Ruth Institute Blog

“In fact, lesbian mothers rated their 17-year-olds higher in social and academic skills, and lower in rule-breaking and aggression, than did mothers of teenagers who also had a father.”

So the study only found that lesbian mothers think more highly of their children?

“If I’m translating out of the liberalese correctly, this means that some of the kids had a hard time fitting in because their bizarre upbringing warped them into sexually perplexed freakazoids. Who would have thought?”

Wow. Both ignorant AND offensive.

Every article I’ve read about the study mentioned that the study questioned both parents and teenagers. The teenagers had to fill out questionnaires as well, so the study would take both into account. Arguing the study is invalid because the lesbians “think more highly” of their children shows a lack of research, or blind stupidity.

I also agree with Heidi. This article, with the paragraph Heidi as already highlighted, does nothing to persuade neutral audiences that your group is not homophobic, and if anything condemns you as such.

Okay, I’ve had it. Like it or not, successful societies throughout history have been those that honored and protected the traditional family. We don’t legislate to individual cases, or even to the needs of the smallest minority. We legislate for the common good. Basically, what I’m saying is WHO CARES what this study says. We know in our gut and in our hearts – and we know from millennia of recorded history as well as REAL, unbiased sociological research – that BOTH mothers and fathers are necessary and that children raised in traditional families overall do better than thos NOT raised that way. NO, it doesn’t matter that some kids are better off without their biological parents. We don’t legislate to that. That’s what courts are for: to determine the best interests of an individual child.

The real intent of this study is to promote or at least justify gay marriage and gay adoption, and that’s just not okay in terms of how we create law. Just because we CAN create children through means other than natural conception doesn’t mean we have to legislate depriving them of either a mother or a father. That’s unacceptable, and that is precisely what gay marriage and gay adoption does. THAT is the reality. You may not think it’s important, but most of us in this country do.

@Karen: I hate glib responses, but I can’t help it here. We already have legislated “depriving” children of a mother or a father. It’s called divorce. According to Gallup, 2/3 of Americans, 69%, find that perfectly moral and acceptable.

@Betsy and Van Helsing: I had wonderful parents, a mother and father, and I never fit in and was terribly bullied. My kids have two wonderful parents, two moms, and seem quite well settled. I’m not at all saying we’re any better than my parents, oh heavens no- my parents are awesome, but I don’t see our circumstance causing my kids any harm. That said, we are fortunate to live in an enlightened area and no one is judging our kids by their parents.

Ultimately, my kids, while a bit young to know for sure, seem sexually and gender secure despite whatever you might attribute to their upbringing. I was the “sexually perplexed freakazoid”, for all I had a wonderful mom and dad. Strangely enough, all the kids of same-sex couples I know, and who are old enough to know their own feelings, are heterosexually inclined and very secure in their gender. So much for that measure…

“The real intent of this study is to promote or at least justify gay marriage and gay adoption, and that’s just not okay in terms of how we create law. Just because we CAN create children through means other than natural conception doesn’t mean we have to legislate depriving them of either a mother or a father. That’s unacceptable, and that is precisely what gay marriage and gay adoption does. THAT is the reality. You may not think it’s important, but most of us in this country do.”

Um, Karen, the right to bear and raise children is a fundamental constitutional right, and like it or not, same-sex couples ARE raising children all over this country. I have a friend who works for child protective services at the DHHS in my state, which DOES allow “gay adoption” and she reports that if it wasn’t for the same-sex couples willing to foster and adopt many of the kids in state custody, those kids would languish in foster care and eventually “age out” of the system, for lack of enough heterosexual couples willing to take them. Is growing up without any family at all better than being raised by parents of the same sex? I don’t think so. My friend also reports that she is THRILLED when she places a child with a same-sex couple, because, in her experience, those couples really appreciate the gift of a child because they cannot have one of their own naturally. And guess what? These kids, who have been neglected and/or abused by their own heterosexual parents THRIVE in their new homes!

