this is marriage: a mom and a dad

this is marriage 3

“Increasingly, homes which are either fatherless or motherless have been the product of the rise of nonmarital trends in the wake of insistent attacks on the social institution of marriage.

How is such misfortune something that could provide a basis for embedding fatherlessness and motherlessness into the society’s view of the most pro-child social institution which integrates fatherhood and motherhood?

The SSMers do not say because they really do not believe it could increase the number of kids raised by married parents. They just use kids in vulnerable families as an excuse to claim special treatment for a tiny subset of the same-sex category — which is itself a small subset of the nonmarriage category.”

Chairm

————————–

photo by debaird

About these ads

14 Comments

  1. March 30, 2009 at 11:03 am

    A request for pommie:

    Translate this into english and then provide me with some proof, and then we’ll discuss it.

  2. Gary said,

    March 30, 2009 at 11:20 am

    I don’t understand why gay people can’t just be happy with have less than everybody else. If you’re born different in American, then you have to understand that you’re going to be treated differently. Not everyone is going to have the same opportunities for happiness. That’s just the American way, right?

  3. March 30, 2009 at 11:47 am

    Well said, Gary, well said. It’s good to be reminded of the American Dream: the ability to push other peoples’ faces in the mud.

  4. rubyeliot said,

    March 30, 2009 at 12:42 pm

    PF:

    do you think it is okay to strip a child on purpose of their mom or dad? in order to indulge the wants of two consenting adults?

  5. { Lisa } said,

    March 30, 2009 at 8:48 pm

    The American dream… two loving parents (one of each sex), a home, a good job and vactions away with said family…

    The Anti American dream…two people of any sex, loud naked protests in the streets, poverty, mental problems and motherless or fatherless kids…

    hmmm I chose #1! and if we were to ask children I am betting they would chose #1 as well.

  6. Gary said,

    March 31, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    I think Lisa’s hit the nail on the head. All gay people are loud, naked, poor, and had mental problems. These gay parents who are being loving to their kids are just not being who they really are. What’s going to happen when those kids see them for who they really are?!

  7. Chairm said,

    March 31, 2009 at 9:55 pm

    PF, Do SSMers regularly point to nonmarital trends?

    Yes they do in court arguments, in legislative debates, in election campaigns, and in other public venues such as the comment sections in the blogosphere.

    Why is that?

    Is the overall nonmarital trend a misfortune a fortune for society?

    SSMers keep bringing this up when arguing against the man-woman criterion of marriage, so maybe they think the nonmarital trend is can be put to good use for the SSM campaign.

    Why is that?

    There is a broad range of relationship types and kinds of arrangements that are nonmarital. A sub-category of that range is one-sexed. And a subset of that is gay.

    But SSMers emphasize gayness.

    They do so when arguing that same-sexed parenting is just as good as married parenting. Of course, they don’t mean the millions of children being raised by mom-daughter combos or by sibling combos. They strongly suggest that gayness is the special ingredient that makes all the difference.

    But there is a lack of evidence that SSMers actually believe that gayness makes some nonmarital arrangements superior to other nonmarital arrangements.

    Their rhetoric says otherwise, however.

    Why is that?

  8. Chairm said,

    March 31, 2009 at 9:58 pm

    Sorry for typos:

    Is the overall nonmarital trend a misfortune OR a fortune for society?

    * * *

    maybe they think that the nonmarital trend can be put to good use for the SSM campaign.

    * * *

    Cheerio

  9. Fitz said,

    April 1, 2009 at 11:57 am

    Gary (writes)

    “I don’t understand why gay people can’t just be happy with have less than everybody else. If you’re born different in American, then you have to understand that you’re going to be treated differently. Not everyone is going to have the same opportunities for happiness. That’s just the American way, right?”

    I don’t think you’re being fair. Single people are not always “happy” but we don’t eliminate the institution of marriage because it would make them feel less included.
    http://www.unmarried.org/

    This link is perhaps one way for you to understand the implications of your approach. It is the considered opinion of me and those who post here that marriage pervades multiple social goods that outweigh your sense of personal worth or that of any single group.

  10. Eutychus said,

    April 1, 2009 at 7:02 pm

    “I don’t understand why gay people can’t just be happy with have less than everybody else.”

    They don’t have less. They have the same right to marry just like everyone else, with the same restrictions.

    “Not everyone is going to have the same opportunities for happiness.”

    Most of us learn this in Jr High. (hopefully) Should everyone have the same job, make the same money, be issued the same family? Absurd, yes. But so was your attempt at being clever. Don’t wait for the government to issue you happiness and quit trying to make this about equal rights, its not and never has been.

  11. Gary said,

    April 1, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    “They don’t have less. They have the same right to marry just like everyone else, with the same restrictions.”

    I see your point. I think that if we just remind gay men that they can marry a woman, then that should solve the problem. Although if I had a daughter, I don’t think I’d want a gay man marrying her. Maybe we should forbid gay men from marrying straight women too. And of course, we’d have to forbid gay women from marrying straight men too. Just to be fair, of course.

  12. Chairm said,

    April 2, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    Gary, what is the societal significance, if any, of gayness?

    If there is something highly significant, is there also a gayness requirement in the law anyplace where “gay marriage” has been imposed or enacted? If not, why not?

    There is no such gayness criterion in the marriage law that excludes men or women. But there is the marital presumption of paternity which makes of the conjugal union a public sexual type of relationship — in our customs, traditions, and laws. This does not apply to the entire range of one-sexed arrangements — gay or otherwise. But this provides the basis for excluding a range of two-sexed arrangements and relationship types.

    Going back to those places that have “gay marriage”, is there any legal requirement that the one-sexed arrangement engage in same-sex sexual behavior? Is that behavior the same for the all-male and for the all-female versions?

    There is no such requirement, of course, niether for gayness nor for same-sex sexual behavior, which makes “gay marriage”, at law, neither gay nor sexual by type.

    Now, about the societal significance, if any, of gayness (as per your previous emphasis on gayness), what would be the basis, if any, for drawing lines based on the number of consenting adults, or on the degree of relatedness of consenting adults, or on the age of consent?

    Obviously, the individual who chooses to form a relationship or an arrangement of some kind, would consent — but consent to what? And if a license from society (via the government) is insisted upon by that individual, this question must also provide an answer as to what society gives its consent.

    Before your repeat your axiomatic assertion regarding “gay marriage”, please at least attempt to reason through these questions. Thanks.

  13. April 3, 2009 at 9:57 am

    and if you haven’t reached the same conclusion as chairm, you’re doing it wrong!

    i suggest reading Derailing for Dummies for further discussions with chairm and his ilk, gary.

  14. Chairm said,

    April 3, 2009 at 2:04 pm

    Well, PF, you and Gary have emphasized gayness.

    So, stick to that topic and answer the challenge put to you above.

    You wanted to talk about it. You keep reminding us that’s all you want to talk about.

    Why the dodge, now?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: