Home > Jennifer Roback Morse, Newsletter articles, Same Sex Marriage > Dr. Morse’s testimony to the Rhode Island legislature yesterday re: SSM

Dr. Morse’s testimony to the Rhode Island legislature yesterday re: SSM

February 10th, 2011

I am here today to address those of you who have already made up your minds to  redefine marriage. History will not be kind to you. Previous generations of social experimenters have caused unimaginable misery for millions of people. Particular people advocated the policies that led to today’s 50% divorce rate and 40% out of wedlock childbearing rate. None of these people has ever been held accountable.

I am here today to hold you to account, for the predictable harms you will cause by redefining marriage.

Let me remind you of the essential public purpose of marriage. Marriage attaches mothers and fathers to their children, and to one another. Once you replace that essential public purpose with inessential, even frivolous private purposes, marriage will not be able to do its job. But children will still need secure attachments to their mothers and fathers, a need which will go unfulfilled.

You are redefining parenthood, as a side effect of redefining marriage, without even considering what you are about to do. Until now, marriage makes legal parenthood track biological parenthood. The legal presumption of paternity means that children born to a married woman are presumed to be the children of her husband. With this legal rule, and the social practice of sexual exclusivity, marriage attaches children to their biological parents.

Same sex couples of course, do not procreate together. “Marriage equality” requires a slippery move from “presumption of paternity” to the gender neutral “presumption of parentage.” This sleight of hand transforms parenthood. The same sex partner of a biological parent is never the other biological parent. Rather than attaching children to their biological parents, same sex marriage is the vehicle that separates children from a parent.

No longer will the law hold that children need a mother and a father. Under the inspiration and guidance of people like you in other states, courts are saying silly things like, “the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything  else.”1

This statement made by the Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum v Brien, is false as a general statement. Mountains of data show that children do need their mothers and  their fathers,2 and that children care deeply about biological connections.3 The gay community is not responsible for today’s generation of fatherless children. But they will be responsible for the next such generation.

And don’t tell me that we already have lots of children unattached to their parents. We should be taking steps to place responsible limits on things like divorce, rather than careening headlong into further and more institutionalized injustices to children.

Are you really prepared to accept responsibility for the consequences of detaching legal parenthood from the natural moorings of biology? Do you really want a world in which children may have three or four legal parents?4 Are you ready for contract parenting, in which adults parcel out parental responsibilities amongst themselves? That is the world you are bringing into being. 5

The next generation of children of divorce may be shuttling between 3 or 4 households, with their backpacks and their sleeping bags. Whether you’re ready or not, I hold you accountable.

And don’t try to tell me “nothing so terrible has happened in Massachusetts.” Redefining marriage redefines the way in which generations relate to one another. It is ludicrous to believe that we would feel the full impact of such a change in a few years. It will take at least a generation, a full thirty years or more, before the full effects of redefining marriage work themselves out throughout the social system.6

The only argument you have is so-called “equality.” You have taken a venerable American concept and twisted it out of recognition. Equality used to mean limiting the power of the state to make irrelevant distinctions among citizens. In your hands, equality has become a battering ram for smashing every aspect of social life that has any hint of sexual differentiation. No more mothers and fathers, only Parent 1 and Parent 2.

Far from limiting the power of the state, your version of equality has become a tool for the hostile takeover of civil society by the state. Churches are already under attack for daring to dissent from the new state-imposed Orthodoxy that marriage is whatever the government says it is.7

Parents are losing the right to direct the education of their own children.8 Foster parents in the UK must submit to the state’s views about marriage.9 Reputable adoption agencies have been put out of business.

And the pettiness of some of the complaints brought by same sex couples is simply staggering. Christian bed and breakfast owners have been sued for not allowing unmarried couples to stay in double rooms. They would have gladly rented them separate rooms, but that was not good enough for the thought police.10 Same sex couples have brought legal complaints against wedding photographers, as if there were a constitutional right to have your picture taken by the person of your choice.11 All in the name of “civil rights.”

Let me remind you that a vast majority of African Americans completely reject same sex marriage. They are deeply offended by the high-jacking of the moral authority of their civil rights movement.

When slavery was abolished, all slaves became free men and women. When women obtained the right to vote, the discrimination ended with the very next election. But for children of same sex marriage, the situation will be different. When we come to our senses 30 years from now and realize that we have perpetrated a grotesque injustice, not a single child born fatherless or motherless within a same sex marriage will get his missing parent back. Only prevention will protect children’s rights.

The thin disguise of marriage equality will not mislead anyone, nor will it atone for the wrong this day done.12

And to those of you who plan to vote for man/woman marriage, I say: stay strong! History is on your side.

1 Varnum v Brien Supreme Court of Iowa, No. 07–1499, Filed April 3, 2009, pg 54, footnote 26

2 Among the many citations that could be given, “Why Marriage Matters: 26 Conclusions from the Social Sciences,” (NY: Institute for American Values, 2005), summarizes some of the most important research.

3 See Elizabeth Marquardt, Norvell Glenn and Karen Clark, “My Daddy’s Name is Donor: A Pathbreaking Study of Young Adults Conceived through Sperm Donation,” (NY: Institute for American Values, 2010).

4 “Pennsylvania Court finds three Adults Can Have Parental Rights,” http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2007/05/pennsylvania_co.html (quoting Superior Court case, Jacob v Shultz-Jacob, 2007 Westlaw 1240885 , 2007 PA Super 118), “Canadian court rules boy has a dad and two moms,” http://www.religioustolerance.org/hommarr3par.htm

5 “Why just Two? Disaggregating Traditional Parental Rights and Responsibilities to Recognize Multiple Parents,” Melanie Jacobs, Michigan State University College of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, No. 05-04; “Johnny has two mommies—and four dads,” Boston Globe, October 24, 2010, http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/10/24/johnny_has_two_mommies__and_four_dads/

6 Quoting divorce statistics in Massachusetts is frankly ridiculous, since the divorce rate rose by 4.5% in MA between 2004 and 2007, while the divorce rate across the whole of the US fell by 2.7%. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/Divorce%20Rates%2090%2095%20and%2099-07.pdf (Divorce Rate by State, 1990- 2007, Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, CDC. Page last updated, November 19, 2010), and http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm National Marriage and Divorce Trends, National Vital Statistics System. Provisional number of divorces and annulments and rates, United States, 2000-2007, page last updated, November 19, 2010.

7 For a general discussion of the likely impact of same sex marriage on a variety of church-related activities, see Douglas Laycock, Anthony R. Picarello, Jr. and Robin Fretwell Wilson, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2008).