Given the reality of the same-sex parenting that is ALREADY happening in this country (and has been for decades), depriving same-couples of the right to marry only serves to hurt those couples and their children, because they and their kids are not entitled to the same benefits and protections of marriage. If you care so much about the interests of children, why would you want to harm the kids of same-sex couples? Just admit that you don’t like gay people. At least that would be honest.

Oh, and by the way, just like lawfully wedded, my kids are healthy, happy, heterosexual (at least we know the teenager is, can’t really speak for the toddler yet, lol) and they have two moms! Not surprisingly, they are just as well-adjusted and happy as the other kids of same-sex parents that I know, and I’m willing to bet that I know more of these families than you do! The only thing that harms our children is attitudes like YOURS.

“depriving same-couples of the right to marry only serves to hurt those couples and their children, because they and their kids are not entitled to the same benefits and protections of marriage. ”

1. Same-sex couples don’t “have children” — they have other people’s children. EVERY child is the result of the union of exactly one man and one woman, even the so-called “children of gay couples”.

2. If anyone is depriving these kids of the “benefits & protections of marriage” it is the so-called “parents”, who CHOSE to raise them in something other than a marriage. Adults did this on purpose, because the alternative — actually loving and marrying a member of the opposite sex — is simply too icky to think about.

That hardly makes it equal to Marriage. In fact, it seems deliberately designed to be something OTHER than Marriage.

Hey one question for you H: How is it that gender isn’t even relevant when yoou talk about mothers and fathers, yet it’s the ONLY thing relevant when you talk about husbands & wives? I don’t know about you, but I’d never trade my father for my mom’s girlfriend…

Marty, plenty of heterosexual couples don’t “have children” either. They might need reproductive technology and genetic material from a third party to have a child (in those cases, the children produced are not a product of “the union of exactly one man and one woman” but are instead the product of exactly one sperm and one egg, neither of which may belong to the parents raising the children). They might be foster or adoptive parents. Are families like these lesser families? Are the adults not considered the parents of the children? Parenting is what makes someone a parent–not the sex act that creates a baby, and not the genetic material that goes into that creation.

Nope, attitudes like yours deprive these kids of the benefits and protections of marriage. And for a gay or lesbian person, it is much, much more than just “too icky” to think about being with a member of the opposite sex. It is downright unnatural. But we’ve all heard the stories of the people who tried to fake it, and the devastation caused to those families when those people could no longer lie about their true sexual orientation. Just try to imagine the psychological harm that comes from trying to be something you are not. It’s not fair to the marriage partner, it’s not fair to the children that may result from that pseudo-marriage, and it’s not fair to ask a person to suffer in silence and misery for his or her entire life just so you and people like you can feel more comfortable.

Marriage to you might be a simple matter of combining opposing body parts; of gender stereotypes and the roles based on those stereotypes. Marriage to you might be reduceable to procreation, although neither is dependent on the other for its meaning considering that plenty of people procreate without marrying and plenty of others marry without procreating. To me, it is about honor and fidelity, a lifelong commitment to the person you love, sacrifice and respect, a partnership of equals who vow to care for one another emotionally, physically, and spiritually, until death separates one from the other. Who knew that it would be gay people who really understand the meaning and importance of marriage? You really do trivialize it by reducing it to body parts and babies.

As for your last point, I have NO IDEA what you are talking about. It doesn’t even make sense. I am a mother and a wife (albeit not a legal wife yet). And I would trade my biological father for just about anyone in a heartbeat, considering that he was an abusive, woman-hating, religious right-wing zealot who didn’t deserve the wife and children that he did have. I bet my mom would have been a lot happier if only she had been gay! LOL. Just kidding; she just met and married the wrong man, and spent way too many years of her life trying to be the good Christian wife. Sometimes divorce is the best thing that can happen to a woman, at least it sure was for my mother and for us children.

