All you need is love might be a catchy Beatles tune, but it’s a lie. Especially when it comes to marriage.
Them Before Us opposes gay marriage, not because we oppose gay people – we are proud to have a number of both gay and lesbian TBU leaders who are passionate about preserving children’s rights. Our position is based on the fact that where gay marriage goes, the weakening of children’s rights follows. The problem is a predictable one; when the law views husbands and wives as optional, the role of father and mother becomes legally optional as well. And that’s no good for children. If you read the stories of kids who were denied a relationship with their mother or father, the results are often devastating and life-long.
If you are still clinging to the fabrication that redefining marriage is okay because “love is love,” you are in for a rude awakening. The effects of legalizing gay marriage have gone well beyond the fact that two adults of any gender can now marry- it has changed laws involving children across the globe. Redefining marriage has made surprisingly clear what marriage has always been about… parenthood.
Legally, gay marriage requires that there be no distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. And because marriage is married to parenthood, the lens of gay marriage necessarily views biology-based parenthood as discriminatory. In other words, because same-sex couples cannot both be biological parents they are seen as “unequal” in the eyes of justice. Therefore, the law must do what biology cannot. So, in order to legally connect children to both adults, it has become necessary to redefine the basis for parenthood easing the detachment of children from biological parents and reattaching them to biological strangers. So that the adults can be “equal.”
A biological connection has been the basis for parenthood in every society and culture throughout history for good reason. A biological connection distinguishes the parent/child relationship from other relationships. Parental right’s expert Melissa Moschella explains,
The special responsibility that biological parents have for their children is non-transferable because only biological parents can give to their children the benefit of their parental love. The relationship between children and their biological parents is intimate, permanent, and identity-constituting. It defines the biological aspect of the child’s identity—for if the child had different biological parents, he would not be the same person; indeed he would not exist at all. Children do not miss being loved by those with whom they have no intimate relationship; the unique, irreplaceable intimacy of the parent-child relationship manifests itself in the fact that a child can miss the specific love and care of an absent biological parent, even when he is well-loved by (say) adoptive parents.
Biology and gender matter in parenting. But in countries where gay marriage has been legalized, the foundation of the parent/child relationship has shifted from a relationship based on biology, to one based on “intent”. This shift has resulted in the legal erasure of a child’s fundamental rights to their mother and father. “Intent-based” parenting reflects the desires of adults, not the longings of children. It means that children belong to whichever adults can acquire them and creates a culture, at least legally, where there is no longer an expectation that children should be raised by their own mother and father.
Functionally, that looks a lot like author Andrew Solomon’s “post-nuclear” family:
When I met John, who is now my husband, he told me that he had had some friends, Tammy and Laura, for whom he had been a sperm donor, and that they had a son named Oliver, of whom he was the biological father. A few years later, they asked him to be a sperm donor again, and they produced a daughter, Lucy. A good friend of mine from college had gone through a divorce and said that she really longed to be a mother, and I said how much I would love to be the father of her child. And so we decided to produce a child through an IVF process. John and I then wanted to have a child who would live with us all the time, and we decided to use an egg donor, and Laura, the lesbian who had carried Oliver and Lucy, offered to be our surrogate as a way of thanking John for providing her with a family. So the shorthand is: five parents of four children in three states.
Of those four children living in three states, all were conceived with the intent that they would be separated from one of their biological parents. The desires of the five adults were satisfied at the cost of four children’s right to be known by and raised by their biological parents. When the basis for parenthood is no longer biological but “intentional,” it endorses scenarios such as Solomon’s where children are swapped and traded, cut and pasted into any and every conceivable adult arrangement.
Biology-based parenting views children as vulnerable humans around whom adults should orient their lives. Parenthood by “intent” treats children as a commodity.
Marriage and parenthood are intertwined in family law, evidenced by the fact that many countries including Finland, Luxembourg, France, New Zealand, Argentina, Norway, and The Netherlands simultaneously redefined marriage and adoption laws to include same-sex couples.
