Search This Blog

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Election Day

I just got back from voting for Barack Obama. I couldn't wait to get to the polls this morning - it was the first thing I did. There were no long lines at my polling center, more due to good organization than lack of interest; it was busy and one of the staffers was announcing first-time voters - everybody clapped. They were also serving coffee and there were big bowls of candy - a little reward for doing one's civic duty.

On the way there I happened to listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. I have to say I am not much of a fan because all he does is rant and everything he says is predictable. A reasonable person, a thinking person, would have a few surprises up his sleeve once in awhile, because life is more complex than he seems to think it is.

On the other hand, for everything else on my ballot today, I voted like the right-wing extremist that I learned that I am. I didn't know that before, but when one stays home and answers the phone one finds that there are people who will call you and tell you such things.

For example, I voted for the proposition that says doctors have to tell the parents of a girl before giving her an abortion. I don't understand why this is even an issue. If my daughter wanted to get an in-grown toenail removed they wouldn't do that without my or her father's consent. Parents are responsible for their children until they are 18. Period.

I also voted for Proposition 8 because I am tired of people trying to make up be down and down be up. Marriage is one man and one woman - and is primarily there for providing a stable environment for having and raising children. Two people of the same sex cannot do this without some sort of twisted intervention by a third party. All men are created equal under the eyes of the law, not all couples. Nature or God or whatever made it that way.

Before you start squawking about gay and lesbian rights to this or that, ask yourself who gave them the right to decide that any child they might create doesn't get to have a mother or a father? At least one partner will not be the biological parent of the child, and while for some this may not be an issue, saying that such a situation is equal to a child being born with two parents who have a biological imperative to care for it is a load of horse apples. Not equal.

Finally, on the way home I stopped by the "Senior Living" facility to see whether anybody there needed a ride to vote. It was all locked up tight and after ringing the bell, the property management lady showed up at the door and looked at me as if I were crazy when I told her why I was there. She totally blew me off and told me "she can't let me in" - I didn't really want "in" so I just left my phone number with the message that any of the residents could call me for a ride. I felt kind of dumb and I am pretty sure she threw my number in the trash. I sure hope I don't wind up in a place like that.

So that was my morning, folks! Don't forget to vote - I don't care who ya vote for - just vote!

RH

On How Prop 8 Won't Affect Schools
  1. Sacramento Kindergarten Hosts Gay Day Without Advising Parents
  2. Revealed: 'Gay' Plans To Target 2-Year-Olds - 5Th-Grade Students Could Be Handed 'Coping With Sexual Orientation'
  3. Gay & Lesbian Studies in Kindergarten
  4. Teacher's Unions Exposed
  5. Teacher's Union Donates 1 Million to fight Prop 8
  6. You decide - OK to hand out in schools? Massachusetts thinks so
  7. Here is a course that teachers will get professional development credits for - i.e. taxpayers will have to pay them more money - Massachusetts state government employees are the instructors. To be honest, I am in shock. This is just flat out disgusting and everybody involved belongs in jail. I lived in San Francisco and have been to two of the gay parades. I rather enjoyed the colorful floats with dancers and disco music, made for a festive atmosphere. However, the parade ended at the civic center and the scene there made Fellini's Satyricon seem like an episode of Sesame Street - that, it seems, is what they feel is appropriate subject matter for children. If my kids were entering school these days, they would not set foot in a public school. It is borderline child abuse.

39 comments:

Mary said...

Sigh. I have to take issue with something:

"saying that such a situation is equal to a child being born with two parents who have a biological imperative to care for it is a load of horse apples. Not equal."

So many times a child is born of two people and one of those does not feel the "biological imperative" to care for it. Two parents who actually want to raise a child are better than one having to struggle to be both parents.

I agree that a child needs two parents, but I don't think it matters what sex they are, just that there's plenty of love to go around.

I don't want to sound confrontational, but you hit a very sore spot for me with that one.

Retro Housewife said...

I know this is a very touchy subject, and I expect some people to disagree with me. You are not being confrontational, you have a right to your opinion.

I agree that it is better for both adults to want to care for the child, and there are plenty of mothers and fathers who aren't up to the job for whatever reason.

But I do think the best situation is a mother and a father and that influences from both sexes are important. That is what I would want for myself, so I don't feel right about denying that to others.

RH

Anonymous said...

