Experts and users discuss prop 8, same sex marriage, homosexuality, gay issues, politics: Redefining Marriage Undermines the Family Structure Best for Children
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
Redefining Marriage Undermines the Family Structure Best for Children
- From Focus on the Family
By Focus on the Family - Traditional Family Advocacy
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gay Marriage is pro-family
In this day and age, many gay couples choose to have children. Using the rationale of the above argument, they should be able to marry.
The reality is that the "Yes on 8" crowd aren't concerned with the wellbeing of children, they are just anti-gay. If they really were concerned with children they would be working to make divorce much harder. Personally I think it would be good if divorced couples had to pay higher taxes for 10 years following a divorce. It would also be good to have a law that says that if a baby is born out of wedlock, the father and mother automatically become married upon the birth of the baby. If the issue really is having children raised by two parent families, they should be advocating those approaches, not trying to make some families feel they are second class.
It
- Roger47
October 21, 2008 12:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Alarmism
It is purely alarmist to think and believe that granting the liberty of legal marriage to same-sex couples or any set of non-traditional individuals is the end of what has been traditional marriage. Opposite-sex couples will continue to meet, fall in love and perhaps marry as they always have and likely always will. Perhaps it is time they no longer are able to do so as an elite set of human beings with their liberty purchased at the expense of denying such liberty to others.
The liberty of legal marriage reserved for man-woman couples is elitism. It has little to no respect for the higher value of individual rights and mutual liberty. There is no righeousness in in denying homosexuals the liberty to marry whomever or as many as they choose in the pursuit of personal happiness.
As for redefining "marriage", perhaps we ought not limit ourselves to the very narrow special-interest definition of the major religions. After all, "christian" is only a subset of "human".
- Naumadd
October 22, 2008 6:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This Is an Argument for Traditional Parents to be More Responsible
This is not an argument against gay marriage, this is an argument for "traditional" families who are dropping the ball to step up. If you really believe that children do best with married biological parents in a low-conflict marriage, why aren't you encouraging that? Why not ban divorce, make fighting illegal, or forbid adoption? All of those things are more of a threat to the ideal child-rearing environment you propose than gay marriage. How exactly does two guys getting married stop you from providing your ideal environment to your children? It shouldn't.
On the other hand, I noticed that you argued that the purpose of marriage is to have children, and no other purpose should be allowed. The vast array of legal benefits to marriage are completely irrelevant in your mind, right? Fine, if the sole purpose of marriage is for the children, you will have no objection to immediately stripping all legal rights granted to spouses. You said yourself, the purpose of marriage is not to grant rights. It also seems that those who will not or cannot have children, like me, should not be allowed to marry even if they are heterosexual. This is the logical end point of your argument, are you sure this is really what you're proposing? I have a problem with that, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
- lostlo
October 24, 2008 9:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What's a man, woman?
I'm amazed the hatred of gays, other by so called Christains!!
You are going to have a problem with this because who is to say what someone is, man or woman?
Everyone is really both man and woman, just different %. Very few supermales/superfemales are born, most a combo of the 2.
Where the problem comes is those whom are both sex appearing having various combo's of sex organs or none at all. Since they are both, does that mean they can't marry? There are many more of these than talked about.
But really sex is in the brain. If you see a nice female and want to kiss her, you are a male sex wise no matter what sexual organs you have.
So this law is illegal if passed as it restricts some to no marriage at all, violating their basic human rights. Let's stop the hate and let whomever wants to be a family be between consenting adults. A family is those who care for you, not whom is biological your parent if they don't care..
God will punish those whom hate, hurt.
jerryd
- jerryd
October 29, 2008 9:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gay marriage will not tear apart families
I live in a place I'd rather not acknowledge exists. Many children here only have one parent to care for them. It would be a GIFT for these children to have a second adult in their life guiding and supporting them. Gay marriage is not going to tear apart the family structure (and if it does it wasn't a good structure to begin with). I agree that marriage has its purpose to bring children into this world but there are plenty of heterosexual marriages that result in two people who have no desire to reproduce. Is that a marriage in the eyes of organized religion?
In closing I don't agree that the best family structure is two parents of opposite genders. I believe the best family structure is two parents who care for their children.
- EAnthes
December 9, 2008 3:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Poor Arguments.
You're making the assumption that homosexuality is not natural - that only sex between man and woman is natural and therefore what binds them together.
Homosexuality is quite natural. It exists in nature between animals and also in humans.
You're also making the assumption that marriage has typically been between one man and one woman. As if the entire world has always shared this decidedly Christian view.
Furthermore, in most societies - including those ancestral societies you speak of in which the child was better off with the biological mother and father - the raising of the child has typically been a group effort. It's only been in our society, within the past 200 years that this has changed.
What benefits children is having as many people as possible in their lives who love and support them. It makes little difference if these people are biologically related, or married.
Gay marriage isn't about raising children, it's the right that exists to bind yourself to a person for rest of your life if you so choose. Placing another factor in the mix doesn't say anything about the original argument - that gay marriage is wrong.
And further to that - marriage is a religious act. Government should makes no laws establishing rules of any religious ceremony (barring sacrifices of humans or anything that infringes upon the rights of another).
- SocialistBetty
December 30, 2008 8:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Socialist?
