help.

  • Sami

    to Mr. Eye, What is truth to you? Does it even exist or are you a believer of relativism. (Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.)

    • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

      Ms Eye, please. Or just call me Edinburgh. :D

      What is truth?

      To speak in accordance with facts and reality.

  • http://www.facebook.com/cshora Chris Hora

    I have been reading these posts, and I think there is a difference in definitions on what the word marriage is.

    EdinburghEye, could you let us know what you feel that marriage is, so that we can start with a common definition of terms?

    • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

      Marriage is a social union / legal contract between two people in which they pledge to love, honour, and cherish each other lifelong, and become each other’s closest next-of-kin.

      • Renee Aste

        Upwards of 70% African American children do not have their father in the home. The numbers of children growing up with out a father is heartbeaking, and merely having a word, an idea that brings both mother and father for an individual is deemed an act of ignorance and hate from your point of view? Check your DNA, one mom and one dad. It’s biology.

        You’re a smart guy, you’re not playing dumb either. Rather you just don’t care, and think the needs of children are a joke. It’s like you disagree solely because religious people value it. Is that why?

        Maybe the irrational bigot is you, considering you fear the reproductive design of our sexual bodies.

        • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

          Renee, you’ve argued that the children of same-sex couples ought never to have been born, or if they are born, their parents ought to be treated like criminals. Marc has argued quite seriously that the children of same-sex couples don’t deserve the same legal/financial advantages as the children of mixed-sex couples. You two are both arguing that the needs of children don’t matter.

          I’m not playing dumb, Renee. I really do think it’s bigoted to argue for legal discrimination against children because you think their parents are inferior.

        • Ole Toby Boy

          “Rather you just don’t care, and think the needs of children are a joke.”

          Where do you get that EE doesn’t care about children’s needs?

          “It’s like you disagree solely because religious people value it.”

          Religious people, everywhere, value the needs of children? Really? I hate to say it and I really do, but that is not always the case.

      • Lily

        Others see it as a social union / legal contract between two people of the opposite gender (whether they are gay or straight doesn’t matter. Technically, a lesbian could marry a gay man and it would still be legit) in which they pledge to love, honor, and cherish each other lifelong, and become each others closest next-of-kin.

        I don’t think this is an inherently bigoted position, as gay people are allowed to marry. They would just probably not wish to. As Marc pointed out, there are many restrictions on government marriage that have nothing to do with religious beliefs (age, seperation of relation, etc.)

        What we are really talking about is two separate relationships. One is between a man and a woman, two “halves” of humanity, if you will, who join in the “marital act. To be specifically biological, they join a male sexual system to a female sexual system. To be spiritual, the two become one flesh and are joined body and soul. The other union, that between two people of the same sex, is different entirely. These two people are the same, one “half” of humanity if you will, joining in a sexual act that is different from the other kind. Biologically, between males, there is a joining of the sexual system to the digestive system, while females join their sexual systems to electronics or other body parts not sexual in nature. Spiritually speaking, the two are not becoming one, not spiritually and certainly not physically. There are sexual things going on, but it is more akin to mutual masturbation that a conjugal act (and note, men and women can do things like this together too. I wouldn’t consider a husband and wife having oral or anal sex as have marital relations). There are no two sexual systems working in unity (The unitize aspect of marriage), and there will never be even an openness to the procreative aspect. Spiritually speaking, there are still just two men or two women. In a marriage, the husband and wife become one, and show both half, or all, of the face of humanity, which mirrors the face of God.

        It’s not that two people of the same sex aren’t allowed to get married; they can never be married because together they cannot perform the marital act.

        I do, however, think that anyone ought to be able to have contractual hospital visitation rights and inheratance rights with whomever they wish, whether it be a spouse, homosexual partner, child, friend, or otherwise. I don’t think marriage should be required for things like this.

        • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

          “Others see it as a social union / legal contract between two people of the opposite gender (whether they are gay or straight doesn’t matter.”

          But as a matter of plain fact, they are wrong on both counts. In 12 countries round the world, including the United States, marriage is a social union / legal contract between two people, either a mixed-sex couple or same-sex couple. And there are no circumstances where it “doesn’t matter” if a person is married to someone whose sexual orientation ensures they will never have a happy married life.

          As for the rest of your obscenely intimate speculations, Lily, it’s really absolutely none of your business what your neighbours do in bed, and trying to fake out that you can judge a couple’s spiritual connection by nosing into how they like to have sex just makes you look like a peeping tom.

          • Fides

            Hmm? But it’s really all about sex, isn’t it? Because the Church–the country–Marc–they all want you to love whoever you want. The words we’re using are homoSEXual and heteroSEXual. It’s not about love. It’s about sex. To try to keep that out of the issue is twisting the argument.
            Lily made a good point–look at her last paragraph again. Love is always a good thing that should be rewarded. An act of passion that denies unity and is closed to life–that’s just as bad between a man and woman, as she pointed out.

          • Anonymous

            @Fides — Hopefully you are pretending to be dumb just to poke fun. But in case you aren’t, the root “sex” in the words “homosexual” and “heterosexual” is not referring specifically to sex acts, but to gender. There is much more involved in sexual orientation than sexual activities. It has just as much to do with the ability to form emotional and spiritual bonds that people commonly associate with marriage. EdinburghEye is right to criticize Lily’s comments about the lack of spiritual connection between same-gender couples. It mostly shows that she needs to get to know a few same-gender couples … including some Christian ones … a whole lot better. She seems to have no clue …

          • Fides

            Merriam-Webster’s Definition of HOMOSEXUAL:
            “1
            : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
            2
            : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex ”
            You can stop the cheap debate-team tricks of trying to demean the person who disagrees with you in order to skirt around the issue. That’s exactly the response we all expect.
            Deep, spiritual bonds are not about gender OR sexual orientation–sexual activities aside. We call it friendship.

          • Anonymous

            I don’t know if you are married or not, but if you are and you think the only thing that distinguishes the relationship you have with your spouse from the relationships you have with your friends is sexual intercourse … that there are not also distinctions having to do with emotional and spiritual bonds … then I think you have a rather unusual marriage. And if you don’t understand that those distinctions between marital relationships and friendships don’t exist for same-gender couples as well, then you apparently don’t know many same-gender couples very well. As for definitions, rather than citing dictionary entries back and forth, I’d suggest you check out the websites of the major mental health organizations to get a deeper understanding of what is meant … e.g:
            http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

          • Fides

            You’re right that there are holes in my argument–thank you for pointing them out. It is difficult, however, because there are intrinsic holes in your original point. I do think I have an unusual marriage, as a matter of fact–though many of this blog’s readers have similarly unusual marriages… where they rejoice in being completely one with their spouse spiritually and sexually, rejoice in conceiving children and bringing them into the world, rejoice in being a partner and helpmate to bring each other to heaven. Yes, a lot of that simply has to do with sex. Our friendship is what brought my husband and me together–if we didn’t want to have sex (and children), we wouldn’t have gotten married, but we would have kept on being best friends. Our sexual oneness has made us better friends, and seeing its order in God’s world has given us the chance to become better people.
            I agree that it is insulting to define someone by their sexual preferences, and I’m sorry that the dictionary quotation I included made it look like I implied that. People are so much more than their sexuality. And marriage is much more than sexuality–but implying that sex has nothing to do with it is redefining millenia-old terminology.

          • Fides

            Obviously Lily was referring to the lack of spiritual oneness in their sexual acts, not between them personally.

          • Yonmei

            So Lily is God, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-judging! Hail Lily!

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            “Hmm? But it’s really all about sex, isn’t it?”

            Perhaps it is for you – who can say?

          • Lily

            If you want the government and society to accept a union as a marriage, then what goes on in that union, even in the bedroom, becomes everyone’s business. It is especially everyone’s business if this sexual union is different from the accepted marital union, which homosexual sex is. And I don’t think that talking about sex is obscene. Sex is something beautiful, and talking about it in order to analyze it is not obscene at all. Talking about sex cannot be treated as something “off limits” in a discussion of marriage.

