" If I am able to convey a message that softens even one heart towards the
benefits and blessings of family life"Uh... people seeking
same-sex marriages ARE looking for the benefits and blessings of family life so
get out of the way.
I find it funny that these people are so concerned about the children, but fail
to fight causes that have actually been demonstrated to have a negative impact
on children: child abuse, poor sex education leading to unwanted pregnancies
and single parents, skyrocketing divorce rates, etc. No, they're going to
fight gay marriage. If you don't like it, blame the straight
parents--they're the ones having all the gay children!By the
way, it is absolutely an inevitability. An ever-larger portion of the
population, especially amongst the youth, have recognized that such
discrimination is unconstitutional. While they may not believe it is right,
they recognize it is not their place to legislate their beliefs on others.
"If I am able to convey a message that softens even one heart towards the
benefits and blessings of family life..."Ms. Roylance, that is
the argument _for_ marriage equality.
This is the exact same story that ran five days ago. There is no
body of evidence that supports heterosexual parents over homosexual parents.
There are some studies (the Australian one, for instance) that indicate children
raised by same-sex parents actually excel over children raised by heterosexual
parents in some areas, are even with them in other areas, and fall behind them
in no areas. What every study does show is that children do better
with committed - preferably married - parents who are involved, regardless of
the genders of those parents. No one has ever been able to provide
a legally acceptable reason for prohibiting same-sex marriage nor for denying
children being raised by same-sex parents the benefits of married parents. This article was specious on August 29th and, since nothing has changed,
it is specious today.
It's not inevitable but it's a good idea who's time has come. So
let's make it inevitable.
Thinking about same sex marriage I came to the realization that the successes
for the same sex crowd are coming at a time in American life when marriage
itself is becoming less and less important in general. Ironic that so many
opposite sex couples are just forgoing marriage and living together and doing
the domestic partnership thing while the same sex crowd is so anxious to get
married. What a mixed up country we are living in. Signs of the times I guess.
First, let my qualify what I am about to say by acknowledging that a good
homosexual parent is usually better than a bad heterosexual parent, married or
unmarried. Additionally, a good homosexual parent is undoubtedly better than no
parent.I know of a young gay man who accepted a boy from an
orphanage in the Ukraine (I’m not sure if it was an official U.S.
adoption). The orphanage was definitely a bad place for the boy, and his
opportunities and care will be much better with a caring parent in America.
This young man’s mother has assumed the female role, to help this boy grow
up with both a man and a woman in his life, and the opportunity to know a good
mother.But, both of these examples are exceptions to the better
rule, in my opinion. Without going into specific studies, I generally believe
children have a greater opportunity to thrive in a home with a married mother
and father. It is in society’s best interest to encourage that
relationship, because children are our future.
I have lived a long life and have observed many things, good and bad. What is
our goal in life, to make the world a better place for our children or a place
where they merely exist? I say unequivocally that both boys and girls are much
better off raised in a home with a female nurturing mother and a steadfast
worthy masculine father. That is what we really should be working hard to
accomplish, not justifying our own selfish desires.
Same-sex marriage has only been legal in the entire world since 2001, and in the
U.S. since 2004. In social science terms, that’s pretty new. So new that
there hasn’t been enough time to show how it affects children in the long
run. On the other hand, decades of research show that children do best with a
married Father and Mother in the home. While it's true that not
every couple has children, every child does have a Mother and a Father.
That's how they came to be. Same-sex marriage automatically
“divorces” children from one of the natural parents who created
"Same sex marriage is not inevitable."Yes. It is.
The IRS will now accept ss couples with a marriage certificate as married filing
jointly. That means Utah faces a real quandary. The ss couple who move from
California to Utah will file federal taxes jointly. That means Utah tax
authority will have to recognize that status. That is LEGAL recognition, folks.
Utah's position on this issue is already a dead letter.
@Susan Roylance --"...children have a greater opportunity to
thrive in a home with a married mother and father. ..."You
can't go into "specific studies", because there ARE no real studies
showing that children do better in straight homes than in gay homes. Yes,
I'm familiar with Regnerus' "study" -- which was a laughable
and obvious attempt to bolster existing biases.Every reputable
professional group of child-development experts in this country SUPPORTS gay
marriage. They support it because they recognize that children grow up just fine
in gay-led homes.These groups include:American Academy
of PediatricsAmerican Academy of Child and Adolescent PsychiatryAmerican Academy of Family PhysiciansAmerican Psychiatric AssociationAmerican Psychological AssociationNational Association of Social
WorkersThey all SUPPORT gay marriage.From the AAP's
position statement: “There is an emerging consensus, based on extensive
review of the scientific literature, that children growing up in households
headed by gay men or lesbians are not disadvantaged in any significant respect
relative to children of heterosexual parents" and "“
‘Marriage strengthens families and benefits child development".Everyone who thinks children are important should SUPPORT gay marriage.
Marriage encourages stable families -- and stable families help children!
