Ruth Institute Blog

Thank you for this post. A lot of points I never thought about that make complete sense.

It is kind of funny that those of us who support one woman and one man are considered narrow minded when in reality it is just the opposite. The scope for lesbian parenthood is so narrow they don’t even see the long term effects of what they are proposing.

You guys are sooooooo weird. I really feel like I have entered the Twilight Zone sometimes when I read these posts. If same-sex marriage is legalized, are all women going to suddenly (or even gradually) “turn” lesbian and get artificially inseminated? You do know that being gay is not contagious, don’t you? Are heterosexual couples going to stop having and raising children? Why must you act as though there is some competition between same-sex parenting and heterosexual parenting? Considering that 90+% of the population is heterosexual, I’d be willing to wager that lesbian parenting isn’t going to have any negative effect whatsoever on heterosexual parenting. Oh wait, you mean to tell me that lesbians have been raising kids in this country for over 30 years now and we haven’t experienced any wide-scale efforts to make sure that all parents are lesbians or to make all babies the product of donor insemination?

“A lot of points I never thought about that make complete sense.” Only if you completely ignore logic that is.

What exactly ARE the long-term effects of lesbian parenting or of same-sex marriage? Happy families? Happy children? GASP! NO! We can’t have that!!

Reality check on aisle 5 please!

Heidi, you completely missed the point. They don’t want you to believe that lesbian parents are just as good as… no, they want us all to believe that lesbians are better parents than a heterosexual couple, so they can ram their 10% of the population’s perverted lifestyle down our throats and teach our children that there is nothing wrong with it, “see, our kids are happier, better adjusted, make better grades, don’t have any problems…” There are terrible and good parents on both sides of this issue, but don’t force me or my family to condone the alternative life style. I have the right to teach my children that homosexuality is a sin in God’s eyes.

Yup, you can teach your children whatever hateful nonsense you want to, Melly. As parents, we all have a fundamental constitutional right to raise our children as we see fit. Just like racists used to teach their kids that God wanted the races to stay separated. I have no desire to teach YOUR kids anything. I just want YOUR kids to keep their inherited hatred away from MINE.

Your characterization of sexual orientation as a “perverted lifestyle” or “alternative life style” only betrays your ignorance. Oh, and guess what? No one is asking you to “condone” anything. I could care less whether I have your approval to live my own life as I see fit. But I will assert my right and my children’s rights to equal protection under the law, and I will assert our rights to be free from harassment and state-sponsored discrimination. And you know something Melly? We are going to win this one eventually, although it will probably take a U.S. Supreme Court decision to get us there, just like it took one to get rid of marriage laws that discriminated against interracial couples and their children. But it’s coming…and when it does, you will still be protected under the First Amendment to speak your hateful attitudes, even as the rest of the world passes you by.

Nah, Heidi. The Supreme Court will leave ‘marriage’ in the states’ hands. They really don’t want to take on the regulation of marriage or set up a situation where Congress could pass a Federal Marriage Protection Amendment, which is what a decision to strike down the laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman would do. It only takes 3/4 of the states to ratify such an amendment, and I think we already have that.

And what do you mean you’re not asking everyone to ‘condone’ the gay lifestyle? That’s exactly what you’re doing here, and what you’re asking the courts to make everyone else do! The definition of condone is “to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless .” Hmmm . . . I think that’s precisely what you’re asking.

Soooo, Heidi, religious belief is “hateful nonsense”. The Constitituion protects freedom of religion, not “hateful nonsense” so a religious persons’ right to practice their religion could be deemed by some as “hate speech.” You said it yourself, hateful nonsense. Maybe religioius folks (to use a word the media and politicians love to use about all us simple people out there who don’t agree with them) do need to worry a bit…oh and if glbt people only represent 10 percent of the population, who is passing whom by….just a thought.

@Kim: Religious belief isn’t “hateful nonsense”. Religious speech isn’t “hateful nonsense”. Religiously motivated acts which denigrate human dignity and actively hinder opportunities for kids compared to their peers, that seems pretty hateful and doesn’t make much sense to me. Same sex marriage, by itself, harms no one and benefits kids like mine.

Religious belief has been used to support segregation. Many a slaver quoted biblical support for his acts. the Southern Baptist Convention was born in 1845 to continue support of slavery when northern leaders, through the Home Mission Society, determined missionaries could not perform works and maintain their slaves. That’s hateful in my view.

Religion is a beautiful thing. I’m a devout Christian. That said, religion can be twisted to make terrible arguments. Southern Baptists aren’t the only ones with blood on their hands. Believe what you want, say what you want, but don’t apply your definitions of scripture to how I live.

@Karen: I don’t agree with everything my government does or allows, but if it doesn’t cause harm to others, I generally will allow fairness, privacy, and self-determination to rule. And as far as leaving marriage in states’ hands, oh but were that the case. DOMA is a royal pain for those who live in states that otherwise allow marriage.

@Heidi
Heidi, I don’t hate anyone, never have, never will. You are the one spewing the vitriole.
I love it how gays always start name calling when someone disagrees agree with their choices, and it is a choice. You hate me because I disagree with your agenda. I don’t hate you Heidi, I won’t let you or anyone have that kind of control over me. Hate is a self destructive emotion. It only harms the “hater.”
I have no problem with a gay couple having equal protection under the law for insurance or inheritance or hospitalization, but don’t call it a marriage, because it isn’t. Marriage was instituted by God and blessed by Jesus his son, for the stability of the family for bringing children into the world.
And tell me Heidi, do I have the right to keep public schools or my own government from villifying my religious beliefs? Where is the tolerance for the majority of Americans who believe homosexuality is a sin, just like any other sin and we are ALL sinners. I may get “passed by” as you say, but it won’t be in this life time. So now since you can use the “oooh you hate me excuse, what else do you have?

corrections; take out agree in sentence three and change can to can’t in
….since you can’t use the “you hate me…”

PS: I don’t teach my children to hate anyone either.

how does one edit ones’ post?

@lawfully_wedded_wife As a devout Christian, how do you interpret the following?

Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

Just as slavery is wrong, just as predjudice against one’s color is wrong, just as spewing hate is wrong…

But there is Good News!

Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set free them that are captive,
Luke 4:21 And he (Jesus) began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

•The gospel, the instrument of deliverance

John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

I’m not terribly inclined to take marriage advice from a man who wrote, “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.” {1 Corinthians 7:8} Paul seems to have an issue with women, and I’ll be honest that I have suspicions his own views clouded his judgement. This is the guy who wrote, “”Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” {1Corinthians 14:34-35} Or this gem to Timothy, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” {1 Tim. 2:8}

On the other hand, Jesus Himself has some very clear words about divorce, “anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” 50% of marriages now end in divorce and 69% of Americans see no moral issue with that. I’m not contributing to those numbers, but a whole lot of heterosexual couples- people like Ronald Reagan- are.

Interpreting the Bible is an intensely intimate experience. The whole Reformation by Martin Luther that brought forth the various Protestant churches was ultimately based on Luther’s conviction in the “personal relationship with Christ”. I have one, and I cherish it. I won’t tell others how to interpret God’s Word, and I kindly ask them not to do so for me- especially not by legislation. We’re a republic, not a theocracy…at least last time I checked.

