Lame article. Membership in certain other groups can almost assure that a young child will not grow up in a two family home. Going to start sterilizing women in that group?

 

 

I essentially agree with Janine's argument. The best expression I've seen thereof is in a brief ethicist Margaret Sommerville submitted to the Canadian Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The problem with the argument over same-sex marriage is it has largely been about the rights of adults rather than children.

I believe that same-sex couples should have the same rights of adoption as single adults of equivalent household income. I also believe the the proposed redifinition of marriage is a form of doublespeak, that is a word "deliberately constructed for a political purpose" and "intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using [it]."

Hansen:

Lame argument. Same-sex partnerships are by definition sterile, so why should such a partnership be called a marriage? Furthermore, who said it was to governments role to mandate that children only be born married couples? Isn't it enough that the government offer such an institution to promote the raising of children by a father and a mother?

As stated above, I believe homosexual couples should have the same reproductive rights as a single adult of equivalent household income.

DJ, 

Not quite sure how your view changes the thrust of the article. Her point is that children have the right to a mother and father. I consider that a lame argument in a society which is ravaged by divorce and illegitimacy.

It's doubtful that gay marriages will do any better than heterosexual ones. Either way, there is no guarantee that the child will not eventually be living in a single parent home.

 

D. J. and Hansen,

 

Thanks for responding to my article. 

 

D. J.: I especially appreciated the hat-tip re: Margaret Somerville’s brief.

 

You wrote: << I believe that same-sex couples should have the same rights of adoption as single adults of equivalent household income. >>

 

This might seem contra my article, but I would personally put two-parent gay homes ahead of single-parent homes in the preference line for adoptions, all other things being equal.  I am not anti-gay people, I am pro-child.  Of course I think the first choice should be a qualified opposite-sex couple, whenever such is available.  But when one considers how much time and work raising a child entails, there is little question in my mind two high-quality gay parents would be better for a child than a single person. 

 

If there were a way to have a system that ensured same-sex partners would only be able to adopt children who had no heterosexual option, would I would drop my opposition to same-sex marriage?  No, because there are other serious reasons to be opposed to it. (See an earlier essay of mine posted over at Spectrum.  A prime concern is for religious liberty.)   But I would feel far less anxious about it.  

 

Hansen:

 

You wrote: << I consider [Goffar’s] a lame argument in a society which is ravaged by divorce and illegitimacy. >>

 

I appreciate your restrained but valid challenge.

 

A child of divorce or illegitimacy is disadvantaged, but he or she still has a mother and a father somewhere.  Often both parents remain involved in the child’s life, allowing the child to reap the benefits of male and female parenting.  In those admittedly very unfortunate cases where one parent never knows or totally abandons the child, the child will still retain some image of that opposite-sex parent in his or her head, and frequently longs for them, not simply as a genderless parent but as their mother or their father. 

 

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will mean no adoption agency will be able to discriminate in favor of opposite-sex couples, thereby greatly increasing the numbers of children who will, by law, go through life bereft of a mother or a father.  They will be permanently deprived of one gender’s unique contribution to their parenting (and please don’t tell me an aunt or uncle or family friend will suffice).

 

Outlawing illegitimacy is almost an oxymoron, and outlawing divorce comes with its own set of problems, including for children.   While not a perfect solution to all of kids’ problems, or close, keeping marriage opposite sex ensures more children will have both types of parents.  You may not believe that’s important.  That would be where we differ.

I am not sure it matters that much to a child why they are missing a parent.  Even children adopted by heterosexual couples seem to need to find their biological parents.  Perhaps raising a child in any family there is a need to know who their biological parents are.  That probably requires changes in adoption laws rather than in marriage laws.  Perhaps all the concern over children indicates a need to return to extended families more than a need to police the kind of nuclear families we have.  Being biological parents does not make anyone a good parent, and in my family's history it isn't hard to find examples where other relatives have stepped in and successfully 'made up' for the deficient parent.  I am not sure that a child's need to know who their parents are, and their need to have adults of both sexes they can relate to, needs to be met by the same two people.  I do agree with you about the idea of putting children's needs first, but can't see how that would be legislated without annoying a large number of people.

Kevin

Hi Kevin, 

It seems to me we are confusing two issues here: missing a biological parent and missing one type of parent, mother or father, whether adoptive or biological. 

