Social Consequence of Gay Marriage

[JimG]

It would be worthwhile to hear from a homosexual person who was denied the right to visit a patient due to his or her orientation.

Peace,
Ed

I’ve visited a lot of hospital patients, both relatives and non-relatives. Nobody ever asked about sexual orientation or even if I was a family member. When I was in the hospital they didn’t keep anyone from visiting. When they asked who could be given information about my condition I said “anyone.”

 

[HappyRevert]

I feel like Joe Corn and it’s not just the media. At a family gathering today I found out that my cousin’s daughter (from the midwest which I think is normally conservative) who is a lesbian and living with her girlfriend is now pregnant. I saw tons of postings on facebook on what a wonderful mother she is and how fantastic this is. Huh? If she has a girlfriend and they are in the perfect homosexual relationship, why is she sleeping with a man? Any way you look at it, that is wrong. If she visited a sperm bank, I want to know who paid for it because she doesn’t have any money. If she got a friend to donate then how can he just step aside and ignore his child??? I think our culture has gone completely bananas. Normally I’m an optimist, but I find this so insane I just don’t see a way around it. Sigh…

 

[edwest2]

HappyRevert,

All I’m pointing out is the propaganda potential of the media. I was there, in the late 1960s and 1970s, where young, unmarried men and women, their hearts and minds clouded by the Ever So Loud Voices of small groups of people that encouraged them to live together, have sex, and not get married. It’s Freedom! Freedom!! It was called “alternative lifestyles” at the time. Gosh, you mean people who are making a lifelong commitment are doing it wrong? No, they claimed. They - NOT ANY OTHER AUTHORITY - was their guide, except of course, the people they were listening to. Underground newspapers, perverted, sex filled comic books sold in (dope) Head Shops, and porn were A-OK. Ultra-Orthodox religious groups had nothing on these people. A friend of mine looked, walked and talked like he just got out of Hippie Boot Camp in the 1970s and he had to have his marijuana.

I also watched a young lady get handed a bouquet of flowers as she walked out of an abortion clinic several years back.

Don’t forget about God and prayer.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JimG]

I feel like Joe Corn and it’s not just the media. At a family gathering today I found out that my cousin’s daughter (from the midwest which I think is normally conservative) who is a lesbian and living with her girlfriend is now pregnant. I saw tons of postings on facebook on what a wonderful mother she is and how fantastic this is. Huh? If she has a girlfriend and they are in the perfect homosexual relationship, why is she sleeping with a man? Any way you look at it, that is wrong. If she visited a sperm bank, I want to know who paid for it because she doesn’t have any money. If she got a friend to donate then how can he just step aside and ignore his child??? I think our culture has gone completely bananas. Normally I’m an optimist, but I find this so insane I just don’t see a way around it. Sigh…

Obviously, lesbians don’t get each other pregnant. Neither do male homosexuals. One questions her self-identification if she is heterosexual enough to get pregnant. Even with IVF she must be impregnated by a man.

There just seems to be a lot of self-delusion in contemporary culture.

 

[Trader]

This already happened many years ago, yet I see no signs of the coercion you are saying must have happened. Just rephrase your first point slightly:

1. The state cannot recognize divorce without denying the right of children to both a father and a mother.

Your argument is obviously incorrect, since the legalisation of divorce has not had the consequences you predict.

rossum

The children of a divorced couple still have both a mother and a father, and the law in every state recognizes it. More than a few deadbeat parents, mostly fathers, have done jail time for failing to meet the financial obligations of parenthood. Custodial parents who deny visitation to the non-custodial parent have also been jailed for contempt of court.

Even the child of parents who never married has the right of support from both a mother and a a father. Domestic violence rates for same sex couples are twice the rate of heterosexual couples, and much higher than for married couples. That also has serious long-term consequences for children.

While not enough time has elapsed since the first legal reconition of same-sex unions to have long term studies of the damage done to children, there are plenty of studies comparing marriage to alternative family structures.

This year’s US Census report on poverty showed the poverty rate for a family headed by a married couple was 8%, but 40% for a family headed by a single woman. That figure understates the problem because it only looks at incomes and ignores the fact that expenses are higher for child care and medical care when there is only one parent in the house.

The Marriage Project at Rutgers University found that all alternative family structures produced results much worse than marriage, especially for children. Families with marriage had better physical and mental health, longer lifespans, higher incomes, more assets, better educational outcomes, lower crime rates, and lower rates of incarceration.

