My A’s to your Q’s- and other juicy tidbits.

Hidy Ho new recruits!

I am so honored to see so many new handles here at asktheBigot! I suspect many of you found your way here via the article I was privileged to pen for Public Discourse.  Honestly, I was so overwhelmed and humbled by the response to that piece. And I am amazed that a post stating a child has a right to be known and loved by both her mother and father would gain such attention. It’s fundamental, and even obvious. And something which anyone, in fact everyone, should recognize and become an advocate for. And yet the idea that a child should not be casually separated from his natural parent(s) just because another adult wants in on parenthood, is a radical concept in some circles.  Whether you are here because that article enraged you or because it was the fresh air you have been holding your breath for, I hope you were pleasantly surprised by what you have found on this little blog.

As you can imagine the commentary came pouring in last week and I wanted to take the opportunity to address some key points.

Exhibit A: But my parent’s heterosexual marriage sucked, so why don’t you oppose straight marriage?

Several people wrote me about their upbringing in an “in-tact” home where their father was abusive or their mother was an alcoholic thus, they concluded rightly, heterosexual marriage didn’t guarantee a pain-free childhood. So, many inquired, why don’t I oppose straight marriage as well?  Simple. In those hurtful cases marriage was not the problem. It was that you longed to love and be loved by both parents and, though they were living under the same roof, you were denied that full relationship which resulted in a pain that can never be assuaged.  The remedy is to heal the mother and father in such a marriage, not do away with marriage altogether.

questions+and+answersWhile it is true that marriage is no guarantee for any child or adult when it comes to health and stability it is also true, as succinctly stated in one researcher’s summary of 351 studies from 13 countries, that mothers and fathers raising their children together is the model that most stacks the deck in the favor of children. Even though studies using the best practices in social science have not been conducted on children of same-sex households, we do know from decades of research on blended families, be it cohabitation or step-parenting, that non-biological parents tend to spend less time and resources, be more transitory/unstable, and are more dangerous to children in the home than their biological parents. Same-sex household, by their very nature, are guaranteed to have at least one non-biological caregiver.  While we can certainly find examples of abusive biological fathers, as well as amazing step-fathers, statistically biological parents are the safest and provide the greatest long-term benefit for children.

Exhibit B: You must be against adoption! 

Others posited that since I believe that a child has a right to be in relationship with their mother and father I must, therefore, be against adoption and foster care. I written about adoption in all it’s glorious, painstaking and overly-wordy detail right here. To summarize, for those of you with a cramp from too much clicking, adoption exists to provide children the parents that they need, not to provide adults the children they want.  Frankly, you could not find a greater advocate for adoption than I. But adoption should always begin with the recognition that the child has lost something of great value, something for which not even the most loving adoptive home can fully compensate. Adoption is the best remedy for a tragic situation and as far as I am concerned everyone, especially followers of Christ, should find a way to adopt or support those who do.

Now this may shock some of you who believe that I truly embody the name of this blog, but not too long ago I traveled internationally with two women who were adopting a child in need of serious medical intervention. At the time I believed, as I do now, that this sweet child would do best with a mother and father but none stepped up to the plate for her. These two women were the only people willing to save this child and when my friends asked me to accompany them I couldn’t say ‘yes’ quickly enough. Do I believe this child would have fared better with a mother and a father? Yes. Do I believe she should have wasted away in a foreign orphanage rather than being adopted by a lesbian couple? Unequivocally, no.

Exhibit C: Kids are suffering all kinds of familial brokenness, why are you targeting gay marriage?

Some of you stated that if I really was concerned about children’s rights and well-being, I wouldn’t focus all of my attention on gay marriage.  Right that! Thus the reason you will find numerous social justice topics covered on this blog. Uplifting topics such as human trafficking, third-party reproduction, a child’s right to an un-altered birth certificate, homelessness, and, always a crowd favorite, abortion.  Beyond blogging, I work with two organizations. One is a grassroots marriage movement where same-sex marriage is one of many topics that we explore in our reading groups. Other topics include pornography, divorce, cohabitation, the hook-up culture, friendship in marriage, sex ed, religious liberty and more. Last year I attended the inaugural conference with a children’s rights organization that I also clock some time with. We addressed third-party reproduction, surrogacy, divorce and ethical adoption. Notice anything missing from that line-up?

Despite canvassing all those issues, I choose to begin writing about gay marriage specifically because my perspective- that it is possible to deeply love one’s gay family and friends and oppose gay marriage- seemed to be completely absent from the public debate.

Horrible things happen to kids because this life is a minefield of potential horrors. Crappy broken-home scenarios come in a rainbow of anecdotal flavors because people have the freedom to make choices about how they want to form, and destroy, their families. But reasoning that because children are already suffering poor parenting/tragedy that our society should then promote a family structure where children are guaranteed to suffer loss is crazy talk.  Children’s suffering should cause us to work harder and speak more clearly about the rights and needs of children. Having a married mother and father in the home is the greatest defense we have against nearly every social ill that our great nation is struggling to overcome: poverty, high incarceration rates, poor school performance, child trafficking, and on. Not only is it our greatest weapon, but it’s also the cheapest. Now, how often do you find that kind of deal?

Exhibit D: You are just traumatized over your parent’s divorce.

No denying that.  Divorce is not temporary.  I deeply care for both my mother’s partner and my father’s wife, and recognize the gifts and value that they add to my life and the lives of my children, but their divorce fundamentally changed my life forever.

Some commenters remarked that children who have only ever known one biological parent would fare better than a child who has to split time between the two. In their mind, it’s the “pure” method of gay parenting. Nice theory, but I suggest you look though some stories of children created via third-party reproduction and placed with their one biological parent at birth. I’m not talking about the carefully selected children used in gay parenting “studies” or the shiny families represented in cases brought before the appellate courts. Just spend the next 15 minutes reading the stories of how donor-conceived children feel, in their own words, about their missing parent.  Or look at the conclusions of this study, “My Daddy’s Name is Donor.” Or perhaps watch this depressing sperm bank recruitment video of the children of donor 5114.  Notice the desperate longing, the pained questioning on the faces of these kids when asked what they would say to their donor (around minute 6:30). It is heart-wrenching and yet, their yearning is completely lost on the mother at the end of the video as she enthusiastically recommends this method of becoming a parent. The whole spectacle is surreal and disturbing.

The accusation that my crusade is simply a manifestation of my childhood trauma is a lame excuse to dismiss my argument. It conveniently gives you the ability to only believe the things that you want to believe when you are exposed to opinions that challenge your world view. If children of gay marriage have less than positive things to say about their upbringing you just dismiss their answer because it obviously stems from their childhood trauma of divorce/adoption/donor-conception/egg-donation/surrogacy/death of their parent. Pick one.

You are right about one thing, however. They are suffering from trauma because it is the only way children arrive in a same-sex headed household.

Exhibit E: You’re just against gay marriage because you’re a Christian!  

This super original accusation has been laid to rest here, written when asktheBigot was just a twinkle in this blogger’s eye. The summary: any worldview worth its salt is going to support reality.   And the reality is that life-long man-woman marriage is undoubtedly the best family structure for kids. Period. The Bible speaks clearly of sexual complementarity, fidelity, and the needs of children and it drives me to love God more. Mind however that this here Christian never uses scripture to argue for public policy as scripture carries no authority with the public.  For that reason, Christians must make their case using only social science data and natural law. Easy to do. In fact, everyone should try it.

After the surprising success of my Public Discourse article, some hostile gay marriage advocates hacked into my Facebook account and scoured my 135 posts on this here blog in search of something, anything, that might discredit my message. Unfortunately for them, the only “smoking gun” they came up with was the scathing indictment that “SHE IS A CHRISTIAN!!” Little did they realize at the time but my insidious evil plan to get them to read this post, and this one, and this one was in full swing. I was excited that they also had to read this one. It’s a deliciously juicy indictment of my Christian faith, it’s the one where I speak directly to my Christian audience and tell them, unequivocally, that you cannot claim to follow Christ without regularly, sacrificially, and wholeheartedly loving your gay family and friends.

Because there is one glorious advantage I gained from my unique childhood: I love gay people.


90 thoughts on “My A’s to your Q’s- and other juicy tidbits.

  1. I feel like your worldview is so rare. Super refreshing to read your thoughts on these HIGHLY FLAMMABLE topics and yet not slam someone else into a box or corner. Thanks 🙂

  2. I apologize for the length of my reply. But you covered a lot of topics 🙂

    “And I am amazed that a post stating a child has a right to be known and loved by both her mother and father would gain such attention.”

    So who exactly is preventing that scenario? Gay couples? Hardly. The *only* people that can separate a child from their biological parents are the parents themselves. Either through divorce or through adoption (whether they give their children up, or the state takes the children away). In the case of adoption the child is a ward of the state. So no, some children do not have a right to be known and loved by both of their parents. There are thousands of children throughout the country that don’t have any parents, and there aren’t enough opposite-sex couples to adopt them all. So either gay couples can also adopt them, or those children can stay wards of the state until they age out of the system. A or B. Which less-than-utopian situation would you choose, when those are the only choices you’ve got? Common sense says A is the best choice. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a child that would prefer to go from foster home to foster home than be adopted by a same-sex couple.

    “Dad and Mom are needed to develop a healthy gender identity.”

    Quote from Life Site News:
    “Today, one-third of American children – a total of 15 million – are being raised without a father. Nearly five million more children live without a mother.”

    So, 20 million children are living in single-parent families. Common sense says that two-parent families are better for children than single-parent families. Meanwhile, 220,000 children are being raised in same-sex households (instead of being wards of the state). Obviously, since you can’t do anything to get those 20 million children to be raised by both a mother and father, it’s much easier to use the force of law to target that other 1% — even though those same-sex parents rescued those children from state care, and gave them a two-parent family — unlike the other 20 million children that are missing either a mom or a dad (which is the *exact* same scenario that same-sex couples create). In essence, 99% of children that aren’t being raised by a mother and father get a free pass because their parent happens to be straight.

    “I choose to begin writing about gay marriage specifically because my perspective- that it is possible to deeply love one’s gay family and friends and oppose gay marriage- seemed to be completely absent from the public debate.”

    The reality is that gay couples *are* raising children even without being married. If you actually support putting an end to that, you would be condemning adoptable children to remain wards of the state. You’d be choosing B instead of A, which would be unconscionable. Since gay parenting *is* a reality (just like single-parenting), one would assume that you’d want the best possible outcome for those children who are theoretically at a disadvantage (compared to being raised by biological parents). Not allowing those same-sex couples to marry puts them and their children at a huge disadvantage. If you took the time to read any of the circuit court or federal court rulings that nullified bans on same-sex marriage you’d know exactly what those social and financial benefits are. So, no, it is not “deeply loving” to put those children and those families in a worse situation. “Marriage” is good for all families, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents.

    • Hey David,

      The 220,000 number is I think the number of children raised by same-sex couples, not the number of children saved by same-sex couples from being wards of the state.

      Some of those 220,000 kids are from previous relationships.

      Increasing common these days are the products of assisted reproduction, (sperm donation or gestational surrogacy) where the child is knowingly and with foresight depriving that child of one of its natural parents.

      Some of the children raised by gay couples are adopted, but it does not follow that all of them are saved from being wards of the state. Some kids are hard to place, but the demand for healthy babies far exceeds the supply. Often, gay couples are hiring expensive lawyers so they can get one of these in-demand babies instead of some straight couple, not so that they can save the kid from being a ward of the state.

