-
‘The Old Man’s Tree’ and ‘The Boy’s Tree’
April 22, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Helen Keller, Anne Sullivan, and Assisted Suicide
January 17, 2013 | 19 comments
-
D-E-F-E-N-S-E
January 3, 2013 | 30 comments
-
The ‘Max Tax’ Amendment to the Constitution
December 21, 2012 | 68 comments
-
Obama as a Faded Poster
September 5, 2012 | 75 comments
The Marital Spectator
For the Kids
Maryland governor Martin O’Malley introduces a new argument for gay marriage.
At a news conference on Friday July 22, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley said that he would not only support, but would actually sponsor, a bill to allow same-sex marriage at the next legislative session that convenes in January.
He explained his support in these words:
At the end of the day, I think all of us need to look at this issue from the eyes of children of gay, committed couples and ask ourselves how one family could be protected less in the eyes of the law than another family. I don’t think that’s an injustice that can be allowed to stand.
So, the Governor supports same-sex marriage for the sake of the children of same-sex couples. This is a new argument in two respects.
First, supporters of same-sex marriage have argued in court that the traditional definition of marriage cannot be justified by the biology of human sexual reproduction requiring one man and one woman. They say that such a justification is overly broad since it includes heterosexual couples who cannot have children (for reasons of infertility due to age or dysfunction) or will not have children. They want same-sex marriage without regard to children. Now Governor O’Malley argues for same-sex marriage based on the children. Talk about overly broad! He wants us to upend our laws on marriage to allow all same-sex couples to marry — based on the subset of them who are adoptive parents although no same-sex couples can ever have children naturally and many will never have any children by adoption.
Second, supporters of same-sex marriage had argued for years that love trumps all, that same-sex couples who love each other should be treated by the law the same as heterosexual couples. But the law does not require heterosexual couples to love each other — either to marry or to remain married. If we adopt love as the principle to guide us in refashioning our marriage laws, then that principle should allow blood relatives who love each other and ensembles of more than two who love each other to marry. The Governor does not rely on love among prospective partners as the guiding principle for refashioning marriage. He makes a new argument.
Governor O’Malley asserts that, for the sake of the children, the law should protect all families of children to the same degree. When he refers to “family,” he means at least the parents, but he may well mean all members of family. What was he thinking?
Let’s begin with how it is that homosexual couples become parents of children. It is not natural. Two eggs or two spermatozoa do not form children. Rather, it starts with one homosexual individual becoming a parent to a child, either through coitus, artificial insemination, a surrogate, adoption, or a partner from a previous relationship surrendering parental rights. But the second homosexual individual becomes a parent only through adoption. Thus, no homosexual couples would be legal parents unless the laws allowed at least one half of the couple to adopt.
When the governor says families of children should be treated equally, he is really saying that whomever the law allows to adopt should be treated the same as any other parent. So we ask the antecedent question, “Whom does the law now allow to adopt, and whom might the law in the future allow to adopt?”
This past April there was a debate in Virginia over whether the rules that allow only married (in Virginia, this means heterosexual) couples and single individuals (of any sexual orientation) to adopt should be changed to allow unmarried couples (including gay and lesbian couples) to adopt, as well, and requiring faith-based adoption agencies to process such adoptions.
That same month, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that this is not an issue subject to the legislature’s, or even the people’s, judgment, but rather is an issue for the judiciary. The Arkansas high court then promptly overturned a 2008 state law that banned adoption by unmarried couples on the basis that this law violated the Arkansas constitutional right to privacy and did not serve the best interests of the child.
From the viewpoint of the adults (the prospective parents) the court said the 2008 law presented a “pernicious choice”: they can “either give up their fundamental right to sexual intimacy in [their] homes free from investigation by the State into [their] sexual practices in order to adopt or foster [children] or [they can] forego the privilege of having children by adoption or fostering.”
From the viewpoint of the children, the court observed that the law explicitly stated that “[t]he people of Arkansas find and declare that it is in the best interest of children in need of adoption or foster care to be reared in homes in which adoptive or foster parents are not cohabiting outside of marriage.” Nonetheless, the court held that some people cohabiting outside marriage would be suitable as adoptive or foster parents. The court held that, “[b]y imposing a categorical ban on all persons who cohabit with a sexual partner, [the law] removes the ability of the State and our courts to conduct … individualized assessments on these individuals, many of whom could qualify and be entirely suitable foster or adoptive parents.”
