Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think maybe the cruelty will cut down some, but that's an opinion and only time can tell something like that, can't it?GunnyL said:Now I DEFINATELY will vote against THAT. The ultimate in selfishness for two homosexuals to presume to raise a child. Aside from the screwed up morals learned at home, the peer pressure from the outside world would be horrendous. They don't say "kids are cruel" without good reason.
Kagom said:I think maybe the cruelty will cut down some, but that's an opinion and only time can tell something like that, can't it?
We can raise children just as well as a heterosexual couple. But no one is perfect in child rearing.
Kagom said:We can raise children just as well as a heterosexual couple. But no one is perfect in child rearing.
Thirteen Bad Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage
Why the rhetoric doesn't stand up under scrutiny.
By Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott
Now that gay marriage is our most talked-about domestic policy issue, it is time to rebut faulty arguments that bedevil it. While we could provide biblical and theological grounds for what follows, we will focus on the practical and social effects of changing society's first and most basic institution.
Bad argument No. 1
"Gay marriage is a basic human right."
There are huge differences between constitutional rights with few restrictions (such as the rights to life or free speech) and other rights with important restrictions, which do not carry the right of universal access. We already recognize that not everyone has the right to enlist in the army, but that one must be of the proper age, physical condition, citizenship, and philosophy—anarchists and pacifists need not apply. We also agree that certain persons do not have the right to marriage—children, multiple partners, family members, and those already married.
Bad argument No. 2
"Gay marriage is a civil right."
This is based on the false assumption that homosexuality is the same sort of human difference as race. But while the difference between sexual orientations is profound (one desires the opposite sex and procreates while the other does neither), racial difference has no intrinsic bearing on love and marriage. This is why philosophically opposed African American leaders such as Shelby Steele and Jesse Jackson agree that "gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue."
Bad argument No. 3
"Opposition to gay marriage is discrimination."
Let's not mistake rational restriction for unconstitutional discrimination. Just as we rightly restrict marriage against polygamists, there is no constitutional reason why we cannot continue to restrict marriage to what all civilizations have defined for millennia: the union of a man and woman. This does not deny anyone the "equal protection of the laws," since this restriction applies equally to every individual.
Bad argument No. 4
"Marriage has changed through the centuries, so gay marriage would be just another development in its ever-changing definition."
True, our understandings of sex and the role of women in marriage have grown. While these changes are important, they are trivial when compared to the agreement across time and from East to West that the social institution of marriage is about the union of sexual opposites for, primarily, the procreation of children, as well as intimate companionship.
Bad argument No. 5
"Opposition to gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state."
It is true that Western marriage and family law stem in part from the Judeo-Christian tradition, as do many of our other laws. But the separation of church and state (assured by constitutional law) is different from the enforced separation of religion and politics, which is forbidden by the First Amendment.
Bad argument No. 6
"Marriage is necessary for gays to gain important legal benefits."
Homosexuals don't need marriage to gain most significant legal benefits. For example, hospital visitation depends on the wishes of the patient. If families disagree about medical treatment, even marriage won't solve the problem, as the Terry Schiavo case has demonstrated. The answer is medical power of attorney, which is open to anyone regardless of sexual orientation. Another example is Social Security benefits. Children's benefits are not dependent on the marital status of their parents, and the only certain benefit is a one-time death benefit of $255. A wife can access her deceased husband's Social Security, but if she has had her own work history, her Social Security benefit would usually be higher than the survivor's benefit—and she must choose one or the other. Most other benefits are based on work history.
Bad argument No. 7
"There is no proof that gay marriage would change the marriages of heterosexuals."
If marriage is all about fulfilling human desires and not parenting (as many proponents of gay marriage argue), it makes sense to dissolve marriages that don't seem fulfilling. Recent experience in Scandinavia suggests that when a society reduces marriage to this minimalist definition, families dissolve more quickly. British demographer Kathleen Kiernan has shown that since gay marriage came to Scandinavia in the early '90s, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has leaped significantly, and the family dissolution rate has risen. Only where the gay marriage movement had little success has the out-of-wedlock birthrate remained low. Marriage has virtually disappeared in the most gay-friendly districts of Norway, formerly the most conservative of the Nordic countries.
