Hopefully everyone will at least agree we all love our kids. I know I do…very much.

They continue to debate whether a man should marry a man and a woman another woman. What would aliens who land on this planet and listen in on this debate say: Too much learning has made them mad–and blind too. Can they tell which is a primitive nation and a developed nation?

The aliens —no matter how primitive or sophisticated would have the same kind of marriage that we have now on earth.

Soon the West would be hotly debating whether a sister can marry her brother. If lesbians make better parents would two or even three sisters not make even better parents. Forget the issue of a conjugal relationship, no need for that, because there’s Artificial Insemination.

Since they are so smart in the West they will discover a way to detect and deactivate genes that might might cause defects in the children of incestuous couples. So what’s the problem, they would say. Doesn’t it make sense to keep it all within the family instead of people going far and wide to find mates who may turn out to be axe murderers.

Sister marrying sister surely makes better sense than total strangers getting hitched. A brother and sister match-up might even be better. You get the much touted benefit of having a mixed gender couple. Again sex would be optional. AI to the rescue. Love and commitment that is all that matters. Agape!! Eros maybe. I can see a brilliant lawyer making these points animatedly to a judge who is completely floored by those arguments. How could society have been so judgmental and incestophobic all these years, he would intone.

The hlobby might say SSM should not be compared with incest —they only want to be compared with traditional or natural marriage for now until they succeed in destroying it.

Does incest not fare better in history than same sex marriage? Polygamy too. Furthermore, same sex relationship is a form of incest because it is like sex within the family, within the sisterhood or within the brotherhood. SSM is like sister having sex with sister.Taboo. Does anyone remember that word? Incest is sex in what should be sex free zones, where we can have other forms of nurturing relationships without sexual tension. The hlobby will ruin marriage along with same gender frienships.

SS parenting is also a form of polygamy because both are based on the same principle —- too much of a good thing. One wife good, two better, one mother good, two better., one father good, two better.

Just because studies claim that polygamous families are better for children is no reason for polygamy to be legalized. Polygamous families may indeed do better than monogamous families because the wives can divvy up babysitting, household and wifely duties. Just because gambling brings in revenue is no reason for it to be legalized. Since the homosexual lobby always likes to bring up slavery, let’s bring it up. Just because slavery aids a country’s economic growth is no reason to bring it back. Core principles do not have to be compromised for a desired goal.

2o yrs is not long enough. We need to see how well these wonderful children do in love, and work and marriage and parenthood, etc. Better still after they retire and reflect on life then they can tell us if having lesbian mothers is truly better. Sorry, not enough history of lesbian motherhood.

Why do we have to boast that we know same gender headed families? If we don’t know them it means those kinds of families are not rooted in our tradition. Millions of people around the world do not know families like that and we should keep it that way.Many around the world are more likely to know polygamous families. But the SSM lobby acts like they have a stronger claim to legalization than polygamous families.

Yeah, yeah, . Equality, they chant. For all? For every kind of family? Really? For singles too? Is what is left after every group gets marriage equality still marriage?

Studies confirm the obvious and bad studies have obvious flaws.

This study highlights the craziness of a society relying mostly on studies as its moral compass. What do you have left after you dispense with the Judeo-Christian principles upon which this nation was founded? The other two competing worldviews—-Secular-humanism and Islam. Which worldview should supplant the Judeo-Christian worldview the advocates of SSm are so eager to eradicate from the public square?

Some things ought not to be done simply because they ought not to be done. Anyone can come up with high sounding arguments for whatever new right they desire and find supporters. Why should single women not press for marital benefits, after all “single” is designated a a marital status on forms.Why would some not press for the right to marry their dogs? Sex does not have to involved.Love and commitment, that’s all that is required. It is good for the dog and good for owner, no not owner, partner.

Shall we then say: those who agree with the conclusions of the study are screwed up because they did not have lesbian mothers. That is their problem.

Your thinking is unclear. Are you proposing that the unity of fatherhood and motherhood is as unnatural as C-sections or pain drugs?

Because, on one hand, it does not follow that society should categorically disunite fatherhood and motherhood when it comes to the social institution of marriage, which is pretty clearly a cultural/social adaptation to the opposite-sexed sexual basis for human procreation.

On the other hand, human beings are not beasts; as a species we are highy social which again is closely related to the very high degree and very prolonged vulnerability of the individual — especially during childhood. And since women are impregnated by men, rather than the other way around, or rather than asexually like say some other species, the social and the physiological are both taken into account in the natural way in which civilizations connect fatherhood, motherhood, childhood, and this universal human institution known as marriage.

