How do i come up with a good reason why governments shouldn't allow same sex marriage?

[Rin]

Abu and Gary:

Your positions are incommensurable.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I respect your sentiments, but I’m afraid that morals get imposed on somebody, either way. When same-sex marriage is legal, children are imposed upon, since they are intentionally denied either a mother or a father.

Good Morning Prodigal Son: Children are raised by divorced parents, single parents, two sets of parents because of remarriage, unwed parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents because of irresponsible parents, and parents who can’t feed them. Thousands of children on this planet die from hunger every day. And none of this is illegal. And with regard to legality, many children are raised by parents who are drug dealers and other sorts of common criminals, raised by parents who abuse them, and raised by parents who molest them. And yet what we are spending time discussing here is the fact that gay people might be able to raise a family. That’s rather interesting.

Fact is, life frequently doesn’t get expressed in ways that we think it should. What we think life should be has little to do with what it really is or turns out to be. It’s probably more about living it as fully as you can without regard to the particulars. Because the particulars in life seldom look like the templates we try to jam life into.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Abu and Gary:

Your positions are incommensurable.

That is very true.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Prodigal_Son]

To play devil’s advocate, they’re also intentionally denied either an extra mother or father when SSM is illegal, in case they wanted that

The Church allowed men who had been joined as brothers to adopt children in many places in the middle ages. It can’t really be compared to gay marriage since it was supposed to be (and probably often was, since the puritan sex craze was not even on the horizon yet) chaste, but it means that the Church allowed for a child to be raised without a mother. Because of that, the “robbed of a father/mother” argument just doesn’t work.

Note that I’m speaking about adoption - artificial insemination is immoral for anyone, be they straight, lesbian or single.

It’s a FAR different thing to take a child that already exists and place them with two parents of the same sex than to *deliberately bring *a child into existence planning not to give it a mother (or a father).

I grew up without a father, Rin. Trust me, another mother wouldn’t take his place.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Good Morning Prodigal Son: Children are raised by divorced parents, single parents, two sets of parents because of remarriage, unwed parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents because of irresponsible parents, and parents who can’t feed them. Thousands of children on this planet die from hunger every day. And none of this is illegal. And with regard to legality, many children are raised by parents who are drug dealers and other sorts of common criminals, raised by parents who abuse them, and raised by parents who molest them. And yet what we are spending time discussing here is the fact that gay people might be able to raise a family. That’s rather interesting.

I don’t understand what your argument here is. It looks like:

1. People grow up without a mother sometimes.
   2, Therefore, we have no obligation to help children have mothers.

That’s a bizarre argument. People also grow up with manipulative and evil parents – and that’s not illegal either – but clearly we should do everything we can to make sure parents aren’t manipulative and evil.

When a child grows up with a single mom or a complex parenting situation, this is unfortunate. The law has always tried to encourage such things not to happen. One way the law encourages this not to happen is by establishing marriage as a norm which we promote. Once we place the label “marriage” on a relationship that has the potential to intentionally deprive a child of a parent of one or the other sex, we are promoting this norm. You can’t sidestep that.

This is why the Church has said that every Catholic has a duty to oppose same-sex marriage.

Fact is, life frequently doesn’t get expressed in ways that we think it should. What we think life should be has little to do with what it really is or turns out to be.

Is that what I should tell my kids when I abandon them, justifying myself by saying that “these things happen” anyway? If the principles you’re suggesting are true, then I don’t understand why we should work for justice in our personal lives, either.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I don’t understand what your argument here is. It looks like:

1. People grow up without a mother sometimes.
   2, Therefore, we have no obligation to help children have mothers.

That’s a bizarre argument. People also grow up with manipulative and evil parents – and that’s not illegal either – but clearly we should do everything we can to make sure parents aren’t manipulative and evil.

When a child grows up with a single mom or a complex parenting situation, this is unfortunate. The law has always tried to encourage such things not to happen. One way the law encourages this not to happen is by establishing marriage as a norm which we promote. Once we place the label “marriage” on a relationship that has the potential to intentionally deprive a child of a parent of one or the other sex, we are promoting this norm. You can’t sidestep that.

This is why the Church has said that every Catholic has a duty to oppose same-sex marriage.

Is that what I should tell my kids when I abandon them, justifying myself by saying that “these things happen” anyway? If the principles you’re suggesting are true, then I don’t understand why we should work for justice in our personal lives, either.