8 See in Massachusetts for instance, Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87, 92-93 (1st Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 2008 WL 1926813 (Oct. 6, 2008), and in California, SB 777 requires “non-discrimination” in instruction, for private as well as public schools. Senate Floor Analysis of S.B. 777, Senate Rules Committee, Office of Senate Floor Analysis 2 (Sept. 19, 2007) (internal quotations omitted), available at http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_cfa_20070919_103650_sen_floor.html. See S.B. 777, 2007-2008 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2007), available at http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20071012_chaptered.pdf;

9 In the UK, see the recent cases of Owen and Eunice Johns, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325311/Gay-rights-laws-danger-freedoms-Bishops-speak-homosexuality.html and John and Charlotte Yallop, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/August/Christians-Denied-Foster-Kids-Over-Moral-Stance/

10 A UK couple who runs a bed and breakfast out of their own home is being sued by a same sex couple because they were denied a double room. http://wn.com/Christian_B&B_owners_sued_by_homosexual_couple

11 The New Mexico Human Rights Commission fined a Christian wedding photographer because she declined to take photos of a lesbian commitment ceremony. http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/jun/photography.pdf

12 Slight paraphrase of Justice Harlan’s dissent in Plessey v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537,562

Be Sociable, Share!
  1. February 10th, 2011 at 13:59 | #1

    “Until now, marriage makes legal parenthood track biological parenthood. The legal presumption of paternity means that children born to a married woman are presumed to be the children of her husband.”

    Um, there is a disconnect there, because the presumption of parenthood, by itself, does not track biological and legal parenthood, in fact it does the opposite. It says, to heck with biological parenthood, all that matters is being legally married to the mother, whether you provide the sperm or not. You do note that “with this legal rule, and the social practice of sexual exclusivity, marriage attaches children to their biological parents,” but it is the legal requirement of marriage to procreate offspring with someone that attaches children to their bio parents, and the presumption of paternity has nothing to do with it. It just legally facilitates and encourages donor conception.

    “Same sex couples of course, do not procreate together.”

    it is not out of the realm of possibility, indeed it has been done in mice, and pigs, i think. The question is, should we let same-sex couples try to procreate together, should we approve of them procreating together, should we say they have a right to procreate together? That is the same question as should we let them marry. It always has been the same question throughout history, and it should remain the same question.

  2. Jamie
    February 10th, 2011 at 14:32 | #2

    “When slavery was abolished, all slaves became free men and women. When women obtained the right to vote, the discrimination ended with the very next election. But for children of same sex marriage, the situation will be different. When we come to our senses 30 years from now and realize that we have perpetrated a grotesque injustice, not a single child born fatherless or motherless within a same sex marriage will get his missing parent back. Only prevention will protect children’s rights.”

    So, those other 100 years of discrimination and oppression and some shadow of what some one might have considered to be freedom, those were pretty cool? And discrimination against women, that ended the moment they could vote, right? Totally

  3. February 10th, 2011 at 15:06 | #3

    “Rather than attaching children to their biological parents, same sex marriage is the vehicle that separates children from a parent.”

    Isn’t it the presumption of paternity and the practice of ARTs that does this? It’s hard to see how withholding the legal status of marriage keeps children from being separated from their biological progenitor, when we don’t require people to procreate with a married partner’s gametes exclusively.

  4. February 10th, 2011 at 15:31 | #4

    I agree with Jamie on the problems with the paragraph about slavery and womens’ rights. But other than that, I was very impressed by this speech. Excellent job! I hope that it makes a difference with at least a few of the legislators.

  5. JThieme
    February 10th, 2011 at 16:03 | #5

    I’m so proud of you Dr. J! Good job.

  6. Sean
    February 10th, 2011 at 19:46 | #6

    History is on the side of expanding, not limiting, equal rights. Since there’s no particular public purpose in limiting marriage to straight people, it seems to be an odd claim to say that limiting the rights of gay people is the right side of history. I guess who don’t know history, you are condemned to repeat it!

  7. Sean
    February 10th, 2011 at 19:47 | #7

    It is odd, indeed, to believe that legal same-sex marriage in any way affects the legal rights of different-sex couples or their children. It’s like saying letting Jews worship on Saturday affects Christian worship on Sunday.

  8. February 10th, 2011 at 22:44 | #8

    It seems like the author of this blog entry has quite a bit of anger built up. I fundamentally believe that she is burying very strong anti-gay sentiments and hostility/animus towards gay men and women in her hollow rhetoric.

    This article amounts to nothing more than fear-mongering. It insults not only all gay parents in this nation raising children (mostly through foster care/adoption), but straight parents who adopt children as well.

    When push comes to shove, evidence has shown in European countries that they only people destroying marriage are those hell-bent on ensuring marriage inequality. Young men and women are selecting to remain unmarried or entering into civil unions to avoid all of the pomp and fuss and hyper-religious tones surrounding marriage.

    Lastly, in looking at divorce statistics it is interesting to point out that the states with the highest problems in divorce are also the states that are fundamentally anti-gay.

    “And to those of you who plan to vote for man/woman marriage, I say: stay strong! History is on your side.”

    Given the obvious trend towards equality in both previous and current civil rights movements and the overall attitude of acceptance of younger folks, one statement remains true: NOM and the Ruth “Institute” are obviously not in the right side of history.

  9. Mark
    February 11th, 2011 at 05:34 | #9

    “Until now, marriage makes legal parenthood track biological parenthood. ”

    Uh, so how does your adoption fit into this “biological” requirement?

  10. Rich
    February 11th, 2011 at 08:52 | #10

    During my 34 years of teaching in the classroom, I have had the opportunity to know many (dozens perhaps) kids who were raised by committed and loving gay parents. I can’t think of one instance when the child was adversely affected by this family structure. I do not remember one child who did not love his/her gay parents. Indeed, if I remember anything, it is that these families were extremely close and the adults tended to be quite a bit more involved in the academic and social lives of their children. I understand that studies seem to support the experiences that I have had; I find Dr. Morse’s testimony to be shrill, inflammatory and not supported by real evidence. Chicken Little did the same thing but, as we know, the sky did not fall. Indeed, the sun continues to shine and children continue to be raised happily by committed and loving gay couples. Now, let’s look at some of the dysfunctional and broken straight marriages and the young victims that I see continually in my classes, year after year….

  11. David in Houston
    February 11th, 2011 at 09:29 | #11

    It is virtually impossible that same-sex marriage will have any negative impact on straight couples getting married and procreating (if they so desire). In fact, that’s happening right now in all the states (and 10 countries) that have “marriage equality”. Straight couples are living their lives, getting married, planning their families, all without the slightest thought about gay people that they don’t even know.

    You speak of the divorce rate and out-of-wedlock child birth. But I’ve not heard a single plan to legally address these issues at the state or government levels. It only helps to point out the utter hypocrisy of your position. Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh is on his 4th (’til death do us part) marriage. Hugh Hefner is about to marry a woman 60 years younger than him. Anti-gay Gov. Sanford cheated on his wife and destroyed his family. Yet, somehow, it’s the 3% of the population that is going to be responsible for the entire downfall of society, simply because they want to take part in a “venerable American concept” that they respect so much.