      • Since you say “often”, surely you must have some proof of these best-baby-stealing gay couples? The reality, of course, is that gay couples more often, far more often than straight couples, adopt the older orphans, the orphans of a different race, the medically challenged, etc. Why do you oppose protections for those couples?

        • I didn’t say anything about baby stealing. That was you putting words into my mouth. I have also not said whether I support or oppose protections for certain (“those”) couples.

          If you wish to engage in a dialog, please respond to what I have actually said.

    • Thanks for your comments, David. This is a popular derailment for those who support gay marriage, and a false one. First, children of single parents don’t get a “pass.” They are the largest group who are suffering from a breakdown in marriage and a rise in casual sex and cohabitation. They are at greater risk for all manner of social, emotional, and economic challenges. And I am not “targeting” children of gay couples. I am stating that no family structure- single parents, cohabitating parents, children living with their aunts/uncles or grandparents, or gay parents- where the child has to lose one or both parents should be institutionalized, promoted, or normalized. Because I guarantee that the child knows something vital is missing in all of those scenarios.

      “…there aren’t enough heterosexual couples out there to adopt all the children in need of homes”

      According to the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, there were 101,719 foster children in the United States eligible for adoption, as of August 9, 2013. ( Yet in 2010, NBC News reported that 1.1 million American women sought fertility treatment in any given year, so there is clearly more than enough heterosexual homes that could be recruited as adoptive homes for these children. Of course most of those children are older and very difficult to place. I am not necessarily against gay and lesbians fostering children. If the couple/single is stable and (like everyone else) closely monitored, it can be a good option in some cases. But when they are adopted by a gay couple, the door to having a mother and father is forever closed. And, by the way, none of this necessitates redefining marriage.

      “If you actually support putting an end to [gay couples raising children], you would be condemning adoptable children to remain wards of the state.”

      I think that Jeremy Hooper shot that argument in the foot. This from his smear piece on me last week, when he speaks about the adoption of his child: “Andrew and I were selected over thirty other couples, all heterosexual, because of our demonstrated abilities.” Thirty heterosexual couples vying for one child? Doesn’t sound like there is a shortage of mothers and father who are willing to adopt, now does it?

      No, it’s not necessarily “common sense” that two adults in the home are better, unless the two parents are the biological parents. Everything after that is pretty subjective, and “success” for the child will vary based on a host of factors. I’m sure you’re aware of the newest piece of research (unlike the pro-gay parenting studies this one was conducted using large random samples) that show children of same-sex parents are twice as likely to suffer emotional issues that those in the intact biological home.

      ““Marriage” is good for all families, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents.”

      Forcing a child into a relationship with one (or two) non-biological parent because the state considers a “partner” the parent is not the best thing for the child. There should never be a broad policy that sweeps away the parental relationship of one’s biological parent and then sweeps in parental authority to a biological stranger. It may be good for the adults, yes. But no necessarily for the children. Seldom do children, even in step-families, consider the biological parent’s spouse full “father” or “mother.” So why would we expect that children of gay couples would feel differently? Did you read through any of the stories on the Anonymous Us page above? Please, take some time to do so. Many of those children voice that the people that their parent is/was married to (same or opposite sex) didn’t feel like the partner/spouse is their parent.

      Thanks for the comments, David. There is a lot to talk about and examine honestly. But even after looking at all the questions above, every legitimate need that same-sex couple have can be achieved without redefining marriage.

      • Personally, I don’t have any qualms with gay adoption, and in some cases I think the outcomes can be better than the children raised in a hetero relationship. There are pregnant singled women who seek out gay men as the adopted caretakers of their children, because the singled mothers wanted to be the only mom in the kid’s life. And in doing this, these women enable their children to have father-figures, while allowing a nurturing gay couple experience being parents.

        Personally, it shocks me that someone who admits to be raised by a loving lesbian mother, could be so viciously (and in some respects senselessly) opposed to other lesbians who want to share their motherly love with children in need, and think of these women as inferior parents. Your father was never a sperm-donor, and you knew all your biological siblings. You grew up loved by your mother, her partner, your dad, and his wife. Most children do not have any one to love them at all. I can understand your opposition to sperm donation, and other forms of third party reproduction, but I would think since you yourself turned out as a fine, successful woman, that you would have a different open-minded perspective about gays who choose to rear children in cases like adoption (especially OPEN adoption, where the children DO have a relationship with their biological parents).

        Like it or not, heterosexual couples aren’t lining up to adopt these children, and until you can convince every hetero couple undergoing fertility problems to adopt instead of going through with IVF, and buying eggs and sperm from strangers to have kids, you don’t really have a case. As David said, there aren’t enough heterosexual couples to adopt these children, and they are not as eager to do so as a lesbian or a gay couple.

        And as for your marriage debate, as said there are lesbian couples who do include their children’s biological fathers into their children’s lives.

        And there are cohabitating lesbian and gay couples who do the opposite and go through sperm donation and surrogacy to buy the children they want. And there are singled ‘mothers’ by choice, and singled ‘fathers’ by choice, who buy and contract their children from industries, in the same way. And yes, they are unmarried. Your problem is not the ‘redefinition’ of marriage, but the infertility industry. If you want to make some critiques towards it fine, but the argument about marriage, is strictly religious and subjective. To the eyes of others, your case makes you seem retrogressive, over-religious and conservative, not that you remotely care about gay people, or the children they raise.

        • Were you raised in a same sex household? Because you seem all good with all of it. Just like someone who has an uninformed opinion and not a clue–Give them your kids. Do not offer up other peoples kids or eggs or wombs. You want to give–give yours. In our eyes, me and other adult children of LBGT you look moronic and like a plowed pile of BS. But I am not nice like “the Bigot” I am not Christian either so I am not praying for you. Feel free to continue offering up your deeply held opinions–any other subjects you know nothing about? Love to see the same old tried cliches over and over. Hey they convinced you right?

          • Your obsessive and neurotic personality, topped with your elected anonymity is what makes you come across as a poser. Unless you can come forward, and validate your existence, and your bad experience with your parents, your existence still remains questionable.

            Also, when the hell did adoption mean buying eggs and wombs? Did you even read what I wrote before going on your angry diatribe about your loathe for the people who raised you?

            How about this, you were abused, you were exposed early to your parents sexuality, but not every child in every gay household grew up with your experiences. Just like many straight households have abused, and exposed their children with their sex lives and with other inappropriate things, but it doesn’t mean that every child of a straight home grew up with it. Get over yourself.

        • Candygirl, I have been totally underwater this last week but I have been meaning to drop you a line and thank you for your comments and all the time you’ve given to engaging here. The six of us will be more visible in the coming months I think.

          Why would I be “so opposed to other lesbians who want to share their motherly love with children in need.”

          I know of three different lesbian couples raising kids, none of the children have contact with their father/donor. I know of these families because, on three separate occasions, three different men shared their stories with me.

          One man is the next door neighbor to a lesbian couple, with children of divorce. Their families are very close, they do annual camping trips together. But whenever these children are with him, they call him Dad. No one has told them to, they just do. He cares about these kids and doesn’t say anything. But it’s painful to see how they long for a father. Mind you, they have great mothers, are getting a good education and have all their physical needs met. But they are longing for a dad.

          Another man is the uncle to his lesbian sister’s kids- adopted. They call him Dad as well. The families see each other often and he is doing what he can to influence and pour into them. But he admits that it’s heartbreaking to watch then want him so badly to actually BE their dad.

          Our daughter’s coach has shared with me that on another team he coaches there is a child with two moms. One who is in her 60s, one in her 40s. Sperm donation. She has latched on to this coach, who loves this little girl and her moms. She is very physical with him and constantly wants to be hugged and wrestled with. She says, “I want my dad to be like you.” “Do you think you could be my dad?” She is 6.

          However you arrive at the same-sex parenting situation, something critical will be missing for the child. While I can and will extend friendship and care to these families, as a policy-maker(voter) I’m not going to give tax breaks for situations where the children will miss out on one of the foundational building blocks for their social and emotional well-being.

          Thanks again for your comments, friend. And welcome.

          • Why are both you and IMHO not hearing me correctly? Thank you for your reply but you hadn’t answered to what I had asked and suggested you to do, to encourage (and I am using capitalization because of the previous disconnections) FATHER/MOTHER-inclusive gay parenting. This means to encourage lesbians to INCLUDE their children’s fathers in the children’s daily lives and to not SEEK SPERM DONORS.

            I am asking you to encourage families that are like these

            Have I been clearer this time?

          • Well, off the top of my head I guess my response would be because no family structure has proven to benefit children more greatly than married mothers and fathers rearing their children together, I would approach that scenario with caution. The “mothers and fathers” bit is important to child rights and thirving. The “marriage” part because its the surest way to achieve stability, which is also a critical need in child development. And this arrangement has not been studies at length to rule that it is any different than any other form of alternative family which has not proven to be as good for children as married-mother-father. While the method cited above does allow a relationship with both biological parents and that seems better, I still wouldn’t venture to say that it’s something to strive for. Without marriage, there is less social-emotional-legal “glue” so to speak to ensure that both parents will be present in the child’s life for the long-term. It’s likely to fall prey to the same pitfalls as a cohabitating relationship. Also, because we know that non-biological parents/caregivers tend not to be as invested in the child’s life, can in some cases be dangerous to the children, and often evoke feelings of competition between parent/partner/children, we have additional reason to be suspect of this arrangement. Now the child has two homes (like children of divorce) where it’s possible/likely to be a cycle of transitions of spouses/partners. Parenting with your child’s father who is living in the same house as you is hard enough, throw in up to four adults who might be considered parents and two separate households and I think the potential for disagreement and friction increases greatly. Again, adults will make the decisions that they choose to make around forming families. But as a society, we need to return to the narrative that parents need to be meeting the needs of the children, even if that means that the parents themselves have to make sacrifices.

        • The arrangement you describe is like a family broken by divorce, except this time they didn’t even bother to get married to start with! We know that joint-custody arrangements are hard for the children. The law does need to provide for divorce, but when couples enter into a marriage it’s with the intention of staying together.

          Here, they decide to break up the family before they even start it!

          I’m not sure how the law handles these children with three parents if there’s a custody dispute. I think it’s a largely unexplored area. Custody battles are nasty enough with only two parents fighting!

          Nobody has found any arrangement for child rearing equal to the intact nuclear family. The truth is that we don’t know how well these experiments will work out, but an educated guess is that, like everything else that has been tried, none will equal the time-tested gold standard of mother, father, and child.

          Open adoption generally means the birth mother can visit so long as it’s okay with the adopted parents. Sometimes that isn’t very long. Sometimes the “openness” of the adoption is a false promise to induce the young mother to give up her baby.

          • >Nobody has found any arrangement for child rearing equal to the intact nuclear family

            Because much of the studies are just as politically skewed as those that promote same-sex parenting.
            Read the book ‘Things Fall Apart’ about the igbo people of West Africa, where they raised children in polygamy, and how these traditions were destroyed by christian colonialists. Whether you want to admit it or not, the married nuclear family has not been the only socially acceptable model to raise children in, and promoting that it is, is not only not true, but will stereotype you again as religious zealots who are pushing their religious views onto public policy

            >Open adoption generally means the birth mother can visit so long as it’s okay with the adopted parents. Sometimes that isn’t very long. Sometimes the “openness” of the adoption is a false promise to induce the young mother to give up her baby.

            Adoption is inevitable, and in most cases it is straight people who are involved in it. Are you saying that children aren’t allowed to be adopted by people who are willing to take care of them when their natural parents are unable? Furthermore in married nuclear families, divorces are as high as 40%. Nothing is promised.