@Kei --,"Same-sex marriage has only been legal in the entire
world since 2001"False.. -- Gay marriages have been
recognized in various societies for thousands of years."decades
of research show... "False. -- Research has shown
that children do best in stable homes with two parents. Research has NEVER shown
that the genders of those two parents makes a difference."Same-sex marriage automatically “divorces”
children...."False.-- Gay couples are not stealing
children from happy heterosexual homes. 1. Adopting children --
Thousands of children in the US spend years in the foster system, simply because
there aren't enough homes available for them. Their parents are already
gone. Adoption by gay couples HELPS these children.2. Using
surrogacy or in vitro fertilization -- These children wouldn't even EXIST
without the gay couple, so it's meaningless to claim that they are being
stolen from straight homes.3. raising children from previous
relationships -- The parents of these children were already separated. Once
again, there is no happy straight home to go back to.4. gay couples
raise children with or without marriage. Denying marriage to those couples
won't stop them from raising children.Marriage encourages
stable families. Gay marriage helps children!
Kei: " On the other hand, decades of research show that children do best
with a married Father and Mother in the home."That's a
faulty conclusion. The studies you are looking at only assumed the possibility
of single parent, or mother-father homes. The more recent research has found
that the positive advantages laid out in those studies is not because of
heterosexuality, but the presence of two parents and a stable home. Gay
marriage fulfills both of those requirements.
@Kei:"While it's true that not every couple has children, every
child does have a Mother and a Father. That's how they came to be. Same-sex
marriage automatically “divorces” children from one of the natural
parents who created them."That is a good point.. Technically, a
child living with one parent and the parent's gay partner has probably not
been 'taken' by force from the other parent, that child is in a state
where he/she has been divorced from a birth parent.And I would like
to add that blessing a friendship, long-term living relationship, etc between
two or more people is all fine and dandy. But people's friendships does
not deserve the sanction of the government. The reason for giving marriage
between a man and a woman a special status is society's way to state that
children should be raised by their father and their mother in a stable
household. It is a powerful tool to fight poverty.
@ Susan Roylance: Your beliefs are not valid reasons for making laws. There is
not a single fact that supports your opinion - in fact, all the facts indicate
that your actions are harmful to children. Additionally, as your
comment on the story acknowledges in a very backhand way, your column is based
on a false dichotomy.The choice is not heterosexual parents or
homosexual parents. The choice is whether or not children being raised by
homosexual parents deserve the same advantages of married parents that children
being raised by heterosexual parents have.No one has ever presented
a reason why children being raised by homosexual parents should not have married
parents.No one has ever presented a reason why it is better for a child to
be raised by a single straight parent than a single gay parent. You
may claim a concern for children, but your actions belie your words and show
what your real priorities are. The fact that you cannot make a reality based
case to support both beliefs shows the falsity of your position. There are no legally valid reasons to prohibit same-sex marriage and harm
children being raised by same-sex parents.
Contrary to your view, it is now considered hate speech to say anything adverse
towards the GLBT community. Further, the media has taken a very strong
anti-Christian stance.Those two situations, to me, provide
sufficient support to the belief that same-sex marriage is inevitable. The good,
but easily swayed people of Utah will soon embrace and endorse it as well. Even
the LDS Church's leadership has shown weak knees on the issue of special
rights and privileges for the GLBT community. As I said before, the day is
coming when the gay lifestyle will be endorsed by the people of Utah.
@ MapleDon: Contrary to your statement, the media - this paper and many others
included - very frequently have pro-Christian articles and still have a very
strong public following. Additionally, I noticed that your comment was posted
even though hate speech is disallowed by the rules of this paper.Nothing in your statement resembles reality.And the fact that
posters such as yourself have to result to blatant misrepresentation of the
facts is the number one reason why equal right for LGBT individuals are
inevitable - no one can give a logical, valid, factually correct reason why they
@Tekaka --"The reason for giving marriage between a man and a
woman a special status is society's way to state that children should be
raised by their father and their mother in a stable household. "If this were true, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry.If this were true, then couples who chose not to have children would not
be allowed to marry.Neither of those things happens.Guess why."It is a powerful tool to fight poverty."Marriage is a powerful tool to fight poverty. I agree. And that
principle applies to gay marriages just as much as it does to straight
re:SusanRoylance" I generally believe children have a greater
opportunity to thrive in a home with a married mother and father. It is in
society’s best interest to encourage that relationship, because children
are our future.Great.Let's start with
reducing/preventing unplanned pregnancies through education and contraceptives.
Can we agree on that? Secondly, what to do with the 400,000
children growing up in foster care temporarily or permanently--some of whom age
out of the system? There are many young people in the foster care system
because they self-identify as LGBT. I would like to see
conservatives launch major initiatives toward these problems.
I agree, same sex marriage is only as inevitable as we make it. Nothing happens
by magic and everyone has a choice in this matter. As far as
parenting goes, children do best with their married mother and father. A
marriage certificate will not change this fact for children living with
homosexual couples. The biological father committed in his marriage to the
mother of his children adds layer of protection to a child that no other child
in any other situation will have. I had not had my first baby very long before I
understood the importance of her father. She was happier with him there and I
was a better mother because of him. A piece of paper issued to a
same sex couple as well as a jointly filed tax return will not magically change
this fact. Children need their mother and their father married and supporting
one another. They do not need their father and his boyfriend married or their
mother and her girlfriend married. Gay marriage will not change what a child
Roylance, clarifying: "...I generally believe children have a GREATER
opportunity to thrive in a home with a married mother and father. It is in
society’s best interest to encourage that relationship, because children
are our future." [emphasis added]Ms. Roylance and others,
arguing here and in other forums, defend traditional hetero marriages as
providing a better or even optimum environment for raising children. That may
be true, but optimality fails as a public policy argument against gay marriage.
