3. It is better for a child to have two parents of the same sex than no parents at all.

I agree, I think, with all these beliefs. Therefore, I find it interesting that I am not entirely on board with the adoption of children by gays. Now, I am wondering why. I will have a think. Thankyou.

If there was no adoption, then, how did that person become a parent without the other sex?

You referred to a couple and “their” children.

Parental status is not something you just magically get by becoming a twosome.

It does not work that way with heterosexual twosomes unless the children are born to their marriage.

And it can’t work that way for a same-sex twosome — regardless of their sexual orientation or shared sexual behavior.

The means by which children areattained may seem like a superficial detail to you, I dunno, but for when it comes to the best outcomes for children, on average, the parenting standard by which all other scenarios are measured and have been judged inferior is the union of husband and wife.

Adoption is an attempt to makeup a shortfall experienced by a child. Marriage is society’s way of trying to avoid the shortfall in the first place.

Segregating motherhood from fatherhood seems to be at directly odds with this.

There is substance but you haven’t noticed it. That’s okay. I think I’ll reserve a fulsome response for a comment section that discusses plural marriage and orphanages as a topic.

For now I will merely point out the obvious: orphanages are not marriages.

There is no such category, “infertile straight couples”, that marriage is bestowed upon in the marriage laws.

The government does not undermine responsible procreation by requiring each and every couple engage in lots and lots of premarital sexual intercourse to prove their fertility (i.e. conceive and bear children) BEFORE “bestowing” marital status.

Under what conceivable scheme would you have the government impose such a system? I doubt you would tolerate it if it was imposed, so why are you even suggesting its lack is a good counterpoint in favor of the SSM-merger?

There is a legitimate issue of proportionality here. And then there is the fact that marriage is sex integration combined with the contingency for responsible procreation. It is a relatively non-coercive means by which society promotes both of these central features that contribute tremendously to the common good.

What you are focussed on is gay-centric, and perhaps for good reasons known to yourself and which you might share with the rest of us, but it is not marriage-centric.

There are many forms of nonmarital parenting in society. And there are supports in many forms — including governmental but not exclusively — for parenting that is outside of marriage. The tools are not denied, as you put it, based on gayness and bestowed based on non-gayness.

Nope. In either scenario the use of third party gametes is extramarital procreation. Straight or gay, both point outside of marriage.

But the two scenarios are not the same. Infertility is both-sexed. The lack of the other sex is NOT infertility. Infertility is a disability; choosing to form a one-sexed arrangement is not a disability.

By “straight couples” you obviously did not mean two heterosexual men, right? You did not mean a mother-daughter combination in which neither woman is sexually attracted to other women, right?

As with fertility, infertility is variable. This is simply the nature of the thing. Not so with the lack of the other sex. The inability to be fertile is the nature of the combo that lacks one sex. It is neither a disability nor an impairment. It certainly is a constant that a reasonable person would expect rather than try to claw some sort of false equivalence with people who suffer infertility.

A human being is born nonfertile or pre-fertile; then matures to fertility with the other sex; a both-sexed couple are a procreative organism and, if there are fertility problems, the man and the woman share the infertility or subfertility. Male human beings tend to be fertile throughout their lives whereas female human beings tend to reach menopause by early forties. Some people become impaired due to life-saving surgery or drug treatments. Some people are born with reproductive impediments. While about 10% of married couples experience infertility, about half already have children together. Of those who experience infertility, most resolve it through changes in behavior — and do not resort to the more novel and more intrusive forms of medical intervention. Subfertility is far more common among these couples. The small portion who do use such medical interventions do not usually resort to 3rd party gametes — about 90% or so of this portion use their own sperm and ova. Another 3-4% will use a mix of the husband’s sperm and “donor” sperm. So we are talking about a tiny portion of the users of these medical interventions who’d use third party procreation. And they do so due to an actual disability that they suffer — the causes of such are seemingly infinitely variable.

But the inability to procreate is a constant when one of the sexes is lacking. This is far more significant to marriage, as per responsible procreation, than you seem ready to acknowledge.

In the one-sex scenario, motherhood and fatherhood are segregated, purposefully. You cannot say that this is done for the sake of the children since the children are not even conceived until the adults make the decision to use 3rd party gametes. So this scenario depends on the pre-requisites of parental relinquishment (in this case pre-emptively) and some government intervention to decree a substitute.

That is the inverse of marriage whereby motherhood and fatherhood are united based on the type of relationship — the conjugal — which is categorically a sexual union that entails the principles of responsible procreation.

So, can a lone individual do a heroic job of raising children? Sure. But that’s not a good reason to equate such a scenario with marriage as you did farther upthread.

I don’t mean biological parents. I do not like it when – as in the Baby Richard case – the government favors blood over love. I know too many happy adopted people to believe there is any inherent advantage to being raised by your birth parents.

Dan-

Though we disagree on the merits of the issue, I like that we have precisely the same attitude toward the arena in which we need to fight it out. I am sick of each side accusing the other side of cheating for simply doing what the system demands.

Marty-

I happen to have been unhappy with the Michigan decision, even though it was written by one of my then-favorite justices, Sandra Day O’Connor.

Andrea-

Thank you for pointing that out. The only time I have ever heard “lipstick lesbian” used as an epithet is from a more masculine lesbian. And I have often referred to myself as a show tune queen (if you knew me better you’d know why). But you’re right that people wouldn’t automatically know that. For the same reason, I no longer ever refer to myself as “queer,” even though I find the word a better descriptor for my sexuality than “gay” or “bisexual.”