There have been a few societies where children were denied access to both of their biological parents. One was the Nazi Lebensborn project. nytimes.com/2006/11/07/world/europe/07nazi.html?_r=1
Another was the forced collectivization of the Stalin era in the Soviet Union. I think both of those fit the definition a coercive government devoid of moral authority.

 

[aragonjohn1]

What she said - renewamerica.com/columns/mostert/040325

Also I do not think many of the “couples” will not marry as less than one fifth of gay couples marry In the states that currently allow it.

• massnews.com/2005_editions/1_january/12605_UMass_spins_story.htm

Shalom

 

[rossum]

This is a ruse. Same-sex marriage is not the moral equivalent of heterosexual divorce.

It was not a ruse, and I was not talking about morals. I was merely pointing out a flaw in Trader’s logic. His(?) argument was based on the effect on children: “denying the right of children to both a father and a mother”. In those terms, same sex marriage and divorce are the same.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The children of a divorced couple still have both a mother and a father, and the law in every state recognizes it.

If you cast your net that widely, then all children of same sex couples have both a mother and a father, biology dictates that. Your argument still fails to show a real difference between divorce and same sex marriage.

rossum

 

[Trader]

If you cast your net that widely, then all children of same sex couples have both a mother and a father, biology dictates that. Your argument still fails to show a real difference between divorce and same sex marriage.

rossum

I am not the one trying to deny biology. Where does the interest in human cloning come from? The biology of fathers and mothers does not end when sperm meets egg either, and complementarity does not end with the differences in sex organs. That is the biological, psychological, and moral truth denied by advocates of same sex so-called marriage. There have already been court cases in California claiming that the father should be considered the lab technician in charge of IVF or the person with the deepest emotional attatchment to the child. Same sex so-called marriage advocates are the one proposing fantasy biology.

I certainly would not argue that divorce is a good thing. It is not, but it is sometimes necessary to protect the wellbeing of the innocent children and spouse. You might want to check out the test scores at inner city schools and compare test scores with the percentage of children raised in homes without fathers present. Although many feel that it is not true in practice, the law has considered fathers and mothers to be equal in rights and responsibility in the raising of their children.

As for this leading to coercive government, it is already happening. In Massachusetts and Illinois Catholic charities were denied government contracts and lisences to handle adoptions and foster family placements because they stood up for the welfare of children and refused to place children with same sex couples.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

If you cast your net that widely, then all children of same sex couples have both a mother and a father, biology dictates that. Your argument still fails to show a real difference between divorce and same sex marriage.

rossum

I can see why you would say that. But divorce is not a mechanism to intentionally deprive a mother and father that a child deserves to have. It is a sad accommodation when a married man and woman can no longer live with each other. OTOH, same sex ‘marriage’ by design intentionally deprives a mother and father to the child.

You will likely use the arguments of contracepting and infertile couples or couples too old to have children. The fact that there is a crisis in marriage with couples who do not want children, and there are defects or impairments to conceiving with some couples, are not reasons for the good of society and the future that we accept substitutes. The sexual difference which is a core element and inherent design of marriage in a natural order is still preserved in these less than ideal situations.
,

 

[rossum]

But divorce is not a mechanism to intentionally deprive a mother and father that a child deserves to have.

Neither is same sex marriage. I do not have the figures, but I strongly suspect that a majority of same sex marriages do not involve children at all. In those that do, a proportion are going to be children from a previous (often heterosexual) relationship.

Same sex marriage is a mechanism to allow same sex couples to have certain legal, taxation etc. rights that are not available to cohabiting couples.

It is a sad accommodation when a married man and woman can no longer live with each other. OTOH, same sex ‘marriage’ by design intentionally deprives a mother and father to the child.

I disagree. A large number of same sex marriages do not involve children at all. Some do, but nowhere near as large a proportion as with heterosexual marriages. A few of my friends are in Civil Partnerships (the closest the UK has to gay marriage), and none of them have any children in the partnership. One man had children by a previous marriage, but they stayed with his wife, until they became adults.

rossum

 

[Stratocatholic]

What do you think they will be?

Let’s imagine the Constitution is amended to allow for gay marriage. What will be the cultural and political consequences, and why do you think that these things would happen?