The argument is that there are a lot of bad situations that children are raised in, but my religious beliefs and your religious beliefs about homosexuality do not make homosexuality a bad situation to raise a child in, and certainly not unacceptable to all people in all places. It is fine with some Protestant churches, fine with many atheists, fine with many Buddhists and if you are honest with yourself, probably secretly fine with many Catholics.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The argument is that there are a lot of bad situations that children are raised in, but my religious beliefs and your religious beliefs about homosexuality do not make homosexuality a bad situation to raise a child in, and certainly not unacceptable to all people in all places. It is fine with some Protestant churches, fine with many atheists, fine with many Buddhists and if you are honest with yourself, probably secretly fine with many Catholics.

Sorry to say it, Gary, but this is just relativism.

Answer this one question: Is not having a mother bad for a child?

If the answer is yes, then religion doesn’t enter into it. It doesn’t matter if many atheists or Protestants or whoever thinks it doesn’t harm children. The fact is that it does.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Prodigal Son: Sorry to say it, Gary, but this is just relativism.

Good Morning again Prodigal Son: Unfortunately for people who would like the world to fit their particular ideas on religion or God, many things in this world are indeed relative, and laws are relative to the people governed by them. This thread is relative to how governments who represent large diverse populations address gay marriage. It is not about how a hypothetical Catholic theocracy would govern.

Answer this one question: Is not having a mother bad for a child?

To be a child, one must be born. To be born, one must have a mother. At least for now that’s how it is. Now, if on the other hand you are born to a mother and become motherless, it is relative as to whether or not that’s a bad thing. In and of itself, it’s simply a set of conditions. It is also relative as to whether or not your mother is a meth head and sells your body to support her habit or your mother belongs to a cult that misuses you, or a million other situations that real children live through every day that are far worse than being raised by a gay couple. Unless homophobia causes one to reason that these other things are better.

If the answer is yes, then religion doesn’t enter into it. It doesn’t matter if many atheists or Protestants or whoever thinks it doesn’t harm children. The fact is that it does. :shrug.

The fact is that you and have been taught to think that it does. Others have been taught think otherwise, or have come to reason otherwise. The thread is about how laws represent all of us. Insofar as I am aware, the current laws allow you and I to be heterosexual and to have children as we see fit. It allows others to do as they see fit as well.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Rin]

It’s a FAR different thing to take a child that already exists and place them with two parents of the same sex than to *deliberately bring *a child into existence planning not to give it a mother (or a father).

I more or less agree with this, which is why my view only extends to adoption.

I grew up without a father, Rin. Trust me, another mother wouldn’t take his place.

This is the experience of many (perhaps most), but not in all cases - my comment about wanting two mothers was meant jokingly, as a reference to the phase most children have, where they wish they had two mothers or two fathers

But more seriously, people’s experience varies. For some, never having had a father would be better. For others, it is the opposite. With regards to adoption, I see no reason to prefer foster care or an orphanage over a same-sex couple. And I am against artificial contraception or surrogacy for anyone, so it’s not really relevant to the gay/straight debates.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Good Morning again Prodigal Son: Unfortunately for people who would like the world to fit their particular ideas on religion or God, many things in this world are indeed relative, and laws are relative to the people governed by them. This thread is relative to how governments who represent large diverse populations address gay marriage. It is not about how a hypothetical Catholic theocracy would govern.

No one’s talking about a theocracy. My reasons for opposing gay marriage have NOTHING to do with religion.

To be a child, one must be born. To be born, one must have a mother. At least for now that’s how it is. Now, if on the other hand you are born to a mother and become motherless, it is relative as to whether or not that’s a bad thing. In and of itself, it’s simply a set of conditions. It is also relative as to whether or not your mother is a meth head and sells your body to support her habit or your mother belongs to a cult that misuses you, or a million other situations that real children live through every day that are far worse than being raised by a gay couple. Unless homophobia causes one to reason that these other things are better.

I’m going to let the charge of homophobia pass – it’s ironic, given the fact that I’m attracted to other men myself.

Of course, I don’t treat gay couples any different from single parents. I think laws should discourage gay parenting, and laws should discourage single parenting. Laws should discourage any situation that leads to a child not having a mom and a dad. This includes discouraging premarital sexual activity of all kinds, and discouraging divorce. The reason for such laws is not harmfully discriminatory.

You never answered, by the way: does a child deserve a mom and a dad?

The fact is that you and have been taught to think that it does. Others have been taught think otherwise, or have come to reason otherwise. The thread is about how laws represent all of us. Insofar as I am aware, the current laws allow you and I to be heterosexual and to have children as we see fit. It allows others to do as they see fit as well.

(1) You assume I am heterosexual. Interesting assumption.
(2) Suppose that a society included a large group of people that supported eating dead human bodies. Would it be right to allow them to do so, since “they think it’s right”?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I more or less agree with this, which is why my view only extends to adoption.

