equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BVS

It can, but is not defined by!!!

Even the most ignorant among us understand this.

So why are you trying to use it to define marriage now?

I can only think of one answer.

Why are we still talking about this?

[melon]

Originally Posted by INDY500

if it's only quantity, two parents being better than one with gender being inconsequential, than wouldn't three parents be even better? Four?

How about 20?

Nursing Moses: Moms step in after infant's mother dies - CNN.com

As the newborn breathed in life, his mother, Susan Goodrich, began to die. Less than 12 hours after having her son, the 46-year-old mother of four was gone. The cause was a rare amniotic fluid embolism.

...

What evolved in the coming days still touches Goodrich. More than 20 mothers in Marquette, a city of 20,000 in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, volunteered to nurse baby Moses.

All these months later, they're still at it.

"It's been such an incredible outpouring of community love for this child of mine," said Goodrich, a 44-year-old history professor at Northern Michigan University, where his late wife worked, too, teaching Spanish and Portuguese. "This has certainly stretched the parameters of what is public. I've had to open the door to complete strangers, inviting them into the most private, intimate part of my life."

A touching story, or further evidence of societal decline? Either way, I'm guessing that since this child will be raised by a single father, we should have the state take him away and give him to a family with a mother and a father, right?

[melon]

Interesting. Here's a blog post from Rod Dreher, which, if you're not aware of him, he's very conservative and has written a lot of the expected "gloom and doom" posts about gay marriage, but, yet, has found himself in favour of gay adoption.

Gay adoption - Crunchy Con

A conservative Catholic friend e-mails this morning with news of a gay couple she knows having adopted an orphan from overseas, and how she supports what they're doing. She says that she accepts the Church's teaching about homosexuality, but considering the life this orphaned child faced in his home country, and knowing her gay friends to be of sterling character, she believes the child ended up in the best possible situation for him.

My friend feared that I would be horrified by her support for gay adoption, but in fact I'm pretty much where she is, though I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

He also updated it with an anecdote from someone:

During the 1980s, during the Bush/Dukakis campaign, my lesbian mothers had a family of four foster children living with them. During this campaign, gay adoption, and Dukakis's tolerance of it was specifically an issue. The children of this household were given to my mother and step-mother because one in the family had been so badly sexually abused by her father and an uncle that she could not be placed in a household with men - she was so terrified of them that she was a danger to herself. She was 5. At least one of her brothers had been molested as well, by his father, who was now in jail for arson. The baby had had three broken bones - he was 10 months old when we took him in. There was no other household for those four traumatized children to live in - no one wanted four siblings, ranging from 7 to 10 months, badly abused and traumatized, with a variety of mental and behavioral problems, except us. The only other option was separation of the siblings. The kids never had had regular meals. The four year old wasn't toilet trained. The baby was 10 months old and weighed 12 lbs. They had lice and constant trantrums. They lived with us for two years, and for two years, we never knew if the state would come and take them back and separate them from their safe, clean house where they were finally secure and could eat and not be afraid, because the two jerks in office were debating whether gay people should get to take care of children nobody wanted, and implying that crappy heterosexual homes were preferable to safe, stable gay ones. I found that intolerable then, I find it intolerable now. My mother and step-mother took in more than 70 foster kids over the years, some of them with stories just as horrible as these ones, but it was these kids, overlapping with the political situation that taught me just how wonderful my very ordinary family was - I ate every day, I had parents who loved me and kept me safe. That they were both women was the very least important thing about them. On this subject, my feelings are entirely uncomplicated - anyone who stands between a hungry kid and home with food is doing something immoral. Anyone who stands between a child who is not safe and safe home is wrong. And if you think that heterosexual parents make better adoptive homes, and want to make a big deal about it, you had better have at least one adopted, high need kid if you want me to give a hoot what you think. I realize that's a much more visceral than rational response, and probably a little unfair. But as I'm sitting in my Moms' living room, cooking for tomorrow, when 28 of our family - my sisters and their husbands and kids, my aunt and her adopted daughter and her elderly mother, two former foster kids and their kids, my aunt and uncle (on step-Mom's side) and their kids are coming together, I find I simply can't come up with anything else to say.

So it begs the question, considering Dreher's above quoted anecdote. Are people basically "okay" when an "individual gay couple" adopts, but opposed when "gay people" adopt?

