Wednesday, September 26, 2007

"America, get ready for the group-marriage debate".

A comment by Elizabeth Marquardt, vice president of the Institute for American Values, after a Pennsylvania court ruled that a child can have three parents - in this case, two lesbians and a sperm donor. The New York Times, July 16, 2007.

9 Comments:

Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

I'm surprised there aren't any comments on this yet. You are referring to the child's father's homosexual partner in this instance...the man who had impregnated the one woman of this lesbian couple, and the court made the three equal parents. Now the boyfriend/partner wants to be a dad, too, and they are saying it's no different than a child with two step-families, except in this case the men are together and the women are together.

If the court lets this happen, it rips apart the meaning of family.

Systematic...careful...progressive...intentional...

7:36 AM, October 01, 2007  
Anonymous KatieKat said...

"If the court lets this happen, it rips apart the meaning of family."
Personally, I think it just reinforces the idea that there are different kinds of families and all of them should be considered valid. This particular situation is no different than a child with two step-families.

8:15 AM, October 01, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

It is when neither of the families is recognized by the state as a union...an argument that, arguably, can go both ways.

9:29 AM, October 01, 2007  
Anonymous Katiekat said...

"It is when neither of the families is recognized by the state as a union"
And, this, right here, is why they should be. That child would be mush less emotionally damaged if his family is recognized legally. If both couples were recognized as a legal union, there would be no problems with custody/visitation issues - At least, not any problems that Family Court hasn't dealt with before regarding step-families.
The right-wing faction has made the argument against non-traditional families into a "who will think of the children?" argument. However, the fact is that there are a LOT of children out there being raised by same-sex couples, and not recognizing those unions is damaging to those children. So, I have to ask: Who will think of those children?

10:23 AM, October 01, 2007  
Anonymous KatieKat said...

Heh. I'm tired. Mush=much
:)

10:24 AM, October 01, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie and all,

Sorry for not responding to your comments or jumping in on the conversations taking place.

I had a couple of family emergencies over the past week that have taken up all of my time. Everything is A O.K., but it is time consuming.

Nonetheless.

Katie,

You said:

"That child would be much less emotionally damaged if his family is recognized legally."

How so Katie? How will the child, remember a C.H.I.L.D, be less emotionally damaged if they know their "family" is RECOGNIZED legally? Boy, kids must be aware of a lot of things these days???

There are thousands of definitive studies (I would cite them all, but it would take up this whole post...Google David Popenoe...)showing motherless and fatherless families limit every important measure of children's physical, psychological, emotional and intellectual development. Not only do the social sciences show that fatherless and motherless families are harmful to children (which every same-sex home suffers from), but they also show that step-families where a child's mother or father is replaced by a step-mother or father (which constitute many - if not most - same-sex homes) are some of the most troubling family forms for children. In important ways this is more troubling than even single parent homes.

You said in closing:

"However, the fact is that there are a LOT of children out there being raised by same-sex couples,..."

Cite your sources please because I will provide one that refutes your opinion.

8:03 PM, October 03, 2007  
Anonymous KatieKat said...

"How so Katie? How will the child, remember a C.H.I.L.D, be less emotionally damaged if they know their "family" is RECOGNIZED legally?"
Obviously, until the child is in school, he/she wouldn't really know the difference. But, having a relationship/family legally recognized is usually the first step in that same relationship/family recognized socially. And it is the social consequences that that child will have to face. If his/her family is recognized socially, he/she will be less likely to be stigmatized at school. That is how the child would be less damaged overall.
"Cite your sources please because I will provide one that refutes your opinion."
From this document:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/USReport.pdf :
"More than 39% of same-sex couples in the United States aged 22-55 are raising children. They are raising more than 250,000 children under the age of 18."

7:07 AM, October 05, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

There may be more same-sex households occuring in the U.S., but as I mentioned above and which is repeated throughout the studies from the UCLA school of law, is the fact that same-sex parents are economically less able to provide for their children.

On top of this fact, children not living with both biological parents are 45 to 95 percent more likely to require parent/teacher meetings to deal with the performance or behavior problems than those who live with married parents. (Sara Mclanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up With A Single Parent, What Hurts, What Helps, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994) p.19.)

The Progressive Policy Institute, the research arm of the Democratic Leadership Council, reports that “the relationship between crime and one-parent families” is “so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low-income and crime. The conclusions show up time and again in the literature. (Elaine Kamarack and William Galston, “Putting Children First: A Progressive Family Policy for the 1990s,” White paper from the Progressive Policy Institute(Sept 27,1990), pp.14-15.)

A major study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that boys and girls who lived with both biological parents had the lowest risk of becoming sexually active. Teens living with only one biological parent had the highest risk of becoming sexually active at younger ages. (Dawn Upchurch, et al., “Neighborhood and Family Contexts of Adolescent Sexual Activity,” Journal of Marriage and Family, 61 (1999): pp. 920-930.)

What I am getting at Katie is that in order for you to provide all that you can for your child you need to A) follow Christ, first and foremost and B) provide a safe and healthy atmosphere for your child in order for him/her to grow up emotionally, psychologically, intellectually and physically healthy.

I do not mean to lecture you, but I am concerned for you and your child.

God bless,
Scia

8:22 PM, October 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“…in order for you to provide all that you can for your child you need to A) follow Christ, first and foremost”

Okay Scia how does following Christ help one provide for children?

Ken Weaver

9:37 PM, October 05, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com