Melly, to deprive someone of the same rights and dignity that you enjoy in the name of religion is pretty hateful to me, whether you want to accept it or not. I was raised evangelical/fundamentalist, so I know quite well how the Bible is used to promote hatred and judgment of others. Christ would be appalled of the statements and actions done in His name, of that I am certain. Your quote from Romans is an unfortunate perpetuation of a misunderstanding of the text. At the time that Paul wrote, Roman society was pretty disgusting. Public orgies, sexual slavery, pedophilia, religious prostitution, you name the immoral sexual behavior, they did it. To use that verse to condemn a same-sex loving and monogamous couple is positively blasphemous in my opinion. But that is the problem with you literalists, you don’t understand the history, culture and context of the writing, and you missed the point of Christ’s message altogether–that love takes precedence over legality. Remember when Christ healed on the Sabbath? Totally in violation of the written law. He ridiculed the scribes and Pharisees for their adherence to the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit. And yet many Christians today are nothing more than modern-day Pharisees who have forgotten Christ’s command to love one another as you love yourself. How would YOU feel if you were deprived of participation in a universal institution because the person you happened to love wasn’t “the right kind?”

Public schools are PUBLIC. This means that my children attend them just as yours do, and just as other children of same-sex parents do. If you want to shelter your children from the realities of the world, maybe you should homeschool them.

Kim, even hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. Check it out. The Constitution protects even some of the most vile stuff out there.

Karen, the Supreme Court is going to have a hard time wiggling out of the direct constitutional challenges raised by the push for marriage equality…the due process and equal protection clauses specifically. As for a federal marriage amendment, well, you also would need 2/3 of Congress, so good luck with that. It ain’t gonna happen.

Seriously, what is wrong with some of you? Why so much energy invested in depriving other people of happiness and equality? I just don’t get it. If you don’t like same-sex marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex! If you want to teach your children that it’s bad, immoral, wrong, whatever, go for it! Of course, just like I did after being raised as a religious zealot, many of them will grow up, meet a few gay people, see that they’re human beings too deserving of equality and wonder what all the fuss was about. Just ask my daughter’s generation, they’ll tell you.

Heidi: I’ve been watching the tweets of today’s Propp 8 hearing. I think Charles Cooper nailed it. Gays ARE NOT a protected class. The are not politically powerless and being gay is not immutable. In the past, children with disabilities were denied protected class status even their their condition was immutable, because they were not politcally powerless. I REALLY think SCOTUS will have a hard time finding either condition met when it comes to determining a protected class. There is no question that, if it gets that far, the definition of marriage will remain with the states and thus, the people to decide which is where it belongs.

The Justices can surprise. If there was no question, then it wouldn’t be debated so vociferously and we wouldn’t be right around the 50/50 point on the issue as a society. There clearly is a question, and the number of questioners has trended up over the past 40 years from barely noticeable to 50%. There was once “no question” about interracial marriage being bad. That certainly turned around. And as far as the court, the same institution that voted for the Dred Scott decision less than 100 years later voted for Brown v Board of Education. It takes time, but we do progress and find enlightenment.

@lawfully_wedded_wife
But you are asking, through legislation, for the historical and religious definitions of what the majority of Americans believe a marriage to be, between a man and a woman, to be changed. I am asking for marriage to be protected according to those historical and religious definitions (and were not just talking Christianity here, (although we are the ones who take the bashing), don’t all world religions have the same definition? You have the right to live and love as you choose, even if I don’t agree with your choice, but you don’t have the right to re-define marriage for the majority of us. That’s just not right. If the courts rule that same-sex marriage is a right, then the majority of people, like me, will be treated like bigots and racists. Do you really believe that all people like me who believe that an emotionally stable, loving mother and father both matter to the welfare of children are racists or bigots, particularly the sixty percent of African-Americans who oppose the redefining of marriage? Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping the races separated so one could oppress the other. Having parents of two different races is not the same as being deprived of having your mother, or your father.
I agree with the problems created by divorce and that is why we need to be strengthening marriage and the family, not trying to force us to accept definitional restructuring.
State supreme courts have ruled that currently defined marriage isn’t discrimination, because it’s rooted in the need for “responsible procreation” a mom and a dad to bring up children.
Now on to the rest, Paul remained unmarried, and suggested also others to devote themselves to Christ work on earth. The comments about women was made in line with the historical and cultural views of the times. Women sat on one side and Paul didn’t want them to be yelling out across the isles in public. We can all pick and choose what part of the Bible we like or don’t like to justify our stances. And once again I am accused of being “hateful.” I may be opinionated, but I assure you I am entirely motivated by the redeeming love of Jesus Christ, my personal savior, who hated sin but loved all sinners, of which I am one also. If that makes me a “religious zealot” so be it. I merely asked an opinion from your “intensely intimate experience” of the text.
If anyone took on condemnation, that could have been the Holy Spirit bringing conviction.
Public schools are public as Heidi said and I have the right as a majority parent not to have my children indoctrinated to a view that is against my rights of freedom of religion. I’m not asking schools to teach my view point, which is exactly what you want them to do with your view point. No, my religious views won’t be protected, my kids will be called racists and bigots, but I can just home school them…
Heidi, I’m not depriving anyone of anything, If you can’t be happy without forcing your will on the majority of us, you might need to look as to why?

@Melly: There were historically and religious definitions about interracial marriage, too. It’s still illegal in several states, but legal precedent prevents the laws from being enforced. I see the comparison as direct, and so do others, which is why the post-Civil War Amendments to the Constitution are the relevant Federal issues in debate over Prop 8.

You caution me against picking and choosing, and then pick and choose. You can’t defend some parts of the Bible by discussing historical context and not open it all up to that same consideration.

I never accused you of being hateful. My exact words were, “Religious belief isn’t “hateful nonsense”. Religious speech isn’t “hateful nonsense”. Religiously motivated acts which denigrate human dignity and actively hinder opportunities for kids compared to their peers, that seems pretty hateful and doesn’t make much sense to me. Same sex marriage, by itself, harms no one and benefits kids like mine.” The act seems hateful, but I don’t judge people I don’t know. Others do that about me enough already.

I know better than to expect to change any minds here. I came to learn, to achieve a greater understanding of those who see something wrong in the beautiful thing my wife and I have created in our lives. This love which has lasted 20 years, and will last a lifetime. This love which has nurtured two beautiful lives who cherish both of us as we cherish them. I just can’t see sin in this.

Lawfully,
You wrote:
“I know better than to expect to change any minds here. I came to learn, to achieve a greater understanding of those who see something wrong in the beautiful thing my wife and I have created in our lives.”

It shows. I have not read all of your comments, but you have been respectful and inquisitive rather than preachy or accusatory. You have tried out your views on us, and we have responded. I’m sure you have noticed that I can oftentimes be a bit, um, aggressive with people who come here and condemn us for our positions. But I hope you agree with me that this aggression has been absent (as much as possible) in my conversations with you. If you agree, I hope our conversations can remain that way. It seems that you and I can disagree civilly.

You speak of our position, however, as people who see sin in your lifestyle. Perhaps we do. But, at least for me, as a Jew, I disapprove of a lot of things. They include pork eating, Sabbath desecration, rooting for the Red Sox, and many other things. Please understand that some of the dearest people in my life are Sabbath desecrators. I still love them dearly. G-d will deal with them as He sees fit. I can say the same thing about my gay friends. I have little stomach to condemn them for their choices and more of a desire to BS with them about the news, the world of ideas and whatever. I’m not big on fire and brimstone except for the truly evil.