  12. February 11th, 2011 at 11:32 | #12

    Memo to the Ruth Institute

    Dear Jennifer Roback Morse,

    Well, It’s been a almost a month. And after scanning all the major news outlets all over the country for the past few weeks, I discovered something really odd… I was shocked to learn that in the United States, apparently none of the following things have happened.

    - A mad rush of people marrying their pets…
    - Pandemic Polygamy
    - All across America Kindergarten students taught classes on Gay sex…
    - Scores of Clergy rounded up and put in prison for preaching…
    - Marriage as an nstitution collapsing and millions of Heterosexual couples getting divorced
    - America overrun by godless hordes bent on destroying our very way of life.
    - Opposite Sex couples in America completely stopping having Children.

    Which is quite odd when you think about it. Because last month I got married. (That in and of itself is not the odd part.) But rather it is the lack of anything odd happing as a result of it, that is strange.

    After all, I can’t even count the number of times I have people like You, and your cadre of self-proclaimed “Family Values” proponents spew dire warnings of doom, gloom, apocalypse and general hubbub and brouhaha should Eric and I ever get married.

    So…. Where are all the promised apocalyptic consequences? Where are the mass divorces of all the marriages Eric and I supposedly “attacked” one week ago, by tying the knot ourselves? Where is all the promised damage to millions of children who are now, (according to you), so confused as to what a marriage is?

    Where are the plagues of frogs, locusts and boils? Where is the collapse of Western civilization as we know it, due to its very foundation being rent asunder by the HORROR of my getting married to another man last month?

    Nothing? …. Anyone? … Anybody?

    NOW when faced with reality, (something you apparently don’t like to deal with all that much…) you change your tune to say all the awful things WILL happen, it’s just going to take a generation or so for us to see it. … Really?

    For years now , whenever the subject of marriage equality comes up as part of our national discourse, You and your ilk, claim it is an “attack” on marriage and the family. So I decided to look up the word `attack’ in the dictionary. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines it as:

    Attack
    Pronunciation: &-’tak
    Function: verb
    1 : to set upon or work against forcefully
    2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
    3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously
    4 : to set to work on
    5 : to threaten (a piece in chess) with immediate capture

    Hmmm… to set upon or work against forcefully huh? Ok, so if we take your argument seriously, for my Husband and I to have the same rights as any other couple, not more rights, not any new rights that other couples do not currently have, but ONLY the exact same rights, would injure, damage and potentially even destroy heterosexual marriages and families.

    Uh.. ok.. How exactly? Oh that’s right, we have to wait a few decades to find that out…

    Does the fact of my marriage now mean that you have lost the 1,100 federal benefits and protections that you had eight days ago? Does the fact that I am now married mean you and your spouse can no longer file a joint tax return, have, adopt or raise children, pass on social security survivor benefits, or make medical decisions for each other?
    Does my being married now mean that people will no longer want to even get married. and if they are married, will now want to get divorced? Has your marriage or family changed in any way as result of what happened to me and my spouse last month?

    The answer of course, is no. None of your talking points on same sex marriage stand up to even basic common sense. But it’s pretty clear that common sense isn’t something you deal in very much.

    You say that gay marriage cheapens or lessens the value of the institution of marriage in the eyes of society. But since none of the rights or benefits that you enjoy have changed in any way as result of my marriage; What you are really saying is that for YOU, my getting married has cheapened YOUR own marriage in your own eyes.

    My getting married means I now have something that, (again, according to you,) only heterosexuals are supposed to have . And that makes you mad. It’s not just that you wanted to prevent me from having equal rights, you want make sure that I don’t have any rights at all..

    You see equal rights for me, as an attack on you. That’s interesting…

    Let’s be honest Jenny, this isn’t about “protecting marriage”. It’s about people you don’t like, having the same rights as you . And that bothers you.

    Even though your life clearly has not changed in ANY way, you firmly believe that your marriage now has less value, lower status, and the institution itself, could come to an end. All because my partner and I were able to get married back in January.

    It suddenly occurs to me there is a word for someone who is irrationally fixated on the preservation of inequality, that they feel is in their favor. It turns out, Merriam-Webster’s dictionary has the same word for it.

    Bigot
    Pronunciation: ‘bi-g&t
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
    1: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own
    opinions and prejudices
    Posted by DaveF at 8:50 PM

  13. February 11th, 2011 at 11:41 | #13

    @David in Houston

    Well put, David, thank you for your eloquence.

    This has always been curios to me: while it may be true that marriage in America is on the rocks, so to speak, it makes little sense for the defenders/saviors of the “sanctity of marriage” to focus so obsessively on that miniscule percentage of people who would enter into a marriage with someone of the same sex. When divorce rates are what they are, when our political leaders are relentlessly and publicly shaming themselves with their sexual conquests and power games, when so many children are born out of wedlock, where is the sense in focusing on the small number of gay people who DO want to get married?

    Never made much sense to me.

  14. KarmaPolice
    February 11th, 2011 at 12:11 | #14

    Divorce rates are up. Why? Because the economy is so much better.

    So much for the sanctity of marriage.

    Do society a favor and go find a new hobby. Or simply just go away.

    Meh!

  15. DavidKCMO
    February 11th, 2011 at 20:07 | #15

    Looks like the doctor will be out of a J-O-B soon.

  16. PD
    February 12th, 2011 at 07:42 | #16

    Why is it that NOM never puts any energy into promoting statewide constitutional bans on divorce? That would really go along way towards preserving marriage! I’ll tell you why. Too many of their supporters (think bible-belt) have actually gotten divorced and remarried, sometimes a number of times (think Newt Gingrich, new r. catholic for example). A restriction on divorce wouldn’t play well with the base so lets demonize a group that is irrelevant to our supporters. Hypocrites. And how many children does Maggie Gallagher have by the way?

  17. Ruth
    February 12th, 2011 at 07:48 | #17

    @Emma
    The front line of the defense of marriage is currently no-fault divorce and the re-definition of marriage.

  18. Ernie
    February 12th, 2011 at 16:18 | #18

    Thanks so much for coming to RI and for so clearly articulating a number of great arguments against SSM. By the number of your critics, it is clear that you are a real threat to them. Stay in the fight!

  19. Mark
    February 14th, 2011 at 06:51 | #19

    @Ernie
    “By the number of your critics, it is clear that you are a real threat to them.”

    Actually, I think it’s more accurate to say that people are merely trying to clarify incorrect assumptions and mis perceptions.

  20. Emma
    February 14th, 2011 at 20:17 | #20

    @Ruth
    That doesn’t really answer my question. Why obsess over the miniscule portion of marriage that same-sex couples seeking equal treatment under the law represent when there are so many exponentially larger problems facing so-called “traditional” marriage today? I get that same-sex couples are an easy target– a scapegoat, if you will, and that’s it’s easier to convince people that if we just stop the gays from marrying all will be well in the world — but a more logical answer would be appreciated.

