Posted on 05/21/2004 8:07:05 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Recently, a congressman whom I have known for many years and whom I greatly respect asked me about objections he’s hearing to the Federal Marriage Amendment. He said, “I don’t have a good answer when people say to me, ‘Isn’t it better for kids to be raised by two fathers or two mothers than single parents raising kids.’ Why is gay ‘marriage’ bad for kids?”
My response to him was that if two were better than one, why wouldn’t four be better than two? If it’s just a matter of the number of people in the home, then polyamory is best, or maybe we should legalize polygamy. He understood that, but he kept returning to the question of the single parent. How does the single parent model the proper role for raising children?
I think single parents—beginning with my own daughter—deserve special medals for valor. They do an heroic job under adverse circumstances. But in most cases, children know their other birth parent, and usually that parent is there when they need them. That is, except for instances of death or the most egregious desertion, children know both parents. That means children have male and female parental role models—as imperfect as they may be.
This is vitally important in understanding what’s going on with the same-sex “marriage” debate. In this whole issue our opponents are basically denying the differences between men and women and, thus, the need for children to have one of each in a family. As Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family notes, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts declared that traditional marriage, as codified in the law of the state, “identified persons by a single trait [that is, the ability to reproduce sexually] and then denies” those without that ability equal treatment under the law.
Stantongoes on to write: “The court would have us believe your wife’s only essential value as a woman is her womb or your husband’s, his seed. That, they say, is the only unique thing we, as gendered-beings, bring to the table. Everything else, the court would have us believe, is ‘bridgeable.’”
The court’s reasoning is foolish. When it comes to the family, there is a clear role for a woman and a clear role for a man. Is it possible that members of the court haven’t noticed the differences between “Mars” and “Venus”? Both roles are essential to the proper functioning of many aspects of our society—certainly for the character formation and nurturing of kids.
In considering the meaning of marriage in the public square, our first consideration ought to be what is good for society as a whole. We are fighting to preserve an institution that is required for procreation and is the best possible environment for raising children. That’s been proven. Marriage is where the future comes from.
Maybe it’s not always ideally fulfilled, like in single-parent families, but that doesn’t mean we should alter the law to reflect the lowest common denominator.
This debate is about what is best for America’s children and what it means to have a just society. And the evidence over the centuries is on the side of traditional marriage, which is why on Monday President Bush gave such a ringing endorsement to the marriage amendment. But the critical thing here, friends, is to learn how to make this case well so our secular neighbors understand it. There’s nothing less than the survival of our civilization at stake.
The question I posed was important to me. I was born with an intersexed condition and as a result, cannot have children at all. No surgeries or prayers can fix that. We deal with what life hands us. I was literally handed a mixed bag but that should be no reason to exclude me from marrying a nice girl sometime in the future.
My concern is that there will be some narrow definition handed down or perhaps something so vague that we will fight in the courts about it for years to come. All because legilators don't care to reseach issues completely before bowing to the masses and attempting that re-election.
Just because someone doesn't completely agree with you does not mean they fall within a certain part of society. I expect an attempt at character assassination from a liberal, not from someone on this board.
Resrouces for medical intersex conditions: Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia and Intersex Society of North America.
I asked a question to someone who posted a comment on the article, not on the article itself. Rogueleader answered. Perhaps you should read everything through before shooting off a reply.
I've had a vasectomy; I don't even entertain worries that I will be prohibited from marrying due to my chosen method of contraception.
Your effort to divert the discussion into rare and obscure conceptualizations shows an agenda to divert attention from the realities at hand, namely that the degenerates are seeking to destroy the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman, as a means to empower their degeneracy. Keep helping them and you will be seen for what you defend.
So, let's see, I torched your absurd main point like the Hindenburg, and made the additional point that this issue comes down to whether the Constitution means "Judges own you, so suck it up" or not, and your only counter is to whine about procedure.
I recommend you quit whining and hit the silk before that fire gets to the main fuel tanks.
I think there's a disconnect here.
1) I responded to Rogueleader's statement that marriage was for every child to have a mother and a father.
2) I responded asking about those who cannot have children and how they fit within RL's definition of marriage.
3) RL stated that they could serve as a role model for others and would be allowed to be married.
Intent of the first post was asking for RL opinion based on a different set of facts (infertile couples). My other post stated why this was important to me. IE, if procreation became a requirement for marriage it would leave many other straight people out in the cold.
Why would I be concerned? It would leave myself or future wife out in the cold as marriage does afford some rights and privileges.
If legislation is going to be pushed, then multiple factors have to be considered before passing anything. To do any less will create a legal monster that will take years to sort out. During that time who knows what can happen and may slip under the wire?
I am truly sorry that someone who advocates a smart and resonable approach to this is dismissed and labeled.
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.