Here are some other examples of how gay marriage has changed the legal landscape for children around the world:
Finland- 2017
The first gay marriages took place in March of this year, and already the government is considering legislation on a new “law on motherhood”, where the female partner of a biological mother can “declare herself the parent” on a child’s birth certificate.
Colombia- 2016
The country’s Constitutional Court, by a 6-3 voted to legalize gay marriage. The court’s statement points to the fact that marriage is ultimately about parenthood, as their justification for the redefinition was not based on “love,” but rather the right for same-sex couples to “start a family in keeping with their sexual orientation.”
United States- 2015
The Supreme Court mandated gay marriage throughout the US noting that married same-sex couples must receive the full ‘constellation of benefits’ associated with marriage ‘on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.’ The result is that there is no longer any governmental or political institution that recognizes that a child should be raised by their mother and father. Such a recognition constitutes discrimination, as evidenced in the numerous judgements that same-sex couples be listed as parents on a child’s birth certificate.
Ireland- 2015
In the post-referendum legal landscape, no government institution gives special recognition to the mother/father/child bond. The redefinition of marriage came on the heels of a change in family law which functionally recognized parenthood based on “intent” rather than biology. No preference can be given to mothers and fathers in cases of adoption or artificial human reproduction.
Canada- 2005
2005 Civil Marriage Act defined marriage throughout Canada as “the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.” Parenthood was immediately redefined: “Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now all children only have “legal parents,” as defined by the state.”
The redefinition bill in Canada included “consequential amendments” to other statutes including the replacement in various provisions of the “requirement for connection by blood relationship or adoption” with “legal parent-child relationship.” In 2016, Canada enacted the “All Families Are Equal” Act which outlined parenthood as contractual relationship between up to four adult parents, and the children that are legally identified as theirs.
Spain- 2005
The year after gay marriage was legalized, Spain erased the terms “mother” and “father” from birth certificates. The Spanish Minister of Justice explained that the government modified “the status of civil marriages, to allow the union of same-sex couples, it was necessary for a new format for the Family Book (Libro de Familia) and one that used terms such as “Parent A” and “Parent B” instead of “Father” and “Mother.”
The Netherlands- 2000
Two months after same-sex marriage was legalized, an omnibus package was passed to adjust the language in civil code. It replaced gender-specific language such as “mother” and “husband” with gender-neutral language such as “spouse” and “parent”, wherever appropriate. This year, the Dutch government will consider legislation that will recognize up to 4 adults a child’s parents, reasoning that “there needs to be a shift from the biological link that establishes the connection between the child and the parent to take into account other social factors…”
What does all this mean for kids?
These are not minor changes in law. They ignore a child’s intrinsic yearnings be known and loved by both biological parents. It communicates to children that they don’t belong to their mother and father, but to whichever adult has an interest in them. In the words of Rabbi Gilles Bernheim, ignoring the unique bonds between children and their parents legally and conceptually transforms children into the ‘object of rights’ rather than ‘a subject of rights’.
Why is it that adoptive parents undergo exhaustive vetting prior to being given authority over an adopted child? Because when biology is not the basis for an adult/child relationship, children often suffer diminished mental, physical and emotional outcomes. “Intent” to parent, is fraught with risks to children. Policies which confer parental rights simply based on adult desires do no service to children.
“Marriage equality” for adults comes at the expense of familial equality for children by removing one of the critical components of childhood- a relationship with both their mother and father. When government redefines marriage, they are doing much more than validating adult “love.” They are also legally redefining what it means to be a child.
“And because marriage is married to parenthood”
You know, I’d give a second thought to your argument if you sincerely believed this. But since you seem to only single out gay couples and their inability to naturally conceive as a reason why gay marriage “divorces” marriage for parenthood, I doubt that “marriage is married to parenthood” is your over-riding concern.
You DO realize that there are a lot of other couples that, a piori to getting married, also know they can’t conceive, right?
For example,
1) Elderly couples where the woman is past menopause.
2) A couple where the woman has had, say a uterus removed due to illness. Or the man who’s testicles were destroyed in an accident.
These types of couples know before getting married that parenthood is impossible. Ie, there marriage is completely divorced from parenthood. Allowing their marriages will then dilute the message that “marriage is about children”. Yet you say nothing against their marriages. Why?