  21. Ruth
    February 14th, 2011 at 22:12 | #21

    @Emma
    An even smaller subset of sexual activity is the people who feel compelled to have sex with animals.
    Can you see that if they started to demand “marriage equality”, that would get even more people’s attention; it would be an even louder wake-up call as to the alarmingly low state of marriage and, thus, of civilization?
    I think the same-sex marriage issue is very helpful in attracting attention to no-fault divorce and to our entire culture of “I must do whatever I feel like doing”.
    I hope it leads to serious change in the way we view adult responsibilities to commitment and to children, before it is too late.

  22. Chairm
    February 15th, 2011 at 00:46 | #22

    RJ said: “It insults not only all gay parents in this nation raising children (mostly through foster care/adoption), but straight parents who adopt children as well.”

    YOu need to recalibrate your perceptions. No insult was given to adoptors. No insult was given to gay parents. The conflict is between the marriage idea, as Dr J described, and the SSM idea, as SSMers have presented it.

    Most of the children residing in same-sex households (a census term for households headed by presumably homosexual adults) were not adopted. Most, by far, migrated with either mom or dad from their parent’s previously procreative relationship (usually marriages). The marital presumption of paternity applies in most of these households — to protect and assist the children, the mom, and the dad. So if you reject the marriage idea, and the sexual basis of the presumption of paternity which is at the core of marriage, then, you, not Dr J., would add insult to injury to the vast majority of those gay parents in same-sex households raising children.

  23. Chairm
    February 15th, 2011 at 00:50 | #23

    RJ, the dissolution rate for same-sex scenarios registered with government (under whatever guise) is significantly higher than the divorce rate in the same jurisdictions. If you are making a point about divorce rates then consider the breakup rates for the very type of relationship you wish to advocate. Meanwhile you also made a point about participation rates; but same-sex householding is a marginal practice within the adult homosexual population even where SSM has been imposed or enacted. And merging SSM with marriage has done nothing to stall or reverse nonmarital trends in the adult heterosexula population. So your points about divorce and marriage participation don’t seem to be very useful in making the case for the SSM idea.

  24. Chairm
    February 15th, 2011 at 00:59 | #24

    Emma, the conflict is between the marriage idea and the SSM idea. When SSMers bring up divorce and unwed childbearing, it is only to try to build a case for SSM based on the rise of nonmarital trends. It is certainly not to build a case for SSM as worthy of preferential status based on what SSM actually is — a subset of nonmarriage that happens to be promoted with a gay emphasis.

    It was not so long ago that the nonmarital trends appeared to be levelling off, and there was hard work being done across the country to reverse those trends, but then the SSM nonsense began. SSMers insist that nonmarital trends more plausible. So merging SSM with marriage would lock-in negative trends rather than do anything to promote marriage itself.

    SSM is not marriage. It is a specious substitute for marriage.

    And if you think that the defenders of marriage have not been working hard on the nonmarital trends — on divorce, unwed childbearing, and all the rest — then you have not been paying attention. And that would be understandable given that SSM is a hyped up political issue that has overshadowed the real priorities facing the social institution of marriage. That hype is due almost entirely to the promotion of gay identity politics.

  25. Chairm
    February 15th, 2011 at 00:59 | #25

    SSMers insist that nonmarital trends make SSM more plausible.

  26. Mark
    February 15th, 2011 at 14:13 | #26

    @Ruth
    “An even smaller subset of sexual activity is the people who feel compelled to have sex with animals.”

    Ah, Ruth, comparing a loving consenting adult relationship to bestiality. How “christian” of you.

  27. Mark
    February 15th, 2011 at 14:14 | #27

    @Chairm
    “RJ, the dissolution rate for same-sex scenarios registered with government (under whatever guise) is significantly higher than the divorce rate in the same jurisdictions. ”

    Source? Can you PROVE this “fact”?

  28. Tim Wright
    February 15th, 2011 at 15:56 | #28

    @RJ

    No One is Gay, they practice homosexual sex, but they are not gay. This is so obvious.

  29. holybit
    February 15th, 2011 at 16:09 | #29

    Wow, the pro homosexuality crowd is out in droves on this post. Dr. M has hit the nail on the head again and debunked your attempt to convince the world “up is down and down is up.” The attempts made here-in amount to the usual goal post moving tactics, slander mongering, political name smearing, et al. The natural order of the created world will win out whether you like it or not.

  30. Mark
    February 15th, 2011 at 16:47 | #30

    @holybit
    “The natural order of the created world will win out whether you like it or not.”

    And homosexuality IS natural so, thanks for supporting SSM.

  31. Jim Reed
    February 15th, 2011 at 18:10 | #31

    Why is the mainstream media quiet about such eloquent and truthful opposition to same sex marriage as this?

    They should wise up and start giving time to these kinds of rebuttals.

  32. holybit
    February 15th, 2011 at 18:33 | #32

    @Mark
    Of course I support the Society for the Sanctification of Maternity.

    Any sentiment person knows natural order is an inherent sense of right/good vs wrong/evil. Sodomy between two men or a man and an animal can not procreate. Homosexuality is NOT natural! Nothing good/right comes of it. It is a perverse evil.

  33. Che
    February 15th, 2011 at 19:33 | #33

    These people in favor of gays and ssm are blinds leading the blinds. See you at the bottom of the cliff. Dr. Morse’s testimony was right on the money. NO to same sex marriage and their life style.
    Bother and sisters in Christ, know that at the end we win this war. It is in the scriptures.

  34. Emma
    February 15th, 2011 at 19:39 | #34

    @Ruth
    Comparing same-sex relationships to bestiality is tired and old. It does nothing to advance your argument, but merely points out your misguided and inappropriate disdain for some people’s marriages.

  35. Kyle
    February 15th, 2011 at 20:17 | #35

    For those who would like to claim that same-sex marriage will not affect traditional families and the raising of children even decades in the future, I would invite you to look into how the legalization of contraception has affected our society.

    When contraception was making its push to become legal its proponents were talking about how it would be good for spouses and good for families, but overwhelmingly the opposite happened.

    I don’t think that they were being disingenuous; they sincerely believed that contraception would be better for families. They did not think that it would lead to an increased divorce rate and certainly not an increased number of children being born out of wedlock. They would have “known” that it wouldn’t have those effects even decades into the future.

    We have the benefit of hindsight though and can say that the legalization of contraception can be linked to the breaking up of families and to children not having stable homes to grow up in.

    Someone said earlier in this thread that those who don’t know history are condemned to repeat it. It looks like same-sex marriage is on its way to becoming the law of the land, but be careful what you wish for. You aren’t going to be the first movement to have unforeseen consequences that were pointed out by your detractors.

  36. Imano
    February 15th, 2011 at 20:29 | #36

    @John Howard
    “It’s hard to see how withholding the legal status of marriage keeps children from being separated from their biological progenitor, when we don’t require people to procreate with a married partner’s gametes exclusively.”

