Okay, Jacob, you state the the debt is a big problem that we shouldn't
leave to our children. I agree. I've been yelling about the debt since
Ronald Reagan sent it skyrocketing. I hope you were concerned about the debt
during the last administration when the Republicans, the Republican president
and both The Republican House and the Republican Senate, were sending a balanced
budget back through the roof. Oops. Some people don't want to admit that
anything happened prior to the current President. They're gonna get all
over me for recognizing the world existed before Obama entered office. But never mind. You say you want to deal with the debt? Great. Then let's
get taxes raised for all of us. For you, for me, for the rich. Let's get it
done, and let's quit pretending we can deal with it without actually paying
Obviously the author of this letter believes that marriage equality for
law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples will have some profound detrimental affect of
children. I'd like to respond with three points.1:
Heterosexual couples have never been required to marry to make babies, and
single people are not prevented from adopting children. Children born out of
wedlock are not forcibly removed from their parents.2: The ability
or even desire to make babies has never been a prerequisite for obtaining a
marriage license. I have many married friends who have married as an expression
of their commitment to one another, but have chosen not to have children. Does
this make their marriage any less important?3: Gay individuals and
couples always have and always will raise countless adopted children to healthy,
well-adjusted adulthood. And IF (as is often suggested) marriage provides a more
stable environment for the rearing of children, what sense does it make to deny
Gay couples who DO have children the option to marry?
Jason, Who doesn't agree? Children should come first! But your
reasoning is off. For example, no child being raised by same-sex parents is well
served by a second-class status that automatically comes attached if that
child's parents cannot marry. If you really believe that children should
come first then you should praise the recent change in Utah which will make a
truly meaningful difference to the many Utah children who can now say, "my
parents are married".
Maybe you should review history and be reminded of children working in factories
- and remember the time before we had laws against child abuse and neglect -
remember the time when women and children were dying due to unhealthy
pregnancies or pregnancies spaced too close together - remember when children
died from lack of food and access to medical care. If you don't
want to study history to see these things, study the modern world paying
particular attention to countries where women's rights are limited. As for children being raised by homosexual individuals or couples - what
would you suggest as the alternative? Orphanages? Continual foster care with no
hope of adoption? Forcible removal from biological parents? Laws prohibiting
technological reproductive assistance so the child is never conceived or born at
all? Forced sterilization of "undesirables"?As for national
debt, again perhaps you should study history and the world around you.
There are already hundreds of thousands of children in foster care and other
systems just hoping and waiting for a "forever family". Who are you to
decide for those children that a loving, committed, married same-sex couple is
not good enough to be their family? That living with their love, affection, and
support would be worse than living in foster care or an orphanage? There are no unplanned pregnancies, no "oopsie babies", no unwanted
children in same-sex parented households. We are not the problem. Heterosexual
couples seem to do a nice enough job threatening the well being of children.
It is indeed revealing that the demise of child labor was a primary rationale
for enabling women to vote. At the time, these were contentious
issues, both allowing women to vote, and having the government deny
"economic freedom" to children, and employersLooking out for
the children is a good prism to judge current conditions and issues. Certainly, the air pollution issue in northern Utah has a detrimental effect
on children. Expanding Medicaid in Utah would undoubtedly benefit
many families, and by extension, many children. Unquestionably we
are running up too much debt, and economic inequalities are widening to the
detriment of society, and today's children who will grown up to be
tomorrow's adults. Increasing the minimum wage is a measured move to
improve both minimum wage workers and society, and by extension, many
children.Just as womens suffrage was justified as a way to protect
children - and thereby restrict the unfettered freedom of economic interests who
benefitted from child labor - sensible governance to restrict some, for the
freedom of all, has clear merits.
The old refrain "Oh, won't someone puh-leeze think of the
children?" Sure. First things first, how about making sure their mother is
an empowered member of her society? Give her birth control options, health care,
and maternity leave. Taxes need to be increased; it takes a village to raise a
child; that village is going to have to pony up a bit more. Same thing can work
for gay couples. Any couple willing to make the commitment to one another which
will endure the ridicule and discrimination they face in a place like Utah has
got to be capable of providing a stable environment for a child. Yeah, we need
to make some changes.
Conservatives then predicted that women getting the vote would "end of the
world", "doom society", and "destroy the traditional
family".Conservatives have been proven wrong before, they
will be proven wrong again.
'We used to understand that as adults, we had a responsibility to look
after the interests of children at the expense of our own interests.' And yet, we do not spend $2 million dollars trying to legislate
Octo-mom, correct? Only on gay marriage in utah. Why is
that? "In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children
of same-sex parents are NOT markedly different from those of heterosexual
parents." - AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP) -
'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY
STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished:
02/01/10 Many will claim the American Academy of Pediatrics is a
'liberal' source. And yet, present NOTHING in the way of actual
examples of children being harmed by same gender parents. It's
very simple. If you do not have any evidence, 2013 years into the
claim… it is a lie. We all know what Jesus said
about 'False Witness.'
