Since this blog doesn’t have enough controversy already, and because I am, apparently, a glutton for punishment, I thought we could have a discussion on gay marriage. As you know, all eyes are on the West Coast after the California Supreme Court ruled that gay couples have the right to marry. Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote: “An individual’s sexual orientation—like a person’s race or gender—does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights” (italics added). Now efforts are underway to reverse that decision by introducing a state constitutional amendment that reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Proponents of Proposition 8 are being met with hearty resistance from those who support same-sex marriage, and both sides are pouring millions of dollars into campaigns before voters hit the polls in November.
To be honest, I don’t want to talk about gay marriage. In fact, until recently I had successfully, and quite contentedly, ignored the entire topic completely. The political battle gave me unpleasant flashbacks of the religious Right, and I wasn’t about to touch it with a ten foot pole. But, recently I received an e-mail from a professor friend asking me to reflect and think on the issues. This friend is well-educated with a Ph.D. She is not a right-winger, and she has friends and relatives who are gay. In other words, she is not an extremist. So when she expressed concerns about gay marriage, I paused to consider her thoughts.
What my friend helped me to remember is that this is a history making event. This is going to change society in significant ways. If gay marriage is upheld in California, it will be heralded as a landmark civil rights moment for LGBT people, and it will, without a doubt, usher the rest of the nation into full approval of gay marriage and homosexuality. If gay marriage is not upheld, others will herald it as the preservation of an integral societal structure that has shaped people groups and families across history. Given that the California decision is such a monumental event, we should care enough to think through the issues and engage in dialogue. What follows is my reflections, and I hope you will share yours as well.
Even though I do not believe homosexuality is God’s best for humanity, I can empathize with proponents of gay marriage. When I look at my gay friends who have been in committed partnerships for many years—kind, wonderful people I care about—it is difficult to consider denying them important benefits that come with marriage. Contrary to what is often asserted, I understand they are not seeking “special rights.” LGBT people desire the same rights as heterosexual couples. Marriage confers important benefits including those related to child custody, hospital visitation, taxes, inheritance and much more. I also recognize that we live in a pluralistic society. We do not live under a theocracy (thankfully). Not everyone ascribes to biblical proscriptions. We are a diverse people with various perspectives on religion and sexual ethics. Thus, there needs to be compelling societal reasons for society to deny same-sex marriage.
The religious Right, with its exaggerated rhetoric, isn’t terribly helpful in discerning valid reasons for voting against gay marriage. For example, I was astonished to see this video exchange between FOX news Bill O’Reilly and a Family Law attorney. O’Reilly asked what reason could be provided for denying same-sex marriage aside from biblical prohibitions. The attorney had no answer. Conservatives often take for granted that what is “common sense” to them makes sense to everyone else and thus fail to provide an adequate apologetic. Even the slogan “protect marriage” can be confusing. What exactly does that mean? I’ve heard sentiments like: “Are you implying that if my friend Bob down the street marries his partner Jim, I’m going to start fighting with my spouse? How does my friend’s gay marriage have any negative impact on my heterosexual relationship? Doesn’t the fact that gay people want to marry show they value marriage?”
So, when it comes down to it, does it really matter if gay marriage is legalized? Sure, I have my personal opinion on homosexuality, but is it a big deal to allow LGBT people do what they want to do? That is the mentality I and many of my friends have had. Yet, as I began to get past the religious Right rhetoric and examine the issue more carefully, I can see why some, like my professor friend, have concerns. Specifically, government approval of homosexuality through legalization of gay marriage 1) makes it more difficult to follow one’s conscience or express certain beliefs on homosexuality without negative repercussions and 2) underestimates society’s need for gender complementarity.
Gay Marriage’s Legal Impact on Society
As Chief Justice Ronald M. George stated, the approval of gay marriage is based on the premise that sexual orientation is like race and gender and should, therefore, be accorded the same rights as these two classes. We are already seeing the legal ramifications of this premise in the States and abroad. Just this past week, the California Supreme Court ruled that two doctors erred in refusing to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian despite a conflict with religious beliefs. In the court ruling, Justice J. Kennard wrote: “ . . . the First Amendment’s right to the free exercise of religion does not exempt defendant physicians here from conforming their conduct to the [Unruh Civil Rights] Act’s antidiscrimination requirements even if compliance poses an incidental conflict with defendant’s religious beliefs” (p. 10). Other cases include:
-
An Anglican bishop in the U.K was ordered to attend equal opportunities training and pay over $92,000 for refusing to hire a gay man for a job within the diocese even though homosexual practice conflicts with the church’s beliefs on sexual ethics.
-
Crystal Dixon was fired from her job in Human Resources at the University of Toledo where she had worked for six years after writing this editorial for the local paper expressing her religious perspective on homosexuality.
-
Christian Horizons, one of the largest ministries in Canada was fined $23,000 and ordered to cease using its contract for employees that included an agreement to (among other things) refrain from homosexual relationships.
-
In Massachusetts where gay marriage was recently legalized, the courts ruled that schools can teach children as young as kindergarten about homosexuality without providing parental notification or the option for parents to withdraw their child from class.
Do most Americans realize and desire these consequences? How might this set precedence on other matters of law and conscience down the road?
Gender Matters
In addition to legal ramifications, there are also gender issues to consider in evaluating gay marriage. A while ago, I wrote a post called Male and Female: Does It Matter? In it I explained reasons why I decided not to be in a same-sex marriage. Space does not permit me to repeat everything here. So if you haven’t read it yet, please do so. The reality is gender does matter. Men and women are not interchangeable. There is something mysteriously distinct and beautiful about male and female that contributes to a type of yin/yang societal balance. Within families, mothers, aunts, sisters and grandmothers provide a unique flavor to community that is valuable and different from what fathers, uncles, brothers and grandfathers provide. This mystical distinction is particularly clear in the parent/child relationship. We know the difference between a mother and a father. And most of us mourn the lack when one is missing.
In a March 25, 2002 interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, Rosie O’Donnell was asked if her son Parker ever asked for a dad. O’Donnell responded, “Of course he has. He’s a six-year-old boy. He says, ‘I want to have a daddy.’ I said, ‘I can imagine. That would be great.’ And would it be easier for them if I were married to a man? It probably would.” Parker has two loving parents, and yet some part of him longs for a dad. What boy does not innately crave a father? Of course, this does not mean single parent homes or even LGBT homes cannot meaningfully raise children. But, should we intentionally create families that result in the loss of one gender? What is the long-term impact on society?
Gay-affirming researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz highlight differences in heterosexual families versus “lesbigay” families in their study (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter. In a review of 21 studies, they found “researchers frequently downplay findings indicating differences” and children raised in lesbigay families exhibit “significantly higher” rates of considering and/or involvement in homosexual relationships and, for girls, a greater number of sex partners. They also found evidence of gender atypical behavior (feminization of boys and masculinization of girls). Are these outcomes good for society?
Not every gay couple has children, and many single-gender families thrive. However, I am concerned that gay marriage overlooks the need for gender complementarity. It diminishes the importance of male and female. Some welcome this outcome. Researchers Stacey and Biblarz see their study results as positive. But are they? Something about Parker’s longing for a dad tells me otherwise. Each gender is beautiful in its uniqueness. It is good that men and women are distinct. Male and female each contribute a different aura the other cannot. We need each other in shaping societal structures, including the family unit. Gay marriage is missing something—someone. And, deep in my gut, my being mourns the loss.
58 Comments
August 23, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Thank you for taking such a gentle, thoughtful approach to this subject. It seems you are keeping an open mind. I endeavor to do the same.
There is a very interesting article I think you should read. You can find it at http://samesexmarriage.typepad.com/weblog/2008/08/does-recognitio.html
It’s a brief from findlaw.com that establishes the case that religious freedom and marriage equality are tied to each other in case law.
Freedom isn’t the same for everyone, so you have to make accommodations: “Just as the free exercise of religion is useless to an Orthodox Jew if it only protects his right to observe Sunday as the Sabbath, so too the right to marry is an empty guarantee if it only protects a lesbian’s right to marry a man.”
There are going to have to be accommodations on both sides, because we’re in this freedom thing together.
Also, you said, “should we intentionally create families that result in the loss of one gender? What is the long-term impact on society?”
My question is this — even if one believes that it’s best for kids to grow up with both a mother and a father, how does denying marriage equality further that goal?
Gay people won’t stop having children if we can’t marry. Denying marriage equality won’t make straight people better, or more responsible, parents. In fact, all it will do is deny the children who ARE being raised by gay people of the benefits that would come to them if their parents could marry. Instead of protecting children, denying marriage equality actually achieves the opposite goal.
Thank you.
August 24, 2008 at 12:07 am
Hi Karen,
Thanks for your willingness to share some of your thoughts on this issue.
While you say that you say the religious Right’s rhetoric is not helpful, you seem to resort to the same scare tactics to oppose gay marriage. Of the four legal cases you cite, only two are under US law and none involve CA law or even gay marriage. Whether or not gay marriage becomes a reality has no bearing on these cases.
Yes, genders are different and may be complimentary (depending on how one defines gender roles). However, should the government legislate your mysterious ying/yang societal balance theory as law? Is there really something more magical about the ability for a man and woman to perform penis-vagina sex that entitles their relationship to more government rights than same-sex couples?
Do you really believe denying gays marriage rights will stop or discourage same-gender families? Can the government and society really stop same-gender couples from starting families? Isn’t it society’s interest to encourage and support families to remain intact, committed, and stable?
What’s troubling is that you and your Ph.D friend don’t seem to be asking: What is the harm in not recognizing gay marriage? You seem to be more concerned about the consequences of expanding freedom and liberty.
I suspect that you don’t see sexual orientation as analogous to race or gender, but were not similar fears and concerns raised when this country struggled to recognize racial and gender legal equality? Were not the same fears raised about allowing interracial marriages and allowing women to divorce, own property, and have basic rights? As the product of an interracial marriage, I’m glad society changed and took the risk. As the product of a single mom who chose to divorce and seek a better life for her kids, I’m glad society gave my mom the right redefine family.
August 24, 2008 at 5:29 am
“Marriage is not a love affair. A love affair has to do with immediate personal satisfaction. Marriage is an ordeal; it means yielding, time and again. That’s why it’s a sacrament: you give up your personal simplicity to participate. And you are not giving to the other person; you are giving to the relationship. Because you are not giving to the other person, it is not impoverishing — it is life-building, life-fostering, enriching.”
– Joseph Campbell
August 24, 2008 at 8:22 am
Mistereks--Thank you for your respectful response. This topic naturally raises strong emotions on both sides, so I appreciate the reasonableness of your comments. Also, thanks for passing on the link. I did read it.
I agree with you and the article that living in a pluralistic society people have to accommodate each other. I appreciated the article’s sentiment that there should be certain exemptions for those with religious convictions (it should be noted that not everyone who objects to homosexuality is of a particular faith, though it may be the majority). If there were truly exemptions then I probably wouldn’t have as much of a concern, but as the article also expressed “recognizing same-sex marriages may generate some clashes between civil law and the doctrine of certain religious institutions” and that it is undetermined at this point what the “scope of religious accommodations” would be.
We have already seen with Catholic Charities how that played out and these other cases I mentioned give good indication of what can happen when the government gives official approval to homosexuality. Aside from religion, the last case I mentioned was teaching views on homosexuality as young as kindergarten without having to provide the option for a parent to remove a child. This is exactly the kind of thing that concerns me. If a family has particular beliefs on sexual ethics or age appropriateness for teaching about such matters, why can they not be accommodated? This seems to be a simple matter. But, the reason they are not going to be accommodated in this situation is because now that the government has officially approved of homosexuality through legalizing gay marriage, homosexuality is normalized and therefore anyone who objects is being unreasonable and bigoted. Thus, no parental notification is required. This is an issue where I think people who aren’t even religious might have concerns. It takes away the right of the parent to something that could very easily be accommodated but is not.
You write: ” . . . even if one believes that it’s best for kids to grow up with both a mother and a father, how does denying marriage equality further that goal?” I think the key statement here is “even if one believes that its best for kids to grow up with both a mother and father”–if we truly believe that then why don’t we actively work to make that happen? Yes, people will get into relationships and have children regardless of marriage laws, and there are plenty of heterosexual situations where there is a single-gender home. But its one thing to redeem situations that are less than optimal–such as single parents adopting children etc. Its quite another thing to *purposely* pursue less than optimal situations by artificial insemination, etc. and by the government normalizing what is less than optimal. If it is best for kids to have both a mother and father, why would we train children to believe otherwise, as is the case in some school curriculum that teaches there is no difference. Yes, all families should be respected, but its not truthful to teach that there is no loss involved when a gender is absent.