Bad argument No. 8
"Social science shows that gay parenting is no different from heterosexual parenting."
Many studies have claimed this, but, according to University of Chicago's emeritus professor of ethics and social sciences Don Browning, none of these studies was rigorous or large-scale. Stephen Nock, scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, writes that every study on the subject of gay parenting "contained at least one fatal flaw," and "not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research." Other studies show that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, had homosexual experiences more frequently, and suffered a greater rate of molestation by members of their families (Adolescence, 1996; Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1986; American Sociological Review, 2001).
Bad argument No. 9
"The fact that many married couples do not have children proves that marriage is not intrinsically related to procreation."
Yet the fact remains that most married couples either have had or will have children. The exceptions prove the rule: Being married tends to prevent a person from having a child with someone other than his or her spouse. In all cultures, even if some couples are childless, marriage as an institution is principally concerned with children and, therefore, society's future.
Bad argument No. 10
"Heterosexuals have done a terrible job at marriage. Who are they to speak?"
It is true that half of all new heterosexual marriages end in divorce. But far more than half have succeeded, if you count marriages established before the divorce boom of the '70s and '80s. Yet the point is not how many are successful, but what marriage means. To accommodate gays, marriage would have to change into something it has never been: an institution for same-sex love without the biological possibility for children. It will probably not require sexual fidelity, which even the majority of unfaithful heterosexuals have conceded is the ideal. Some of the most prominent proponents of gay marriage, such as Andrew Sullivan, say the ideal needs to change, since gay understanding of fidelity includes other sexual liaisons.
Bad argument No. 11
"The resistance to gay marriage is motivated by fear and loathing for homosexuals."
While no large group is free of hate-mongers, the vast majority resist because they strongly believe in the positive features of traditional marriage. They have experienced the benefits of the lifelong union of two persons who are complementary in many important ways—biological, psychological, temperamental, and spiritual—and who, because of this complementarity, have a unique capacity to bear and nurture children. It is appreciation for the unparalleled success of this complementarity—not fear or hatred for gays—that motivates most Americans to oppose gay marriage.
Bad argument No. 12
"Those who resist gay marriage are irrational, Neanderthal, and bigoted."
The gay marriage movement is only a few decades old. Could it be that billions of people who for millennia upheld traditional marriage were really irrational and bigoted? On the contrary, we would argue that a common-sense understanding of life leads in the direction we have argued. Further, it seems clear that reason without religious vision misses the depth dimension of human life. It tends to dissolve basic human institutions into contracts between persons who make whatever they want of them, to the detriment of children and society.
Bad argument No. 13
"The legal issue of gay marriage ought to be left up to the states."
Quite the opposite, we need a national definition of marriage. Without a public definition embodied in a constitutional amendment, activist judges at various levels will undo the conviction of the vast majority of Americans. Some already have, in defiance of state defense-of-marriage acts. Precedent for a national definition is ample—the federal government outlawed polygamy in the 19th century and the Supreme Court has ruled in the 20th century on many cases regarding marriage.
In sum, there are many bad reasons for supporting gay marriage. In contrast, there are many good reasons for protecting historic understandings of marriage, a public institution whose fate will determine the future of our society.
Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott both teach religion at Roanoke College in Virginia. Benne is a lay Lutheran theologian and McDermott is an Episcopal priest.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/009/18.51.html
Kagom said:I think maybe the cruelty will cut down some, but that's an opinion and only time can tell something like that, can't it?
We can raise children just as well as a heterosexual couple. But no one is perfect in child rearing.
In my experience, guys who grow up without a father usually end up less abusive and more protective, especially if the dad left them. Where do you get the idea that they are more abusive from?Hobbit said:Statistics say otherwise. Children without a strong, parental role model of each gender show a variety of psychological disorders dependant on which one is missing. This is also why I'm against no fault divorce and the idea that a single mother is in no way inferior to a two parent household.
