| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"rob wade" |
| Date: |
23 Dec 2004 11:53:49 AM |
| Object: |
Same-sex marriage: Good for gays, bad for children |
Same-sex marriage: Good for gays, bad for children
Dennis Prager
Of all the arguments against same-sex marriage, the most immediately
compelling is that it hurts children. If children have a right to
anything, it is to begin life with a mother and father. Death, divorce,
abandonment, a single-parent's mistakes - any one of these deprives
children of a mother or father. But only same-sex marriage would
legally ensure children are deprived from birth of either a mother or a
father.
Why, then, doesn't a child's right to begin life with a mother and
father have any impact on the millions of people who either advocate
same-sex marriage or can't make up their minds on the issue?
SPONSORED LINKS
Men's Health Magazine: 10 Free Reports!
The latest info on fitness, sex, health, weight loss and nutrition.
Subscribe now and download your 10 free Power Reports immediately.
Plus, get a free interactive trainer with paid order.
www.menshealth.com
$150,000 Mortgage for Under $690/Month
Mortgage rates are at record lows. Save $1000s on your mortgage
payment. Free quotes.
www.lowermybills.com
Among gay activists, the reason is narcissism. Though gays already have
the right to raise children without an opposite-sex parent, and the
right to adopt children, gay activists want society to enshrine one-sex
parenting with its highest seal of approval - marriage. For gay
activists, the fact that a child does best with a good mother and good
father is of no significance (or worse, denied). All that matters is
what is good for gays.
And what about the heterosexuals who support same-sex marriage? They
ignore the issue of its effects on children because they either do not
want to confront the issue or because they are so intimidated by the
liberation trinity - "equality," "rights" and "tolerance" - that
even children's welfare becomes a non-issue.
Advocates of same-sex marriage have, therefore, many good reasons not
to talk about issue of children. Even the most passionate advocate does
not argue that it is better for a child to have two mothers and no
father or two fathers and no mother.
But, the same-sex marriage advocates will respond, while children may
not be better off, they will be just as well off, with two fathers and
no mother or two mothers and no father.
This claim, however, is dishonest. So dishonest that it leads to a
certain cognitive dissonance among many of those who make it. On the
one hand, they don't really believe mothers (or fathers) are useless,
and they do not wish to lie. On the other hand, they know they have to
say a mother and father are no better for children than two same-sex
parents or they will lose the public's support for same-sex marriage.
Were they to admit the obvious truth - that same-sex marriage means
society will legally and deliberately deprive increasing numbers of
children of either a mother or a father - few Americans would support
the legal redefinition of marriage and family.
So, same-sex marriage advocates now argue that children do not do
better with a mother and a father.
To buttress this absurdity, they repeatedly ask, "Where are the
studies" that prove children do better with a father and a mother? Not
only are there no such studies, they claim, but in fact, "studies show"
that children raised with parents of the same sex do just as well as
children raised by a father and a mother.
But this claim, too, is dishonest.
As Professor Don Browning of the University of Chicago recently wrote
in the New York Times, "We know next to nothing" about the effects of
same-sex parenting on children."
"The body of sociological knowledge about same-sex parenting," he and
his co-author wrote, "is scant at best. ... There are no rigorous,
large-scale studies on the effect of same-sex marriage on the couples'
children."
"Steven Nock, a leading scholar of marriage at the University of
Virginia, wrote in March 2001 after a thorough review that every study
on this question 'contained at least one fatal flaw' and 'not a single
one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of
scientific research.'"
So the statement that "studies show" that children don't do better with
a mother and father is as factually mendacious as it is morally
repugnant. Why then are so many fooled by it? Because "studies show"
has become the refuge of those who do not wish to think. I hear this
lack of thought regularly from college-educated callers to my radio
show who refuse to think an issue through, or to make a moral judgment,
without first having seen what "studies show."