Norm–there is nothing “scare tactic” about the cases I mentioned. These are real situations that have happened. The point I was making is that Justice George in his ruling on California gay marriage did so equating sexual orientation with race and gender. That is the premise that is common in all these cases. Once the government gives official approval, it treats sexual orientation like race (California already had anti-discrimination laws on the books related to sexual orientation, but legalizing gay marriage only reinforces official approval). Obviously, there are going to be very real legal clashes between gay rights and rights of religious freedom. No one really questions that. The question is how much will religious freedom have to accommodate. And from the cases stated, I have concerns about how it will play out in terms of people being silenced or risk losing their job, not having parental rights to take a child out of class on certain days if the teaching conflicts with religious beliefs or comfort level with age appropriateness, businesses can be sued even when there is a direct conflict with the act performed (e.g. artificial insemination, etc).
As for the gender issue, you are oversimplifying it. Its not just about penis-vagina sex. I go into this much more in my post “Male and Female: Does it Matter.” And I also touched on it in this post in ways that have nothing to do with intercourse. As I already mentioned in a previous response its not that LGBT people aren’t going to have relationships and children, its about government normalizing it and that will, in turn, significantly influence the structure of society and culture in the long term. Normalizing same-sex marriages and single gender parenting to this scope is completely new in human history. It will no doubt have an impact on child development (as stated in the study I mentioned) and social structures will be affected.
And, yes the root of our disagree is that I do not see sexual orientation like race and gender. I haven’t seen evidence to support that we should view it the same way. That analogy is used a lot and it is a very effective tool to do so because no one wants to be considered a racist or male chauvinist. Usually the argument is based on immutability, but even queer theory debates that, and I have read gay authors who openly acknowledge that immutability has been over-emphasized for the purpose of fighting for gay rights. This is not to say its not immutable for some. But, I do not see all immutable characteristics that we may have, particularly related to sexual desire, as being the same as race or gender.
It is not that I don’t think we have to accommodate each other in a pluralistic society, but to *what extent* will freedom of religion be affected (or freedom of conscience for those who object but don’t have a religious background). And, given that most acknowledge having both genders is optimal for raising kids, what will be the long term outcome for society by encouraging a move away from that.
August 24, 2008 at 9:37 am
Hi Karen,
I’ve already made my point, so there’s no point in arguing, but I have to admit that I just don’t see how freedom of speech and religious freedom are affected by gay marriage.
“. . . Normalizing same-sex marriages and single gender parenting to this scope is completely new in human history. It will no doubt have an impact on child development (as stated in the study I mentioned) and social structures will be affected. . . . “
Normalizing gender legal equality and inter-racial marriages are also completely new in human history and have tremendous impact on society. Women now have the right to not be married and can choose to leave their spouses which has certainly led to the increase of divorce; however, I would necessarily call that a negative consequence.
The result of interracial marriages has been more interracial children who do not see race the same way as prior changes. And like the gay/lesbian issue, many interracial people do see race as a chosen affiliation.
Whether or not the government recognizes gay marriage will have no impact on child development. People still have the right to adopt or artificially have children regardless of marriage status. Can’t you at least admit that children in same-sex parent homes are more disadvantaged without government recognition of their family?
“. . . It is not that I don’t think we have to accommodate each other in a pluralistic society, but to *what extent* will freedom of religion be affected (or freedom of conscience for those who object but don’t have a religious background). . . . “
It’s great that you’re willing to accommodate a pluralistic society, but are you truly willing to support my religious freedom? We both know that this issue is often about our essential beliefs — not simply about whether SSA are immutable. Shouldn’t gay and lesbian couples have the opportunity to pursue happiness?
August 24, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Suspecting that I, too, am a glutton for punishment, I will comment here.
The broken wheel needs to be fixed with straights first as far as I am concerned. As it is usually straights who indulge in sexual intercourse and thereby have kids, much needs to be done about “complementaritinessless” homes in which the father is not only not absent but not even known. And don’t think that some of this is not deliberate – more kids, more benefits, etc… Yes, very un-PC today, but it still happens.
Now to this yin yang wonderfullness that you extol and seems to uphold your not being in a gay relationship.
If you think it is so great and awe inspiring, Karen, why are you not in a relationship with a man? Yes, I know you have “ssa”, but as our many ex-gay associates have shown us, one can have some semblance thereof. Who cares if one strays occasionally — we are all sinners, right?
It seems that in your journey, you have wrestled, grappled with *why* it is wrong, having had good gay relationships yourself. So if this is your conclusion, why not practice what you preach?
Also, please, please remember that there are intersexed people out there. Apparently they have missed the yin/yang connection and should have nothing. This is medically, scientifically DOCUMENTED that such people exist.
And how much yin and yang should each man or woman be to qualify for marriage if it is just not about penis/vagina? Some men are more masculine; some women more feminine; isn’t that the whole concept of yin/yang?
I am pointing this out to show that what you seem to purport as a black and white concept ain’t so black and white. Just as we talk about Barak Obama as our potential first *Black* President. News Flash: He’s half White!
August 24, 2008 at 3:22 pm
What about the legal rights of individuals who want out of a same sex marriage? Certainly, with the rise of same sex marriage there is bound to be such individuals. How will a court prove that this person is no longer gay?
Moreover, to be fair should those claiming a gay identity be checked for such honesty before marriage? In May of this year a Maryland, Court of Appeal ruled that a former lesbian could defend her parental rights against a non-parent’s claim to her eight-year-old girl. There are also cases involving on campus religious groups being banned for not signing pro gay polices.
The fact is that cases involving religion and sexual orientation have been on the rise for some time. I suspect that because gay marriage is limited mostly to largely liberal areas the cases have been few. However, it would only make sense that were gay marriage legalized such challenges would only increase.
A perfect example of potential conflict would be religious colleges and businesses who could lose contracts for not respecting these new laws. Suppose a Christian company that makes wedding dresses refuses to do so for a lesbian couple could they are sued for discrimination they could if it were race. So why not sexual orientation?
August 24, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Norm :First there has always been a debate within women studies as to what is gender equality. Most conservative jurist prefer to say “gender equity ,” which simply means working to make sure our society makes good on its promise of full civil and legal equality for all women. However in pushing for such goals they differ with there more liberal counterparts who use gender equality laws as a means to “oppose” gender roles and other features of society perceived as patriarchal.
In truth the controversy over gay marriage is a small, albeit very important, part of a larger debate concerning the “role of government” in recognizing and regulating intimate relationships. Some gay activist abd conservatives belive that this is not the role of the goverment. They both argue that the personal relationships of citizens are not a proper issue of governmental concern this may be the compromise you all seek.
August 24, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Norm,
I think Karen has a point here about “normalizing” what is less than optimal and it will have (and obviously has had) a major impact (negative) on child development and society as a whole. We started by normalizing divorce, fornication, and single parent homes (of which I and my son are both products of) and I think the result of that is evident in a culture of youth and adults that is more and more confused, unequipped in relational and life skills, and debase. Politics and religion aside — you don’t have to be a sociologist or theologian to figure this out.
How far will it all go? Seriously, in a culture that believes individuals should have the right to do anything they want, how will we define marriage and families (or lack thereof) in 20, 30 or 50 years? Eventually, even the novelty of same-sex unions will wear off and we will be looking for something more extreme. Meanwhile, what is actually becoming of our families, our communities, and our society?
Countless people are suffering immeasurably because of the breakdown of the biological, opposite-sex two-parent family structure. As for your statement that “children in same-sex parent homes are more disadvantaged without government recognition of their families” … Someone once asked if it would be better to see a child raised by two caring homosexual parents or in an abusive straight environment. In essence, they were asking, “What is the worst or lesser venom?” So I’m asking, why should we further encourage and promote any of this negativity in the first place? Aren’t laws designed to safeguard the health and development of society? Homosexual marriage is but yet another means of degrading the core of any society — healthy family units.
We can analyze this to no end whatsoever, comparing it to issues like interracial marriage, heterosexual adoption or childless marriages, and on and on … but the truth speaks for itself for anyone who will hear it. The problem is, nobody wants to know about it anymore. We live in a self-gratifying culture that barely knows the true meaning of love, or self-sacrifice for the ultimate benefit of someone else, or their society. We want what we want, when we want it and how.
You ask whether gays and lesbians should have the right to pursue happiness. I would rather ask, should their so-called “happiness” be at the expense of our children, our society?
AM
Maybe I don’t get out enough … but “complementaritinessless” is the biggest word I have ever seen. (Teasing you, sorry.)
August 24, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Norm–Interracial marriage is not new in history. Moses had an interracial marriage. Though America has a particularly rough history when it comes to interracial marriage.
However, I don’t see a one to one correlation between race and romantic/sexual desire. They are completely different categories. Homosexuality is in the realm of sexual ethics. So, I don’t see a comparison.
And true, people will continue to have relationships and have children of all kinds and we have to respect autonomy. But, that is different than government fostering a new social structure by giving it official approval–a social structure that is not the optimal for raising children.
I want to be clear that I fully believe gay people can be excellent parents, and that I am not opposed to gay people adopting when children are going to be left in orphanages or in the street. The reality is there are millions of children without homes. Though, I know a lot of lesbian couples are not choosing to adopt, they are choosing artificial insemination. And, my concern is with intentionally creating fatherless or motherless homes. I don’t think that is healthy for a society. I believe there will be undesirable effects in the long term.
You mentioned the pursuit of happiness. Does your happiness rest on whether the government gives you the right to marry? In any case, our happiness has to take into consideration the larger community and what is the best for community as a whole. And, I don’t think promoting motherless/fatherless homes is the best.
Yes, people will do what they are going to do, but government approval will serve to accelerate and increase the occurrence of single gender families.
One thing I want to mention too is that what I have posed in this post are concerns with possible outcomes of legalizing gay marriage. But, I have not gotten into how Christians should respond to these concerns. I hope to address that more in a week or so. Whatever happens this November, I have a feeling that gay marriage in the States is just a matter of time, and the question is how are Christians going to respond in a way that is redemptive.
AM-– You write: “The broken wheel needs to be fixed with straights first as far as I am concerned. As it is usually straights who indulge in sexual intercourse and thereby have kids, much needs to be done about “complementaritinessless” homes in which the father is not only not absent but not even known.” I absolutely agree with you.
As for intersex– intersex does not mean genderless. Most intersex people gravitate toward and identify with a particular gender.
As for yin/yang and its relationship to masculinity and femininity–I see maleness and femaleness as difficult to define and don’t try to–I touch on that in my post Male and Female: Does it Matter. We sense the difference even if we can’t always put it in words. And each offers something unique.
August 25, 2008 at 9:06 am
” . . . You mentioned the pursuit of happiness. Does your happiness rest on whether the government gives you the right to marry? In any case, our happiness has to take into consideration the larger community and what is the best for community as a whole. And, I don’t think promoting motherless/fatherless homes is the best. . . . “
The constitution doesn’t require the government to guarantee happiness, but does promise me the right to pursue my beliefs and to be treated equally. While ultimately my relationship is a covenant before God, I do need government recognition and protection of my relationship’s shared assets and, if we have children, family unit. Not to mention tax benefits and the right to freely travel to other states without risking my family’s well being.
‘What about the children?’ is the stereotypical refrain from those who are unable to provide a legal rationale and I’m sure similar arguments were made in the opposition to interracial marriage. Except in the case of adoption, the government does not set policy as to what is or is not in the best interest of raising children. Insufficient income, physical impairment, mental illness, developmental impairment, homelessness, uneducated, criminal status, and other serious challenges are not considered when the government grants marriage licenses. I believe these factors have been far more detrimental to our community’s families than gay marriage and should be considered before the government “encourages” people with such characteristics to form families. If you truly believe the government should not normalize less than optimal families, shouldn’t the community set more restrictive marriage license standards and even issue conception licenses?
I’m a little disappointed that you chose not to respond to my question: Are you truly willing to support my religious freedom? I and other gay and lesbians believe our sexual orientation is natural and created by God. Shouldn’t we have the legal right pursue our beliefs and have our relationship recognized in the same way religious conservatives’ relationships are recognized?
While I want to believe you are respectful, Karen, I have a hard time really believing your sincerity. You say gay and lesbians can be exellent parents, but you simultaneous seek to discriminate against our families, don’t want children in schools to recognize our families, and call our families inferior, less than optimal. It doesn’t take much imagination to seek how California voters who truly hate gays and lesbians would be attracted to your viewpoint.
