In the day to day drone of the mainstream media and other media forms, these type voices are rarely identified. Usually, these voices are never brought out to the general public at large because they don't fit the "agenda". However, voices like these, do have a point and a "real life - I have lived it" view.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14370/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/AmicusBriefs/14-556_Family_Equality_Council.pdf
Making policy that intentionally deprives children of their fundamental rights is something that we should not endorse, incentivize, or promote. This holds no weight. When a child is raised by a heterosexual married couple there can be any number of reasons why one of the biological parents shouldn't be a part of that child's life. Adopted children that are taken out of a bad and abusive situation and then are given to a loving family, are they being stripped of their fundamental rights? Believe it or not, there are plenty of children raised by gay couples that would feel that their fundamental rights were being stripped away if their parents couldn't be married. You're a conservative, you want small government, right? Why do you want them dictating who can and cannot be married? If you are of a legal age to make a contract, you can marry whomever else is also of that legal age and of sound mind/body. Period. One of the girls that watches our children was raised by two dads. She is one of the kindest and most well-adjusted young people we know. If you REALLY care about getting the "I have lived it" view, then you don't have to go too far to get it. There's a reason that stories like these (and I'll admit I only read the first) are not plentiful in the media and it's not because they "don't fit the agenda," but because they're less prevalent. Guess what, some gay couples are going to be shitty parents and some children of gay couples are going to have a rough childhood. But we ALL know and perhaps have been a victim of heterosexual parents that had no right having kids. A penis and a vagina don't automatically qualify you for parents of the year. EDIT: Also, marriage does not automatically mean becoming parents. I have plenty of friends that are happily married and don't have children. I refuse the premise that people get married because they want to have children. People get married because they're in love with one another and want to spend their lives together. Often times this will lead to having children but increasingly more and more couples are choosing to not have children. Edit 2: This article, in response to the article you posted says it better than I could. When two adults who cannot procreate want to raise children together, where do those babies come from? Each child is conceived by a mother and a father to whom that child has a natural right. When a child is placed in a same-sex-headed household, she will miss out on at least one critical parental relationship and a vital dual-gender influence. The nature of the adults’ union guarantees this. Whether by adoption, divorce, or third-party reproduction, the adults in this scenario satisfy their heart’s desires, while the child bears the most significant cost: missing out on one or more of her biological parents.
I cringe when I think of it now, because it was a lie. My parents’ divorce has been the most traumatic event in my thirty-eight years of life. While I did love my mother’s partner and friends, I would have traded every one of them to have my mom and my dad loving me under the same roof.
-Of course their parents divorce was traumatic. Of course they would have preferred to have their parents together, what person wouldn't? We can't make these decisions based on one persons desire to have her parents not get divorced. We also can't make it based on the positive accounts from the many other children of same sex couples. Instead, we need to make the decision based on the law, based on the "fundamental right" of two adults to make a consensual decision. The government shouldn't be in the marriage business. Period. "Two adults who cannot procreate" is not a stand-in for "same-sex couple." Many opposite-sex couples cannot have biological children on their own, and many of them ultimately choose adoption. Adoptive parents, be they gay or straight, are not biologically connected to their children. There is no logically consistent way that Katy Faust can use a line about adopted kids "missing out on one or more of her biological parents" and confine that line only to the kids of same-sex parents. There are millions of kids of straight parents who fall into that very same category!
Item 1: Let's take the exception and make it the rule. Of course, there may be heterosexual situations that merit separation or divorcées. IMHO, divorce happens too easily and can be avoided if one or more of the parties chooses to do whatever it takes to avoid it (a large amount of humility is required). But, you miss the point entirely. This is a person who is expressing their personal experience - so, because some situations in the heterosexual "marriage world" exist, this point of view is invalid; I think THAT point is invalid. This person is somehow "invalidated" in the way they feel. We can all be "Monday morning quarterbacks" and commentators, not having lived through the same situation. Adopted children raised in heterosexual families are exposed to both a mother and father and therefore are not "stripped of that fundamental "natural right". Nobody in history was born of homosexual parents; a biological FACT! I would say the last comment is the minority, and you have no valid statistics to prove your postulate. In fact, I could add that children in single family "heterosexual" homes tend to be more likely to be trapped in poverty, have higher school dropout rates, higher crime rates and higher sociological maladjustment rates (and there are tons of facts whether right or left of the political spectrum that support this. Does that mean all single Moms or Dads are bad - no! That argument is a red herring or a "straw man" argument. But IMHO, the absence of a responsible, dedicated father plays an enormous role in that scenario.