So while we need not take our lead from beasts, whether they be primates or bacteria, we can discern the nature of humankind, of human procreation, and of human community and follow that much as best we can, as a society. What is natural for humankind is perhaps the starting place for considering how to account for how to organize our foundational social institutions.

Right?

You said: “I will bet you $1,000 you do not actually know any gay or lesbian couples who are raising children.”

You lost the bet.

And you earned demerits for your last paragraph’s misrepresentations.

As far as sex integration, I’m all for it. We just differ on whether it’s critical that there be one parent from each sex. I think grampas and grandmas, aunts and uncles, friends, and the like can provide an integrated perspective. I’ve already posted here asking what exactly you see that so differentiates the sexes. I think more information will help me understand all the daylight between us here.

As far as core meaning, I think I’ve been very clear, but let me try yet again. You have two consenting adults who want to dedicate their lives to each other, through adulthood and old age unto death. They may want to share this nurturing environment with children where possible, providing them a loving home and a great start on life. If so, they want the ability for one partner to stay at home during the childrearing years. They want the family to not pay a special penalty for said staying home, and they want both their resources in old age not to suffer for that gift to their children. They want to share with the other the right to make decisions, and to be present in all things. Love (agape) is central to this relationship and its meaning, love (eros) is optional.

Differentiating from non-marriage is the dedication of the couple, the intention of an exclusive life-long commitment with shared resources and decision-making, as well as the equally shared commitment to children where possible and desired.

Well then you should also agree that women should only ever have natural childbirth and never a cesearen section as it is just not, how did you say it, “natural” It is not found in nature, so C sections should never be performed. Or that they should never have pain reducing drugs during labor as it is not good for the infant. Right? Right?

In nature there are plenty of examples where the father does not stick around and the offspring is raised by the mother or groups of mothers. Sooooo if you really wnat to follow nature, I guess after insemination has occured (what you think is the only purpose of males) then the human fathers should skeedattle, that is what happens in some species in nature.

I know it is really sad for you, and breaks your hard little hearts, that neither nature nor science backs up your “opinion” of gay and lesbian parents. I believe it is time for YOU to evolve. It is time for you to say, “Oh my I really did not think the study would show that result. Isn’t that surprising. Wow I never would have thought that. Huh!” I will bet you $1,000 you do not actually know any gay or lesbian couples who are raising children. I mean really know them. For if you did you would not be surprised, nor continue to reach for any reasons for you to invalidate the study.

Everyone on the anti gay side, anyone posting, do you in fact know any gay or lesbian families (not just gays and lesbians individually), do you know any familes well, meaning not a casual acquaintaince. Or, “Well there are 2 gay guys who live on my street.”

Like it or not, gays and lesbians ARE reproducing AND deserve the same marriage rights as anyone else, for the benefit of the children you care so much about. What about the children of gays and lesbians do you really honestly prefer that they should be raised in a home where their parents are not married? If you care “about the children” you should be caring about ALL the children not just children born to hetrosexual families. After all YOUR expert witness in the Prop 8 trial said, “We would be more American the day we permitted same sex marriage”

As I said, a copy-paste is not the starting place.

What you propose is incoherent. It is sex-segregative. It is the antithesis of provison for responsible procreation. While the meaning of marriage is foundational to civil society, your SSM idea is a very recent attempt to mimick the conjugal type of relationship.

That’s very far from identical.

What the SSM campaign is after is the promotion of gay identity politics as superior to the core meaning of marriage, superior to the marriage law, and superior even to this foundational social institution. (The undermining of the constitution and rule of law is another side “benefit” that the SSM campaign has indulged in.)

Indeed, you still have not given reason, even a middling reason, to accord special status for marriage, much less for the type of relationship or arrangement you might have in mind. You do not distinguish between marriage and nonmarriage, in fact.

What I propose is not prejudicial but it legitimately discriminates between marriage and nonmarriage on the basis of what marriage actually is, at its core, as a type of relationship with great societal significance.

Your SSM idea might do that, too, but you have given no reason thusfar to believe it does or even can. I think it cannot possiblely benefit society the way that the core meaning of marriage benefits society. If it has merits, it also has demerits, and costs. If the cost of the special status of marriage is too high, and it should be demoted, as per your SSM idea, then, it really is up to your to do the basic groundwork and to explain your idea more clearly and convincingly.

I want to strengthen marriage, not render it as vague and meaningless as what you have described in regards to your SSM idea.