Frankly, I find your views on marriage and children offensive on this case. What about married (heterosexual) couples who choose not to have children, or who can't and adopt. Are they somehow less legitimate then married couples who breed? I don't think so.

I don't think you do either. (I hope) I just ask you to examine your own beliefs and see if you really believe what you say, or if you are coming up with an excuse to say you're against gay marriage. Prejudice lives deep inside all of us, but the only hope we have is to recognize and deal with them straight on. Justifying them doesn't help anyone.

Anonymous said...

I think the hating on gays and lesbians has got to stop. They should have the right to get legally married and at church should that particular church accepts to marry them in front of God.

At least 10% of the population is gay and it's been found that many animals are. That is a significant amount of people. I know gay couples who have been together for a long time and are truly devoted to each other. They should have the right to adopt or have in vitro etc. should they choose to have kids and raise them.

It's like saying to heterosexual people that they do not have the right not to get married, to remain single, childless, to get divorced. What happens in the bedroom is NONE of our business, let alone the government. Plus, MANY heterosexual couples are infertile, so your argument about marriage and kids does not stand.

If you do not want to call it marriage, then call it relationship, a civil union, a legal partnership, etc. All gays are not all promiscuous and unstable. Many have more than enough LOVE and stability to give, in fact more than a lot of heterosexual people I've known.

God created gays: thou shall not hate. This hatred reminds me of the past black slavery and the racism that's still going on today. What if heterosexual people were only 10% of the population and had been picked on as a minority for centuries without ANY legal rights, how would you feel? Please have compassion.

Retro Housewife said...

I don't hate gays or lesbians. I am fine with a civil union, in fact I am all for it.

Some animals eat their young, too btw. and while some animals may be sexually gay, which ones produce and raise their young with the same sex?

It is when children are brought into the picture that I start having a problem with it.

To be honest, I think the practice heteros of running off to the sperm bank is wrong too. So there. Nobody asked me to vote on that, however, so I left it out. But since you bring it up, there you go.

If you read what you wrote, you talk about the rights of this adult and that adult (are you a boomer?) and what they want. What about the kids? I myself would want to be raised by my own mother and my own father and not have somebody decide from the get-go that two fathers or two mothers is just as good. It is not.

Adoption is something quite different. There, you are starting from a bad situation and making it better. Couples who adopt children are doing an amazing thing. But again, I would want to place the child with a mother and a father.

There is no substitute for a mother and father and anything other than a mother and father is less desirable, therefore should not be put on equal footing. Not equal.

As a follow up to the sperm bank comment, I read a story in people magazine a year or so ago about some narcissistic doctor who was being "generous" and "helping" women "fulfill themselves" by donating his sperm. He had fathered somewhere around 10 maybe 20 kids.

I wonder how generous he will be when those kids start showing up wanting to know their father, perhaps needing money for college, or whatever. How nice for them that their mothers decided for them that a father wasn't important.

Give it 10 -15 years and then we will start hearing from the ones who were put on this earth as part of somebody's ego trip.

RH

Anonymous said...

i think you're just showing your "retro" side. conservative and unfair. i would not be surprised if you didn't even vote for obama.

Retro Housewife said...

Actually, Female lions raise their young together, now that I think of it. If a strange male shows up, he often kills the young though, so I am not sure that is a good analogy. Except maybe to say lesbian couples would be better suited than two men to raise kids - but I have a feeling that won't go over well.

RH.

Mary said...

>>I myself would want to be raised by my own mother and my own father and not have somebody decide from the get-go that two fathers or two mothers is just as good. It is not.<<

I'm glad it worked out for you and you have grown up to have such strong opinions. Personally, I really wish that my incestuous father had not had a part in "raising" me. Two mommies would have been infinitely better than the scars I live with every day.

You are comparing the *best* of hetero couples to the *worst* of non-hetero couples. Let's talk apples and apples, here, for the sake of a valid discussion. *Any* two people who love and care for a child can be great parents.

>>There is no substitute for a mother and father and anything other than a mother and father is less desirable, therefore should not be put on equal footing. Not equal.<<

I have to disagree, again, based on my own experience. My son's father did not want a child to raise and love. He wanted a child to bind me to him. He was an alcoholic and drug addict and abusive to both of us and when I finally learned the Whole Truth I left. Would my son be better off if we had stayed together? No, he would not, and neither would I.