Be that as it may, I think that some social experiments best not be attempted.

Meanwhile, Heidi and LWW failed to respond directly to JRM’s blogpost. They did say other stuff and about other stuff and they did flaunt their gay identity politics and pro-gay bigotry, but they avoided the actual topic of the blogpost at the top.

The default is that both Heidi and LWW would answer yes to the following:

“Ask yourself if you really believe any one of these messages. Ask yourself if you really want to create a society in which people believe, or are required to act as if they believe, these messages. ”

Heidi and LWW, would you respond to the actual topic before elaborating further on your political opinions on other matters? Thanks.

Cooper’s arguments yesterday reduced heterosexuals to breeding stock. He suggested that marriage is effectively an government-sponsored breeding program. While procreation is part of some marriages, there are many other aspects that get short-riffed by Cooper and other conservatives.

Other than the false claims used in anti-gay propaganda (gays will molest your children, women and men will turn gay and leave their heterosexual marriages or some such nonsense), I have yet to hear how same-sex marriage would harm society. I know a lesbian couple who have been in a committed relationship for 22 years, and a gay male couple who have been in a committed relationship for 36 years. If they got married tomorrow, how would that diminish the lives of their neighbors, their friends, their family?

If the only reason is that we don’t want kids thinking it’s okay to be gay, that’s a pretty pitiful argument. Prohibitions against homosexuality have NEVER stopped it. And allowing marriage isn’t going to make gayness look so awesomely cool that people will convert in droves. Will it? If you fear that it will, what’s so darn great about gayness, and what’s so darn horrible about straightness? Really. Is this a contest for the sexuality of our children and you are sure gayness will win out if given an equal chance.

That’s pitiful. Really pitiful.

I’ll answer the questions, Chairm. And I agree, the default for Heidi and LWW is probably yes. That’s my answer, too. But the questions are a little, well, silly.

1. Women are better parents than men. Therefore, two women are better for kids than a mother and a father. Men are unnecessary and possibly dangerous. Answer: Yes, historically, women tend to be more present and loving parents than men. And yes, men are more likely to molest their children and beat their children. But this is a seriously flawed absolute. Men can be awesome parents (even gay men), and women can be lousy parents (even lesbians). My question is, why does the author of this test insist on creating boxes and stuffing people into them as good or bad, based on characteristics such as gender? Or sexual orientation? That’s just messed up thinking, and it just doesn’t work. I sincerely hope you don’t buy your own straw argument.

2. The only problems that the children of lesbians experience are really caused by straight society. Answer: Yes, in the same way that the problems the children of straight parents experience are caused by straight society. Duh. We live in a straight world, so I guess we can blame everything–pollution, the economic crisis, crime, etc. on the straight people. But that would be ridiculous. Just like the premise of this question.

3. The children of lesbian parents were intensely planned and deeply wanted. Therefore, manufacturing children through Donor Insemination is superior to conceiving children through an act of sexual intercourse. Answer: Yes. Children who are wanted are better off than children who are not wanted. I’ll go ahead and say that. But your addition of “through an act of sexual intercourse” is just weird. However truly wanted children come to be, they are lucky. Like the little boy of my heterosexual friends who used artificial insemination, and like the daughter of my pastor who adopted her. Why in the world are you so caught up on the act of sexual intercourse? And what in the world does that act have to do with the quality of parenting. Strange thinking.

With all due respect, your trap of three questions is severely flawed. These bizarre “gotcha” tests, straw arguments, false absolutes and circular arguing exposes your weak position. Whether you like this study or not, whether you respect or reject the methodology, whether you agree with the outcome or not, can you entertain a straightforward discussion about the quality of parenting? Games that portend all men to be good, all lesbians to be bad or all fill-in-the-blank to be fill-in-the-blank do nothing to further our discourse. Unless your goal is simply to inflame and insult.

Why are people so afraid of the long term affects? Don’t they understand all of what they are fearing has been happening for a long time already? We’re talking about less than 10% of the population. How would those numbers ever be able to rule/change society? I’m more fearful of the 90% and look at the way things are now with them. I say, be proud of the divorce rate. Put your money and your efforts into something that really matters and impacts the children.

This whole thing about lesbians being better parents than children with 1 mom and 1 dad is such a crock. Of course it’s not true, we all know children need 1 mom and 1 dad. In the first statement it mentions that woman are better parents then men and that is not true. Men are just as good of parents as woman are. The part were it say’s kids with 2 moms are better of than kids with 1 mom and 1 dad is so not true. The truth is kids are better off with 1 mom and 1 dad. Having 2 moms will only mislead them and confuse them about life. The kid will be realy messed up. men are not unnessasary and not all men are dangerous, stop the lie’s you lesbians. also the part about the only probloms children with lesbian parents have come from straight society is also not true, those promloms come from being in the wrong home envirment. now statement 3 were do i begin, well i diagree with the whole thing. i don’t believe children of lebians parents are planned or wanted. the part about manufacturing children/ doner insenitation or what ever is better than having sex-LIE!!!! when they say manufacturing children it sounds like there is a child factory somewhere that makes and ships children. lesbians think they know more about parenting but they don’t. they think they make better parents but they don’t. these statements that these lesbians make about parening are such lies.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Kids need 1 mom and 1 dad and thats it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

… the long term affect will totally depend on how the so called “straight” community treat these children and their families… if we teach our children about diversity and to love others although they don’t have a family that looks just like ours – these children will turn out great. If the “straight’ community is so very concerned about the children- the single most loving thing they can do is to teach their children to be kinder hearted and accept there are things everywhere in this world we may not understand but love is the greatest bridge to understanding. After so many attacks from the “straight” community it makes me laugh when we don’t understand why the lesbian community might say things to defend themselves even if they might not be totally “accurate”…

Let them breed by themselves. They don’t need men so they don’t need sperm then they don’t need any support. So I agree let them have children

@Chaim: Okay, I’ll bite. That said, I agree with others that these questions are a set-up, and not derived at all from the study.

1. Women are better parents than men. Therefore, two women are better for kids than a mother and a father. Men are unnecessary and possibly dangerous.

Hogwash. Men are great beings, I am intensely grateful that we have both women and men in this world. I further will add that two men can parent just as well as two women, or one of each.

2. The only problems that the children of lesbians experience are really caused by straight society.

Hogwash again. My son has ADD, which most certainly isn’t due to having two moms. He also has a passion for Pokemon and insists everyone around him at school share it, which has gotten him teased. Again, nothing to do with straight society. In fact, I can’t name a single problem that HAS impacted our kids due to their parents. That said, we have a legal, federally-recognised marriage, live in a tolerant area, and have great family and friend supports on both sides. We’re also highly educated and have okay means. That all pretty much gives us everything I’m arguing that others like me should have.

3. The children of lesbian parents were intensely planned and deeply wanted. Therefore, manufacturing children through Donor Insemination is superior to conceiving children through an act of sexual intercourse.

Triple hogwash with a cherry on top. I’m not going to distinguish this slanderous question with more than that.

