Defending Traditional Marriage Without Alienating?

[Edward_H]

I think the only way is to avoid the topic of homosexuality as much as possible, and to keep one’s opinion to oneself. If given the chance to vote on it, then vote your conscience. But the fact is, the subject is always going to alienate people. Always! I’m a gay man who hopes some day to find the right guy to marry and spend my life with – and even reading your post hurt me, even though you put it rather delicately.

No. The goal is not to repress the truth just because someone is offended. Absolutely not.

The challenge is to speak truth in love, the way the Church has told us to speak it.

If some one thinks that unnatural sex is the path to true love and happiness…or that hetero sex is the path to true happiness…we would be unloving to “keep one’s opinion to oneself”.

There is opinion and there is truth. Truth is a reality that our feelings about it or our preferences have absolutely no bearing on.

 

[bmaj]

This defense of traditional marriage issue is really our fault. My fault. The fault of those who believe in it, but whose joy in marriage may not be all it could be.

Marriage should be a great lifelong interior struggle with God and our spouse, to move toward holiness and great love. Love that overflows into family life, extended family life.

Imagine a Thanksgiving meal…where the joy and the generosity of living married life to the full (to the point of full self-donation) is naturally apparent to all the nephews and nieces approaching marriageable age. They would sense the love of the family.

Rather than making a bunch of tight intellectual arguments about the value of traditional families (which we need to be prepared for anyway) we also live our marriages like our eternal life depends on it (they do).

I think we can best defend married life…by naturally and sincerely living it heroically…so the neighbors over the years can sense this overflow of the Holy Spirit…their kids will wonder…they will know by ‘osmosis’…about that family which seemed to live a bright and cheerful life. The door was open, the house was cheerful, warm, welcoming, fun, honest, substantial, true, and good, and always generous. And one-by-one people will see such a traditional family as being the place where the greatest happiness is engendered.

It takes great work…we have to help each other do this…our Parish pastor can’t be shouldered with merely defending the traditional family from the homily every few months for 7 minutes. No…it’s my job and our job. It would be real nice if we could just write an article, or have a debate, and have the family totally defended.

But that’s not God’s way, I don’t think. I think He wants us to love our way, give our way toward a return to the traditional family.

Sour, glum, selfish, petulant marriages do as much to damage to the case for “traditional families” as rainbow colored protest marches, probably more.

Excellent way of looking at it, Edward. You’re right - our eternal life does depend upon it - and the future of our society, too. Thanks for sharing.

 

[bmaj]

It’s very possible that nothing you do (short of surrendering and agreeing with them) will prevent alienation. As long as we’re not being outrightly obnoxious, I think we have to stop worrying about walking on eggshells. Remember, even Jesus alienated people when he said that we must eat His Body and drink His Blood, and He said that He came to cause division, setting family members against each other - not that He wanted to do so on purpose, but that the nature of what He stood for and did and would require of us would cause division.

That being said, the approach on same-sex marriage I take is the natural law approach. I don’t know if it was said on another thread here at CAF or at another forum, but “the parts don’t fit”.

Thanks for that important reminder, Norseman. Hard for me not to continue to walk on eggshells. I keep thinking, WWJD? Love everyone, for sure - but not necessarily their actions.
God bless.

 

[bmaj]

Thanks very much to everyone for all of your (name removed by moderator)ut. There were some excellent points made, and I will definitely endeavor to use them in the future. Fingers crossed that they help!
God’s blessings to all of you.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

No. The goal is not to repress the truth just because someone is offended. Absolutely not.

The challenge is to speak truth in love, the way the Church has told us to speak it.

If some one thinks that unnatural sex is the path to true love and happiness…or that hetero sex is the path to true happiness…we would be unloving to “keep one’s opinion to oneself”.

There is opinion and there is truth. Truth is a reality that our feelings about it or our preferences have absolutely no bearing on.