*@Proud heterosexual father of 2* – I find it deeply ironic that, in response to an article that focuses on the (presumably overlooked and unintended) negative effects that redefining marriage has on children’s rights, you haven’t actually made a single reference to children – let alone attempted to disprove or mitigate the discussed effects. Instead you have chosen to focus exclusively on adult marriage rights in apparent complete disregard for children’s rights.
Nowhere in this article is the suggestion made that marriage should be reserved exclusively to couples capable of producing children together. The point of this article is that the legal definition of marriage and the legal definition of parental relationships are inextricably linked. And as has been clearly documented in this article, redefining marriage to remove perceived discrimination against same-sex couples unavoidably results in redefining parental relationships to remove the same perceived discrimination; the results of which are detrimental to children’s rights.
So, simply put, this article isn’t so much about objecting to same-sex marriage as it is about objecting to detrimental consequences for children. I suspect that if a win-win solution could be found that would guarantee the preservation of children’s rights, then there would be far fewer objections to same-sex marriage. If you have such a solution then I’m sure many people would be excited to hear about it.
@Dab
I’m sure you read the same article we all did and so I shouldn’t have to explain it’s content however, since you clearly lack basic perception skills, I will explain where you’ve missed the point.
@proud hetero dad quite accurately pointed out that the main basis of the argument made by this article is that of “biological parenthood” being the basis for marriage. He also quite accurately indicated many reasons why this is not a decent reason to oppose same sex marriage.
I agree with you, he didn’t make it about the children but neither did the article.
The article, when criticised, uses the children argument to argue that non biological parenthood is harmful (not accurate) and thus surmising that same sex marriage is harmful to children as they can’t be biological parents.
Actually……. They can!
Ever heard of surrogacy?
Whilst it might be impossible for both same sex partners to be genetic parents in this case, at least one would be which equals the same amount of biological parents that tens of thousands of kids grow up with as a result of the Australian divorce rate of heterosexual couples sitting above 40%.
If this kids growing up with one parent, or a parent and a step mum or step dad, grow up fine then kids with 2 dads or 2 mums that are born by surrogacy have exactly the same chance statistically.
In fact there is quite a strong argument that gay parents take more into consideration before having or adopting a child as it is much more difficult for them to become parents.
Same sex couples who become parents are significantly less likely to get divorced than heterosexual couples.
Saying same sex couples treat their children like property instead of loving them is like saying IVF parents don’t love their child as much as natural conception.
It’s complete bull!
To the point made on legislation.
We simply cannot use any item country’s legislative changes as a guide of what might happen here as every country has different legislation.
To those that will undoubtedly claim “but such and such country has similar legislation”
Similar is not the same
Anyone who knows anything about legislation, knows that the placement and use of grammar and punctuation can change the meaning of a clause, a section or even the entire piece of legislation.
To compare other country’s legislative changes to our posssibilities, it must have been identical to ours before it was changed otherwise it is not an accurate gauge.
You may have read the same article, but you are definitely NOT a parent and you most definitely should not be questioning anyone else’s “comprehension.”
You have ALSO made your claims based on what the adults may want, but do not even mention the effect this could have on the child.
It’s all about gay rights and about what adults want in your post, which is actually sadly and childishly selfish.
I remember Millie Fontana, raised by 2 moms in a love family, saying that when she was 5 YEARS OLD, she would watch her girlfriends getting picked up after school by their dads. And watching them being scooped up in Daddy’s arms, she realized that she was missing out on something VERY special.
And she was only FIVE.
This cannot be avoided when you deprive a child of either of their biological parents.
Mature adults know that moms and dads are NOT interchangeable, nor are they replaceable. Not ever.
You don’t care about the needs of the child, obviously, but true parents will subdue and give up their own wants, “rights” and desires, and make any sacrifice necessary, for their children. As it should be.
Parenting is about what is best for the children, and children do not exist just to validate an adults gay lifestyle, or to prove or satisfy adult desires.
Think about that. THINK ABOUT THE CHILD and get off the “me me me me me” and “what I want” boat. Do more research.