@Joe said, “THE BOTTOM LINE: Kids need 1 mom and 1 dad and thats it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”. For you, perhaps. And you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. But my example suggests perhaps not.

Karen, it is good of you to address the actual blogpost at the top of this discussion.

JRM listed three messages that underlie the story of this study. These are not her messages. That list is not a trap.

The study’s authors put people into the lesbian box because they chose to research lesbian parenting. Commenters such as LWW and Heidi have emphasized sexual orientation throughout their remarks. This is the basis of the story as it has been reported in the newsmedia, also.

Elsewhere I’ve noted that there are nonsexualized same-sex scenarios in which an all-male or an all-female arrangement raises children. There are millions more such households than there are lesbian parenting households. But the study sorted parents by sexual orientation rather than by the lack of the other sex.

The study’s overt message is that lesbian women are better parents. And underlying that message is that women are better parents so much so that fathers are unnecessary and might even get in the way of optimum results.

I may be mistaken, but you seem to disapprove of these underlying messages; but the reason is that you say there are no absolutes, or somesuch. However, these are general and not absolute so the questions remain: do you want to live in a society in which people believe, or are compelled to act as if they believe, these underlying messages are true? That men are superflous to parenting, in general, and probably get in the way of optimum parenting?

The marital presumption of paternity sends the message that motherhood and fatherhood ought to be united to fulfill, as best as humanly possible, the birthright of children to their mom-dad duos. But that has to go if these underlying messages are to take priority.

The second underlying message is also from the study, not JRM. Your response does not really address it since the message is about making a perpetual blame card to be used against straight society. This is not JRM’s message. It is the story of this study. Lesbian parenting is supposedly the new benchmark so the rest of society needs to emulate it and that means discarding the social scientific consensus on the married mom-dad duo as the benchmark against which all other family structures fall short.

That underlyhing message is about identity politics rather than parenting. Indeed, it pushes good social science aside in the name of advocacy.

The third underlying message is not JRM’s but is intrinsic to the study’s story. Do you want to live in a society where manufacturing children is superior to conceiving children through sexual intercourse?

That particular question is about creation of children, not about parenting. It is about the commodification of human life. Manufacture is an apt term given how the process treats children like widgets in a factory. The consumer might be lesbian but not necessarily. The underlying message is for all of society.

The decision to contract for a human life is not made in the best interests of the child. That child does not exist until the decision, contract, and services are rendered. The commodification is the starting line, not the intrinsic human dignity of the individual.

The related underlying message is that this manufacture and commodification is superior *because* it is divorced from sexual intercourse. Advocates do say this — even in courtrooms. To wit: the all-female arrangement makes a virtue out necessity. Except that making children is not a necessity but is a desire, a want (deeply felt), that is doomed by the lack of the other sex. The message that the workaround is superior also is promoted by those who sell gametes by mail-order, the internet, or so-called fertilty clinics. Commodification for the sake of the designer baby.

Karen asked: “Why in the world are you so caught up on the act of sexual intercourse? And what in the world does that act have to do with the quality of parenting. Strange thinking.”

The standard by which all other family structures are measured and found wanting is the intact mom-dad duo in a low-conflict marriage. The children are beget by their married mom-dads. That is the very wide social scientific consensus and it is based on decades of research.

There is good reason that civlization recognizes the conjuigal relationship as a sexualized type of relationship between a man and a woman; and good reason that coitus is the sexual basis for consummation and for the marital presumption of paternity (and for grounds for adultery and so forth). Fatherhood is joined to motherhood through the sexual relationship of conjugal relations.

The underlying messages that JRM listed come done, in my view, to the segregation of fatherhood and motherhood as being superior to the integration of the sexes and the provision for responsible procreation.

Planning and wanting are not absent in the marriage idea; marriage is the plan and forming this type of sexualized relationship is the very public commitment to sex integration and responsible procreation. It means that the parents are NOT presumed to be merely social role models; it means that sexual embodiment entails the fundamentals of regenerating society; and it is the best default for raising children.

The story of this study is that there is a new and superior default: nonsexual manufacture of babies to satisfy the wants of needy adults who choose to exclude one other sex from the child’s most basic family structure. That choice is not made superior by virtue of necessity, but that’s the political message which underlies the story that the new benchmark is not marriage but an asexual process.

By the way, the lesbian advocates stress sexual behavior — why else would they sort lesbian parenting from the much wider and more inclusive same-sex category of parenting that has long existed throughout human history — in our modern society perhaps more than ever? If lesbianism has zilch to do with it, then, study the rest of the category as well.

People get ready JESUS is comming back!! The people who have their eyes on the things of THIS WORLD will be left in this world. JESUS loves the sinner and hates the sin. We have all sinned and came short of the GLORY of GOD, so repent and turn from your sinful ways. 1Jhon 1:9 If we confess our sins before GOD, he is faithful and just to fogive us of our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Thank you JESUS for what you did on calavry for me. I am free!!! I am looking for that blessed hope of your return, JESUS TAKE ME AWAY!!

Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the son of man (JESUS) be ashamed, when he cometh in the GLORY OF HIS FATHER with the Holy Angels!!

@lawfully_wedded_wife
I already commented on the interracial marriage. The Old Testament Law commanded the Israelites not to engage in interracial marriage (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). However, the reason for this was not primarily racial in nature. Rather, it was religious. The reason God commanded against interracial marriage was that people of other races were idolaters and worshippers of false gods. The Israelites would be led astray from God if they intermarried with idol worshippers, pagans, or heathens. A similar principle is laid out in the New Testament, but at a much different level: “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14). Just as the Israelites (believers in the one true God) were commanded not to marry idolaters, so Christians (believers in the one true God) are commanded not to marry unbelievers, so, no, the Bible does not say that interracial marriage is wrong.
My reply was actually a conversation between you and Heidi, sorry for not clarifying. I did not intend to pick and choose from the Bible. I believe, as in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…”
As I said before I have no problem with your relationship being protected, but my freedom will be taken away if we are forced to recognize same sex marriage and the other side knows that’s true. Christians’ and other religions’ beliefs will be vilified.
Case in point: Lexington, Mass., father of 6-year-old arrested, spends night in jail over objections to homosexual curriculum in son’s kindergarten class.
“Because of the same-sex marriage law people are treating this as a mandate to teach the youngest of children.” – David Parker, parent of 6-year-old, arrested Apr. 27, 2005

You, however, have been very polite and I have enjoyed our exchange:-)
I am a firm believer in taking the log out of my eye before removing the speck from my neighbor’s. I know I am a sinner saved only by grace and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Ridiculous messages and time wasted.

My friends(lesbians)adopted 2 older children with disabilities. God bless them for doing so and trying to give these children a “home” to live in,with food, medical care, schooling, and all the “normal” things that children should have. Who can say that we are a better parent than them?

What about the single parent that has strived and succeeded in raising children?

Where is the rule about todays society being straight?

In what countries?

What cultures?

Sometimes the best rule to live by is

“live and let live”

Wow, this post is just one giant logical fallacy. Why not actually show some evidence that lesbians don’t make superior parents, instead of making an appeal to consequences? Oh, right, you don’t have any evidence.

