Jeniffer Roback Morse email newsletter | Jennifer Roback Morse | September 24, 2007
Last week I was able to deliver the following statement before the San Diego City Council. The Council was considering whether to add the City of San Diego’s name to a Friend of the Court brief supporting a case in favor of same sex marriage, currently pending before the California Supreme Court.
Next week, I will be going to Canada to do a briefing for their Members of Parliament about why cohabitation is not the same as marriage. I mention that to indicate that my primary job is to straighten out the straight people. And believe me, it is a full-time job. I am here today to explain why I believe instituting same sex marriage will make that job immeasurably more difficult. The needs of same sex couples and opposite sex couples would both be better served by having distinct institutional arrangements, rather than by trying to have one institution serve the needs of both groups.
Opposite sex couples have children, without any specific intervention by the state. Same sex couples can not have children without specific legal institutions in place to do two things: first, the rights of at least one of the genetic parents must be terminated. Second, at least one member of the same sex couple must have parental rights specifically assigned to them.
The advocates of same sex marriage hope that “marriage” will allow them to skip these steps. They hope, for instance, that any child born to either member of a lesbian couple will be presumed to be the child of both. But that requires that somehow, the male contributor to the conception of the child must be safely out of the way. That step still has to be taken, no matter what kind of union the members of the lesbian couple have with each other. Renaming their relationship should not be enough to invalidate the father’s rights to his child.
In practice, there are two possible things that can happen with the opposite sex parent. Either that parent will be considered legally superfluous. Or, the child can have three parents, the two same sex parents, plus the cooperating opposite sex parent.
Neither of these options are particularly good for children. We know that children thrive when they are raised by two married parents. We know that children suffer specific kinds of losses from the absence of their mother or from the absence of their father. And we know that children in step-families have a specific set of emotional and behavioral risks. We can only imagine how those problems would be compounded in the event of three, rather than two, legal parents juggling the children from one home to another, disputing about custody schedules and fighting over child support.
These are some of the negative outcomes we can expect from trying to make marriage into a gender-neutral institution that applies identically to same sex and opposite sex couples.
1. Triple parenting will emerge, as it has already done in both Canada and Pennsylvania.
2. The state will have to determine, not just record, parentage of same sex couples. If same sex marriage is really treated as the equivalent of opposite sex marriage, that authority will be extended to cover opposite sex couples as well.
3. There will no longer be “natural parents,” only “legal parents.” In Spain, the birth certificates were changed from “mother” and “father” to “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B.” In Canada, the birth certificates were changed from “natural mother” and “natural father” to “legal parent A” and “legal parent B.”
4. Same sex marriage will further the process of marginalizing men from the family. If children don’t really need one parent of each gender, the natural conclusion will be that fathers, not mothers, are disposable.
Legally recognizing same sex marriage will destabilize the legal determination of parentage. In cases in both Canada, which has legal same sex marriage, and Pennsylvania, which does not, courts have recognized three adults as legal parents. In the Pennsylvania case, Jacob v. Schulz-Jacob, the two members of the estranged lesbian couple as well as the biological father, all dispute one another’s rights and responsibilities. The children have all the trauma of divorce, multiplied. They have visitation with three adults, none of whom live together, none of whom are cooperating with each other. It is a psychologist’s nightmare.
We have all seen children of divorced parents shuttling from one household to another. If same sex marriage comes to California, we will be seeing children going among three or even more parents. I urge you to vote against this resolution. Picture a little girl, going from her mom’s house to her mom’s former partner’s house, to her dad’s, to her dad’s former partner’s. Those little children, with their backpacks and their sleeping bags, will be on your head, if the resolution supporting same sex marriage passes.
I speak on behalf of the many supporters of traditional marriage who are arrayed in this room. We come from all the major faith traditions, and no religion at all. But we are united in two core beliefs.
1. We believe that men and women are different in socially significant ways. We believe that mothers and fathers are not perfectly interchangeable. The advocates of same sex marriage must insist that gender is irrelevant to parenting.
2. We believe that something is owed to the child. We believe that every child is entitled to be born into a family of the mother and father who brought them into being through an act of love. Every child is entitled to a relationship with both parents.
Like many others here today, I am devoted to helping opposite sex couples see the importance of life-long married love. Our efforts would be greatly hampered by a judgement of the state saying adults are entitled to cut off a child’s relationship with one of his parents at birth, and that the child should be indifferent as to whether he has both parents or not.
That is why we have come here today: to speak on behalf of those children yet to be born, to affirm our commitment to the principle that every child deserves a mother and a father.
Never ending MSM propaganda for gay parenting
On September 11, 2001, CNN did a feature on a man who had died in the Twin Towers. It turns out that he had adopted a son with his same-sex partner. The CNN crew traveled to the E”C”USA church which these two had attended and interviewed people at the church that knew the couple. The parishioners expressly their grief at the death of the man involved, but, fully one-half of the entire show was about how the same-sex male couple were wonderful, devoted parents to the little boy. One parishioner stated that initially he was skeptical about their parenting skills but after he was able to observe them with their son, he was won over.
By the way, the boy was a healthy, white child. Thousands of traditional potential adoptive parents wait in line for such children. There was no need to place this child in a same-sex home. He would not have languished in foster care.
No reference whatsoever to the murderers. No reference to the world-wide, Islamo-fascist movement which has since 9/11 continued to kill thousands across the globe. Only a poem to same-sex parenting.
CNN did not ask what the little boy has been told about his mother.