I would say that gay marriage is perhaps more of a threat to the survival of a healthy society, more than even abortion. Some pro-life advocates I am sure will disagree with me on this point. Abortion, while evil in itself, is an action, and people can be changed in response to that action. Abortion is a choice, always a wrong choice, but still, just a choice. The militant homosexual movement is just that. It’s an attack on the definition of who we are as persons, either as defined by religion, the Christian religion, or by the natural law. Homosexuality, which denies a natural order and the proper use of the body, in many ways is an affirmation of the pro-death mentality, which at its very core says, I will decide what a person is, how a person is, and when a person is and how the person is used or discarded. The re-definition of human sexuality is part and parcel to the culture of death which is hell bent on tearing apart the very fabric of society with their eugenics mindset.

If homosexual couples are allowed to adopt, I think we merely allow them to confer their values, and the dangers I mentioned above, to the next generation. That doesn’t mean that children adopted by gay couples will become gay, but they will be raised in a environment of tolerance which enables immoral and unnatural causes like gay marriage to move forward. It was mentioned to me just recently that at least some homosexuals object to the idea of polygamy. I find it very strange that homosexual people will object to things like adultery, bigamy and polygamy, in that in objecting to them, they are imposing external values on others, while they themselves are making the very case against imposing external values on others by seeking equal standing with married heterosexuals. I wonder if homosexuals generally support pornography and prostitution, or do their “values” prohibit such things and would they impose their own personal external values on others?

Gay marriage is not a matter of the slippery slope. It’s a case of a descending series of steps. It’s like walking down stairs. Gays are willing to take a step down to “gay marriage”, which really isn’t marriage at all. Already proponents of polygamy, bigamy and other sexual combinations are floating trial balloons to take the next step down the stairs, for their own recognition. How far down will the stairs descend? Where do they lead? Will we follow them down, or will we recognize as a society, that the world has a foundation in truth, a floor if you will, where there is a natural order to things, upon which our society must be built and only upon which it can survive? 25 years ago some never imagined that “gay marriage” would exist for a moment. Now it may help determine the outcome of a presidential election and the direction of our nation. Do we want to be a nation of values, conferred by our Creator, or will we become another of history’s failed experiments?

Just my opinion.

 

[vsedriver]

This already happened many years ago, yet I see no signs of the coercion you are saying must have happened. Just rephrase your first point slightly:

1. The state cannot recognize divorce without denying the right of children to both a father and a mother.

Your argument is obviously incorrect, since the legalisation of divorce has not had the consequences you predict.

rossum

divorce does not deny the right of children to both a mother and father. It may limit access but the parents are there prior to the divorce and continue to remain in children’s lives post divorce in most cases.

gay couples can never give a child both a mother and a father so when the state equates a gay couple with a hetero couple and enforce equality via adoption then the state is denying the rights of the child to a mother and a father.

 

[CopticChristian]

To everyone:

Consider the following:

Last year, the company that handles my IRA told me I needed to add a beneficiary. So, I added my male friend who I work with. Everything was handled over the phone. Our orientation was never brought up.

I decided to add my friend to my meager bank account. A few papers were signed and orientation was never brought up.

I worked in a hospital for nearly 10 years and had to know about all the rules. Any person could visit any patient. There was no question about orientation.

Maryland has recently allowed for gay divorce even though gay marriage is not legal there.

I could leave my worldly possessions to my next door neighbor. Similar things happen all the time, without orientation being an issue.

Peace,
Ed

So Ed,

What is it you want us to know?

You have a male friend.

You are gay and have a male friend.

You want to leave your belongings to a male friend.

You see friendship as valuable.

I don’t get it?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Neither is same sex marriage. I do not have the figures, but I strongly suspect that a majority of same sex marriages do not involve children at all. In those that do, a proportion are going to be children from a previous (often heterosexual) relationship. …

I disagree. A large number of same sex marriages do not involve children at all. Some do, but nowhere near as large a proportion as with heterosexual marriages. A few of my friends are in Civil Partnerships (the closest the UK has to gay marriage), and none of them have any children in the partnership. One man had children by a previous marriage, but they stayed with his wife, until they became adults.

rossum

From LGBT Adoptive and Foster Parenting

The Urban Institute and Williams Institute gathered information on LGBT adoption and foster care from several government data sources (Gates et al., 2007). Some of the key findings included:

 More than 50% of gay men and 41% of lesbians surveyed want to have a child.

 About 2 million LGBT people are interested in adopting.