Girls without fathers tend to turn into sluts as they skip from boyfriend to boyfriend looking for a replacement for their absent father. Most end up in an abusive relationship.
Girls without mothers tend to become tomboys and never really fit in with other girls. They also have emotional problems related to their own sexuality, as they have no female parent to relate to about such things. Honestly, what do guys know about having a period.
Boys without fathers tend to become abusive. Without an adequate role model to help them control their testosterone, they give in to their more violent side.
Boys without mothers tend totally out of touch with their feelings and tend to clam up, facing some pretty tough issues with repressed emotions.
No matter how good a job you may do with a kid, a stable mother/father household with almost always raise more stable, better adjusted kids.
The ClayTaurus said:In my experience, guys who grow up without a father usually end up less abusive and more protective, especially if the dad left them. Where do you get the idea that they are more abusive from?
Interesting. I wonder if my fatherless friends will end up abusers themselves... makes you wonder, eh?Hobbit said:From scientific studies that I didn't perform. If I remember them correctly (learned about them in psychology class), the protectiveness actually leads to the abuse, i.e. beating your wife so she won't go out at night again and get herself hurt. It's in my psychology book, which I sold back to the school, so I have no link. You can go look it up for yourself and correct me if I'm wrong, though. Also, you must remember that there are exceptions to every rule, and most of the girls I know who grew up without a father don't fit the above statistic, but it remains the statistic.
Oh, and about the final point in the article above about being left to the states: I think it should be left to the state legislatures. However, the judiciary won't allow that, which is why I think we need to look at impeaching judges who overstep their constitutional bounds.
The ClayTaurus said:Interesting. I wonder if my fatherless friends will end up abusers themselves... makes you wonder, eh?
That's good to hear. I've personally known too many wonderful people who happened to be homosexual to believe that we should vilify a whole group based on the irresponsible actions of a few. I shudder to think what would happen if all heterosexuals where judged based on the irresponsible actions of the average 17 year old... or 35 year old for that matter!Kagom said:I believe it's normal because it's normal to me. Apparently between 33 and 44 percent of America thinks that homosexuality is normal and that number is growing.
I've only personally known one homosexual couple who are raising a child and that child is going to have better morals than all of the "kids that are cruel", unless you think that being cruel is moral?GunnyL said:Now I DEFINATELY will vote against THAT. The ultimate in selfishness for two homosexuals to presume to raise a child. Aside from the screwed up morals learned at home, the peer pressure from the outside world would be horrendous. They don't say "kids are cruel" without good reason.
The APA seems to disagree wtih you on that.ScreamingEagle said:Bad argument No. 8
"Social science shows that gay parenting is no different from heterosexual parenting."
Many studies have claimed this, but, according to University of Chicago's emeritus professor of ethics and social sciences Don Browning, none of these studies was rigorous or large-scale. Stephen Nock, scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, writes that every study on the subject of gay parenting "contained at least one fatal flaw," and "not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research." Other studies show that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, had homosexual experiences more frequently, and suffered a greater rate of molestation by members of their families (Adolescence, 1996; Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1986; American Sociological Review, 2001).
Mmm...I've seen the opposite on these with friends and family members.Hobbit said:Statistics say otherwise. Children without a strong, parental role model of each gender show a variety of psychological disorders dependant on which one is missing. This is also why I'm against no fault divorce and the idea that a single mother is in no way inferior to a two parent household.
Girls without fathers tend to turn into sluts as they skip from boyfriend to boyfriend looking for a replacement for their absent father. Most end up in an abusive relationship.
Girls without mothers tend to become tomboys and never really fit in with other girls. They also have emotional problems related to their own sexuality, as they have no female parent to relate to about such things. Honestly, what do guys know about having a period.
Boys without fathers tend to become abusive. Without an adequate role model to help them control their testosterone, they give in to their more violent side.
Boys without mothers tend totally out of touch with their feelings and tend to clam up, facing some pretty tough issues with repressed emotions.