The problem with Governor O’Malley’s stated principle is that he would look to the laws of adoption to see who should be allowed to marry — and, as we see from Arkansas, those laws have little to limit them. By the Governor’s principle, he would have the law allow all people who are now, or can be in the future, adoptive parents to marry other adults who are members of their “family.”
• Members of the “family” allowed to marry under the Governor’s principle need not reside in the same home with the children; they may live on the other side of town or on the other side of the planet — just as natural parents do.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (59) | Leave a comment
More Articles by James M. Thunder
More Articles From The Marital Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/18/for-the-kids
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.18.11 @ 6:40AM
And who is to stop the government?
Once the government controls most things, the government must then engage in sophistry to find further things to control.
Sandra S. from Atlanta| 8.18.11 @ 10:57AM
James Thunder's hysterics on the subject of kids of gay parents really got my attention.
My husband and I have two sons--age 7 and 5. Our next door neighbors--two kind, upstanding young men--have a 6-year-old son, who was adopted when he was a baby.
Their son plays with my two boys nearly every day, is a member of their soccer team, and is just as well-adjusted and happy as any kid I have ever seen.
The heterosexual couple behind us is completely dysfunctional--their teenage girl on drugs, and the younger son so out of control, he's in counseling.
I think same-sex couples can raise children as well and sometimes better than a heterosexual couple.
Mike Hawk| 8.18.11 @ 11:31AM
BS
Oakdale Oakie| 8.18.11 @ 12:46PM
Here's what research shows (from MD Health News):
Oct.12, 2005(Washington) -- Children growing up in same-sex parental households do not necessarily have differences in self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional problems from children growing up in heterosexual parent homes.
"There are a lot of children with at least one gay or lesbian parent," says Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. She revealed the findings at the American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition.
Between 1 million and 6 million children in the U.S. are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples, she says. Children being raised by same-sex parents were either born to a heterosexual couple, adopted, or conceived through artificial insemination.
"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."
Oakdale Oakie| 8.18.11 @ 12:47PM
I forgot to mention that other studies back up these findings.
American Spectator is wrong again.
NotALibertarian| 8.18.11 @ 1:05PM
Many of the studies were based on "self-reporting" methods in which the parents were asked about their own family lives and children. It should come as a no shock that same-sex parents who feel they have something to prove would more positively report their family situations and children's well-being than average parents.
NotALibertarian| 8.18.11 @ 11:39AM
Sandra,
Your personal anecdote adds nothing to this discussion, let alone the credibility to refer to Thunder's objections as "hysterics". I know someone who has a lesbian neighbor who treats her daughter terribly.
Whether or not you happen to know of one gay couple whose child -- at the age of six -- does not seem traumatized does nothing to negate the fact that gays are statistically documented to be hyper-promiscuous and unstable. Add to that the Cinderella effect -- documented by evolutionary psychologists in the 70s -- by which the majority of people do not take care of non-blood-relative children as well as they take care of their own, and we end up with an even worse society for children overall. The larger the adoption culture in a society, the more children are abused, period.
Your neighbors may happen to be one of very few gay couples who are actually committed -- i.e., monogomous and stable, but they are still requiring this poor boy to play along with this delusion that he has two daddies. No child should be required to do that.
^00^| 8.18.11 @ 12:05PM
There will be no delusions.
From my experience--although limited experience--with same-sex couples with children, I have noticed that if the same sex is male, a loving female friend visits often and is close to the child, and if the same-sex couple is female, they have a male friend who visits often.
Also, same-sex family memebers are invovled with the child--aunts, uncles, grandmas, granddads, etc.
It's not as if the child is cut off from the rest of the world.
And Like Sandra S. in ATL, here in Denver I know two same-sex couples with a child, and all seems well. The children are well adjusted and are just normal kids.
NotALibertarian| 8.18.11 @ 12:34PM
The picture you are painting here does not seem grounded in reality. You seem to think that same-sex adoptive parents will be a lot more disciplined and controlled than other adoptive/step parents. Why is that?