Excellent, excellent reply. Exactly right. It’s all about the children, NOT adults.
Adults can take care of themselves and make decisions for themselves.
Since children cannot, the adults they rely on HAVE to make decisions on what is BEST FOR THE CHILD. Period.
Children’s rights has nothing to do with gay marriage, considering that straights have children at the drop of a six pack, have no idea how many children they have, divorce and move on at a phenomenal 50%+ rate, adultery is a presidentially-exampled thing, legal parents ( biological parents or not, many do not know ) fight over custody, and half of the children in the US live in single parent homes, if they have a home at all, ~2% of US children are homeless, and ~20%+ of them are LGBT who are effectively parentless because they are thrown out, abandoned because they are LGBT — this site claiming that LGBT people are not equal and are inferior only makes things worse for everyone … clean up straight people’s behavior and teach by example, I dare you.
Actually children’s rights have EVERYTHING to do with gay marriage, as this article so eloquently and clearly explains.
Your first sentence is extremely telling.
After minimizing how children are affected, and basically pushing the aside and ignoring them, you go on with a hateful diatribe on straight people. Very revealing.
You completely exaggerate the percentage of “lgbt” persons, and trash hetersexuals while completely ignoring an innocent child’s needs and what is best for them.
Parents used to be the ones that made ALL the sacrifices, ANY sacrifices necessary, for their children.
NOT the other way around.
Perhaps you need to learn by example.
I really can’t believe this article.
Marriage, as a fundamental right, is very generous in who can and has access to it.
The most basic restrictions are these:
1. To be of mutual consent
2. To be of minimal age of 18. There IS no maximum age.
3. To not be closely related
4. To not currently be married.
The most important in these is consent, and primacy that the spouse has the custody and responsibility to the other.
Gay and heterosexual people are both required to meet these same criteria.
And gay people actually DO meet this also.
In no state or country, is there a requirement to have children or be fertile, or intend to have children to qualify to marry.
Because that is an extremely private decision to make. And to make marriage solely available to those who can have children, this creates the most uncharitable manifestation of value on that basis.
Human beings, have a particular skill set in which compassion and adaptation plays a part in the generous principles of who can get married.
Those who are elderly, those who are ill, even dying, can marry.
Those who are incarcerated, those who are of disparate physical ability, economic backgrounds and religious beliefs, all have the personal and distinct ability to CHOOSE who they marry.
Whether on the basis of parenthood, or not.
It’s without a doubt, a very cruel premise to assign that the only people valuable to marriage, are parents and the fertile.
When those who don’t have children, are relied upon heavily to participate in the taxation and general welfare of people who had children, regardless their competence or situation to RAISE them.
Professionals without children, put in more work hours, cannot get the same tax benefits, as those who can claim child rearing tax credits.
Marriage, it has been generally agreed, supports more social and economic responsibility. It’s an individual prospect that can make a person happy, even in the hope of such in one’s future.
This has been true of individuals, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.
Marriage is conferred as part of the guaranteed right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in our contract as citizens with the Bill of Rights.
More and more advanced countries, particularly Western nations, have allowed marriage equality for gay couples. The only ones left resistant to this, have a history of human rights violations, especially when it comes to gender.
Equality, even in marriages, has evolved to be more egalitarian than ever. Meaning, equality IS and should be genderless.
Progress, especially in how marriage has evolved as it has, confers compassion and hope on most.
That marriage should become some elite club, that only certain people may join, assumes the only people who can, are fit for it.
Regardless there is no test for that either.
Mark my words. They are just a reality, this article is not addressing.
R. DuCasse – As with the previous poster above I find it deeply ironic that, in response to an article that focuses on the (presumably overlooked and unintended) negative effects that redefining marriage has on children’s rights, you haven’t actually addressed the discussed effects. Instead you have chosen to focus exclusively on adult marriage rights in apparent complete disregard for children’s rights.
Nowhere in this article is the suggestion made that marriage should be reserved exclusively to couples capable of producing children together. The point of this article is that the legal definition of marriage and the legal definition of parental relationships are inextricably linked. And as has been clearly documented in this article, redefining marriage to remove perceived discrimination against same-sex couples unavoidably results in redefining parental relationships to remove the same perceived discrimination; the results of which are detrimental to children’s rights.