Also, Melly made me laugh: “They don’t want you to believe that lesbian parents are just as good as… no, they want us all to believe that lesbians are better parents than a heterosexual couple,”

You mean the way people like you are trying to make us all believe that heterosexuals are better parents than gay or lesbian couples? It seems Melly might be projecting a little of himself onto other people. Hmmm

@Chairm: Other than disagreeing that same-sex parenting is “doomed by the lack of the other sex”, I think much of what you wrote above I can agree with. I personally don’t hold same-sex relationships are better in any way overall from opposite sex relationships. Some will do better than the mean, some will do worse- along the same lines as any other two human beings who try and make it work. I think the model of marriage is critical for nurturing long-term, stable, loving relationships between two consenting adults who wish to raise children. I just want to see the same legal and fiscal benefits enjoyed by all parents who take on the responsibilities and their kids, both for their children and life-long, exclusively and faithfully for each other. If we can agree that extending the model, perhaps not even in name but just in function, to couples that otherwise meet the marriage ideal would be worth further examination in localities willing to take on the challenge, I think we may actually agree.

@Melly said, “As I said before I have no problem with your relationship being protected, but my freedom will be taken away if we are forced to recognize same sex marriage and the other side knows that’s true. Christians’ and other religions’ beliefs will be vilified.” You have every right to disagree with my view. A lot of us who believe as I do served this country so that you can believe as you do. And I know the opposite is true as well. God bless those who aren’t here to have this discussion because they died so that we could be having it. I certainly wouldn’t want their sacrifice to be in vain, and I appreciate neither would you. Unlike some, I am not so caught up on the word “marriage”. If two women or two men are willing, like my spouse and I, to dedicate their lives to each other and to their children, then civil unions with ALL the legal rights AND the responsibilities of marriage are fine with me. Most especially, no religious congregation should ever be expected to bless the union of anyone they don’t choose. But likewise, I believe passionately that, in the eyes of the government, same-sex couples shouldn’t be forced to settle for “second rate” societal facilitation of their families.

Thank you also for the discussion!

LWW said: “Other than disagreeing that same-sex parenting is “doomed by the lack of the other sex”, I think much of what you wrote above I can agree with.”

I did not say that. In discussing third party procreation by one-sexed arrangements, I said: “Except that making children is not a necessity but is a desire, a want (deeply felt), that is doomed by the lack of the other sex.”

Do you not truly perceive the significant difference?

A single individual is a one-sexed arrangement and is nonfertile without the other sex; likewise a twosome or a parade of persons of the same sex is nonfertile without the other sex. Hence the procurement of the gametes from so-called donors. Hence the manufacturing description.

The fusion of sperm and ova creates a new human being. Lacking one or the other dooms fusion. This is the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation that the one-sexed arrangements (lesbian or otherwise) concede when they partake of third party procreation.

Is that not truly obvious to you? I would expect so. Why would you disagree with that?

LWW said: “If we can agree that extending the model, perhaps not even in name but just in function, to couples that otherwise meet the marriage ideal would be worth further examination in localities willing to take on the challenge, I think we may actually agree.”

I favor the man-woman criterion of marriage law because the core meaning of the social institution is 1) sex integration, 2) provision for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole. This is what merits the special status that the conjugal type of relationship is accorded by our society and that is signified by the government, on behalf of all of society, issuing licenses and making social policy that acknowledges this foundational element of civil society.

The same does not apply to the SSM idea. However, that idea, stripped of the over-emphasis on gay identity politics, fits a wide range of arrangements that fall into the nonmarriage category. Thus, I am against merging the SSM idea with marriage because that would negate the far more societally significant marriage idea. The government is not the owner of civil society and does not own nor create the social institution of marriage. It merely recognizes it.

Now, some say we should abolish the special status of marriage so as to make all family arrangements the equivalent. That is what the SSM idea would do if it was merged with marital status.

So I am also against “civil union” status which would be a merger in all but name.

On the other hand, there are vunerable families which merit protections rather than special status on par with marriage. These protections are due to the vulnerabilities, not due to sexual orientation nor due to membership in identity groups, nor due to an ideological imperative to make marriage mean less and less. The wide range of such families should not be excluded for the sake of emphasizing gayness.

So while I am against the SSM merger (in all but name or in name), and I am against demoting marriage to a merely protective status, I am in favor of protecting vulnerable families whose vulnerabilities arise from the lack of (or diminishment of) sex integration and responsible procreation — ie. their structures are nonmarriage. The societal solution is to promote marriage for its benefits to society and to the individual participants. The solution is not to remake marriage, to demote it, nor to make it hostage to identity politics or the politics of mediocracy.

If you agree that there is no objective difference, in terms of needs, between the gaycentric subset and the rest of the wide range of nonmarriage arrangements, then, we can agree on equal protections.

The SSM campaign insists on equal protections. But it generally runs away from extending equal protections to the rest of the nonmarraige category of which the gaycentric domestic model is but a subset. I think that is because the SSM argument is split in two conflicting directions:

1) demand for special status of gayness and thus on gay domesticity;

2) demand for the deconstruction of the social institution of marriage and the end of the normative influence of the united mom-dad duo.

These conflicting directions are present in each and every SSM argument I have seen, heard, and read from advocates. Item number 1 is unsustainable without extensive government intrusions on civil rights and liberties. Item number 2, in my judgement based on the anthropological and historical record and on the current social scientific evidence, is regressive and will very likely harm society and individuals.

Nothing is certain. However, SSMers argue that their certitude dicates to all of society that experimentation will improve marriage rather than neutralize its positive influences. And while there are merits to some forms of identity politics, it is foolishness, in my view, for society to allow government to be empowered to innoculate a certain type of identity politics, in this instance gay identity politics, as the leading light for social policy and for a takeover of civil society.

As much as I support live and let live, I don’t actually see much of that coming from the SSM advocates. And that is one of the chief consistent features of the push for the SSM merger wherever it has appeared.

Live and let live. Chairm says, “s much as I support live and let live, I don’t actually see much of that coming from the SSM advocates. And that is one of the chief consistent features of the push for the SSM merger wherever it has appeared.”

That’s the thing, Chairm. Your beliefs prevent us from living. Living an equitable life, such as yourself.

Here’s a question. What’s best for a child, to be raised by a mom and dad who had a one night stand and never wanted the child or to be adopted by two loving women (or men) who planned for and wanted him?

I can ask questions like this all day. Yes, most children are conceived by loving moms and dads. Some are raised by single parents, by design or not. Some are adopted or conceived via artificial means by both hetero and homo couples. There is room enough in our world for all of these families. Each one makes sense in different ways.

If you truly do believe in live and let live, have your beliefs, but let us live our lives equitably. Your beliefs directly hurt and keep my family from being equal under the eyes of the law.

Once again, let me state I am not a part of any formal agenda but my own conscience. I am not a student of “gay identity”, and honestly could not really care less. My background and my three degrees are medical science, not social science, in nature. I just know I’ve had to spend thousands of dollars paying lawyers to defend my marriage, and came here trying to learn what those who find fault in it really think. It’s been enlightening, but it still hasn’t explained to me how my kids and their stay-at-home mom are the harbingers of the end of Western Civilization as we know it.