You’ve also misunderstood “no matter the number or gender” – the numbers I had in mind were one vs. two. Please note that in the main post I praised a family with three LGBT parents for offering so much love. But I have run across LGBT people who have defended Murphy Brown-style single parenting as completely equivalent to two-parent homes, and I simply disagree.

As for your choice to never raise a boy, I think it’s completely legitimate. I do think there is something special a father can offer his daughter, but I could live with a compromise in which same-sex couples raise mostly children of their own sex.

Your mention of effects “stemming from their parents’ sexual orientations” suggests you haven’t fully digested the fact that I do not believe sexual orientation is a qualification or disqualification for parenting in any way. Unlike some of my allies, I do not want a heterosexual couple to receive automatic preference over a lesbian who wants to raise a child with a gay man. But I do favor helping children have both a mother and a father whenever possible.

Fair enough. I’m not saying you don’t have a right to your sexist approach. As far as lesbian mom’s imparting “male self-worth” to their sons, I guess it depends on what your definition of “male-self worth” is. Again, the non-sexist approach is to say that the mothers pass on HUMAN self-worth to their sons. Is there a different sense of self-worth that should be imparted to males and females? You seem to simply be advocated constructed gender roles.

That’s fine that you refrain from cursing around women and you hold the door for them. Do you hold the door for men? If not, why not? I hold the door for both without a second thought. I also refrain from cursing around both (unless of course I’m among friends who I know are not offended. I admit, I do have a fairly filthy mouth ). Do you assume men you don’t know are not offended by cursing, such that you are more likely to curse around them than women? I just don’t understand the double standard.

****

Chairm:

You think the assertion that gay couples are responsible for caring for the wellbeing of their children, educating them, socializing and culturizing them for full citizenship just the same as straight couples is objective false!? Then WHO is responsible for such caring, educating, socializing, and culturizing of the children of gay couples?

You’re deflecting my point that practically speaking, infertile straight couples and gay couples are no different when it comes to their ability to have children.

With regard to marriage, I believe you cited the government’s desire to provide benefits to children through the marriage of their parents. Thus, by answering:

“Presumably you by “gay couples” you mean same-sex combinations. These are not marriageable because marriage is both-sexed. See the two-sexed nature of humankind and the both-sexed nature of human generativity. I think you rely on a false equivalency when you drag marriage into your question. And that is objectionable.”

To my question:

“Why shouldn’t gay couples who are raising children have the backing of society and government through marriage to provide these same benefits to THEIR children?”

you don’t actually provide an answer based on my point. I’m assuming an equivalency of the children of gay couples and straight couples a children with the same needs. If the government has an interest in joining the parents of straight couples with children in marriage, it has an interest in joining the parents of gay couples in marriage. If the government has an interest in joining straight parents in marriage for the sake of their children, it has an interest in joining gay parents in marriage for the sake of their children for the same reasons

And again, marriage is bestowed upon infertile straight couples. Their methods of producing children are not “at the core of marriage” either, yet they are allowed to marry anyway.

By the way, you provide two conclusory statements to my point about polygamy versus orphanages:

“plural marriage is an inferior form of sex integration, responsible procreation, and thus of marriage. Orphanages are not the equivalent of polyagmous arrangements.”

There’s no substance in this response. Please tell us WHY, and upon what BASIS you distinguish the two.

Geez, David. I -really- want to believe that you’re not a closeted homophobe, but honestly, you’re making it very difficult.
If you could perhaps -leave out- the stereotypical, derogatory comments that one typically hears from homophobic individuals, it would be -much- more difficult for anyone to imagine you as a bigot.
I don’t think you’re a bigot; but for the people that do, I’m afraid you’re making it easy for them.

Such as this description of the “LGBT’s extreme argument”.
“children need parents who love them, no matter the number or gender”
I don’t know a single LGBT individual who believes in defending the ‘number’ bit.
While homophobic people often jump to conclusions regarding homosexuality leading directly into polygamy, you will simply -not- drop it; normally this wouldn’t irritate me so much, except that I’m certain that you’re smarter than that.
Believe it or not, in the marriage quality movement, there is -no- substantial force asking for marriage to be widened to more than two people. To enforce such a belief would be detrimental to the entire cause; when we’re fighting for something already controversial, we certainly do -not- need to be scaring people with polyamory.
So, in stereotyping the motives and behasviors of the LGBT population, you are making it -too- easy for anyone to label you as a homophobe.
Even if you don’t consider yourself one, I’m afraid your behavior beginning to look consistent.

Moving on, though, you mention this:
“…there has never been a study on whether a lesbian Mom can effectively apart masculinity and male self-worth to her son as effectively as a Dad can.”
And here’s where -I- become controversial amongst those who are typically my allies.
I do -not- think lesbians are cut out for raising boys.
I have no research to back me up on that; and, indeed, if research determines that there is no significant difference between children with heterosexual parents and homosexual parents, then I’m left with nothing but my own opinion.
My opinion being, as -females-, lesbians are not ideally suited to impart male values upon a male child, having little expertise in that field themselves. I know I’m never going to attempt to raise a boy.

There seems to be some differing opinions here on the nature of gender equality, as well. I’m completely for gender equality; I am -not- for gender indifference. While men and woman should be treated as equal beings, they are not identical, and attempts to categorize them in unfair to both parties.

That said, I do not believe a girl having two mothers instead of a mother and a father will impact her in any detrimental way.
And until you or someone else can prove beyond considerable doubt that a child raised by a same-sex couple is affected in -any- unfavorable way stemming from their parents’ sexual orientations, none of your opposite-sex-favoring policies will get very far.

In Florida’s case… well, each discriminatory law will be overturned in its own time, and Florida’s time will come. For now, I guess the solution is ‘adopt out of state’.

Andy