It is just so sad to me that you believe that marriage is just about making babies. Marriage is so, so, so much more. Of course, I can only speculate, since I can’t get legally married when I live yet. But it will happen in my lifetime, of that I am certain. And when it does, my wife, my children, and I will all celebrate taking one step closer to equality.

should be “where” I live.

Heidi: “Marty, plenty of heterosexual couples don’t “have children” either. They might need reproductive technology and genetic material from a third party to have a child.”

An arguably reasonable response to a medical defect.

H: “They might be foster or adoptive parents.”

A compassionate response to a pre-existing tragedy.

Which one describes you?

And thanks for sharing your feelings about your own father. Very elightening, and no suprising in the least, given your consistent misandry.

@Marty: I’m calling foul and request that you be a little more gentle when dealing with an abused person on the subject of her abuser. While I understand your point, as a victim myself I resent the way you made it. It was a cheap shot, and ungentlemanly. I myself work hard to be cognizant of and compensate for the prejudice I hold for black men, not to mention Domino’s Pizza, due to my own assault. It’s not easy.

You say, “An arguably reasonable response to a medical defect.” I say, “an incredibly clever and inventive solution to a challenge.” Same end, different connotation.

And as far as adoption, your response could cover just about anyone with the means to provide a home. Single parent, two family members living together (i.e. two sisters), two lovers of the same sex, or two lovers of opposite sex. Will you perhaps allow for adoption?

Marty, as I have said before, I do not hate men. Until my current relationship, I have always dated men. I spent 8+ years with the father of my daughter, who I still enjoy a warm friendship with to this day, along with his wife and the stepmother of my child. Truly, your stereotyping of me is pretty lame, but I guess that assuming I am some “man-hating lesbian” is consistent with your limited and narrow worldview. Considering that I am bisexual, not lesbian, I can also fairly assure you that I have had satisfying relationships with men. I just happened to fall in love with a woman (many years after my daughter’s father and I split, so no, I did not leave him for a woman, or anyone else–nothing scandalous caused our break-up, we just knew it wasn’t right), and chose to follow my heart. I’ve known since childhood that I was attracted to both sexes, I just always preferred men because it was socially easier to be with one. I didn’t really expect the love of my life to be female, it just happened that way. Love can surprise you sometimes.

I do believe that I have explained my circumstances with respect to my children. My biological daughter is the product of a heterosexual relationship, I never married her father although we were together for quite a while, and have successfully co-parented our daughter ever since we split. My other daughter is actually my biological niece who was a drug-affected fetus, abandoned by her father and her mother is incapable of caring for her. My partner and I have raised her since her birth. I’d say that our choice was “a compassionate response to a pre-existing tragedy.” If you only knew how happy and healthy this little girl is, and how much she loves her mommies/aunties! This little girl does not yet know the cruel and awful prejudices that exist in this world, but I’m sure that someday, someone like you will tell her that her family isn’t good enough. Having known a number of kids raised by same-sex parents, several of whom are teenagers today, I know that the single biggest harm to them is caused by people with attitudes like yours, who disrespect their families and the parents they so deeply love. You see, I’ve never seen my friend’s daughter cry because she didn’t have a daddy, but I have seen her cry because someone said something hurtful about her moms.

I truly pray that someday your heart will open, and you will be able to see that all families are worthy of respect. In spite of all of the hatred, fear, and hostility that still exists in many areas of this country, I still believe in the innate goodness of people and in their ability to learn, to grow, and to change for the better. If my Southern Baptist grandmother can do it at 80+ years old, and can learn to see people through the eyes of love and compassion instead of through the eyes of self-righteous judgment, I have faith that you can too.