          • @candy:

            Thanks for your comments.

            “Because much of the studies are just as politically skewed as those that promote same-sex parenting.”

            That’s not a good criticism of research. A good criticism would involve a criticism of the methodology used, and perhaps suggesting why the study was designed poorly.

            A large body of social science data shows that children raised by their own biological parents who are married and who stay married do better than adopted kids, or kids whose parents have divorced, or cohabiting parents, or a single mom who has a series of boyfriends, or those who have had a parent who ran out or died.

            As for these same-sex parenting arrangements go, we do not have enough data because it is only recently that such arrangements have been common enough to show up on randomized studies. But an educated guess is that because the intact nuclear family has consistently produced the best results, these new experimental arrangements will probably also turn out to be less than optimum.

            “Read the book ‘Things Fall Apart’ about the igbo people of West Africa,”

            I have not read the book you cite, but it is true that colonial masters have done horrible things to their subject peoples, trying to impose their own values on an alien culture they do not understand. It sounds like an interesting book, and I will look for it. Thanks for the reading tip!

            “the married nuclear family has not been the only socially acceptable model to raise children in,”

            Of course it hasn’t been. I never said it was.

            “Are you saying that children aren’t allowed to be adopted by people who are willing to take care of them when their natural parents are unable?”

            No, I’m not. I was responding to your statement that in open adoption “children do have a relationship with their biological parents,” which is very often not true.

          • Just to make things clear.

            Of course there are mothers who are not capable of taking care of their children and have to give them up for adoption. But there are also many who are capable, or who perhaps need some financial support, who are persuaded to give up their babies. They are told that the child will do better if it is taken away and adopted by strangers. They are given a false promise of “open adoption,” which is quickly rescinded.

            You say that you are opposed to baby selling, but that is how the for-profit adoption industry often works. Their source of income is the fees from the prospective adoptive parents. Their livelihood depends on finding mothers who will give up their babies, and if necessary, shame them or cajole them into doing so. While adoption is supposed to work for the benefit of the child, it is the new parents who are paying the piper, and therefore calling the tunes.

            Whatever the shortcomings of polygyny, it has the benefit of seeing that children are taken care of by their biological parents, something that the various arrangements you describe do not.

      • And I am not “targeting” children of gay couples.
        So cosponsoring an amicus brief urging federal courts to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage doesn’t target children of gay couples? Of course it does. I’m not aware of any amicus briefs that target single-parent families — which are clearly worse than ANY two-parent family scenario. There is nothing “subjective” about that. All things being EQUAL, a child is better off being raised by two parents instead of just one. Like I said, the 20,000,000 children being raised in single-parent households ARE getting a free-pass. They are not being targeted by organizations like the Witherspoon Institute because the sole parent happens to be straight. Even though we know for a fact that those children are being just as harmed (by being denied a male or female parent) as those children being raised in same-sex households.
        You inform us that there are 101,719 foster children eligible for adoption. Then through tortured logic you declare that there “Doesn’t sound like there is a shortage of mothers and fathers who are willing to adopt, now does it?” because 30 couples were vying for one child. Well, obviously there aren’t enough mothers and fathers willing to adopt those 101,000 foster children, or am I missing something? And obviously, straight and gay couples would rather adopt a new born baby than an older foster child. That’s just the reality of couples wanting to be parents. So, again, those older foster children are either going to age out of the system, or they can be adopted by a same-sex couple. It seems as if you’ve decided that they’d be better off if they just remain wards of the state (because having a mother and father is forever closed). I seriously doubt that those foster children would make that choice. But you seem to have made that choice for them: see amicus brief above. You don’t want gay couples to raise children, regardless of the circumstances.
        “I’m sure you’re aware of the newest piece of research (unlike the pro-gay parenting studies this one was conducted using large random samples) that show children of same-sex parents are twice as likely to suffer emotional issues that those in the intact biological home.”
        The same can be said for ANY families that aren’t headed by two biological parents. But I don’t see single-parent families or straight couples (or grandparents) that adopt being denied the opportunity to raise children because they aren’t as “successful” as two biological parents. I’m not aware of a parenting test that citizens have to pass in order to raise children. Which probably explains why virtually every day in the news you hear about a straight parent(s) that has either abused or murdered their children. Here’s yesterday’s story:
        “But even after looking at all the questions above, every legitimate need that same-sex couple have can be achieved without redefining marriage.”
        Of course that isn’t true. There are over a thousand state and federal benefits that automatically come with being married. Children that have parents that are unable to marry are being harmed by not having access to those benefits. There are also social benefits to marriage that were explained in the DOMA ruling, and most state and federal rulings that nullified unconstitutional bans on same-sex marriage. A few legal forms (or civil unions) cannot take the place of civil marriage.

        The only people that seem to be impacted at the so-called “redefinition” of marriage are the Christian martyrs that believe that God will condemn them to hell if they bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. I’d say that the societal impact is negligible at best. My straight married neighbors’ marriages are still intact, even though they live right next door to a married gay couple. Shocking, but true.

        So let’s deny millions of gay Americans civil equality in society because a dozen bakers believe their business is the same thing as a church. Oh, okay. That seems reasonable. Is it any wonder they keep losing every single court case that has taken place?

    • Couldnt agree with you more. Im a followed of Jesus not Paul and i think it’s terrible that this girl is being used this way when she’s too young to even know that this antigay stuff this political stuff is a complete change from Christ’s message. I love her but what she is doing is wrong and evil, she needs a lot of love from everyone, she’s hurt but is taking no responsibility for promoting a point of view that actully hurts children. i went through that stuff with my parents divorce an lost both my parents that way. im a gay womanmarrid to a man . making it harder for todays’s children’sparents to survive, helping popel who make gays pay extra taxes, wtf? this doesnt help kids and i feel forherthat itcomes from great pain but no it isnt interesting that she opposes gay marriage. she isnt making sense. maybe she has a need to chain her parents together and be withthem awhile, but to attack and undermine the outcasts just because that s the fashion of her allegedlychristian subgroup and because she s charming and lovely and loving doesnt mean thatno oneis harmed and thatwhatever youfeel should bepublic policy. i am so offended ht she was so hurt by being clled a bigot for supporting an end to our right that she is nowTHIS and our our whole societyincliuding billionaire criminals pretendingto follow christ want to take OVER public discourse. when we dont have rihghts we are fired evictedarrested murdered. it s okay by me if she needs to lick her wounds but humbled by the attention? no, delerious from it. the battle is not gays versus jesus. but the peole who do this are pretty slick. your leaders have let you down . pat robertson said god told him romney would be president. seems to me hhe has been on the line with satan a long time now, with his billions an his lawschool and stealing entire charities. over a half century of redegfining christ’s message. you grrl have paid for thiese sins with your brains and the nation with be inundated with noting but criminals matthew 23. this false battle and series of false victories makes meSICK

  3. Nice to see you back in action, so to speak. Though I’m sure the blog’s importance doesn’t quite measure up to the real-work you’re doing. And now to read through all of the tasty links you’ve offered.

  4. Katy, beautifully stated and the PD letter as well. Years ago, one of my Beloved’s seminary profs used to repeat this admonition: “the greatest thing a father can do for his children is to love their mother.”

    Though same-sex marriage was not an issue then, the counsel holds up. Natural marriage is male and female. In spite of our fallen world, children who are privileged to witness their father loving their mother (i.e. demonstrating self-sacrifice and denying one’s druthers) enter adulthood with less damage and brokenness. That used to be one of the goals of good parenting!

    Keep standing strong. Prayers and God bless!

  5. I really don’t understand any of this at all. Yes, all children deserve to know and be loved by both their parents. I just don’t know what gay marriage has to do with it. Gay people, whether married or not, can still have their own biological kids, or adopt, or whatever. It seems like your issue is more with people having test tube babies, or parents that abandon their kids and allow them to be raised by step parents. If your issue is that kids aren’t being supported and loved by both parents, maybe the focus should be on that. I know intimately about fathers that abandon their kids. I know a lot of kids, including myself, in that situation in varying degrees. (And it happens with moms too, I know.) None of the ones I am thinking of involved a single gay parent or gay marriage. In your family, your mom left your dad for another woman, so you basically had a step mom you didn’t feel close to. In my case, my mom left my dad because he had a nasty habit of beating her. In my case, my parent’s divorce was the best thing that could have happened to me, compared to growing up seeing all that abuse. It would have been nice, obviously, to have had a great dad, but I actually don’t remember ever feeling that longing to have a dad that I know a lot of girl’s do. I technically had one, I know, but he was inconsistent and part-time. But I always knew I was better off without him, and I was lucky to have a great extended family including a wonderful grandpa and uncles. And I had a crappy step dad eventually who, no, did not take the place of my dad. I also do know people that are closer with their step parents, and prefer them to their actual parents. It does happen. Also, my mom was raised by a man and woman who loved each other so much. The perfect 1950’s heterosexual married couple. And they were good parents. Maybe not perfect, but hey, who is? They also happened to be the best grandparents ever I have to mention. Well, anyway, half their kids are screwed up for some reason or another. My feeling is that your dad screwed up the most. Your mom may have left him, and I suppose she has some responsibility for not making sure he stayed a bigger part of your life, but it was really his responsibility to do so. He failed, yet you basically blame your mom’s relationship for your lack of a dad. But if he wasn’t a good enough dad to stay in your life, why do you assume he would have been such a great dad if you all remained in one house. Proximity? I don’t buy that. My dad was a shitty husband and father, and it would have been the case no matter who lived where. That’s his character, and that is just how it is. If I left my husband for a woman, my relationship would never stand in my husband’s way of having a relationship with his little girl. He is a great dad and he would do whatever he had to do to stay in her life, because that is just the kind of dad he is. A lot of what probably bothers me about this is also how single moms always get vilified and scape-goated for all of society’s ills. It’s always the parent that is actually around that is held responsible, rather than looking at the parent that chooses not to be there. But ultimately, most parents screw up their kids and it reminds me of this poem (with the bad words replaced by ***): This Be The Verse By Philip Larkin

    They **** you up, your mum and dad.
    They may not mean to, but they do.
    They fill you with the faults they had
    And add some extra, just for you.

    But they were ****** up in their turn
    By fools in old-style hats and coats,
    Who half the time were soppy-stern
    And half at one another’s throats.

    Man hands on misery to man.
    It deepens like a coastal shelf.
    Get out as early as you can,
    And don’t have any kids yourself.

    • “I really don’t understand any of this at all. Yes, all children deserve to know and be loved by both their parents. I just don’t know what gay marriage has to do with it. Gay people, whether married or not, can still have their own biological kids, or adopt, or whatever. It seems like your issue is more with people having test tube babies, or parents that abandon their kids and allow them to be raised by step parents. If your issue is that kids aren’t being supported and loved by both parents, maybe the focus should be on that”

      My point exactly, not sure if you saw my comment, but this was my point exactly.

      I don’t see the vicious opposition to anything that isn’t the ‘perfect nuclear family’ to raise children in. Yes, ideally I would want a world that children have some relationship (if at all) with their biological parents and relatives but shit doesn’t happen like that. Parents die, and grandparents have to pick up the slack. Parents become abusive, and selfish and addicted to drugs, and decide they want their children to live in foster care, or with a relative or with someone else. I’ve seen boys who never known their dads (not their moms choice, anyway) I’ve seen kids being raised by gay relatives, and pretty much everything in between.