I'm a little confused by your screen name. Tell me, what socialist country allows same sex marriages? And don't say Canada, because it's not a Socialist country.
- csmith
January 6, 2009 3:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What does being a Canadian have to do with shoehorns?
Exactly. The title makes no sense and neither does what you're asking.
Who said ANYTHING about socialism being a factor for allowing same sex marriage? Anywhere? It's a fucking screen name. I happen to like a blend of socialism and capitalism as I think they complement one another's flaws. I also happen to like the negative reaction people give the word "Socialism". As if we don't already live in a semi-socialist country as it is.
Anywho, anymore off topic questions, please click on my icon and read that. Okay thanks.
- SocialistBetty
January 8, 2009 1:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I call "hypocrites" on Christians.
#1: I doesn't take marriage to raise children. It takes two devoted people. Whether married or not, the child is better off being raised by two. Marriage is an institution of the Church and the government. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with raising children in my opinion should stay out of it. Over 50% of marriages end up in divorce and in some cases, it can get ugly. How do you think that effects the children. HMMM???
#2: Christians can't even handle their own marriages that are under "god". See Statistics below.
Ecclesiastes 4:12 (bible) A cord of three strands isn't easily broken.
NONSENCE!!!
U.S. DIVORCE RATES AMONG RELIGIONS & NON-RELIGIONS
Jews: 30%
Born-Again Christians: 27%
Other Christians: 24%
Atheists & Agnostics: 21%
3: Christians couldn't give a crap less about "children". They promote absence only (unrealistic), deny birth-control (irresponsible), and claim they are "Pro-Life", (but support religious wars) and to top it off, their "god" isn't even pro-life . What happens to all of those children born to people who didn't want them, couldn't afford them, are addicted to drugs, ect.? Let's put them into foster care or an orphanage. YEAH!!! Great idea. And to top it all off won't even let gay or single folks adopt the unwanted children and give them a loving home. Real nice. Let's not forget all of the whining that goes on about having to pay for welfare by the religious right. HYPOCRITES!!! Christians only care about their RELIGIOUS agenda.
4: Million of dollars spent on the Prop 8 campaign by the Christians. Maybe they should have donated to people who would like to adopt a few of the children that were born into this world because of the irrational teachings of the church!
5: It was once ok to discriminate against interracial marriages according to the Church. I wonder if that is still acceptable.
6: Gay folks who would like to devote their lives to one another is NO business of the church. They are hurting no one but themselves. They want to have the right to build their lives with someone they love. They want the right to put each other on their insurance. They want to buy a house together, when one of them croaks they want the same rights that come with marriage. I have NO problem with it. I do hope that they get the right to marry and show those busybody Christians how marriages are supposed to work!
Christians are the ones who undermine the family structure that is best for children. Keep your bigoted noses in the Holey book and out of everyone elses buisness!!!
- River Otter
January 19, 2009 3:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ad hominem
Attack the argument, not the source. Also, it's "abstinence," not "absence." As in to abstain from sex. I don't know if you're trying to make some kind of point or if you just didn't know that, but it makes you sound ignorant, not witty. If you take that and the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem out of the equation, the sentence or two that's left (namely point 1, point 5, and parts of point 6) I wholeheartedly agree with. Points 2, 3, 4, the second half of six, the title, and the closing statement, on the other hand, are ad hominem.
- richardsonkr
January 19, 2009 8:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
your evidence
I have read what you presented as evidence on an argument that marriage between a man and woman is the only thing that should be allowed when children are involved hence hinting that homosexual couples should not adopt or be allowed to raise children. Bogus. Bogus. Bogus.
There was no mention of abused children in your evidence, nor any mention of children being raised by drug addict, or criminal parents. How then can those marriages benefit a child?
To imply that heterosexual relationships and marriages are the only way to raise children was touted as being biological parents only. So that does not allow for non biological married couples to raise any one's child other than their own. Hence your own argument prohibits opposite sex couples from adopting any child also.
The best interest of the child should be taken in to consideration is true. And it is also true that Homosexual couples children face a world of discrimination, hardship, hate, bigotry, and the cause is by people like you. Those who preach just those values as above. To say to a child that their parents are abnormal, should go to jail, are sinners, etc is hate at its finest. It is the leading cause of children in same sex marriage or unions or family's to have a need of mental health care later in life. To allow same sex marriage, or unions should be excepted by all persons who value the need of children in the world. To argue that same sex persons are looking to sexually abuse the child is a bogus arguement also as it is a proven fact that 98% of all child abuse cases are done by heterosexual persons and mostly by family members of the child in the first place. So 2 % are gay, the rest were not. Another hole in your arguments, by focus on the family. To spout off non facts, or lies will only hurt Focus on the family in the long run when people find the truth in these matters. My mother all ways taught me that you get more flys with sugar then vinegar and that is true here also. Telling the truth will gain you more then the lies you are telling now. To use a religion to hide behind is also bogus lies. No where in the gospels does it prohibit or condemn homosexuality, only in the old testament does it do so. However it also allows for selling our children into slavery, stoning people for eating shrimp and more. So to use the religious argument is totally bogus.
Thank you for your time.
- oldfoxbob
May 20, 2009 1:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.