Heidi,
I think Marty can be forgiven for thinking of you as a person who hates. You come around here to a place where we disagree with you. You’ve written three major diatribes on this thread alone, each of those three are what about two hundred words long? And those comments are frequently ill tempered, humorless and well, ZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

You know, I once read a book called “Emotions Revealed” by Paul Ekman. Let’s see what he has to say about anger and hatred. Angry people, for instance look for reasons to be angry. (Coming to a website which professes viewpoints you abhor certainly seems like a way to search out reasons to be angry). He describes hatred as an emotional attachment. So, I can’t be sure whether you come here because you want to get angry, because you have an attachment to your hatred of gay marriage opponents, or because you’re a masochist. I don’t know.

But, given the above, and given the dour tone of your musings here, I think Marty can be forgiven for thinking what he thinks of your propensity to hate.

I don’t hate anyone, but I am only human, and can very easily admit that sometimes it can be hard not to hate people who would deny you equal civil rights. I’m sure you wouldn’t really like it either. What if someone denied your right to marriage because of some arbitrary characteristic of yours?

No, I don’t come here because I hate anyone or because I’m searching out reasons to be angry, or because I’m masochistic. That last one really made me chuckle, though I can promise you that I’m a grown-up and haven’t been personally wounded by any of the mean-spirited comments made by some of the others on here. And it’s a good thing that I don’t tend to take things personally, considering that I’ve been accused of hating men, of harming children, of living a “perverted lifestyle” and some other rather unpleasant and defamatory assumptions. If anything, I feel really sorry for people who would treat others unfairly and carry so much disdain for their fellow human beings in their heart.

You want to know why I come here Ari? I’ll tell you. Because I believe in the power of education and the potential for human beings to grow beyond their discriminatory inclinations. I’ve seen it happen in my own life. It’s a lot harder to hate someone when you hear their story, when you get to know them, when you envision them as a real, live human being. It’s harder to work to deprive another of civil and human rights when you see and relate to them as a fellow human being. I come here out of love, because I believe that love shall eventually overcome. I’d just like to try to speed that day along by teaching others that gays, bisexuals, lesbians, and transgendered people are not people to fear. I want others to know that we have happy families, that our children do not suffer, and that we’re not out to “destroy the family.” I want to provide a direct challenge to the assumptions and stereotypes about us that are disseminated on a daily basis by people like those who run and contribute to this site. I want your readers to know that we are real people, with real stories, and with the right to live in equality under the law.

I’m sorry that you don’t like my responses, Ari. I’m sorry if I bore you. I guess asking you to consider my children and their right to grow up in a world that does not hate their parents is boring to you. And that says so very much more about you than it does about me or my style of writing. We both believe in God, Ari. I wonder if you ever consider that you could be wrong, and how you will explain to God why you treated some of his children so poorly while here on Earth.

Marty quoted Heidi and asked a couple of questions, which I don’t think Heidi deigned to answer.

Here’s a copy-paste from Marty’s earlier comment in response to Heidi; maybe she will respond to this part when attention is focussed on it.

— Quote:

Heidi: “Marty, plenty of heterosexual couples don’t “have children” either. They might need reproductive technology and genetic material from a third party to have a child.”

An arguably reasonable response to a medical defect.

H: “They might be foster or adoptive parents.”

A compassionate response to a pre-existing tragedy.

Which one describes you?

—Unquote

If you read Heidi’s posts, she’s answered the origins of both her kids many times over- including here.

I do believe that I have explained my circumstances with respect to my children. My biological daughter is the product of a heterosexual relationship, I never married her father although we were together for quite a while, and have successfully co-parented our daughter ever since we split. My other daughter is actually my biological niece who was a drug-affected fetus, abandoned by her father and her mother is incapable of caring for her. My partner and I have raised her since her birth. I’d say that our choice was “a compassionate response to a pre-existing tragedy.” If you only knew how happy and healthy this little girl is, and how much she loves her mommies/aunties! This little girl does not yet know the cruel and awful prejudices that exist in this world, but I’m sure that someday, someone like you will tell her that her family isn’t good enough. Having known a number of kids raised by same-sex parents, several of whom are teenagers today, I know that the single biggest harm to them is caused by people with attitudes like yours, who disrespect their families and the parents they so deeply love. You see, I’ve never seen my friend’s daughter cry because she didn’t have a daddy, but I have seen her cry because someone said something hurtful about her moms.