How do the wonderful same-sex parents explain to him why he, unlike most other children, did not get a mother due to the uncoerced, voluntary choices of his wonderful male parents.
Befuddled writes: “CNN did not ask what the little boy has been told about his mother.”
Why do you suppose he was available for adoption in the first place? Might it have anything to do with the fact that his birth mother had disposed of the child because he was “inconvenient”, or are you implying that he had been torn out of the arms of his doting mother by two men?
“By the way, the boy was a healthy, white child.”
If he was African-American, Asian or Latino would you be making less of a fuss?
Note 2, Right on cue, JamesK,
The program did not explain how the child came into the custody of the same-sex couple. Many same-sex couples contract with a birth mother to bear the child of one of the partners through artificial insemination. The child is then adopted privately with the consent of the mother. In this case the adoption is totally voluntary and totally a result of decisions made by adults who are not under any duress and who have not suffered any misfortune. The entire thing is planned from the beginning by the adults for the adults.
The plan fully embraces the idea that a child does not need a mother. Other same-sex couples adopt from public or private adoption agencies. However, this child was not hard to place and many married couples would have been bypassed in order to place the child with a same-sex couple. Lesbian couples seem to have little trouble obtaining donors for artificial insemination.
The point of my comment was the psychological welfare of the child, not
the moral standing of the biological mother. Standard adoption by a married couple would have provided the child with a mother. Adoptive mothers have proven themselves to be excellent substitutes for biological mothers, I don’t think that is an issue.
You appear to heap scorn on the any mother who would “dispose of a child because he was inconvenient.” Therefore you must oppose most of the abortions performed in the U.S. Only a tiny percentage of abortions are performed as a result of rape, incest or preservation of the life of the mother (as in cancer of the cervix, for example)
No, I wouldn’t, JamesK. How could you think otherwise? Do you think I’m a moral monster? Thanks a bunch!!!
Race is relevant, I am reportint the facts as they stand today. There is a shortage of adoptable, healthy white children. There are as many as 30 qualified married couples ready and willing to adopt a healthy white child. Note to James K, whites still constitute a majority in this country and not surprisingly they constitute the bulk of the couples waiting to adopt.
It takes a special person to adopt a handicapped or severely ill child and I don’t think anyone should be castigated because they don’t think they could handle that challenge.
Many black leaders have urged the black community to step up and adopt more of the available black children. Additionally, many black leaders believe that same race adoptions are preferable for black children and some actively disapprove of black children being adopted by white parents.
So in the end, many married couples were available for this child and he will be raised without a mother due to the choices of adults. It was the adults’ needs that were placed first, not the needs of the child.
Note 3: “Therefore you must oppose most of the abortions performed in the U.S.”
Yep, although I sympathize with women who are in dire circumstances and feel compelled to have one. Nevertheless, it’s taking a life probably at any time past the seventh or eighth week when the brain stem forms.
This is why I support groups like PDHC.
You make a lot of wild assertions and judgments about people whom you’ve never met and whom you know only through a five-minute snippet on a news broadcast. This seems a bit presumptuous, no?
Tell me: when do parents have children for reasons that do not involve some degree of selfishness?
Parents bring children into the world despite known financial restrictions, realizing that they may not be able to provide more than a public school education. Depending on the area’s demographics, providing even the basic necessities for oneself without an advanced degree is difficult. Is this “selfish” of these parents? Couples who are in the military have children knowing that there will be extensive travel for one spouse or the other. Is this “selfish”? Couples have children because they want companionship as they move into their later years and because they have a personal need to feel needed. Is this “selfish”? Child labor was uncontroversial in the colonial periods as children worked on family farms as early as 10 years of age. One could reasonably argue that children were often had simply as a means of inexpensive labor. Was this “selfish”?
You seem to have high standards, but you only seem interested in applying those standards to one group of people.
JamesK, I’m sure I’m being obtuse, but I fail to understand what point you are trying to make other than people are selfish. DUH! Every decision everybody makes is selfish to some degree. The vast majority of people make assumptions about others on very little “evidence”. Its called life. None of that is any reason for supporting the attempted overthrow of the most successful institution we know of for conceiving, supporting and raising children—the traditional family. Thousands of years of recorded cross-cultural history testify to the strength of the family. It seems to me far more selfish to wish to destroy the family simply for one’s own private whims than to defend it even when it suffers from the same falleness that everybody does. If you wait for perfection to decide, you will never decide or you will lapse into the entropic state of moral relativism out of passivity.
Michael, it’s a matter of consistency. When people have different expectations in terms of ethical and moral conduct, it reflects a reasoning based more on emotion than anything else (this, despite claims that it’s liberals who spend all their time emoting).
If we’re going to suggest that the lack of a female or male parent in the home is cause to deny adoption rights, this standard must be applied across the board, regardless of the situation. In addition, the fact that a spouse has been deployed on military duty should be taken into consideration during the adoption procedures. No single parent adoptions, either. A missing parent is a missing parent.
This inconsistency seems to be a general problem here, to be honest. Some of the posters here are quite knowledgeable about the misogyny and atrocities found in the Koran (and I concur with these observations, btw), yet mention that identical acts occur pretty much throughout the Old Testament and one is accused of insolence. Again, standards are being applied in a very inconsistent manner.
Consistency: there is a concept fraught with danger, but I won’t go into it very far except to say that once again you are merely observing life. A fully consistant state is one without potential energy; the entropic state has been reached. Fully consistent thought would reflect the same lack of energy and vitality. Observed or perceived inconsistency does not indicate untruth or fallacy. It is proof only of incompleteness either in the observer, the observed or in both. It can also be indicative of transcendent mystery.