August 25, 2008 at 9:57 am
Norm–I wasn’t trying to ignore your question. To answer it –am I willing to support your religious freedom– I don’t see promoting motherless/fatherless homes as a religious issue. I see it as a sociological issue. Also, asking me that question would be like me asking you why you don’t support my religious beliefs by voting against gay marriage. Obviously, we have different beliefs, and the way that is resolved is through voting on these issues and society as a whole determining what everyone feels is most beneficial to the community.
You mentioned all the other factors that might affect family. Those are important issues—ones that need to be addressed–but we don’t enshrine those difficulties as an ideal to attain to, rather we work to end them so that there are less homeless families, less split homes, etc.
You really have not addressed the concerns I have raised about motherless/fatherless homes and whether that is something society should encourage. Nor have you addressed the study I mentioned and some of the outcomes. Do you see the study outcomes as positive for society? Do you see motherless/fatherless homes as positive for society–something we should encourage and promote?
August 25, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Hi Karen,
” . . . To answer it –am I willing to support your religious freedom– I don’t see promoting motherless/fatherless homes as a religious issue. I see it as a sociological issue. Also, asking me that question would be like me asking you why you don’t support my religious beliefs by voting against gay marriage. . . .”
You can’t have it both ways, Karen. You can’t say that you support gays’ religious freedoms while simultaneous denying their rights to have their families recognized by the government.
Belief in gay marriage is not politically comparable to opposition to gay marriage. Your religious freedom is not affected in any way by gay marriage. However, my freedom is adversely affected by you imposing your faith on my rights.
“. . . You really have not addressed the concerns I have raised about motherless/fatherless homes and whether that is something society should encourage . . .”
It is hilarious that you insist on spinning the marriage rights issue as a government promotion. So, does the government promote divorce by offering divorce? Does it promote procreation by offering birth certificates and abortion by protecting women’s rights? Does it promote death by recognizing wills? Or is the government merely recognizing that its citizens have the right to self-determination regarding these ultimate faith issues?
Having been raised in a “fatherless home”, I am proud of my family and how I was raised. Sure I had some challenges, but most of those challenges didn’t come from not having a father — rather the biggest challenges I faced was fitting-in with conservative Christians who believed my family was inferior and less than ideal. The greatest acceptance and support I received was from non-Christian friends and family. Telling children that their family is broken, less than ideal family and their masculine/feminine is lacking is probably more harmful than recognizing the truth that families come in a varieties.
While you claim to differentiate yourself from the Religious Right, you seem to follow Dobson & co.’s attempt to twist and mischaracterize research. You chose to omit the positive attributes noted in Stacey and Biblarz’s study of studies (i.e. teenage boys raised by lesbians ” more sexually restrained, less aggressive and more nurturing”; more common for lesbian parents to stay at home; “Same-sex couples proved better at managing disagreements and anger”, etc. USC.edu).
If you truly see gay marriage as a sociological issue, why are you so quick to assume heterosexual marriage is superior? What studies can you show that couples who obtain Vegas wedding or “accidentally” create human life are superior to those who have to consciously fight to have their relationships recognized and adopt/conceive? I find it hard to believe that you would be willing to re-consider your opposition to gay marriage if studies found gay families to be better at raising children. At least be honest and admit that this is a religious issue for you.
And again, why are you unwilling to consider the harm caused by not recognizing gay families?
August 25, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Norm– I feel like we are coming from such completely different worldviews that we are talking past each other a bit. I still am struggling to see the logic in your religious freedom argument. Also, I find it odd that you can find that your religious freedoms are jeopardized, while claiming that gay marriage will have no effect on the religious freedom of others. I have already addressed that before and so won’t repeat it here.
I am not trying to be antagonistic. I am simply not
persuaded that *deliberately* creating fatherless/motherless homes is good. You asked why I am not willing to consider the harm caused by not recognizing gay marriage. You haven’t discussed what that harm is. I would be interested in more specific thoughts on that.
As for what the government promotes, actually, I do think laws encourage or restrain behavior.
Also, the issue is not that I see single parent homes as inferior in the way that you are implying. There is nothing inferior about a child who grows up with a single parent. Rather, I think it is troublesome that so many youngsters are in pain because their dad or mom is not in their life. I would like to see our communities be more compassionate toward children. Adults so often make decisions that affect children in negative ways. Were you glad your father wasn’t around? Would you have preferred to have a father who cared about you and was involved in your life as opposed to not having one?
As for the study, I am not saying there are no positive traits whatsoever–it makes sense that two people of the same-gender would communicate more similiarly and have an easier time of communication–that is not new news. As for the effects on boys–there is a positive side, but I would be interested in seeing what those traits actually translate into– There seems to be a hint toward gender atypical behavior–which may or may not be helpful to them in the long run. There wasn’t enough in the study to get into that aspect deeper.
Also, I am not claiming that all heterosexual relationships are as they should be. Obviously they are not. We should actively work to help those dysfuncational relationships become more stable. There are many different ways to divert from the ideal. But the ideal is that every child would have a loving mom and dad. I find it interesting that you refer to issues like divorce and broken heterosexual families to make your points. Your argument seems to be that since all these other situations are less than optimal, why not allow another less than optimal situation. Rather our goal is not to settle for less than optimal but work to improve our communities so that families stay together, so that kids don’t have to grow up not knowing who their mother or father is.
I know my view is very offensive to you. I have a lot of personally vested reasons for wanting to support same-sex covenant unions (marriage). I have wanted to marry some of the women I was involved with .I am not having this discussion because I find great joy and enthusiam in offending people. I know my position is hurtful for gay friends. I would much rather let everyone do what they want.
But, there is a reason I have not embraced gay marriage for myself. There is a reason I have decided homosexuality is not what God wants. It has nothing to do with hate or believing in a mean God. It has to do with what I see is very clearly presented to us in God’s created design–a design that is meant to bless us. Doesn’t it seem at all conspicuous that it takes a man and woman in collaboration to even create children? Doesn’t it seem at all conspicuous that it requires artifical means or tragedy to have an alternative family–either through artificial insemination or a tragedy that has caused a child to lose his original parents and thus need to be adopted? And, doesn’t it seem conspicious that in order to have a LGBT family it means having a motherless or fatherless home?
Obviously, the ideal would be for everyone to have a loving mother and father in the home. The ideal would be that no child would lose his parents due to a abuse or death or something else and have to be adopted out. No, we don’t live in an ideal world. But, the ideal is a clue to how God designed things to be. And God’s ways bring well-being. When we try to do things differently, it is always to our own detriment.
August 25, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Hi Karen,
“. . . Also, I find it odd that you can find that your religious freedoms are jeopardized, while claiming that gay marriage will have no effect on the religious freedom of others. I have already addressed that before and so won’t repeat it here. . . .”
I respectfully disagree that you have shown that gay marriage adversely affects your religious freedom. The examples you cited involved employment non-discrimination (which you said you support), freedom of speech (which I assume support), and public school administration. I feel we’re talking past each other, in part, because you’re confusing seperate issues.
“. . . You asked why I am not willing to consider the harm caused by not recognizing gay marriage. You haven’t discussed what that harm is. I would be interested in more specific thoughts on that. . . . “
* Required to pay higher taxes;
* Inability to join partner’s health insurance;
* No entitlement to Social Security survivors benefit;
* Required to pay steep taxes on their partner’s retirement savings and often no access to parter’s pension;
* Required to pay estate tax on inherited property;
* No family leave protection to care for partner;
* No right to cohabitate in nursing homes;
* No home protection (gay partners can be forced to sell home to pay medical bills);
* No hospital visitation right;
* No immigration rights;
(HRC.org)
Obviously all of these issues are compounded when children are involved.
“. . . Also, the issue is not that I see single parent homes as inferior in the way that you are implying. There is nothing inferior about a child who grows up with a single parent. . ..”
You can’t have it both ways, Karen. You can’t say children who are raised in “fatherless/motherless” or ‘broken’ homes are disadvantaged and adversely impact society, but are not inferior. The whole point of your argument is that gay families are not optimal and are more likely to harm kids and society.
“. . . I would like to see our communities be more compassionate toward children. Adults so often make decisions that affect children in negative ways. . . .”
I’m not sure how discriminating against gay families shows compassion. Telling children of gay parents that they cannot discuss their families in public school because it’s taboo is not compassionate. Telling children that their masculinity/feminity is “atypical” is not compassionate. Telling children that their family is “broken” and not “optimal” is not compassionate.
“. . . Were you glad your father wasn’t around? Would you have preferred to have a father who cared about you and was involved in your life as opposed to not having one? . . .”
I don’t feel it’s appropriate to share details on this topic here, but basically, yes, I’m glad my mother was empowered to form the family she did without my father. Frankly, I believe the concern of not having a ‘male role model’ caused more harm than good in my situation.
“. . . Rather our goal is not to settle for less than optimal but work to improve our communities so that families stay together, so that kids don’t have to grow up not knowing who their mother or father is. . . .”
Obviously we’re not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue, but it is obvious that your goal is to impose your ideal of what a family should be regardless of what families choose to form. You’re basically advocating that the government discourage same-sex families and stigmatize non-biological-mother/father families as less optimal and abnormal. Frankly, I think society (such as child service divisions) place way too much risk in leaving children with their unsuitable biological parents. You can argue all you want about loving mothers and fathers, but the reality is that you’re arguing being able to perform penis-vaginal sex automatically makes a heterosexual couple more qualified and entitled to be recognized by the government than gay and lesbian couples who must consciously choose to strive and demonstrate their qualifications.
“. . . I am not having this discussion because I find great joy and enthusiam in offending people. I know my position is hurtful for gay friends. I would much rather let everyone do what they want. . . .”
Isn’t your leap of faith against accepting your same-sex attractions affirmed by opposing others’ same-sex behavior? Doesn’t differentiating yourself from others affirm the exclusiveness and rightness of your faith? Doesn’t your vision of God seem more real to you by tangibly applying it to society?
” . . . Doesn’t it seem at all conspicious that it takes a man and woman in collaboration to even create children? Doesn’t it seem at all conspicious that it requires artifical means or tragedy to have an alternative family–either through artificial insemination or a tragedy that has caused a child to lose his original parents and thus need to be adopted? And, doesn’t it seem conspicious that in order to have a LGBT family it means having a motherless or fatherless home? . . . “
Doesn’t it make more sense that God may have created gay and lesbian people in response to our planet’s population and resource disaster? Doesn’t it make sense that gays and lesbians may have been created to care for the children? Doesn’t it make sense that God created our genders with far more similarities than differences? Doesn’t it make sense that God has led our society to overcome irrational prejudice against race and gender and that overcoming sexual orientation bias is just one more step in our society’s development?
August 25, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Norm,
I think we may just have to agree to disagree. I don’t feel that you are really hearing legitimate concerns I have raised. And, I imagine you probably feel the same. We are both concerned about well-being and people. We just have different views on how to attain that.
Several of things you bring up are things I’ve already responded to, and its clear that you are not really listening to what I have already answered–you are not grasping the actual point being made on certain things I’ve said.
You mention several rights that gay couples do not have. That is true. I don’t have those rights either. I don’t have any immediate family living in this State. I rely on friends. And I don’t have any special protections for hospital visitation should I need one of my close friends to help me. I think those benefits should be available to anyone, and not necessarily contingent on marriage.
Anyway, I find it hard to believe that as a young boy you never longed for your father. If you didn’t, you are a rare exception.
Anyway, I think I’ve said everything I need to say, and even too much. So, I am going to sign off and if others want to contribute, it would be good to hear other people’s thoughts. I have been talking enough.
August 25, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Norm,
As for your question “Is there really something more ‘magical’ about the ability for a man and woman to perform penis-vagina sex that entitles their relationship to more government rights than same-sex couples?” the answer is YES: it’s called conception. (Amazing you didn’t know!) Throughout history, and still today, that has always been the basis for the sanctions offered by legalized marriage (granted not all couples will concieve, and these days some will by invitro).
You’re obviously very intelligent and touch on all the right points to rationalize same-sex “marriage”. But I think there is something deeper to consider than external logic. Not to generalize, and of course there are exceptions (like my father), but on the subject of children NOBODY has a more vested interest in the well-being of a child, or deeper love for, than the biological parents. As a parent, especially a woman — who physically carried and gave birth to a child, I can guarantee this. And the bottom line is that children just want and need to be loved by their real mommies and daddies. My son, 24, does not know his father and it is the sadest thing see how this has impacted him; and I realize this will continue to affect him throughout his life. I did my best but was never able to compensate for this loss. I don’t think anybody really can.