[martha]

Originally Posted by melon

A touching story, or further evidence of societal decline? Either way, I'm guessing that since this child will be raised by a single father, we should have the state take him away and give him to a family with a mother and a father, right?

I dunno. From the posts in this thread, it seems that single fathers are just fine. The need for a father has been demonstrated by the "evidence." The need for a mother, not so much.

[VintagePunk]

I have some thoughts on the whole parenting thing, regarding why a father and mother unit is not the be all, end all in parenting, and why other family units are just as valid.

Humans are inherently flawed. These flaws vary in scope and degree, but I think it's very safe to say that none of us are perfect, and we bring these imperfections into every aspect of our lives, including our parenting. For example, I have no doubt that Nathan and his spouse, who I'm guessing are a very traditional family, are great parents. I'm sure they treasure their children, keep them safe, teach them right and wrong according to their values, want the very best for them, and are doing all that's within their power to raise them to be fully functional and productive members of society. I'm sure his kids will probably turn out to be just that, people that he and his wife can be very, very proud of. But will they be perfect? I doubt that. They will have their flaws, just like the rest of us.

To get a little more specific, I (imperfect me) have raised my daughter as a single parent for over 10 years now, and she's now university-aged. During that time, her father has been an inconsistent figure in her life. Is she lacking because of the absence of a present, engaged father figure? Has this caused her to be flawed in any way? Probably. But on the other hand, she has so many amazing qualities, and some of them have come because of being raised by a single parent. So, if she'd had a present father for all these years, she may have gained in some areas, but she also would have lacked in others. She would still be flawed, but she would be flawed differently. Further, I contend that in whatever criteria make a person a good one, she would easily hold her own against or even surpass children raised in the best and most functional of two parent, opposite gender families. I deeply resent the implication I've seen many times in various parenting threads here that single parenthood is inherently inferior to other family types.

The exact same thing can be said for homosexual families. Do they lack anything because of not having two different gendered parents? Probably at least a little. But what they do lack will be compensated for in other areas. Their flaws will be different, but not necessarily greater than the flaws of a child raised in a male - female headed family.

My point is, no one type of family unit can be said to be superior to another. It all depends on the individuals involved, and their commitment to parenting. One thing that can be said for a same sex headed family though, is that given the hoops they must jump through in order to have a child (as opposed to heterosexuals who can produce them with as little as a casual roll in the hay that was meant purely for sexual gratification), their children are probably far more intentional and wanted than many children born to heterosexual parents, and that has to be a positive thing.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

But most people would go further and state, without hesitation, that a child with a loving mother and father would have an advantage over the child of a loving same sex couple. Which begs the question; if it's only quantity, two parents being better than one with gender being inconsequential, than wouldn't three parents be even better? Four?

first, "most people" are wrong, since all studies show that kids with gay parents do just as well, and perhaps even a little bit better with two mothers.

as for the question you feel was begged, my understanding is that polygamous relationships are illegal. i would imagine it is the quality of that relationship between the parents that's also critical to the health of the child. i also think kids do well when they have not just two parents, but invested, loving, involved grandparents and perhaps aunts and uncles as well.

but this seems to be a needless distraction, and just another extension of the argument, "but if we let men marry men, then we have to allow polygamy and incest and bestiality as well."

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by VintagePunk

I have some thoughts on the whole parenting thing, regarding why a father and mother unit is not the be all, end all in parenting, and why other family units are just as valid.

Humans are inherently flawed. These flaws vary in scope and degree, but I think it's very safe to say that none of us are perfect, and we bring these imperfections into every aspect of our lives, including our parenting. For example, I have no doubt that Nathan and his spouse, who I'm guessing are a very traditional family, are great parents. I'm sure they treasure their children, keep them safe, teach them right and wrong according to their values, want the very best for them, and are doing all that's within their power to raise them to be fully functional and productive members of society. I'm sure his kids will probably turn out to be just that, people that he and his wife can be very, very proud of. But will they be perfect? I doubt that. They will have their flaws, just like the rest of us.