 An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
o Gay and lesbian parents are raising 4% of all adopted children in the U.S.

 An estimated 14,100 foster children are living with lesbian or gay parents.
o Gay and lesbian parents are raising 3% of foster children in the U.S.

…

Also disturbing is that

Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute’s analysis of agency policies, practices and attitudes showed that “agencies are increasingly willing to place children with gay and lesbian adults” (2003). As a result, the number of LGBT people who are becoming adoptive parents (through both public and private agencies nationwide) is steadily increasing. The study found that:

 60% of adoption agencies accept applications from LGBT individuals and about 40% of all
agencies have placed children with adoptive parents whom they know to be gay or lesbian.

 Public, secular private, Jewish- and Lutheran-affiliated agencies are most likely to place children
with LGBT persons.

…

Already and in addition, you have heard about Catholic adoption agencies in Illinois that were forced to shut down for not agreeing to place children with same sex parent homes for adoption.

Together, these developments and trending towards more gay adoptions, not a surprising direction with legalization of same sex “marriage.” Therefore, SS"M" is a mechanism that deprives more children from a mother and a father, the optimal adoptive family structure to raise children.
,

 

[rossum]

divorce does not deny the right of children to both a mother and father. It may limit access but the parents are there prior to the divorce and continue to remain in children’s lives post divorce in most cases.

gay couples can never give a child both a mother and a father so when the state equates a gay couple with a hetero couple and enforce equality via adoption then the state is denying the rights of the child to a mother and a father.

Any child born to, or adopted by, a same sex couple has a biological mother and a biological father, one of whom might be a partner in the same sex marriage. I don’t know about US adoption law, but in the UK, single people can adopt. Where are all the dire consequences predicted?

rossum

 

[Biblepoe]

What do you think they will be?

Let’s imagine the Constitution is amended to allow for gay marriage. What will be the cultural and political consequences, and why do you think that these things would happen?

In my opinion, the chief consequences of expanding the legal definition of marriage to include gay relationships is that gay people won’t be bullied and vilified as much. Other effects is that there will be fewer children in orphanages and foster homes because gay couples would be permitted to adopt in all 50 states.

What would not be likely to happen is the government forcing churches to marry gay couples, considering that churches are still permitted to deny a marriage ceremony to a couple on the grounds that it would be a mixed-race marriage.

 

[rossum]

Already and in addition, you have heard about Catholic adoption agencies in Illinois that were forced to shut down for not agreeing to place children with same sex parent homes for adoption.

This is incorrect. Illinois decided that if an adoption agency wanted to receive state funds then it had to consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care or adoptive parents. Illinois did not force any agency to close down. Those Catholic agencies were free to continue without state funding. Their decision to close was their own.

If an agency is accepting state money, then it is required to adhere to the rules the state lays down as to how that money should be used. Just as some states bar state money from being used to fund abortions, so other states bar their money being used to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.

rossum

 

[rossum]

What would not be likely to happen is the government forcing churches to marry gay couples, considering that churches are still permitted to deny a marriage ceremony to a couple on the grounds that it would be a mixed-race marriage.

Agreed. There has been no attempt to force the Catholic Church to remarry divorcees, despite the fact that such a marriage has been legal for many years. Churches may decide who they marry.

rossum

 

[sedonaman]

…
The Urban Institute and Williams Institute gathered information on LGBT adoption and foster care from several government data sources (Gates et al., 2007). Some of the key findings included:

 More than 50% of gay men and 41% of lesbians surveyed want to have a child.

 About 2 million LGBT people are interested in adopting.

 An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
o Gay and lesbian parents are raising 4% of all adopted children in the U.S.

 An estimated 14,100 foster children are living with lesbian or gay parents.
o Gay and lesbian parents are raising 3% of foster children in the U.S.

…

Also disturbing is that

Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute’s analysis of agency policies, practices and attitudes showed that “agencies are increasingly willing to place children with gay and lesbian adults” (2003). As a result, the number of LGBT people who are becoming adoptive parents (through both public and private agencies nationwide) is steadily increasing. The study found that:

 60% of adoption agencies accept applications from LGBT individuals and about 40% of all
agencies have placed children with adoptive parents whom they know to be gay or lesbian.

 Public, secular private, Jewish- and Lutheran-affiliated agencies are most likely to place children
with LGBT persons.

…

What these studies fail to mention is that the purpose of adoption is to give children the parents they need, not to give adults the children they want.