You may have understood the sentence “Keeping marriage opposite sex ensures more children will have both types of parents” as meaning more children will be able keep their biological parents.  What I meant was that keeping marriage opposite sex will ensure that more children will have both male and female parenting.  Most people believe that is, on the whole, better for children than same-sex parenting, since males and females bring very different and uniquely important things to their parenting, and thus to the child.

Thanks for allowing me to clarify my point.

Janine 

Are you arguing against same-sex marriage? Or, are you arguing in favor of using the power of law (the state) to require that your moral and theological beliefs be imposed on those who believe differently? Those are two different arguments and many Christians are one side of the first question and the other side of the second question.

Christians mounted a moral crusade in the late 19th and early 20th century that finally resulted in an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as many states, out-lawing the manufacture and sale of alcohol. Many cogent arguments against the use of alcohol can still be sustained to this day, but there is a lesson to be learned from the monumental failure of Prohibition. Using the law to impose moral standards on nonbelievers results in a social disaster far worse than toleration of things we find immoral. More people suffer. Greater damage is done. After a couple of decades this became apparent and Prohibition was repealed. There is less use of alcohol today than at any time since, so progress through careful education and persuasion is more effective than resorting to constitutional amendments. Evidently the lessons of history are missed by many Christians.

Hi Monte, 

My argument is actually a human rights argument. 

But to address your comments… No laws based on beliefs about right and wrong?  Then I assume you oppose civil rights laws? 

By your principle, I also must assume you wouldn’t think of opposing a change in the definition of marriage to include three human beings, or four.   You would?  You’d impose your moral views on others? 

The argument against “using the law to impose moral standards on nonbelievers” cuts both ways.  One can just as accurately say those who wish to legally alter the definition of marriage are “using the law to impose their moral standards on nonbelievers.” 

So, it’s your moral standards for society, or mine.  I’ll vote (and argue) for mine, you vote (and argue) for yours!   Fair?   But let’s not come arguing we can’t impose moral standards.  Apart from the fact that laws do it all the time, on what standard do you base that argument, and is it not a moral one?   

One is in danger of sawing off the branch upon which one sits… 

Janine

"So, let's take on a new slogan for the marriage fights ahead--and there will be many: "Children's Rights Trump Gay Rights." Or, if you please, "Children's Needs Trump Adult Wishes." It may not be all that catchy, but I believe it is the most accurate and effective argument we could make. It would also be the most compassionate."

The "marriage fights" ahead?  And there will be many?

Sort of like a stained-glass Fight Club ?

 

 

  

There is a book that deals with some aspects of children's rights.

Dead Boys Can't Dance: Sexual Orientation, Masculinity, and Suicide

by Michel Dorais, Simon L. Lajeunesse, and Pierre Tremblay.

Magill-Queen's Univeristy Press

 

In addition to the book cited above,  which touches upon the issue of young people and suicide, I wanted to include an article that represents gays who are senior citizens.

 We, as Adventists, need to consider the messages we're putting into the minds of fellow Adventists and others regarding gay people and how individuals around us may eventually act upon those received messages.

 The following is a link to the New York Times article entitled "Aging and Gay, and Facing Prejudice in Twilight."  

Here's a small quote that illustrates the theme of the article:

"Elderly gay people like Ms. Donadello, living in nursing homes or assisted-living centers or receiving home care, increasingly report that they have been disrespected, shunned or mistreated in ways that range from hurtful to deadly, even leading some to commit suicide."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/us/09aged.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

 

 

I have been following the gay marriage debate for months now and based upon the discussions would like to propose that the following guidelines be instituted so that our people may understand the proper meaning and operation of marriage.  There may be exceptions for the elderly or mentally ill, but they would seem to apply uniformly to young college-aged individuals contemplating partaking in marriage:

 

1. At the inception of courtship, a young person shall inquire as to the fertility of the suitor. If the suitor is unable to bear children, then that person shall be directed to another who is unable to bear children so that the suitor who is able to bear children is not paired with one who is unable to do so.

2.  Appropriate medical testing shall be done to insure that childbearing will occur and that neither potential spouse is failing to reveal sterility.

3.  Although emotions of mutual affection and appreciation are certainly present in these situations, the primary focus shall not deviate from responsibility of both spouses to develop children.