You could say that I made a bad choice, perhaps influenced by my childhood, and you might be right.

Did my son turn out worse off for not having his father around as a same-sex influence? Not at all, since I don't just associate with women, and I don't know anyone who does. There's plenty of "influence" out there from the other sex. It takes a village, it really does.

Obviously there isn't room here for full disclosure - maybe you would change your mind enough to understand that there is no black and white, but only shades of gray in these matters.

Retro Housewife said...

Mary, that totally sucks - I am sorry to hear that. I don't want to hurt your feelings and I am sorry if I did.

You obviously got the short end of the stick in the happy mommy/daddy thing. And I wouldn't tell anyone to stay in an abusive relationship. But what you did is make a bad situation better with respect to your husband - so I would say you did your son a favor. - Your father is flat out a criminal and again I am sorry you had to go through that.

I agree there are shades of gray and there are most certainly cases where a child would be better off with a mentally healthy gay couple than with twisted straight parents. But what would you do in a case where a non-twisted straight couple and a non-twisted gay couple wanted to adopt a child?

RH

Retro Housewife said...

conservative
Adjective
1. favouring the preservation of established customs and values, and opposing change
2. moderate or cautious: a conservative estimate
3. conventional in style: people in this area are conservative in their tastes

I don't see unfair - I do see cautious - which is what I believe one should be before one makes a huge change that will primarily affect children.

Mary said...

>>Mary, that totally sucks - I am sorry to hear that. I don't want to hurt your feelings and I am sorry if I did.<<

LOL! My feelings can't be hurt by honest discussion on a blog ;-)

I just wanted to point out that making sweeping generalizations is what leads to race riots and acts of terrorism and all of the other truly horrible things that people do to each other. There is no room for black and white in our world - we all need to understand that we're in this together and not foster hate.

Just be open to the possibility that something that rocks your world could make someone else cringe in fear and try to understand why they might disagree with your view. We all come from different places, but we're all here together now.

>>But what would you do in a case where a non-twisted straight couple and a non-twisted gay couple wanted to adopt a child?<<

Evaluate them as two *couples* regardless of sexual orientation, just as I would two couples of different colors. I really don't see the difference, and I was raised to hate people "other than white" and "other than hetero." And "other than" a lot of other things, too. I never bought into the party line ;-) Just never made sense to me...

Anonymous said...

No, I am not a boomer, I am 27 years old. I am very family oriented and traditional in that sense. I am also a housewife without kids.

The ability to be a good parent does not stand on your sexual preference. There are many single mothers and fathers out there who try to provide a good living for their children. It is possible to raise children without two parents. And let's talk about that: one marriage out of two fails.

Change is good sometimes. It's not because something has always been there that it makes it right.

You say you do not hate, but I do not believe you. You probably think that being gay is a choice and all that religious propaganda. I have yet to hear a good argument on why being gay and why gay marriage are wrong. Oh right, when I'll have kids I'll be better than my gay friends who will have them!

Retro Housewife said...

Dear, just because I don't agree with you does not mean I hate anybody.

Belittling my opinion is not going to make me suddenly agree with you. Besides that, you are arguing with a stereotype that you have created for yourself, not with me.

What you are talking about is standing 10,000 years of human and social evolution on its head. Not only do you want to do that, but you refuse to even entertain the idea that it might have some unintended, negative side effects, and then start insulting people who have concerns.

I wouldn't care a fig if I didn't foresee this social experimentation being played out at the possible expense of children, who are helpless.

In the end, it could turn out to be fine or it could turn out to be an utter disaster - for those who had no say in the matter.

I am curious how many people if given the choice would choose to give up either their mother or father - assuming they had no information on what type of people they were.

So say God passes out a questionnaire while you are waiting in line to be born:

So the question would be:
If you could decide, would you want to be raised by your natural mother and father or by a gay or lesbian couple?

How would you answer that question?

RH

Mary said...

>>So the question would be:
If you could decide, would you want to be raised by your natural mother and father or by a gay or lesbian couple?<<

I would answer that I wanted to be raised by people who loved and respected me for who and what *I* am, not as an extension of their own body or as chattel to be used as they see fit or as a vessel of their "honor" or as a personal slave.

The fact is, we don't get to choose our parents. We don't get to choose to be born, and many of us are born into horrible situations. Some of us would have been happy to be raised by two people who loved and respected each other and sex would not have mattered.