          • Ole Toby Boy

            “It is especially everyone’s business if this sexual union is different from the accepted marital union, which homosexual sex is.”

            Only if you’re pervert that likes monitoring the sex lives of adults.

      • http://profiles.google.com/reneeaste Renee Aste

        Why two? What’s the rational of only two people? Why not be free to create a family of more then two unrelated adults? What’s the legal basis for denying groups of more then two?

        The hetero-normative definition sounds boring, it serves a legal purpose based by cause and action i.e. heterosexual behavior can get you knocked up with a child. Laws are interested in objective obligations that are clearly recognized, not baby mama drama or Kardashian fraud.

        So I leave with this to ponder….

        “I expose men to the origin of their first, and perhaps second, reason for existing.” – Leonardo Da Vinci “The Copulation”

        http://www.bmj.com/content/319/7225/1596.full

        Leonardo’s drawing is NSFW

        • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

          “Why two? What’s the rational of only two people? ”

          Because in modern Western marriage, marriage makes each spouse the other spouse’s closest next of kin, and grants other mutual and equal responsibilities, rights, and obligations, all of which are predicated on both people in the marriage having exactly the same kinship, rights, responsibilities, and obligations towards each other and to no one else.

          If you add in a third person to this relationship, it becomes very much more complicated to work out how all three have equal and mutual kinship, rights, responsibilities, and obligations. Still more so with four. Divore in this system becomes horrifyingly complicated. Of course these problems do not exist in a polygamous system where a man has multiple wives and husband and wife is an unequal relationship.

          Thus far, history has shown that where marriage is equal, it becomes a natural and logical next step to lift the ban on same-sex couples marrying.

          Where marriage is unequal, it becomes unpleasantly easy to argue for polygamy – if a husband has rights over his wife that she does not have over him, one of those rights may be to add another wife to his marriage.

          This does not prevent the people who are against marriage for same-sex couples from scaremongering about polygamy, but it’s not a logical argument.

          “The hetero-normative definition sounds boring, it serves a legal purpose based by cause and action i.e. heterosexual behavior can get you knocked up with a child”

          So again – how do you justify arguing that the children of same-sex couples ought not to be allowed the protection of this “boring legal purpose”?

        • Tally Marx

          My question is not “why two”? My question–and perhaps one less easily answered–is why not brother/sister, father/daughter, mother/son? If love, living together, and sex necessitate marriage, then why can’t close relatives who love each other get married? Ms. Eye, can you answer that one?

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            “then why can’t close relatives who love each other get married”

            Because marriage creates a unique kinship bond. Your spouse becomes your closest next-of-kin. This kinship bond may not be created where there is already a kinship bond in place. I already have a kinship bond with my parents, with my brother and sister, with my nephews.

            I know of no one apart from the anti-marriage brigade who spend any time at all arguing that incestuous couples ought to be allowed to marry.

          • Tally Marx

            So having a legal, closest, next-of-kin is the only reason for marriage? That’s the only right you are fighting for? That’s interesting. And I don’t think your objection applies, because brother-sister, or cousins, aren’t the *closest* next-of-kin. I know of people who would like to marry their first or second cousin. I know that others, donor conceived, have to have DNA tests to make sure they aren’t related to their fiancé. You think that no one would jump on the incestuous marriage bandwagon if they thought there was a chance of success? I think you are naïve. Another question: would you approve if the cousins were gay?

      • http://www.facebook.com/cshora Chris Hora

        We are both using the same word, however, we have different definitions for what that word means.

        I completely understand what you are saying, and can see your side of the discussion. But, please bear with me for my definition.

        The Judeo-Christian mindset for marriage is much more than a contractual relationship. We view it as a Covenant. Without turning this into a long theological discussion, it is more akin to a sacred family relationship. Using this mindset, a covenant cannot be broken.

        You are correct in saying that this country doesn’t respect Marriage the way that us with the Judeo-Christian mindset would like it to be respected (the fact that we allow for divorce and re-marriage is a perfect example). Which is why we would like to, at least try, and keep Marriage as a sacred thing. Quick note, Sacred means kept separate … or apart. In the same way that married couples should remain celibate (no fooling around, etc.).

        Now, I understand that you may disagree with me on this, but that is the point of view that we are coming from.

        Considering that this is our mindset, there was a suggestion, years ago, of civil unions. Is this an unacceptable solution?

        • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

          “The Judeo-Christian mindset for marriage is much more than a contractual relationship. We view it as a Covenant.”

          Christians trying to claim a “Judeo-Christian mindset” just sound slightly grotesque. Also, I don’t know a single Jew who really likes Christians doing that. Just fwiw. If you’re trying to refer to Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, the accepted term is “Abrahamic”.

          “Which is why we would like to, at least try, and keep Marriage as a sacred thing. ”

          I think it would be perfectly reasonable for Christians who do not want anything to do with legal marriage, to avoid getting married legally. Rather than getting a legal marriage certificate authorised by the state, you could just have a religious ceremony, not legally binding in any way. You could represent yourself as married as a sacrament in your religion, while still for all secular purposes declaring yourself two single people. Is that what you want?

          “Considering that this is our mindset, there was a suggestion, years ago, of civil unions. Is this an unacceptable solution?”

          Civil unions were not proposed by homophobic Christians because they wanted same-sex couples to have all the secular rights, responsibilities, and obligations of legal marriage without getting to use the word. They were proposed and campaigned for by people who knew that they wouldn’t get equal marriage past the homophobic Christians. I distinguish “homophobic Christians” because of course there are many Christians who do not approve of advocating for inequality for same-sex couples or their children.

  • Paigemarkey

    “A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religious beliefs or spirituality, nationality, language, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, age, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.” (per Wikipedia)

    I find Marc to be neither hostile nor harboring animosity…he just has his own opinion. For that matter, there are a lot of people out there who decide never to marry at all but have pledged their lives to each other without making it legal. If Marc is a bigot, is not any one who does not support equal tax breaks and rights for others who stay committed all their life, but don’t sign a piece of paper? And what about single people who have always looked for someone to marry, but never did because they didn’t find the right person? Should we discriminate against them because luck dealt them a bad hand? Shouldn’t we be gunning for equal breaks, rights and tax benefits for EVERYONE if none of us are to be called “bigots”?

    And if that’s the case…as far as the government’s concerned, wouldn’t the next logical step be to dissolve marriage on the legal level altogether?…if we’re going to be fair, that is.

    Catholics hold marriage sacred because it is a sacrament (an outward sign instituted by God to give grace)…a symbol of the living body of Christ and the Trinity..not just two people in love…or a contract where everything splits evenly after you decide to move on. Because of that, traditional marriage, within the Church, will always be upheld.

    On the state level though…it’s starting to not make any sense.

    I think throwing around “bigot” is just as shameful as any other slur. I think any name calling..on both sides, incites feelings of animosity. Name calling, in general should be eliminated from any type of discussion.

    Just a thought…

    • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

      “If Marc is a bigot, is not any one who does not support equal tax breaks and rights for others who stay committed all their life, but don’t sign a piece of paper?”

      Marc believes that same-sex couples should not be allowed to sign that piece of paper, because Marc believes that the children of same-sex couples should be financially and legally discriminated against, on the grounds that as they have as he believes inferior parents, they ought not be allowed the same advantages in life as the children of mixed-sex couples.

      How could it make sense for the government to decide that the children of a group believed by Marc (and others) to be inferior, ought to be treated worse by the state/society than the children of the group Marc believes to be superior? What possible case can you make for the state treating some children worse than others?

      “wouldn’t the next logical step be to dissolve marriage on the legal level altogether?”

      Because if the government is required to treat the children of all marriages alike, there’s no point in having marriage at all? I don’t follow your logic.

      “I think throwing around “bigot” is just as shameful as any other slur. ”

      I note that bigots tend to feel that way.

      • Paigemarkey

        I guess you’re implying I am one? At any rate, I don’t think Marc is stating children should be mistreated in any case whatsoever. His position is that children shouldn’t be put in that situation to begin with.
        There is no case where one child should be favored over the other. Which is why these all important tax breaks should be given across the board, no matter what. Why reserve them for married status? What about single parents?

        • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

          “I don’t think Marc is stating children should be mistreated in any case whatsoever. ”

          You’re wrong about that, I’m glad to say: he’s explicitly said that he does think that children of same-sex couples should be discriminated against. You may wonder why I’m glad to say that.

          Because the alternative you present “that children shouldn’t be put in that situation to begin with” is far worse. There is literally no way to prevent children from being born who know they have two mums or two dads, except methods so grotesquely inhuman that I am glad to know Marc would rather these children were born, even though he then thinks that they should be treated as inferior.

          “There is no case where one child should be favored over the other. ”

          Then shouldn’t you be arguing with Marc, not with me?

          “Which is why these all important tax breaks should be given across the board, no matter what. ”

          That’s a very good point. But if tax breaks are, as Marc argues, to be given to married couples in order to promote the welfare of their children, it follows that Marc is arguing that the children of couples he thinks should be denied marriage, deserve to be treated less well.

          • Paigemarkey

            “Because the alternative you present “that children shouldn’t be put in that situation to begin with” is far worse. There is literally no way to prevent children from being born who know they have two mums or two dads, except methods so grotesquely inhuman that I am glad to know Marc would rather these children were born, even though he then thinks that they should be treated as inferior.”

            If you thought I meant terminating them, which is what I take from that, you are grossly mistaken.

            To prevent them from knowing that is 100% achievable by not bringing children into a same-sex relationship. Babies don’t accidentally find their way into that scenario…

            Is it not kinder then for same sex couples to wait to bring children into relationships until the law provides these things for them? By my thinking, if these children suffer, it is by the choices of the individuals who brought them to live in that situation without first being provided the benefits of a married couple.

          • Paigemarkey

            Just to add to that. Do you think the tax breaks for single parents also mistreat those children?

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            Wait, let’s finish your argument about how you can enforce your belief that the children of same-sex couples are better off if never born or if forcibly removed from them.

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            “To prevent them from knowing that is 100% achievable by not bringing children into a same-sex relationship. Babies don’t accidentally find their way into that scenario…”

            Okay, so you favour forcible sterilisation of every woman who is identified as a lesbian, and every man who is identified as gay. That’s what I mean by grotesquely inhuman.

            “Is it not kinder then for same sex couples to wait to bring children into relationships until the law provides these things for them? ”

            You think it’s kinder to forcibly sterilise people rather than let them be parents?

            That’s… truly horrible, you know. If you believe you’re doing the best thing for these children you believe should never be allowed to be born, by ensuring that lesbians and gay men are never able to conceive them, well, yes, I find that grotesque and inhuman.

            But for you to argue that it’s the kindest thing to do… that’s just horrific.

          • Paigemarkey

            Why do you jump to sterilization? That’s not what I meant at all. In fact, I think sterilization is awful. What I meant was if you’re in a same sex relationship, don’t get pregnant (i.e in vitro, donor, what have you).

            If an individual already has a child, not to enter into a same-sex relationship.

            You managed to take my statements and run far far away….I’m not even sure how you pounced on sterilization…which is something I’d never support.

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            “Why do you jump to sterilization? ”

            I wanted to point out to you that when you argue that the “problem” of the children who have same-sex couples as parents can be “solved” by just making sure they’re never born, that can only be enforced by grotesquely inhuman actions. Such as forced sterilisation. Or forced abortion. If that’s not what you want, can you please quit arguing that you just don’t want those children to exist at all?

          • Tally Marx

            Women in a same sex relationship are already, effectively, sterile: they can’t get pregnant, not with their partner. They would have to seek elsewhere to get pregnant (vitro/donor). You wouldn’t have to sterilize them to prevent pregnancy; they just wouldn’t have vitro/donor kids. As someone not involved in the argument, I can critique it by saying your leap to “forced sterilization” is an illogical one.

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            “You wouldn’t have to sterilize them to prevent pregnancy”

            Yes, you would, if you really wanted to make sure they didn’t have children. Women do not become sterile because they have sex with other women.

            The only way to forcibly prevent a woman from conceiving is to either ensure she never has access to fertile sperm (forcible sterilisation of all the men?) or to ensure she cannot use it (forcible sterilisation of the woman). Or I suppose lifelong imprisonment in a cell with only women guards and only other women prisoners as companions.

            You see: grotesque and inhuman, all to avoid having to think about the children of same-sex relationships.

          • Miss Doyle

            Ok, I think we’ve just hit rock bottom here.

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            I agree, Miss Dolly!

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            Of course, there would also have to be a legal ban on allowing anyone identified as lesbian or gay to adopt, which means you’d also be ensuring that children who could be adopted wouldn’t be – you’re favouring keeping children in care or in foster homes rather than letting them live in families with adoptive parents you deem inferior.

            And you would need to place an absolute ban on family courts ever awarding custody of a child after divorce to a parent identified as lesbian or gay – if the heterosexual parent was really unfit to care for a child, the child would have to go into care, as otherwise, step-parenting in a same-sex relationship may ensue, and your goal is to ensure this doesn’t happen.

            Really, is it worthwhile causing so much misery and pain to so many people just to make sure that no child ever grows up in a family with same-sex parents? What is it so horrible about that scenario that you feel forcible sterilisation and children in care homes are a better alternative?

          • Miss Doyle

            Wow, now take a few deep breaths and take a few steps backwards EdinburghEye!

            When we say that children shouldn’t be put in the position of not having their own biological mother and father present and ideally married – we’re not talking about AFTER they come into existence.
            You’re taking an assumption that the situation has already occurred and we want to rid the world of all children born via the various ways used by gay people.
            No child, however they are born should be made to feel inferior or legally discriminated against – Marc has never suggested this.
            Supporters of traditional marriage want the best outcome for children – and time has shown that the best we can give future children is a mum and a dad who are married and 100% committed to each other.
            You seem to enjoy reading all sorts of scenarios into some very simple statements made by Marc and others.

          • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

            “When we say that children shouldn’t be put in the position of not having their own biological mother and father present and ideally married – we’re not talking about AFTER they come into existence.”

            So: you are, like Marc, arguing that it’s OK for the children of same-sex couples to exist, but that they should be legally discriminated against and made to feel inferior.

            “You’re taking an assumption that the situation has already occurred and we want to rid the world of all children born via the various ways used by gay people.”

            No no – I am pointing out to Renee and Paige and to others who ARE arguing that the children of same-sex couples just shouldn;t exist, that this means they are advocating the most horrifying and inhuman grotesqueries.

            “No child, however they are born should be made to feel inferior or legally discriminated against – Marc has never suggested this.”

            Haven’t you been reading his posts? Marc’s position, summarised exactly, is that same-sex parents are inferior to mixed-sex parents: that same-sex parents should therefore be denied marriage, and that the children of same-sex parents should be legally and financially discriminated against. That’s Marc’s argument. If you don’t like it, take it up with Marc!

            “Supporters of traditional marriage want the best outcome for children”

            Self-evidently not, since you regard yourself as “supporting” marriage by denying it to some. Do you really think the “best outcome” for children is that they should be legally and financially discriminated against, because Marc and you others regard their parents as inferior?

            “and time has shown that the best we can give future children is a mum and a dad who are married and 100% committed to each other.”

            So why do you want to enforce legal and financial discrimination on children who have what you regard as inferior parents?

      • Paigemarkey

        And just to emphasize the fact; Disagreement does not equal hate. You may disagree with Marc, but it doesn’t mean you hate him does it?

        • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

          I have no reason to hate Marc. He has been deluded into believing that God wants him to promote hate and inequality. That’s sad. I hope he gets better.