Family and marriage law allows for many suboptimal family and child rearing
arrangements. It is legal for unmarried or divorced people to have children for
incarcerated people, mentally challenged people, drug abusers, homeless people,
and many other categories of people to have children. Unless you can
demonstrate that same sex couples produce poorer outcomes for children than all
of these other legal family structures, then you really can't argue
optimality with a straight face.If traditional marriage advocates
who claim their stance "is for the children" could demonstrate that they
have spent a fraction of the time and money spent on Prop 8 and Amendment 3
fighting to repeal divorce, they might have a shred of credibility.
@dianeect:"Gay marriage will not change what a child needs."Gay marriages will adversely effect children in the relationship.Not that the arrangement is harmful. It's factors outside the
marriage. It's not complicated but it is inevitable. Kids at school...
kids in the neighborhood finding that a child has two fathers or two mothers at
home will inevitably tease, bully, and shun. Hetero parents will talk
disparagingly about same sex arrangements in the neighborhood. And children
will pick up on it. It will happen and there's little or nothing that can
be done about it. The legality of gay marriage will have little or
no effect on this situation. And since gay marriages will not be the norm and
will be far and few between it will never become fully accepted as a lifestyle
and thus, always ridiculed. Hence, the child in the gay marriage home will be
permanently and irrevocably damaged.
@Susan Roylance;You should be encouraging STABLE relationships,
regardless of the genders involved. THAT is what is best for the children in
those families. And they ARE families, even when they don't conform to
what you believe is the optimal family.@Cora Gene Anderson;I don't suppose you were 'justifying your own selfish desires'
when you married your spouse, were you?@Kei;Your comment
about the decades of research was a lie last week when you made it and it is
still a lie today. Additonally, as was pointed out to you, same-sex marriages
have also been around for millenia; you can google it if you don't believe
me. Didn't your god command you "Thou shalt not bear false
witness"?@Tekakaromatagi;For your information,
same-sex couples are much more than simply "friends".@MapleDon;Another poor picked on Christianity comment.
@wrz --"The legality of gay marriage will have little or no
effect on this situation."That's the essential sentence
right there. You say that the legality of gay marriage will have LITTLE TO NO
EFFECT on school bullying. Therefore, this is no reason to prevent gay
marriage.School bullying will be conquered by conquering widespread
institutionalized homophobia. Gay marriage is one step in that battle, but
it's only one step. Just as interracial marriages used to be unthinkable,
gay marriages and the children of those marriages will come to be accepted with
time. Then we'll all look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.
wrz,So are you saying that because ignorant people will pick on a
kid for being different, his or her family structure shouldn't be allowed.
What if a kid will be picked on for being Mormon. Should we not let people be
Mormon because we're worried about the kid? I also contest the
notion that legality won't change anything. The acceptance of bi-racial
couples was greatly improved by the legalization of their marriages.
Same sex marriage efforts ARE pro-family. If a gay or lesbian couple have
children, isn't it better for all of them if the parents are married?
This discussion often seems to be framed as a choice between either homosexual
marriage or heterosexual marriage. Strictly one or the other without any middle
ground. But I am for both. I'm straight. Legalizing gay marriage will
not entice me to leave my hetero marriage. Nor will it weaken my hetero
marriage. Likewise, I have a gay nephew. He will never ever have a hetero
marriage. If we stop him from having a gay marriage, then he will simply have
no marriage at all. So my supporting gay marriage strengthens society as a
whole because it encourages my gay nephew to be married and have that committed,
long-term relationship that we try to encourage in everyone. Pro gay
marriage is not anti hetero marriage. It is strictly pro marriage. It
doesn't harm or weaken mine or my neighbor's hetero marriage. The
same societal benefits realized by encouraging hetero marriages and marriage
commitments will also be realized from gay marriages. And most
important of all, equality is just the right thing to do. It's our
country's single most important founding principal.
The big argument is if gender matters to the raising of kids. There is no
question that gender matters to get the kids here. I think we can all agree
with that. Where many of us differ is many of us believe that gender is STILL
critical to the growth and development of a child. Nature works with
complimentary parts. The biggest proof is it takes male and female to make more
people. Not only are our bodies comlimentary but so are our natures. A mom and
a mom or a dad and a dad is like walking with two left feet. One can get on
better than one foot or none, but a left and a right are a much more stable
@Contrariuser:"You say that the legality of gay marriage will have
LITTLE TO NO EFFECT on school bullying."That's not what I
said. I said children living with gay parents will be adversely effected.
Chided and shunned by other children... on play grounds, in their neighborhoods
at home... because they have two moms or two dads and not the traditional
mom/dad as parents."Therefore, this is no reason to prevent gay
marriage."It certainly should give cause to think twice about
asserting that kids in a gay marriage household will not be adversely effected.