JamesK, I see no essential equivalency between the actions reported in the Old Testatment and those commanded in the Koran. The actions commanded in the Koran are an intrinsic part of Islam for all time. The actions in the OT even when specifically commanded by God, did not form the ethical/spiritual core of the Law. Your continually willingness to conflate the two is just another indication of the choice free entropic moral relativism for which you seem to strive.
JamesK, here is a detailed refutation of the equivalency of violence between the Koran and the Old Testament
Alleged Equivalence of Violence Refuted in Detail
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Bible-Quran-Violence.htm
This article doesn’t take more than a few minutes to read and I would respectfully suggest that you do that.
Violence committed by Muslims
At some point, JamesK, you have to take notice of the massive wave of violence committed by some Muslim nearly ever week all over this planet. What does it take for you to take notice? The Religion of Peace website shows that more than 9,500 attacks have been committed by Muslims in the name of their religion since 9/11. This is happening today.
Worse, they are getting results. We all live in physical and intellectual fear of Muslims. We know that there have been jihadi attacks and plots in the United States. See Fort Dix, see the young med student arrested in face paint with an AK-47 in Detroit. That is Detroit. He had a pro-Hizbollah website and he had declared jihad against America.
Choice free entropic moral relativism or just plain lazy
Michael statees that your continual willingness to conflate the two is just another indication of the choice free entropic moral relativism for which you seem to strive.
Here is a clue. Get an English translation of Reliance of the Traveler, which is an encyclopedia of Islamic law endorsed by Al-Azhar University in Cairo the leading Sunni theological school. You can read for yourself the command of Mohammed to all Muslims to fight in a military manner in the cause of Allah to make Islam dominate in all places. It is in black and white and most Americans have no idea that this exists and can be found on Amazon for about $30.00.
Read their own words, JamesK, read their own words.
JamesK, If you don’t care about the next generation you don’t care about life.
The world is a big place, JamesK. There is alot going on. I had every intellectual right to comment on the glorification of gay parenting by CNN. That little piece of propaganda was fed to unsuspecting people thinking that they would be viewing a tribute to Twin Tower victims.
We will be at the mercy of the next generation. They will pass laws that effect us. They will care for us in nursing homes. They will either pass on our glorious civilization which has brought peace, freedom and prosperity to more people than any other civilization on earth or they will let it die. Our enenmies wait with baited breath to move in and take the booty we will leave behind. Booty they couldn’t create.
If you don’t care about the next generation, you don’t care about LIFE.
Two gay men decided they wanted a child and they didn’t care that that child would, by their conscious decision, lose a mother. They created, consciously created, a situation in which that child did not have a mother.
Many adoptive parents are available to provide a home with a mother and a father. Those adoptive homes were bypassed for these narcissists.
I am perfectly within my rights to bring this forward and to critique it, because it may become the wave of the future.
If we’re going to suggest that the lack of a female or male parent in the home is cause to deny adoption rights, this standard must be applied across the board, regardless of the situation.
Not true. The intent is to prevent homsexualist advocates and behavior affecting children (to the extant we can), and from being given the same moral status as marriage.
Missourian writes: “I am perfectly within my rights to bring this forward and to critique it, because it may become the wave of the future.”
More like a wave of the past that is resurfacing. I was reading about legal constructs in 14th century France entitled “affrerements” (or brotherments).
In regards to the issue of Islamic terrorism, did you juxtapose the issue of gay adoption in one post to imply that they are somehow related? I don’t see the connection. Can you elaborate? I’m not unaware of the problem of terrorism, and like most people these days, I cast a suspicious eye on anyone wearing excessive amounts of fabric or sporting a beard long enough to braid. That being said, I’m not sure that simply being hyper-emotional about it is going to solve much of anything. We can halt immigration entirely I suppose, although you know this will not receive much support from either party today. There are non-Muslim native Iranians who are very sympathetic to Americans, and there are native Europeans who would do us harm. There are also liberal Muslims who pose no threat whatsoever. Timothy McVeigh grew up in America and was white, if you recall. So, I’m not sure how you could craft a coherent immigration policy that would do anything other than temporarily make us feel safer.
JamesK, you brought up the issue of Islam and the OT i #7. “This inconsistency seems to be a general problem here, to be honest. Some of the posters here are quite knowledgeable about the misogyny and atrocities found in the Koran (and I concur with these observations, btw), yet mention that identical acts occur pretty much throughout the Old Testament and one is accused of insolence. Again, standards are being applied in a very inconsistent manner.”
Although Morse doesn’t address it in this article, this argument is not an argument specific to same-sex marriage. It is an argument against _all_ artificial insemination.
Befuddled,
Do you agree?
Note 13, JamesK, Muslim immigration
You are really beyond reason.
We have a “visa diversity” program that has admitted 10,000 people from countries that are home to terrorist threats since 9/11. These people are chosen by lottery. Got that? Lottery!!!!!
We have no moral duty to admit anyone to our country. Period.
We have the complete moral right to screen entrants into this country for the purpose of protecting the citizens of this country.
We have no good way to screen out Muslims who have hostile intent against the United States from those that have no hostile intent.
One Muslim with hostile intent can cause great damage. See the attack on the Jewish organization in the Northwest by a loan Muslim gunman angry about Isreal. Open borders advocates have to take responsibility for that.
There is no shortage of desirable, non-Muslim immigrants to the United States.