How many people recount stories of literally being tramatzed as children by the separation of their biological parents even though they continued to see the other parent regularly. I have a friend who was adopted by loving parents, but he is still haunted by an inner sense of rejection and of wondering who he is even at age 60-ish.
I’m not sure that in today’s world we are telling kids they are “inferior” because they come from single parent homes; we are rather applauding it, but that doesn’t resolve the issues they face by not being raised by both biological, opposite-gender, parents. In inner city communities it seems to be the norm rather than the exception; yet these kids are still suffering — it shows in their behavior, attitudes, and level of success. Some go on to live more successful lives than children who are not from “broken” homes, but overall these kids do not and are hurting from not being raised by both of their biological, opposite-gender, parents. They also never develop a healthy understanding of what nature intended a strong family unit to be and end up repeating the cycle.
Yes, legalizing homosexual “marriage” will serve to promote it as people begin to see it more and more as an acceptable alternative — just as the acceptance of divorce has increased divorce rates. How can it not? And since people intrinsically crave to have children, they will increasingly find ways bring children into these lesser unions — and the trend is toward surrogates and donors.
Actually it is the unions themselves that are inferior (not the children); nature demonstrates this. So how many of these same-gender, 1/2 biological (if even), parenting unions are really going to provide the deep love and stability these kids need? It is going to just compound an epidemic problem. There is nothing like rubbing salt into a wound. But hey, they are only children; they can adapt and survive while we continue to experiment on them.
I somehow don’t think gays and lesbians are going to pick up the slack to save the children of the world from abandonment and abuse. God is well aware of the extensive use of birth control devices, so it does not make very much sense that he needed to create homosexuals to control our population and resources disasters. After all, homosexuality has been practiced since the fall of mankind. Nice try though, at least you’re thinking.
Personally, I could care less about whether homosexuals want to “marry” other than the impact this is going to have on our children and families. That is the important issue and should take precedence over the desires of homosexual couples.
August 26, 2008 at 6:51 am
Grace– I was going to stay out of the conversation for awhile, but I just want to remind you of the rules for commenting which is to speak your opinions with gentleness and respect and in a way that honors all people. You have said several things that are callous such as:
“(Amazing you didn’t know!)”
This is an uncalled for rude statement
Putting marriage in quotes– “marriage” is condescending
“these lesser unions” — gay couples can have very meaningful, loving relationships. It is not because they cannot be loving relationships that is the problem, but rather what God designed for human beings and being obedient to him. Yes, its God’s ways are meant to be optimal for us, but “lessor unions” is a harsh and somewhat misleading way to put it.
“So how many of these same-gender, 1/2 biological (if even), parenting unions are really going to provide the deep love and stability these kids need?”
Being gay does not make a person a bad parent. Gay couples can provide deep love and stability for children. That is not the point I was making.
“But hey, they are only children; they can adapt and survive while we continue to experiment on them.”
To suggest that gay people are just wanting to experiment on children is a terrible thing to say.
“I somehow don’t think gays and lesbians are going to pick up the slack to save the children of the world from abandonment and abuse.”
Wow– this is awful. I don’t even have a comment on this.
“Personally, I could care less about whether homosexuals want to “marry””
Grace–you are talking to real people with real feelings. The way you have communicated is exactly the kind of concern I wrote about in my previous post– “Beyond the Religious Right.” You have demonstrated a serious lack of love and concern for Norm and gays in general. This does not represent Christ and it is not speaking the truth in love. You say you could care less about whether gays want to marry. Well you should care. You should care deeply about the feelings of others even those you disagree with. I might think gay marriage is not what God’s best is, but I also understand that not being able to marry is a very painful thing for many gay people. While we do not have to comprise on truth, we should never ever be callous toward the pain of others.
If you or others cannot express your beliefs and opinion on this issue without being disrespectful, please do not comment at all.
P.S. Also you say: “but on the subject of children NOBODY has a more vested interest in the well-being of a child, or deeper love for, than the biological parents.” Actually a lot of biological parents treat their kids like crap. That is part of the problem that needs to be fixed too. And many adoptive parents are incredibly loving.
August 26, 2008 at 9:07 am
Hi Karen,
” . . . I think we may just have to agree to disagree. I don’t feel that you are really hearing legitimate concerns I have raised. . . .
I was going to just let this debate go. I think I’ve made my point. However, I can’t say I’m ‘willing to disagree’ on this issue since your viewpoint is about denying gay families’ religous freedoms.
“. . . We are both concerned about well-being and people. We just have different views on how to attain that. . . .”
While you may believe in your intentions, you seem far too willing to cause harm to gay families to defend your view, so I can’t say that I believe you’re that concerned about others’ well being.
” . . . You mention several rights that gay couples do not have. That is true. I don’t have those rights either. I don’t have any immediate family living in this State. I rely on friends. And I don’t have any special protections for hospital visitation should I need one of my close friends to help me. I think those benefits should be available to anyone, and not necessarily contingent on marriage. . . . “
Your ‘poor me’ counter-argument is offensive. Having friends is not the same as a life-long commitment or building a life with someone. A friend’s hospital visitation is not the same as a spouse visitation. The tax penalties, health insurance restrictions, and other signficant legal harm you propose on gay families is nothing like your situation. Please don’t compare your situation and at least try to acknowledge the harm you intend on gay families.
Thank you, Karen, for your response to Grace. I suspect Grace’s attitudes is shared by many on the topic of gay marriage. I at least grant Grace credit that her attitude more honestly protrays her true intentions toward gays and lesbians.
The only thing I will add regarding Grace’s comments about parenting, is that there is a HUGE difference between those who carefully choose to raise children and those who so often ‘accidentally’ find themselves becoming parents after a moment of passion.
August 26, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Wow, lots of comments.
I just wanted to point out that there are plenty of other good non-religious cases against gay marriage. Examples:
http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf
and
http://www.marriagedebate.com/mdblog.php
I wish that one day people would be able to talk about such things without using the words ‘rights’, ‘equality’, ‘offensive’, etc., which are always used in the wrong context or to simply end dialogue.
Blacks in the U.S. gained the right to vote not because voting is some generalized ‘human right’. It is because society decided that a black person is as much a citizen as anyone else, ergo can do whatever other citizens do in American society. Voting is one of these things.
On the question of gay marriage, society has to decide if a gay marriage (not gay people, but the institution of gay marriage) has the same properties that a heterosexual marriage has, which caused society to create the institution of marriage in the first place. Some say yes, some say no, some say another institution must be created given slight differences. This is where the debate should be.
August 27, 2008 at 8:01 am
Karen, Norm,
I guess I had that coming. I have strong opinions on this and in writing it comes across pretty harsh. So my apologies for that. You would find me in person to be quite the opposite and extremely sensitive to people. I’m usually criticized for being too understanding.
Please consider the fact although some may be offended by my views, be them “right-winged” (I’m actually not a right-winger), I am very offended by the homosexual agenda.
Although I do love people as individuals, I admit that on a personal level I’m not sympathetic to these agendas because I do believe that at it’s heart it is sin and disobedience to God and very dangerous to society, especially impressionable children and youth. Not sure if that is contrary to scripture. I see it as not just “less than optimal” but a very spiritual issue.
OK so not everyone shares my faith, but religion aside I believe we still need to preserve traditional families since this is in the overall best interest of children and society. Legalizing homosexual marriage will deepen our problems in this area.
Karen I agree a lot of biological parents do treat their kids wrong and that needs to be fixed, but I’m not sure that as Norm stated “those who carefully choose to raise children” are necessarily going to be better parents. Once they find themselves dealing with the real stressors of raising children all good intentions can go out the window for them also and often do. There are countless stories of abuse and neglect among well meaning adoptive parents.
Karen I think you underestimate what I said about biological parents being the healthiest environment for children, dispite the fact that biological parents are NOT going to be perfect. Stuff happens, but we need to stop “promoting” alternate family structures in any form. I did admit there are exceptions and most certainly there are situations where children are better off in adoptive homes.
In no way do I undermine the love and care provided by adoptive parents. I commend and respect them VERY hightly; many have done tremendouse jobs and much better in every way than than many biological parents do. However, I do not believe being in a “gay” adoptive home is a wise choice, despite the good intentions, and should not be promoted by legalizing marriage — since the basis for marriage is not really about the one-to-one relationship of the partners but the prospect of these relationships to produce offspring, thus creating families.
I realize some of what I said such as “lesser unions” may be hurtful: what I was refering to specifically, however, is in the area of childbearing. I think nature demonstrates this for us in that conception occurs between a male and female and we are wired and instinctively driven to love, nurture, care for, and defend our own children in a way nobody else is.
Think of the mother bear, everyone knows you don’t want to mess with her. Would she defend and care for other cubs in quite the same way, if at all.
I actually don’t doubt that gay parents can provide deep love and stability for their children, but I’m betting on the biological gay parent; and have strong concerns about the other parent. I’m sorry, but I do not feel gay households are the best influences for children. The reason being is the spiritual nature of homosexuality.
Norm, I know you disagree with my views. I know many disagree. But this is the basis for my concerns and why my opinions are so strong.
Sorry for my insensitivity and trying to force my opinions you. In turn I hope that you will always be sensitive to those with traditional values, not view these values as a personal attack, and be willing to make concessions for thier concerns to the same extent you want them to make concessions to you.
August 27, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Hi Karen,
Love to see your “voice” being read, digested and responded to. For my eyes, I printed off a lot of this and will read it from the page. I’m just excited for you!
August 27, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Hi Karen,
After taking a little time to reflect, I need to apologize for the tone and word choice of my last comment. I should not have characterize your perspective as ‘poor me’. Also, I intended to change “offensive” for a less extreme word, but I clicked submit without editing. Obviously this topic has riled me up since it does affect my life and future, but that is no excuse to be disrespectful to you.
Hi Grace,
” . . . I think nature demonstrates this for us in that conception occurs between a male and female and we are wired and instinctively driven to love, nurture, care for, and defend our own children in a way nobody else is. . . . “
The realities of peripartum/postpartum depression, dumpster babies, and the numerous biological parents who abandoned their children would seem to undermine your theory that all men and women are “wired” to raise children. Parenting requires far more than biological/instinctive feelings. In addition to providing basic life’s necessities (finances, housing, patience, time, etc.), parents must be willing to sacrificially place their own goals. Biology does not disable the ability and desire to have penis-vagina sex for those unable or unwilling to truly parent a child.
“. . . OK so not everyone shares my faith, but religion aside I believe we still need to preserve traditional families since this is in the overall best interest of children and society. Legalizing homosexual marriage will deepen our problems in this area. . . .”
Heterosexual marriage as practiced today is relatively new and is anything but “traditional”. Spouses being able to freely choose their mate, women being able to delay marriage or not marry, and spouses being able to divorce are all relatively new in the history of humanity. Our government and society have decided that each member of a heterosexual marriage have equal rights and responsibilities which is anything but traditional. So, I’m not sure what “tradition” you are specifically preserving? Why not preserve the traditions purchasing wives, selling daughters, and pre-arranging marriages too? Why suddenly decide that 20th century legal marriage is where progress stops?
The heterosexual community’s marriage problems are certainly pre-existing and are not affected by gay rights in way. Banning gays from marrying will not “strengthen” heterosexual marriages and recognizing gay marriage will not weaken heterosexual marriage. If anything, the gay marriage debate has helped heterosexuals to further appreciate their rights and responsibilities under marriage.
“. . . Sorry for my insensitivity and trying to force my opinions you. In turn I hope that you will always be sensitive to those with traditional values, not view these values as a personal attack, and be willing to make concessions for thier concerns to the same extent you want them to make concessions to you.”
You defame my “spiritual nature”, seem to support government constitutional amendments to specifically prohibit my legal rights, and question my ability to parent, and you want me to not take it personally? I’m strive to be a reasonable, well-mannered, and respectful person, but please don’t ask me to pretend that I’m not being personally attacked.
Gays are not asking heterosexuals or religious conservatives to make any concessions for us. Gay marriage in no way prevents religious conservatives from practicing their faith. The obscure examples Karen cited above regard freedom of speech and employment discrimination are unrelated to gay marriage. Please don’t pretend you’re a victim or being persecuted.
August 27, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Saul–Thanks for your comment. You bring up some intriguing points. I’d be interested in seeing more discussion on your thoughts.
Grace–Thank you for apologizing.
Bonnie–I’m glad you stopped by!