4.  The use of contraception will be discouraged as an unnatural interference with the Godly duties of child-bearing.  Likewise, the birth of children shall be celebrated as the primary consumation of marriage and marriages failing to advance thereto will be considered "in process" of becoming full family units.

5.  In order to avoid external distraction from this primary duty, all non-approved social arrangements which do not lead to child birth as between two married spouses and genetically possible therein will be discouraged.  This can be accomplished through legislation prohibiting unnatural unions.

6.  Polygamy will be also discouraged although it is preferable to same-sex unions as there is scriptural precedence thereto.  However, such polygamy shall not be accomplished all at once and may be practiced by either gender.  One shall not advance to the second marriage without the dissolution of the first, neither shall they advance to the third without the dissolution of the second.  Discarded spouses shall be denied financial rights and child visitation rights as much as legally possible and children shall be taught that the prior spouses are responsible for the dissolution.  In no case shall it be permissible for one spouse to acquire a second without discarding the first.

7.  As child bearing is the primary responsibility, and emotions such as "love" tend to add additional requirements not necessary to performing this primary objective, "marrying for love" shall be discouraged until the childbearing years have ceased.   

8.  Adults who are no longer able to have children must be of opposite gender as an example to those who are younger.

9.  In no case shall marriage be primarily instituted for "love" absent of intent to bear children naturally and within the confines of the two present spouses, unless the two spouses are of opposite gender and shall present evidence of infertility upon which they may choose a third-world orphan or in limited circumstances participate in a surrogacy arrangement.  

10.  Love is highly overrated and is an emotional response.  Love alone is not sufficient reason to get married under any circumstances.  The reason is that Cupid's arrow fires indiscriminately and randomly and has been known to upset the social structure significantly causing severe abomination of all kinds of unions between humans, animals, and plants. Thus, in no case shall "love" be considered a primary reason for the selection of a marriage partner, and love shall be only considered a tertiary reason following fertility and genetic compatibility.

This pretty much covers the reasoning, and it is my hope that these guidelines will provide some direction as we move forward on this vital issue.  Once we remove the term "love" from the equation for marriage it makes all of this much easier - fortunately most of those who have opposed gay marriage have only used the term in phrases such as "love the sinner, hate the sin" and "we must have love for our whacked-out brothers and sisters."  Love is rarely mentioned as an adhesive between potential marriage partners and this is for the best as it really tends to gum up the works.

 

I should also point out that the above guidelines are neutral without regard to religious affiliation or creed and will apply equally to all Americans. 

Remember, marriage is not a right - it is a privilege, just like driving a car is a privilege not a right. It is separate and distinct from actual rights such as the right to religious accommodation in the workplace.  Marrying the person of your choice is comparatively trivial.

Many people think that all rights depend on each other, but here we clearly have a case of apples and oranges.  Apples being religious liberties and oranges being the so-called "rights" of people who think they were born a certain way.  Religion is clearly much more ensconced within the mind than is sexual orientation, as any thinking person can plainly see.

This clear distinction is why we, as a minority among religious groups can so boldly call for God's truth to prevail in our civil laws when it comes to marriage, and also call for the separation of church and state so that our religious faith is protected.  It is indeed provenient how all of this works so gloriously to our blessed benefit. 

Some may say that we are testing the integrity of our emphasis on religious freedom when we use the same resources to both say that marriage is not a right and to say that religious accommodation is a right.  But we are simply allowing the truth to gerrymander a  sacred district of safety within the law that will work to our benefit - we can both preserve our freedom and limit marriage. 

Amen?

 

Janine:

Regarding adpotion you said:

Of course I think the first choice should be a qualified opposite-sex couple, whenever such is available.  But when one considers how much time and work raising a child entails, there is little question in my mind two high-quality gay parents would be better for a child than a single person. 

This is a valid point. Like you, I'm not opposed to homosexuals raising children, which they are as capable as heterosexuals of doing. The point is, whenever possible, to provide children with a mother and father.

Michael:

It's always easier to argue against your version of your opponent's agruments. (Adventists have been guilty of doing that to Roman Catholics.) Maybe you'd like to address a serious rebuttal to your line of reasoning.