We have proof from the Holy Land Foundation Trial case that there exists a conscious plan on the part of the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot front organizations to subvert American civilization, particularly its constitution.
Again, JamesK, what does it take to rouse you to action? How many innocent Americans have to fry again, in order for you to advocate doing something.
Stopping all Muslim immigration would not be a total solution but it would go a long way to making this country much, much safer. Sheeeesh. I am simply beyond words with you.
This is it. I am not responding to your posts ever again.
Note 16, Phil, intra-racial adoptions?
Phil, I don’t know. I haven’t studied the matter. I just know that there are quite a few, responsible black organizations that prefer black on black adoptions. I don’t know what I would recommend as a policy matter.
My central point is that this child could have been placed with a real married couple and enjoyed the benefit of a mother and a father.
The choice to create this phony family was not forced, it was fully voluntary.
From the very beginning these adult men concocted a plan whereby the child would be deprived of mother love. Under their plan, mother love is simply dispenable with allegedly no loss.
Phil writes: “Although Morse doesn’t address it in this article, this argument is not an argument specific to same-sex marriage. It is an argument against _all_ artificial insemination.”
In the case of the “Pennsylvania three parents” referenced in the article, the sperm donor was a long-time friend of one of the women. After the birth, the biological father continued regular contact with the children, who called him “papa,” and also provided occasional financial support. When the family situation fell apart, the judge included the father as a parent because of his relationship with the children, even though the father didn’t want to be included. Including the father also meant that the children would have not two, but three sources of financial support. But Phil is correct — this situation could just as easily have happened had the couple been male and female.
What interesting to me is how folks on the right flip-flop on science and research and facts, depending on the issue. When it comes to global warming, facts and research are everything, which is fine.
When it comes to gay parenting, the many studies showing that there is no significant difference between children reared in same-sex households and those reared in heterosexual households are dismissed out of hand. Those studies are the result of “bias,” and “ideology.” The absence of studies showing any harm to children reared in same-sex households is also dismissed.
The scientific consensus demanded by the right in the global warming issue is completely ignored by the religious right when it comes to evolution. The fact of evolution is undisputed by a vast, huge, monumental number of scientists across many fields, and disputed only by a handful of conservative Christian scientists whose positions have been repeatedly demolished over the years. But when it comes to evolution, THAT consensus simply doesn’t matter.
And in the Schiaivo case, the religious right flees from the facts. They cannot stand the facts. In Orthodoxy Today there is no better way of being torn a new orifice than to mention the facts of the Schiavo case. Instead, in the last round, we were treated to a link to a video presentation by the Schindler’s attorney, who claimed — with a straight face — that Terri Schiavo was talking and learning how to walk when her evil husband pulled the plug on therapy. But by some miracle, her walking and talking never once made it into any of her medical records. No therapists ever observed it. Somehow all of the physicians who actually evaluated Schiavo missed her walking and talking. During all the many years of litigation of the case, somehow both the Schindlers and their attorneys apparently forgot to mention that at one point Terri was walking and talking. It was never once captured on video. And both guardians ad litem also missed it. But to the religious right, all that is irrelevant. She was walking and talking because . . . well, because the Schindler attorney said she was.
For the right, when science supports ideology, they love science, they can’t get enough. When it contradicts ideology, they can’t get away from it fast enough. It doesn’t make any sense, but it does make for some very “interesting” discussions.
Missourian asks: “Again, JamesK, what does it take to rouse you to action? How many innocent Americans have to fry again, in order for you to advocate doing something.”
Nothing. I’m not a policymaker, however. As I said, about the only thing I can do is keep a watchful eye out. You might take this up with your President. He doesn’t seem to be doing anything, either.
Keep a few things in mind, however:
a) there is a large population of Muslims in Europe
b) Muslims are sometimes Caucasian (remember the young man from California who joined the Taliban?)
c) Muslims with bad intentions will most likely not specify what their intentions are when applying for a visa. In fact, they can easily specify that they are not even Muslims at all. How hard would it be to simply say that their religion is “other” or even “Christian”?
d) Muslims can be women.
e) Muslims can go by names like “Richard Reid” (remember that guy from Great Britain?)
Your solution is no solution at all. It will only make people feel safer for a time. The only solution would be to halt immigration entirely. Period. Now if you wish to discuss that option, I’m all for it. Again, bring it up with Bushy and his crowd and quit taking your emotionalism out on me. They’re the ones making the policies.
Note 20, JamesK, do you lock your front door at night? Do you wash your hands after using the bathroom? An exercise in fundamental logic.
JamesK, locking your front door at night will just give you an illusion of security and won’t be fair to people seeking your help late at night and it will cause trouble to family members who forget their keys. Don’t you understand that an determined criminal can, with enough effort, get past any lock? Don’t you think that someday a person in distress will need your help? Silly you, why do you lock your door?
You lock your door because ON BALANCE you will discourage or stop MOST criminals. This door locking policy is not a total defense to all crime. It does entail some inconvenience because you have to carry keys around. Sometimes family members will forget keys and you will have to get up and let them in. However, on balance, your family is better off with locked doors.
Washing your hands after using the bathroom will not kill all germs or disease agents. It doesn’t address behavoral, environmental or genetic causes of disease. It won’t keep you from being injured in an accident. Why do you do it? Because it kills a large class of germs that can injure your health and it costs relatively little in terms of time and resources for the benefit received. on balance, you are better off if you wash your hands after using the bathroom.