    Harold, do you really think this is a problem? Because if you have a problem with this, you will be on Dr. Morse’s side. This is, partially, her point. We have problems right now that we should be focused on fixing. She cited the problem of out of wedlock marriages and the divorce rate as something we should work on. You think kids born out of wedlock have good relationships with both of their parents?

    We should not jump headlong in to a world of stamped “we like each other” relationships and forget what (further) negative impact it will have on our society.

  37. Kyle
    February 15th, 2011 at 20:41 | #37

    @Imano
    I think he’s just saying that with some types of artificial reproductive technology (ART) we are already allowing for children to be separated from biological parents.

  38. Imano
    February 15th, 2011 at 20:41 | #38

    Question for the pro-gay marriage proponents on this board: What, in your minds, is the purpose of government approved marriage (lets assume for the sake of this question that “marriage” includes same sex couples)? In other words, why do we have a government recognized relationship between two individuals?

  39. Imano
    February 15th, 2011 at 21:13 | #39

    @Kyle
    Thanks Kyle. I didn’t really address that issue and was responding more to his overall argument. My bad!

    But I do think the point still applies. Just because not every law in our society jives with what she is saying does not mean that she has no point. Plus ARTs are very rare in comparison to divorces, out of wedlock childbirths, and the (apparently) potential for labeling parents as parent 1 and parent 2 without any regard to biological relationships.

  40. Chairm
    February 15th, 2011 at 22:25 | #40

    Mark, what would you accept as “proof” on this issue? I ask because you are so ready to move the goalposts on most other discussions of issues om which you’ve demanded “proof” and that renders your demands as heckling rather than fact-searching on your part.

  41. February 16th, 2011 at 04:04 | #41

    Reading through the comments is interesting. Aside from religion being against s/s marriage, are there any other reasons to be against it?

    It’s almost like dieting. You hear about many types of diets, all of which claim to work almost miraculously and yet statistically, only 5% of people can lose the weight and keep it off. (even with drastic surgery which disables the digestive system, the long term success rate in keeping off the weight is only 7 percent!)

    People seem to really believe in the diets they believe in. An acquaintance of mine is a low carber but he is clinically obese. In answer to his protestations that low carbing is the only way, I asked “and, how’s that working for you?”

    That’s kind of the bottom line. If things like s/s marriage are so good, why is our society falling apart?

    (Statistics tell us that 70 percent of those now incarcerated are from father-less homes.)

    Fact remains, (and religion aside – I realize that’s not a valid argument for someone who is not a believer), there are things which work in a society and things which historically have not worked well. Einstein tells us “doing the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result is insanity”

    And there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that two parent homes, with a male and female parent, tend to work the best, not only in raising kids but also in persistence of the relationship. Which may be why types of arrangements other than the male and female arrangement in the framework of a firm committment, are taboo in most societies whether the law protects these or not.

    This is not to say two of the same gender can not raise children or stay together but statistically, this appears to be the exception rather than the rule and has been so, throughout history.

    s/s marriage is about what the individuals want and not necessarily what will work best, in society or even in the lives of those individuals. I know folks in a s/s relationship – a long term relationship and the two guys are wonderful people and very likely, have successfully raised two kids. That being said, humans can rationalize different things which seem logical but really do not work. Hitler felt it was logical to kill the Jews and there were hundreds of seemingly normal people who carried out his wishes. This is not to compare s/s marriage with the holocaust but merely to point out that humans in history have been known to rationalize something which is intrinsically wrong, but seems totally “logical” in the human mind at the time.

    Religion and religious practice has been suppressed often, sometimes for centuries and thousands put to death and tortured in an effort to delete religion from the earth, and yet it refuses to die and keeps popping up and somehow, convincing many people. This, in itself, suggests there may not only be truth in it but that it may end up being the most advantageous way to live in the framework of a society.

  42. Mark
    February 16th, 2011 at 06:32 | #42

    @Imano
    “In other words, why do we have a government recognized relationship between two individuals?”

    Because it is a special relationship. You have two people becoming one entity. There are social, financial and health benefits of such a relationship. People become enmeshed in each others lives and deserve special protections. And if there are children involved, they require special protections to ensure their security. Marriage provides all of this to both OSM and SSM.

  43. February 16th, 2011 at 06:41 | #43

    An affirmation in denial of the truth is still a lie, any way you slice it. God created humanity to be heterosexual. Homosexuality is a denial of His created order and all the affirmation to the contrary does not change truth. It reminds me of Shirley McClain standing on the seashore, shouting, “I am god.” At the end of the day, a look in the mirror reveals the truth.

  44. Rstevens
    February 16th, 2011 at 08:36 | #44

    Our society has lost it’s way! People have lost their minds to think that Homosexuality is Natural?
    With or without religion, Homosexuality is disturbingly unnatural.
    Throughout history, All societies that have accepted homosexuality as a “Norm” have disintegrated.
    There is nothing new under the sun, and we have not learned from our mistakes in the past. Homosexuality is perverse to Natural law and reason. It does not take a scientist to tell you what our body parts are designed for! Homosexuals use their bodies in ways animals would never do.
    Marriage & family as defined by “Man- woman- child” are essential for the survival of mankind and for any society. When Marriage & families dissentigrate, so does society. Statistics prove this very fact.
    Instead, we allow ourselves to even further dissentigrate marriage and family into complete chaos. Statistics, (even from Homosexual sources) show that they have far greater instability in their relationships than heterosexual couples. Greater than 80% of Men “couples” stay together on average of less than 1 year. They also mutually consent to having multiple sex partners During their relationship.
    Combined with heterosexual infidelity, has left a mess when it comes to STD’s. New STD’s and new strains of existing STD’s continue to develop at staggering rates. HIV, AIDS, Hep A, B, C, Herpes, HPV, etc…..
    I loved Dr. Morse’s testimony and strongly believe he is not only correct, it is understated how much redefining marriage will undermine the backbone & stability of our society, our religious freedoms, economy, and will definitely overload the court system beyond imangination.
    God Save us from ourselves!

  45. Heidi
    February 16th, 2011 at 08:45 | #45

    “In other words, why do we have a government recognized relationship between two individuals?”

    Because the government has a legitimate interest in the long-term care of adults for one another instead of the reliance on government benefits when someone gets sick or loses his or her job, etc. Marriage brings stability, whether the couple is straight or gay. The government has an interest in stable relationships and communities.

  46. Heidi
    February 16th, 2011 at 08:47 | #46

    “No One is Gay, they practice homosexual sex, but they are not gay. This is so obvious.”

    Clearly, you know no gay people. Wow, that ignorance is just astounding.

  47. Heidi
    February 16th, 2011 at 08:48 | #47

    @DavidKCMO
    One can only hope and pray.

  48. Heidi
    February 16th, 2011 at 08:50 | #48
  49. Heidi
    February 16th, 2011 at 08:53 | #49

    @Rich
    Thank you for your testimony, Rich. My own children are happy, healthy and well-loved, which is more than I can say for many children of heterosexual parents.

