Dreher finds all kinds of interesting stuff.
Quoting George Will's review of a new book by Edsall:
Edsall notes that one-third of American children -- and almost 70 percent of African American children -- are born to unmarried mothers. Then, in an astonishing passage about this phenomenon, which is the cause of most social pathologies, from crime to schools that cannot teach, he explains how Americans differ concerning what he calls "freedom from the need to maintain the marital or procreative bond." (You know, that Man-Woman "Marriage" stuff...)
"To social conservatives," [Edsall] writes, "these developments have signaled an irretrievable and tragic loss. Their reaction has fueled, on the right, a powerful traditionalist movement and a groundswell of support for the Republican Party. To modernists, these developments constitute, at worst, the unfortunate costs of progress, and, at best -- and this is very much the view on the political left as well as of Democratic Party loyalists -- they constitute a triumph over unconscionable obstacles to the liberation and self-realization of much of the human race."
These "unconscionable obstacles" include the prohibition of Adam/Steve marriages, or other faux-marriage games. Next time you see the commercial produced for the HomosexMarriage crowd, remember the passage above...
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
It seems hypocritical to lament that children are born to unmarried mothers and then deny a lesbian couple who already have children the right to marry.
Social conservatives seem to agree, as most intelligent people do, that children are best off in married households. But the only people actively trying to prevent couples from marrying are social conservatives.
What is it that you would advocate for a lesbian couple with a child? Should the state send jack-booted thugs to rip the kid away from his mother and her partner? Maybe it can grow up in a foster home. Or perhaps the state should force the biological mother to marry a man?
We do not propose to solve one societal ill by imposing another on the children.
Happy to know that you cite "intelligent people." Unfortunately, "intelligent people" can read, and have determined that:
1) Placing children in the midst of un-natural relationships is bad for them;
2) NO PEER-REVIEWED study has proved otherwise.
I think JBT's are unneccesary. Foster homes are nice.
Natural marriage is best. Un-natural marriage is...ah...un-natural.
Clearly, what you really oppose is gay parenting. Gay marriages that don't involve bearing or adopting children really have no direct effect on anyone besides the adults involved.
As such, gay marriage is a red herring. Gay marriage, legal or not, currently has almost no impact on a lesbian couple's ability to bear or raise a child.
I referred in my post to a couple who already have a child. It was hypothetical, but it needn't be. I personally know several such couples. No one is arguing that children should be "placed" in the midst of that relationship. The children are already there.
In each case, the couple involved would like to get married, to provide greater stability for the child(ren) they are raising. You suggest that children fare better with married parents, and yet you are the one opposing marriage.
It's interesting that you claim that no peer-reviewed study has proved that placing children in the midst of un-natural relationships is not bad for them. Actually, University of Southern California Professors Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz published the results of a study in 2001 in the peer-reviewed journal _American Sociological Review_ in 2001. They found "no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on the mental health of children."
Be that as it may, their study did find that there were some differences in households with same-sex parents and those with different-sex parents.
I propose this: you have an irrational disdain for homosexuals, and this leads you to assume that their effect on children is unacceptably negative.
If your viewpoint is rational, one would expect you to apply your arguments consistently to all parents, gay or not. Several peer-reviewed studies have concluded that the children of obese parents are significantly more likely to suffer serious negative health effects. You can read a news release about one such study in the _Journal of Pediatrics_ here: http://mednews.stanford.edu/releases/2004/july/obesity.html
Do you oppose the rights of obese couples to marry, and would you support legislation to prevent obese persons from marrying (or to require them to lose weight before marrying?)
Because blogger doesn't insert an auto-carriage return, here is the link for the citation above:
For the record, I do not support legislation to prevent obese persons from marrying. Some of the most wonderful people I know happen to have overweight parents, and their family has every right to exist, even if their parents' union was likely to have an effect on their children's health.
Post a Comment