Well the issue wasn’t about what you believe the truth to be… The question was how to defend heterosexual marriage without alientating anyone (and really, no one is condemning heterosexual marriage at all, there’s no defense needed). My response was that that’s impossible, no matter how lovingly it’s put. It’s also difficult to express such an opinion in a loving way, no matter how much we intend to be loving when we say it. Honestly, the comments in this thread don’t sound loving to me at all – they’re hurtful, and more importantly, I don’t believe they have any truthful basis. That was the whole point… there’s no way to avoid alienating people because when your opinion/truth hurts someone, you alienate them.

And yes, there is opinion and there is truth. However, the lines between opinion and truth are often blurred. What you consider an opinion, I consider the truth; what I consider an opinion, you consider the truth. Neither one of us is ever going to convince the other that our truth is the truth.

 

[Corki]

Well the issue wasn’t about what you believe the truth to be… The question was how to defend heterosexual marriage without alientating anyone (and really, no one is condemning heterosexual marriage at all, there’s no defense needed). My response was that that’s impossible, no matter how lovingly it’s put. It’s also difficult to express such an opinion in a loving way, no matter how much we intend to be loving when we say it. Honestly, the comments in this thread don’t sound loving to me at all – they’re hurtful, and more importantly, I don’t believe they have any truthful basis. That was the whole point… there’s no way to avoid alienating people because when your opinion/truth hurts someone, you alienate them.

And yes, there is opinion and there is truth. However, the lines between opinion and truth are often blurred. What you consider an opinion, I consider the truth; what I consider an opinion, you consider the truth. Neither one of us is ever going to convince the other that our truth is the truth.

Nine times out of ten, it is not the person defending marriage that brings the topic up. If someone else wants to start a discussion about same-sex marriage, we do the best we can to speak the truth with love. Sure, we shouldn’t go out of our way to challenge people on the streets and offend them, but neither should we demur or side step the topic due to a false sense of charity.

 

[bmaj]

The hardest and saddest part for me about all of this is that most of those who argue in favor of same-sex marriage (at least from my experiences) seem to think that those who oppose it (whether they be Republicans, Catholics, or whomever…) are prejudiced and bigoted against homosexuals. Trying lovingly to get them to understand that I am not those things and would never want to be is so difficult, but all of your (name removed by moderator)ut has given me more suggestions to help get that across. Thanks!

 

[Gwendolen]

I think the only way is to avoid the topic of homosexuality as much as possible, and to keep one’s opinion to oneself. If given the chance to vote on it, then vote your conscience. But the fact is, the subject is always going to alienate people. Always! I’m a gay man who hopes some day to find the right guy to marry and spend my life with – and even reading your post hurt me, even though you put it rather delicately.

I understand how people such as yourself feel about the issue, but no matter how it’s put, I feel that what’s really being said is that you want me to be alone and miserable for the rest of my life simply because you don’t agree with who I love. I know there are so many levels to the issue, but honestly, that’s all I hear. That’s why it’s alienating and hurtful – not because you intend to be hurtful, but because when two people are in love, any suggestion that their love is somehow “less than” or “not as valid” as yours seriously hurts.

And the suggestion made earlier about children needing a mother and father hurts children. It hurts the children of gay and lesbian parents, it hurts the children of divorced parents, it’s hurts the children of deceased parents. If you truly care about children, then don’t hurt them with your opinion of their family.

I made that suggestion, and I AM the child of divorced parents. Believe me, when I look back on my life, the suggestion that my father was disposable hurts most of all.

After the divorce, he moved several states away and I almost never saw him, although he did faithfully send support checks. My grief and longing for him was continuing stepped on, and dismissed, and when I questioned the divorce, and voiced a longing to have him in my life more, I was accused of not being supportive of my mother (who asked for the divorce). He was seen as a support check, nothing more, and his importance in my life was squashed. This was back in the “liberating” 70’s. Telling children they don’t “need” dads, and trying to make them feel bad when they voice the opposite is very hurtful. I’m sure children of deceased parents feel like they still “need” their parents, it is not saying they cannot be raised to productive adulthood without one, but I don’t think it is hurtful to them to acknowledge that void in their life, and to wish their parent was still here.