As to your two points insofar as I’m concerned. 1) no, other than those already accorded two adult humans who happen to be of opposite sex. If according that means yes, then I suppose yes- but no more than for any other couple. I certainly don’t see that as requiring any government intrusion on civil rights or liberties. According the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples cancels them out even for whatever arguments you might make regarding use of benefits and the cost of providing them. Two gay men and two lesbians would not account for any more resources than two opposite-sex pairings. We are talking exclusive relationships here. 2) No more than has been happening within the “traditional” marriage already. Nothing I am doing takes at all away from the mom-dad duos around me. Once again, I’m not contagious.

Let me state unequivocally, again, since you keep putting agenda words in my mouth, that I do NOT believe SSM will in any way “improve’ marriage. Like everyone else, we’ll do the best we can and try our best to create happiness for ourselves, our kids, and those closest to us.

My marriage is no more, no less, than that between opposite sex partners around me. My kids are no more, no less, than those kids of opposite sex unions. We go to work and school, do homework, play checkers, go to the zoo, BBQ, and all the other things together. My kids play soccer and baseball. My wife and I have romantic dinners, argue over child discipline, and console each other when life gets tough. I just don’t get how my example is a harm to everyone around. Really, I’m not contagious. And if my example isn’t tearing the fabric of society to shreds, why should we assume that allowing a tiny fraction of marriages, or marriage-like unions, to be same sex would have that impact?

gayathomemom, your asking such lame questions all day (and all night) does not impress.

The first principle of responsible procreation is that each of us, as part of a man-woman combination, is responsible for the children we’ve created (barring dire circumstances or tragedy). This is not just about conception and perhaps it would suprise you to learn that responsible procreation begins even before conception. The marriage idea unites fatherhood and motherhood and, as I said, it is the plan and it is the norm that the mom-dad duo are prospective social parents of their own progeny. Society expects this. The marital presumption of paternity is vigorously enforced even today after the social institution has been battered by radical changes imposed on it. In our society we even extend the presumption’s basic criteria to unwed procreation. It is not a sex-neutral presumption; it is not one-sexed. From a societal perspective, parents beget future parents who beget future parents and on and on; this fact of human existence is profound and inescapable except in the fictive world of SSM arguments. The social institution is the humane response to the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation; to the two-sexed nature of humankind; to the both-sexed nature of human community.

No one is denied entry into the social institution of marriage on the basis of sexual orientatin or identity group. So you are falsely asserting that your rights to equal treatment is denied on that basis. That is just a fact you and ‘homo couples’ (your phrase) might learn to live with — as in live and let live.

Better questions have been asked: do you agree that marital status is a special status in our society? If not, that should be stated upfront. If yes, then, what is the special reason (the societal significance) that merits that special status? And, then, how does your offered reason distinguish the one-sexed arrangement (sexualized or not) from the rest of the large category of nonmarriage arrangements and relationship types? That is the starting place that you have not even found.

LWW: “how my kids and their stay-at-home mom are the harbingers of the end of Western Civilization as we know it.”

Let’s trade nonsensical remarks: the sky has not fallen wherever marriage has been affirmed as the union of man and woman.

Even now, I guess.

LWW said: “I am not a part of any formal agenda but my own conscience.”

You make the same arguments that the SSM campaign makes. That’s based on the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics. The content of your comments have not diverge from the content of those arguments.

Regarding your response to the two points I made in my earlier comment:

Not all opposite-sexed arrangements are marriage. Not all opposite-sexed relationships are eligible for marriage in our laws. The boundaries are drawn around the core meaning of the social institution and are not simply arbitrary and capricious as per your repeated special emphasis on sexual orientation and the gay identity group.

Your pro-SSM view is a rejection of that core meaning and that constitutes a rejection of the boundaries *on that basis*; so you need to (or someone — whose conscience you’d defer to — needs to) justify whatever boundaries you wish to impose *based on your SSM idea* — its essentials without which the type of relationship (or type of arrangement) you have in mind would not be SSM and those applying would not be eligible.

LWW said: “We are talking exclusive relationships here. ”

I assume you mean that the law would permit twosomes but not onesomes and not moresomes. If that is what you meant, then, provide the principled basis for such a restriction. It is not good enough to depend on tradition — as in that’s how it has always been done here; nor can you depend on the tradition of monogamous romance alone. You have said, repeatedly, that extra hands make lighter the work of domestic duties and that mom-mom duos would include other persons — nonfatherly men for example — to meet the responsibilities of raising children. So the number two is not so obviously a limitation that fits your comments. Further explaination and justification is reasonably expected.

LWW said: “I’m not contagious.”

I have not suggested otherwise. With respect, your SSM idea is offered as an alternative to the marriage idea. And, if that replacement is imposed on all of society, you will indeed take away quite a lot from others — not just those here and now but future generations to come. That idea may be considered a contagion of sorts, in proper context.

Social institutions have influence. Coercive influence. Marriage is relatively non-cocercive but its normative power arises from its core meaning. The SSM replacement would not have such power and so it would rely utterly on government coercion via the police power in its various forms. That’s evident where the SSM merger has been imposed.

The SSM arguments you make in your comments fits very well the assertions made by the leading lights of the SSM campaign when it comes to deconstruction of the social institution. You offer nothing that would strengthen marriage but you do strongly suggest that the rough shape of the social institution in our society is precedent for the further change you seek to both the marriage law and the culture.

In sum you agree with points 1 and 2, evidently, and you perceive those points as positives rather than as significant social costs that need to be weighed in the balance. Yes?

And that, LWW, is not live and let live.

* * *

LWW said: “I do NOT believe SSM will in any way “improve’ marriage.”

I did not say you believed it would. And I agree that it won’t improve marriage in any way. I further agree that whatever particular individuals do in one-sexed arrangements is beside the two points I have made and to which you evidently agreed. But I will wait for your confirmation (or correction or clarification) on that evident agreement, because I am not putting words into your mouth but am hoping to learn your viewpoint from the words you have actually written.

If you cannot or will not seperate your particular private details from the societal issue, as is necessary while discussing a social institution’s societal significance, then you will not make much progress in understanding what you came here to learn about. You can fall back on the rhetoric of “the personal is political” or whatever, but that would be a real obstacle to your stated objective here.

To reiterate from a slightly different angle, it is not about quantity of SSMs, should it come to that, LWW. You are proposing a change to society that entails gutting a foundational social institution of its core meaning. That means less societally. Whether or not you agree, please acknowledge that this is what you understand me to have actually said. Thanks.

In terms of quantity, same-sex householding (in its various guises) has very low participation rates within the homosexual population. This is so even where the SSM merger has been imposed. Rates are low and declining in Canada, Scandinavia, and so forth. But change in how government, and society, regards the social institution is far more significant than perhaps you have yet come to grips with. It is such an important institution that changes naturally will have longterm influences on behavior across society. The changes are to marriage. The influence is through that change. It is not an influence through this or that particular individual who might participate in an SSM.

Please do me a favor: restate what I just said in those last three paragraphs in your own words so that we can learn if we are on the same page and that you do understand what I have actually said here. You don’t have to be exact — just get to the gist of what you believe I actually intended to say. You might disagree, but please, let’s first establish what it is that you might disagree with, okay?

And the context obviously is my comment @ June 19th, 2010 at 23:58 in which I clearly asked you to differentiate the particular type of relationship you have in mind from the rest of the nonmarriage category which is much larger and inclusive than your comments have indicated. Thanks.