And I’ll also quote myself on the topic, although it was not directed at me, “You say, “An arguably reasonable response to a medical defect.” I say, “an incredibly clever and inventive solution to a challenge.” Same end, different connotation.”

It gets tiring to say the same thing over and over again, as I am sure you can understand as well.

Back to the original blogpost. On this very special day, I wish to wish all the dedicated and involved Fathers reading this a very Happy Father’s Day! Your efforts on behalf of your children, and all children, are warmly appreciated and greatly needed. Regardless of what some may ascribe to me, or what some on the left might think, Fathers are a critical part of this world and I, for one, am glad for every single one of you.

~A Grateful Daughter of a truly awesome Dad

Heidi’s claimed circumstances are atypical of what is repeatedly (and tiresomely) discussed by gay advocates and SSMers when it comes to children raised by ‘same-sex’ parents. Do you acknowledge as much, LWW?

What I hear from advocates is that same-sex parents are lesbian or gay, rather than the millioins of same-sex scenarios that are neight lesbian nor gay.

I hear from them that the children raised by mom-mom duos do not have fathers; unlike what Heidi has claimed about her own circumstances. The absent parrent of the other sex is deemed invisible and irrelevant not least because of the propagandic emphasis on the presence of a second person of the same sex (again with the underlying assumption, often made explicit eventually, that the two adults are homosexual persons in a same-sex sexual relationship). But most of these children have the same protections available to other children of divorced and estranged parents. The children from marriages are further protected by the marital presumption of paternity (which opposite-sexed and not one-sexed); and those from unmarried mom-dad duos are protected by the extension of the principles of that marital presumption to unwed childbearing (again these principles are opposite-sexed not one-sexed).

Advocates also over-emphasize third party procreation and depend on the fiction that their is no father or no mother — just an implausible one-sexed pregnancy. This practice does not come about due to a medical impediment nor due to a pre-existing tragedy — nor due to “an incredibly clever and inventive solution to a challenge”.

Yet that is the protypical same-sex parenting scenario that you yourself have emphasized as the benchmark in discussions of the need for research of “matching” parental structures, LWW.

By your intervention above I take it that you recognize that Heidi’s claimed circumstances contradict the prototypical examples of advocates and as such don’t support your arguments very well. I mean, if your arguments depend on such outlanders (in the case of the niece example) and on such well-researched substandard models (in the case of divorced or estranged mom-dad duos), then, there is not much left for you to stand your opinion on.

I’m sorry: I know Heidi and Lawfully-wedded are perfectly capable of answering for themselves, but I have to jump in here. I’ve never seen either one suggest that there’s a “prototypical same-sex parenting situation”. Nor have I seen either describe “an implausible one-sexed pregnancy”. I’m not sure why they should be asked to defend these positions, no matter how repeatedly and tirelessly these nameless “advocates” make these arguments to you.

Just as there are multiple ways for opposite sex or “traditional” marriages to have children, the same ways exist for non-traditional unions. IVF, adoption, children from previous relationship, or even children of their own in intersex or transgender circumstances. I have an equally educated colleague of a different discipline who just had her first child with her partner. She transitioned from anatomically male to anatomically female 10 years ago, but had sperm frozen away. She’s now breastfeeding (yeah, she can) her newborn along with her partner, the gestational and genetic mother.

My point of benchmarking is that the circumstances have to be comparable other than sex of the partners. Kids as babies in consistent relationships can only be compared to the same. Kids with the experience of divorce can only be compared to the same. For valid research, variables must be controlled to the extent possible or the data isn’t comparable.

LWW: And I’ll also quote myself on the topic, although it was not directed at me, “You say, “An arguably reasonable response to a medical defect.” I say, “an incredibly clever and inventive solution to a challenge.” Same end, different connotation.”

Sorry, missed this one earlier.