That being said, I am among the dissenters here, and have the unpopular opinion that same gender marriage is no more harmful to children then single parenthood, from whatever reason, and at least in same gender marriage, the child presumably gets two loving parents. When I have voted, I have voted for legal rights for same gender couples, just as we do not outlaw single parenthood, I don’t think we should outlaw same gender couple parenthood, which would benefit from the legal protections of civil marriage. Believe me, I am in the minority here, but that is how I see it.

I am not judging who or how you love, only making the observation that as a woman, I am not capable of being a dad, that my son could tell the difference from very young childhood, and that dads are not disposable commodities, but important to children’s development, as I observed. Can it be overcome? I’m sure there are many same gender couples raising fantastic children. But by looking at the big picture we see the role of the dad marginalized over and over again, and the overall effect is very bad for society.

One could argue that my mother raised productive children without a dad. There are four of us, all happy married, and gainfully employed, now in our 40’s. Believe me, there are scars. We can and did overcome, but it was not what God had planned for us, I know, and the unity of our family to this day suffers.

 

[Edward_H]

Well the issue wasn’t about what you believe the truth to be… The question was how to defend heterosexual marriage without alientating anyone (and really, no one is condemning heterosexual marriage at all, there’s no defense needed). My response was that that’s impossible, no matter how lovingly it’s put. It’s also difficult to express such an opinion in a loving way, no matter how much we intend to be loving when we say it. Honestly, the comments in this thread don’t sound loving to me at all – they’re hurtful, and more importantly, I don’t believe they have any truthful basis. That was the whole point… there’s no way to avoid alienating people because when your opinion/truth hurts someone, you alienate them.

And yes, there is opinion and there is truth. However, the lines between opinion and truth are often blurred. What you consider an opinion, I consider the truth; what I consider an opinion, you consider the truth. Neither one of us is ever going to convince the other that our truth is the truth.

No. The goal Is not to avoid alienating anyone at the cost of the truth, which is the pursuit of everyone’s greatest good. Beatitude is the goal, at any cost.

If we over focus on “emotions” we become cloudy-headed about the real goal.

Earlier here I posted my own OPINION on how I try to defend what is good and true for all, the traditional family, sacramental union, a foretaste of Divine Union. Living my marriage well, as a life long personal offering to God for the intention of my wife, is the best way I know how to defend traditional marriage. It’s indirect, it doesn’t force itself on others and I pray our example is used by the Holy Spirit to do great things, far beyond what my defective abilities can do in defending what is good.

Living marriage this way actually becomes a point of attraction for others who over the years may never ask about the joy in our marriage, but it may help them still wonder about the marriage. I have had several friends ask me why it seems my marriage works, and this leads to good discussions about what love really is…it’s total self-donation. I never claim to have a perfect marriage but my wife and I have come to know that struggle against the self is very good for our marriage, and our children.

No…truth and opinion aren’t as blurry as you’d like to believe it is. Truth is a Person, in fact a Trinity of Persons.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

I made that suggestion, and I AM the child of divorced parents. Believe me, when I look back on my life, the suggestion that my father was disposable hurts most of all.

After the divorce, he moved several states away and I almost never saw him, although he did faithfully send support checks. My grief and longing for him was continuing stepped on, and dismissed, and when I questioned the divorce, and voiced a longing to have him in my life more, I was accused of not being supportive of my mother (who asked for the divorce). He was seen as a support check, nothing more, and his importance in my life was squashed. This was back in the “liberating” 70’s. Telling children they don’t “need” dads, and trying to make them feel bad when they voice the opposite is very hurtful. I’m sure children of deceased parents feel like they still “need” their parents, it is not saying they cannot be raised to productive adulthood without one, but I don’t think it is hurtful to them to acknowledge that void in their life, and to wish their parent was still here.