An addition to Edit 1: the statistic on percent of the general population that is "gay" in proportion to "non-gay" is consistently overstated in the general media and by pro-gay groups. The more accurate percentage is between 2-3 % of the general population which makes the statement "many" somewhat trivial. The 10% statistic is a statistic originally based on a Kinsey study of male prison inmates who were asked such questions on a questionnaire, "Have you had sexual thoughts or attractions toward individuals of the same sex (paraphrased by the writer here)". Duh! That is a biased sample.
Edit 2: Unfortunately, in our general population, the divorce rate of 52% is tragic (IMHO) and is a result of not understanding and trivializing the "covenant of marriage" or agreement and is too often based on a partial understanding of what it takes to make a successful marriage. This is, unfortunately, caused by many factors: parents too busy to teach their children thoroughly and correctly, too selfish to take the time or not being taught themselves thus proliferating the ignorance factor", and being too involved in the sexual aspect compared to the emotional, interpersonal, and communications skills part of a great, healthy relationship. Do kids suffer from "divorce"? I say yes and more than most of the media and pundits want to admit because, again, it does not fit "their narrative". I could make the argument that I know "many" very healthy "religious and non-religious" heterosexual marriages that do pass along great family and personal values and skills. I think too many kids "miss out" on both their biological parents' influence for reasons not of their own making. TOO BAD for us all!
The other comment, "You're a conservative, you want small government, right? Why do you want them dictating who can and cannot be married? If you are of a legal age to make a contract, you can marry whoever else is also of that legal age and of sound mind/body period" is paradoxical. On one hand, you don't want the "government" to dictate whdat a marriage or marriage "rights" should be, but on the other hand, you want "the government" to violate the consciences and constitutionally documented rights of "freedom of religion and conscience connected to that religion (in a healthy sense - not the granola folks - fruits, nuts and flakes) to be mandated to by the USSC and other federal judges and state judicial entities and legislative entities. This is a two sided argument: I don't want government to dictate, but I want government to dictate! So, where the "people" have, through valid legislative and constitutional means, voted to support one postulate (in this case one man, one woman), you WANT THE GOVERNMENT, to overthrow that, through judicial caveat, and impose government mandated rules. It will NOT end there buddy! That is NOT the AGENDA, nor has it been since the early 1970's. The agenda is: "to force, by one means or another, my values (in this case homosexual) on the entire population at large whether YOU agree with it or not, and I have the POWER OF GOVERNMENT on my side to FORCE YOU TO COMPLY. It will eventually, FORCE its way into the churches of the land, the church employment of the land, and on and on. If you don't believe that, then you also believe NO RACISM exists any longer anywhere in America either. By the way, homosexuality, has NEVER BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN BY ANY STUDY, to show that it is 100% genetic, and, therefore, unavoidable so as to be constitutionally protected like race or gender "true gender". This is also a fallacious argument fomented by many in the media and the respective lobbies, and has no foundation in science. While genetic may play some role, it is, by far, not the most influential role by any means.
So, to agree with your one comment, "You are conservative (socially)", I would have to plead guilty, but not ignorantly or ashamedly guilty. I believe we are in more of a "mess" today because we have departed, as a general rule, those social mores which made us stronger as a country and a people. So, I leave with the quotes from some of the folks who were "architects of our nation (not Karl Rove): “Let the American youth never forget that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils and sufferings and blood of their ancestors, and capable, if wisely improved and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to the latest posterity all the substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence. The structure has been erected by architects of consummate skill and fidelity; its foundations are solid, its compartments are beautiful as well as useful, its arrangements are full of wisdom and order, and its defenses are impregnable from without. It has been reared for immortality, if the work of men may justly aspire to such a title. It may nevertheless perish in an hour by the folly, or corruption, or negligence of its only keepers, the People. Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall when the wise are banished from the public councils because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded because they flatter the people in order to betray them.”….— Joseph Story (1779-1845) Lawyer, Supreme Court Justice & influential commentators on the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests….Patrick Henry.