No matter how good a job you may do with a kid, a stable mother/father household with almost always raise more stable, better adjusted kids.
Abbey Normal said:If he had a second witness signature, the property would have gone to his intended beneficiary. That's not anti-gay; it's simply the consequence of his failure to follow the probate rules in his state. No to mention that fact that had he put his boyfriend's name on the deed, it would have automatically passed to him. Straight or gay, it is not advisable to rely on the state's rules of intestacy to have your property distributed. Too much can go wrong.
I thought the article was going to say that he wasn't allowed to leave property to his boyfriend. That would be unacceptable.
Kagom said:The APA seems to disagree wtih you on that.
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
http://www.apa.org/pi/l&gbib.html
http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/adoption_coparenting121802.pdf#search='APA%20on%20gay%20parenting'
Third link must be copied and pasted into window.
Without denying the clarity of results to date, it is important also for psychologists and other professionals to be aware that research in this area has presented a variety of methodological challenges, not all of which have been surmounted in every study. As is true in any area of research, questions have been raised with regard to sampling issues, statistical power, and other technical matters (e.g., Belcastro, Gramlich, Nicholson, Price, & Wilson, 1993); no individual study is entirely invincible to such criticism.
ScreamingEagle said:As Browing and Nock have observed, none of these studies are scientifically rigorous or large scale. Even the APA admits that the studies are not "invincible":
The undeniable FACT is that children raised by a gay couple are MINUS a parent of one sex or the other.
Why is it that psychological studies of today are finding that the many fatherless children that are being raised today by single mothers are suffering many negative consequences? Why wouldn't some of these findings also apply to children of same sex marriages? It is becoming more and more apparent that a child needs the presence of BOTH biological parents when growing up in order to become a well-adjusted person.
MissileMan said:Where's the study that says that children raised in an orphanage are better adjusted than those raised by a single parent? You are advocating leaving kids in an orphanage rather than have them raised in a two-parent home albeit the parents are both of the same sex. The ideal might be a mom/dad household, but that doesn't automatically disqualify gays from raising children.
ScreamingEagle said:Is it better to allow gays to adopt or just leave the kids in the orphanage?
I suppose it depends on the orphange. In another similar scenario, I probably would prefer to have a child raised by two decent gays than by two horrible child beaters. Acceptability of that sort is admissable in only certain limited situations where it is preferred to accept the lesser of two evils.
This type of argument is unfairly taking the negative approach and then saying if gays can raise them for that reason, why not for the other reason? The gay agenda then pushes this sort argument further in order to have TOTAL acceptability of same sex parenting for any reason.
Kagom said:Mmm...I've seen the opposite on these with friends and family members.
My father was raised with a mother and a father and is a bit more like what you said with "boys without mothers...".
I've a friend whose father was raised in a home that had both parents and he would abuse my friend until he started getting therapy.
A very close friend of mine growing up was a slight tomboy, but she was with a father only because of something that happened to her mother. She had no such problems.
I know another female friend who grew up without a mother and is the girliest girl you'll meet.
At least five out of the eight girls I'm friends with are sluts and they grew up in a two-parent home. Two of them were in an abusive relationship. One of them dropped high school last year.
I've been raised primarily in a home without a father, though I've had father figures who didnt' discipline me. My father disciplined me when I lived with him briefly. I wasn't abusive and still am not abusive.
Not to say you're wrong, but can you give me proof? Maybe some research site or something?Hobbit said:Individual anecdotes do not disprove a scientifically supported statistical tendancy. If 70% of all people follow the statistic, it's likely you'll know exceptions and entirely possilbe that you know a lot of them. I didn't say all people behave this way, but statistically, it's far more likely.
MissileMan said:There's nothing stopping gay couples from having their own children now. Two gay men can hire a surrogate mother and the biological father can get full parental custody. Two lesbians don't even have to involve a 3rd party, just visit the local sperm bank.
If there are gay couples out there who are willing to share their homes and want to devote their time and resources into providing a nurturing environment for a child, IMO, I say let them.