So, simply put, this article isn’t so much about objecting to same-sex marriage as it is about objecting to detrimental consequences for children. I suspect that if a win-win solution could be found that would guarantee the preservation of children’s rights, then there would be far fewer objections to same-sex marriage.
One possible solution that addresses the benefits of marriage you mention, is to allow registered partnerships, with the same benefits that marriage affords. In fact, in many countries this is/was already available, but it has been rejected and nothing short of actually redefining marriage (regardless of its associated consequences) is deemed good enough.
If you have such a solution to the addressed negative consequences for children, then I’m sure many people would be excited to hear about it.
I personally feel it is a great tragedy that here in Australia gay and lesbian couples are already allowed the conceive through IVF, regardless of whether or not same sex marriage becomes law in the future. And to make matters worse, same sex marriage proponents use the fact that they can already access IVF in order to counter child-welfare related arguments that are not in favour of same sex marriage (yet rather ironically, they will also use the argument that gay marriage isn’t about the children at all – so long as it fits the pro-gay marriage narrative of the moment). Yet these IVF laws were enacted nonetheless – and with no regard to the psychological welfare of future children conceived by this process. When I vote “no” for same sex marriage later this month, I am also voting an emphatic “no” to gay and lesbian IVF, despite the fact the laws already exist. Gay marriage will just normalise and encourage it all, allowing it to proliferate into mainstream society, aided and abetted by a new “improved” Safe Schools sexual indoctrination program – all to the profound and tragic detriment of our future children.
And to demonstrate that I am not specifically anti-gay in this, I object just as much to IVF for single heterosexual parents as well – another thing that is allowed here in Australia. I have the exact same contempt for those single-parent laws that I do for gay and lesbian IVF. But I’m sure I’ll still be considered a bigot and homophobic nonetheless.
As for any argument that we should also be “against” any traditional heterosexual marriages that do not produce children at all (for medical or age related reasons, for example), this is ridiculous – no child ever missed never been born to begin with, so a marriage that does not produce children cannot possibly bring any harm to children. Yet gay marriages that do not bear children can still bring societal harm because of the social consequences of changing marriage law – something that is not applicable to heterosexual marriage regardless of whether children are produced or not.
How any Government – in any country – can deliberately legislate with the intention of depriving a child of one biological parent right from the very moment of conception is contemptible. But this is what happens when Governments with socialist and politically correct left wing agendas are allowed to make rules that defy simple commonsense.
Bravo!
Bravo! Bravo!
You hit the nail on the head Jon!
Totally agree!
Great Response!
These publications should be mainstream information for contemplation by the public – for the future of children’s and biological parents RIGHTS!
@ jon Yes sir, you are exactly right. Note how all those in favor of gay marriage and lgbtq rights always argue about what adults want and need, and what is “fair” for the adults involved, and completely ignore the detrimental effects on the child.
They don’t care about the child at all. They only care about validating their gay lifestyle, and will use a child to do so. This is reprehensible.
There is a lot of jealously revealed here by the pro gay and lgbtq folks towards heterosexual couples. Couples that CAN produce a child between themselves, without having to go outside the union. The ONLY COMPLETELY self contained, biological family unit. Period.
Sorry, but gay unions are sterile unions and gay couples will ALWAYS have to go outside the union for a member of the opposite sex in order to produce a child. This alone should tell you that the child’s best interests are being subjugated to selfish adult desires.
Whatever is best for the child is the only thing that matters. Period. And that is not anti-gay or any other ism you can come up with. It’s simply PRO CHILD.
There are a few things that I do NOT understand.
– heterosexual couples do NOT need to marry to make kids (well, at least in my country). The kids born are still legal and legitimate.
– What about the situation where a person (parent) divorces and remarries while having one or more kids from the previous relationship? The new partner is NOT biologically connected to those kids.
If you (the author) is against something, just make sure you never end up in the situation you described.
My credo is: live and let live and stop worrying about the entire global population.