Relative to traditional marriage, for example, same-sex couples' divorce rates are off the charts. From Norway and Sweden: gay men are 50% more likely to divorce, while lesbians are a stunning 167% more likely to divorce (http://www.uni-koeln.de/wiso-fak/fisoz/conference/papers/p_andersson.pdf).
Politically-conscious people who believe they need to prove something to the world behave a lot differently than people who no longer have that sense of purpose. What happens to the generation of adopted kids whose same-sex parents take their standing for granted as much as single mothers do today?
The reality is that while a small percentage of the population makes wonderful adoptive parents, the vast majority of people make lousy adoptive parents. Society's embrace of fatherless motherhood has been an unmitigated disaster. Increasing the adoption culture to cater to grown-ups' sexual inclinations is a selfish goal, no matter how it is presented.
Franco| 8.18.11 @ 1:00PM
Know what? Two parents are better than one, just like two arms or legs are preferable to one, all things fairly considered. Children need stable families. Period. Marriage is conducive to family stability. Period.
This pisses me off about my fellow conservatives--we wave the bloody shirt about the sanctity of the family and moan about the government's intrusion into it to the point where it's polices work to subvert it. But only for heterosexual parents. There's a LOT of screwed up children from hetero couples out there.
Crawl out of Plato's cave, for God sakes.
NotALibertarian| 8.18.11 @ 1:12PM
"Marriage is conducive to family stability. Period."
Actually, gay activists want to remove the monogamy aspect of marriage as well:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01.....metro.html
This is probably because gays tend to be hyper-promiscuous. Gays in Britain, for example, self-reported SIX TIMES as many sexual partners as straight males in the 90s: http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/...../S127.full
As for stability, same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden have been found to end in divorce at incredibly high rates relative to traditional couples.
Occam's Tool| 8.18.11 @ 5:31PM
In addition, the polygamy cases are already starting to come out. Jesus, my one wife runs me ragged. WTF?
Occam's Tool| 8.18.11 @ 5:38PM
Two parents are not necessarily better than one, unless the two reflect normal human values. I'm sorry. There are always exceptions to this rule, but not enough to sanction gay "marriages."
Ben Doon| 8.18.11 @ 7:15PM
Wait until the little crumb cruncher grows into puberty and his two daddies covet his little glutes. Fits in with the gummint's education program of no child's behind left alone.
Alan Brooks| 8.18.11 @ 9:09PM
Now that we are in debt for who knows how many trillions, please: LEAVE GAYS ALONE. If you don't like gays, then stay away from them-- better for you; better for them.
Better for all.
You have more pressing 'problems' than gays.
RustyG| 8.18.11 @ 7:07AM
I don't know when the dems decided to start putting O'malley out front as a talking head, but I've seen him on a few cable shows lately. He's like a male Debbie Wasserman-Schultz without her charm and intellect.
Angus Mckoupy| 8.18.11 @ 8:35AM
Children of committed gay couples??? If there is a child involved, the kid may be the child of one of them at best. I pity the kid. Kids need a mom and a dad. Single motherhood and all the other permutations don't work out very well (I've heard all the platitudinous BS about how they do)Duuhhh. This is sick. O'Malley needs to be committed.
PaulyD| 8.18.11 @ 8:44AM
Help! I live in the People's Republic of Maryland. Somebody rescue me from this Commisar!
WRTolkas| 8.18.11 @ 9:15AM
Dear PaulyD,
I escaped years ago. My favorite memory: reading the sign "You are Now Leaving Maryland."
POST American| 8.18.11 @ 8:54AM
"Remember ALLL behavior in
ANY society is authorized from the
TOP ---DOWN."
-ALAN WATT
--Remember kiddies, as 'the Big Boys' and their
VAST archives well know, adultery,
fornication, extermination of the unborn
and finally sodomy, are KEY to bringing
down a society ---ANY society, when it's
time to 'move on'. (ie RED China TREASON OP)
In short, 'Sexual Liberation' = 'Elimination
VIA Sex".
------------------------REALLY--------------------------
-------------------------TRULY--------------------------
Hillel| 8.18.11 @ 8:54AM
Does anyone remember the 1940's country and western hit "I'm My Own Grandma?"
Occam's Tool| 8.18.11 @ 5:34PM
Happy to help, Hillel:
"I'm My Own Grandpa," Ray Stevens
"Many, many years ago when I was just twenty-three,
I was married to a widow, she was pretty as could be.