An inventive solution to a challenge???? What challenge was that exactly — how to create a baby without letting a MAN get involved?

Sexist much?

No. The challenge is how to create a baby without requiring a woman to have sex with a man she chooses not to. The original challenge was creation of a baby by heterosexual or asexual married couples when the husband was incapable of producing adequate sperm (or any sperm) and/or getting an erection. By allowing sperm from another man to be used without requiring extramarital sex, you allow children to be produced that are genetically related to at least one member of the couple…or in some cases not where the child uses tird part ova and sperm The same technologies are in use outside of marriage by all sorts of women, not just those in same sex relationships. It has benefited men, too. Again, I know of pairs of couples, one lesbian and one gay male, who have worked together using IVF to produce two children, with one going to one couple and the other to the other. Men are involved here, but again it absolves the involved participants from sex with someone not their chosen.

No, not sexist at all. Clever. And a God Send for those couples, including heterosexual married ones, who can have kids who otherwise would be barren.

Well that’s honest enough LWW, and appalling in its callous description of children as a commodity, to be “produced” in the lab (and paid retail for), from “ova” and “sperm” but completely unrelated to the love or honor or responsibility of the man and woman involved in the transaction (or shall I say “Mom and ‘dad’”)!

And to think, some people claim you guys are really out to “destroy the family”…

fuerte, both LWW and Heidi have favorably discussed the prototypical scenarios that I mentioned. Okay, they did not use my exact words to describe the same thing, but I did not say they had.

I think Marty has aptly described the callousness of that description, LWW. And I find it interesting that you approvingly called the prototypical same-sex parenting scenario of SSM propaganda, “clever”.

Meanwhile most children raised in same-sex households do not match that scenario. Nor the so-called “intersexed” version you added. Outlanders in more ways that one, of course.

If you think that it is clever to go so far afield to deny a child both a mom and a dad, then, clever can easily fit the misnomer, one-sexed pregnancy.

Marty, the vast, vast majority of kids produced this way are to legally married heterosexual couples. That is the market this technology was developed for. I know personally an infertile couple where 3rd party sperm was their only option for kids at least related to one of them due to previous chemotherapy that permanently destroyed the husband’s ability to create viable sperm in adequate numbers. They’d rather use IVF than the wife have sex with a man not her husband. Who are the “you guys” you are referring to? Who is “destroying the family”?

That the solution can also be used just as effectively by equally loving couples just as challenged for lack of sperm or ova isn’t the fault of the technology or the couples involved. The kids will be just as loved and the family will be just as strong.

Chairm, I don’t expect you to listen because it is often the strength of your arguments, but will you please stop wildly rewording or rearranging what I say? I think finding solutions to childless marriages is quite clever. That the techniques/technologies have applications across the human spectrum is nice too. That the same technologies and techniques are open to “traditional” married couples known to be infertile at the time they wed means you cannot use that as a negative connotation for same sex couples, and you cannot maintain use of these technologes prevents inclusion within the “marriage” umbrella. Same sex unions accomplish the same end by the same means. Equal protection.

@Chairm said, “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.”

From your own perspective based on your own values, perhaps. But legally, perhaps not. Equal protection fo all human beings without regard to discriminating factors.

The 14th Amendment the the Constitution of theUunited States says, “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphasis added)

As long as one population is freely allowed something without prejudice, you cannot prejudice another population for doing the exact same thing. Insufficient or nonexistant sperm is insufficient or nonexistant sperm. Someone who never produced sperm his entire life due to a genetic issue, but still has at least something that can be referred to as a penis at birth and as such is assigned male, is allowed but someone who didn’t have that bit of tissue isn’t? Doesn’t sound like equal protection to me.

