Posted on 03/09/2010 12:18:39 PM PST by Kaslin
I will point out that many libertarians, generally considered to be conservatives, feel that marriage of any sort is none of the government's business. They believe the government should stay out of it and leave it to churches, synagogues, mosques, whatever... Since there are churches and synagogues which perform same-sex marriages they wouldn't object to that.
If marriage is a holy sacrament, is that really the business of government?
Food for thought...
I think you desire to wish your cousin happiness is well placed.
However, as you probably already realize, a homosexual relationship will not bring him happiness.
This article is not about single parents, it's about deviants.
Well said.
Since your entire argument hinges on this assumption, I curious if you have anything to substantiate this claim.
*Allow?!?! And just who gets to decide that? YOU? The government?It works both ways. Now I can turn around and ask you, why *shouldn't* gay couples be allowed to be parents? If you say no, then I can call you a nanny stater etc... The issue is far more complicated than what passes for modern conservatism gives it credit for and boils down to "how do you create a real, wholesome society in a world where the conventional rules don't work anymore?"The real question is, "What are YOU doing on FR supporting gay marriage and nanny-statism?"
Being conservative is more than reciting talking points and getting angry about homos. Liberalism avoids the issue entirely by saying that all social organizations are equal. Conservatism tries to make it tractable by going after little, easily digestible parts of social decline but ignoring the greater, far more complicated and destructive big picture.
This article is not about single parents, it's about deviants.Most "deviants" I know are far better parents than their many times divorced, selfish and irresponsible single parent brethren. It's not nearly that simple.
All children come from one flesh families.
They all have ONE mom and ONE dad.
Dad may be a sperm donor. Mom may be a surrogate mother. Regardless we all have ONE mom and ONE dad.
If that mom and dad, for whatever reasons, are not together and parenting that child. . .
the child suffers.
We as individuals and as a society have to do the best by that child.
Perhaps it means we, as a widowed spouse, raise the kid ourselves with help from our family.
Perhaps it means that we, as an abandoned spouse, find and marry a better husband/wife and they do our best as a step parent.
Perhaps it means we adopt kids who are abandoned, or foster care them.
In any event, our attempts to fix the loss are not wrong. What is wrong are the situations that caused the kids to suffer. With the exception of the inadvertent death of a parent - that is just a tragedy. At least the kid knows in that case that his parent didn’t leave him on purpose.
Actual conservatives don't consider libertarians to be conservatives.
If marriage is a holy sacrament, is that really the business of government?
Marriage licensing has been a function of government in England (where nearly all American common law derives from) for nearly 800 years. NOBODY was suggesting otherwise until the libertarians decided to side with militant homosexuals a few years back.
All children are a result of the *one flesh* union between a man and a woman. The fact that they’re no longer living with the parents who brought them into this world is totally irrelevant.
You are right and you are wrong. Yes, only a man and woman can create one flesh. No, the bible speaks of the union of a man and woman becoming one flesh. This is deeper than simple precreative math. When a man and woman commit to one another their reward is to create a child in their joined image. It is this joining between man, woman and child that is precious and holy and speaks to the spirit and soul. This is unique. Sadly, many children do not get this complete dose of mega cosmic love and are handicapped thereafter. Yes - regardless of condition, all children should be loved, but then adults should grow up and accept their adult roles. This seems to be the problem. My point is the concept of “one flesh” is heavy, big, and meaningful. It is sobering and uplifting at all times.
Best for kids, bottom line is a stable mom and dad, I agree. Single parenting can be awful. It’s hard. But - I’ve had way too much exposure to the effects of homosexuals raising kids, and they’re better off with a stable straight single parent.I disagree. I've been just as exposed to selfish single parents(primarily in the inner city) and seen the difference between their children and those of a stable homosexual parents. I'm sure the issues that come from having homosexual parents are legion however, I have yet to be mugged by a child of a two parent homosexual family.
Oops! This isn’t your DU account. This is Free Republic, where you pose as a conservative.
That's an opinion. And it's not based in fact.
Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change? - AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS
In summary, tradition and science agree that biological ties and dual gender parenting are protective for children. The family environment in which children are reared plays a critical role in forming a secure gender identity, positive emotional well-being, and optimal academic achievement. Decades of social science research documents that children develop optimally when reared by their two biological parents in a low conflict marriage. The limited research advocating childrearing by homosexual parents has severe methodological limitations. There is significant risk of harm inherent in exposing a child to the homosexual lifestyle. Given the current body of evidence, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.
We as individuals and as a society have to do the best by that child.Ding ding ding. Now the question is, *how do we do that*? Solve that problem and the problem of homosexual parents goes away.
love has nothing to do with marriage under the law
Oops! This isn’t your DU account. This is Free Republic, where you pose as a conservative.Yawn...
Many libertarians are anarchists, not conservatives.
I saw an ex-FReeper who hailed himself as a libertarian bragging on another forum that he supported homosexual marriage for years on FR under that very guise that you’re advocating, that the government shouldn’t be in the business of defining marriage.
The problem is, by insisting that the government not define marriage, it IS defining marriage. What people don’t want is that the government define marriage as between one man and one woman at a time. So they insist that the government not define it, which means that the government by default DOES define it as anything goes.
That's an opinion. And it's not based in fact.I just know what I've seen in the real world, living in the city. Like I said, I'm sure that homosexual parenting is *not as good as a stable two parent household*. However all the homosexual parents I've known have been *much* better than the single parents I've known.
By refusing to condone immorality.
Being a libertarian is being a liberal and anarchist in disguise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.