Why do you think gay kids find it difficult to 'come out?'"School bullying will be conquered by conquering widespread
institutionalized homophobia."Never happen. Gay marriage is so
rare and so indecent to contemplate that acceptance will never be the norm.@OHBU:"So are you saying that because ignorant people will
pick on a kid for being different..."It's not the kid
that's different. It's the family structure.And kids
picking on other kids for little or no reason."What if a kid
will be picked on for being Mormon."They have been and are
@jeanie;We can produce human beings in a test tube. We can clone
them if we want to. We actually do NOT require your paradigm in order to
continue the species at this point in our history. @wrz;What difference is having their gay parents actually married for kids in these
families versus having them not married? They're still going to have two
dads or two moms in either case. Having their parents married gives them legal
protections that they otherwise wouldn't have. Bullies will be bullies in
@ wrz: Read some social history. Your comments are the exact same comments
used against interracial marriage. They are the exact same comments used to
discourage divorce. They are the exact same comments used against school
integration.I find it very sad that you have such a negative view of
the human race that you do not think children being raised by same-sex parents
can be treated well by other members of society.In your response to
OBHU you stated that you believe some children are being picked on for being
Mormon. Using your reasoning of prohibiting things that give children an excuse
to behave badly, are you suggesting Mormonism should be banned? Either your viewpoint is very extreme - banning everything that makes children
different and may lead to them being bullied - or your viewpoint is indefensible
- ban things you don't like on the lame excuse that some children have been
taught to be bigots and don't know how to properly treat those who are
different from them.
Ranch -What is combined in a test tube? Something from the female and
something from the male. I don't know of any cloned children running
around. My paradigm stands. Gender matters when it comes to kids.
@wrzSpencer W Kimball"When one considers marriage,
it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two
people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of
themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each
other and that will beset their children."So I guess you are
also campaigning to stop interracial marriages as well?
@wrz --"That's not what I said."I quoted
your words exactly. I can't help it if you don't like their
implication."children living with gay parents will be adversely
effected. "Puhleez.Children with fat parents get
bullied. Children with foreign parents get bullied. Children with Republican
parents get bullied. Are we going to deny marriage to fat people, foreign
people, and Republicans??@Jeanie --You said: "gender
is STILL critical to the growth and development of a child."Your
belief is simply not true. It has already been disproven. Children grow up just
fine in gay-led households -- thousands have done so already. Gender wasn't
"critical" to their growth or development.Would
opposite-gender parents be **helpful** in their development? Maybe, maybe not.
But we don't limit marriages based on what might or might not be
"helpful". We don't deny marriages to uneducated parents, or poor
parents, or convicts, or alcoholics. You get the picture. All the evidence indicates that children grow up just fine in gay-led homes.
But even if there WERE some nebulous benefit to opposite-gender parents, that
isn't a sufficient reason for denying gay marriage.
Contrarius - We have discussed this before. We are just not going to
agree on this. There has not been enough time to confidently
determine the long term effects of same gender parents on a child's
development. There have been too many studies done on a number of topics that,
given enough time, have been found to be inaccurate. However, there are ample
studies over many years showing the negative effects of children who grow up
without a father's influence. Even the physical make up of our bodies
speak to the importance of gender. The male body cannot carry or nourish an
infant. Females bodies cannot become pregnant without a contribution from a
male. Marriage was not about two people who love each other and
want to show their commitment. Marriage was constructed for the beginning of
families, for the protection of children. That has been society's standard.
That there are childless couples or heterosexual couples that don't want
kids we all know. I am discussing the standard, not the exceptions.
jeanie says:"There has not been enough time to confidently
determine the long term effects of same gender parents on a child's
development."--- Are you completely unaware that same-gender
couples have been raising children for decades? Good grief. "Marriage was constructed for the beginning of families"--- Even discussing "exceptions" you're going to HAVE to deny
marriage to infertile and aged heterosexual couples incapable of having children
if you're going to deny marriage to gay couples because they
"can't" have children (btw, we CAN if we want to through various
means). BTW, if marriage creates the formation of a family for a straight
couple, it'll do the same thing for a gay couple.
@ jeannie: Actually, if you want to go by the traditional meaning of things,
marriage has never been about anything other than property rights. Serf,
peasant, lord, king - whatever. As soon as a man married he owned everything
that ever may have been considered his wife's, including the dowry and any
children born to the couple. Ownership of girl children was transferred when
they married. Children were property - they were for working on the farm or at
the bakery or being seamstresses or joining the Church. They were bartered to
increase land holdings or to ensure peace. Marriage has only been
about family in the modern meaning of the word for less than 300 years - and
even then it started out as a wealthy European thing. In some areas of the
world it still doesn't mean what we want it to mean.As for what
is needed to make a baby - scientist have recently turned skin cells into egg
cells and sperm cells regardless of the gender of the donor. In other words,
not only do you not need two sexes to make a baby - you don't even really
need two people any more.
@jeanie --"There has not been enough time to confidently
determine the long term effects..."Again -- We already KNOW that
children can grow up just fine with gay parents. We've seen it already.