      What is the point of dedicating so much time telling all these child-rearers that their efforts are useless, and they’re all inferior caregivers?

      I don’t get it. Hopefully the author of this blog can be more open-minded and just makes some critiques against test-tub babies, instead of gay marriage which seems like a bizarre point of focus, when talking about the objectification of human conception.

      • No, I didn’t see your reply. I agree with you. This is all just another argument by a “Christian” to stop gay marriage. What they should really be saying is they don’t want gay parents, if that is their issue. But they know they will get no traction with that tactic. Because it is ridiculous. If I were a lesbian, I could easily produce a child. It’s not that hard, as a woman, to get a dude to sleep with me. So what is their solution? Maybe they should just introduce a bill to make all unwed sex illegal, which is what they really want (although, trust me, the church members are NOT following that rule). Or should we just confiscate all children from single or gay parents and put them in a foster family that is headed by a man and a submissive wife? Sounds like a great plan, lol.

        • I had suggested at least three or four times if the author is genuine about her activism in children’s rights, to simply make critiques against the *infertility industry*, NOT gay marriage, not ONLY gays who have children through third party reproduction, but the industry itself, alone. Though I myself, am not theist, I have no real issues with marriage equality, and I don’t have any issues with gay adoption, I DO have to admit I genuinely believe that sperm/egg banks are corrupt, and not at all fair or considerate to the children who are born from it. However, it’s not like its only married gay people who go through with these technologies to have kids. Singled parents by choice, and straight people with reproductive problems also go through with this technology, and they have absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage.

          I also suggested that she can advocate father/mother-inclusive gay parenting to solve the ‘missing parent’ problem. If she is honest in her claims that it wasn’t her mother’s sexual orientation, or even her partner (whom she says she loves) that made life hard, but her missing father, then she shouldn’t have any issues with lesbian couples who partner up with gay male couples to conceive and raise children together, right? That would be a solution that many gay people are starting to lean towards as a thoughtful alternatives to anonymous gamete-donations–why not ENCOURAGE the trend? Isn’t that what we want? Children who know their dads and their moms?

          Honestly though… it just seems as if her activism is geared to basically discourage any family structure that isn’t the ‘nuclear family’ which is very unrealistic, and very non-inclusive for gays, or single people who want to have children. Hopefully she can come to her senses and see the obvious disconnect between marriage equality and the child-selling movement. Hopefully.

          • It’s actually the balance of allowing people to make the decision that they like but only *promoting* the family structure where kids don’t have to suffer because of their parent’s choices. That doesn’t seem like a “vicious” approach to me so I’m surprised that you take it that way. And, as you see in the post above, the International children’s Rights Institute that I am honored to be a part of does focus a great deal on fighting the fertility industry. Because I agree with you, Candy (can I call you that?), it IS buying and selling children. Commodifying not only children, but oftentimes women as well.

    • No you’re not paying attention. This is easy peasy. Children deserve a mother (female human) and a father (male human). All children. No adult has a right to other peoples children or womens wombs. See that is not hard. Remember–marriage is just between two people–right. So those two can’t reproduce and society does not owe them. Remember gay is normal and that particular normal is sterile–not a medical issue. So nobody owes them live humans.

      You say, “Gay people, whether married or not, can still have their own biological kids, or adopt, or whatever.” By whatever you mean what? They can’t have “their own children” because that is not biological possible with same sex couples. So they either must take someone else’s child or use someone else’s body. That is not “having their own child” and that is not their child, will never be their child. Reality is our friend. whatever else you went on about had nothing to do with the rights of children. It was a long deflection. There is no long twisted tale of woe that will cover up the fact that denying children a mother and a father is not your fricken right and it is a human rights violation. Those children that Gays take are like blood diamonds–seeped in violence against women and children. I know you imagine yourself very loving and liberal and superior but this is going to be considered in the same category as any other crime against humanity. And clever superior you supported it.

      • My goodness, you’re coming across a little neurotic and obsessive, and its things like that that makes you look like a poser, and not a genuine child who grew up with gay parents.

        Gay couples can indeed have families without adoption or third party reproduction –>

        So your point is invalid. Please calm down.

        • LBGT Tactics–Missives: Call the person a liar, or crazy or a bigot or say they are not real. Post some slick PR video made for the naive masses. Gee wiz that is so convincing.

          Do you think our family pictures would convince people that LBGT are just gee wiz great parents? Want to do an image comparison between the march on Selma and the Pride Parade–with “Oh Freedom” as the sound track. Nice little 2 minutes with children forced to role play in the adult fantasy they call life. You do not think those kids will speak out–they will. Its impossible to silence all of us.

          Gay couples take other peoples children and consign them to a unhappy life of lies and distortions. As you may have noticed, some of the people who pop in here were raised in that particular slice of distortion call the same sex family.

          • Did you actually take the time to watch the video to see how these parents didn’t “buy eggs and wombs” or “take other people’s children” as you fervidly accuse all gay parents of doing? Did you actually see that they didn’t use sperm donation, surrogacy or adoption to have their kids? That, quite like straight people, they meet with people of the opposite sex, built a relatinoship with them, and agreed to raise children together? You are a bitter and deciteful person and the more you write, the more I doubt you were actually raised by LGTB people. You’re just a maniac conservative pretending to be a child of gay parents just to make a point. If you were real, you’d show your face instead of hidding behind a fake name and a blank profile picture. You wouldn’t repeat the same mantra of ‘buying eggs and wombs’ and ‘if they were normal they would be happy being sterile’. Most of your replies you aren’t actually critiquing what anyone is saying, you’re just repreating the same rhetoic again and again. Please calm down. And if by chance you are the child of LGTB parents, and they abused you, then it is a case against abuse and neglect, not one against LGTB parents.

          • If I am bitter and deceitful it is because of I raised with best liars and the victims who victimize. They can so what they want with their own bodies and good for them. The rest we will fight. They will get to destroy and damage other peoples children or use women as breeders.

          • So I decided that you’re crazy and you have problems… You seem to be repeating the same rant over and over and over again, even if it’s not very related to what I said at all. You hate gay people so much that you’re willing to pretend to be a child of a gay parent to verbally attack them. Interesting. You should seek professional help. Your loathe for gay people is unhealthy and neurotic. They aren’t the only people who buy and ‘rob’ other people’s children, especially in cases when infertile straight couples adopt other people’s children and use women as breeders as well.

  6. I, too, am a daughter of a gay parent. I, too, oppose gay marriage. At 14, my father left my Mom for a man. He never looked back. I am now 39, happily married, and a mother of 3 children. I missed out on so much. I yearned for my father’s love but I was met with animosity, simply because I would not accept my father’s lifestyle. I have always loved my father but I do not approve of what he did. He refuses to own up to mistakes. He doesn’t know my children. It. Hurts. So. Bad.

    Thank you for speaking up and speaking out. There is still so much shame that I harbor because of my father. There are still so many questions that I have because of the selfish lifestyle that robbed my youth. Maybe one day, it will be okay to go against the grain. But for now, I sit quietly, like a baited trap, waiting for the opportunity to share my views and express my opinion. All the while, the gay marriage debate roars on. It is made okay by our government and force fed to the masses, whether we (those children) like it or not.

    • I’m confused. Did he abandon you and run off with a man, or did you refuse to visit him because you didn’t accept his partner?

      • You know what candygurl, I should not waste my breath on responding to your ignorance. Let me say this…you have no idea what I went through. Have you nothing better to do than to attack others? I hate to tell you but you are REALLY messing with the wrong person. Opinions are like @$$holes and everybody has one. I don’t need yours. Surely you can find something more productive to do with your time.

        • This was my question

          >I’m confused. Did he abandon you and run off with a man, or did you refuse to visit him because you didn’t accept his partner?<

          And you claimed that it was ignorant, disrespectful, and combative. What part of the question was combative or ignorant? For your information, it was a genuine question because I didn't understand what you were trying to say. You said your father abandoned you but in the same breath (figuratively) you said you 'couldn't accept his lifestyle'. It sounds self-contradictory. Maybe you were trying to say that he ran off and fully cut off contact with you and your mom when you were a child, and when you became a adult you didn't want anything to do with him. That would be understandable.

          But what it sounds like what happened is that you didn't want to accept his partner, so you refused to visit him. If the latter was the case, then my apologies, but the relationship you have with your father is your own responsibility. Own up to it, and stop blaming him for abandoning you, when it was you who didn't want to accept him for who he is. If he didn't hurt you, if he didn't sexually abuse you, if he didn't treat you anything like a princess, and you decided not to go to him because of his partner, then I can't feel sorry for you. If the only thing 'wrong' with my dad was the fact that he was gay, I wouldn't have any issues with my parents' divorce at all. But instead of just being gay, he was a verbally abusive emotionally manipulative a$$hole, who valued money more than his children. I would kill to have a dad who was just gay, versus a one who would make me and my siblings sit in a cold house with no food all day, while he was out with his new wife for parties.

    • Personally, I never heard a gay parent apologize for any of the selfish and cruel stuff they did–they think it is normal and their right to so because it is all about them all the time. There never was a debate. There was TV and money and cover ups and blackmailing politicians. They will have something that they call marriage. The point is to protect the children and make sure no more of them get used as little props in the staged production. More and more of us are coming out and speaking out. LBGT can’t own and define our experience they lie. They want to define their own–fine. I think we the adult children need to keep speaking out otherwise people will believe them. We are at a critical point. While people maybe willing to shrug their shoulders at marriage they are going to be much more cautious with children and that’s good. I don’t think people realize how many of there are and that we are against this whole charade.

    • I am sorry that your father abandoned you. My sister and I have different fathers. Hers also abandoned her, and it was very hurtful to her and had a horrible impact on her. He was not gay, just a crappy human being that didn’t take responsibility for his actions. My father was physically abusive to my mom. He is straight. People do horrible, horrible things. Your father should have apologized if he abandoned you, if he let you down, maybe even for leaving your mother. In a sense, some would say that if he knew he was gay he should not have married her in the first place, but then you would not be here. Just like it is horrible and I wish that my dad had never hurt my mom, but if they had never met, I would not be here. Again, I am sorry for what you went through, but it is more about who he is as a person. If he had went on to marry a woman that you didn’t like, and that made you feel alienated from him, would that have made anything better? The fact that you say you did not accept your father’s “lifestyle” makes me think it may have been you that abandoned him in a sense rather than the other way around.

      • JoAnna and Candygirl, really fascinating responses to Katie. What sticks out to me is that you are expecting the child to act like the adult and giving permission for the parent to act as a child. The child needs to adapt and change to the Father’s preferences and desires otherwise she is responsible for the loss of relationship? And he gets to follow his desires at the expense of the child and wife to whom he has committed? That is such up-side down thinking, and unfortunately quite common. And no, it wouldn’t be any different if he had left for a woman. Would you have told Katie that she would be responsible for alienating her father in that scenario too if she refused to acknowledge how that situation harmed her and her family? Here’s the deal, when it comes to children, the responsibility is on the adults to conform to the needs of children. Not the other way around. Because… one actually IS the adult, and actually IS responsible for the other’s feelings and care. Children are not that party. And IF the adults are going to act selfishly, which they will as you both of you have mentioned in various scenarios, I as the voter/policy-maker do not need to have a part in exalting/promoting their decisions. That doesn’t mean that I will withhold friendship, care or relationship with those with whom I disagree, but I don’t need to condone their decision in the form of institutionalizing their choices.