@Chairm said, “Meanwhile most children raised in same-sex households do not match that scenario. Nor the so-called “intersexed” version you added. Outlanders in more ways that one, of course. But some do match the scenarios I outlined, so they are valid. As I said, there are as many variations on the same-sex theme as there are the opposite-sex theme. Some even provide a genetic father that fulfills a second maternal role. In those circumstances, there’s not even a 3rd party gamete. Two moms really do have their own kids. Please elucidate what an “outlander’ is.

The above should read…

@Chairm said, “Meanwhile most children raised in same-sex households do not match that scenario. Nor the so-called “intersexed” version you added. Outlanders in more ways that one, of course.”

But some do match the scenarios I outlined, so they are valid. As I said, there are as many variations on the same-sex theme as there are the opposite-sex theme. Some even provide a genetic father that fulfills a second maternal role. In those circumstances, there’s not even a 3rd party gamete. Two moms really do have their own kids. Please elucidate what an “outlander’ is.

LWW said: “Marty, the vast, vast majority of kids produced this way are to legally married heterosexual couples. That is the market this technology was developed for.”

If you mean couples who experience infertility “due to previous chemotherapy that permanently destroyed the husband’s ability to create viable sperm in adequate numbers”, then you are callously equating a disability with the lack of the other sex.

That lack, LWW, is neither a disability nor a tragedy nor a dire circumstance. That lack is just the nature of all one-sexed arrangements. As such it is not an excuse to create a child for the express purpose of denying that same child either a mother or a father.

These techniques come with many ethical dilemmas, however, where a husband and wife can provide a child of third party procreation with both a dad and a mom, no one-sexed arrangement does so.

What precisely is clever about this abuse of the technology that was developed for husband-wife unions which experience an actual disability? Please do explain it further.

LWW, I have accurately described what you have said. Readers can follow your comments and compare them with mine and judge for themselves. If you have a specific discrepancy in mind, please cite it and state your objection. Thanks.

LWW, your wish that this be entrenched as a constitutional right does not make it so.

Your blandly evil remark about “a bit of tissue” speaks volumes. Your supposed priority on the rights of human beings appears to stop when it comes to the defenseless human beings being “produced” (your own word) or manufactured (mine) with hostility toward the human being’s birthright to both a mom and a dad.

Marriage’s core meaning has long been reflected in the law. The marital presumption of paternity continues to be vigorously enforced as the primary means by which this birthright is protected by society. Procreative justice is about what is due or owed the child, not what is desired by needy adults.

Your remarks on this topic reveal that you place those needy adults far above the children to be conceived. That is the inverse of the marriage idea. It appears to be of great importance to your SSM idea, however, where you would press into the constitution, and into our form of governance, the explicit promise that the child’s birthright, as a human being, is incompatable with justice.

Since these yet-to-be-conceived children cannot defend themselves, it is up to society, on the whole, to stand-in. One way is to listen to the voices of adult donor-conceived children.

Earlier you made a different promise — that the subjective experiences of the donor-conceived children must be equally valid in your viewpoint to the sexual desires of adults.

That now stands as but another inconsistency in your viewpoint.

LWW, unless you propose that the examples you cited regarding “intersexed” are to be considered as anything but exceptions, and rare exceptions at that, we can agree that such are outlanders. As I said, these are even outside the prototypical pro-SSM scenarios that are the common trade of advocates.

LWW said: “But some do match the scenarios I outlined, so they are valid.”

No, they do not, for the significant reasons already covered.

LWW said: “As I said, there are as many variations on the same-sex theme as there are the opposite-sex theme. Some even provide a genetic father that fulfills a second maternal role. In those circumstances, there’s not even a 3rd party gamete. Two moms really do have their own kids.”

Is there a same-sex theme? Is there an opposite-sex theme? Please compare and contrast. Thanks.

No third party gametes? Then, no third party procreation.

However, that “genetic father” in a “maternal role” example falls within the realm of the “intersexed” outlander.

If not, explain the “match”.

From an equal protections perspective, a sterile couple is a sterile couple. I don’t buy that we can legally discriminate government action based only on cause. If one sterile couple is allowed technology, others should be as well, and without additional prejudice.