I’ve considered this view seriously, because I do think it’s much better to have two responsible gay parents of the same sex than to have one irresponsible parent. However, it won’t do. If you say gay couples can marry, but not “create their own” children, then you are setting up a caste system, where there are superior and inferior marriages. It’s as absurd as “separate, but equal”. If you say a person is entitled to the rights of marriage, then you can’t withhold from them the right to have their own biological children.

Gay couples are not equal to straight couples with respect to their ability to care for a child’s needs, no matter how wonderful and loving the gay couple is. This does not, of course, mean that (in individual cases) a gay couple might not be better parents than a straight couple. But it does mean that establishing gay marriages as a norm (or a normative variant of a norm) is seriously questionable.

 

[Rin]

I’ve considered this view seriously, because I do think it’s much better to have two responsible gay parents of the same sex than to have one irresponsible parent. However, it won’t do. If you say gay couples can marry, but not “create their own” children, then you are setting up a caste system, where there are superior and inferior marriages. It’s as absurd as “separate, but equal”. If you say a person is entitled to the rights of marriage, then you can’t withhold from them the right to have their own biological children.

That is only true if you assume that artificial insemination is in place in a society. If no individual is allowed to access it, then there is no inferiority in denying it.

That said, I’m against having marriage in civil/common law at all. Governments should only regulate partnerships. Marriage is a religious institution, and should not be governed by the secular state.

I am however aware that such a change would entitle gay couples to the same rights as straight couples, and I’m not opposed to it. While I get your point about artificial insemination, I disagree that the main problem is that children are made with no mother or no father. The main problem is that the technology is used at all.

Gay couples are not equal to straight couples with respect to their ability to care for a child’s needs, no matter how wonderful and loving the gay couple is.

I’m not really interested in this line of thought, other than that the Church did indeed allow same-sex couples (leaving “gay” out of it since the institution of brother-making made no assumptions about sexuality, just like “my” partnership laws wouldn’t) to adopt for centuries. This must mean there’s no evil in letting two men or two women raise a child - if there was, it would not have been allowed. Therefore, this line of reasoning is a blind path.

This does not, of course, mean that (in individual cases) a gay couple might not be better parents than a straight couple. But it does mean that establishing gay marriages as a norm (or a normative variant of a norm) is seriously questionable.

I sort of agree and sort of disagree - again, because I don’t think marriage should be governed by the secular state. And I think brother-making should be reintroduced in the Church; then it’s not a normative variant of a norm, it’s something completely other than marriage. And dare I say, actually something the Church saw as a higher calling - chaste, brotherly/sisterly love. I do not find anything problematic at all about such a couple raising a child.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

Sorry to say it, Gary, but this is just relativism.

Answer this one question: Is not having a mother bad for a child?

If the answer is yes, then religion doesn’t enter into it. It doesn’t matter if many atheists or Protestants or whoever thinks it doesn’t harm children. The fact is that it does.

Surely this question isn’t an accurate representation of what you’re asking?

I assume you mean “Is a child being raised by a same-sex (male in this case) couple bad for it?” and not actually “Is not having a mother bad for a child?”.

Not having a mother can include single parent households, which can be caused by numrous situations (divorce, death) and 50% (male only) of same-sex households. Arguably it can include children raised by grandparent and aunties too. The statistics for all of these are very different, showing that “No mother” is not the main contributing factor in these situations.

Basically, if you want to ask if a child raised by same-sex parents adversely affects the child, you can’t ask “Is not having a mother bad for a child?” because that encapsulates a lot of situations that have nothing to do with the answer you’re looking for. Instead you should ask “Is being raised by two same-sex parents bad for a child?”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Surely this question isn’t an accurate representation of what you’re asking?

I assume you mean “Is a child being raised by a same-sex (male in this case) couple bad for it?” and not actually “Is not having a mother bad for a child?”.

Not having a mother can include single parent households, which can be caused by numrous situations (divorce, death) and 50% (male only) of same-sex households. Arguably it can include children raised by grandparent and aunties too. The statistics for all of these are very different, showing that “No mother” is not the main contributing factor in these situations.

Basically, if you want to ask if a child raised by same-sex parents adversely affects the child, you can’t ask “Is not having a mother bad for a child?” because that encapsulates a lot of situations that have nothing to do with the answer you’re looking for. Instead you should ask “Is being raised by two same-sex parents bad for a child?”.