To get a little more specific, I (imperfect me) have raised my daughter as a single parent for over 10 years now, and she's now university-aged. During that time, her father has been an inconsistent figure in her life. Is she lacking because of the absence of a present, engaged father figure? Has this caused her to be flawed in any way? Probably. But on the other hand, she has so many amazing qualities, and some of them have come because of being raised by a single parent. So, if she'd had a present father for all these years, she may have gained in some areas, but she also would have lacked in others. She would still be flawed, but she would be flawed differently. Further, I contend that in whatever criteria make a person a good one, she would easily hold her own against or even surpass children raised in the best and most functional of two parent, opposite gender families. I deeply resent the implication I've seen many times in various parenting threads here that single parenthood is inherently inferior to other family types.

The exact same thing can be said for homosexual families. Do they lack anything because of not having two different gendered parents? Probably at least a little. But what they do lack will be compensated for in other areas. Their flaws will be different, but not necessarily greater than the flaws of a child raised in a male - female headed family.

My point is, no one type of family unit can be said to be superior to another. It all depends on the individuals involved, and their commitment to parenting. One thing that can be said for a same sex headed family though, is that given the hoops they must jump through in order to have a child (as opposed to heterosexuals who can produce them with as little as a casual roll in the hay that was meant purely for sexual gratification), their children are probably far more intentional and wanted than many children born to heterosexual parents, and that has to be a positive thing.

thank you for the best post in the thread so far.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by martha

INDY, AEON, since you're both back in the discussion, my question still stands. Since the two of you seem to think marriage really does only equal offspring, since that's ALL you've talked about for pages, how's about those of us without kids? Still a valid marriage?

Valid marriage? Of course not.

We should continue the practice of ostracizing couples that marry and cannot have children because of infertility or the husband getting his pecker shot off in Bush's illegal war in Iraq.

Society should continue to distance itself from couples whose children die due to lack of universal health care coverage or rising sea levels.

Older couples whose children have left the nest should continue to be seen as second class marriages. Better that one offspring continue to live at home, preferably in the basement where they can blog for the DailyKos.

"Go forth and multiply," thus sayeth the Lord. Let it always be a blasphemy for a young, perfectly healthy couple to marry and choose to never have children. They shall be stoned, not shunned.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by AEON

It takes a village...

Daddies home.

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Valid marriage? Of course not.

We should continue the practice of ostracizing couples that marry and cannot have children because of infertility or the husband getting his pecker shot off in Bush's illegal war in Iraq.

Society should continue to distance itself from couples whose children die due to lack of universal health care coverage or rising sea levels.

Older couples whose children have left the nest should continue to be seen as second class marriages. Better that one offspring continue to live at home, preferably in the basement where they can blog for the DailyKos.

"Go forth and multiply," thus sayeth the Lord. Let it always be a blasphemy for a young, perfectly healthy couple to marry and choose to never have children. They shall be stoned, not shunned.

And now you see how ridiculous it looks when we have to ask if gay marriages should be legal.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

"Go forth and multiply," thus sayeth the Lord. Let it always be a blasphemy for a young, perfectly healthy couple to marry and choose to never have children. They shall be stoned, not shunned.

i'm glad you're grasping the ultimate conclusion of those who say that marriage is about children and that therefore gay people cannot marry.

[Irvine511]

D.C. Council votes to legalize same-sex marriage
By Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 1, 2009 2:56 PM

The D.C. Council voted Tuesday to legalize same-sex marriage in the District, as the city moves quickly to join five states in allowing gay couples to marry.

After months of debate, the council passed the bill 11 to 2. It still must take a second vote in two weeks before the measure can go to Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D), who has said he will sign it.

If the bill survives a required congressional review period, the District will join New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Massachusetts in allowing same-sex marriage.

Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), one of two openly gay members of the council, said before the vote he thought it was a day that "would never come."

"It really speaks to the long and rich tradition of tolerance and acceptance that does make up the sense of place in the District of Columbia," said Catania, the chief sponsor of the bill.

Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), another key sponsor, said the vote is a culmination of a decades-long struggle by gay rights leaders in the District.

"I don't think it's a giant step; it's a final step," Mendelson said.

Council members Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) and Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 7) were the only two members to vote against the bill.

Before casting his vote, Barry gave an impassioned speech noting that he is a longtime supporter of gay rights. But Barry said that his constituents oppose same-sex marriage, and that he believed the council should have authorized a referendum on the issue.