    • Anonymous

      Marc may have his own opinion, but he doesn’t stop there. Having read two of the published reports that he cites in support of his opinion in his previous piece on same-gender marriage, it is clear that he has no problem blatantly misrepresenting those reports to support his opinion. Marc likes to call it a matter of “interpretation,” but what he really has done is to lift one sentence from each of them out of context … sentences that appear in isolation to support his views, but within the context of the reports offer his views no support at all. (An accurate reading of the reports to some extent would actually argue in favor of same-gender marriage.) His distortions are so transparent that to call them “interpretations” is to give them way too much legitimacy. Choosing to support one’s opinions by twisting the facts in such obvious ways doesn’t necessarily indicate bigotry on the part of someone … but it is the first thing that comes to my mind. (An alternative possibility is that Marc is a complete moron and honestly doesn’t recognize what he’s done … but he writes too well for me to believe that.)

      • Marc Barnes

        (Copied and pasted boyee) You’re being intentionally dense. The conclusion of CLASP and Child Trends – regardless of the purpose of their article — is that biological parents are ideal for raising children. If you disagree with it, fine, but don’t pretend like its some intellectual heresy to use the conclusions of one report and apply it to another issue. It’s an easy way to avoid confronting the issue, sure, but a pitiful degradation of basic reasoning. If however, you believe that the application of an academic conclusion to (gasp) other issues! is truly moronic, I guess I’d have to ask…why? By your logic, it’d be an absolute idiot who, seeing the study that shows pregnancy reduces the risk of ovarian cancer uses that information to posit that the Pill reduces the risk of ovarian cancer. If however, you are just speaking in reference to these particular studies, again, I suppose the question would be…why? What about the reports makes their conclusion, that biological parents are the ideal, inapplicable in this situation? Was there a “but unless your involved in the gay marriage debate, then they’re no longer the ideal” clause that I missed?

        • Anonymous

          OK — I will go through this one more time, since this is a different article, and there may be people who didn’t follow the discussion for your previous one. You are once again lifting conclusions … that biological parents provide the best environment for the raising of kids … out of context from the two papers, without identifying the answer to the key question “best compared to what?”. If you actually read the papers, “best” means in comparison to the specific alternatives that were studied in the paper: single-parent homes (e.g., those that occur as a result of divorce, death of a parent, or out-of-wedlock births) or homes involving a parent and a step-parent (e.g. also the result of divorce or the death of a parent, with a subsequent re-marriage of one parent). And yes, they do conclude that of all those family structures, kids raised by their two biological parents fare the best.

          Excluded from that conclusion, by the inherent nature of the studies themselves, are (1) children raised by adoptive parents and (2) children raised by same-gender couples. Children raised by adoptive parents are excluded from that conclusion in the Child Trends report because it is not clear if/how their statistics were tallied and analyzed in their case, and they are excluded from that conclusion in the CLASP report because their statistics were generally lumped with those of kids raised by biological parents, since (as is explained) kids raised in the two cases fare about the same. Kids raised by same-gender parents are largely excluded from that conclusion in both reports because statistics weren’t even tallied and analyzed for their particular subgroup. The only element of either paper that is at all relevant to the case of same-gender parenting are a couple of references cited in the CLASP report showing that kids of divorced parents fare about the same regardless of whether they go on to be raised by a parent/step-parent combination that is straight or one that is same-gender.

          So that is what these reports actually show … that kids do best when raised by two parents who are in a loving, stable relationships — be they biological or adoptive. And that encouraging the development and maintenance of such parental relationships is a good thing for any kids involved. And that, in the one apples-to-apples comparison made, that there isn’t a significant difference between kids raised by straight parents and kids raised by same-gender parents. There is absolutely nothing in them to suggest that kids raised by same-gender parents are at some sort of disadvantage compared to kids raised by straight parents … be they biological or adoptive.

          All of this is so obvious, both in terms of what is said in the papers themselves, and in terms of common sense and middle-school-level statistics, that I really don’t take your confusion or sarcasm aimed at my reasoning seriously. All I can figure is that you either didn’t read the two references prior to writing your piece, or you did but figured that none of your readers would. Either way … not a very effective way of trying to support your opinion …

        • Anonymous

          OK — I posted a thorough response to your points, and it showed up just fine for a while … but was deleted sometime in the last ten minutes. If we’re going to start playing games like that, I have no interest in continuing. If they want, people can go back to your previous article … I’ve posted links there to both papers and people can see for themselves just how totally flawed your “interpretations” of them are. It is one thing to “use the conclusions” from those papers, but quite another to lift isolated statements out of context and use them to blatantly misrepresent their real conclusions.

        • Anonymous

          OK — I posted a thorough response to your points, and it showed up just fine for a while … but was deleted sometime in the last ten minutes. (And reposting now for a third time as it keeps getting deleted.) If we’re going to start playing games like that, I have no interest in continuing. If they want, people can go back to your previous article … I’ve posted links there to both papers and people can see for themselves just how totally flawed your “interpretations” of them are. It is one thing to “use the conclusions” from those papers, but quite another to lift isolated statements out of context and use them to blatantly misrepresent their real conclusions.

          • Marc

            You’ve just said the exact same thing. I’ve already given you my response.

          • Marc Barnes

            None of your posts have been deleted…which one are you speaking of? what was it in response to?

          • Anonymous

            The first ones to disappear were in response to your previous comment … the one that starts with “You’re being intentionally dense.” That one lasted nearly an hour before disappearing. Then I had a couple of failed attempts at getting my short one above, complaining about it, to stick … but finally got that one to work. Then I posted an abbreviated version of my response as an entirely new comment, and that seemed to go, but then was flagged by somebody for review and there it sits. (No dirty words, and I don’t even insult you.) And this is now my second attempt to respond to your comment about how my posts aren’t being deleted …

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

    Marc, I’ve now got to go to bed. But I’d like you to note that two people who say they support your views are enthusiastically arguing that, rather than simply discriminate against the children of same-sex couples, your idea, it’s better to ensure that these children are never born.

    You see what I mean about your views promoting hatred…

    • James H

      Barking.

      Mad.

      • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

        Hi James – thanks so much for proving my point that Marc is promoting hatred. Your ad hom and unprovoked attack is rather nasty, but to be expected in the kind of environment which Marc’s comments foster.

        • Tally Marx

          *Assumes polite font for clarity* Hi, Mrs. Eye! I’ve had more than a few reasonable, enjoyable, and non-violent pro-SSM people. From your discussions with others, I can see that you would not be one of them. If you are going to automatically assume and then continue to insist that everyone who disagrees with you is hateful or is brainwashed, then you can expect some questioning comments regarding your sanity. It was not unprovoked.

        • Jake E

          How is being mad promoting hatred? Being mad is natural, but apparently being mad is the same thing as hate to you. Which would mean how many pro gay-marriage people perpetuate hatred?

          Besides, he’s only mad because you continue to misconstrue the entire message at hand.

          • James H

            I feel I should point out at this point that the expression ‘mad’ on the East End of the Atlantic doesn’t mean, ‘angry’, but ‘Insane.’

            EE has made no points, he hasn’t ‘shown’ bigotry on Marc’s part, he has simply made the same baseless accusation, again, and again, and again.

            Don’t argue with a fruitcake. He’ll drag you down to his level and beat you on experience.

  • Warren

    Marriage is what marriage is, not what some hedonistic people would like to reinvent it as. Prior to any state, marriage is an institution that transcends the state. History and even common sense can show that heterosexual, monogamous, lifelong marriage based on self sacrificial giving for the sake of the common good is the only kind of sexual relationship between adults that merits protection. The state has a duty to protect marriage if its people value a civilization. When radicals attempt to use the state to redefine marriage, all people of goodwill should recognize that intrusion for the kind of interference it is, i.e., an attempt to impose on society a social ethos which, if adopted, will hasten the disintegration of western civilization. The effects of decadence and entitlement are pretty obvious in Europe these days. When people become preoccupied with their genitals and bellies, good luck trying to persuade them that austerity measures are necessary for the well being of the nation.

    • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

      This is how I honestly reacted to your comment, Warren, after far too little sleep:

      “The state has a duty to protect marriage if its people value a civilization. ”

      So what you feel about these attempts by Marc and others to attack and devalue marriage by making out that marriage is not about a “monogamous, lifelong marriage based on self sacrificial giving for the sake of the common good” but simply and solely about the marriage being mixed sex.