On the other hand, I readily agree with protections such as those that have long-existed, and are well-utlized, and which can be modified if there are actual problems in need of solving. These protections, or tools, are not denied to the vast range of the nonmarriage category, including the one-sexed arrangements — regardless of sexual orientation and regardless of the presence of children. Indeed, provisions are more keenly available where children are especially vulnerable. I thought that was one of your main concerns.

But begin with the core meaning. Can you not develop your idea more fully? For instance, differentiate the type of arrangement you have in mind from the rest of nonmarriage. If you don’t think there is differentiation, okay, start with that.

Do not mistake that for an interpretation of a tradition.

As for provisions for designated beneficiaries, these do not require establishment of new type of relationship status at law. Marital status is a relationship status. You clearly imagine some sort of relationship status that would share the special status of the conjugal type of relationship but without its core meaning.

So the place to begin is not your laundry list but rather the meaning of the type of relationship you have in mind — its essentials without which it would not be that type. This is what would distinguish it from all the rest.

What might follow is a set of provisions or, if merited, a relationship status that fits that type of arrangement. The benefits from society via the government would arise from that, not from an arbitrary copy-paste from marital status.

I referred to the families who experience vulnerabilities due to the lack of (or diminishment of) sex integration and responsible procreation in their circumstances. Fatherless children, in particular, feature prominently in this societal concern regarding marriage.

When marriage strengthens, the shear number of such families decreases but that will take generations to accomplish, it is reasonable to expect. So in the meantime protections are called justified. But not special status.

So, no, a laundry list of demands that would amount to the merger of marriage and nonmarriage is not the starting line.

However, you may have a type of relationship or a kind of arrangement in mind — even if it is rather vague — and, if so, a relationship status may be what you’d imagine as a solution. If so — please start with the core meaning or the essential features of that type of relationship. Start with the thing itself before you bring in the government on behalf of all of society.

I’m willing to entertain a parallel struction as long as it is not prejudicial and provides for parenting and old age of couples who commit to each other outside the rigid confines of your interpetation of “traditional” marriage. What do you have in mind?

We’re on the same side here but the children reported the teasing to their parents who then reported that on the questionnaire.

Regarding your issue with sample size, a study can draw generalizable conclusions a longitudinal study in which 78 subjects have participated in the study for over 20 years.

The women volunteered when they were pregnant…back in 1986-1992, when the researchers were seeking volunteers.

The study did not focus on the children of lesbian couples. It compared maternal reports on a standardized, widely-used survey instrument between children raised by lesbians and what the study calls the normative sampel. It was a gender-matched group of 49 girls and 44 boys, all 17 years old. Surveys were completed at ages 2,5, 10, and 17 by the participants in the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study.

Let’s assume mothers in both groups overestimated how well their children are doing. This negates your contention that the study should have “cross-referenced with objective outcomes.”

Regarding the confounding variable of socioeconomic status, the study notes that the SES of both both groups comparable. If you look at Table 1 in the study, the control group (children of heterosexual parents) is actually more skewed toward those with higher income so their scores would tend to be higher.

The normative group were participants in another study that the researchers were given permission to use. The study provides a reference to that other study if you’d like to look into how those participants were selected.

Like it or (obviously) not, this study is rigorous social scientific work and misrepresenting their research methods to your readers is intellectually dishonest.

Read the study for yourself: http://www.nllfs.org/publications/pdf/peds.2009-3153v1.pdf

What you described is no different, really, than millions of households where grandparents and parents combine to raise children; or where friends do so. You don’t really attempt to differentiate the one-sexed arrangement that is lesbian from these other one-sexed arrangements — you concede they are equally merititorious and should be treated on par.

I think you’d find that most people would agree that these can be recognized, and accorded protections based on vulnerabilities, without need to touch the marriage law and related social policy. These arrangements are not forms of marriage.

Rather than cynical, my view is realistic and optimistic. Given the rough state of the social institution of marriage, I say find ways to strengthen it without gutting its core meaning. But also recognize there are large populatiions of families outside of marriage for whom we, as a society, are obliged to protect precisely because we as a society have handicapped marriage. The solution is not to shrug and eraise the distinctions between marriage and nonmarriage — as deconstructionists would do — nor is it to impose the supremacy of identity politics — as gay activists would do. Both of those options are bolstered by highly cynical arguments that belittle marriage to the advantage of their radical ideologies.