But does anyone who thinks, rather than awaits "studies" to affirm
their biases, really believe a mother is useless if a child has two
fathers, or a father is unnecessary if a child has two mothers? The
idea that men and women do not have entirely distinctive contributions
to make to the rearing of a child is so absurd that it is frightening
that many well-educated - and only the well-educated - people
believe it.
There are many powerful arguments against same-sex marriage, and in
subsequent columns I will offer them. But if you have to offer only
one, know that those who push for same-sex marriage base their case on
something factually indefensible - that children do not benefit from
having a father and a mother; and on something morally indefensible -
ignoring what is best for children.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Same-sex marriage: Good for gays, bad for children |
30 Dec 2004 03:33:06 PM |
|
|
rob wade wrote:
There are many powerful arguments against same-sex marriage, ...
Nah. You just think there are.
~~~~~~~~~
12/30/04
Israel Legalizes Same Sex Marriage
A rather interesting "backdoor" legalization of same sex marriage via
common-law.
"The decision does not mention the fact that the couple in question is
a same sex couple, but rather relates to the right of any Israeli and
foreigner to live together in a common-law marriages relationship,
without the state's intervention."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=521366&contrassID=1&subContrassID=7&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
Thu., December 30, 2004 Tevet 18, 5765 Israel Time: 23:01 (GMT+2)
Ha'aretz Last Update: 30/12/2004 22:02
Court overturns deportation of foreign partner of Israeli man
By Relly Sa'ar, Haaretz Correspondent
The Tel Aviv District Court issued a ruling on Wednesday forbidding the
state to deport a Colombian national in a relationship with an Israeli
citizen, a soldier in the Israeli Defense Forces, despite the fact that
his visa has long expired.
The 32-year-old Colombian is seeking permanent residency in Israel, but
the Interior Ministry had decided to deport the man until a final
decision is reached regarding his status. The ministry's decision was
overridden on Wednesday in a ruling by Judge Uzi Vogelman.
A 1999 High Court ruling established that the ministry could not deport
foreign nationals married to Israeli citizens. Wednesday's ruling
extends the previous one, and applies it to common-law marriages
common-law marriages, including same-sex couples. The new court
decision will lead to fundamental changes in the policy of the Interior
Ministry.
In practice, the Interior Ministry deports foreign nationals illegally
staying in the country while their request for permanent residency is
being considered. The court, however, has established that such policy
"infringes more than is necessary on a couple's right to normal family
life, hence it does not meet the yardstick of morality expected of such
a body."
The couple's petition was submitted by the Association for Civil Rights
in Israel. The decision does not mention the fact that the couple in
question is a same sex couple, but rather relates to the right of any
Israeli and foreigner to live together in a common-law marriages
relationship, without the state's intervention.
During his term of office as Interior Minister, MK Avraham Poraz
(Shinui) had established a lenient procedure recognizing the rights of
couples unable to marry (such as same-sex couples) to remain together
in-spite of visas' expiry.
The former minister has directed that such couples could become
permanent residents in a gradual process. As the petition revealed,
some officials in the Population Registry, however, questioned the
validity of this directive. Consequently, the immigration
administration refused to grant the Colombian national an official
residency status, on the pretext that the couple's relationship was not
genuine.
The Interior Ministry issued a deportation warrant based on what it
considered as an illegal stay of the Colombian national, and notified
the man he must leave the country before his request for permanent
residency would be considered.
Judge Uzi Vogelman, however, has ruled that "the harm done in this
instance to the petitioners is particularly disturbing ? the couple's
income consists only of a military salary... since the petitioner
facing deportation cannot legally work in Israel."
The court severely criticized the Interior Ministry for concealing its
regulations for granting residency status for foreign nationals in
common-law marriages with Israeli citizens, including same-sex couples.
It was also revealed in court that the ministry withheld the content of
the regulations from the legal system as well. Quoting the late Supreme
Court Justice Haim Cohen, Judge Vogelman stipulated that "secretive
law-making"
is "one of the characteristics of totalitarian regimes, and does not
correspond with the practices of a democracy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