Norm–Thank you for what you said. I appreciate it. I understand this is a very difficult topic to engage on.
PS–just to clarify the connection again between gay marriage and freedom of religion– If gay marriage is legalized that will be the premium stamp of approval that will classify homosexuality as the same as race and gender. In becoming a protected class like race and gender that will lead to the clashes mentioned in the link the first gentleman provided in his comments.
Also, in MA where gay marriage was legalized it had a direct effect on teaching about homosexuality in the schools. And parents, who for faith reasons, would like notification or want the option to take a child out of class are not legally entitled now. This is all directly the result of gay marriage being legalized there. This is an example of how the legalization of gay marriage in MA is affecting parents/students of faith or who do not agree with homosexuality as a normative. It would also affect teachers who may have a faith conflict with what they are might be required to teach as part of the curriculm
August 27, 2008 at 3:43 pm
PS again–biological/adoptive parents or how hetero marrriage occurs (arranged marriages etc) are not the primary issues per se. The question is: Does *gender* matter? The importance of both mother and father. And results of losing one.
August 27, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Norm,
Just to clarify … I am not a victim of anything and do not claim to be (right or wrong, I take responsibility for how I allow things to affect me); I hope you do not feel victimized either.
This is me not commenting further.
God Bless… I will have more respect for your and other gays standing up for what they believe.
August 27, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Hi Karen,
“. . . This is all directly the result of gay marriage being legalized there. This is an example of how the legalization of gay marriage in MA is affecting parents/students of faith or who do not agree with homosexuality as a normative. It would also affect teachers who may have a faith conflict with what they are might be required to teach as part of the curriculm. . .”
I’ve read the US District Court’s Order (PDF) and the US Appeals Court Decision (http://www.ca1.uscourts.govhttp://www.ca1.uscourts.gov). Massachusetts’ gay marriage law is briefly referenced, but it’s an exaggeration to say the legal dispute is a ‘direct result’ of gay marriage. That state’s non-discrimination laws (which you’ve previously implied that you support) are probably more relevant. The court opinions are interesting and I would encourage you to read beyond Right-wing ‘news’ summaries.
The federal courts (which have not affirmed same-sex marriage) recognized the parents’ religious freedom, but did not agree with the plaintiffs’ claim that the MA school indoctrinated their students. The school did teach the students that families come in a variety of types, including same-sex; however, the schools did not require students to affirm gay marriage or even participate in discussion. Contrary to your assertion, public schools are not required to notify parents of every potentially controversial idea (Can you imagine if public schools had to notify every parent who opposed teachings regarding ever controversial topic (i.e. Holocaust, 9/11 , racial equality, gender equality, evolution, world religions, etc.)?).
Admittedly, I’m not a lawyer, but legally speaking, it seems your objection isn’t specifically against gay marriage, but to all non-discrimination laws any government recognition of homosexuality as a natural/normal condition.
Do you believe sexual orientation should be removed from non-discrimination laws? I could be wrong, but my impression was that you supported these laws — afterall these laws also protect those struggling with their SSA from discrimination as well.
“. . . biological/adoptive parents or how hetero marrriage occurs (arranged marriages etc) are not the primary issues per se. The question is: Does *gender* matter? The importance of both mother and father. And results of losing one. . . .”
You seem to be re-defining marriage to only include heterosexual parents. As you know, not all marriages result in child rearing and state laws do not require married couples to produce children, so you can’t arbitrarily decide to define marriage soley in terms of parenting. If parenting was the only reason for marriage, then the state would have no interest is recognizing the marriages of infertile and elderly couples. Rather, marriage is about two people sharing their lives and building their resources together.
Our country and society have decided that gender doesn’t necessarily matter in terms of the law. The law (with some execeptions in practice) does not grant different rights between men & women, husbands & wives, or fathers & mothers.
I understand your concerns about parenting and that children should have parents of both genders. I disagree with your conclusion that single-gender and same-gender parents automatically hinder or harm their children. Even if you were able to empirically prove that children of such parents were harmed or disadvantaged, I don’t believe the legislation you propose (prohibiting gay marriage) would be effective in encourage dual-gender parenting or sincere in its intentions. (If children’s well-being was really the primary concern, why is there not also an outcry from the religious Right to limit marriage to child-bearing heterosexuals, prohibit single parents from adoption, and banning divorce?) At best, child well-being and religious freedom are only secondary to the true purpose of such legislation. The true intention and effect of a gay marriage ban is to counter society’s growing acceptence of same-sex attractions and to turn-back the clock to time in which homosexuality was widely seen as a dysfunction and undesireable condition.
August 28, 2008 at 8:16 am
Norm,
The court memorandum that you link to here states: ” . . . the conduct at issue in this case is . . . rationally related to the goal of eradicating what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court characterized as the ‘deep and scarring hardship’ that the ban on same sex marriage imposed . . .” p. 30.
Also, the ruling on same-sex marriage is also referenced as a rationale for the Diversity Book Bags that recognize homosexual couples which the parents were complaining about: “Both books were part of the Lexington School systems effort to educate its students to understand and respect gays, lesbians and families they sometimes form in Massachusetts, which recognizes same-sex marriage.”
You write: “I would encourage you to read beyond Right-wing ‘news’ summaries.”– Norm this is simply condescending. The reality is you are not being objective about even the court documents that you reference which clearly state there is a “rationally related” connection between teaching children about homosexual couples and the state’s legalization of gay marriage.
Also I never asserted that parents could take kids out of school for “every controversial idea.” Most states have laws allowing parents to take kids out of class when it relates to human sexuality. That was brought up in this case. These parents were concerned about such books as “King and King” being read to their kindergarteners. The book depicts a drawing of two male kings kissing and is the story of a homosexual romantic fairy tale. Oddly, this is not being viewed as a reason to give the parental notification or opt out normally allowed when it comes to human sexuality.
You write that I seem to object “to all non-discrimination laws any government recognition of homosexuality as a natural/normal condition.” I don’t see all anti-discrimination laws as pertaining to normalization. The plumber down the street should not be fired simply because he is gay. But this is not making a statement about normalization. Companies hire employees with private lives they may disagree with all the time. I don’t expect my co-workers to share the same beliefs as me in order to keep their jobs (the only exception would be a church based ministry that has sexual ethic requirements for all employees). Whereas legalization of gay marriage is a statement about normalization.
On another note, although not all marriages include children, the institution of marriage is about leaving one’s family of birth to create your own family unit. And the creation of a new family unit naturally leads to children for most people.
As for banning single parents from adopting, etc. As I have already mentioned in previous comments, there is a difference between *redeeming* a situation such a single parent adopting the many orphans that need homes and *purposely* creating motherless/fatherless homes. And as any single parent will tell you it is hard work trying to raise a kid by yourself. I have never met one single mom who didn’t wish she had a caring husband to help her out.
August 28, 2008 at 9:35 am
Since this article is generating so many comments, let me just add one more. It seems the focus here is on the legal and societal aspects. As a reminder, since this is a Christian forum, marriage at its heart has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with God, since it was God who created mankind and established the institution of marriage (not the other way around).
Try as we may, we humans really have no control (and never will have) whatsoever in defining marriage; there is nothing in our power that we can do, no laws we can enact, that will add or detract to what God will recognize as holy or unholy.
As for homosexuality, the Bible is very clear on the issue in that it is sin and does not please God. I won’t go there since it is for another blog, but if you dig into original texts and usages (from Old to New Testement) God’s position on this is undeniable. God makes it very straightforward and clear. We should conform God’s Word and not attempt to make God’s Word conform to our desires.
We cannot manipulate God. One can have their body mutilated in an attempt to change gender, but that will never make them the opposite sex. In the same way, you can enact human laws to define and redefine marriage but you can never alter what God instituted. You can change the label on a jar, but that doesn’t change the contents.
We are in the grace administration, thankfully, and as Christians (if we are) stand uncondemed before God. Yet the Word instructs us to not use our liberty as an occasion to sin. The Word is also clear that we will still be judged and suffer loss for our sins.
God does not want us to be in bondage to homosexuality and same-sex attractions.
In 1 Corinthians 6:
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,
10 Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.
11 And such some of you were [once]. But you were washed clean (purified by a complete atonement for sin and made free from the guilt of sin), and you were consecrated (set apart, hallowed), and you were justified [pronounced righteous, by trusting] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the [Holy] Spirit of our God.
12 Everything is permissible (allowable and lawful) for me; but not all things are helpful (good for me to do, expedient and profitable when considered with other things). Everything is lawful for me, but I will not become the slave of anything or be brought under its power.
13 … The body is not intended for sexual immorality, but [is intended] for the Lord, and the Lord [is intended] for the body [[a]to save, sanctify, and raise it again].
1 John 5:3
For the [true] love of God is this: that we do His commands [keep His ordinances and are mindful of His precepts and teaching]. And these orders of His are not irksome (burdensome, oppressive, or grievous).
1 Corinthians 3:
13 The work of each [one] will become [plainly, openly] known (shown for what it is); for the day [of Christ] will disclose and declare it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test and critically appraise the character and worth of the work each person has done.
14 If the work which any person has built on this Foundation [any product of his efforts whatever] survives [this test], he will get his reward.
15 But if any person’s work is burned up [under the test], he will suffer the loss [of it all, losing his reward], though he himself will be saved, but only as [one who has passed] through fire.(B)
August 28, 2008 at 10:47 am
Grace, I don’t think its helpful to cite several Bible verses on homosexuality. As I stated in my post, the problem with the approach of many conservative Christians is that they have no apologetic for why we should not allow same-sex marriage beyond citing biblical prohibitions. However, we live in a pluralistic society. So society as a whole needs to determine whether same-sex marriage is a good option or not from many different perspectives including non-biblical reasons.
August 28, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Hi Karen,
“. . . You write: “I would encourage you to read beyond Right-wing ‘news’ summaries.”– Norm this is simply condescending. The reality is you are not being objective about even the court documents that you reference which clearly state there is a “rationally related” connection between teaching children about homosexual couples and the state’s legalization of gay marriage. . . .”
I assumed that you endorsed the inflammatory and inaccurate right-wing “news” website you linked to justify your argument. I apologize for misinterpreting, but I assumed you would have referenced a more objective source for your argument if objectivity was your goal.
I did not deny MA gay marriage contributed to the judge’s decision; however, it’s an exaggeration to say the parents’ dispute regarding the Diversity Book Bag program and the reading of King and King were a direct result of MA State Supreme Court’s 2003 gay marriage ruling. As the court noted in its facts (p. 8-9):
“Since at least 1993, Massachusetts has by statute required that public schools not discriminate based on sex or sexual orientation . . . . Moreover, Massachusetts law
has since 1993 required that the Board of education and the Commissioner of Education develop standards for curricula for all public elementary and secondary schools ‘to inculcate respect for the cultural, ethnic and racial diversity of the commonwealth . . .and to avoid perpetuating gender, cultural, ethnic or racial stereotypes.’ . . . .
“Accordingly, the Massachusetts Department of Education promulgated regulations which require that “[a]ll public school systems shall, through their curricula, encourage respect for the human and civil rights of all individuals regardless of race, color, sex, religion, national origin or sexual orientation.” . . . Pursuant to these directives, the Commissioner of the Department of Education issued curricula frameworks for prekindergarten through fifth grade that encourage instruction that describes ‘different types of families’ and ‘the concepts of prejudice and discrimination.’ Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum Framework (1999) at 30, 33. These lessons are intended to contribute to the creation of ‘a safe and supportive environment where individual similarities and differences are acknowledged.’. . .”
While the state’s recognition of gay marriage is an additional reason for schools to teach about diverse families, it seems obvious that the Department of Education’s policy and curriculum where established well before the state’s 2003 recognition of same-sex marriage.
“. . . Most states have laws allowing parents to take kids out of class when it relates to human sexuality. That was brought up in this case. These parents were concerned about such books as “King and King” being read to their kindergartners. The book depicts a drawing of two male kings kissing and is the story of a homosexual romantic fairy tale. Oddly, this is not being viewed as a reason to give the parental notification or opt out normally allowed when it comes to human sexuality. . . “
The US District Court avoided ruling whether the books were applicable to the MA law:
“. . . As indicated earlier, those claims include plaintiffs’ contention that the defendants have violated the Massachusetts statute which requires that parents be given notice and an opportunity to exempt their children from any curriculum that ‘primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality.’ . . . . [The Defendants/school district] also argue that the conduct in question in this case is not covered by the statute. The courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have not decided these issues. It is most appropriate to allow those courts to decide authoritatively the meaning of the Massachusetts statute.”