      *reads sentence more carefully*

      Oh. You agree with Marc and the rest that it’s the state’s business to deny marriage to all couples who are not mixed-sex, and you think this will “protect marriage”.

      No one has ever been able to explain how come it “protects marriage” to argue that it’s a privilege which some people do not deserve. Even the argument that marriage is for the benefit of children of the relationship does not hold water when you discover (as so many antis have argued in this responses to this blogpost) that their preferred means of “protecting” the children of same-sex relationships is either to deny they exist at all, or to argue they should never have been born.

  • Anonymous

    This letter — an anonymous, anecdotal bit of writing by an allegedly gay man that only serves to perpetuate negative stereotypes about gay people, with no details to back up his claims — is of absolutely no value as far as this debate goes. But it is far better than the seemingly intentional, and certainly blatant, misrepresentations of published studies Marc was trying to palm off in support of his views in his previous piece on same-gender marriage.

    • http://twitter.com/PapalMarriage Papal Marriage Laws

      It’s actually negative value. It only proves prejudice against gay people is a primary motivating factor. It proves little else.

  • Anonymous

    As I read these comments I can’t help but wonder why this is even a question of bigotry. There is an intellectual argument to be made regarding the fruits of marriage when it is open-ended to all who want to enter into it, or restricted to those who would be best suited for the task of raising children.

    We as a society (not religious, just secularly speaking) have difficulty acknowledging that certain lifestyles are less than ideal. You hear this when divorced couples try to say that it was best for the kids that they divorced, when in fact, most kids benefit when their parents gut it out and work out their problems. (Of course this doesn’t apply to abusive situations, but that should go without saying anyway.) You also hear single parents claim that their kids are better off without the other parent. Sure, that other parent might be a flake and totally to blame for not being in the kid’s life, but everyone knows deep down that it would have been better for BOTH parents to take responsibility. It sucks, but because people are often hurt in these situations they soothe themselves with the lie that the kids are “better off this way.”

    The same problem applies to homosexual couples and the study of those households on children. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we really do live in a culture that wants to avoid harming each other. That is why cries of bigotry are so hurtful. But this attitude is harmful when we are trying to study something like the effects of homosexual households on children, because there is an emotional investment in a certain outcome. The couples themselves desire a certain outcome and can inadvertently skew their answers, and the scientists dread a negative outcome due to fear of cries of bigotry OR because they themselves have an emotional investment in the results. The real question seems to be how to overcome our own fears in order to boldly discover the Truth.

  • Anonymous

    Testing testing

    • Anonymous

      Note that this is response to Marc’s comment below about the Child Trends and CLASP reports he’s tried to use to support his position. Previous attempts to post some of this information keep getting deleted, so perhaps posting as a new comment will help it stick …

      • Anonymous

        … or maybe it won’t.

  • Rusty Shackleford

    This discussion offers further proof that government should not be licensing marriages, period. The legal aspects can be taken care of by private contracts. Why the USCCB holds that Catholics still have to get a marriage license is beyond me.

    Government destroys everything it touches, the sacrament of marriage included.

    • Jake E

      I will like this simply because your name is Rusty Shackleford.

      • Rusty Shackleford

        I’ll take what I can get.

        To go a little further into my thought process – Catholics shouldn’t be at getting married at the leisure of the State. Catholics should not be equating their marriages with gay “marriages.” Catholics should not recognize gay marriages as legitimate, because they are not. Sure, gay folks should absolutely be able to grant power of attorney and next-of-kin status to their partners. But they should not receive any social service benefits from being “married.” If that means Catholics can’t either so be it.

        In addition, adoption services shouldn’t be forced to depend on government funds to survive. Catholic adoption services rightfully refuse to place children with gay parents, but are losing their lifeline funding over it. There isn’t enough money post-taxes to fun these things, especially with Catholic adoption services being threatened with losing their charity/nonprofit status. The system is rigged, either obey mommy government or don’t function.

        • http://twitter.com/PapalMarriage Papal Marriage Laws

          I don’t know of any Catholic Adoption Agencies that have been threatened with losing their tax exempt status. The issue has typically been, if Catholic Charities continues to deny services to gay and lesbian couples that the state doesn’t want to continue to provide publicly financed funding for them.

          I think it’s pretty reasonable that the state can require publicly funded adoption agencies to provide services to all the citizens that are funding them.

          Given that the National Organization for Marriage received received and spent some $13 million dollars last year from private after tax donations, it seems that there is plenty of money available. It’s just that apparently people would rather use that money on expensive political campaigns to deny marriage to gay people than on supporting Catholic Charities adoption agencies.

    • Yonmei

      “This discussion offers further proof that government should not be licensing marriages, period. ”

      This option is always open to any religious person who feels their marriage ought not to be contanimated by government. Simply arrange a religious ceremony with a celebrant without getting a marriage license. You are then married in the sight of God, while not being legally married by government. Some legal arrangements equivalent to marriage can then be set up by private contract – tax and pension rights of course cannot. You and anyone else are free to do this – nothing in the world prevents you. Why not?

      Of course, I should think that if the Catholic Church made it an excommunication matter to get legally married, they would find this decree as widely flouted – and far more openly – than the decrees against contraception, abortion, and masturbation.

      • Peter Nuar

        The Church mandates that local laws regarding marriage, one of which is to obtain a license, be followed. There’s nothing inherently necessary about the license, but for the fact that the state says so. And the Church encourages its members to be good citizens, insofar as that doesn’t offend God. Getting a license is innocuous enough. The Church draws a line and will not for example ever permit abortion or contraception, but it does not in the least refuse all submission to law and order.

    • K C Sunbeam

      BALONEY.
      Marriage existed from the beginning of time, far before the Church ever existed. Marriage was and is a STATE institution.
      We are to obey the law, unless it violates God’s law. So without a marriage license (the Church doesn’t issue marriage licenses) the couple would be in fornication.
      Pleas see my website: http://shockedbytruth.jimdo.com
      “K. C. Sunbeam”

  • Andrew

    @EdinburghEye: I asked two questions of you earlier, and have still not received a reply. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you haven’t seen it.

    I am the person who emailed Marc, and I wanted to know how you got the conclusion that I am filled with self-hatred? And also, how are the people around me “hateful”? You are jumping to conclusions that aren’t even hinted at in my email. I look forward to hearing from you!

    • Anonymous

      Andrew — in your email to Marc, you say that your experiences have shown that kids “need both biological parents raising them!” In order to know just how relevant your experiences are to the issue actually being discussed here, I need to know what percentage of the kids you’ve worked with were adopted as infants by same-gender couples, and were the numbers involved statistically significant enough for you to conclude with confidence that those kids fared worse than the ones raised from birth by their biological parents. Best-guess estimates are fine.

      I’d also be interested in knowing what state you live in. Same-gender couples who live in states where their relationships are more accepted tend to do much better than those living in states where their relationships are widely frowned upon. The part of the country where I live tends to be much more accepting of same-gender relationships than, for example, the deep South, and in my experience (and the experience of most people I know who are acquainted with same-gender couples), the healthy, committed same-gender couples here are more the norm than the exception.

      • Andrew

        Please read my email again. I didn’t mention anything about children being adopted as infants, by either gay or straight. Reading your other posts, I get the feeling you aren’t really interested in discussion, but rather you arguing for the sake of arguing. And so no amount of my “anecdotal” evidence is going to do anything to convince you. All I know is what I have experienced, and thats what I wrote about.

        Please feel free to share your experiences of working with kids if it contradicts mine.

        I live in South Africa, not the USA.

        • Anonymous

          Andrew — I know you didn’t mention anything about children being adopted as infants, which is precisely why I was compelled to ask. The focus of much of the current discussion is, after all, an attempt to make apples-to-apples comparisons of how kids raised by straight parents fare compared to those raised by same-gender parents. If you are going to use your personal experiences with kids raised from birth by their biological parents as representative of the first group, then you at least have to also have had significant experience with kids adopted at birth and raised by same-gender couples in order to form any valid conclusions regarding the topic at hand. (And that’s not just me arguing for the sake of arguing. It’s something that you, as a school teacher, should find quite obvious.)