  50. February 16th, 2011 at 09:44 | #50

    @Chairm

    You say that same-sex marriage is “a subset of nonmarriage that happens to be promoted with a gay emphasis.”

    And yet in a growing number of places same-sex marriage is a subset of marriage, not nonmarriage (as you put it), and is thus quite simply marriage.

    Furthermore, same-sex marriage is “a subset of nonmarriage” only because people such as yourself are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it from becoming legal. This in itself is not a valid argument against allowing same-sex couples to marry.

    Logically, that’s like saying that before the end of WWI women were a subset of nonvoters and thus should not be permitted to vote. Just because something is currently the status quo is not an argument against changing the status quo.

    But given that in some states and countries gays can marry (and soon Britain will be added to this ever-growing list!), your original statement is just plain inaccurate.

  51. Ruth
    February 16th, 2011 at 11:22 | #51

    @Emma
    I am referring to the relative size of subsets of sexual activity and their importance to public policy, which is what you were writing about.
    I believe that people who practice sex with others of their own sex, as well as people who practice sex with animals, are not to be disdained.
    We are all sinners, and we are all of infinite worth to God, whose Beloved Son gave His own life to buy us back from Satan’s kingdom.

  52. Chairm
    February 16th, 2011 at 11:38 | #52

    Emma, before you stick the label, marriage, on the type of relationship you have in mind, state its essentials so that it can be distinguished from the rest of nonmarriage. If you can’t do that, then, how would you support society discriminating between SSM and nonmarriage?

  53. Chairm
    February 16th, 2011 at 11:43 | #53

    Emma, there is no gay criterion for ineligiblity to marry under the man-woman basis of the social institution that the law recognizes as of high societal significance.

    You are demanding that a type of relationship that lacks either husband or wife be treated exactly as a union of husband and wife, right? Well, flip that around, as per SSM argumentation, and justify treating all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives.

    Just because you demand a change in the name of gay identity politics does not mean that the status quo must be bent to your favoritism for a subset of nonmarriage.

    My original statement is accurate. Governments do err on this issue when identity politics is pressed into marriage law. It was wrong for the racialist identity filter to be pressed into marriage; and it is wrong for the gaycentric identity filter to be pressed into marriage.

  54. February 16th, 2011 at 12:28 | #54

    @Chairm

    You can spew your “subset of nonmarriage” rhetoric as much as you want, but you are ignoring the reality of married couples in a growing number of places. Your language will not unmarry them.

  55. Mark
    February 16th, 2011 at 14:50 | #55

    @Rstevens
    “God Save us from ourselves!”

    This is the only thing I agree with. The rest is just the rantings of someone who is ignorant in what is truly “natural”. A person who would rather dwell on mistranslated passages in a single book and other lies and myths than look at the MOUNTAINS of information that has come out in the last 100 years. Sad, to wish to bury your head in the sand.

  56. Mark
    February 16th, 2011 at 14:52 | #56

    @Emma
    Amen, Emma. Chairm and his nonsensical spewing of “nonmarriage” is not only tiresome but really inconsiderate of those same sex couples who are legally married.

  57. Lion
    February 16th, 2011 at 16:30 | #57

    @Mark
    OK. Define “natural.” And think about some things: Is sharing natural? Is murder natural? What about love? Hate? Intelligence? Abortion? Adoption? Rape? Selfishness? Use of drugs? What do you think Chairm is getting at with his use of the term “natural”?

    @Emma
    Calling something by a term does not make it so. Lincoln once said (along these lines) “How many legs does a dog have it you call the tail is a leg? Four. A tail is not a leg.” Telling someone they are rude doesn’t add to the conversation of whether a tail is a leg, or for that matter, whether it should be called a leg.

  58. Mark
    February 16th, 2011 at 18:14 | #58

    @Lion
    I was referring to Rstevens post where he, erroneously, expresses the opinion that homosexuality is unnatural. Homosexuality is a natural, in born, normal sexual orientation just as heterosexuality and bisexuality. As for the rest of your list, one could say since they are part of the human experience (and several in the animal world) that they are all natural.

    And, frankly, Chiarm never does make sense so I wouldn’t attempt to say how he/she defines “natural”.

    “Calling something by a term does not make it so.”
    Exactly which is why Chairm is quite in error for referring to those legally recognized same-sex marriages as “nonmarriage”.

  59. Chairm
    February 17th, 2011 at 00:37 | #59

    Emma, your nonanswer does not justify the abuse of marriage that has occured in those places where SSM was merged with marriage, at law.

    If the Government calling something ‘marriage’ is all that you think is required to make it marriage, then, you depend on the arbitrary exercise of power.

    And that would directly contradict the pro-SSM complaint against the man-woman basis of marriage law. This is hypocritical of you, if you indeed intend not to justify that for which you demand of all of soicety via government.

  60. Chairm
    February 17th, 2011 at 00:41 | #60

    Since Mark has never justified his gay emphasis, and has never explained the difference, in his viewpoint, between the one-sexed type of relationship he’d call “marriage” and other types of relationships and living arrangements, he is at a loss to defend his SSM idea.

    Ultimately he depends on arbitrary favoritism of the gay identity group. He has offered nothing more than that.

    Hopefully, Emma, you can do better than that.

  61. February 17th, 2011 at 10:46 | #61

    Chairm, neither Mark nor I have to do better than that. These arguments have already been made — articulately and well — by the Supreme Courts of both Iowa and California. If you refuse to accept their arguments in favor of extending marriage rights to gay couples, then obviously no one on this blog is going to convince you otherwise.

    That still doesn’t change the fact that gay couples are marrying in more and more parts of the world. As I said before, your refusal to acknowledge their marriages does not make them not married. It just makes you look disrespectful by archaically insisting on calling them “a subset of nonmarriage.”

  62. Leland
    February 17th, 2011 at 11:41 | #62

    Emma :
    disrespectful by archaically insisting on calling them “a subset of nonmarriage.”

    So then you actually believe that once a debate over an issue has barely even begun, the views of anyone who isn’t on your side of that debate are automatically ‘disrespectful’ and ‘archaic’?

    Oh, wait a minute! I get it. You were just using ad hominem to preemptively declare victory in the debate.

    Nice try, Emma…

  63. Chairm
    February 17th, 2011 at 14:47 | #63

    Emma,

    You now admit that you utterly depend on the reasoning of the pro-SSM court opinions in Iowa and in California. You do not reason for yourself; you let government do that for you.

    Or do you reason for yourself, Emma?

    That pro-SSM reasoning, in both court opinions, acknowledged that there is both a marriage category and a nonmarriage category. How could it be otherwise? It follows, clearly, that there is an eligible-to-marry category and an ineligible-to-marry category.

    The pro-SSM complaint is that the basis for eligiblity must be justified. Thus, justification for the SSM and the non-SSM category within the broad range of one-sexed scenarios is also on the table. You demand a distinction for which you have failed to articulate justification.