Here's Margaret Sommerville on the topic: 

Advocates of same-sex marriage also argue that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples based on society’s need for an institution that symbolizes the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman, means that opposite-sex couples who cannot or do not want to have children should be excluded from marriage, or, more extremely, that only a man and a woman who produce a child should be allowed to marry.

Marriage between opposite-sex partners symbolizes, however, the reproductive potential that exists, at a general level, between a man and a woman. Even if a particular man and woman cannot or do not want to have a child, their getting married does not damage this general symbolism. The reproductive potential of opposite-sex couples is assumed at a general level and is not investigated in individual cases. To do otherwise would be a serious and unjustifiable breach of privacy. It is also sometimes argued that the absence of a reproductive potential is obvious “on the face of the record” when a woman well past the age of child-bearing enters a marriage and yet we recognize such marriages. But again these marriages do not damage the reproductive symbolism of marriage in the way that same-sex
marriages would. Indeed, they continue this symbolism at the grandparent level and, therefore, across the generations.

Marriage’s role in upholding respect for the transmission of human life — which is the first event in procreation — is of unusual importance at present. We are facing unprecedented challenges to that respect because of new technoscience that opens up unprecedented
modes of transmission of life. That is another reason why marriage should remain limited to opposite-sex couples. Without it, we would have no institution that establishes a socialsexual
ecology of human reproduction and symbolizes respect for the transmission of human life through sexual reproduction, as compared, for example, through asexual replication (cloning).

Recognizing that a fundamental purpose of marriage is to engender respect for the transmission of human life provides a corollary insight: Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is not related to those people’s homosexual orientation, or to them as individuals, or to the
worth of their relationships. Rather, the exclusion of their relationship is related to the fact that it is not inherently procreative, and, therefore, if it is encompassed within marriage, marriage cannot institutionalize and symbolize respect for the transmission of life. To recognize same-sex marriage (which is to be distinguished from same-sex partnerships that do not raise this problem) would unavoidably change and eliminate this function of marriage.

(Somerville, "The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage, 2-3)

I do not agree with gay marriage or believe that it is the best alternative, but I do not feel comfortable with the church leading the charge against gay marriage.  We should use the power of God to persuade, not the power of the state to compel.  If we find that our persuasion is not sufficient to turn the tide toward morality, then we need to strengthen our relationship with God, not our relationship with the state.

We as Adventists are keenly aware of what it means to be persecuted for our beliefs.  Persecution doesn't come because somebody decides that they want to persecute.  It comes because somebody decides that somebody else is not doing the will of God and that they are powerless to enforce God's will.  They turn to the state for help, and the state agrees to help but uses the only power it knows - the power of the economic or mortal sword.  This is the root of persecution - turning to the power of the government rather than the power of God.

Outlawing gay marriage will do nothing to change hearts - homosexuals will continue having sex, adulterers will continue their behaviors, nothing will change regardless of the label you put on it.  The idea that things will change one iota based on a label is nonsense. 

If our church were going to abandon its view of separation of church and state, I would certainly hope it would be over an issue of more substance.  Not something as trivial as a label. 

Until the church is able to demonstrate that traditional marriage is worthwhile and our own divorce rates drop, our involvement with this issue is nothing more than a clanging cymbal.

 

It is interesting that some Christians are so conscentious not to impose their morals on others through civil authority while their oppenents use every leverage of any authority, civil or otherwise even religious authority to impose even minority will on the majority.

While we do not impose on others we certainly should not abdicate our rights not to be imposed upon.

Stupidity is no Christian virtue.

Janine,

 I think a kernel of what you said has a lot of valid weight but I think that you are missing so much that your argument is lost.

1.  " a child's right to begin life with a mother and a father."   Why just begin?  Why not go all the way? 

What you like most women want the right to call quits on the marriage and take your possessions, the children with you?  I can tell you from experience that children lose their fathers at a horrible rate, they are legally kept from their fathers by a State Court.  Not because the fathers are unfit but because mom all of the sudden wants exclusive control and a ransom check.

Marriage was dead at the inception of no-fault divorce, as marriage loses its weight as even a social contract.