My parents never divorced, but I had friends whose parents were divorced… It’s difficult when a couple breaks up because, whether they’re gay or straight, there’s often a lot of anger involved and the children get thrown right into the middle of it all. A kid should never be forced to pick sides just because his/her parents don’t like each other anymore! It’s an unfair position to put them in… But I suppose when you’re hurt and angry, it’s hard to see how that affects the children involved.

And yeah, what you said about needing deceased parents is true. My mom died when about 2 and a half years ago, while I was still in my 20s… I’m not a child anymore, but I still need her every single day. And that grief has been difficult for my dad to understand.

That being said, I am among the dissenters here, and have the unpopular opinion that same gender marriage is no more harmful to children then single parenthood, from whatever reason, and at least in same gender marriage, the child presumably gets two loving parents. When I have voted, I have voted for legal rights for same gender couples, just as we do not outlaw single parenthood, I don’t think we should outlaw same gender couple parenthood, which would benefit from the legal protections of civil marriage. Believe me, I am in the minority here, but that is how I see it.

I think what you said about legal protections is really what the whole issue is about. People who oppose same-sex marriage don’t seem to understand how the legal protections also impact the children involved. Legally, they can never be recognized as a real family if they can’t get married. This can place all kinds of burdens on the family, but can also be scary should one parent die – if that parent happens to be the biological parent, the child could be taken away from the surviving parent because they’re not legally family… despite the fact that that’s the only other parent the child has ever known.

I am not judging who or how you love, only making the observation that as a woman, I am not capable of being a dad, that my son could tell the difference from very young childhood, and that dads are not disposable commodities, but important to children’s development, as I observed. Can it be overcome? I’m sure there are many same gender couples raising fantastic children. But by looking at the big picture we see the role of the dad marginalized over and over again, and the overall effect is very bad for society.

I’m a huge supporter of father’s rights, because in this day and age, they seem to have very little rights to begin with. It’s sad, but true. There are also many kids out there now who were raised by gay parents, speaking out for their parents’ rights… They grew up in loving families, their parents were supportive, and the kids have turned out perfectly fine. All they want is to see their parents’ relationship recognized by the government. Like Zach Wahls said about his gay parents, in response to Mitt Romney: “Governor Romney says he’s against same-sex marriage because every child deserves a mother and a father. I think every child deserves a family as loving and committed as mine.” It has so little to do with gender, and everything to do with love and support.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

No. The goal Is not to avoid alienating anyone at the cost of the truth, which is the pursuit of everyone’s greatest good. Beatitude is the goal, at any cost.

If we over focus on “emotions” we become cloudy-headed about the real goal.

Earlier here I posted my own OPINION on how I try to defend what is good and true for all, the traditional family, sacramental union, a foretaste of Divine Union. Living my marriage well, as a life long personal offering to God for the intention of my wife, is the best way I know how to defend traditional marriage. It’s indirect, it doesn’t force itself on others and I pray our example is used by the Holy Spirit to do great things, far beyond what my defective abilities can do in defending what is good.

Living marriage this way actually becomes a point of attraction for others who over the years may never ask about the joy in our marriage, but it may help them still wonder about the marriage. I have had several friends ask me why it seems my marriage works, and this leads to good discussions about what love really is…it’s total self-donation. I never claim to have a perfect marriage but my wife and I have come to know that struggle against the self is very good for our marriage, and our children.

No…truth and opinion aren’t as blurry as you’d like to believe it is. Truth is a Person, in fact a Trinity of Persons.