        • In response to your critiques against gay communal parenting, most of the issues you talked about seems hypothetical. I’m not saying this is a good thing or bad thing, I’m simply suggesting why not invest thoughtfully? You say that your mother’s lesbianism, and her partner wasn’t your problem it was the lack of a father. If this was the case, why not just promote lesbian couples to include their children’s father into their lives? You yourself said (unless you were lying) that you grew up in a ‘community of women’ who loved, cherished and respected you and raised you, who were there for your wedding, your graduation, many sweet childhood memories, and school functions. If this was your childhood with lesbians, it’s very hard to see why you would be so viciously opposed to gay parents raising children.

          I’ve seen responses from other kids raised in sperm donor situations, this was the response of a girl who was raised by two moms (and a sperm donor), but longed for a father:

          “Someone asked me what if… two Moms co-raised me with two gay masculine acting dads who’d live next door? One would be biological, the other would basically adopt me as if I were his own….Its a beautiful idea and I wish the best for anyone who loves their children so much that they would be willing to do this. Whoever thought of that has a lot of love in there heart and they were clearly thinking of how it would be for the kids. I wish someone had thought of me with so unselfishly.”

          This was the response of a woman who raised by her mom and social father who was also conceived out of a donor situation. She wrote an entire blog piece about it called, “Is there a better way other than ‘donor’ conception?” Her response was basically (in her own words): “I don’t have a problem with non-traditional. I have a problem with the deliberate severing of kinship ties….”

          If you are going to make a case against gay parents because they don’t fit into your religious views of how you personally feel a family should look like, say so. But from the letter you wrote about your lesbian parents, you said the only problem you had was the fact your father was not involved. If this is the case, there are alternative family structures that promote male and female parent inclusiveness, and if you were serious about how “I am not saying that being same-sex attracted makes one incapable of parenting. My mother was an exceptional parent, and much of what I do well as a mother is a reflection of how she loved and nurtured me. This is about the missing parent.” then you wouldn’t have a problem with these type of family structures. Right?

        • As a response to your critiques about my response to Katie, there is nothing childish about divorcing or leaving your spouse or romantic partner. In many cases, it’s justifiable. You have no idea what the father was going through, when he decided to commit to his wife. You have no idea what were the social implications if he didn’t decide to choose a heterosexual lifestyle, with a wife and children. His parents could have been a lot like my grandparents, intolerant, and religious. He could have been facing a life of total rejection and isolation if he had gone with his partner, and not had married Katie’s mom. And Katie herself, would have not been born. Everyone’s life should not revolve around the child, just as everyone’s life shouldn’t revolve around the parents. We should be able to met in the middle and learn how to love and embrace one another, try to put ourselves in each others shoes, and not think about what we want all the time. I’m the child of a divorce, yes, separations hurt, but I would rather my mom be happy, than live in a life where her husband was calling her fat, ugly, lazy and useless every day. I’m sure Katie’s dad loves her, and probably wanted to be in her life. He was probably betting that even if everyone else hated him, at least his little girl would accept him for who he was. And what was Katie’s response? Of course, I could be totally wrong, and Katie’s dad could be a selfish monster who did nothing but self-indulge and sleep around.

          And when saying that “It would have been the same if he were with another woman”, are you indeed saying that parents aren’t allowed to divorce their spouses?

          It bewilders me how you, again, of all people, who claimed you loved your lesbian mother and her partner, and was thankful of their involvement in their life, can defend Katie for rejecting her father for his gayness. It doesn’t seem right.

        • I don’t think that the adult should act like a child, or that the child needs to change to the father’s “preference” as you say. (Orientation I would say.) That is not what I said. But, just like I am sure a lot of kids have alienating, awkward, or even hostile relationships with their parent’s opposite sex spouses, kids with gay parents will probably have similarly alienating, awkward, or hostile relationships with gay step parents, especially if the kid feels like the gay parent’s gayness broke up the relationship. I have had mostly horrible relationships with all of my past and current step parents (and evil step mothers) and neither of my parents are gay. But that certainly doesn’t mean my mom should have stayed with my dad and let us grow up watching him beat the crap out of her. I also don’t agree with everything my parents have done regarding new people in our lives. But I am not looking to outlaw straight marriage, divorce, or remarriage. I think my mom always wanted to best for us, but, in general, people do not want to be alone. So there will always be remarriage. I can understand resenting one’s parent’s partner/spouse/whatever. No matter how many anecdotes there are against gay marriage for these reasons, there is a reason the studies show that kids raised with gay parents are just fine. At least compared to kids raised by straight parents. And as many kids unhappily raised by gay parents “come out” and complain about how horrible it is, more and more of us are realizing that we know gay people and we will likely judge the situation on our gay neighbor, or uncle, or friends. Not on some blogger who is making a political issue out of her sad upbringing. Again, I just think it is odd that you make an issue out of your mom’s “lifestyle” rather than your dad’s “lifestyle.” I think your dad’s lifestyle of making a kid and then not sticking around to raise it is the real issue. You say you suffered a longing for a dad. I understand that. I wished I had a good, decent dad. But I didn’t. My biggest regret is that I sometimes, as a young and sometimes difficult child, I made my mom suffer because she was the parent that was actually there! How unfair is that? Was she perfect? No, she wasn’t. I sometimes felt she put her husband’s needs in front of mine, and I hated him for that. But she was the parent that stuck around and did the hard work of being a day to day parent and I appreciate that now. I guess my point is that most all kids have some kind of angst, or reason to feel like we missed out on something. I missed out on that picture perfect nuclear family too. But now I am a grown up with a family of my own and I have moved on. I hope you can too. But it seems clear to me, in my opinion, that you just have an issue with gay people raising kids, so I doubt anything I say will change your mind. So good luck, and a have a great life.

          • The kids are not “just fine” the flood gate has just opened. The studies have been dismissed because they failed the criteria for design and they are worthless–they were done for political reasons. When adult children of LBGT are comming forward and saying no no no. I suggest you listen and quit trying to deflect. There is no saving it. LBGT “parents” are deprive children of something children need and that is not “good parenting” not by a long shot.

        • Oh sorry, in my previous comment I said something about you resenting your father for abandoning you. I think that was a different person I was thinking of on an essay I read from your site, or that you mentioned. I just reread some of your “about the bigot” thingy, and you mention being close to both of your parents and your mom’s partner. But that your parent’s divorce was hard on you. So it sounds like you are mostly more against divorce. Anyway, sorry about the misunderstanding.

      • But you don’t hope to see Candy and me around more often? You just want to see people that agree with you? I thought it was only the liberals that do that : )

        • Easy there, JoAnna. Your not the first person to come to the blog with a disagreement with Askme, and she’s more than willing to hear you out and has been nothing but respectful in her replies. And, she’s not online nearly as much as she used to be, so give her time to reply. If it helps, I’m looking forward to hear more from you. While you seem to disagree on a few points, you’re doing a solid job at maintaining a respectful tone.

          • Thank you Stalwart Sam, I am glad that you think I am maintaining a respectful tone. It is so hard to make sure that one’s tone is coming off correctly in the written word. I definitely don’t want to disrespect anyone. I honestly do want to understand where people with other viewpoints are coming from. I just thought it was humorous that Askme specifically “invited” someone with the same opinion and a similar background to keep engaging. After all, the Bible asks us as Christians (and, yes, I am a Christ follower) to love our enemies. (To be clear, I don’t see Askme as my enemy, I just mean that we are coming from different sides of this particular issue.) As the Bible says, “”For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?…” (Matthew 5:46-47.) I realize that in Askme’s mind, she is doing that, by loving gay people even though she doesn’t think they should have the right to marry or raise kids. But really, as I mentioned, I am Christian, and her stance is actually not really all that unusual. Granted, most have not been raised by gay parents, but when I have had this discussion with Christians, 9 times out of 10 they say that they have gay friends and/or family, they love gay people, etc. Anyway, that is just my 2 cents, for what it is worth.

  7. Thank you so much for the article. The comments about selfish gay parents resonates with my experience. My wife stated she was lesbian and started multiple affairs with women. There was no thought of our kids and no apologies for any of her hurtful behaviors.

    This behavior is consistently reported in the forum I go to for other spouses left by gay ex. Parenting is an afterthought in most cases, the lifestyle takes precedent over all.

    • OW! I’m so sorry that you and others have gone through that. It’s a bit scary that orientation is being used to justify infidelity and abandonment these days. I’m curious about this forum you mentioned, would you mind sharing the name with me? If you don’t want to that’s fine, since I haven’t lived through that mess of hurt.

        • Found it. Scariest story in there was the one where the counselor, who was supposed to be helping the man’s wife deal with childhood trauma, convinced her that she was gay and to simply quit her effort on their marriage. What do we do when the experts turn against fidelity?

  8. Katy,
    I loved the PD article, and will surely be recommending to people whenever possible. The beauty and power of it is that your love for your mom is palpable, even though this is now supposed to be an impossibility – that one could love gay people yet not be in favor of redefining marriage.

    Would you mind answering a question? (Or else point me to a post where you’ve already answered it.)
    You have no animus against gays. I gather that you’re not interested in criminalizing gay “marriage”, or preventing gay couples from committing to each other and raising children (as they are currently free to do in every state in America.)
    So here’s the question: What is your ultimate aim with regard to “marriage equality”? (How would you like to see this all shake out. You know…in a way that would make everyone happy?)

    Thanks for having the courage to be vulnerable. I’m following you. I love you. You make me all warm and shiny inside.

  9. Your entire argument is a non-sequitur.

    In our country, you don’t need to be married to have a child. You don’t need to be married to conceive a child, adopt a child, or have artificial insemination. You provide no evidence to support the idea that banning same-sex marriage discourages gay couples from having children OR that extending marriage rights to gay couples incentivizes them to have children. The legal benefits of marriage extended by our government are not dependent on whether a couple has a child. Thus, a marriage license does not automatically promote child rearing, regardless of whether you think it should.

    You’re entire argument is semantics, the idea that gay couples, with or without children, shouldn’t be able to hold the same legal title as your family. It’s just petty and spiteful.

    • A non-sequitur? As opposed to your ad hominem–Gay couples can never conceive a child so their “families” are always predatory, poaching on women and children and mostly minorities and the poor. In fact LBGT demands the legal right to commit human rights violations. No other group in the western world demands that. And you are wrong other legal benefits of marriage are indeed only extended to married with children. But LBGT demand children as a right. How many people does it take to keep a “gay marriage” going–2, 4, 5 –That is no longer between just two people. Many of us, adult children of LBGT would have been down with “just two people” but LBGT demands other live humans. No and NO and No. I personally do not care about “traditional marriage”you guys poked a hornets nest. Did any of you not imagine we would be speaking out.

      • “How many people does it take to keep a “gay marriage” going–2, 4, 5 –That is no longer between just two people.”

        How many people does it take to keep a “opposite-sex marriage” going–2, 4, 5?
        If an opposite-sex couple gets divorced, and each person gets remarried, the child now has 4 parents. Two biological parents and two step-parents. So now it’s not just between two people… or am I missing something? Why aren’t you up in arms about those children being raised by 4 parents? Does the word hypocrite ring a bell?

        “Gay couples can never conceive a child so their “families” are always predatory.”
        Infertile straight couples that adopt children are also “predatory” based on your ideology.
        Considering that most gay couples adopt children that don’t have ANY parents, your opinions are wholly offensive and reek of anti-gay hatred.