This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red
And my father fell in Love with her. Soon they too were wed.
This made my dad my son-in-law--changed my very life!
My daughter was my mother because she was my father's wife!
To complicate the matter even though it brought me joy,
I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.
My little baby he then became a brother-in-law to Dad.
Well, that made him my uncle--made me very sad!
Because if he was my uncle then he also was a brother
To the widow's grown-up daughter, who, of course, was my stepmother.
CHORUS
My father's wife then had a son who kept them on the run.
And, of course, he became my grandchild because he was my daughter's son.
My wife is now my mother's mother and this makes me blue
Because although she is my wife, she's my grandmother too!
CHORUS
Now if my wife is my grandmother, well, then I am her grandchild,
And every time that I think about this, it nearly drives me wild!
Because now I have become the strangest case that you ever saw
As husband of my grandmother, I�m� my own grandpa!
CHORUS:
I'm my own grandpa! I'm my own grandpa!
It sounds funny, I know, but it really is so!
Oh, I'm my own grandpa!"
hardcard| 8.18.11 @ 9:00AM
The State 0f Maryland named for the Mother of Christ by the state founders. O'Malley is not going my way but the way of the devil.
Petronius| 8.18.11 @ 9:14AM
And the eastern liberals are now in sync with the outback residents of Utah sans Old Testament.
Methinks if Lord Baltimore could have foreseen this, he'd not have sailed.
Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 10:08AM
Martin O'Malley is the white Obama.
Derek Leaberry| 8.18.11 @ 10:41AM
The truth is that Martin O'Malley considers himself presidential timber. His chief competition for the 2016 Democratic nomination is Andrew Cuomo, who successfully pushed sodomite "marriage" through the New York legislature. Naturally, Governor O'Malley finds it vital to his interests to duplicate Cuomo's victory.
SUSYQUE| 8.18.11 @ 11:13AM
If one chooses to be gay he/she is free to do so.
Nevertheless...it is a perverted life style. Only a man and women together can create another human being. It is not wise nor fitting to subject an innocent child to a sexual lifestyle that will mold and shape his/her character. Woe is us if we
continue to exalt the gay lifestyle. It is a life of deception ...your body tell you who you are. Your
emotions have lied to you.
COLT 45| 8.18.11 @ 11:33AM
If the U.S. goverment would take away the voting rights of every gay person in this country, that would learn 'em.
GAY = NO VOTE
What they're trying to do is take over, and if we let them, theyll do it.
Tom| 8.18.11 @ 12:09PM
They're taking over by running for political positions, showing up at city council meetings and expressing their concerns. Demanding!
They tend to be well-informed, articulate and tenacious. Don't think like I did that they don't have balls. They're not easily intimidated, and like another group we know, they're pushy. I mean very in your face pushy.
Franco| 8.18.11 @ 1:05PM
What, homos don't pay taxes? How about branding a big F on their heads and shove them into concentration camps to presumably spare you from their hot heavy-lidded lustful glances at your manliness?
NotALibertarian| 8.18.11 @ 1:14PM
Are you, perhaps, pretending to be a social con to make social cons look bad?
TrueBlue| 8.18.11 @ 12:14PM
And anyone that tries to say that gay parents are not going to push their lifestyle choice on the child is lying. You're going to have a lot of children who "mysteriously" are gay "because they were born that way" in the homes of gay/lesbian parents. That's assuming of course they don't break up and find another partner along the way since most gay couples don't stay together for very long.
For those people who will shout at me and say, "But same-sex parents push their lifestyle choice on their children too!" That may be so, but at least same-sex couples help to guarentee the continuation of the species!
Another thing to remember, when Rome started to get overly promiscuous and started with all the decadence and accepted gay acts (albeit they preferred the little boys instead of grown men) that's when their empire started to crumble. Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it!
Oakdale Oakie| 8.18.11 @ 12:39PM
TrueBlue, you are so ill informed.
Sexual orientation cannot be pushed on anyone. Sexual orientation is inate and already formed at birth or shortly thereafter.
Do you think that anyone could change your sexual orientation to gay?
However, some people who have strokes or some other cerebral injury sometimes develop same sex desires they did not have before. It's all genetic, and it's all in the brain. Damage to one part of the brain can completely change a person's behavior.