“Also known as born out of lawful matrimony. Children born of a mother and a father who were not married at the time of birth; who are not in wedlock. In the 3rd Edition of Halsbury, §137: “Child born out of wedlock. A bastard or illegitimate child is one born out of lawful wedlock.”
Robert – how does the credo “live and let live” resolve the detrimental consequences for children discussed in this article? Are they not included in that credo?
“where a person (parent) divorces and remarries while having one or more kids from the previous relationship? The new partner is NOT biologically connected to those kids.”
Correct – the children are at higher risk of domestic violence statistically.
As a retired police officer with a long history of child protection work I am passionate about the rights of children. Here’s what I have concluded over many years; children, above all, need safety. Having one male and one female parent does not, in any way, guarantee this. Children’s rights are breached every single day in ‘traditional’ families, where they are physically and sexually assaulted.
Your argument opposing gay marriage doesn’t stand even a basic test of logic. Society is full of single parent families, blended families and arrangements where parents with no sexual relationship choose to house share and jointly raise their children. One in four ‘traditional’ marriages ends in divorce, which means roughly a quarter of all children in this country already live in a ‘non traditional’ household.
If you are serious about the rights of children then I recommend you direct your attention to the poor standard of support that we currently provide to those experiencing family violence, sexual abuse, physical abuse and emotional abuse.
You might also like to address the poor outcomes that result from children being raised in single parent families, where they are much more likely to experience poverty and to become involved in juvenile crime and drug use.
The evidence on same sex couples is clear. Their children are not emotionally or physically disadvantaged by their parents being the same gender, provided those parents are loving and ensure their safety.
When it comes to parenting, love IS love.
I have no idea where you get your information from, but if you would care to listen to the CHILDREN THEMSELVES, you would find that all the safety issues and violence and sexual abuse issues are MUCH more prevalent in gay unions. Gay unions have been known to be used specifically for child sex trafficking.
AND children that are missing a mother or a father HAVE A RIGHT TO OBJECT TO NOT HAVING A MOTHER OR A FATHER.
They have a right to be resentful.
They have a right to want to know both biological parents without being made to feel “disloyal” or abnormal.
I’ll never forget how Millie Fontana, who was raised by 2 loving moms in a “safe” environment, said she felt as a FIVE YEAR OLD, watching her girlfriends getting picked up by their dad’s after school.
She watched her little girl friends getting swept up into daddy’s arms, and SHE KNEW that she was missing out on something so very special. And it hurt her.
SHE WAS FIVE. And she already intrinsically knew what completely eludes you. That moms and dads are NOT interchangeable OR disposable. CHILDREN NEED BOTH THEIR PARENTS.
Even worse, she was afraid to tell her moms, lest she hurt their feelings, or feel disloyal. So she kept these feelings to herself. From her own parents. A very, very lonely place to be, and way too much for a young child to have to handle alone. Yet there is no getting around this with gay unions. NO CHILD IS IMMUNE to this.
Millie used to hang out at her straight friends homes, mesmerized by the mom/dad dynamics of the natural, biological family, and yearning for a dad of her own. She yearned to know where her eye color and hair and special talents came from.
She did not know her biological siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. on her dad’s side for many years, and even though she came from a loving gay family, she had psychological problems in school.
Another interesting issue: Millie’s birth certificate was NOT an accurate, historical genealogical record of her existence. And this bothered her immensely.
Her friends birth certificates were. They KNEW where they came from, and could trace their genealogy back many generations effortlessly. These things are very difficult for a child to bear and it is quite profound just how important these things are to all human beings. Something which the gay community can’t even dare admit or they’d have to admit they are only thinking of themselves.
DON’T IGNORE THE CHILD.
It doest matter what people like us say. It is PC to say that all children need is love. The only people that care about being removed from their mother or not having a father are the people like us who have been removed from our mothers and lost our biological fathers in the name of forming modern families. That is oppression and we know it. But we may well be on the wrong side of history. It will only make our rage greater. It is just too plain easy for everyone to take this lightly and join the party – because its not happening to them.
I feel your pain and cannot imagine what the void of the unknown is like for all those who are of anonymous decent.