    • @Erik Miller

      If I may interject, you misunderstand the argument from procreation and thusly are culpable of few fallacies of your own. You mistake our position as claiming that procreation is extrinsically related to marriage when we claim it is intrinsically related to marriage, which also has been the majority held view for literally millennia. From the legal philosophers like Robert George, Sherif Girgis and Ryan Anderson who make the a similar argument, they’ve never claimed that procreation must occur for a relationship to qualify as a marriage. Whether conception, pregnancy and birth occurs is besides the point. The contention is that it is impossible, by its nature, for a same-sex relationship to procreate. Categorically, same-sex relationships can’t procreate. Categorically, opposite-sex relationships can and often do so. When opposite-sex couples don’t procreate, it’s what philosophers call accidental. When same-sex couples don’t procreate, which happens in every single case, it’s what philosophers call essential.

      “So what?” you probably will reply, finding this distinction arbitrary. Well, the push for the same-sex marriage assumes that a gay person is equal to a straight person. For most of us “bigots,” we agree fully. However, marriage is not defined in terms of a singular individual. A marriage references a type of relationship. Therefore, the questions is whether same-sex relationships are the same type of relationship as opposite sex relationships. As the above reasoning shows, there is a critical distinction, not mere “semantics,” between them, which provides a basis for what you would call “discriminatory,” which in actuality is treating two different things differently. It also is the foundation of all rational governance in many areas outside of familial public policy.

      You also assume that “extending rights marriage rights to gay couples does not incentivize them to have a children.” I strongly disagree, as redefining marriage to be a completely non-procreative relationship makes motherhood and fatherhood superfluous in the eyes of law, public policy and increasingly culture. There is a reason why government is in the marriage business in the first place, and contrary to the false narrative put forth by media about non-existent bans, it’s not to keep the LGBTQ community down. It’s to promote and regulate the type of relationship that provides the state’s future citizens. Marriage as defined as a non-procreative institution surely enables the expansion of artificial reproductive technologies and adoption as acceptable and morally/qualitatively no different than the traditional means of a man and woman in domestic coitus. The state still needs citizens, after all. Of course, you’ll likely refer to all the children who don’t live with their mother and father, but are these not deviations from the ideal? Why, as a society, should we should double-down and normalize the non-optimal is beyond me.

      See, our opposition is not based against gay people being innately attractive to people of the same sex. It’s entrenched in the free expression of that orientation (yes, everyone, regardless the content of their own proclivities, enters into a relationship, and the sum of one’s sexual acts are not identical to the person who engages in them) as a basis to make mothers and fathers optional in the view of the government.

      • “I strongly disagree, as redefining marriage to be a completely non-procreative relationship makes motherhood and fatherhood superfluous in the eyes of law, public policy and increasingly culture.”

        Perhaps you can explain why allowing infertile couples, elderly couples, and those that don’t want children to be able to marry doesn’t make motherhood and fatherhood superfluous in the eyes of the law, etc. If 93-year old Betty White were to get married again, how exactly does that promote the ideals of motherhood when she is never going to be a mother? Of course you already said that procreation doesn’t have to occur for a relationship to qualify as a marriage. So how can marriage be all about “the state’s future citizens” when married couples don’t even have to procreate? You really seem to be promoting some kind of convoluted double-talk that enables you to argue that marriage is all about motherhood and fatherhood… except when it’s not (because you don’t have to procreate to be married)… but then the state is only interested in procreative relationships… except when they’re not (because they allow all sorts of non-procreative straight couples to marry).

        There is not a “critical distinction” between a non-procreative straight couple and a non-procreative gay couple. The only possible difference is how they experience intimacy. Are you really going to argue that the only reason that Rush Limbaugh has been allowed to have four non-procreative marriages is because he has been having sex that has the stamp of approval from the state? Why does the state care about who he goes to bed with — since that seems to be the only reason remaining as to why he’s able to get married. Unless you care to explain how having ZERO children in four different marriages has helped promote “the state’s future citizens”.

        “Why, as a society, should we should double-down and normalize the non-optimal is beyond me.”

        We already have normalized the non-optimal. That’s why every type of non-procreative straight relationship is still permitted to marry. When mass-murderer Charles Manson has the fundamental right to get married,
        one has to wonder how people like you have the audacity to claim that same-sex couples are unworthy of having that same right.

        • @David

          Those are all good questions. Given your wording within your comment, I think you’re approaching the entire issue incorrectly, so I’m going to attempt to untangle everything in your comment systematically. Marriage is a form of human association. Is it not? It’s a relationship between individuals, correct? It’s also true that not all types of relationships, even amicable ones like friendship based on mutual goodwill, are not marriages. The relationship between college roommates is clearly not a marriage and could never be classified as a one. Therefore, I think it’s obvious that certain types of human association or relationships are not marriages; i.e., marriage is defined as a type of relationship.

          With the marriage debate, we have two types of relationships: same-sex romantic relationships and opposite-sex romantic relationships. Please take notice of the word type. We are comparing types, forms, sets, classes, categories, species or whatever synonym you choose. I will use type from here on out.

          Importantly, type refers to the comprehensive whole. So your appeals to Betty White, Rush Limbaugh and Charles Manson, among other reasons, are fundamentally not applicable to the question at hand between relationship types: same-sex romantic relationships vs. opposite-sex romantic relationships. It’s what’s known as a category error, or for the sake of simplicity, comparing apples with oranges. White’s age, Limbaugh’s failure to be in one stable marriage that produces children and Manson’s psychopathy are all irrelevant. They, along, with an individual’s fertility, race, religion, sex and yes, sexual orientation are not pertinent. We’re concerned with types of relationships, not the properties of a person, who may or may not be in a relationship. It takes at least two persons to form any human association or relationship after all. Your examples of White, Limbaugh and Manson are not even an instance of a type, member of a class, genus of a species or what have you but merely a part of one.

          This brings me to the second category error you make when you reference “infertile couples, elderly couples, and those that don’t want children.” They are examples of instances within a type, but they’re use here is also what’s known as a fallacy of composition. What’s true of the parts is not necessarily true of the whole. These are exceptions to the rule, not the rule themselves, which is opposite-sex romantic relationships, as a comprehensive type, are naturally procreative. They are apt to produce children through sexual relations, even though it might not occur in every case. It’s likely that opposite-sex romantic relationships procreate.

          On the other hand, same-sex relationships, as a comprehensive type, are not apt to produce children through sexual relations. It’s impossible that same-sex relationships procreate. They are essentially and categorically infertile, while opposite-sex relationships can be said to be naturally fertile or incidentally infertile at worst.

          This is a critical distinction and justifies a difference in treatment, given that the only plausible reason that the state is involved with marriage is to promote and regulate the type of relationships that creates and socializes its citizens in the first place. It’s interested in its own perpetuation, not in emotional love, no matter how sincere or intense.

          Therefore, recognizing “same-sex marriage” diminishes motherhood and fatherhood. Mothers and fathers become superfluous. Any same-sex couple going to India, renting out a woman’s womb to buy the child nine months later is viewed in law as qualitatively and morally no different than the opposite-sex couple who produces a child the old fashioned way. In fact, the state would incentivize the commoditization of children to be deliberately deprived of at least one biological parent for purchase as if they’re human chattel. That’s hardly progressive or enlightened, and what I mean by normalizing the sub-optimal at best (adoption, surrogacy, step-families, etc.), if not legitimizing the real possibility for institutionalized human rights violations not seen in the United States since the Jim Crow or Antebellum-eras at worst. If a pop culture icon like Katy Perry says basically she’ll make a kid because she wants one and can, we’re on the precipice of embracing an Aldous Huxley-like “Brave New World.”

          Among other reasons rooted in political philosophy, the above is the source for my “audacity” that you unfortunately mistake for animus. Gay people should have access to their partners’ life insurance and what not that civil unions or tax code reforms can help remedy. They’re more than worthy to marry and have been actually always encouraged to do so, according to my position. Many just refuse to enter into the requisite type of relationship that can be called marriage by their own volition. You just think they’re not permitted due to their individualized sexual orientation — which if you recall is not related to the fundamental issue — because you have been influenced by a false narrative pushed by a disingenuous LGBTQ lobby and a corrupt and inept news media that harps on about non-existent state constitutional “bans” and highly exaggerated comparisons to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

          • “This is a critical distinction and justifies a difference in treatment, given that the only plausible reason that the state is involved with marriage is to promote and regulate the type of relationships that creates and socializes its citizens in the first place. It’s interested in its own perpetuation, not in emotional love, no matter how sincere or intense.”

            Here are 15 plausible reasons why marriage is important for all citizens — including same-sex couples:
            Notice how only 2 of those reasons have to do with children. Marriage is a social construct that goes way beyond simple procreation. If you were to ask 100 married straight couples what the meaning of marriage is, I doubt that any of them would say “The perpetuation of mankind; and that marriage has nothing to do with love or commitment.” Your response sounds more like a clinical scientific answer as a means to justify discrimination against gay citizens, rather than what marriage actually is to those who marry. Suffice to say, the two 18-year olds that get married by an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas aren’t doing that to help the state with its’ “perpetuation” issue. Why opposite-sex couples get married is none of the state’s business. The same rationale applies to same-sex couples.

            Obviously, marriage is more than simply the repopulation of the species:

            I thought this quote said it best:
            “What defines a marriage is love and commitment, and the ability to protect your family. The choice to have children belongs to the couple, not the state.”
            Which I found here:

            The state should be interested in the welfare of all children. Not just those children that are being raised by their biological parents. Same-sex couples ARE raising children, so the state should have a vested interested in those families via “marriage”, which is the best way to protect, promote and regulate relationships and families.

            “Many just refuse to enter into the requisite type of relationship that can be called marriage by their own volition.”

            A wholly offensive idea that sounds very familiar. Fifty years ago: “Black people can simply marry someone of the same race like everyone else. So no one is actually being discriminated against because they just refuse to enter into the requisite type of relationship that can be called marriage.”
            Why you would promote the idea that gay people marrying straight people would be beneficial in ANY possible way is quite dumbfounding.

            “Gay people should have access to their partners’ life insurance and what not that civil unions or tax code reforms can help remedy.”

            Isn’t that nice of you. Since there is no rational basis why gay citizens shouldn’t be able to marry each other (including your convoluted repopulation of the species meme), I think I’ll take a pass on your crumbs. 40+ state and federal judges have all concluded that whatever arguments states have put forth to defend “traditional” marriage amendments are “so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously” – Judge Posner.

            “…because you have been influenced by a false narrative pushed by a disingenuous LGBTQ lobby and a corrupt and inept news media that harps on about non-existent state constitutional “bans”…”

            So all 30+ state constitutional amendments that literally prevented gay couples from being able to marry each other are non-existent? Oh, okay.

            “Any same-sex couple going to India, renting out a woman’s womb to buy the child nine months later is viewed in law as qualitatively and morally no different than the opposite-sex couple who produces a child the old fashioned way.”

            Why are you applying this scenario to only same-sex couples? So if I find out that opposite-sex couples are paying women in India to give birth their offspring THEN all opposite-sex couples shouldn’t be able to marry too? The “commoditization of children” is not the central issue when it comes to who can and can’t marry.

          • David has used every logical fallacy. The bottom line is that same sex, sex will never reproduce and because of that it will never matter too much in the big picture. They want the fact that they “feel” to be as socially important as how heterosexual feel. Which given the reality that one produces life and the other doesn’t is a bit of a stretch. He does not see that the point is reproduction–to continue the species, the human race. Nobody cares how he feels or cares who he loves–They can’t stand that they can’t garner “respect” so they are going to pretend and role play that they really are “just the same” In order to avoid the realization and keep the charade up, they have to poach from others–Gay marriage and family is predatory because it seeks to lay claim to children and women’s bodies.