          My personal experiences with children raised by same-gender parents are limited to a handful of kids, all having been raised by same-gender parent/step-parent couples. Compared to the other kids I know having been raised by straight parent/step-parent couples, I’d say the ones raise by same-gender parents actually have fared significantly better in terms of maturity, healthy attitudes toward their step-parents, performance in school, etc. If you have enough experience with kids being raised by same-gender parent/step-parent couples to be able to draw any valid conclusions about how they’ve done compared specifically to kids raised by straight parent/step-parent couples, that would also be of value. Again, it is the apples-to-apples comparisons that matter.

          As for South Africa, what little I know is that the legal system has been relatively progressive regarding LGBT rights, and that in some circles (especially in urban areas), same-gender couples are quite accepted, while in other circles there is a lot of open hostility. So I’m not sure how relevant your experiences with same-gender couples are to what is happening here in the US. As I noted, here same-gender couples tend to do much better in areas where such relationships have been fairly well-accepted for a number of years.

          • Andrew

            Thank you for sharing some of your experience.

            Ok, so here is some of mine: To my knowledge, none of the kids I’ve worked with has come from a home with same-sex parents (let alone married same-sex parents, because marriage has only been legal here for a few years).

            Now, of the approx. 2000 kids I’ve worked with over the last 14 years, between 30 – 40% came from homes where the traditional parenting structure was not present. This includes children of divorced parents, with shared custody, children of divorced parents where one parent had sole custody. I estimate a further 5 – 10% of kids lived in homes where their parents were not married. So between 45 – 50% of the kids I have worked with, have come from non-traditional homes.

            Out of that group, around 20% demonstrated some sort of behavioural issue (which of course includes a very wide range of factors. Of that, around half were in some form of counselling.). This compared to only around 10% of kids who came from traditional homes.

            So obviously, a traditional home is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but as I said, in my experience, they provide a better foundation for kids, than non-traditional homes.

          • Anonymous

            OK – thanks for the reply, that does clarify things. What you’ve seen looks pretty consistent with what I’ve seen, both personally and in published reports. I would just ask you to keep in mind that not all non-traditional homes are the same. In the vast majority of the ones you have encountered, the kids had suffered through serious upheaval as the result of instabilities in parental relationships. It might be better if you viewed that as being at the heart of their problems, rather than differences from the traditional family structure. Kids raised from birth in non-traditional but stable, loving households — e.g., those raised from birth by adoptive same-gender parents — might, as a class, do just fine if stability is the key factor. Likewise, kids raised by a parent and step-parent generally may not do as well, but their outcomes might not depend at all on whether the parents were straight or same-gender. Your experiences don’t preclude those possibilities, especially if you view parental stability and affection as being the driving factor.

    • Tally Marx

      Andrew, are you often considered brainwashed by religious folks–to paraphrase Ms. Eye’s comment–by those who are part of the gay pride movement? I have seen those with SSA often verbally abused (called stupid, ignorant, hating, traitors, etc.) by those fellow SSAers who would do otherwise with their own lives. I was just wondering if your experience fits with mine.

      • Andrew

        Tally, thankfully, I have never had that experience (Ms. Eye on here being the first). But that’s probably because I have never come out as such, I’ve only confided in a few close friends and family, all of whom are religious, and very supportive.

    • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

      Dear Andrew,

      I didn’t see your previous questions – also I’ve just got Internet back after nearly 36 hours without it *hugs Internet*.

      You write that you “would desperately love to have children” and that you entered your vocation as a teacher because of your great love for children. But you deny yourself this, not (apparently) because you’ve seen same-sex couples try to raise kids and fail and are convinced you could do no better, but because you’ve seen how well married mixed-sex couples do and are convinced you would do worse. Indeed, it appears from your other responses in this thread that you have no same-sex parents caring for children to look at and emulate – you’ve simply judged yourself not good enough. What is that but self-hatred?

      You write: “I can’t tell you how many times I’ve come across supposedly committed gay couples, where one or both the partners are messing around on the side. Its as you say, fidelity is not high on the agenda” – I don’t know whether this is related to your refusal to believe that you could be a good father, but I can’t tell you how many times I’ve come across committed same-sex couples where neither partner is “messing about on the side”.

      Obviously there exist unfaithful partners in the LGBT community as elsewhere (genetic testing tends to establish that about 1 in 6 of the offspring of heterosexual married couples are not genetically related to the mother’s husband) but my social life with LGBT people tends to be away from the scene, especially these days now I’m older and staider: I know young couples determined to stay together whom I’m hopeful for and supportive of, middle-aged couples settling down together, older couples who’ve lived together for decades without any formal recognition until a few years ago. Faithful, monogamous, steady couples: the rule, not the exception.

      If most of the couples you know are messing around on the side, I think that speaks to how and who you socialise with, not to being lesbian or gay. But that you choose to apply it to your own sexual orientation, perhaps believing either that you can’t be faithful or that you’ll never have a partner who is faithful – that speaks to me of self-hatred too, though obviously – I don’t know your life circumstances at all – you may be speaking out of the depths of despair at a series of bad experiences, and I’m very sorry for that.

      But you know, I think if you want a faithful partner, if you want to be a faithful partner, you need to have hope that you will find one. Don’t despair. Love yourself – without that no one can love you. Hope, live well, and go on looking. And you could find a nice guy who also has always wanted children, and maybe the two of you will end up with kids after all (maybe even twelve sons and daughters like this lovely couple) . And maybe not. But if not, it won’t be because you don’t deserve it, it’ll be because sometimes life just sucks.

      You say your very religious friends and family have been very supportive. Can’t you ask them to help you and be there for you as you try to find the right man with whom you can settle down and have a family? I’m sorry I traduced them: if you say they’ve been solidly behind you then I trust they’ll help you get past these self-doubts, this certainty that because you’re gay you don’t deserve to have a family.

      You do.

      Best wishes,

      EdinburghEye.

  • Anonymous

    Marc — you seem genuinely confused as to why some of us have objected so strongly to your use of papers that don’t deal in any significant way with same-gender parenting to draw conclusions about same-gender parenting. I’ll give it one more shot, focusing on the CLASP report as an example, and hopefully the powers that be will leave my post alone this time.

    An accurate statement describing the primary conclusion of the CLASP report is as follows: “on average, children who grow up in families with both their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage are better off in a number of ways than children who grow up in single-, step- or cohabiting-parent households.” Two caveats to that conclusion. First, cohabitation is defined as “homes in which two adult partners of the opposite sex live together but are not married.” And second, “reference to biological parents is to distinguish between biological/adoptive parents and step-parents. Most studies that include data on adoptive parents include them in the biological-parent category. Adopted children have very similar outcomes to children raised by both biological parents.”

    That is an accurate description of the primary conclusion of the paper, not just because I quoted the paper directly, but because, if you actually read the whole paper, it accurately reflects what is said in-toto. Virtually all of the studies cited specifically deal with comparisons of various forms of opposite-gender parenting (biological, adoptive, step-families) or single parenting (primarily the results of things like divorce/abandonment, death of one parent, out-of-wedlock births). The only discussion involving same-gender parenting cites a couple of references that show that kids raised by parent/step-parent couples fare about the same regardless of whether the parent/step-parent couples are straight or opposite-gender. That is the one apples-to-apples comparison relevant to gay marriage, and is actually argues against the thesis of your previous article.

    You have accurately quoted one line from this paper: “researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents who have low-conflict relationships.” But by lifting that statement out of context, you have obliterated the fact that what the paper actually shows is that those kids “do best” compared to kids raised by single parents or step-parents. Using that out-of-context quote to support an article entitled “Why Gay Marriage Is a Bad Idea” is particularly misleading.