"I stand here today to express in no uncertain terms my strong commitment to the gay and lesbian, bisexual, transgender community on almost every issue except this one," Barry said.

He then went on to plead with gay and lesbian residents not to hold his "no" vote against him.

"It's not fair to make this one issue a litmus test as to one's commitment to human rights, to justice, and I resent those who would make it a litmus test," Barry said.

Private polls show that black voters are far more likely than white voters in the District to oppose same-sex marriage. Both Barry and Alexander represent majority black wards and they also have stated that they were under considerable pressure from African-American ministers in their wards to vote against the bill.

But council member Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5) said he had no choice but to support the bill, even though many of his constituents oppose same-sex marriage.

"I sit here as a ward member and worry about the consequences but remind everyone . . . we must stand up for the least of those among us" Thomas said.

[martha]

see below

[martha]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Valid marriage? Of course not.

We should continue the practice of ostracizing couples that marry and cannot have children because of infertility or the husband getting his pecker shot off in Bush's illegal war in Iraq.

Society should continue to distance itself from couples whose children die due to lack of universal health care coverage or rising sea levels.

Older couples whose children have left the nest should continue to be seen as second class marriages. Better that one offspring continue to live at home, preferably in the basement where they can blog for the DailyKos.

"Go forth and multiply," thus sayeth the Lord. Let it always be a blasphemy for a young, perfectly healthy couple to marry and choose to never have children. They shall be stoned, not shunned.

I love this answer. I do. Because as ridiculous as you're trying to be, you made my point. Marriage ISN'T about the children. If it were, you'd have given me a straight answer.

And you're not as funny as you might think. The thread I started about this is apparently too old to search for, but here's the Wiki article about hoe Kanab, Utah took you seriously.

Kanab, Utah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the text:

On January 10, 2006, the mayor and city council passed Resolution 1-1-06R, titled The Natural Family: A Vision for the City of Kanab, codifying the definition of a "natural family":
"We envision a local culture that upholds the marriage of a man to a woman, and a woman to a man, as ordained of God... We see our homes as open to a full quiver of children, the source of family continuity and social growth. We envision young women growing into wives, homemakers, and mothers; and we see young men growing into husbands, home-builders, and fathers."[7]
The text of Kanab's Natural Family Resolution is identical to a draft resolution created by the Sutherland Institute, a political think tank based in Utah that works towards public policy reform to reflect its notion of "traditional values". Echoing language from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints The Family: A Proclamation to the World, the Sutherland Institute wrote the resolution and sent it to every city in Utah, hoping to see it adopted in as many places as possible. Kanab was the only city to do so.

It put marriages with children first, and stated that marriages like mine were secondary. Unmarried people took a second-class seat as well. So keep laughing INDY. It lets us know what you're really thinking.

[martha]

Originally Posted by martha

I'll butt in here and ask a question that will be too hard to answer. I have no kids. I have never ever planned to have kids. We got married 20 1/2 years ago with the plan to never have kids. I'm fixed, surgically, to never have kids. They're not happening in this lifetime.

So far, we've had pages of posts about families, fathers, mothers, men, women, biology, philosophy. None of these have addressed the fact that marriages sometimes don't produce children.


The question: Is my marriage still legitimate to those posters who have decided that marriage is only for having children?

AEON, you're the only holdout.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by martha

I love this answer. I do. Because as ridiculous as you're trying to be, you made my point. Marriage ISN'T about the children. If it were, you'd have given me a straight answer.

When are you ever interested in straight answers? I told you what I imagined you wanted to hear.

A ridiculous question demands a ridiculous response.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

A ridiculous question demands a ridiculous response.

why are you fine with childless martha being married while you're opposed to possibly-want-to-have-children irvine being expressly forbidden via constitutional amendment?

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by INDY500

A ridiculous question demands a ridiculous response.

As I pointed out in response to your response. The question she posed is just as ridiculous as the question about gay marriage. Your sarcastic response is the sarcastic response we all would make when asked about gay marriage.

[martha]

Originally Posted by INDY500

When are you ever interested in straight answers?

When you're uncomfortable giving them.

[martha]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

why are you fine with childless martha being married while you're opposed to possibly-want-to-have-children irvine being expressly forbidden via constitutional amendment?

S'pose you'll get an answer?