            The reality is that they are everything they say they are not. LBGT family is based on structural injustice. These men are racists preying on minorities, they are classists because they go after the poor and they are misogynistic because they expect to be provided with wombs and human infants. These characteristics are not “progressive.” They are currently perpetrating the worst human rights violations in the west. That is what LBGT is about the sale of humans, reproductive slavery and trampling the basic human rights of women and children. That is what the world is seeing. They can scream bigot and howl discrimination but India, Thailand, China and 15 African countries do not care. They slammed the door shut and no LBGT envoy is getting it open (he’ll be gone with Obama). Now, They will start to prey on poor women here. Didn’t you know that David and his ilk of rich white men are just like a black man in 1940 Alabama–that’s unfair of me, I am sure David makes a better Appletini–shaked not stirred,

          • Spareme,

            While I agree that David does not hold himself to a high standard of intellectual discourse, we are here to promote healthy conversation, and you’ve gone too far when you say that David has committed every logical fallacy.

            The key word of this blog is tolerance. Actual tolerance, not the popular missile being thrown around these days. Yes, the LGBT community/agenda or what-have-you has made mistakes and encouraged poor behavior and thinking. But it is unfair to classify them as the worst abusers of human rights. It is unfair to deem an entire community as racists, classists, and misogynistic. The last one especially makes little sense considering the L in LGBT.

          • Spareme,

            You don’t have to be married in order to “rent out a woman’s womb”, so I’m not sure how this relates to marriage. I’m also not sure why this issue solely pertains to gay couples. Infertile straight couples aren’t doing the exact same thing? If there is an issue with the “commoditization of children” then target the countries that allow the practice. But don’t try to use that as an excuse to deny law-abiding taxpaying citizens equality under the law.

            The idea that people only feel “socially important” if they can procreate is a bizarre ideology. Is that the only way people contribute to society? Hardly. You also happen to be denigrating infertile straight couples while trying to “other” gays. They’re in the exact same situation. But I don’t hear you saying that they shouldn’t be able to marry. I have a number of straight friends that are married and childless by design. I guess they don’t realize how utterly worthless they are to society because they aren’t repopulating the species. Straight couples aren’t obligated to procreate just because you personally think that’s what married couples are suppose to do. You do not have the right to control other people’s lives — that includes gay people as well. Again, your worldview is so narrow it really can’t be taken seriously.

            And your gay stereotyping regarding “David and his ilk of rich white men” and the “Appletini” speaks volumes about you. Of course that makes it all the easier to demonize people when you stereotype them, doesn’t it?

  10. You do not love gay people. You love some people despite their being gay.

    You’re a soldier in the culture wars. I hope the money is worth it.

  11. OMG, I just noticed you’re a Witherspooner. So I know the money is worth it.

    You’re not a bigot, you’re a professional bigot.

    • What is a Witherspooner? I googled it and couldn’t figure it out. Mostly just Reese Witherspoon came up.

      • He’s referring to the Public Discourse online journal at the Witherspoon Institute. Askme recently had an article done there, which is why the blog has seen a lot more traffic lately. That and other public appearances.

        Though, Bob, can you define the term ‘bigot’ for me, please?

  12. Hi. It seems to me that your argument is against gay parenting, not gay marriage. And actually I guess you’re really against parenting by people other than the child’s biological parents. That’s fine so long as you’re consistent: do those same principles apply to straight couples? How far does this preference to the natural parents extend? Also, don’t draw unrelated conclusions, such as saying that allowing gay marriage necessarily forces children to be raised by people other than their bio parents. Again, “allowing” surrogacy or other methods is a result of our other laws and rulings; they don’t flow out of our definition of marriage. If our laws are going to allow kids to be created by a parent who may be gay, would you rather that child’s parents be married (with all the protections that provides) or unmarried?

    It seems to me there’s a hierarchy of preferred ways to raise kids. Probably the best is being raised by their natural bio parents, in a loving household. But not every child is in that situation, unfortunately. I’d rather have a kid be raised by a loving and supportive gay couple than by abusive natural parents.

    Indeed, it seems to me that kids being raised by gay parents are, as a *practical* matter, always better off than any alternative they had. If the child got placed with the gay parents via adoption, then presumably they’re better off because they had to be taken away from horrible parents in the first place. If the child was conceived via surrogacy, then their only alternative was not being conceived at all.


    • Agreed with all that you said up until the surrogacy, because it’s a inconsiderate way to bring a child into the world. Some people wouldn’t have been alive if it hadn’t been for rape and incest, are we going to promote rape and incest?

    • Surrogacy is reproductive slavery. Putting women that ovulate normally on super ovulation drugs is dangerous–very. It has lead to death. It is another human rights violation supported and pushed by LBGT.

  13. Just saw your blog after watching your interview on the YouTube show. Couldn’t help but visit your blog and comment here. If I understand it correctly, your beef is not really about gay marriage, it’s about IVF babies and broken homes. That’s why you really can’t reply to several commenters here (Kernster9999 and Erik Miller) who posed the right questions to you.

    You should stop conflating the 2 things (gays getting married and broken families). I find it odd, because you’re so articulate and sharp. But when you say “oh, I love gay people, it’s just that they can’t get married because children have rights”, your argument falls apart. Gays getting married has nothing to do with solving the real problem with broken homes. I know that. You know that. If your issue is that gays shouldn’t be allowed to adopt or have IVF babies, just be honest and say so. Own it. Come up with your arguments and engage in that specific debate. But you can’t really do it, right? That ship has sailed. So you should stop hiding behind the “I love my gay friends [as long as they don’t have the same rights]” smokescreen to conceal what’s really going on here.

    So, YES, I think we are getting to the bottomline for Ask The Bigot. You CLAIM you love your gay friends [as long as they don’t have the same rights], but when we dig deeper, we find the real Katy. You hide behind the broken families issue so you can preach against equal rights for a minority. Maybe you don’t “really” love gays, right, Katy? There’s something else going on, and it’s quite clear.

    So Katy, how about gay couples who don’t want to have children — like your mom and her partner? Do you think they are a real family or they just “friends”? I would imagine they are not having babies anymore or adopting, so tell me again why they shouldn’t be allowed to make medical decisions for one another, or why they can’t leave their Social Security to the other when one dies, or why they can’t pay less taxes, just like YOU AND YOUR STRAIGHT HUSBAND.

    Oh, and please, don’t give me the old “well, Congress could simply pass a law to fix these issues”. What a great idea! For straight people, all these benefits and responsibilities come automatically, but for these OTHER PEOPLE (the ones you “love”), we’d have to pass piecemeal legislation.

    I haven’t read all of your blog, so I wonder if you do concede that gays should have the same rights or not. I’m very curious about it. If you do, then your arguments against marriage equality don’t make sense. If you don’t, then we can finally agree that the title of your blog is perfect.

    One thing I did like about your interview is that you don’t like how the anti-gay “Christians” (a la Tony Perkins and Bryan Fischer) give Christians a bad name. Good on you! Please go after them any time you can, it really helps exposing them for what they are.

    My email address is real, btw. I created it just to engage with your blog, if you’d like to 🙂

    • To KatyLovesHerGayMomAsLongAs…,

      I’m also new to Katy’s blog, but based on the few pieces I’ve read, I think you’re misrepresenting her viewpoint. She is obviously capable of speaking for herself, but until she can find time to answer, here’s my take, and we will see which, if either of us, is understanding her. (Plus, I have a question for you.)

      I think this is about the role of the federal government in recognizing marriage. Why should the federal government have any interest in being involved one way or the other in peoples’ private romantic relationships? It’s because the gov has an interest in seeing children grow up to be productive, contributing citizens, rather than a drain on the gov’s resources. My understanding is that it’s well established that children raised by their married biological parents tend to grow up to be less of a drain on the system. If huge numbers of hetero people make babies but then don’t stay together to raise them, we all pay for it. So it’s in the gov’s interest to encourage and “reward” heterosexual marriage.

      Since gay sex is not procreative, why should the government care whether gay couples make lifelong monogamous commitments? Gay people are free, right now, in every state, to make a lifelong commitment to whomever they want, and to raise kids together. Sounds to me like Katy’s not opposed to that, she just doesn’t think the gov should incentivise it since by definition every gay couple will lack at least one biological parent. I think Katy’s point in her PD letter is well taken, that this issue should be about the well-being of children. It’s not her fault that marriage is a heterosexual institution often having to do with procreation. It’s not about the ability of gays to be great parents.

      Government equals force. If the government redefines marriage it will then have to force everyone else to comply with their new, made up definition. Bad idea. We are already seeing the results of this.

      Which leads to my question for you. If you answer it rationally, you’ll be the first:

      Are you for marriage equality for everyone, or just for gays only?
      Please give me the reasoning that would allow gays the right to marry, but would prevent 2 consenting, adult, loving, biological sisters from marrying. Who are you to say that adult siblings, or adult parents and children can’t marry?

      I’m willing to be convinced, but I need an answer. Obliterating the incest taboo will also be bad for children, especially girls.


    • Marriage is not a right, KLHGMALATDHSR, it is a privelage.

      Are you still trying to figure out how to respond to ‘Arts’ excellent question?

      I’d like the government to support my ‘marriage’ to my dog (whom I ‘love’), and then criminalize anyone who doesn’t expressly support that marriage in the public square. I apparently have a ‘right’, bestowed by the government du jour, to make such a demand. I apparently also have the right to demand that society accept and fund such loving relationship. How could my marriage to my dog possibly adversely affect anyone else’s marriage?

      I’m off now to find a commitment ring that will fit my beloved’s paw-

  14. Let’s leave aside my personal beliefs for a second. I’ll even ignore all the slights you made against the queer community given that you “unequivocally” support them living their life as they choose and you don’t think they’re less “valued.”

    I wonder how you can say what you said after having adopted a child from China. Your “open letter” does nothing but demonize every single parent who has ever adopted a child. Do you feel that your child is less traumatized because you’ve married someone of the opposite sex?

    You say: “Each child is conceived by a mother and a father to whom that child has a natural right.” Does your child not have a natural right to his/her mother or father because you’re heterosexual?

    You say: “What is your experience with children who have divorced parents, or are the offspring of third-party reproduction, or the victims of abandonment? Do they not care about their missing parent? Do those children claim to have never had a sleepless night wondering why their parents left, what they look like, or if they love their child? Of course not. We are made to know, and be known by, both of our parents. When one is absent, that absence leaves a lifelong gaping wound.”

    Are you more capable of closing that “lifelong gaping wound” because you’re heterosexual?

    You say: ” Every child raised by “two moms” or “two dads” came to that household via one of those four traumatic methods. Does being raised under the rainbow miraculously wipe away all the negative effects and pain surrounding the loss and daily deprivation of one or both parents?”

    Let’s just be very clear that the child in your household also came from one of those four traumatic methods. Let’s also be VERY CLEAR that being raised in your very rainbow-absent household will not miraculously wipe away all of the negative effects and pain surrounding the loss and daily deprivation of one or both parents.

    You say: “It will be our policy, stamped and sealed by the most powerful of governmental institutions, that these children will have their right to be known and loved by their mother and/or father stripped from them in every instance. In same-sex-headed households, the desires of the adults trump the rights of the child.”

    It is the government’s current policy that your child did not have the right to be known or loved by their mother and/or father because YOUR desires outweighed the rights of that child.