My policy recommendation. Right now there are 100,000 Jordanians who would come to America if they got U.S. visas. They live in Jordan and they are trying to come here. I say “just say no.” This is simply maintaining the status quo. It does no harm to those Muslims because they would simply continue to live in their own country. If Jordan is a lousy place to live then the Muslims should stay there and improve it, not leave. I say stop granting a privilege to a group of people which contains as many as 15% who approve of suicide bombing.
Is this unfortunate for innocent Muslims, yes, but my constituency is the citizens of the United States and I am concerned about preventing terror attacks that kill people, that is more important. If the innocent Muslims identified and went after the bad Muslims and helped us lock them up, the bad Muslims wouldn’t be able to get very far.
No it isn’t a total solution, but, we would much more secure without the 10,000 diversity visa Muslims we have needlessly allowed in since 9/11.
The criterion of a desirable policy is that given the cost involved, it generates more good results than bad results.
Try thinking this through. The benefit of severing restricting access to America by new Muslims who are now living in Muslim countries (IN OTHER WORDS, SIMPLY MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO with respect to those Muslims) VASTLY IMPROVES THE SECURITY STATUS OF THE U.S.
No, it doesn’t solve all security problems. No, the policy isn’t perfect and has some shortcomings. But it is action which will make it more difficult for hostile Muslims to get in. Just iike locking your door will make it more difficult for a burglar to get in.
JamesK, I believe in male supremacy, polygamy, wife-beating and theocracy and I want to live in your country.
Hi, I am Manny Muslim. I believe that Mohammed was a true prophet of God. I believe that the Koran is the unalterable word of God. I believe that Mohammed is “the perfect man” worthy of imitation in all aspects. I believe I have a divine right to multiple wives and a divinely sanctioned right to beat a disobedient wife.
I want into your country. I will not use violence to advance any of my goals, however, as soon as I come in I will work for male supremacy, polygamy, legalized wife-beating, and the end of the separation of religious and political life.
Missourian says No to my Visa. Missourian is willing to agree that I will not use violence while here but she still says no. Would you like me to come to America?
Note 22: Anyone who wishes to
a) disobey the laws
b) attempt to reconstruct our form of government
c) express hatred for the country and its constructs in a way that implies a physical threat
should be denied entrance whatever that person’s religious persuasion. Further, background checks should be conducted to attempt to ascertain whether that person has been directly or indirectly involved with terrorist organizations, even if only in a financial way. If they have, no entry.
Keep in mind that holding loopy religious ideas is not enough to deny a visa. We’d have to forbid Scientologists and Mormons. By the way, you do know that there are more than a few committed Christians today who see polygamy as a religious tradition worth preserving, right? Further, Christian Reconstructionists wish to modify our entire mode of government to more closely adhere to Old Testament standards (meaning a civil penalty for sins such as blasphemy and fornication). Religious fanaticism is not the sole domain of Islam.
Note 21: If you are suggesting a ban on any immigration from Syria, Pakistan and Iran (etc), I would concur. That’s not what you stated, originally. You stated that you would like to see a ban on particularly Muslim immigration. My objection was a practical one. You can more easily and accurately ascertain someone’s birthplace. Determining their religious ideas is an entirely different matter.
In fairness, Jennifer Roback Morse doesn’t take a stance on global warming in this article. The problem, from a rhetorical point of view, is that she barely takes a stance on same-sex marriage.
For example, she lists four “negative outcomes” that will occur if we try to make marriage apply to same-sex couples. But her first three outcomes are not unique to same-sex couples; they apply equally to all infertile couples.
Triple parenting will emerge, as it has already done in both Canada and Pennsylvania. “Triple parenting” occurs whenever two people who are unable to bear a child bring a child into their relationship, either through adoption, or through artificial insemination, or through surrogate parenting. If a couple is genuinely infertile, either a third party is required for the couple to bear a child, or they can have no child. Same-sex couples are genuinely infertile.
She lists two “core beliefs.” Only one of those applies to same-sex couples, and it is a belief that is not supported by evidence in her essay: We believe that men and women are different in socially significant ways.
What Morse has written is an indictment of allowing infertile couples to marry, but she’s presented it as an argument against same-sex marriages. She devotes paragraphs to the notion that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry because they are infertile. But all infertile couples are infertile, by definition.
If she were logically consistent, Morse would support the statement: “If the state knows a couple to be infertile, it should not allow them to marry. ” Perhaps she does.
Missourian, Befuddled, JamesK. At least the gay adoption problem would be solved, right? After all the president of Iran assures us that there are no homosexuals in Iran.
Jim, #19: Irrelevant, immaterial, assumes facts not in evidence, asked and answered, badgering, but most of all boring.
Until you, Dean Scortes, Phil, and JamesK are willing to answer the fundamental question at the base of the normalizing of homosexual perversity (and many of the other issues addressed here), there is nothing to talk about. Who is man? What are the essential qualities of male and female? How do we each interact with the other in order to form a stable foundation for children and the creation of culture?
I suspect that within your respective world views there is no answer to these questions because humanity has been replaced by empiricism, legalism, personal desire, or the “greater good”
You want a fact. Here is one you continually igonre: The outcome of any study of human behavior will be determined by the anthropological and sociological assumptions of those conducting the study.
Until you are actually willing to engage the core issues, I wish you would make good your promise to stop posting.
#25 Phil
You wrote:
Do you really believe that there is “no evidence” of this? Is the only “evidence” you will accept some sort of academic study laden with talk of variables, and controls, etc. Does the overwhelming experience and testimony of humanity throughout the ages count for anything? Does what every sane person observes from childhood to death count for anything?