What you're talking about -- possible long term effects -- are possible
**smaller** differences. We've already seen that there are no huge
differences. If the differences were huge, they would have been noticed
already.And, again, we don't deny marriages based on possible
small differences."However, there are ample studies over many
years showing the negative effects of children who grow up without a
father's influence. "That's not quite true. What "ample studies" have proven is that children grow up much better
when they have two parents. So far as I'm aware, NO good studies have shown
differences due to the genders of those two parents."That there
are childless couples or heterosexual couples that don't want kids we all
know. I am discussing the standard, not the exceptions."Gay
parenting will ALWAYS be one of the exceptions. Remember, only around 5% of the
population is gay. More than 90% of parents will always be straight, whether gay
marriage is legalized or not.
jeanie: "That there are childless couples or heterosexual couples that
don't want kids we all know. I am discussing the standard, not the
exceptions."Yes, but it is the exceptions that matter. Creating
a positive environment for the production and nurturing of children is a
significant, possibly the overriding, public policy goal of marriage law.
However, it is not the ONLY policy goal. There is room within family policy and
marriage as a social institution for other purposes. As you note, there are
childless straight couples. If encouraging procreation was the only objective
of marriage law, there would be fertility tests as a requirement for marriage
and extramarital pregnancies would be prosecuted. Did you know that Utah law
requires certain couples to be certifiably nonreproductive as a mandatory
precondition to marrying? Clearly even the traditional values-oriented,
predominantly LDS and GOP Utah legislature doesn't buy your argument that
marriage is ONLY about producing children. There is room within marriage as a
social institution and within family law for other policy goals, such as
encouraging stable, loving relationships without children.
"I’m not so different from any of your children. My family really
isn’t so different from yours..The sense of family comes the commitment we
make to each other to work through the hard times.. It comes from the love that
binds us. That’s what makes a family.So what you’re
voting for here is not to change us..it’s to change how the law views us,
how the law treats us. You are voting for the first time in the history of our
state to codify discrimination into our constitution.. You are telling Iowans,
“Some among you are second-class citizens who do not have the right to
marry the person you love.” In the next two hours, I’m sure
we’re going to hear a lot of testimony about how damaging having gay
parents is on kids. But not once have I ever been confronted by an individual
who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple. And you know why?
Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero impact on the content
of my character.”(Zach Wahls)
@Contrarius:The reason for giving marriage between a man and a woman
a special status is society's way to state that children should be raised
by their father and their mother in a stable household."If this
were true, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. If this were
true, then couples who chose not to have children would not be allowed to
marry."Fertility is not obvious. It is likely that most
infertile couples don't know it and may not know it for years. Some
couples who think that they are infertile find out that they are when the wife
becomes pregnant. On the other hand, if there is a non-procreative couple or
group, two men rooming together, two sisters, whatever. It is obvious that they
will never conceive and bear a child.So we would not call that
arrangement a marriage. Because it is obviously non-procreative.(If
I am mistaken, please explain how two men or two women could conceive and bear a
@Tekakaromatagi --"Fertility is not obvious."Fertility is very obvious in a 70 year old woman -- yet we allow them to
marry."if there is a non-procreative couple or group, two men
rooming together, two sisters, whatever. It is obvious that they will never
conceive and bear a child."Many "non-procreative"
couples are ALREADY raising biologically-related children, with or without
marriage. "So we would not call that arrangement a marriage.
Because it is obviously non-procreative."Many marriages are
"obviously" non-procreative. Refer back to that 70 year old woman.In fact, some marriages MUST be non-procreative in order to be legal.
Refer to Utah Code Title 30 Chapter 1 Section 1 -- "
(2) First cousins may marry under the following circumstances:
(a) both parties are 65 years of age or older; or (b) if both
parties are 55 years of age or older, upon a finding by the district court,
located in the district in which either party resides, that either party is
unable to reproduce."Utah acknowledges that these
non-procreative unions are marriages. Your argument fails.
The only inevitability is that, in the end, goodness and morality will triumph
over evil, including triumphing over the current moral plague of homosexuality.
How far the moral desolation will spread is impossible to say, but it is only a
fulfillment of the prophecies of that same Christianity it despises. And by
those same scriptures we know it is inevitable that the same God that instituted
marriage between man and woman will win, whatever victories the opposition
claims between here and their utter defeat.We must do our part to
oppose the desecration of marriage. Marriage was instituted by God with Adam and
Eve as a relationship between a man and a woman. We must protect the innocence
of little children that homosexuals would adopt into their homes and render as
their own children before the law.
Contrarius- You are assuming if there are differences they will be small and
then base your conclusion on what you can't know. Again, not enough time
has passed. Many studies have been done on the importance of strong
male role models and absent dads and their effects on kids, not merely an absent
second parent. Again, a woman cannot replace a man. A man cannot replace a
woman. Ranch - Yes, I know kids have been raised by homosexual
couples for years just as they have been raised in many other configurations.Maudine - a human being has not been produced by these skin cell
alterations and should one be, it would still take two different types of cells
which supports my belief that nature functions best when complimentary
components come together. As an aside, many people buy genetically
non altered, organic, pesticide free, antibiotic free food because studies have
shown that food in its most natural state is the most healthy. Why would we
want to create people any other way? I doubt I will win over those
with strong differing opinions, but there are other ways to frame the question
of gay marriage that need to be explored.