2.  Children have the right to equal access to both fit parents, married, divorced or single parents.  There that wasn't so terrible was it?  It would take care of so much of the damage that no-fault divorce has done.  So, you make sure every State institute a mandatory 50-50 split of the children upon divorce or birth outside of marriage.  This leads to a drop in divorce and a strengthening of marriage or a sort of family unit that includes the children and mom but also the children and dad.

Outcomes are best for children with access to their mother and father.  Cross gender parents teach healthy relationships for the future.  Fathers have important and different things they teach their children than mothers.

3.  Now, how under this new order would same sex marriages get children? 

Adoption, ah but remember now it is not just the new mommy choosing to put the baby up for adoption, the dad would HAVE to be notified that he has a child and by the way do you want him/her?  My guess is adoption numbers would go down.

Finding a one time hook up baby.   Oh, but you forget the child has a right to access their father.  A Lesbian doing this would still have to give up the child 50% of the time where the child would at least have a cross gender or same gender role model.

Sperm banks and surrogates would still be an option.  I thought it interesting single straight men are starting to take this option as they feel that it is the only way to ensure that the children will always have access to them.

Don't forget that many same sex couples have as short time relationshps as heterosexual couples but the rules would be the same mandatory 50-50 so couples would maybe be less likely to add a child into that environment.  Have you seen some of the custody fights over the children by lesbian couples where bio mom wants to isolate the child from her other mommy?  Same tactics being used maybe even more vicious as in heterosexual relationships, it is almost refreshing to see more women have it happen to them.

So, you would have to be really serious about the family unit to have or adopt the children.  And, really serious about breaking up the unit as well because there is little to "win" by cutting loose and running.

Eight States are "starting" to do some legislation toward shared parenting.

The fact that you quote Thomas Sowell as an authority immediately lessens the impact of your argument.  Second, Adventists used similar arguments against interracial marriages (Yes, I attended PUC and yes, there was "Adventist" discrimination).  I guess these children will suffer from not having two parents of the same race.

ABlackman:

 

Inherent racial differences are utterly insignificant.   (To think otherwise is the very essence of racism).  What a black man or woman brings to marriage and parenting, all other things being equal, is no different than what a white man or woman brings to marriage and parenting. 

 

In contrast, men and women are essentially different in all kinds of ways, and bring very different things to parenting, generally speaking.  These complementary differences are vitally important to children.  Some will argue that point, but I do not engage on it, as I see it as a First Principle of Common Sense, the denial of which is unamenable to persuasion.  For several foolish decades, academics said there were no real differences between men and women other than plumbing.   Common sense told us otherwise, and science is coming back around.

 

I do not quote Thomas Sowell as an “authority”; I quote him as an articulate and careful thinker, for which he has excellent credentials.  You may disagree with his values, but that is another issue.  If you were to quote E. J. Dionne on a topic, I would not say you lessen the impact of your argument by doing so, because he is a good writer and a clear thinker, as is Sowell.  I would say I do not share his values and therefore many of his conclusions.  

 

Jaad:

 

This may surprise you, but I am a big advocate of fathers’ rights.  It angers me greatly that so many fathers are prevented by mothers from seeing their children, even when they have done nothing to deserve it.  So, you’ll get no argument from me on that score.  But it was something of a (lengthy) red herring you brought in, except that it does contribute to my point that children need both fathers and mothers. 

 

Michael:

 

You wrote: << I do not agree with gay marriage or believe that it is the best alternative, but I do not feel comfortable with the church leading the charge against gay marriage. >>

 

You talk as if “the church” is working to forcibly reverse an age-old point of wisdom and legally deny an acknowledged right of long standing, when the truth is just the opposite.  An activist group, small and recent in the scope of history, is working to impose its will by changing the definition of the most important social institution, while the church is working to hold onto what it deems one of the most vital societal and church standards, which has never before been seriously challenged in the history of the world—that marriage means male-female.

 

And please don’t tell me it’s the moral equivalent of defending racism and slavery.  That’s an insult to what blacks, especially, have been through.  The equation of racism with the effort to uphold the age-old definition of marriage as male-female holds no water, since racism assumes differences that aren’t there, while marriage assumes differences that are.

 

Thanks to each of you for your comments and challenges!

 

Janine

 

I think the biggest problem is the kids getting adopted into a same sex marriage. That may not be what the kid wants and who knows how the parents will be when he grows up. They'll most likely need some serious marital help at some point in their marriage.