Jim Holman –
I find it fascinating that the left cannot accept scientific research on “hard” topics like physics and somewhat “hard” topics like economics. But we are supposed to fall for “scientific research” on questions like “is a child raised by gays ‘normal'” which is a subject so soft it falls apart upon touch.
Don’t you think a study on whether kids are “normal” or not is highly subjective and prone to bias on the part of a researcher?
We conservatives are not anti-science; we just understand its scope and limitations.
#28–
Tom, what I said was that the claim was not supported by evidence in her essay.
If she’s willing to write an essay/column/editorial on the subject, she’s at least acknowledging that the subject is not “self-evident,” at least not for all persons. Certainly not “every person,” as you suggest.
Michael writes: “The outcome of any study of human behavior will be determined by the anthropological and sociological assumptions of those conducting the study.”
What I think you are suggesting is that any objective reality cannot be ascertained due to the inherent limitations created by the philosophical presuppositions of the person doing the observing.
Yet, it has been insisted here (on numerous occasions) that objective reality can be determined, and coincidentally (or not), you claim to know what that reality is.
Which is it? Are you saying that only materialists and/or liberals are capable of being blinded by their own beliefs?
#29 Phil
So you are not sure whether men and women are (on average, of course) different in socially significant ways?
One thing that rarely gets mentioned in discussions on social issues is that when a society creates behavioral norms it has to “play the averages” in order to create social cohesion and stability. While it certainly is true that some small fraction of men are more nurturing than some small fraction of women, to claim that there is no difference and to insist on some sort of interchangeability on a society wide basis is madness.
Does anyone really believe that on average, two homosexual men can effectively raise a girl and guide her through the trials and tribulations of maturity into womanhood? To even contemplate such a thing is madness.
James, I am saying that the empirical approach is no where near as “objective” as its adherents maintain. Even in experiments that involve only physical matter, designed and carried out with strict adherence to rigorous double blind studies, experimental bias is satistically significant. It is impossible to construct double blind studies that involve human behavior, because by the very fact that the researcher is human, he/she becomes an integral part of the experiment.
From a cultural perspective, philosophy and faith are far more important than what is supposedly science (a faith in its own right).
If you have ever read any of my posts you will have noticed that I frequently maintain that there is no such thing as objectivity. Bias is always present and always has to be accounted for. In the end, it all comes down to what we choose to believe. You can choose to base your belief upon the mental constructs of men or on the revealed truth of Christianity. Since I know that Jesus Christ is real, have tested and verified, to a limited degree, the truth of His promises and the teaching of the Church, I naturally choose Him who saves me rather than the raciocinations of the mentats of science who choose to form their lives based upon materialistic empiricism rejecting their own being in the process. That is the choice: The Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of this world. I know all to well how easy it is to choose the dark, destructive kingdom of this world over the freedom given by God. Even the greatest of saints are not beyond the temptations to deny God.
I am quite aware of the capability of human beings to distort anything and make an idol out of anything–even Christian doctrine that is otherwise true. IMO many Protestants make an idol of the Bible and Roman Catholics the Pope. We Orthodox make idols of a vast number of things both within and outside the Church. That is an unfortunate aspect of living in falleness. It is part of the spiritual discipline of the Orthodox Church to put aside all idols and approach God as He is, not as we think He is. Fortunately, we have the testimony of thousands upon thousands of saints, the Gospel, and the living experience of the Holy Spirit in the Church to instruct us. We still can get it wrong. Certainly I can and do. That is the hold that sin has on me.
Never assume that any of our actions or our ideas are neutral, they either direct us toward God or away from Him. Do what you will, believe what you must, but science and “studies” no matter who does them are a poor substitute for the experience of the living God. So are religious “feelings” and legalistic dogmatism. It is far far easier to get it wrong than to get it right (“..narrow is the way…”). By the grace of God I’ve found the entrance to the narrow way, I just have to follow it. Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner and upon all those who read these words.
#31 Tom–
First, let’s address the central thrust of my analysis:
What Morse has written is an indictment of allowing infertile couples to marry, but she’s presented it as an argument against same-sex marriages.
Would you agree?
I would suggest that logically, as a listener, if I am persuaded that Morse’s arguments against allowing infertile couples to marry are sufficient to ban a marriage, then I must also oppose all infertile marriages.
For example, if I wrote an essay arguing that “sale of salad dressings containing raw eggs should be banned, because it tastes bad and because it can cause disease,” you would be right to point out that “because it tastes bad” is an argument without merit. We allow many products to be sold which taste bad, and so we must either accept the ridiculous notion that all bad-tasting products ought to be banned, or we can identify that as a meritless argument and focus only on the argument that has real merit: “that salad dressings with raw egg have the potential to cause disease.”
You seem to agree that “the social significance of men and women” is the best argument that Morse puts forward. But before I continue discussing that with you, I’d like to hear what you have to say about my original point. That point is this: That the majority of Morse’s arguments–specifically, “negative outcomes” #1, #2, and #3, and “Core belief” #2 are non-unique. That is, they are not specific to same-sex couples. Those arguments apply to all infertile couples.
Logically, a reader can either dismiss the arguments as insufficient, or acknowledge that if same-sex marriages ought to be opposed because they are infertile, then other marriages ought also be opposed because they are infertile.
Which is it? Realize, too, that even if you acknowledge, as I do, that [“because they are infertile”] is not a sufficient reason to ban a marriage, that does not, in any way, imply that you are endorsing same-sex marriages. It just suggests that you believe that other reasons are sufficient.