Tekaka...: "(If I am mistaken, please explain how two men or two women
could conceive and bear a child.)"The same way that infertile
straight couples bear children: IVF, sperm donation, surrogacy, etc. I
can't vouch for the technique MAudine cites in her 8:39 comment, but
parthenogenesis may not be that far away.Contrarius has adequately
rebutted the rest of your 8:59 post. I would add that the legislative history
behind the passage (in 1996-- I believe some who voted for it are still serving
in the legislature) of the section of the Utah Code that allowed first cousins
to marry mirrors that of the gay marriage issue today. First cousin couples
were faced with a patchwork of state laws that allowed or prevented them from
marrying. They argued that traveling to a state where they could marry legally
imposed an undue hardship on them. They argued that they had loving, committed,
stable relationships on a par with marriage that merited official recognition by
the state. Sound familiar? The state came through for them and gave them full
legal recognition as married people (no civil unions for them). How are gays
@Ranch:"What difference is having their gay parents actually married
for kids in these families versus having them not married?"No
difference whether married or not. Marriage is merely a piece of gilded paper
in a book of remembrance. Nothing more in the situation under discussion.Married or not is not the point. The point is... kids from homes with
two moms or two dads will be harassed by other kids with a mom and a dad.Say your kid wanted another kid in the neighborhood from a same-sex
family over to play after school. Would you countenance it? I don't think
so. The kid would then soon think... 'Nobody likes me... there must be
something wrong with me.' Hence, damage from a same-sex situation.Or, would you let your daughter sleepover with a girl friend in a
two-mom family home? I doubt it. You can't trust what situations your
daughter might encounter."Having their parents married gives
them legal protections that they otherwise wouldn't have."We're not talking abut legal protections. We're talking about peer
damage from rejection and ostracizing of kids from same-sex homes.
@wrz;You point out the bigotry of parents not allowing their
children to play with the child of a gay couple (thereby teaching them that
bigotry is okay) and then turn around and blame it on the gay couple. Sigh.
You don't see how twisted that is?
@wrz --"kids from homes with two moms or two dads will be
harassed by other kids with a mom and a dad."And kids with fat
parents will be harassed by other kids with skinny parents. And kids with
Republican parents will be harassed by other kids with Democratic parents.So what?"Would you countenance it? I don't think
so."Why not??I wouldn't have any qualms about
having kids over just because they have gay parents -- or about sending my kids
over to sleep at a home with gay parents. They are just as trustworthy than any
parents, gay or straight."You can't trust what situations
your daughter might encounter."Why not? My children would be no
more likely to encounter anything objectionable at a gay home than they would at
a straight home."We're talking about peer damage from
rejection and ostracizing of kids from same-sex homes."If you
apply the same standards to kids with fat or Republican or Baptist or
interracial or French parents, THEN you might have a point. Until then, you have
no point at all.
@wrz --"Would you encourage your daughter...to marry
interracially? "Why not?I see interracial couples
every time I go to town -- and I live in a small town, not the "big
city". What's the big deal?"Would you countenance a
blonde daughter dating an African American football star?"I'd have more qualms about the "football star" part than about
the "African American" part." Children are ostracized
for a variety of reasons...."Right. Yet you don't outlaw
divorce or single parenting because of it."contradicting the
contention that same-sex marriage does not harm children."It
isn't same-sex marriage that's causing that bullying -- it's
homophobia. Stop trying to blame the victim. Put the blame where it
belongs -- on prejudice.@jeanie --"You are assuming
... "No.I am recognizing the fact that large
differences are easy to notice. Many kids from gay-led homes have already been
studied. If there were large differences, they would have been seen already."Many studies have been done..."No. Many
studies have shown the importance of having two parents. Studies have NOT shown
that the genders matter. if you believe otherwise, please cite the studies you
have in mind.
Maudine, that's true that eggs and sperm can now be made from stem cells
and that people might be able to reproduce with someone of the same sex using
them. But there is no right to reproduce with someone of the same sex, and
attempting it would be unethical and bad public policy to allow. We should
prohibit creating a human being by any method other than joining a sperm of a
man and an egg of a woman. Marriage should only be for couples that we approve
and allow to procreate offspring, we should never allow marriage to a couple
that doesn't have a right to procreate, such as siblings and same-sex
@John Howard;That flies in the face of the Constitution, not to
mention the outright bigotry of your position.
@Contrarius:"Refer to Utah Code Title 30 Chapter 1 Section 1 --
" (2) First cousins may marry under the following
circumstances:(a) both parties are 65 years of age or older; or(b)
if both parties are 55 years of age or older, upon a finding by the district
court, located in the district in which either party resides, that either party
is unable to reproduce."Utah acknowledges that these
non-procreative unions are marriages. Your argument fails."Wow!
It took you 15 minutes to respond with this obscure clause from the Utah Code
Title 30. Whoever prepared your talking points did a really good job!Marriage is intended to be a life long commitment. One could reasonably
assume that an elderly male-female couple could have been married when they were
20 and were fertile. The examples that you state of an elderly
infertile male-female couple is not obviously non-procreaive. A male-male or a
female-female couple are obviously non-procreative. (Unless you can explain
otherwise how they could conceive and gestate a child.)Your argument
"Your argument fails."No, it doesn't. ;-)Both state and US law allows non-procreative couples to marry all the time.