I think I’ve made it clear where your argument with me falls short. I don’t buy that a child needs both a mother and a father as parents. I don’t believe there is a legal basis for requiring it given we allow divorce and do not require remarriage after the death of a parent. I do believe kids need both sexes in their lives, but not necessarily in the parental role. I have made clear how two parent same-sex families differ from single-parent ones in very functional ways.

I don’t believe kids are slighted by same-sex parenting. As far as 3rd party donor kids in ANY family arrangement, I know they ask questions just like adoptees, but I think the data has shown that quality of family is far more effective a predictor of happiness than the conception details. Ultimately, I certainly see divorce as far more damaging, and we allow it.

As far as the intersex “outlander” (do you mean “outlier”), that’s more relevant than you seem to want to admit. I’ll take that up a little later here.

I’m dropping monitoring this blog. If you want to comment more on anything I’ve said here, you can take it to the same link. Feel free to get the last word here if that’s important, you’ve certainly outdone me on word count and may as well keep up the good work.

LWW said: “From an equal protections perspective, a sterile couple is a sterile couple.”

And yet no one-sexed scenario is sterile.

It is nonfertile.

You are making the common error of confused categories.

How can a nonfertile type of arrangement — which as a type is never fertile — be or become sterile? It cannot.

On the other hand, human fertility varies in many different ways. The human individual begins life pre-fertile; it is the nature of human fertility that the individual’s powers of procreation emerger during maturation. Those powers are never realized without the other sex. That is just the essence of human procreativity. I doubt you’d deny that much, at the very least.

Some people are born with a disability and, when they form a man-woman duo, their disability is shared with the other sex. Some become disabled either through illness, or through medical treatment (such as life-saving surgery), or [gasp!] old age. Always, a husband and wife’s fertility is varied by their being a combination of the sexes. Human generativity can and does vary during the typical lifetime of a marriage. This is not foreign to the core meaning of the social institution.

The lack of a husband, or the lack of a wife, is simply the lack of the other sex. This is not infertility. This is not subfertility. This is neither primary nor secondary fertility. This is not a medical disability on par with the variations that can and do occur within the spectrum of human fertility. This lack is simply a nonfertile scenario.

LWW said: “I don’t believe there is a legal basis for requiring it given we allow divorce and do not require remarriage after the death of a parent. ”

Perhaps you believe that Government should be tyrannical, too. I dunno, LWW, but your remarks give strong hint of an absolutist view of lawmaking but a view that conveniently would apply only to the deconstruction of marriage rather than the construction of some one-sexed alternative.

The legal basis is right under your nose. The marital presumption of paternity is two-sexed, not one-sexed. Our society even tries to extend the basics to unwed paternity. The sexual basis for this vigorously enforced presumption is not a social construct but arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind, the opposite-sexed nature of human procreativity, and the both-sexed nature of human community. Maybe you would hope that the principles of responsible procreation would be abolished in the law and in the culture when your asexual version of nonmarriage is imposed on society via the SSM merger.

I’d hope not but then you’ve not really addressed the legal basis of the special status of marriage in our society, anyway.

LWW said: “I think the data has shown that quality of family is far more effective a predictor of happiness than the conception details. ”

You are abusing social scientific terms, again.

1. What data?
2. Quality is subjective as per your own remarks so “show” is inappropriate useage.
3. Your “far more effective” depends on item 2 and thus is not a “predictor” measure in the way you speculated.
4. Measures of happiness as per your own remarks does not justify “show”.

It is okay to speculate, of course, as optimistically as you desire. But that is not the same thing as making a social scientific assertion of certainty as per your remark above.

LWW it is not a question of counting words but of scrutinizing the content of your viewpoint (and mine) with the stated goal you said you came here with. To learn. To understand. To be understood.

That said, you’ve done your share of making pixels into words during the exchanges you’ve participated in in the comment section of this blogsite. Sorry to see you depart, actually.