Similarly, if you acknowledge that [“because they are infertile”] is a sufficient reason to ban certain marriages, that does not imply that you think such a ban would be feasible or good for society, it just means that you think it ought to be the case, even if you think that enacting the ban would be too problematic to actually undertake.
—–
For clarity, I am reproducing a line from “core belief” #2 with emphasis added.
JamesK,
Fr. Stephen Freeman on his blog Glory to God for All Things
Note 33. Phil writes:
Distinctions matter. Infertility in a heterosexual couple is a biological anomaly. Homosexual infertility is the biological norm; homosexual coupling is naturally closed to the creation of new life.
#35–
Sure, if you’re saying that distinctions matter, what you’re saying is: “Same-sex marriage should not be allowed because it contains two persons of the same sex,” or, essentially, that “men and women are different in socially significant ways,” as Morse states. That is a separate argument.
However, infertility is infertility, by definition.
If you say, “[Same sex couples] can not have children without specific legal institutions in place to do two things: first, the rights of at least one of the genetic parents must be terminated. Second, at least one member of the [same sex couple] must have parental rights specifically assigned to them,” you aren’t saying anything about same-sex couples that isn’t also true of all infertile couples. If you substitute the term [infertile couple] for [same sex couple] in each instance, the statement is just as true. It’s not less true or more true.
This is, for all intents and purposes, a religious argument. What you’re saying is that “Infertile couples are infertile because they are infertile, but same-sex couples are infertile because there is no way they can have children.”
Either you are
1) including, in the category of infertile couples, couples who actually can have children, or
2) you are claiming that the absence of children in an infertile heterosexual couple is somehow meaningfully different from the absence of children in a homosexual couple.
That may be meaningful in a religious way or a spiritual way, but it isn’t meaningful, at all, in a logical way or in a physical-world context.
I’m not saying that a belief that is illogical is necessarily wrong, I’m just suggesting that we identify it as such. It is my opinion that we ought not base civic laws on illogical reasoning, but that does not mean that I think it wrong for you to hold an illogical belief.
That may be meaningful in a religious way or a spiritual way, but it isn’t meaningful, at all, in a logical way or in a physical-world context.
LOL!
Phil, I appreciate your uncompromising materialism, but can you REALLY say the above with a straight face?
Even on the mere material level, the “meaning” of gender/reproduction is quite obvious…
#37–
Christopher, I actually appreciate the fact that you are both blunt and intellectually honest.
I think you’re misinterpreting me here, though. I’m not saying that the difference between the genders is illogical or has no meaning. I’m saying that the difference between the “absent children” of different types of couples is illogical and has no meaning.
The difference between children, I’m sure we both agree, is practically infinite. There’s no way to “measure” a single child, really, and each one is unique.
The difference between “no children” is mathematical. If one couple cannot have kids and another couple cannot have kids, then the sum of the children of each couple is exactly zero.
Jacobse, a thought–
You indicated in an earlier thread that if long-term data showed that children reared by same-sex couples did just as well as children reared by heterosexual couples, you would then not be opposed to same-sex parenting.
Here’s the link:
https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2007/08/04/youre-not-my-mommy/
…and the relevant posts are #51 and #54.
Obviously, even if reams of long-term studies established that kids reared by same-sex couples did just as well, homosexual coupling would still be “naturally closed to the creation of new life.”
…so, what happened?
Either
a) you’ve changed your mind,
b) you were lying in the previous thread,
or
c) a couple being “naturally closed to the creation of new life” is irrelevant in determining whether that couple should be allowed to parent.
Which is it?
It lies in the “if”.
Nevertheless, I don’t think we should experiment with children just because we have no data on whether homosexual coupling replicates a stable heterosexual relationship. We already know that homosexual relationships are notoriously unstable, we have abuse and disease rates, etc. etc. — and we know that homosexual coupling is closed to life.
We don’t need to throw kids into another grand social experiment that ends in chaos and suffering.
#33 Phil
I’m not sure how to put this, but it strikes me that you don’t grasp how deep human beings are. You seem to think that people are entiely logical, Mr. Spock-like creatures. The reality is that humans have complex needs and motivations that are buried deep within, don’t manifest themselves immediately, and are difficult to articulate. The “common sense” developed by billions of people over millenia is based on recognition of these needs.
Raising both a boy and girl is a great way to observe these deeply embedded needs and how they differ (again on average).
It is good for infertile couples to marry because they serve to reinforce a pattern of action that is good for fertile couples, who constitute the majority. This pattern, or icon, is part of what holds a society together. The upcoming generation needs to observe the pattern, both when it is fulfilled, but also when it is not fulfilled. To disrupt it so that 1% or so of the population does not feel left out is a very bad idea.
C.S. Lewis said something very important once, when he admitted that he (big children’s author) did not like to be around small children. But, he admitted that it was a defect, because as he surveyed his society and that of all the ages past, he realized that healthy men tended to delight in small children. For whatever reason, even if genetics plays a part, homosexuals need to realize that they are, in a simlar way to what Lewis said, defective. They might give in to this defect to various degrees, and I, for one, don’t want to punish them when or if they do. But it is not right to celebrate and make the behavior fully normative.
Fr. Hans writes: “Nevertheless, I don’t think we should experiment with children just because we have no data on whether homosexual coupling replicates a stable heterosexual relationship.”
There are numerous studies going back to the 80s that show that there is basically no difference between children reared in same-sex households and those reared in heterosexual households. Everyone agrees that more studies need to be done, but at this point all studies, utilizing different groups and research methodologies, converge on the same point. All the mainstream psychological and medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, agree on that.