    Of course, SSMers, including those who’d vote from the bench, never fail to reveal the profound flaws in their own proffered reasoning. They do this via their own terms of argumentation which cannot justify their gay emphasis. In attacking the core meaning of marriage, this argumentation ends-up destorying the pro-SSM complaint and the pro-SSM remedy.

    The reasoning in those court opinions, Emma, supposedly depends on some highly significant basis for justifying a marriage category in the first place. That is to say, if the category may justly exist, then, the nonmarriage category may justly co-exist. Likewise with the SSM category and the non-SSM category within the one-sexed range. So my comment earlier is right on the target even according to your claim that “gay couples are marrying”.

    So you are not really taking umbrage with the marriage and nonmarriage distinction, right?

    Instead, you are complaining about the observation that the opinions you depend on do not provide justification for elevating the gay segment of nonmarriage above the rest of nonmarriage.

    It is no surprise, then, that you assume that the imposition of SSM via the arbitrary exercise of governmental power is a-okay; you don’t bother to justify what you cannot articulate in argumentation that matches your own gaycentric rhetoric.

  64. Sean
    February 20th, 2011 at 05:11 | #64

    And I thought Maggie Gallagher had a lock on looniness! The more “Dr. J” and Maggie speak out, the faster marriage equality will come about. Amen.

    Dr. J manages to insult all sorts of people with this silly rant: adoptive parents, single parents, unmarried parents, for starters. We expect her to insult gay people for wanting to have secure relationships, but the collateral damage is astounding!

    If she’s worried about what history with think of all this, she might want to look in a mirror.

  65. Chairm
    February 21st, 2011 at 06:09 | #65

    And your namecalling is worth zilch, Sean.

  66. Mark
    February 22nd, 2011 at 14:15 | #66

    @Chairm
    “Since Mark has never justified his gay emphasis, and has never explained the difference, in his viewpoint, between the one-sexed type of relationship he’d call “marriage” and other types of relationships and living arrangements, he is at a loss to defend his SSM idea.”

    LOL, more babble. Actually, no, I don;t need to justify anything. The courts will rule that denying SSM is merely discrimination. No other way to defend it.

    Oh, and clue, SSM is already MARRIAGE in several states. If you want to go against the law and definition, it just makes you look ignorant.

  67. Chairm
    February 24th, 2011 at 01:05 | #67

    If you want society to discriminate between the gay type of relationship you have in mind and the rest of nonmarriage, then, you need to justify it or concede that your demand is arbitrary.

    Your appeal to the arbitrary exercise of governmental power, via the abuse of judicial review, exemplifies this problem in your own viewpoint.

    You have no justification, and claim to need no justification, for what you demand. Hence, you openly show and admit that you are ignorant of just reasons to treat the gaycentric version of the one-sexed scenario as superior to the rest of the types of relationships that populate nonmarraige.

    Readers will note that when you accuse a fellow commenter of ignorance, babbling, or writing diatribes, it is because you, Mark, have indulged in all of that (and more) and would hope to find a bookend rather than face yourself in the mirror. The content of your comments, Mark, is what matters here; yet you have just conceded that you do not deign to justify what you demand so vociferously.

  68. Mark
    February 25th, 2011 at 08:22 | #68

    @Chairm
    “you need to justify it or concede that your demand is arbitrary.”

    Ah, but I have justified it (well and in fewer words than you use). You just do not accept and have expressed nothing logically in it’s place.

  69. bman
    March 3rd, 2011 at 08:50 | #69

    Mark :
    mark: The rest is just the rantings of someone who is ignorant in what is truly “natural”.

    What does “natural” mean in the following passage?

    For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their
    women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
    burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that
    which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of
    their error which was meet. (Roman 1:26,27)

  70. Mark
    March 3rd, 2011 at 16:44 | #70

    @bman
    “What does “natural” mean in the following passage?”

    It is referring to what is natural for heterosexual males and females. It is a condemnation of pagan idolatry, not consenting same sex relationships.

    And yet we KNOW that homosexuality is a NORMAL, NATURAL sexual orientation for some people.

  71. bman
    March 3rd, 2011 at 22:40 | #71

    Mark :
    bman: What does “natural” mean in the following passage?”

    mark: It is referring to what is natural for heterosexual males and females. It is a condemnation of pagan idolatry, not consenting same sex relationships.

    Paul is referring to the act of “consensual” homosex being contrary to the “natural use” of of the human body as God designed it, which he says comes with its own punishment.

    The idea is that idolatry leads to degraded thinking and behavior, and he lists consensual homosex as an obvious example of degraded thinking and behavior.

    A search of the next few verses list other degraded behaviors as well.

    ….fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful

    Are we to suppose this was only a condemnation of “pagan idolatry” and not the things mentioned?

    Your claim that he only condemned “pagan idolatry” but not the behavior of homosex which he mentioned seems both forced and contrived, especially since he names many other behaviors in the context that are obviuously wrong in and of themselves.

    mark: And yet we KNOW that homosexuality is a NORMAL, NATURAL sexual orientation for some people.

    Asserting something which is in dispute is called “begging the question.”

    Here, I think Linda Nicolosi has identified the correct definition of “normal” in the following extract:

    Developmental Errors and Genetic Misfortunes Are Common

    Many people are born with genetic predispositions that we clearly recognize as problems. An alcoholism gene–an obesity gene–and a gene for shyness, violence, hyperactivity, or short temper are recognized as setting the stage for a lifetime of challenges. The same would be true of a gene for near-sightedness, mental retardation, or attention-deficit disorder. And there are also prenatally induced, non-genetic conditions that we recognize as problems, such as fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal cocaine addiction. All of the affected persons must struggle to adjust in life.

    But we do not respond to such conditions by assuring the person, “You were born that way, so this is who you are.”

    The crux of the issue is as much philosophical as scientific: “What is human design and purpose?” The answer to the question will tell us whether we were merely “born that way,” or in fact “designed that way.”

    We would not conclude that homosexuality is a normal variant if we held to this simple definition, offered by a clinician more than fifty years ago:

    Normality is “that which functions in accordance with its design.”

  72. Chairm
    March 4th, 2011 at 03:18 | #72

    Mark each thing you’d cite as justification for special status for the gay subset of nonmarriage has been directly contradicted by your own insistence that the lack of a legal requirement is decisive.

    You have wasted many pixels evading the actual disagreement. You have wasted many more pixels flogging strawman arguments of your own making.

    Readers can be well-satisifed that you have failed to justify what you demand of all of society.

  73. Manuel
    March 6th, 2011 at 01:29 | #73

    Excellent prediction about the effect of same-gender marriages on their (necessarily) semi-adopted children. Dr. Morse highlights the third human being in same-gender marriages – the child. Most same-gender couples only think of themselves.