    Are you yet understanding how flawed your logic is? How absurdly flawed it is.

    You know when a child flourishes? When they’re loved. Your child might heal from his/her trauma because you and your husband provide them with love; let’s just note that in the circumstance under which you got your child (i.e. not through your own conception), a same-sex couple is capable of doing just as much as you.

    I hope you are a better parent to that child than you are a person. Good luck trying to get someone as intelligent as Justice Kennedy, whom I may not agree with but at least have respect for, getting to your truly daft argument.

  15. Apalled…..You just made a WHOLE lot of assumptions about AskMe and a whole lot of assumptions about ME, as I am also an adoptive mother. A few points:

    In an adoption, the child’s biological parents have chosen not to or are not able to raise their child. The adoptive couple is providing a second chance for that child to have a family. Not an as-good-as but a best-that-can-be-provided-under-the-circumstances family. I don’t imagine that my husband and I are the best family my son could have. The best family he could have had was for his biological father to remain and love his biological mother and him; to take equal part in loving, raising and molding him. That didn’t happen. As it turns out, my husband and I were given the privilege of raising him after his biological family was unable to do so. We make darn sure he has the best we have to offer, but we have never seen ourselves as a superior choice to his biological family. So don’t toss that accusation around so lightly. One of MY wounds, that you have so carelessly trod on, is that no matter how hard I do my best or how much I may wish it and pray for it, I will never be able to either heal or take on myself the wound of losing his biological parents for my son. If you knew AskMe, or had bothered to read any other of her posts, you would know she believes her son had the right to know his natural parents every bit as much as her own biological children know her. If you knew her, or took the time to find out who you were berating, you would know that she would tell you that no, she cannot close his “gaping lifelong wound”….no one can. The blow has been dealt and it will always remain, even if by some miracle the adopted child’s biological parents took them back, even they would not be able to close the wound they themselves had caused.

    You ask “is an adopted child less traumatized because you married someone of the opposite sex”? Well, let’s think about it. The child placed for adoption at birth has suffered a terrible wound from the loss of the biological parent who has nurtured and cared for them throughout their existence to date. It is her rhythyms, her smell, the sound of her voice and the workings of her body with which that child is intimately familiar. No adoptive or foster parent taking that child at birth, not matter how well intentioned, will feel “right” to the newborn and this will cause terrible stress for the newborn. If the child is placed in foster care, there is another wrench when a permanent placement is found. If the child has known the parent growing up but is removed from the parents’ care or placed as an older child the wrench will be not only deeper but will involve an inescapable element of “I caused this”. No amount of “No, love, you most certainly did NOT cause this” will change that instinctive feeling of guilt. So, our theoretical adoptive child has gone through at least one life trauma significant to cause both reversible and irreversible brain change at the neurological level. Heavy stuff. No matter where this child is placed, no matter how wealthy or well-connected the family is, no matter how much they love that child, they cannot change this. Placing that child with a heterosexual couple will NOT change that trauma. But it WILL give them the best that they can graft onto. To place them in a single parent household or a homosexual household deals yet an additional wound, living without a female or male parent. Is living with a single parent or within a homosexual household better than life on the streets? Better than death? Better than live in an institution? Yes. It is. But it is also better to be placed with a neglectful or uncaring family than to die or to be left to rot in an orphanage. Should we start placing adopted children in those households? Or should we continue to advocate for best possible placement?

    You write “Let’s just be very clear that the child in your household also came from one of those four traumatic methods. Let’s also be VERY CLEAR that being raised in your very rainbow-absent household will not miraculously wipe away all of the negative effects and pain surrounding the loss and daily deprivation of one or both parents.”

    Taking care of a child AFTER they have been abandoned by their biological parents is COMPLETELY different than CAUSING a child to suffer the loss of one or both parents. That counts for gay households that adopt abandoned children too. I don’t believe it is the ideal setting for children, but I also understand that the world isn’t perfect and it’s better for children to be raised with loving, stable homosexual parents if similarly loving, stable heterosexual parents aren’t available. However, to conceive a child with an opposite sex partner and then depriving that child of that parent or to pay a surrogate and then deprive that child of it’s biological mother is to INTEND to deprive that child, right from the beginning. It is being RESPONSIBLE for the wound, not simply trying to care for it as best as possible once it occurs.

    You write “It is the government’s current policy that your child did not have the right to be known or loved by their mother and/or father because YOUR desires outweighed the rights of that child.”

    That is not true. An internationally adopted child is NOT prevented by our government from seeking out their biological parents. A child adopted within the United States is almost never banned by the government/courts from knowing who their biological mother and father are. Closed adoptions are generally only approved if a. the BIOLOGICAL parent requests it or b. the parent is detrimental to the child to the degree that even supervised state visits are not appropriate….usually in the case of extreme, extreme mental, verbal, physical or sexual abuse.

    You write “Are you yet understanding how flawed your logic is? How absurdly flawed it is.”

    Do you realize how ironic your statement is? Are you “more correct” than AskMe for being intolerant of those you deem to be …wait for it…intolerant? What a vicious cycle!

    The idea that love is all you need to effectively parent is as flawed as the idea that love is all you need for a good marriage. It is certainly a necessary component, but it is not a self-sufficient component.

    You write “I hope you are a better parent to that child than you are a person”.

    What a nasty, deliberately hurtful and petty remark obviously designed to make someone feel horrible about themselves and to make yourself look like you really “gave it to her”. Unfortunately for you, I’m pretty sure AskMe is very used to people who can’t make a counter-argument without turning it into an ad-hominem attack.

    Have you ever considered showing AskMe the same amount of respect (NOT the same as agreement) that she shows to those who post on her blog? Would that somehow make you weak or your argument less effective? Do you really need to deliberately be nasty like that?

  16. This may be a revelation for some of the most radicalized activist-minded here, but, it isn’t the Christian God that eliminated you from the breeding pool, and, thereby, determined your fitness to raise progeny, but it’s nature- as expressed via evolutionary processes. Since homosexuals are evolutionary ‘dead-enders’ may they similarly claim that nature is simply bigoted, as well? Of course not. Accept your evolutionary role- which is not to breed and, subsequently, naturally- not to raise children. It is not who you were meant to be in this evolutionary drama.

    Man (sperm) plus Woman (egg) = Child (zygote) – no matter how many different ways man interferes in that natural process- it will never change.

    One only need observe nature to determine these truths.

  17. david,
    I do not think people should procreate or not. I don’t have to. You miss the reality that the drive toward procreation is a major force in the world even if you find it “bizarre” it is powerful and of mythical proportions within the human psyche. It is what the world is based on and what the future is based on. Relationships that do not have that possibility are not as compelling and society has little interest in them. Contributing to society is not the same as having a steak in the future. Paying taxes is what most people do it does not mean society owes you other humans—. Do you imagine that people are not going to notice. And the bottom line is children have the right to a mother and a father—adults do not have any rights to children. As more people learn and understand what exactly goes into the making of the Gay family it will be seen as socially and ethical repugnant as slavery. Europe is there already and so are 15 countries that just last year were the main centers of reproductive slavery.

    Taking other peoples children and using poor and minority women’s bodies is not equality. How many people from outside the so called “gay family” are needed to create the gay family–2 or 3? Society does not owe the gay male couple other people so they can feel happy. No other couple in has ever demanded that. The gay family is predatory and uses other people, primarily poor minority women. People with even the smallest social justice awareness see that so I have no need to demonize you. The actions speak volumes— So save your superficial deflections, “what about straight couples.” The fact is that 100% of Gay couples can not reproduce and only a small percent of straights can’t. In fact it is the only group that asserts they are owed live humans since the slave owners. Equality? Who are you kidding. Shocking right. Well no it isn’t. I never said that it only pertains to Gay men. But Gay men are the main buyers of babies and the ones who have used more women as reproductive slaves than any other group—that is a fact. Why do you think medical professionals in the 3rd world sounded the alarm along with feminists and the UN.

    • First of all, we don’t based our laws on what is “powerful and of mythical proportions within the human psyche”. Whatever etherial concept you have of marriage has nothing to do with secular laws. City hall couldn’t care less about the human psyche of opposite-sex couples. The couple fills out a marriage application, pays the $65, and in a few weeks they get their marriage license in the mail. The drive toward procreation has nothing to do with that.

      “Relationships that do not have that possibility are not as compelling and society has little interest in them.”
      Yet, we as a society, have no problem letting all types of non-procreative straight couples get married every single day. Weird, huh? Must be a total coincidence that they have the state-approved genitalia. Not sure why that would be “compelling” to the state or government. Since that seems to be the only thing that qualifies them for marriage. Suffice to say, there is literally no “possibility” that Betty White is going to procreate, even if she wanted to — and who she has sex with shouldn’t be of interest to the state. Just because she happens to belong to the group called “heterosexuals” is arbitrary. Fifty years ago, those wanting to get married had to belong to the group called “members of the same race”. That was equally arbitrary and discriminatory.

      No one “owes” people children. Like I said, if people are using woman against their will as “reproductive slaves” in other countries that’s inherently wrong. No one is going to argue otherwise. Whether an entire subset of the population should be denied the right to marry because a small fringe group is exploiting women is nonsensical. Every gay person in America is not responsible for the actions of a few.

      The vast majority of people adopt children that have been either abandoned by opposite-sex couples, or have had them removed by the state because the biological parents have been deemed unfit. There is nothing predatory about that — regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple that are adopting. There are over 100,000 children hoping to be adopted in our country. There are also women that voluntarily offer to give birth to children. Do they not have the right to use their bodies however they wish? And there are gay couples that already have children that resulted from failed straight relationships. The idea that gay people are unable to procreate is nonsense. Google “Megachurch Pastor Jim Swilley” for confirmation of that fact.

      • Dave, yes all the cliches–the bad mother, the junkie whore and the the social hero gays saving the children–right sure. I think as more and more of those children speak out the more people will have bigger questions. Bottom line, same sex couples can’t procreate as couples and when they have other peoples children it is only as predators–on other peoples back. Those kids grow up and are saying no. Given that, is society going to be willing to create a sub caste of women for rich gay men to exploit–maybe, maybe not? Wall Street signed on. Occupy takes on new meaning. So much for the thin social justice narrative. The fact that there is a group with money is the only reason this is even a discussion–it is the commodification of women and children that you try to dress up as some kind social good. Men are not infertile women and two men are not an infertile couple. Women do not have the right to sell children and men do not have the right to buy them. Women have the right to have a baby–that is an individual right and does not generalize to the for profit industry of the industrial uterus. I will state again, every child has the right a mother and a father. And adults do not have any right to children. Yeah you go ahead and argue that women have the right to use their bodies so men profit? You hear that woosh? That’s all your phony social justice leaving skid marks on the bottom of the bowl. By all means continue to argue all the reasons why society should provide you with live humans and women as breed animals. You just prove my point. Like I said who cares about marriage. Remember–two adults. Enjoy.

  18. Homosexual people, by definition, are unable to procreate (natural law) unless they are, however briefly or mechanicaly, involved a heterosexual interlude.

    What do homosexuals have against natural law or biology?

    Homosexuality is inherently selfish (biological term) in that is does not ever produce offspring.

    Marriage was not a naturally occurring social construct that only served to protect the human family, especially, the progeny of that heterosexual union; it was also a humane naturally-occurring construct to protect females. Females and males evolved to fit together, not only physically, but, emotionally. It didn’t and still doesn’t matter if that relationship is procreative, it’s a relationship that serves the full spectrum of biological needs of both sexes.

Comments are closed.