It seems that under your broad interpretation of the MA law, parents would be allowed to opt their children any mention of same-sex or even opposite-sex marriage, relationships, families, etc.
” . . . You write that I seem to object “to all non-discrimination laws any government recognition of homosexuality as a natural/normal condition.” I don’t see all anti-discrimination laws as pertaining to normalization. . . .”
Again, the state’s Department of Education curriculum seemed to be created in response to the state’s non-discrimination laws — not same-sex marriage ruling.
It’s troubling that you insist on alleging recognition of gay marriage results in indoctrination of school children. It has been a common tactic used by religious conservatives opposed to recognition of any gay rights. Here in Oregon, voters narrowly rejected at least three ballot initiatives over the last two decades that would have prevented the government and/or public schools from even mentioning homosexuality.
“. . . I don’t expect my co-workers to share the same beliefs as me in order to keep their jobs (the only exception would be a church based ministry that has sexual ethic requirements for all employees). Whereas legalization of gay marriage is a statement about normalization. . . .”
(I know it’s off-topic, but many hospitals, medical systems, and charities would be allowed to discriminate under your exemption.)
I’m not sure what “normalization” means legally or how “normalization” would cause harm to anyone. Our nation has strong religious freedom and free speech protection and the liberal/blue state’s that seem most likely to recognize gay marriage often have even stronger free speech protections in their constitutions, so I just don’t buy your argument that gay marriage harms any one more than recognizing other religions. I know you don’t view sexual orientation as biological characteristic like race or gender, but it seems even recognizing sexual orientation as a religious right would require government accommodation in marriage.
“. . . On another note, although not all marriages include children, the institution of marriage is about leaving one’s family of birth to create your own family unit. And the creation of a new family unit naturally leads to children for most people. . . .”
Again, you’re narrowly interpreting 20th century marriage to justify your argument. It is no longer a necessity for anyone (as historically required by women) to marry in order to leave their parents’ family unit. It’s becoming more common for couples to divorce after raising their children and re-marry without the intention of raising more children. There are even non-romantic, opposite-sex couples who choose to marry to take advantage of military spouse, health insurance, and immigration benefits. As minorities, gays and lesbians are not asking to recognized as a majority or to do what “most people” do, rather we’re asking for the right to recognized as a minority.
Hi Grace,
“. . . It seems the focus here is on the legal and societal aspects. As a reminder, since this is a Christian forum, marriage at its heart has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with God, since it was God who created mankind and established the institution of marriage (not the other way around). . . .”
Actually Karen’s post specifically relates to legal and societal aspects. I probably would not participate in the discussion if Karen was only affirming her belief that God created marriage for only a man and woman (such theological debates are often dull, pointless, and endless). Twentieth century marriage in which men and women join as legally equal members is a probably a foreign concept to the Bible’s authors.
August 28, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Hi Karen,
Sorry, you’re probably sick of my comments, but I missed responding to your last point:
“. . . As for banning single parents from adopting, etc. As I have already mentioned in previous comments, there is a difference between *redeeming* a situation such a single parent adopting the many orphans that need homes and *purposely* creating motherless/fatherless homes. And as any single parent will tell you it is hard work trying to raise a kid by yourself. I have never met one single mom who didn’t wish she had a caring husband to help her out. . . .”
I don’t see the legal difference between the government recognizing a single-parent/single-gender adoption rights and the government recognizing dual-person/single gender adoption/family rights.
What is different is that religious conservatives (mostly) seek to amend California’s constitution to specifically discourage and discriminate against a type of dual-person/single gender parenting while ignoring the, apparent, damaged caused by allowing single-person parenting. You can’t justify the anti-gay constitutional amendment as mainly discouraging flawed dual-person/single-gender parents families without also targeting similarly (if not more) flawed single-person/single-gender parent families.
August 28, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Karen, Norm,
You’re probably sick of my comments too. Understood about not citing Bible verses and the premise of this post/blog. Sorry for that.
Norm,
I would personally have to disagree in that for me, this issue “outside” of faith is VERY “dull, pointless, and endless”. Since you raised the topic … homosexuals keep implying that those who wrote the Bible knew very little about homosexuality and lifestyles. I can understand why gays want to proport that notion, but it is far from true. They may not have had legalized gay marriage, and maybe not as openly, but but they were doing it ALL back in those days. (Do a little more research on that if you doubt it.) And regarding the new testament, those who traveled about extensively, such as those wrote the epistles saw it all. People back then were not oblivious to the human condition, in all of its complexity and emotion.
Karen,
I concede, there just doesn’t seem to be any good reason for not legalizing gay marriage other than the biblical perspective against homosexuality, or based on the fact that biological parents are the best structure for raising children and traditional marriage is the best way to preserve that (when I brought that up before you were quick to argue about how great many gay parents are compared to many biological ones). Outside of that I cannot see how gender issues would play a part. When I get a chance I will check out those links Saul provided.
August 28, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Grace– if you do not see any reason to prohibit same-sex marriage outside of the Bible’s proscriptions you have missed the point of my whole post.
Norm–I am glad you recognize that gay marriage did play some role in the MA case. That is all I am saying. Other anti-discrimination laws have effects too. But that doesn’t detract from the influence of gay marriage. Some states don’t have the same anti-discrimination laws as CA and MA, so if gay marriage was legalized on a national level it would have a pretty huge impact on many states.
Also, I have focused primarily on the parent issue and motherless/fatherless families. Though, the gender issue is important just in the basic marital relationship itself. I address this in my post “Male and Female: Does It Matter” where I don’t really get into the parent/child issue, just the dynamic of male and female itself.
August 28, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Karen,
That is like telling Norm he missed the point of your entire post. I did not say only “biblical” but also “biological”. But I’m confused about your issues with biology.
You wrote,
” PS again–biological/adoptive parents or how hetero marrriage occurs (arranged marriages etc) are not the primary issues per se. The question is: Does *gender* matter? The importance of both mother and father. And results of losing one.”
I’m saying that if “does gender matter” is the question, I cannot see how that should be a determining factor in legalizing gay marriage, unless biological relation IS the primary concern, which you have indicated here and implied elsewhere it is not.
I don’t think I missed your point, I’m just confused about what the point is. Honestly, I can’t even keep up with you two. It’s ok, you don’t need to clarify it.
BTW… Karen thanks for your patience with us here. …
August 29, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Karen,
Thank you for such a thoughtful and well-written post. You certainly are a glutton for punishment, aren’t you? This inspired me to create an entry that describes some of my thoughts regarding the issue -something I have been meaning to do for a while.
P
August 29, 2008 at 2:36 pm
P,
I read your blog and can see that, although you are not in favor of gay marriage from a biblical standpoint, you would not vote against it due to your libertarian bend. As Norm, you defiantly brought up some good points about why.
I am generally not a right-winger but when it comes to homosexual marriage strongly oppose legalizing it. I realize Karen is opposed to gay marriage too, but also has a libertarian bend on the issue.
I have a feeling, however, that unless we take a right-winged stance (which of course seems very unsympathetic to the individual gay) on this issue there is simply NO WAY we can keep gay marriage from being legalized. These people don’t play and they want it bad.
On a humorous note (hopefully no offense Karen), I’d love to see a judge try to keep a straight face as he explains why he rules against gay marriage because it lacks “ying/yang”. (And he would would never live it down in the media.)
August 29, 2008 at 2:48 pm
woops.. did i say “a judge”? not thinking again.
August 29, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Hi Karen,
” . . . I am glad you recognize that gay marriage did play some role in the MA case. That is all I am saying. Other anti-discrimination laws have effects too. But that doesn’t detract from the influence of gay marriage. Some states don’t have the same anti-discrimination laws as CA and MA, so if gay marriage was legalized on a national level it would have a pretty huge impact on many states. . . “
I know it sounds like I’m just being disagreeable; however, you argued much more than MA gay marriage merely played ’some role’. You argued that state recognition of same-sex marriage results in public school kindergartners being taught about same-sex sexual behavior. Those opposed to gay rights often use some form this tactic to claim gays intend on indoctrinating (or even recruiting) vulnerably susceptible children.
The fact that the MA Board of Education recognition of family diversity and sexual orientation occurred before the state’s recognition of gay marriage does detract from your argument that gay marriage leads to teaching young kids about homosexuality. Although I’m not a law expert, my impression from the courts’ writings was that MA gay marriage was less than a deciding factor in the courts’ reasoning and the courts probably would have come to the same conclusion before the gay marriage was recognized.
Also, the books don’t necessarily deal with sex specifically, so it’s an exaggeration to say that the school is teaching kindergartners about sexuality. Rather, the school was teaching the children that there are different types of families — not because it was promoting same-sex marriage, but because the school was attempting to encourage a welcoming setting for its diverse community which included several students from same-sex families.
I’m not aware of any pending federal legislation that would impose same-sex marriage on all states. It seems to me that Bill Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act would need to be repealed before states are forced to recognize same-sex marriage. However, even if states were forced to recognize same-sex marriage, what “pretty huge impact” would result? Do schools currently devote a large amount of time to heterosexual marriage? Is commerce heavily dependant on discriminating against same-sex couples and catering to married opposite-sex couples? Does the government really spend a lot of resources on encourage heterosexual marriage?
“. . . Though, the gender issue is important just in the basic marital relationship itself. I address this in my post “Male and Female: Does It Matter” where I don’t really get into the parent/child issue, just the dynamic of male and female itself. . . “
I’ve read your “Male and Female” posting a few times. It does bring up some interesting ideas and theories; however, I’m not sure how it’s relevant to a discussion regarding government laws. Civil marriage is about recognizing that two people own property, parent children, and are authorized to make decisions on each other’s behalf. The government does not specify different rights to each gender or encourage single people to marry and certainly does not promote philosophical theories about why a gender would need another gender. Our nation and society have been careful to keep the government out of those aspects of its citizens’ lives. So it’s hard to see how male/female roles could be used to justify a constitutional amendment to oppose a government recogniztion of minority’s right. I can see why it’s easier to argue that gay marriage results in loss of religious freedom and poor parenting than trying to convince voters that their gender is lacking and is in need of the opposite gender.
August 30, 2008 at 1:18 am
On one final note… don’t anyone feel bad for me… being dumb really has its advantages… I may still deal with same-sex attractions but unlike the majority I was never quite smart enough to know I couldn’t change my sexual orientation. It works! I can’t even describe how great that feels.
Norm you say you come here because you like Karen’s political attitudes; I like her blog because she loves God so much. I could personally care less about politics, I just want to know where God is in all of this? For any Christians choosing to live a gay lifestyle and pushing to legalize gay marriage, it’s your choice.
I only voice my opinions because this is a forum for it. In the real world I would never say a word to a gay person about their orientation, gay marriage etc. (unless they asked), and you’ll never find me holding signs protesting a gay pride rally.
Call me radical, fundamentalist, right-winged, or whatever… Probably going to get in trouble with the administrator for saying this… Here is a news flash: like Karen said it is only a matter of time before gay marriage is legalized throughout the country. Gay’s have already won. Unfortunately, this is one of those games that, ironically, when you win you really lose. I won’t be standing in your way.
Take care
August 30, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I’m following the discussion with fascination at the sharp legal minds of both Karen and Norm. Both should be lawyers.
Now, despite all of the fun and brain stimulation of following along, I am still not certain as to why this is such an important issue to someone who has sworn off of gay relationships and taken a vow of celibacy.
Shouldn’t ex-gay happiness or contentment speak for itself? I was searching for the comment that Norm eloquently had on ex-gays *needing* to speak against all homosexual relations in order to make their own trip worthwhile. (Like I said, his phraseology as always hit the spot, and I can’t remember it verbatim.)
This is what I truly do not understand. God simply does not need a defender whether it is homosexuality or any other issue. Read the Bible if you don’t believe me.
And this rapture of male/femaleness: Karen I was serious when I asked you why you don’t follow your own advice. Why aren’t *you* married and thereby setting an example for the rest of us how on target this is? I think that is a fair question, I really do. Or at the very least, be in some kind of relationship with a man. If you feel that God feels so strongly about bigenders to not allow gay marriage, then you should have a life affected as such by this.
Of course….many ex-gays have come forward and told us in so many words that, “Straight is great,” and then were found in gay bars, with clients, etc… I guess great only went so far.
When you pull aside the fascinating arguments that Norm and Karen are engaging in, it *does* get down to peoples’ lives. Which is why the impasse.
Oh, and what about the fatherless? I believe that God said something about that. “I will be a Father to the fatherless.”
But, hey that’s just Scripture, not religious right proscriptive.