Okay, some people think that the merger can be benign — but given the track record of the SSM campaign, one would have to be senseless to proceed on that basis. But even if the intentions were benign, the flaws in the proposed SSM merger persist. So it is not really a question only of protaganists with different values standing in conflict. There is a real social institution in peril here. Either it will be deconstructed, negated, superseded by identity politics, as per the trajectory that the SSM campaign has made clear — or it will be protected, reaffirmed, strenghtened, and brought above the politics of identity.

That is, afterall, how we managed to establish the pluralistic marriage laws that have served our civilization very well.

Marriage as a religious institution should be left alone to each religion to interpret. This is already the case even within traditional marriage- Episcopals will allow remarriage, Catholics and Mormons will not. Similar latitude for restriction must certainly be extended to same-sex unions. And the rights of parents to conduct the moral upbringing of their children should be respected by all government agencies.

So, before I go, let me just ask you a question.

You have a couple, two women or two men, who are dedicated to each other in a devout and faithful manner with a dedication no different than an opposite-sex couple who is able to get married. Sex may or may not be a part of the relationship, just as with opposite-sex couples. They found their soul-mate, although you may deride such romantic terms. They have kids. One of them wants to stay at home during the childrearing years and provide the solid, consistent presence of a stay-at-home parent. They look at the stark realities in the US and realize their union will require thousands in legal fees to establish the rights that come with a simple marriage license, will lack joint tax filing which will remove thousands of dollars from the family- essentially penalizing the decision for good parenting, the stay-at-home partner will place him or herself in great jeopardy in retirement due to lost Social Security credits, and numerous other hits. That’s pretty harsh for these families, and for the kids as they grow up with fewer means and having to help their parents in ways other kids do not.

Taking the above example, what do you offer them, and more specifically, their kids? You’ve mentioned support for non-traditional families outside the status of marriage. What does that mean from your perspective? Where is your human compromise?

Perhaps you can understand how most defenders of marriage feel about the courtcentric and political onslaught of the SSM campaign. We have our lives and we don’t necessarily have the time and energy to devote to countering each and every cyncial “argument” that SSMers put out there.

It takes hard work to explain a social institution, its influence, its power and its vulnerability. It takes not nearly as much to superficially kick holes in the general public understanding of the actual disagreement on the marriage issue.

I must say that lawyers have a very difficult time juggling that sort of thing with the legalistic restrictions they must work within in our system of lawmaking and courts. Hence the SSM side starts with the tactical advantage where judges are ready to abuse the judicial role as occured in just about every jurisdiction where the SSM merger has been imposed. Setting things righth — restoring the status quo ante — has been an uphill struggle, not due to bad arguments on our part but due to the disadvantage we have in the propaganda war and the abuse of judicial review.

Marriage defeneders in the US are doing better than elsewhere because citizens can slow down the push for radical changes, in general, and even have the means by which to forestall and, sometimes, reverse the errors of courts or unresponsive legislatures.

So, we too have our lives to live and we did not ask for this ridiculous struggle over marriage. The SSM side started this and they have attack the core meaning of marriage with relentless fervor. Their arguments are plainly weak and hopelessly optimistic in favor of the SSM merger and cynical against the affirmation of marriage as marriage.

What youu may be feeling when dealing with steady and firm resistance and scrutiny in the discussions here is what we feel but in response to relentlessly juvenile assertions and superficial thinking — dogmatic axioms of gay identity politics — and we face, as a society, the perils of issue fatigue on marriage. Tire people out; make them feel ready to surrrender just to stop the wrangling; encourage people to become apathetic and withdrawn. That is a political strategy in use in Massachusetts and elsewhere. It is not good for our system of governance, nor for the state of public discourse, nor for our liberties.

So I empathize with your remarks about limited time and energy to devote to your own stated goal of learning more about the substantive objections to your SSM idea.

Please also address disapprobation, approbation, and neutrality. That has not been addressed at the other link. Indeed, while you discussed “penalties” here as meaning one thing, you approved of “penalties” there as meaning that same thing and more.

I realize that you might not have given these things great thought in forming your opinons on the SSM idea, however, I appreciate you making the effort to articulate responses in this exchange between us.

You wanted to learn more about objections to the SSM merger and as you re-examine your own viewpoint you may discover that those objections shed light on how important marriage defenders believe this conflict actually is — not just for our own families today but for future generations to come. It really is not first and foremost all about homosexuality, same-sex sexual behavior, or gay identity politics, at least from our side of things. But that is quite the contrary of the pro-SSM side of things, I think.

f you get at least that much out of this exchange, then, I will feel we’ve accomplished a big piece of your stated goal. What do you think?