And in some cases marriages are legal ONLY when they are non-procreative. Therefore, you can't use a procreative criterion to deny gays the
right to marry. This point was even brought up by FOUR of the SCOTUS
justices during the Prop 8 hearing.Breyer -- "there are lots of
people who get married who can't have children."Kagan --
"suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage
really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses
anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be
constitutional?"Scalia -- "I suppose we could have a
questionnaire at the marriage desk when people come in to get the marriage --
you know, Are you fertile or are you not fertile?" "I suspect this Court
would hold that to be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy..."Ginsburg -- "...we said somebody who is locked up in prison and who is not
to get out has a right to marry, has a fundamental right to marry, no
possibility of procreation."
Obviously procreation isn't a requirement, but it must be ALLOWED. It is a
RIGHT of marriage, the essential right, the central meaning - to be allowed and
approved to procreate. There is no right to procreate with someone of the same
sex or as the other sex. Same sex couples are like siblings - it doesn't
matter if they are fertile, we don't approve of them procreating together
and don't allow it. We should prohibit creating people by any method other
than joining a man's unmodified sperm and a woman's unmodified egg,
because that is the only way to stop eugenics and preserve equality.
Tekaka...: "(If I am mistaken, please explain how two men or two women could
conceive and bear a child.)"Lagomorp ....: "The same way
that infertile straight couples bear children: IVF, sperm donation, surrogacy,
etc. I can't vouch for the technique Maudine cites in her 8:39 comment, but
parthenogenesis may not be that far away."Using sperm donation
is not a right of marriage, in fact it is adultery and should not be allowed at
all. Actually combining gametes to make offspring together is a right of
marriage. The techique Maudine cites using stem cells is what we are talking
about, the question of whether to allow same-sex marriage is the same as whether
to allow use of stem cells or some other technique to make offspring together.
It is currently legal, there is no law against it, but there should be, because
it is unnecessary and not a right, and would be bad public policy, lead to
eugenics, harm children, cost money, etc.
There is nothing wrong with redirecting efforts to implement social change.
Lots of bad things are "inevitable", but we resist them anyway. It is
inevitable that our sun will eventually become a red giant and destroy our solar
system - but just because it is seen as "inevitable" doesn't seem
to make it something we should welcome.
@John Howard"Obviously procreation isn't a requirement, but
it must be ALLOWED. It is a RIGHT of marriage, ..." - Marriage
isn't necessary to procreate. Never has been, never will be."... we don't approve of them procreating together and don't
allow it. "- Your approval is irrelevant and not necessary. You
have no right to allow/deny other people the right to live THEIR lives as THEY
see fit. The common phrase MYOB comes to mind.@jcobabe;Lots of bad things are inevitable: religious bigotry. You are correct, we
shouldn't "welcome it".
The abolition of slavery was inevitable but it took a civil war to bring it to
pass. Not a judge or a ballot box. Events through history always have a way of
repeating themselves. The victor decides the law.
RanchHand and everyone, please don't waste our time. There are two points
I'm making that are important and that you haven't address at all: One
is that people do not have a right to attempt to reproduce with someone of the
same sex, people only have a right to reproduce with someone of the other sex.
That's one. Two is that marriage is only for couples that have a right to
reproduce and it affirms and officially approves and allows the couple to
reproduce offspring together and must not be changed by being given to couples
that are prohibited or do not have the right to reproduce, like siblings.Society certainly not only has the right but the obligation to prohibit
creating offspring of two people of the same sex.
@John Howard;Please do not waste our time. We can see bigotry when
it is staring us in the face.
So what do female same sex partners who have a child from a sperm donor tell
their child when he or she is old enough to ask “Who is my daddy”
And later when they are old enough to comprehend that information they will
probably spend years in therapy before they can accept they are different from
most of their friends. And what happens when they cannot accept it and later
despise their parents. Why would anyone want a child to go through that. Like
the progressive saying goes: “Think of the children”
@jeanie and anyone else doing the two parent argumentThe state of Utah
allows single people to adopt. Nobody has had an issue with this being the case
(not even the Eagle Forum amazingly). But apparently we should prevent
situations where kids have two parents of the same gender. There's just no
logic here. If you really wanted to pursue this argument you'd oppose
adoption by single people but you don't, so you're just hypocrites.
@John Howard"One is that people do not have a right to attempt to
reproduce with someone of the same sex"Actually they do.
There's no laws against same-sex sex (at least none that can be enforced
after Lawrence v Texas). Obviously they're not going to succeed in making a
kid that way but they can try. ". Two is that marriage is only
for couples that have a right to reproduce"That's false.
@zoar63 --"So what do female same sex partners who have a child
from a sperm donor tell their child when he or she is old enough to ask
“Who is my daddy” "The same thing that any other
infertile couple or single woman who choose a sperm donor would tell their
kid."And what happens when they cannot accept it and later
despise their parents. "What happens when kids can't accept
that they are adopted and despise their parents? What happens when kids
can't accept that their parents are Republican? What happens when kids
can't accept that their parents are uneducated? What happens when kids
can't accept that their parents are divorced?Every child has
some issue to deal with. They deal.@John Howard --Wow.