August 30, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Hi Grace:
“. . . don’t anyone feel bad for me… being dumb really has its advantages . . .”
Hopefully this comment was not intended to be serious, but just to be sure — I’ve never called or implied that you were dumb. I apologize if I gave you that impression. Disagreeing doesn’t mean I question your intelligence.
“. . . … I may still deal with same-sex attractions but unlike the majority I was never quite smart enough to know I couldn’t change my sexual orientation. It works! I can’t even describe how great that feels. . . .”
I not sure how your change of sexual orientation relates to the discussion of CA’s anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment. What ‘majority’ are you referring to? Since you’re heterosexual, then I assume you identify with those who have opposite-sex attractions which seems to be society’s vast majority.
My impression from my ex-gay experience was that ex-gay promoters cite so many scientific-sounding studies and theories that their implication was that gays are too proud, ignorant, and/or not smart enough to realize how harmful and changeable sexual orientation is.
What are you specifically claiming that “works?” [From your exclamation, I imagine you posing for a Jenny Craig style before/after gay-change ad
] The gay-change industry seems to have a variety of methods. Most are careful to disclaim any promise for changing sexual orientation and credit God for ’successes’ (and blame participants’ lack of faith for ‘failures’).
I’m glad you’re experience feels great and take your word for it. I hope you take me at my word when I say that my gay-affirming life and relationship feels great as well.
“. . . Norm you say you come here because you like Karen’s political attitudes; I like her blog because she loves God so much. I could personally care less about politics, I just want to know where God is in all of this? . . .”
I’m still exploring Karen’s political attitude, rather I appreciate her openness and willingness to discuss her ideas and allow those of a differing perspective also share and discuss. Some bloggers would have shut-down comments by now or heavily moderated opposing comments.
I’m not sure how discussion of God can effectively be related in discussing the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment. While Karen acknowledges her beliefs about God’s view of same-sex marriage, she seems to be careful to justify her opposition to gay marriage in concerns unrelated to faith and God. While I have to admit that I do question how truly unbiased her political position is (sorry, Karen), I appreciate that she is at least trying to avoid the appearance of legislating her beliefs onto her fellow citizens.
Earlier I mentioned that I find theological discussions dull, pointless, and endless. Please know that was a personal expression of my preference and was not intended to be a criticism on all theological debates or those who engage in such discussions. Theological discussions can be interesting, but I’m far from sufficiently educated or experienced to fully understand the complexities let alone thoughtfully engage in discussions. Many of these issues have been debated for the last two thousand years, so I doubt there is anything new I could add that hasn’t been argued previously.
“. . . For any Christians choosing to live a gay lifestyle and pushing to legalize gay marriage, it’s your choice. . . .”
It’s an exaggeration to say to gays are “pushing” gay marriage. While gays do demand and claim our civil rights, we’re certainly not the ones who are pushing a constitutional amendment in favoring our viewpoint at the harm of others.
“. . . In the real world I would never say a word to a gay person about their orientation, gay marriage etc. (unless they asked), and you’ll never find me holding signs protesting a gay pride rally. . . .”
Voting and supporting those who seek to constitutionally protect discrimination against gay families is far more harmful than an unkind word or silly protest sign. I would easily trade unpopularity and condemnation for civil rights. It will be interesting to see how magnanimous CA voters are once they cast their anonymous ballots away from their gay friends and political pollsters.
“. . . Here is a news flash: like Karen said it is only a matter of time before gay marriage is legalized throughout the country. Gay’s have already won. Unfortunately, this is one of those games that, ironically, when you win you really lose. I won’t be standing in your way. . . .”
It’s unfortunate that you choose to see this civil rights issue in terms of one side winning or losing. Two states recognizing gay marriage are far from “winning” and many more states, including my own, have easily and quickly enshrined discrimination against gay families in their states’ foundations. Contrary to Karen’s unrelated and alarmist concerns, religious conservatives have not lost any rights under gay marriage. Gays and gay families are far from having the advantage in this issue.
I understand that you feel gay marriage to be detrimental and harmful. However, I’m glad that you recognize my right to choose and won’t be standing in the way. I’m glad that you recognize that in this country we give citizens the right to pursue their faith and happiness. Could I assume that means you oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?
August 30, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Ohhhh… I really was going to have the good sense to step out of this.
AM …
I really shouldn’t take the initiative to speak on Karen’s behalf but it seems you confuse 1) what she believes about God’s Word, 2) her decision to serve Him by not engaging in a sexual relationship with anyone outside of marriage, and 3) her own personal difficulties in overcoming same-sex attraction. Those are 3 separate issues and it seems you want to lump them all together to prove that people can’t really change their sexual orientation and shouldn’t try.
Is it really so hard to figure out why this is, in your words, “such an important issue for someone who has sworn off of gay relationships and taken a vow of celibacy?” Let me simplify… Think of a former alcoholic, drug user, adulterer, thief, a sick or handicapped person, etc.; as Christians wouldn’t they, shouldn’t they, take an especially strong interest in helping others coping with the same problem? It seems to be human nature to gravitate towards things we can relate to personally. Now was that hard?
You say God doesn’t need anyone to defend Him. You are correct!! For that I will reply, however, that there is a repeated theme — in the form of a commandment — throughout the Bible that we have a responsibility to preach God’s Word to the ends of the earth. That doesn’t just include all the pretty stuff we want to hear about God’s love and forgiveness, but also warnings against sin.
In your own words I will suggest that you: “Read the Bible if you don’t believe me.
”
… I think that also addresses your statement about Norm’s eloquent comment “on ex-gays *needing* to speak against all homosexual relations in order to make their own trip worthwhile.”
And guess what? Yes you can change your sexual orientation. Here is a revelation: I am a woman. For anyone who doesn’t know what that means, I won’t even try to explain it to you.
Why do those who want to promote the gay agenda always put sexual orientation on a pedestal that is higher than one’s God-given gender-based sexuality? It is really the other way around; so please give me some logical explaination why I can’t have or develop a heterosexual orientation. Please make some sense here.
Yes due to the addictive and possessive nature of sexual sin (I believe homosexuality being the most difficult) it is one of the hardest things to change but to say it is impossible is an outright deception.
Gays like to cite all the failed cases. And yes, as with all sin, it is a journey rather than a one-time change. Anyone (even “straights”) can and do fall into homosexuality at any given time. For instance, those involved in pornography often find themselves developing deep same-sex attactions they never experience before, as well as other sexual addictions, after various levels of exposure to it. That’s another blog.
Sorry but I will trust God with my sexuality before I trust what human beings, especially gays, will tell me. And I have personal evidence that it is possible to change. I am now very attracted to men, do not want to go back to lesbianism (it would get sickening within a short time), and nothing anyone can say will change that.
August 30, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Norm,
I’m not going to tell you my opinions on gay marriage are not primarily faith based. Yes, I would personally like to see a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages if that’s what it takes, since I believe it is not justified as a civil-rights issue as you do.
The comment about my sexual orientation was not directly related to the conversation on CA laws. It is about sexual orientation being mutable. It seems gay activists want to gain leverage for gay marriage by classifying same-sex attraction in the same category as race or other physical traits that cannot be changed. (You have in your comments.) The “majority” referred to are those who believe sexual orientation cannot be changed because people are either born that way or, for other reasons, have tried unsuccessfully.
HAHA… I like that visualization of Jenny Craig before and after. What I was referring to that “works” was that I never contemplated it was impossible to change — despite that it was the single hardest thing I have ever done. I knew God wanted me to and didn’t want me sinning, even if it was in my heart (having continued same-sex attractions) and not outwardly. It just never dawned on me that, personally, change wasn’t possible. Had I not known that for certain, despite repeated failure, I could not have changed.
I also recognized it was not something God was going to do “for” me … but He helped me along the way, as much as I was willing to take full responsibility for every attraction I had. (That’s not something I have done very well at all, but I do.) You can have temptations, but from experience I know that you simply cannot have persistent and repeated same-sex attractions unless you are wandering down that road in your mind. And if your not having these attractions, opposite sex attractions develop. They work off each other; if your enjoying healthy opposite attractions you are not going to be craving same-sex attractions … until you allow yourself to again. Then you fall backwards big time. It’s really a mind game.
It’s the hardest thing. I still fail to some point almost daily (even if barely noticeable) but my opposite-sex attractions are also growing stronger daily. I go through phases (sometimes very painful ones) with same-sex attraction but now opposite-sex attraction overrides and it’s awesome. I love it. God knows what He is doing.
No, there are obviously no promises for change and I agree with them that ultimately failure is our own fault. The mistake is that people view failure the wrong way and end up on a guilt trip or giving up. If you have never heard the term “Fail Forward” … I heard a great audio on it a while back and there is a book (although I have not read it).
Like a baby learning to walk and then run, or anything else you want to accomplish, failing is part of growing and should be used as a tool to figure out what we did wrong and how to do it right (or better) next time.
If you scroll way down at this link the podcast titled “Failing Forward” is there:
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=285
It’s a great teaching you’ll enjoy (even if not for the purpose of changing same-sex attractions).
August 30, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Just a reminder to please keep this conversation on task. This is not a discussion about change in sexual orientation. I will delete any further comments that get off track on the “change” issue. Thanks!
August 31, 2008 at 8:22 am
Karen,
You Wrote:
“Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote: “An individual’s sexual orientation—like a person’s race or gender—does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights” (italics added). ”
And …
“As Chief Justice Ronald M. George stated, the approval of gay marriage is based on the premise that sexual orientation is like race and gender and should, therefore, be accorded the same rights as these two classes.”
So, it seems the issue of change is really at the heart of this discussion, since if people cannot change sexual orientation the it should be accorded the same rights as race and gender. Sorry for straying so far with it. Sorry for everything.
God Bless
August 31, 2008 at 10:01 am
Hi Grace,
“. . . I’m not going to tell you my opinions on gay marriage are not primarily faith based. Yes, I would personally like to see a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages if that’s what it takes, since I believe it is not justified as a civil-rights issue as you do. . . . “
Thank you for your honesty, Grace. As I stated earlier, your act of supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage contradicts your statement that you “won’t be standing in” my way. There are only a few acts I can I imagine that are more personally harmful than enshrining discrimination against gay families in a state’s constution.
[I was going to respond more to your comments about your gay-change experience, but decided to heed Karen's request.]
” .. . So, it seems the issue of change is really at the heart of this discussion, since if people cannot change sexual orientation the it should be accorded the same rights as race and gender. Sorry for straying so far with it. Sorry for everything.”
From your comments, Grace, it seems that your viewpoint affirms the religious Right’s motives for supporting the gay-change movement: to prove that sexual orientation is merely a choice or dysfunction like any other fetish, perversion, or bad habit.
For me, whether or not sexual orientation is an immutable biological trait is not necessarily an essential aspect of the public policy debate. I’m uncomfortable with the idea of identifying a gay gene and testing who is or is not ‘certifiably gay’.
I view gay rights as similar to religious freedom and right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Our government was founded on the principle that we each have the freedom to pursue our beliefs. The gay debate is ultimately about matters of faith and personal philosophy. The government has no interest in regulating how consenting adults choose to live their lives. If the government were truly tasked with regulating family units, it seems marriage licenses would be far more intrusive and restrictive than merely requesting proof of age and identity.
August 31, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Norm,
What I meant about not standing in your way was that I am not an activist/political type person, don’t want to get into people’s personal affairs, and so would not interfere with gay people living their lives the way they choose. You know, however, I oppose gay marriage because I believe it is detrimental to individuals and society, so will, of course, vote against it. I figured you understood that much about my point of view.
You say, “The government has no interest in regulating how consenting adults choose to live their lives.” Well, that is both true and false … won’t elaborate in this post.
I realize your views on gay issues are about “religious freedom and right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” Those concerns, however, must not interfere with the well being of others or society. Obviously, as to what defines “harmful to individuals and society” needs to be determined. We allow other means of sexual expression that many find harmful and detrimental, such as pornography; but we believe prostitution is over the edge so it is illegal.
Yes Norm, you know my viewpoint is that homosexuality is basically a choice. Just because someone “believes” or “feels like” they cannot control their drives/attractions does not mean they can’t REALLY or that it is not a choice. I’m sure you would be quick to agree if given other examples outside of homosexuality, but that is for another blog.
As for whether I “affirm the religious Right’s motives for supporting the gay-change movement”: If homosexuals want to be “out” in society and promoting their causes in our schools, etc., then the gay-change movement should be given equal opportunity. Karen covers the discrimination against the gay-change movement very well in another post.