So perhaps at this point we can dispense with the “no data” argument. There are data. You might not like the research results, or you might want more data. But there are data, and they all point to the same conclusion.
Michael writes: “Until you, Dean Scortes, Phil, and JamesK are willing to answer the fundamental question at the base of the normalizing of homosexual perversity (and many of the other issues addressed here), there is nothing to talk about.”
But as far as I can tell people here have already in effect normalized homosexuality. They think homosexuality should be legal. They think homosexual couples should be able to live together. They’ve even said that under certain special conditions homosexual couples should be able to adopt (e.g., adoption of certain special needs children.) I don’t know what people feel about this because the topic hasn’t come up, but I’ve never heard anyone here say that homosexuals should be evicted or fired merely because they are suspected of being homosexuals. As long as homosexuals are celibate they can even be members in good standing in church. No one has suggested that children currently living in same-sex households should be removed by the State.
All the above constitutes most of what would count as “normalization.”
#42 Jim Holman
Policies about same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption should not be based on “studies” about whether children in such situations are normal or not. These are questions which are barely amenable to definitions let alone scientific conclusions. What exactly does “normal” mean in a scientific sense?
These policies should be based on the opinions of ordinary people regarding what is or is not normal and what is or is not wise.
I find it amazing that Dean thinks playwrites know more about economics than economists, and that you think same-sex marriage is effectively addressed by “science”. In the meantime, were I to present you with simple mathematics regarding carbon dioxide generation you would respond with highly emotional moral proclamations.
The difference between your worldview and mine is not that your’s is scientific and mine is not. It’s that your’s does not circumscribe science to its proper role and mine does.
Phil,
Homosexual behavior is a nasty sin. It is not normal and it should not be perceived as such in society, much less granted equal status. The homosexual agenda is to remove all societal disapproval and to have homosexuality become equivalent with hetrosexuality. No!
The receptivity to homosexuals as human beings, sinners like the rest of us, that you see here is due precisely to the anthropology of the Church, the Church’s understanding of sin and atonement, the whole package. Do not mistake the mercy the Church extends to sinners (thank God) with acceptance of the sin.
The Church values and celebrates each human being as a unique person created in the image and likeness of God. That allows her see sin all the more clearly for what it is–how drastcially sin effects not only the sinner, but everyone around them. To acquiesce in the very thing that Jesus Christ gave Himself to overcome (sin and death) would be the ultimate betrayl.
I think you’re misinterpreting me here, though. I’m not saying that the difference between the genders is illogical or has no meaning. I’m saying that the difference between the “absent children” of different types of couples is illogical and has no meaning….The difference between “no children” is mathematical. If one couple cannot have kids and another couple cannot have kids, then the sum of the children of each couple is exactly zero.
Yes, but this argument is without distinctions. If a man/women couple is “infertile”, that is an accident. A man/man or women/women “couple” is infertile by nature. Your forgetting that homosexuality is infertile by nature, and thus is more indicative (morally as well, but in your case materially) than you would have it…
Note 42. Jim writes:
Jim, please. All the “data” affirmed single motherhood was no different than a two parent family in terms of childhood acheivement when the feminists launched their anti-family crusade. Commonsense told us differently, and a generation later we find that the commonsense was correct.
Now you want us to indulge the homosexual activists and throw another generation of children into another grand social experiment.
Note 44. Christopher writes:
Phil labors tirelessly to obliderate the biological distinctions between male and female. He removes the connection between heterosexual intercourse and childbearing, then collapses the distinction between vaginal intercourse and anal penetration, and then declares since homosexual sodomy replicates heterosexual intercourse (crude, yes, but that is what he says), gays should have children. That’s basically the sum of his argument.
Christopher,
That distinction does not reflect at all, on the children that the couple can’t have. That distinction only matters in terms of the differences between the makeup of the couples. The infertility is equal. No children is no children.
It is clear that you oppose homosexual parenting, and homosexual marriage. I won’t pretend that anything you’ve said could be construed otherwise.
However, in the thread that I linked to, the question was presented clearly and bluntly, and you answered it.
I’m not asking you to change your position on homosexual marriage, I’m just asking you to clarify which of three possible explanations correctly describes your actions.
You said that if—if–an incredibly unlikely event that you don’t for one second believe will actually happen (that is, that reams of incontrovertible studies establish that kids raised by same-sex couples do just as well as those raised by heterosexual couples) happened, then you would change your position and support same-sex parenting.
Now, since that hypothetical scenario did not include a change in the gender or “closed to life” quality of the same-sex couples, it stands to reason that the fact that said couples are “closed to life” is not viewed by you as a relevant factor in deciding whether to support same-sex parenting.
So, why are you obfuscating? “It lies in the ‘if’?” The “if” was always hypothetical.
There are three possible explanations.
Either
a) you’ve changed your mind,
b) you were lying in the previous thread,
or
c) a couple being “naturally closed to the creation of new life” is irrelevant in determining whether that couple should be allowed to parent.
…so I repeat, Which is it?
The infertility is equal.
Not true. The infertility of a man/man or women/women couple is by nature, that is it is by design of nature (or nature’s God if you are something other than a materialist). The infertility of a man/women is by accident, that is a flaw in something that is supposed to “work”. Thus the infertility of both are not “equal”, not in strictly material terms or situation, let alone any meaning derived (moral or otherwise).
I suppose as a matter of logic, “No children is no children”, but I don’t see the bearing of that truism on anything in the Morse article…
17036