I see the word “truth” used a lot on here, as if it validates everything. I’m going to try to put this as delicately as possible, because I don’t want to insult anyone’s religious beliefs… But, just because you believe your religion is true, doesn’t actually make it true. Believing that God doesn’t want same-sex marriage to be legal, doesn’t mean that’s truthfully what God wants. It’s a human opinion attributed to God. Calling it the truth doesn’t make it true – it is, and always will be, a belief. From my perspective, it’s actually a tremendous falsehood. And honestly, that has very little to do with emotions for me… Denying the validity of same-sex relationships violates my conscience to the core, and I could never go against my conscience, no matter how “true” someone told me it would be to do so.

All that being said, I do agree with your approach of living your marriage in a way that makes it a point of attraction to others. Even same-sex couples can learn from that! To me, the way one lives is always the best form of evangelization in general. Words are often meaningless and can alienate people, but letting your light shine forth and attracting people by what you *do *has a far greater impact on the world.

 

[Edward_H]

I see the word “truth” used a lot on here, as if it validates everything. I’m going to try to put this as delicately as possible, because I don’t want to insult anyone’s religious beliefs… But, just because you believe your religion is true, doesn’t actually make it true. Believing that God doesn’t want same-sex marriage to be legal, doesn’t mean that’s truthfully what God wants. It’s a human opinion attributed to God. Calling it the truth doesn’t make it true – it is, and always will be, a belief. From my perspective, it’s actually a tremendous falsehood. And honestly, that has very little to do with emotions for me… Denying the validity of same-sex relationships violates my conscience to the core, and I could never go against my conscience, no matter how “true” someone told me it would be to do so.

All that being said, I do agree with your approach of living your marriage in a way that makes it a point of attraction to others. Even same-sex couples can learn from that! To me, the way one lives is always the best form of evangelization in general. Words are often meaningless and can alienate people, but letting your light shine forth and attracting people by what you *do *has a far greater impact on the world.

Usually when you hear someone saying “let me put this as delicately as possible…” it reveals more about them than their eventual point.

I didn’t mention a single word about religion, a religion, or any religion. Truth exists outside of us. That’s the problem with your point, and your whole world view. You have an egocentric view of truth, and thus we see evidence in your posts indicating that truth is subjective.

A worm called relativism has crawled inside your brain.

The radical and terminal difference with “same sex” couplings “living that way” is they are living in line with their own standard, not God’s; egocentrism again.

 

[Edward_H]

Marriage, sacramental marriage, properly understood is a submission to God’s will. It isn’t claiming a right, it’s seeking to serve God in the way He intended and esigned us; it’s fulfilling His intention, not pursuing our interests, preferences, tendencies, will, or proclivities.

Just because many hetero couples don’t understand this higher calling of marriage…and instead pursue marriage for other reasons, perhaps some selfish, doesn’t mean that people who want to have a homosexual coupling and call it something it is not, can do so in line with the truth that God has given us through the Church, whether in Scripture or in its long Tradition.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Usually when you hear someone saying “let me put this as delicately as possible…” it reveals more about them than their eventual point.

I didn’t mention a single word about religion, a religion, or any religion. Truth exists outside of us. That’s the problem with your point, and your whole world view. You have an egocentric view of truth, and thus we see evidence in your posts indicating that truth is subjective.

A worm called relativism has crawled inside your brain.

The radical and terminal difference with “same sex” couplings “living that way” is they are living in line with their own standard, not God’s; egocentrism again.

Gee, what kind words. /sarcasm

All I meant by “putting it delicately” was that I didn’t mean to insult your religion, despite the fact that I find certain dogmas problematic – both morally and logically.

But if this has nothing to do with religion, then can you explain to me how you can possibly know the truth without it being subjective on your part? Who taught you the truth, and how do you know it’s the truth?

And if you speak of God’s standards, then it has everything to do with religion because my God obviously has different standards than yours. How do you prove which one of us is right without being subjective and egocentric? Same-sex couples live according to what is natural for them – it would be unnatural for them pretend to love someone they have no feelings for just because other people say that’s what God wants.

 

[Edward_H]

Gee, what kind words. /sarcasm

All I meant by “putting it delicately” was that I didn’t mean to insult your religion, despite the fact that I find certain dogmas problematic – both morally and logically.