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams (The Works of John Adams, ed. C. F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31).
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!...Benjamin Franklin.
I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation….President James Madison (1751-1836) speech, Virginia Convention, 1788.
If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws….Noah Webster
Simple question: What are you afraid of? What do you think will happen if we grant same sex couples the same rights given to heterosexual couples? Two adults might get to live the way they want?.... oooh scary. An unwanted child might receive a loving home? -Run for the hills! There's a world full of kind, loving, interesting people in relationships with people of their same gender. This exists. My wife and I know these people, chances are you do too. Leave them alone. You can hide your BULLYING behind all the religious and political rhetoric you want, but it's still bullying. Generations beyond you and I will look back at the people who think the way you do in the same vein as the Theodore Bilbo's of the past. I see the same co-opting of politics and religion that promoted segregation and warned of the dangers of interracial marriage/adoption with that of same sex marriage/adoption. Like interracial marriage, it's going to be something that my children don't even see as odd. I'm fine with that. You should be too.
Not afraid of anything my man - wrong accusation. I just don't agree with it on principle, and in my convictions. I don't believe "marriage" should be redefined. I have known same sex folks who choose to live together, and they are nice folks. I work with them, get along, and have no problem interacting in a healthly manner with them. I just don't believe that "marriage" should be redefined. It is more how the "governments" will use that to further "intrude" on what the "government" (in this case the few "enlightened" elite) feels it wants. Then our country is no longer "of the people and for the people"; it will be more "of the government and for the government".
I do - the idea that I like about Hubski is that we can disagree and have a civil discourse. Unfortunately, this is a missing factor in today's society and dialogue. We have degenerated into name calling and finger pointing. Too bad most of the later generations have not been schooled, by their biased and Marxist leaning and jaded college (ex-hippie) generation professors (mine), in the art of Classic argument like our Founders in the debates recorded in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers when men of dignity debated weighty issues and the fate of the nation which allows us to continue this very dialogue. It is unlike the mob that calls themselves the "guardians of the common people" otherwise known as the masses of OWS throng some of whom rape chicks in parks and crap on cop cars all the while yelling " we stand up for what is right and just" ( hypocrites the lot of them). Let's set a new, but amazingly old, standard do the classical debate.
hootsbox, I always enjoy reading what you write, even when I (often) disagree with your conclusions. Just one minor suggestion: To make paragraph breaks, you need to press enter twice. It's a formatting issue. Sometimes your rather longer posts, the above being a great case in point, are difficult to read, because of the formatting.
Who circledotted the psycho? Listen, you're free to believe whatever you like about the world. You're free to think that anybody is going to hell for anything you want to name. I'll even defend your right to say so in a public setting. What you don't get to do is impose your beliefs on everybody else. What you don't get is a country run by the rules of your Mesopotamian war god.
hootsbox brings a different point of view, one that I definitely, whole-heartedly disagree with in this case, but I don't think he is a psycho and I'm not sure what "name-calling" brings to the conversation. He's been on Hubski for a long time and has been the source of some great debates and conversation over the years. Do I think he's way off on this one? Yes, but I appreciate that he's willing to have a conversation about his beliefs, however out of line with mine they may be.
Yes, like some folks are doing now through the courts and not through the "time tested" and intentioned legislative process. This leaves us with "judicial tyranny" warned against in the Federalist papers and in the "rule of the oligarchy" which is also warned against in many, even pre-American documents. What about the folks who are imposing "their beliefs" on other folks of traditional beliefs? Are they "Mesopotamian War Gods" too?
So every kid raised by a single parent is just as messed up as those raised by same sex parents. I read all the way through both articles and couldn't find a cogent argument that would indicate why marriage between two people of the same gender should be illegal. Parents have been fucking up their kids since time immemorial, and thats true of every arrangement for child rearing. All legalization does is legitimize the reality that hundreds of thousands of rational adults and loving families are living RIGHT NOW.vital dual-gender influence