    A good, general rule of thumb if you want to support an argument by lifting a quote from a published paper and characterizing it as a conclusion of that paper: make sure that the quote in isolation accurately represents the overall conclusions of the publication. Otherwise you just open yourself up to all kinds of criticism for disingenuously taking a line out of context in an apparent attempt to mislead readers.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      I think you raise a valid concern, but Marc is not wrong to expect that children raised by a homosexual biological parent plus another (obviously not biological) parent would not fare as well as children in a traditional nuclear family. There is no reason, at this point, to NOT assume that homosexual-led households wouldn’t trend along with the other non-traditional families.

      Right now the evidence supports the hypothesis that the best environment to raise children in is a traditional, low-conflict nuclear family. While the CLASP study does not specifically investigate households with two homosexual parents, it is reasonable to expect that, since this is NOT a traditional nuclear family, that kids in this family will not, on average, do as well.

      Saying that we need to take a look at a study that specifically compares the traditional family to a gay-led one is one thing, and is reasonable if you believe you need to test Marc’s assumptions/hypothesis. But to say that his conclusions bear absolutely no weight since we aren’t “comparing apples to apples” is silly, and shows a lack of ability to use other conclusions to infer new conclusions about similar issues.

      • Anonymous

        In the absence of any direct and specific evidence, there is no reason to assume, a priori, that kids raised by same-gender parents will fare poorly compared to those raised by straight parents under otherwise similar circumstances. That is simply a presupposition you (and Marc) are making without justification. And again, in fact, the one apples-to-apples comparison that is made in the CLASP report regarding same-sex couples contradicts the very supposition you are trying to make.

        • Rusty Shackleford

          Forgive me if I’m wrong, but the only reference to same-sex couples I see in the CLASP report is that the kids fare no worse than in families with DIVORCED heterosexual parents. Please point out which page you are referring to, where traditional families are equivalent to homosexual-led families

          “Although the research on these families has limitations, the findings are consistent: children
          raised by same-sex parents are no more likely to exhibit poor outcomes than children raised by
          divorced heterosexual parents.
          41
          Since many children raised by gay or lesbian parents have
          undergone the divorce of their parents, researchers have considered the most appropriate
          comparison group to be children of heterosexual divorced parents.” – first new section of page six @ http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications_states/files/0086.pdf

          While that’s not exactly a study in itself, it definitely supports the idea that you can group same-sex couple headed families in with the other non-traditional groups.

          • Anonymous

            No, it does not support the idea that you can group kids raised by same-gender couples in with kids raised by other non-traditional groups. It means that if you compare kids raised by parent/step-parent couples, it makes little difference whether the couple is straight or same-gender. Your attempt to lump all kids raised by same-gender parents into that category ASSUMES two things. You are assuming that (1) being raised by same-gender parents means you are the product of divorce, and (2) there is something about that situation that makes it an inherent characteristic of same-gender couples. The first assumption was true to some extent in 2003 when the CLASP study was published — that was the only way many same-gender couples could even have custody of kids at that time — but is less true today, and becomes even less true as time goes by and more same-gender couples take advantage of growing opportunities to adopt and make use of IVF/surrogacy. The second point was never true.

            If you want to discuss trends in how various family structures have evolved, and what can be done to promote the development of healthy, stable relationships in the parents of those raising kids in those various structures, that is fine … it’s a very worthy topic. But if you want to discuss allegedly inherent differences in how kids raised by straight parents fare compared to those raised by same-gender parents, then keep things apples-to-apples. Compare kids raised from birth by biological parents with kids adopted at birth and raised by same-gender parents. Compare kids being raised by straight parent/step-parent couples with those being raised by same-gender parent/step-parent couples. The issues involved in making valid comparisons are not that complicated.

          • Rusty Shackleford

            Listen, I’m just pointing out that the study in question DOES support what Marc wrote. Based on the study, it is a reasonable (but untested) assumption that you can group same-sex couple led families in with all the other non-traditional families in terms of comparing them to traditional families. The study:

            -Shows traditional families are the best for raising kids
            -Assumes that kids same-sex led families are NO WORSE off than kids in divorced heterosexual (i.e. a non-traditional family).

            “The second point was never true.” This is not supported by anything in the study. In fact, the study DOES support that there is a correlation (not causation) between same-gender couples and detriment to rearing children. This is a faulty conclusion.

            You claimed that Marc’s interpretation was twisted the conclusion of the study, but it wasn’t.

            The study in question does not directly compare traditional families with monogamous homosexual couples that raise children from birth. We can agree on that.

            What it comes down to is that you doubt the validity of grouping monogamous same-sex led couples with children raised from birth in with other non-traditional families. That may in fact be true, they may not trend with them (we don’t know for certain), but the tangential evidence suggests that it is much less likely that those monogamous homosexual couples will trend with the traditional families.

            Until we have a study that does your “apples to apples” comparison it is a valid assumption, based on the data we have, that all non-traditional families will behave similarly.

          • Rusty Shackleford

            “You claimed that Marc’s interpretation was twisted the conclusion of the study, but it wasn’t.”

            Yikes, that will teach me to do a full read through before posting. I apologize.

            You claimed that Marc’s interpretation twisted the conclusion of the study, but it didn’t.

          • Anonymous

            OK – I’m going to stop wasting my time, because you are making exactly the same kinds of misrepresentations of what the report says that Marc did, and there is no point in going around in circles. The report says that traditional families are best for raising kids WHEN COMPARED TO THOSE RAISED IN SINGLE-, STEP-, OR COHABITATING-PARENT HOMES. Ignoring those qualifications in making your statement is just intellectually dishonest. And the report says that DIVORCED same-sex led families are comparable to divorced heterosexual households. Neglecting the fact that divorces were, by default, an element in most same-gender led households in 2003 – a point highlighted in the paper – is also intellectually dishonest. There is nothing in the report to suggest that monogamous homosexual couples are unlikely to trend with traditional families, nor is there anything there to suggest that all non-traditional families will behave similarly. That is entirely a presupposition you are making, without any justification at all.

          • Rusty Shackleford

            Your reading comprehension is awful. Please read what I write carefully, because you have completely failed to cite anything to back up your claims, and do not even have the basic facts from the study correct.

            I did note that ” The report says that traditional families are best for raising kids WHEN COMPARED TO THOSE RAISED IN SINGLE-, STEP-, OR COHABITATING-PARENT HOMES.”

            “And the report says that DIVORCED same-sex led families are comparable to divorced heterosexual households.” <- This is flat out wrong. Quote where they compare DIVORCED homosexuals to DIVORCED heterosexuals. THEY DON'T. They compare ALL HOMOSEXUAL families to divorced hetero families, by assuming that all homosexual families have kids due to previous hetero divorce. I even quoted the exact word for word paragraph where they mention it. THERE IS NO MENTION OF DIVORCED HOMOSEXUAL FAMILIES AT ALL. It only mentions children that are now in homosexual families that were previously in hetero families. This is not hard stuff, it's right there in black and white on page 6.

            "There is nothing in the report to suggest that monogamous homosexual couples are unlikely to trend with traditional families,"

            Not really. There is evidence, but nothing conclusive. Homosexual couples are non-traditional by definition. It would be a fair (but not in-stone) assumption that they would.

            "nor is there anything there to suggest that all non-traditional families will behave similarly. That is entirely a presupposition you are making, without any justification at all."

            What? That's the whole point of the study. Non-traditional families (in this study's case, single-, step- or cohabiting-parent households) fare poorer in terms of raising kids. What study are you reading?

            It doesn't take a massive leap of faith to group in homosexuals with those other since it is by definition not traditional. And if you conclude that there is something inherent in the traditional family that makes the traditional family better at raising kids, it follows that you can expect homosexual couples to exhibit, on average, poorer child-rearing results. You may not understand this but hopefully someone else reading these comments can follow along.

          • Anonymous

            (1) Your previous post makes absolutely no mention of the qualifications regarding who was included in the study. It just makes the blanket statement that “the study shows that traditional families are the best for raising kids” … end of quote. Which is a return to the same misleading statement Marc has been pushing.