My admiration for your strength of character and desire to live on in the best fashion that each day may bring. Standing up and offering your opinion, sharing your thoughts and struggle – I realise how lucky I am,
Two parents, knowing my grandparents fora time, aunties, uncles, cousins etc – connected, grounded well rounded. May there be peace, to you and those who share these types of pains and longings. May blessings and comfort offered thru the divine mysteries of love and compassion via those you meet in the image and likeness of god and prayer be yours and help in some healing and acceptance.
Your so brave in sharing and this offers and makes a difference in a totally tormented self righteous world. All the best
My heart goes out to you. Children need both parents. The relationship between a child and their mom, and a child and their dad, is very different.
Moms and dads are not interchangeable, nor are they disposable.
What I abhor most is the selfishness of gay parents, using children to validate their gay lifestyle.
Used to be that the ADULTS, the PARENTS used to be the ones making the sacrifices for their children, not the other way around.
Believe me, there are plenty of adults out there, that even though we were not raised in gay families,are still loyal to the CHILDREN and believe that parenting is all about what is BEST FOR THE CHILDREN.
I hear you. We hear you. Even if some selfish adults don’t want to, we are still here.
Some of the arguments against Katie’s article are red herrings. I won’t go into them here, but she is describing the “norm” for the propagation of the human race – a man a woman and children = more men women and children, and so on……
Attraction and love may be the catalyst to the marriage, but in normal circumstances children will result.
On the other hand, love may not be the catalyst – it may be the arranged marriages for children when they become old enough and these are still meant to bring forth children to keep the family name or the tribe alive.
This cannot happen between two men or two women
I am an adopted adult. I am the only one who has been raised under the nontraditional methods that has posted here. ,I was brought up totally ignorant of who my biological parents were.
Any discussion of this subject was frowned upon. It still is today, and I will be 55 in November.
Separating human infants from their biological parents causes pain to those infants. Creating human beings, solely for the pleasure of adults is wrong. It disrespects the infants. All types of artificial conception, and artificial parenting do not take into account the feeling of the children created. Children become adults, and will question the motives that lead to their creation.
We actually need our biological families, just like you do. We are the same as you.
Don’t use money to make people. Don’t buy sperm or egg, or rent wombs, or buy infants through adoption. Just font’ exchange cash for flesh. The flesh cannot be happy with that.
So you believe family are those who share biological connections and that non biological connections are never family?
To start off, I completely sympathize with those (homosexuals or heterosexuals) who are desperate to have a child. The post-nuclear family of the author Andrew Solomon mentioned in the article by Katy makes me think of the story of the Judgment of King Solomon. The true mother would rather become childless than being a mother of a split child. This woman reminds us that true love is selfless.
As mentioned in Jon’s post, traditional woman-man marriages that do not produce children do not remove the fact that every child has a mother and a father. To comprehend this, you have to look at the purpose of marriage from a child-centered perspective, not from an adult-centered perspective. Every child has a legitimate interest in a relationship with his father and his mother (one of the Ten Commandments). Last March, the Paris City Council in France deleted the titles of “mother” and “father” on the application forms for birth certificates in order to remove “discrimination” against same-sex couples. These titles have been replaced by “parent 1” and “parent 2”!
Many people forget that traditional adoption is to provide a child with a family (not the reverse). It does not deliberately remove a child from his/her origins and it intends to repair an injustice done earlier in his/her life.
Truth is reality. We are ALL equal regarding procreation. I want to remind people (even it is getting less and less politically correct nowadays) that our species is heterosexual meaning that it necessitates a man and a woman, not one single man or one single woman or a same-sex couple, but one man and one woman. You or me have not chosen that our species is heterosexual, therefore we are all equal in front of this fact. Regarding surrogacy and as a veterinarian, on a purely biological perspective, I wonder about the health issues and the idea of taking an embryo that is genetically unrelated to a woman and transplanting that embryo within that woman’s body, which may have some health issues that are additional to the ones we already know about child welfare (bonding to the gestational mother in utero, breastfeeding, genealogical bewilderment…, not to mention the questioning of the half-sibling(s) when they witness their mother relinquishing the commissioned baby). Egg donation pregnancies are associated with higher risks of pregnancy-induced hypertension and pre-eclampsia. Do we know the long-term complications for the mother?