  74. Mark
    March 7th, 2011 at 16:16 | #74

    @bman
    “Paul is referring to the act of “consensual” homosex being contrary to the “natural use” of of the human body as God designed it, which he says comes with its own punishment. ”

    Uh, actually, he isn’t.

    “Are we to suppose this was only a condemnation of “pagan idolatry” and not the things mentioned?”
    If you want to misrepresent what the Bible says, then I guess you can.

    “Asserting something which is in dispute is called “begging the question.” ”
    There is no dispute – from people of rationality and respect that is. It might be for the ignorant.

    “Normality is “that which functions in accordance with its design.” ”
    LOL, so what is the function of red hair? Blond hair? Or blue eyes? Brown or green eyes?

    Please, read SOMETHING besides the crap from NARTH.

  75. Mark
    March 7th, 2011 at 16:17 | #75

    @Manuel
    “Most same-gender couples only think of themselves.”

    Really? Do you even know a same sex couple? Do you have ANY research to prove your false claim?

  76. Chairm
    March 8th, 2011 at 05:45 | #76

    Manuel, you are correct that when it comes to the SSM idea, as per the argumentation that SSM supporters put forth, the focus is not on the children. The rhetoric of SSMers draws children into the spotlight only as an afterthought.

    Most children living in same-sex households (a census term that assumes the adults are homosexual persons) migrated with one or the other parent of a mother-father relationship (usually marriages). So they have moms and dads; it is just that one or the other is not resident with them. They have the same protections accorded othr children of divorce or estranged mom-dads duos.

    But SSMers talk of same-sex parenting (again a term they use when assuming that the adults are homosexual persons) almost exclusively in the context of adoption and third party procreation. These two alternative means of attaining children might account for 10% of the (relatively few) children residing in same-sex households. Well, if these methods exclude either mom or dad, then, this is what SSMers mean when they drag children into the spotlight.

    The SSM idea rejects the focus on children that is entailed in the marriage idea. Most of the homosexual adult population does not reside in same-sex households with children — something like 97% does not so reside. Hence the focus is on the adults, not the children, when it comes to the discussion of SSM.

  77. Mark
    March 8th, 2011 at 17:08 | #77

    @Chairm
    “These two alternative means of attaining children might account for 10% of the (relatively few) children residing in same-sex households. ”

    Reference?

    “Most of the homosexual adult population does not reside in same-sex households with children — something like 97% does not so reside.”

    Reference?

  78. Chairm
    March 9th, 2011 at 11:58 | #78

    The HRC’s own analysis of the 2000 Census data begins with the estimation that 5% of the adult population is openly homosexual. That would be 10.5 milion adults.

    The Census reported about 600,000 same-sex households; two homosexual adulters per such household would mean 1.2 million adults. Number of same-sex households with children, 320,000. Ratio of same-sex householders to homosexual adults: 11%. Ratio of same-sex householders with children to homosexual adults: 3%.

    IN SUM: Most homosexual adults (89%) do not reside in same-sex households; and most homosexual adults (97%) do not live in such households with children.

    According to the pro-SSM statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, “The majority of these children were born in the context of a heterosexual relationship.”

    Based on the Census estimate of the child population in same sex households, and based on the small number of adopted children and children of ARTs/IVF in such households, the share of children attained by more traditional means is larger, by far, than alternative means. It probably ranges from about 90 to 95%.

    See a summary with sources here:

    Same-sex Householders in US Population
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2006/12/same-sex-householders-in-us-population.html

    Also:

    Children in Same Sex Households.
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2008/01/children-in-same-sex-households-2000.html

  79. Chairm
    March 9th, 2011 at 12:01 | #79

    The point is that the vast majority of tese children have the same protections accorded other children of divorce or estranged mom-dads duos.

    But SSMers talk of same-sex parenting (again a term they use when assuming that the adults are homosexual persons) almost exclusively in the context of adoption and third party procreation.

    The SSM idea rejects the focus on children that is entailed in the marriage idea. Most of the homosexual adult population does not reside in same-sex households with children Hence the focus is on the adults, not the children, when it comes to the discussion of SSM.

  80. Russell
    March 9th, 2011 at 19:00 | #80

    @ Mark,

    “Really? Do you even know a same sex couple? Do you have ANY research to prove your false claim?”

    Mark I am seeing very little research in your posts. Yet you are demanding research?

  81. Katherine
    March 25th, 2011 at 13:01 | #81

    If same-sex couples’ desire to marry is “frivolous,” as Dr. Morse alleges, because they are non-procreative, what about couples who decide that they don’t want kids, or who are infertile, or who are beyond reproductive age? Should older heterosexuals also be banned from marrying? Don’t such unions also weaken the important links between marriage, child-rearing, and parental responsibility — especially when the older individuals in question have previously dissolved earlier marriages that resulted in children?

  82. Chairm
    March 27th, 2011 at 01:29 | #82

    Katherine, what do you mean by “same-sex couples”? Be more precise. If you meant to invoke sexual behavior, or gay identity, you ought not to use such a vague term.

  83. Katherine
    March 28th, 2011 at 13:24 | #83

    “same-sex” is an easy way of indicating a couple where both people are the same sex: two men or two women. Such couples may or may not be sexually active, and members of such couples may or may not identify as “gay.” But I’m sure you already know what I mean.

    More importantly, do you have an answer to my question?

  84. Marc
    April 12th, 2011 at 08:13 | #84

    So Ruth, this is the type of marriage you want – it is in the bible after all!

    Biblical marriage? She must mean polygamy:

    What the Bible says about Polygamy, from the Skeptics Annotated Bible.

    Genesis 4:19
    And Lamech took unto him two wives.

    Genesis 16:1-4
    Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai … gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived.

    Genesis 25:6
    But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had….

    Genesis 26:34
    Esau … took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.

    Genesis 31:17
    Then Jacob rose up, and set … his wives upon camels.

    Exodus 21:10
    If he take him another wife….

    Deuteronomy 21:15
    If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated….

    Judges 8:30
    And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.

    1 Samuel 1:1-2
    Elkanah … had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah.

    2 Samuel 12:7-8
    Thus saith the LORD God of Israel … I gave thee … thy master’s wives….

    1 Kings 11:2-3
    Solomon … had seven hundred wives … and three hundred concubines.

    1 Chronicles 4:5
    And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.

    2 Chronicles 11:21
    Rehoboam … took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.

    2 Chronicles 13:21
    But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives….

    2 Chronicles 24:3
    Jehoiada took for him two wives….

    Mt.25:1
    Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

  85. Ruth
    April 12th, 2011 at 13:46 | #85

    @Marc
    You are making a common error. The fact that something is reported in the Bible does not constitute an endorsement of that act or behavior.
    I don’t see that I made a reference above to Biblical marriage, but there is certainly such a relationship.
    The key to marriage is found in the words of Jesus, who references the origins of humanity in Matthew 19 and Mark 10.
    “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and join to his wife; And they two shall be one flesh: so then they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Comments are closed.