No, you’re missing my point entirely. I think that all the children who lack a mother, for whatever reason, are harmed by this lack. So the problem isn’t same-sex parents, as such – it’s that these parents can’t be mother AND father to children. If you discussed bringing a child into the world in a family with three adults, say, two fathers and one mother, I would find this abnormal, but I would be open to allowing it (so long as the relationships were stable, as in certain historical polygamous marriages). And I’m fine with a motherless scenario playing itself out because of circumstances beyond our control, like a mother dying.

But if you want me to vote for a law *deliberately *depriving children of mothers, in advance, there’s no way.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

No, you’re missing my point entirely. I think that all the children who lack a mother, for whatever reason, are harmed by this lack. So the problem isn’t same-sex parents, as such – it’s that these parents can’t be mother AND father to children. If you discussed bringing a child into the world in a family with three adults, say, two fathers and one mother, I would find this abnormal, but I would be open to allowing it (so long as the relationships were stable, as in certain historical polygamous marriages). And I’m fine with a motherless scenario playing itself out because of circumstances beyond our control, like a mother dying.

But if you want me to vote for a law *deliberately *depriving children of mothers, in advance, there’s no way.

Different argument. You asked if not having a mother was bad for a child, in response to same-sex couples raising children. You’re equating the lack of mother to having a negative effect on the childrens well-being, with nothing to back it up apart from that assumption.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Prodigal_Son: No one’s talking about a theocracy. My reasons for opposing gay marriage have NOTHING to do with religion.

Good Evening Prodigal Son: What does your opposition to gay marriage have to do with?

I’m going to let the charge of homophobia pass – it’s ironic, given the fact that I’m attracted to other men myself.

It is not unusual for homophobes to have homosexual tendencies. It is in fact quite common. I have noticed that very often the televangelists who rail the loudest against homosexuality are the ones who get caught with male prostitutes and such. from my point of view, a lot of people are simply fighting with who and what they are instead of simply trying to find happiness within the contexts they have found themselves.

Of course, I don’t treat gay couples any different from single parents. I think laws should discourage gay parenting, and laws should discourage single parenting. Laws should discourage any situation that leads to a child not having a mom and a dad. This includes discouraging premarital sexual activity of all kinds, and discouraging divorce. The reason for such laws is not harmfully discriminatory.

People end up as single parents and find themselves in many positions that don’t fit a proper 1950’s television portrait of what a family or life ought to be. And this doesn’t make their lives wrong. It simply makes some of our ideas unrealistic.

You never answered, by the way: does a child deserve a mom and a dad?

I think that children like all creatures have a right to life, love and happiness. One way to take that from them is to ostracize, criticize or legislate against whatever life they manage to find. I do not think that life is about a given structure or convention or even a given set of goals. It’s about the days life is filled with and what those days are filled with - whether they are filled with love and caring, happiness and experience, or strict conformity to ideas on how it should be structured.

(

1. You assume I am heterosexual. Interesting assumption.
   (2) Suppose that a society included a large group of people that supported eating dead human bodies. Would it be right to allow them to do so, since “they think it’s right?”

1. I am heterosexual.
2. I have serious problems with eating animals. I find it cruel and repulsive. Animals do not have the ability to give consent to being raised in horrible conditions and then dragged off to slaughter. But I do not support legislation that prohibits you from doing it.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Different argument. You asked if not having a mother was bad for a child, in response to same-sex couples raising children. You’re equating the lack of mother to having a negative effect on the childrens well-being, with nothing to back it up apart from that assumption.

Need I quote 100 years of scientific research, and hundreds of thousands of studies about the benefits of having a mother – starting, for instance, with the advantages of breast milk? If you like, I can list some of that research. I assure you it is not “nothing”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Good Evening Prodigal Son: What does your opposition to gay marriage have to do with?

A desire for children to have a mother *and *a father, because I believe that lacking a mom or a dad is harmful to children.

I live in Detroit, the fatherless city. I assure you there is a connection between the absence of dads and the presence of violence.

It is not unusual for homophobes to have homosexual tendencies. It is in fact quite common. I have noticed that very often the televangelists who rail the loudest against homosexuality are the ones who get caught with male prostitutes and such. from my point of view, a lot of people are simply fighting with who and what they are instead of simply trying to find happiness within the contexts they have found themselves.

Do you have any idea how presumptuous this sounds? It is absolutely outrageous for you to call me a homophobe. Do you feel like you need to resort to linguistic manipulation and name-calling to establish your point?

You may be interested to check my post history, Gary. I have spent countless hours on this forum defending gay people and attempting to heal the divisions between the gay community and the Church. I plan on spending a good deal of my future fighting for the decent treatment of gay teenagers in the Church. I’m hardly repressed.