“Marriage equality” is an incredibly intelligent slogan, and I think that the LGBT lobby has done a terrific job by utilizing it to manipulate people. Who can be against equality? Nobody obviously. Note that gays and lesbians are not to blame for the breakdown of the marriage culture, but heterosexuals are! Since we are told that “love makes a family” if same-sex incest marriage is allowed (after all same-sex couples can’t reproduce), should opposite-sex incest marriage be allowed? The risks of birth defects for the latter are reportedly small, but one can argue that mandatory genetic counseling can be done to protect the potential offspring after all.
According to a Cambridge Professor (see the 2015 news article referenced below), the anonymity in sperm and egg donation brings risk of incest, as people may accidentally enter into a sexual relationship with their half-siblings.
I think the practice of sperm donors and surrogacy are juridical time bombs. One day the US Government may be held to account and may have to pay reparations to these children for the emotional damage caused by the intentional deprivation of the opposite-sex parent.
Should children born from surrogacy or sperm donors simply be grateful to their parents to be alive?! How about the case of children conceived during rape? Should they praise the way they were conceived?
To all children born of surrogacy or sperm donors who will read this post, my heart goes out to you. May the God of compassion fill you with courage and strength.
Sophie
Isaiah 5:20 “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/11629083/Sperm-and-egg-donation-bring-risk-of-incest-warns-Cambridge-prof.html
You may “sympathize” with those unable to have children but you certainly don’t empathize with how you demonize us and believe our marriages to our spouses are worthless because it didn’t produce a child.
Dear G:
You obviously have not understood the purpose of traditional marriage, because you base your understanding on an adult-centered perspective, NOT a child centered perspective.
As I tried to explain in my previous post, both traditional marriage that do NOT produce a child and traditional adoption do NOT deprive the child of ANYTHING, whereas same-sex marriage institutionalizes the creation of orphans via sperm donors and surrogacy. What does the Golden Rule teach us? It teaches us that someone’s individual freedom ends where someone else’s begins. I am certainly not trying to “demonize” gays or lesbians, but I think gay rights activists are not asking for rights, they are demanding privileges. Children are not commodities, but human beings.
Peace.
Sophie
PS: I encourage you to read one of the latest articles from Katy Faust on the subject:
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/01/48302/
Sophie,
Basically you’re telling me that my heterosexual marriage that is unable to produce children serves no purpose.
Dear G:
I am guessing you mean traditional marriage when you say “heterosexual” marriage. Procreation (assisted or not) has everything to do with sex complementary, NOT with sexual orientation. As far as I know, there are examples of gays or lesbians marrying opposite-sex partners.
I invite you to read again the posts I wrote in this thread. I stressed that a traditional marriage that does not produce a child, do not strip children of anything, whereas same-sex marriage enshrines the creation of orphans via ART. I never even insinuate that a traditional marriage that does not produce a child serves no purpose! I do recognize that in addition to the emotional strain that infertile traditional couples may face, they may also face stigma from society.
Needless to say, every person possesses an intrinsic dignity regardless of sexual feelings, marital status or level of fecundity!
When a man and a woman get married, they have NO guaranty of producing children. Children are a gift from God, and He grants blessings to whom He wants, yet He does not condemn a women or a man because of infertility in the Bible or the Quran. Many couples who can’t have natural children seek adoption. Taking care of orphans is highly encouraged in the three monotheistic religions. The purpose of life is not to have children (Jesus in Christianity or Lady Aisha in Islam). The purpose of life is to serve God, which means submitting to His decrees AND also knowing that our strength comes from Him during hardship. The purpose of life is not to serve our selfish desires even when legitimate. It is when these desires lead us into sinful behavior and cause harm to children that I have a problem with.
Peace.
Sophie
Bible Psalm 82:3 “Give justice to the poor and the orphan; upholds the right of the oppressed and the destitute.”
Quran 93:9 “Therefore, be not harsh with the orphan”