Research said men were more likely than women to be incarcerated, perpetrators
of physical/sexual abuse, and die from avoidable illnesses, such as substance
addiction. So maybe men shouldn't raise kids.Research said that
children without a father in the home have higher risks of: suicide, poverty,
promiscuity, drug abuse, and dropping out of school. So maybe men should raise
kids.Research said two lesbians raise children better than heteros
because their kids have better grades and emotional intelligence. So maybe women
should raise kids alone.Research said women and children living in
households without men are the highest target group at risk of violent crime. So
maybe women shouldn't raise kids alone.After 30+ years of
"evidence," only married, monogamous, biological parents have the least
risk to children. All other types raise the risk.
I've thought about this often, and have pondered various situations
using my own children,and then asking, How would I feel...If my wife was a single mother, If my children were orphaned, For the sake of my children; I would rather my wife was in a stable
lesbian relationship than be doomed to go it alone.I would rather my
children be adopted by a good stable gay or lesbian couple, than be bounced
around from one foster home to another.In fact, I would rather my
children grown-up gay/lesbian and have good solid loving commited realationships
than be in an abusive hetrosexual relationships.A home filled with
Love and Stability, Safety and Security is much more important than gender
If it's truly about the children, divorce is mentioned far more times in
the bible and effects more than 50% of the population instead of less than
5%.That being the case why aren't all of you, who are putting so much
effort and emotion into the welfare of 5% of the populations children, doing the
same for the majority of children in America and trying to make divorce illegal
like the Bible says?I suspect it isn't really about the
children, but very specific and narrow religious beliefs that have no place in a
Unfortunately, whenever a generalized statement is made, you can bet that
everyone will jump into the fray with their pet issues. So far we
have: -What about Bush (actually Republicans in general starting
with Reagan..)-Gay marriage and same sex parenting-Evil
conservatives (in general)-Abortion rights (birth control thrown in
for good measure - Just to equate the two)-Tax increases-Air pollution-Expanding social welfare programs-Increasing minimum wagesand...-Religion's
infringement on civil law.(We seem to be missing general amnesty for
all illegal aliens...)I bet you didn't think there were so many
experts concerning children around did you!See the problem with your
statement is that everyone uses the "Do it for the children" argument to
further any pet cause. So I might as well chime in with mine:If I really could do anything for "The Children" it would be to
enable the wealth building capacity of our society based on free-market
capitalism (not unrestrained...of course) Everything else is secondary to that.
That would be my sole focus. Everything else would take care of itself and our
children would have opportunity and needs met.Have a great day!
I would like to know what is the statistic of children raised in homosexual
homes that that turned out homosexual themselves? Just curious. Children often
mimic their parents in many areas.
To "Pagan" actually the kids are harmed by not having hetersexual
parents. There are many studies out there that show that the children raised by
homosexual couples are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior or are more
likely to engage in risky sexual behavior.Tell us, is it good to
have children engaging in risky sexual behavior or to have them engaging in
homosexual behavior when they are not homosexual themselves?
I wish Conservatives would push half as much to "save" existing
marriages, as they do to "deny" new marriages.
TREKKER asks, "I would like to know what is the statistic of children raised
in homosexual homes that that turned out homosexual themselves? Children often
mimic their parents in many areas."It's irrelevant.
Virtually every Gay person was raised by heterosexual parents. I know I was. And
the one son of Lesbian parent that I know has grown up to be a healthy,
well-adjusted HETEROSEXUAL young man. Sexual orientation has nothing
to do with how one is RAISED. It is innate, rather a lot like being left-handed.
trekker asked: "I would like to know what is the statistic of children
raised in homosexual homes that that turned out homosexual themselves? Just
curious. Children often mimic their parents in many areas."I
don't know, but I can tell you that nearly 95% of people born gay are from
trekkerSalt Lake, UTI would like to know what is the statistic of
children raised in homosexual homes that that turned out homosexual themselves?
Just curious. Children often mimic their parents in many areas.12:07
p.m. Dec. 30, 2013=========== Let's make a
guess-timate here and say it's 50/50,by the same token, 100% of the
homosexuals were born to heterosexual couples.So chances are, You are MORE likely to be homosexual being raised in a heterosexual marriage,
and LESS likely to be homosexual in a homosexual marriage.
To "LDS Liberal" you are wrong. The statistics show that children
raised by homosexual parents are more likely to be involved in homosexuality.
See "'Gay' family kids 7 times more likely to be homosexual"
in WND. This study was confirmed by the US National Institute of Health in
their study "Children of homosexuals more apt to be homosexuals? A reply to
Morrison and to Cameron based on an examination of multiple sources of
data." which states "Despite numerous attempts to bias the results in
favour of the null hypothesis and allowing for up to 20 (of 63, 32%) coding
errors, Cameron's (2006) hypothesis that gay and lesbian parents would be
more likely to have gay, lesbian, bisexual or unsure (of sexual orientation)
sons and daughters was confirmed."
Trekker,Studies of kids raised by homosexual parents are out there
... just google it. While there aren't hoards of studies, the ones that
exist show "children raised by same-sex couples are NOT more likely to
self-identify as bisexual, lesbian, or gay and most of them identify as
heterosexual." Sexual orientation is not a learned behavior.
@RedshirtCalTech"is it good to have children engaging in risky sexual
behavior "No, so let's ban Mississippians from marrying
because that state leads in STDs. After all, averages are totally legit ways to
set policy right?