Would be interested in the comments you were holding back. If you wanted to make them in another forum such as e-mail or your blog feel free to let me know.
Some things simply cannot be agreed upon and ultimately it will be up to the voters to decide. The August cover of People’s Magazine says it all as to where we are headed with gay marriage.
September 1, 2008 at 5:01 pm
AM- I deleted your comment because it didn’t have anything to do with gay marriage.
September 2, 2008 at 8:55 am
Hi Grace,
“What I meant about not standing in your way was that I am not an activist/political type person, don’t want to get into people’s personal affairs, and so would not interfere with gay people living their lives the way they choose. You know, however, I oppose gay marriage because I believe it is detrimental to individuals and society, so will, of course, vote against it. I figured you understood that much about my point of view. . . .”
No, I don’t understand your viewpoint. I really am not trying to play stupid. However, I don’t see how you can claim that you’re not political and don’t want to involve yourself in people’s personal affairs and yet you favor a political position that would restrict rights from those who choose to accept their gay identities. It seems a more honest position would be to admit that you want the government to favor your religious belief and discourage and discriminate against gay families.
As for gay marriage being “detrimental to individuals and society”, there are many other behaviors that are far more harmful than gay marriage. Divorce, out-of-wedlock births, adultery, risky sex, smoking, obesity, Hummers, fast food, etc., etc. Under Karen’s interpretation of government laws, the government encourages and promotes many of these harmful behaviors. Shouldn’t we implement constitutional amendments discouraging these practices as well?
“. . . You say, “The government has no interest in regulating how consenting adults choose to live their lives.” Well, that is both true and false … won’t elaborate in this post. . .”
It’s unfortunate and odd that you choose not to elaborate on this point. It one of the major points of this post’s entire discussion.
“. . . I realize your views on gay issues are about “religious freedom and right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” Those concerns, however, must not interfere with the well being of others or society. Obviously, as to what defines “harmful to individuals and society” needs to be determined. . .”
The government recognizing my relationship in no way interferes with your freedom or society. Gay families in no way interfere with your freedom or society. Since “harmful to individual and society” is the basis of your and Karen’s arguments against gay marriage, shouldn’t you have these harms already determined?
“. . . We allow other means of sexual expression that many find harmful and detrimental, such as pornography; but we believe prostitution is over the edge so it is illegal. . . “
Yes, rape is illegal because it obviously violates another person’s freedom. Prostitution is illegal (except Nevada) because we have chosen to govern our society’s commerce and its a profession that is dangerous to sex workers who are often vulnerable. Pornography is a little murky. There is no definition of what pornography is and porn laws are not enforced due, in part, to the unclear definition and whether such laws violate free speech.
Interestingly though, I’m not aware of any constitutional amendments targeting these behaviors. I’m not aware of any precedent for a state using its constitution to ban or affirm consenting adults’ behavior and beliefs. It’s obvious that those who propose this unprecedented constitutional amendment are far more interested in opposing a minority’s right and legally stigmatizing gay relationships.
“. . . As for whether I “affirm the religious Right’s motives for supporting the gay-change movement”: If homosexuals want to be “out” in society and promoting their causes in our schools, etc., then the gay-change movement should be given equal opportunity. Karen covers the discrimination against the gay-change movement very well in another post . . . “
Yes, we’ve already covered this topic. I’m not sure she has shown any discrimatory incidents or a demand by students for such groups, but that’s a seperate topic.
The religious right’s and gay-change industry’s disturbing implication is that
- because gays can “change” their sexual orientation;
- therefore, same-sex attractions is a choice, dysfunction, fetish, perversion, bad habit, etc.;
- therefore, gays and lesbians do not really have any guarantee of personal freedom from government regulation;
- therefore, gays and lesbians are not entitled to be treated equally and the government may discriminate against gay marriages (and gay rights);
- therefore, all gays should change their sexual orientation to heterosexual if they want their relationships and families recognized by the government.
September 2, 2008 at 10:20 am
Norm,
I may not be political but we all have a right to vote and most of us want to.
Again, what is “harmful” to society needs to be determined. Different people obviously have different views on what is acceptable or over the edge on that matter. And whether homosexual marriage interferes with society is open to interpretation also. Even some non-religious people believe it does. The “harms” are already determined in the minds of people who oppose it; it’s just that not everybody agrees.
I did not elaborate on the comment about the government because it seemed to go off track and Karen warned us not to. But let’s face it, big brother is encroaching ever more.
As for discrimination against gay-change groups she did do an article on that, somewhere on her blog. According to her, there seems to be more discrimination to those groups these days than for the gay-affirming groups.
Norm, honestly I hope that some day you find a find a beautiful, sweet, young woman who loves you to no end and completely adores the ground you walk on. Have two beautiful children and be the best mommy and daddy ever. Grow old together never regretting the life you left behind.
September 2, 2008 at 11:42 am
Hi Grace,
“I may not be political but we all have a right to vote and most of us want to. . . .”
I’m not sure what is necessarily wrong with being “political”. Voting is essentially a political act and our country was founded on political discussion, conflict, and compromise.
“. . . Again, what is “harmful” to society needs to be determined. . . .”
Again, it’s very troubling that you and Karen both claim that gay marriage is harmful to society, but are unwilling or unable to demonstrate the actual harm gay marriage causes. That is an essential aspect of your argument that CA voters will want to know.
What is determined is the harm that banning gay has on gay families (see my comment above). What voters need to determine is whether the undetermined harms you and Karen allege outweigh the very real, proven harms caused by your legislation will have on gay families.
“. . . Even some non-religious people believe it does. The “harms” are already determined in the minds of people who oppose it; it’s just that not everybody agrees. . . .”
Non-religious people believe all sorts of things. Some non-religious may just dislike gay people and wish them harm.
Everybody doesn’t agree because those who propose discriminating against gay families have failed to prove or convince others of the harm gay families have on society and individuals. Laws and constitutional amendments should be based on facts — not imagined outcomes or what-if scenarios. Our government constitutions should be based on our best hopes, fair principles and favor individual freedom and liberty — not based merely on popularity and undetermined fears.
“. . . I did not elaborate on the comment about the government because it seemed to go off track and Karen warned us not to. But let’s face it, big brother is encroaching ever more. . . .”
Hopefully Karen will jump in here and correct me, but I don’t see how discussing government’s role in our personal lives is off track. An anti-gay marriage amendment is specifically about the government’s interaction in our lives.
Big brother only encroaches as far was voters allow it too. If anything, a constitutional amendment banning a particular type of relationship only encourages big brother to get involved with differentiating relationships. If we’re really going to have the government regulate the best type of relationships, then I would favor constitutional amendments banning marriage from couples with prior no-cause divorces, insufficient incomes, criminal convictions, out-of-wedlock children, STDs, etc.
“. . . Norm, honestly I hope that some day you find a find a beautiful, sweet, young woman who loves you to no end and completely adores the ground you walk on. Have two beautiful children and be the best mommy and daddy ever. Grow old together never regretting the life you left behind.”
LOL! I doubt your sincerity and am a little offended. Your comment is analogous to me hoping you’ll find a nice butch lesbian partner, adopt some kids, and give-up your beliefs. However, I would not tell you that because I respect you and believe you should have the freedom and liberty to pursue your faith and life. Unfortunately, your comment and politics affirm that you have no respect for my faith or relationship and wish my partner and I ill.
September 2, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Karen,
So much of what Grace writes on does not have to do with gay marriage, but since she is sympatico with you, you rarely delete her comments or she gets a “warning”.
At least Norm is getting a voice here.
September 24, 2008 at 9:13 am
I haven’t read many of the comments left here, but I would like to say I appreciate your approach to this topic. So many individuals – myself included at times – can rashly, emotionally convey their stance on the issue with little more than personal opinion. I think you’ve expressed your thoughts here very well with quite a substantiated argument.
Thank you for that.
November 3, 2008 at 11:00 pm
At the top of this page, the author of the blog argues that genders are not interchangable and that children of a two mommy or two daddy family will want a parent of each gender. I’m for preserving same-sex marriage rights in California (NO on 8!) and I have no problem agreeing that children (of all flavors) will want both male and female parents or at least parental figures.
The issues for children with two daddies and no mom are no different from children with one daddy and no mom- that is, children of single parents. (Most single parents are one mom and ‘n’ children, but I wanted to get your attention there…)
Its an obvious need and any loving parent, whatever number of partners or spouses are available, will take care that it gets addressed. As a practical matter, many same-sex couples are friends with the parents and children of other same sex couples, providing a source of male and female figures. Aunts, uncles, and heterosexual ex-spouses also make good other-gender sources. I know one extended family where a man and a woman got divorced after she came out, with joint custody. He re-married, she found a partner (and may be married now) and their kids have 3 mommies and a daddy, That’s got to be easier and healthier than the situation for various male and female friends who were (and are) single parents with sole or primary custody.
So, yeah, kids need adults to be close to who are both genders.
Nobody seriously proposes to prevent divorces or force widows and widowers to remarry, or take single-parent’s kids away, because of this. Its exactly the same issue for single sex marriages- something loving parents will solve and not a place the state government needs to jump into for every case. No need to get all weepy over “someone missing”.
It takes a village, remember?
Next.
November 4, 2008 at 9:23 am
Amindinmowtown–thank you for stoppping by and leaving a comment. I appreciate it.
Bill–I appreciate your comment as well. Much of what you said was similar to comments that a few others have made and have already been addressed. So, I will just summarize quickly again:
1) There is a difference between *intentionally* creating motherless/fatherless homes and *redeeming* existing less that idealistic situations.
2). There is a reason it requires a mother and father to create a child in the first place. Even artificial insemination still requires a man. It does not make any sense that a man or woman would create a child only to abandon it–though it happens all the time unfortunately.
3) You write: “Its an obvious need and any loving parent, whatever number of partners or spouses are available, will take care that it gets addressed.”
I am glad you do see the need for both genders. Though I would disagree that “whatever number of partners or spouses are available” will take care of that. Actually adults put their needs before their kids all the time and don’t take care that it is addressed. Gay marriage does this. Its the needs of the adult over what is most beneficial for the child.
I don’t mean to sound harsh, but this perspective strikes me as naive. Divorce, no matter how amicable, causes quite a bit of stress on a child. Likewise, even children who have been adopted into good families often struggle with the fact that they don’t know their biological parents. Also opposite gender friends cannot make up for what a parent does. A biological mother and father living together and raising their child together is the ideal. Is the ideal always possible? No. But that does not mean we should throw out the ideal and begin *intentionally* creating motherless/fatherless homes. There is a reason a man and man together cannot create life. And there is a reason a woman and woman together cannot create life. We cannot ignore that as if that is not a big sign post telling us what God’s intentional design for family is.
November 5, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Karen,
You’re talking in circles. Gay marriage isn’t the beginning of motherless or fatherless homes. Don’t you know people in the military? What do you think a 15 month deployment is? Have you heard of sailors? It used to be very common for men to show up, father a child and take off for a year or two or three.
You’re very polite and I appreciate that, but all your arguments reduce to “A biological mother and father living together and raising their child together is the ideal.” Its an ideal, but a loving family raising a child is another ideal and I don’t choose to rank one over the other. I’ve seen miserable heterosexual families. I’m sure there are miserable homosexual ones too, though you have to work a LOT harder to start one…
Real life is more interesting to me than abstractions. I know a gay couple who have adopted two kids who are siblings… the biological parents gave up the first for adoption, some years later had a second, and gave it up for adoption too. The biological parents *could* be married, I don’t know one way or the other. Why can’t the adoptive parents be married?
When the adoption service called them, out of the blue, with the second child, they were given an hour or two to decide if they wanted to apply to adopt. Now. Today. No warning. “You’re a family of 3, would you like to be a family of 4?” The same sex couple stepped up to the plate, in what was clearly in the best interest of the children. Its a good, loving, home and the kids are thriving. I believe they even know their biological parents…
What good are your ideal arangements to those kids? They needed parents, and their biological parents weren’t with the program. This isn’t how it works in the Dick and Jane reader, or some parts of the Bible, but its real. How is it fair, or right, or practical, to deny marriage to a couple raising children in a loving household but allow it to a couple who bring children they cannot care for, and give up, into the world?
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Looks like your position won at the ballot box this time. But the margin is smaller than last time…
Bill
February 21, 2009 at 4:27 am
Gay marriage has been fine in Connecticut. It will be legalized everywhere within 20 years. It is a non-issue. The issue is loving yourself, your neighbors, and your children. Take a look at what Judaism has to say about these issues.