            (2) I am using the phrase “divorced same-sex led families” in exactly the same sense you are using “divorced heterosexual” families. In both cases kids were born to heterosexual couples that subsequently divorced; the kids then ended up with one parent married to a step-parent … either opposite-gender or same-gender. The report, as well as your quote of the report, note that at the time of the study (2003), most same-gender couples with kids fell into that category, pretty much by default. Given that the report focuses so heavily on the impacts of parental stability and divorce on kids, it should be obvious that one has to recognize that the relevant comparison being made is between parent/step-parent couples of the opposite gender versus parent/step-parent couples of the same gender … not the former compared to ALL same-gender couples. The fact that most same-gender couples with kids fell into that category is an artifact of the time the study was conducted, not something inherent to same-gender couples or necessarily true in 2011.

            (3) Your concluding statements again ASSUME that all non-traditional families will function the same, and that all of them will be inferior when it comes to child-rearing. And it IS an assumption, and is not something that is substantiated by anything in the report. Many of the differences cited in the report can be linked to the stability of the parental relationships and the impact of divorce … not some vague notion of how traditional the parental relationships are. There is no reason, based on anything in the report, to believe that kids raised from birth by their biological parents will fare any better than kids raised from birth by adoptive same-gender parents. Nor is there any reason, based on anything in the report, to believe that kids raised by a parent/step-parent couple will fare differently depending on the genders/orientations of the parents involved.

  • http://twitter.com/nomtweetshate NOM Tweets Hate

    It’s great that this man believes in something so strongly that he is willing to deny himself the joy of having children to prove the point. However, he also wants to deny people that disagree with him the opportunity, joy and freedom of living their own lives based on their own beliefs. This is the very definition of bigotry and intolerance.

    If you don’t like being called a bigot for trying to force your religious views on others, perhaps you should stop acting like a bigot. Let the gay people raise their children, let them get married, let them practice THEIR faiths. Stop trying to prevent them from living THEIR lives.

  • http://twitter.com/be4marriage be [4] marriage

    Unfortunately, the vast majority of people that argue against marriage equality for gays and lesbians for some reason feel the need to finish their argument with the “gays are promiscuous” finale. It tends to just prove the prejudice and irrationality.

    I know many gays and lesbians that are in long term, monogamous relationships. The author himself posted a video of a young man that was raised by two lesbians that have been together for more time than most married couples. To argue that these people should be discriminated against and denied legal rights and benefits for the mere fact that they fall into a class of people that is historically promiscuous is ludicrous.

    Even if it were true that gays and lesbians were more promiscuous than society at large, it would only be an argument in FAVOR of extending marriage equality to them. Giving gays and lesbians the opportunity to marry would certainly increase the amount of monogamous gay couples and decrease promiscuity. That would be good for society, not bad.

    Ending this discriminatory ban on “gay marriage” is indeed a conservative principle. It would encourage more gays and lesbians to have stable relationships, it would insure more children grow up in stable households, it would benefit society at large.

  • Same-Family Marriage

    o lots of people nowadays support same-sex marriage… when will people stand up for same-family marriage? Why can two brothers/two sisters/two siblings marry each other… If they love each and want share their live with each other, they should have the right to marry each other just as the same sex lovers have the right to marry each other, right?!!! — Common, ppl!!! We need to educate our society about this… The govt needs to amend its injustice marriage law.

  • Lorelei

    Wow, I am so impressed by the “gay reader”. The world really needs more people with his common sense and maturity!

    • Ole Toby Boy

      I know.We could all use a token gay guy to support our beliefs and parrot what we want them to.

    • Ole Toby Boy

      I know.We could all use a token gay guy to support our beliefs and parrot what we want them to.

  • http://wethepeoplefree.com Cheryl Jones

    The whole discussion can be solved easily by checking what the scriptures say about homosexuality.

    • Anonymous

      That won’t resolve anything for two huge reasons. One is that this discussion is about state recognition of same-gender marriages via the granting of the various rights, benefits, and protections currently given by law to straight married couples. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution prohibits any such laws from establishing preference for the views of one religious body over those of another. If marriage laws in this country are to pass Constitutional muster, they must be justifiable through non-religious arguments.

      Second huge issue … what scriptures say about homosexuality is widely debated, even among Christians. Some hold that it is condemned in all circumstances. Others note that, of those few passages that are commonly used to condemn homosexuality, probably none of them have anything to do with the kinds of loving, committed, monogamous same-gender relationships we’re talking about here. They instead have to do with things like rape (the Sodom story), male shrine prostitution common among ancient Canaanite/Egyptian cultures (the Leviticus passages), and things like pederasty and/or prostitution (passages in Paul’s letters). For Christians and Jews that consider that such contextual and translation issues important, there’s no particular reason to consider the kinds of relationships being talked about here sinful, harmful, immoral, etc.

      So no, checking scriptures won’t resolve anything related to this debate. It only is of value in clarifying what church bodies believe, based on their particular ways of interpreting scripture and taking context into account.

  • Peggy

    My priest made a great point yesterday while we were talking about the Zach Wahls video. Wahls was at the Iowa State House to testify on behalf of the goodness of SSM, right? Yet SSM has only been legal in Iowa for 2-3 years, and Zach is 19 years old. Zach Wahls is living proof that two lesbians can raise a child who turns out okay – without re-defining marriage.

    • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

      So you disagree with Marc. Marc thinks same-sex couples make inferior parents, so they ought to be denied marriage: he’s actively for discriminating against people he perceives as his inferiors. You think same-sex couples make parents just as good as a mixed-sex couple – so what’s your excuse for supporting discrimination?

  • Greg B.

    And we’re supposed to believe that’s from an actual gay man pushing the talking points of the anti-gay lobby? Sure, just like the “readers” NOM Blog who “struggle with same-sex attraction” and spew every anti-gay talking point on every single blog post are legitimate. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you actually received that email from someone claiming to be gay but I question if you’re really gullible enough to accept it at face value.

  • http://lbmacertifiedgold.com Cheryl Jones

    I happened to come across this by a former homosexual who is now married with nine children. I thought maybe you would like to see it.

    http://www.sidroth.org/site/News2?abbr=tv_&page=NewsArticle&id=10765

    • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

      There’s no such thing as a “former homosexual”: you can’t change your sexual orientation just because you’ve been taught to hate yourself. Dennis Jerningan and his poor wife may have learned to live without a satisfying sex life, but really, who can hear a horrible story like that without wishing people would just quit trying to hate on others?

      Here’s an article about parents legally barred from marriage who a happy relationship and 12 children. Isn’t that wonderful?

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

    Hey, Marc! Go read about some of those kids you’ve been arguing ought to be discriminated against:

    “Because they can’t co-adopt, a rather complicated series of legal actions had to be put together to cover all circumstances. Roger legally changed his last name to Ham in 2007, so everyone has the same name and there was less explaining to do when he picked up the kids from school or took them to the doctor.

    “An attorney drew up papers that, in case something happened to either dad, guardianship of the children goes to the other. Medical releases ensure that either dad can take the kids to urgent care, and paperwork filed at school means either can pick the kids up.

    “Married couples who adopt children don’t have to take such precautions. With only one legal parent, children in gay households are not entitled to health and Social Security benefits, inheritance rights or child support from the other parent. If a gay couple splits up, only the legal parent has custody rights.

    “A lawyer in Washington suggested the men re-adopt the rest of the children in that state. Legally, it would put their minds at ease. But at $1,500 for each child, they can’t afford it. Besides, the men say, names on paper don’t mean as much as what the kids experience every day.

    “”Honestly, my thought is, they know that biologically we’re not their parents, but they know who cares for them and who loves them unconditionally,” Steven says.”

    Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/azliving/articles/2011/05/02/20110502gay-dads-ham-family-12-adopted-kids.html?page=2#ixzz1gzih6DPF

  • Safia

    This is an articule that I highly recommend to anyone who wishes to further understand the Church’s teachings regarding same-sex marriage.

  • Briana

    I just want to take this moment to applaud this man. And to applaud all men and women who live out God’s call to chastity, especially those with same-sex attraction.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X