NotALibertarian| 8.18.11 @ 12:51PM
"Sexual orientation cannot be pushed on anyone. Sexual orientation is inate and already formed at birth or shortly thereafter."
Actually, you are wrong:
"Most striking was the finding that members of the study group identified themselves as currently homosexual nearly seven times as often and bisexual nearly six times as often as the [non-abused] control group."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....3-0041.pdf
There are entire tribes of people in New Caledonia, Malekula Island in Vanuatu, Papua-New Guinea and Irian Jaya in which ALL of the males have sex with other males. Many lesbians enter and exit the lifestyle throughout their lives (ever notice the romantic partners of actress Anne Heche?).
Oakdale Oakie| 8.18.11 @ 1:24PM
NotALibertarian,
Could you change your sexual orientation from straight to gay? Of course not! Impossible. You're either straight or gay, or you are bi-sexual, which is a very small population.
This fear of gays is all hysterical nonsense.
NotALibertarian| 8.18.11 @ 1:30PM
Prison populations change their orientations all the time, Oakdale.
I've provided you with scientific documentation that you are free to reject in favor of your own feelings and opinions. But calling my position "hysterical nonsense" is not a reasonable response.
NotALibertarian| 8.18.11 @ 11:58AM
So, instead of limiting the kind of social arrangements that ADULTS have as options for themselves, society is supposed to force more and more kids into freakish lifestyles by accommodating the existing freakish arrangements the hippies and their epigones have created.
It's all about the kids, you see.
Gary| 8.18.11 @ 12:18PM
This whole gay"marriage" thing is sick and out of hand. I refuse to write marriage without quotes when it is designated gay. It is leading to all sorts of ridiculous crap like this Maryland's governor la la land ideas. There is enough chaos in the family without adding more. The welfare state has already weakened marriage and now the libs want to water it down some more. It will become a lifestyle rather than a human institution that predated all forms of government. I cannot accept being gay as normal and while I wish no harm to those with that condition I don't admire it and it merits no glorification. If our species in the eons passed had succumbed to this homosexuality we would not be here today, gay or straight.
^00^| 8.18.11 @ 1:25PM
Yes, but gays cut down on overpopulation, and that's a HUGE blessing.
Franco| 8.18.11 @ 1:16PM
The idea that the government should stay the hell out of your personal business--your bank account, your associations, your gun cabinet, your religion, your family--is the raison d'etre of conservatism. Nothing more personal than what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom.
But, that's just me. BTW, the gay inclination is genetic. It's part of one's DNA. You can't change it any more than the color of your skin, you can't "un-learn" it. Homosexuals who want to marry each other are actually trying to assimilate into the wider heterosexual culture, to become more like heterosexuals.
Shouldn't that be a good thing?
Ying and Yang| 8.18.11 @ 1:29PM
Assimilate into the wider heterosexual culture?
Well, yes and no. Yes, if they prefer to assimilate by marrying their partner. No, if they want not to marry, but instead to remain single and enjoy the luxuries of being single with no one to answer to.
I, if I were gay, would prefer to be single. Nothing like the single life! (Wish I'd stayed single.)
DaveD| 8.18.11 @ 5:02PM
Franco, if homosexuality is "part of one's DNA," how did the homosexual get conceived in the first place? Homosexuals, by definition, do not engage in reproductive sex.
RCV| 8.19.11 @ 5:29PM
It could be a recessive gene, a combination of genes plus hormonal influences, or any number of things.
Prentice Hall| 8.18.11 @ 5:18PM
Franco,
You're wasting your breath on these AmSpec bigots. They're haters, and they're close minded.
The American Spectator is near the bottom of the extreme right-wing magazine trash pile.
These AmSpec readers are not intelligent, civilized concervatives; instead, they are mostly right-wing tea baggers.
You'll find a little better grade of conservative at Christian Science Monitor Online, or Wall Street Journal, or US News and World Report.
Occam's Tool| 8.18.11 @ 5:36PM
Pray tell, Prentice, what is the bottom? ("Pinky finger out, boy!")
Sandra| 8.18.11 @ 6:23PM
Occam's Tool,
You prove Prentice's point.
A more appropriate moniker for you is Occam's Fool, don't you think?
don| 8.18.11 @ 2:07PM
very tortured and corrupted logic - this guy must be a demoRAT
Mike | 8.18.11 @ 6:21PM
I don't see what the difference is between two men or two women bringing up a child compared to one man and one woman. Most couples have trusted friends outside their relationship and kids learn just as much from their aunts, uncles, parent's friends, etc as they do from their parents. Plus, when a kid gets to school, they learn from their peers, not just their parents. It's time we all woke up and realised there are more important things going on in the world than whether or not two guys or two girls can bring up children. There's a much abuse towards children in mom-and-dad relationships than there is in gay and lesbian ones too. It's the quality of you as a person, nothing else, that determines whether your kid turns out to be a good person.
RJ| 8.18.11 @ 7:18PM
First of all, by definition, homosexuals don't procreate...they have to come up with kids from outside they sexual preference/behavior. Second, how does one place the "cart before the horse" in this east coast argument? Let me guess: I want certain votes come next election from this group of queers who want to play house just like a real mommy and daddy!
Boy, that's creative, copying heterosexual couples united for procreation. Let's twist all definitions one does not like nor wish to live by so that the malignant narcissist can achieve what nature would deny!
The game: I am a god and gods get what they demand!
Mike Giles| 8.18.11 @ 8:10PM
What intrigues me about the "born that way" argument; is why homosexuality - if it is innate - should be considered different from any other genetic disorder. We don't punish people who are born with some genetic disorder, but then again we don't glorify the disorder either. And although society does make allowances for their problems (i.e., people with disabilities), we also don't demand that there be changes to any and all definitions to suit those suffering from the disorder (i.e., stairs are still stairs, not ramps).
BTW, one last thought. If they ever do discover the "gay gene", I'd like to live long enough to hear the argument/counter-argument over why/why not there should/shouldn't be abortion over this particular genetic disorder. Pro Abortionists versus Gays. Should prove interesting.
jkg| 8.18.11 @ 9:40PM
Pro Choice people have the intelligence to appreciate the gifts that gay people give society and culture.
Anyway, there is not one gene that causes sexual orientation. It is combinations and interactions of hormones in the womb that cause it.
POST American| 8.18.11 @ 10:25PM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
ALL culture, ALL behavior is engineered and
authorized from the TOP ----DOWN
and ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS at the
service of their agenda.
SO, put down your EYE-Cons and EYE-doll-eat
-tree -----and REAL-EYES what's RE-ALL-Y
going ON.
David| 8.18.11 @ 10:27PM
As I've argued before, if same sex marriage is allowed, then we cannot deny any number of consenting adults in any combination whatsoever to marry - and that includes allowing incestuous marriages.
Mike, every credible, verifiable, peer-reviewable study ever performed concludes that children are best reared by their mothers and fathers, and if not their biological parents, then by a man and women. That is not surprising to you is it? It is natural order.
Mike | 8.19.11 @ 9:01AM
Same sex marriage is allowed in a lot of western european countries. I haven't heard of mass outrage there. Your point about incestuous marriages is silly IMO. Gays and lesbians aren't 2 brothers or cousins.
And whilst it is best that a child is raised by its biological mother and father, would you rather see a child brought up by two responsible adults (or whatever combination) than see a child spend it's formative years in a orphanage or abused on the streets?? I know if my kids were to be left without their mom and dad, I would be happy in my grave knowing that they were being looked after by two adults that love them and not worry about their sexual orientation.
Don't fear change. It probably won't turn out as bad as you think. You guys (not you specifically :) ) need to wake up to reality and start worrying about real societal issues like poverty and corporate greed.
Lucy| 8.19.11 @ 12:50AM
I think same-sex couples can raise children as well and sometimes better than a heterosexual couple.
http://www.summer-products.com
http://www.ainibag.com
Lucy| 8.19.11 @ 1:48AM
The game: I am a god and gods get what they demand!
http://www.jerseys-hats-store.com
http://www.honey-gifts.com
Conrad Spiracy| 8.19.11 @ 10:19AM
>> Sexual orientation is inate and already formed at birth or shortly thereafter.
Conrad Spiracy| 8.19.11 @ 10:20AM
A liberal argument against abortion? Aghast, I am!
Angie Rose | 8.21.11 @ 1:14PM
O'Malley's governor seems to quick a decision. I feel it is a principle that does not make sense. How could man against nature that has been determined by Him?