But if this has nothing to do with religion, then can you explain to me how you can possibly know the truth without it being subjective on your part? Who taught you the truth, and how do you know it’s the truth?

And if you speak of God’s standards, then it has everything to do with religion because my God obviously has different standards than yours. How do you prove which one of us is right without being subjective and egocentric? Same-sex couples live according to what is natural for them – it would be unnatural for them pretend to love someone they have no feelings for just because other people say that’s what God wants.

As the author of those words I can plainly say there wasn’t any unkindness or sarcasm in those words at all. I’ve just learned that people have a way of revealing prides and vanities and other things about them in cute little expressions.

Again, I didn’t mention my religion so you couldn’t possibly insult it.

Something can’t both be and not be in the same way. That is a truth that isn’t subjective.

I can’t be…you can’t be…the result of a infinite causal chain. That has no subjectivity in it at all. It just is the truth.

 

[Ohana]

I am going to try again here. I posted early and was told I was not following Church teaching which I did not intend to do. Let me explain that I am in the helping professions, and as such learned early on that you meet the person where he/she is at. If one is able to understand and accept the person where they are, one of two things (at least) can happen. They become more able to accept themselves as they are - a good base to move on from, or you can join them in a search for a better “place” in life.

I agree that acting on SSA is not licit according to Church teaching. The Church’s teaching is valid from a biblical point of view, but also in the natural order. Homosexuality is not and cannot be procreative. While sex may not be an individual need (need defined as something you will die in the absence of such as water, food, etc) it is a species need. No heterosexual activity - no future generations. So, I do not argue with the absolute position on SSA/homosexuality.

On the other hand, I have met and ached for some people with SSA. Loneliness is a painful way to live if there is not a context in which to understand it. Yes there are people of this persuasion who flaunt their “gayness”, and who in fact, may be bisexual. There are also people, and it is of these of whom I speak, who are aware of their difference from very early on in their lives. How difficult it must be to grow up being told you are not or cannot be who you are in that regard. Think of those in the past who were forced to right-handednes when they were born left-handed. It is painful. And yet, if they have grown up with adequate care, there is a drive to establish close relationships with others.

This is where I think we need to lead more with compassion rather than admonition. That is all I was trying to say.

 

[Edward_H]

I am going to try again here. I posted early and was told I was not following Church teaching which I did not intend to do. Let me explain that I am in the helping professions, and as such learned early on that you meet the person where he/she is at. If one is able to understand and accept the person where they are, one of two things (at least) can happen. They become more able to accept themselves as they are - a good base to move on from, or you can join them in a search for a better “place” in life.

I agree that acting on SSA is not licit according to Church teaching. The Church’s teaching is valid from a biblical point of view, but also in the natural order. Homosexuality is not and cannot be procreative. While sex may not be an individual need (need defined as something you will die in the absence of such as water, food, etc) it is a species need. No heterosexual activity - no future generations. So, I do not argue with the absolute position on SSA/homosexuality.

On the other hand, I have met and ached for some people with SSA. Loneliness is a painful way to live if there is not a context in which to understand it. Yes there are people of this persuasion who flaunt their “gayness”, and who in fact, may be bisexual. There are also people, and it is of these of whom I speak, who are aware of their difference from very early on in their lives. How difficult it must be to grow up being told you are not or cannot be who you are in that regard. Think of those in the past who were forced to right-handednes when they were born left-handed. It is painful. And yet, if they have grown up with adequate care, there is a drive to establish close relationships with others.

This is where I think we need to lead more with compassion rather than admonition. That is all I was trying to say.

It’s a tough problem, and it isn’t just for frustrated people who have SSA, it’s also tough for Hetero people, married and unmarried who are told by the world in every form of medium that sex makes us happy.