I’ll add that in that June 19th comment I did agree with protection equality based on the vulnerabilities of families (especially those with children) that are in the wide nonmarriage category. Neither responses to that comment of mine has provided reason to extend special status to a subset of that nonmarriage category that, in the commenters remarks, is gaycentric. If gayness is the special reason for special status, the commenters should say so upfront and let the chips fall where they will. If it is a matter of sexualization of the arrangement, then, what is the special reason for special status that would exclude the rest of that nonmarriage category?

Also I will reiterate:

If SSMers agree that there is no objective difference, in terms of needs, between the gaycentric subset and the rest of the wide range of nonmarriage arrangements, then, we can agree on equal protections.

Special status is more than protective status; the SSM campaign emphasizes protections so this is the obvious solution to the vulnerabilities of nonmarriage families.

The trouble with the SSM campaign and its arguments is that it does not stop with extending protections. They want to do two contradictory things (which are reflections of my previous 2 points):

First, demote marital status from its special status to a merely protective status. This is accomplished by abolishingn from social policy the special reason fro special status. The current distinction between marriage, and relationship types eligible for marriage, and those outside the bounds will be undermined severely. If the essence, the core meaning, of the social institution is to be abandoned by government — and if the SSM campaign has its way also abandoned by the culture — then special status becomes unsustainable.

Second, further demote the core meaning of marriage and its man-woman criterion — demote it from special status to protective status and then, further, down to a barely tolerative status. It would be deemed bigoted, unconstitutional, and a relic of our traditions, customs, and cultural understanding of the nature of humankind. Worse, those whose devotion to that core meaning is open and unsurrendered will be ostracized through government coercion. The precedent for this sort of thing in American history is the assertion of supremacy of racialist identity politics that produced the bans on inter-racial marriage. The abuse of government power to impose upon marriage law an anti-marriage change — and to use this foundational social institution for a nonmarriage purpose — would be unjust both in principle and in execution. Gay identity politics is not a superior form of identity politics and although it has been presented as more benign than the racialist predessor its promoters are the (witting and unwitting — but mostly unwitting) descendants of the anti-miscegenists of the past.

@Chairm

But I’m not trying to deny anything to male-female pairings. You are trying to deny responsibilities and privilidges to same-sex pairings which are otherwise identical to opposite sex pairings. My family example, while anecdote, helps demonstrate that society is strong enough to handle variations on the theme. In the absence of harder data, anecdote is suggestive of a course of action, or certainly further study. When I have nothing else to work off, I use anecdote to treat patients- they’re called case studies in medicine. Given the absence of recognised marriage at a Federal level in the US by same-sex pairings save for extremely sporadic examples like my own, anecdote is all you leave me with.

I’ll address the rest of it, that which isn’t directly on the topic of lebian parenting covered by the original blogpost, here for convenience sake. I have to concentrate all this in one place, otherwise I can’t keep up without it consuming my life unacceptable given work and family.

The above responded to this:

LWW: “how my kids and their stay-at-home mom are the harbingers of the end of Western Civilization as we know it.”

Let’s trade nonsensical remarks: the sky has not fallen wherever marriage has been affirmed as the union of man and woman.

Even now, I guess.

I replied when I meant to quote.

LWW said: “But I’m not trying to deny anything to male-female pairings. You are trying to deny responsibilities and privilidges to same-sex pairings which are otherwise identical to opposite sex pairings.”

You would deny to all of society the special reason for the special status of this foundational social institution. You offer an anemic sustitute — your SSM idea. The only way to make the SSM idea normative is to engage in levels of government coercion that turn upside down the fact that marriage is a social institution of civil society and that government is servant not master of civil society. So depsite your protests you are promoting the denial of very much to all of society.

And keep in mind that even those who agree with the SSM merger will be coerced by government and will experience the consequences of this imposition. Compliance will not be enough; conformance and ‘approval’ will be mandated. That happened even to the racialists who supported anti-miscegenation and other forms of asserting the supremacy of their brand of identity politics on all of their society.

It is also clear that you do favor denial of eligilbity to marry for some people even though they’d qualify based on your SSM idea. You might own up to that much.

LWW said: “I use anecdote to treat patients- they’re called case studies in medicine.”

Medical case studies are not the equivalent of social anecdotes. I see what you intend to convey: that narratives are better than nothing.

So you should avoid using social scientific terms like show, indicate, prove when discussing the scant and sporadic evidence that is largely subjective. I mean, you would be far more cautious when discussing your impressions of medical case studies before diagnosing and treating actual patients, surely.

In this instance we are discussing changes to the societal regard of a social institution, rather than this or that particular individual’s private affairs. Social experimentation carries costs that go beyond the individual here and now. Also, if you are treating a patient for a medical problem that is not well understood, and doing so based on case studies, you’d do so only on case studies that resemble the problems your patient has. And in the social scientific context that means looking at the piles of evidence and analysis on divorce, nonmarital arrangements, one-sexed parenting (in whatever and all forms), and so forth.

But, in effect, you are deliberately placing greater weight on narratives — sporadic as you said — than on the actual accumulated evidence that pertains to the case at hand. Do you understand what I am describing? I think your favoritism has led your opinion rather than the available evidence leading you to some preliminary conclusions. And that does not justify your use of terms like shown and so forth. The data is not as specific as you would like so you would like to replace evidence with data points that are subjective, narrative, and not on par with the evidence that produced the very wide and deep social scientific consensus on the married-mom-dad duo for raising children.

Besides, there ar eplaces in the world that do not have the things you say are missing in the US due to federal laws and policies. Those things are not there for mom-dad duos. I think you are again relying on a politicized view of very slim social scientific evidence — and deeply discounting the bounty of evidence that does not fit that politicized view.

Nothing wrong with admitting as much. But let’s not give it the weight you have insisted upon. You would not do so on medical case studies for the sake of widespread medical experimentation on human beings, right? Sometimes, oft times, narratives can be much worse than nothing.

Answered here so we can keep it all together as one conversation.

@Elliot
“Wow, this post is just one giant logical fallacy. Why not actually show some evidence that lesbians don’t make superior parents, instead of making an appeal to consequences? Oh, right, you don’t have any evidence.

Also, Melly made me laugh: “They don’t want you to believe that lesbian parents are just as good as… no, they want us all to believe that lesbians are better parents than a heterosexual couple,”

You mean the way people like you are trying to make us all believe that heterosexuals are better parents than gay or lesbian couples? It seems Melly might be projecting a little of himself onto other people. Hmmm”

Correction, “herself”
No, Elliot, that’s not what I am trying to do at all. You need to read all my posts before you start throwing stones. I’ve said there are good and bad parents on both sides.
I believe for complete emotional and psychological development, a child needs the love and support and nurturing of an emotionally stable mother and father.
I also believe, thought I can’t prove it, that children raised by single parents, gay parents, lesbian parents will at some time wish they had a fulfilling relationship with the missing parent.

@Melly: In my experience, you are right. I have several adopted friends all of whom have had such questions. Some later wished they hadn’t pursued the issue, others were glad they did. Still, kids bond with the mother(s) and/or father(s) they know growing up. It isn’t frequent that an adopted child would choose to go off later in life with someone they never knew.