Just.....wow.You appear to be inventing a whole raft of
"rights" and restrictions that don't appear anywhere in the
Constitution, in established Constitutional law, or in any state or Federal
statutes. You keep right on believing in them if you like, but don't expect
anyone else to take them seriously.
all of the sources quoted or cited appear to be religious based organizations.
I really don't care what religious people believe, no matter how absurd or
bigoted their beliefs.But, when religious groups try to usurp the
Bill of Rights and the Constitution, I think they are becoming traitors to the
country.Those people have "Freedom of Religion." The
country is guaranteed "Freedom FROM Religion."
It is very interesting to watch the progression of the debate.Step
1: Those opposed to same-sex marriage state something they believe to be a
fact.Step 2: Those who favor same-sex marriage post the data proving what
the opponents posted in step 1 is not a fact.Step 3: Steps 1 and 2 are
repeated.Step 4: Opponents of same-sex marriage run out of false facts to
post and start posting highly bigoted opinions showing that their opposition of
same-sex marriage is based on animus and bigotry because there is no other
reason to oppose same-sex marriage.Step 5: Proponents of same-sex
marriage attempt to point out that the arguments are bigotry.Step 6:
Steps 4 and 5 are repeated until the claims of the opponents get so out there
that the proponents realize they possess no logic or reason and responses are
wasted.It takes fewer and fewer comments to reach step 4 and fewer
and fewer comments to reach step 6. Opponents of same-sex marriage
are losing the war because they have no weapons with which to fight.
@MaudineWonderful and very astute comment. I wish I could like it more
I find it interesting that with religious child abuse and child abuse in general
going on, in most cases, by straight parents, that these people are against gay
marriage and gay parents.It seems to me that gay parents are in
general better parents that straight ones. I know that gay parents have to work
harder to have children, unless they have them before coming out.The
ridicules idea that a gay marriage would hurt my marriage is laughable. What gay
marriage and gay rights do allow is for closeted men and women to come out and
stop hiding. It allows people to be themselves, and allows them to possibly
contribute more to their communities and churches, etc. It is way
past time to stop being homophobic, closeted, hateful people, and allow love to
shine on everyone!
it is fascinating that the DN will allow Maudine to compare gay marriage to
interracial marriage, despite the fact that such allegations are demonstrably
false - but continues to censor anyone who calls out such inflammatory
rhetoricThe DN moderators clearly censor based upon ideology rather
than "civility" since Maudines allegation that all gay marriage
opponents are racists, is morally comparable to claiming all homosexuals a
pedophiles - a statement that is clearly HATE based.By censoring the
rejection of such HATE, the DN de facto endorses it.
@Counter Intelligence --"it is fascinating that the DN will
allow Maudine to compare gay marriage to interracial marriage, despite the fact
that such allegations are demonstrably false"What in the world
are you talking about? Even the SCOTUS justices compared gay
marriage to interracial marriage during the Prop 8/DOMA hearings.What is inflammatory about it?And just whereintheheck did Maudine
say that all gay marriage opponents are racist??
Again, Let's be clear folks: Homosexuality is not, nor will it ever be,
equal to heterosexuality. 2 mommies or 2 daddies is not equal to a mother and a
father. Nature tells us this. It's incredible that so many put away
commonsense when it comes to homosexuality.And the arrogance of the
homosexual crowd to claim that someone who disagrees with your lifestyle choice
is a bigot or is using hate speech. I will always stand on the side of truth and
eternal principles, not the clearly false teachings of the world regarding
homosexuality.Homosexuality as marriage is just pretend. Just
keeping it real folks.
@Charles --"Again, Let's be clear folks: Homosexuality is
not, nor will it ever be, equal to heterosexuality."Sez you.Homosexuality is not the SAME as heterosexuality. That doesn't make
it "unequal to", or "less than".Remember that
phrase, "All men are created equal"??It doesn't mean
that everyone is identical. It doesn't mean that everyone has the same
capabilities. It DOES mean that everyone deserves equal treatment
under the law.And remember -- this isn't a theocracy. Your
religion does not determine our country's laws, nor its Constitution.
No one has a civil right to deny a child a relationship with their mother or
father. In all 50 states people are free to live and love as they choose, but
they are not free to limit the biological rights of children to have and know
their mother and father. Why are adult relationships more important than
@artbetty --"No one has a civil right to deny a child a
relationship with their mother or father."Gay marriage has NO
effect on the rights of children to have relationships with biological
parents.1. biological children from previous straight relationships
-- already lost one parent when a previous relationship broke up. Denying gay
marriage won't give them that parent back.2. adopted children
-- already lost both parents when they were given up, or their parents died, or
the state removed them. Denying gay marriage won't give them their parents
back.3. In vitro -- these children wouldn't *exist* if the gay
couple hadn't made a decision to "create" them. The father often
isn't even KNOWN (sperm bank), much less available for parenting duties.4. surrogacy -- again, wouldn't even *exist* if the gay couple
hadn't made a decision to "create" them. The birth mother has no
intention of being a full time parent.5. gay couples are already
raising with or without marriage -- they don't need marriage to raise
children. Denying marriage to these couples won't magically send those
children to happy heterosexual homes.Marriage does not
"deny" the child its biological parent in ANY of these cases.