Sex doesn’t make us happy. Lack of it doesn’t make us sad. Something else leads us these ways. The adulterer thinks he or she will be happier. The manlooking for a prostitute or surfing porn sites thinks he’s going to be happy, happier.

And they are all big lies.

 

[Gwendolen]

I am going to try again here. I posted early and was told I was not following Church teaching which I did not intend to do. Let me explain that I am in the helping professions, and as such learned early on that you meet the person where he/she is at. If one is able to understand and accept the person where they are, one of two things (at least) can happen. They become more able to accept themselves as they are - a good base to move on from, or you can join them in a search for a better “place” in life.

I agree that acting on SSA is not licit according to Church teaching. The Church’s teaching is valid from a biblical point of view, but also in the natural order. Homosexuality is not and cannot be procreative. While sex may not be an individual need (need defined as something you will die in the absence of such as water, food, etc) it is a species need. No heterosexual activity - no future generations. So, I do not argue with the absolute position on SSA/homosexuality.

On the other hand, I have met and ached for some people with SSA. Loneliness is a painful way to live if there is not a context in which to understand it. Yes there are people of this persuasion who flaunt their “gayness”, and who in fact, may be bisexual. T**here are also people, and it is of these of whom I speak, who are aware of their difference from very early on in their lives. How difficult it must be to grow up being told you are not or cannot be who you are in that regard. Think of those in the past who were forced to right-handednes when they were born left-handed. It is painful. And yet, if they have grown up with adequate care, there is a drive to establish close relationships with others.

This is where I think we need to lead more with compassion rather than admonition. That is all I was trying to say.**

Yes, well said. The church has valid Biblical objections to SSM, but it does not address with compassion what you outlined here, and that is my hesitation.

 

[Gwendolen]

I’m a huge supporter of father’s rights, because in this day and age, they seem to have very little rights to begin with. It’s sad, but true. There are also many kids out there now who were raised by gay parents, speaking out for their parents’ rights… They grew up in loving families, their parents were supportive, and the kids have turned out perfectly fine. All they want is to see their parents’ relationship recognized by the government. Like Zach Wahls said about his gay parents, in response to Mitt Romney: “Governor Romney says he’s against same-sex marriage because every child deserves a mother and a father. I think every child deserves a family as loving and committed as mine.” It has so little to do with gender, and everything to do with love and support.

They may have “turned out perfectly fine”. OR, a son of lesbian parents may long for a father, and feel it disloyal to say so, and not feel free to verbalize such a longing, etc. There is no real way of knowing how the child is going to feel. Gay parents can have all the love and parenting skills in the world, but two lesbians does not make a father, two gay males does not make a mother. I have seen with my own eyes the benefits of a mother and father in a child’s development, and I cannot pretend that it is not important because it’s not fair to gay parents.

Zach Wahls has it right – every child does deserve a loving and committed family, and there are far too many people in the world that do NOT have the loving and committed family that he does. I do not worry about him, or feel sorry for him. Glad it turned out OK for him. But I DON’T think over the long term we can deny children their paternal parent over and over again, and not have it seriously effect someone. Some love and success stories will only carry us so far. But in families both gay and straight, the importance of fatherhood in particular is pushed aside and marginalized again and again. I certainly don’t think gay parents are the tragedy that say neglected children are, but again, I don’t think we can indefinitely deny the importance of fatherhood, esp, since that is our weakest link, without some serious repercussions.

Parental gender DOES play a role in children’s development. May not be “fair”, but sorry it just does. I can see it clearly with my own. To deny its importance is to put our desire of parenthood above our children’s best interests.

 

[Edward_H]

Yes, well said. The church has valid Biblical objections to SSM, but it does not address with compassion what you outlined here, and that is my hesitation.

I don’t understand. The Church certainly addresses these souls in its many active ministries designed to help the SSA. It doesn’t address them any further it’s doctrinal authority, any more than it does divorced and remarried people.

What many want, and they will die wanting, is for the Church to change, reinterpret, loosen its doctrinal points.