I’ll add that this isn’t a gay/lesbian issue, this is a human issue for all of society. Most adoptions, IVF procedures with anonymous donors, and surrogate mother arrangements are done by heterosexual couples- simply because there are so many more of them. All these procedures (IVF, surrogacy) or institutions (adoption, surrogacy) were developed with traditional married folk in mind.

Let’s not confuse the procedures with gamete “donations”. Most of the relatively few married people who use these procedures do NOT use “donations”; more than 90% use their own gametes. It is important to keep perspective on that issue.

Typically, married couples change their behavior if they experience infertility or subfertility. They do not resort to these procedures, generally. And even when they do, they do because of the disability, not because of the lack of the other sex, as all one-sexed scenarios must do.

These are not inconsequential differences.

Answered here on the same exact theme. Again, just to keep my sanity AND the conversations in one piece…

At that link, LWW, you did not address the differences.

Also, you have not addressed the way that this connects back to the pernicious ideas in the original blogpost above.

To everyone here (as opposed to a particular poster) why is it, if all of your claims of how Same Sex Marriage will cause hetrosexual marriage to become “less” special and cause it irrepriable harm, that this scientific peer reviewed scientific data was not presented at the Prop 8 Trial? Do you blame your pro-8 lawyers for being unprepared for trial? SSM exists in many countires, Canada being one of them. What evidence can you provide that SSM has hurt hetrosexual marriage in Canada? How about Massachusetts?

I am very happy for this study, as our planned twin grandchildren, who were conceived with an anonymous sperm donor appear statistically to be headed for a very happy life :).

I will answere the 3 questions although they are all kind of “loaded questions” LOL.
#1 – Do not believe women are per se better parents. Good moms and bad moms exist, just like good dad and bad dads exist. Yes the study shows that 2 women can produce healthy happy children without a man. I do not believe men are dengerous though, I htought that was stupid to write into the question.
#2 – The study compares Lesbian raised children in comparison to hetro raised children. And yes the main problem reported is harrasement by hetrosexuals. But that does not mean that they ahve “no” problems all kids has issues. The point is the lesbian raised children do not have more “issues’ then hetro raised kids, in fact they have less.
#3-
The children of lesbian parents were intensely planned and deeply wanted. Therefore, manufacturing children through Donor Insemination is superior to conceiving children through an act of sexual intercourse.
I actually pasted the whole question above so I could respond to it as it is indeed such a “silly” question. Hetro couples want children and increase the number of times they have sexual intercourse in order to become pregnent, so those children are certainly planned and wanted. The bottom line for me is it doens’t really matter how you got pregnent as a couple. Plenty of hetro children were “accidents” and are still loved by their parents. Would you take this logic to it’s conclusion and say that children who are born to hetrosexual families are “better off” than unplanned children born to hetrosexual children. The manner in which you were conceived; planned hetro/un-planned hetro/Sperm donor to lesbians/surrogates to gay men/adoption by either hetro or same sex, is not at all important. What is important is that once born you are raised in a loving low clonflict home by a parent with sufficient economic means to raise you. Of course it is easier on the parents if there are 2 to share the load but it very well can be done by one. So, no, Donor Insemination is not superior.

Am I the only one who thinks these questions are darn right silly?

As long as some opposite-sex unions do ever use donated gametes, and that is considered acceptable within opposite sex marriage, it cannot be used as a criteria to deny same-sex marriages or equivalent unions. Nor can being childless be a criteria when opposite sex marriages are allowed to be so.

As far as the original blogpost, I already clearly called BS to all three points. Same sex-led families are no different from opposite sex-led ones, lesbians (or gay men) are no better or worse as parents, and the kids are no better or worse for their parents.

Put clearly, a woman and a man can be equally effective bringing up a child conceived with 3rd party gametes as two women. An opposite sex pair can be just as effective with a child gestated by a surrogate mother as a gay male pair. No better, no worse- just parents.

I’m signing off this blogpost as well to concentrate here. Feel free to have the last word here, too. I can’t compete with you in word count, and will simply concentrate eventually to one blog to keep the basic discussion going. I still feel I have something to learn, and perhaps something to teach, but not at the expense of my own family.

I now shall be off to present my daughter with her birthday present- a telescope!

LWW said: “As long as some opposite-sex unions do ever use donated gametes, and that is considered acceptable within opposite sex marriage, it cannot be used as a criteria to deny same-sex marriages or equivalent unions. Nor can being childless be a criteria when opposite sex marriages are allowed to be so.”

Use your superficial thinking, as quoted above, to test your own proposed procreation restriction on opposite-sexed duos who’d procreate together.

Your absolutist tendencies lean heavily toward totalitarianism: you really think that the Government “allows” married people to be childless? If that is the way you think, then, you are not really concerned about the meaning and implementation of equal protection under a system of justice.

LWW said: “Same sex-led families are no different from opposite sex-led ones, lesbians (or gay men) are no better or worse as parents, and the kids are no better or worse for their parents.”

At one point you insisted that you were not advocating that society reward homosexual behavior or promote gay identity politics.

You have not addressed the structural similarities that all one-sexed arrangements, homosexual or not, have with childraising arrangements that fall short of the standard (as per the wide social scientific consensus) of married mom-dad raising their own progeny. This is a related, but seperate, topic from the question of eligibility to marry, by the way.

The related? Well, the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity can not apply to any one-sexed arrangement — homosexualized or not.

LWW said: “No better, no worse- just parents.”

1. You clearly are referring to types of arrangements and the evidence does not show what you claimed.

2. If you mean that there are no variations by structure of family, then, again you are mistaken. There are importance variations in terms of outcomes for children.

3. See the point about structural similarities — even with step-parenting and adoptive parenting. No one here is taking swipes at step and adoptive parents who are very often heroic.

Earlier, in our exchanges, you admitted that there is insufficient evidence for asserting the sort of social scientific conclusion you just put into pixels in that comment. I’ve “called BS” on your approach to the evidence and you have not yet developed your hypothesis, or pointed to someone else hypothesis, such that gayness or lesbianism makes all the difference to overcome the structural similarities that “same-sex parenting” shares with other types of parenting scenarios that fall short of the married mom-dad optimum.

Look, I’ve been careful to discuss the intact and low-conflict married mom-dad family and if you were paying attention you might also have wondered about high-conflict marriages raising chidlren. These, too, are substandard. The issue is not really about sexual orientation or identity politics, contary to your latest admission of advocating on that basis, but rather structure.

You talked of the number two but that was shown to be superficial mimickry rather than an actual structural basis for assuming, as do you, that homosexuality is the special ingredient that makes-up for fatherlessness or motherlessness in other arrangements.

I’ll add that instead of a “special ingredient” you could also be simply asserting a lowering of the standard such that no differences can be deemed worthy of your dogmatic view of parenting. The mountains of social scientifice evidence provide ample grounds to being more discriminating — (not in the rhetoric of civil rights but in terms of assessing strengths and weaknesses of structures) — when it comes to outcomes for children.

Indeed, if you want to deny there are significant differences, then, you don’t even need to cite evidence. Just make the asserted denial, pat yourself on the back, and proclaim victory. That’s not how you began your discussion of parenting, but it looks like that is where you are heading now.

LWW, thank you for granting me permission to comment here. Very kind of you.