Until two months ago, I was agnostic on gay marriage. Then I read a Vatican document on the subject, a document that focused children, and said that children deserve a mother and a father. Since I lost my father at an early age, this resonated with me. And I have talked to countless people who lacked father or mother, and who were damaged by this absence.

By accusing me of homophobia, you are alleging that my motivation for my view has nothing to do with my concern for children. That is insulting and outrageous. You may either apologize, or we are done with this discussion.

People end up as single parents and find themselves in many positions that don’t fit a proper 1950’s television portrait of what a family or life ought to be. And this doesn’t make their lives wrong. It simply makes some of our ideas unrealistic.

When did I say their lives were wrong? I know and love many single parents myself. (And, circumstantially, I think the 1950s nuclear family is a false and dangerous image of family life. Children thrive in extended families. But the 50’s view is better than our image today.)

I think that children like all creatures have a right to life, love and happiness. One way to take that from them is to ostracize, criticize or legislate against whatever life they manage to find. I do not think that life is about a given structure or convention or even a given set of goals. It’s about the days life is filled with and what those days are filled with - whether they are filled with love and caring, happiness and experience, or strict conformity to ideas on how it should be structured.

You have a curious idea that it is impossible to love a person and at the same time give them structure. I wonder where this idea comes from.

1. I am heterosexual.

Huh? I don’t understand. I was saying that “I’m not heterosexual”, and you reply that you are. Did you have some idea that I assumed you were gay? Why would I assume that?

Oh, and you STILL haven’t answered my question: does a child deserve a mom and a dad?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Prodigal Son: A desire for children to have a mother *and *a father, because I believe that lacking a mom or a dad is harmful to children.

I am of the opinion that what a mom and dad give to a child that is most valuable is love and security. I do not think anyone has to be of a particular gender or sexual orientation to provide that.

I live in Detroit, the fatherless city. I assure you there is a connection between the absence of dads and the presence of violence.

Likewise, I do not think that gay parenting is paramount among the causes of Detroit’s problems.

Do you have any idea how presumptuous this sounds? It is absolutely outrageous for you to call me a homophobe. Do you feel like you need to resort to linguistic manipulation and name-calling to establish your point?

It was not my intent to call you a name. Being homophobic is a condition. You simply seem torn to me. But this thread is not about you or me.

You may be interested to check my post history, Gary. I have spent countless hours on this forum defending gay people and attempting to heal the divisions between the gay community and the Church. I plan on spending a good deal of my future fighting for the decent treatment of gay teenagers in the Church. I’m hardly repressed.

Until two months ago, I was agnostic on gay marriage. Then I read a Vatican document on the subject, a document that focused children, and said that children deserve a mother and a father. Since I lost my father at an early age, this resonated with me. And I have talked to countless people who lacked father or mother, and who were damaged by this absence.

I lost my father at the age of 4. It was the best thing that ever happened to me.

By accusing me of homophobia, you are alleging that my motivation for my view has nothing to do with my concern for children. That is insulting and outrageous. You may either apologize, or we are done with this discussion.

I have never asserted that homophobic people have less concern for children than anyone else. If you are not homophobic, then that is fine. But there is no need for me to apologize because I hold no contempt for homophobes. It’s simply a condition. No slight was intended and I cannot apologize for how you perceive something that was not intended.

When did I say their lives were wrong? I know and love many single parents myself. (And, circumstantially, I think the 1950s nuclear family is a false and dangerous image of family life. Children thrive in extended families. But the 50’s view is better than our image today.)

I read this three or four times and I still don’t understand where you stand.

You have a curious idea that it is impossible to love a person and at the same time give them structure. I wonder where this idea comes from.

No, I just don’t think that love and structure are necessarily connected or mutually dependent.

Huh? I don’t understand. I was saying that “I’m not heterosexual”, and you reply that you are. Did you have some idea that I assumed you were gay? Why would I assume that?

I had thought that you had stated that you presumed that I was heterosexual. I simply confirmed it. If I were gay, I would have confirmed that as well. It wouldn’t matter to me. Whatever I am, my intent is to simply be that.

Oh, and you STILL haven’t answered my question: does a child deserve a mom and a dad?

I did.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But there is no need for me to apologize because I hold no contempt for homophobes. It’s simply a condition. No slight was intended and I cannot apologize for how you perceive something that was not intended.

Sure you can. If I implied that a person was a racist (which is also a condition), and it was clear that I was wrong, I would apologize – even if I didn’t mean the word as a “slight”.

I did.

It was a yes or no question. You didn’t answer it.