Sorry, but for me "blood" is irrelevant. Love is what matters.

Retro Housewife said...

We all want to be loved, and we all want to have good, caring people in our lives - but that isn't really the point.

You had an extremely bad experience, but it is the exception, (I hope). We are programmed in such a way that we care about our own children more, and love them more and undertake the sort of activities needed to take care of them. In short, parents love their own children more than other kids.

Are there exceptions? Of course. But society can't just ignore basic human biology and choose to deal with only the exceptions. We would soon cease to exist.

RH

Mary said...

>>But society can't just ignore basic human biology and choose to deal with only the exceptions. We would soon cease to exist.<<

Ah, but society is not ignoring the majority of the population - married hetero couples enjoy all kinds of benefits and accolades. They are recognized as the *only* creators of "family." All that the gays are asking for is recognition that there are other ways, ways that can be just as good for children, just as good for both people who are in the relationship, that they, too, are worthwhile members of society, entitled to the same *human* rights as everyone else.

There was a time, not so very long ago, when wealthy white landowners had sole control of which of their slaves was allowed to "breed" and who their mates would be. That wasn't right, was it? I think we all agree that it was a horrible tragedy that pretty much every white person went along with, yes?

How is this different? People of color are now recognized as *human* with all of the rights traditionally accorded only to white men. Women can now vote in this country and their vote is just as valuable as that wealthy white landowner's vote. How are gays different?

Many men believed that giving the women the vote would be the end of this country. They believed that freeing the slaves would lead to the overthrow of all they valued. Would recognizing gay couples really rend the fabric of our society?

It is your god-given right to have strong opinions - strong opinions founded this country. It's your right as an American to freely express those opinions in any medium you choose. Majority Rules is a great way to run a country. Legislating your personal views onto others is, IMHO, wrong, when the only argument you have to defend your views is that it is "against nature." It was once considered "against nature" that women learn to read - our puny little minds just weren't capable ;-)

I'm not trying to change your mind, just to help you understand that there are other views out there, that rash generalizations really don't cover everything, that there is a lot more evil, inequality, discrimination, and hate out there than you realize. Legislating more hate will not solve the problem. Until every human being in this country is recognized as having the same basic rights, we are not really the land of the free.

>>In short, parents love their own children more than other kids.<<

I think that many adoptive parents would disagree with you on that one ;-)

Anonymous said...

I don't think you will ever get it, so let's leave it at that. I am sorry but comments like yours make my blood boil.

The only negative side effects here are all the haters who have voted against Prop 8. And yes, I don't give a damn about who'd raised me, as long as they love me and each other. As sad at Mary's case is, it is not an exception. I think you are a little naive to think it is.

Hopefully this country will become more civilized in 20 years.

Retro Housewife said...

There is no biological reason women, black people, funny people, sad people, mean people should not vote. Two people of the same sex can't have a child without a third person. Unless they are planning a happy 3-some, the kid loses out.

I don't want to deprive anyone of their rights, gay people are very valuable members of our society. I just think they are demanding a right that is not inherently theirs - because it will impinge on the rights of a third party - any children created as a result.

They may be fine with it, they may not be - but you are making that decision for them. That is what I disagree with.

The very fact that we are having this discussion should be evidence that some of the kids may not be so happy about being deprived of one biological parent - as a matter of course.

I say I would not want that for myself, but that does not seem to matter.

Anonymous down there wants to shove his/her beliefs down everybody's throats and if they don't agree they are "haters". I am sure some are but I suspect most are not. What amazes me is the incredible arrogance displayed by those comments - Anonymous is right and everybody else are wrong.

I have to say that neither of you have even bothered to address my concern - other to say that it wouldn't matter to YOU. That it would matter to others doesn't seem to interest you much.

RH

Anonymous said...

RH - thanks for your comments today. I really needed to hear that I am not alone in believing that, regardless of your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) that someone else believes one mother and one father is best. Anything else is less than best and we should all want the best for all of the children in this world.

I expressed these same opinions a few days ago and was promptly called a bigot. Not nice to hear but if such names are the price of standing up for children and families I will not shirk away.

Like you - I hate no one. It is just physiology. Gay couples cannot reproduce without intervention. If the ideal was for men-with-men and women-with-women our bodies would have been created differently. And since the accepted theory is that being gay is genetic I would have to conclude that over several generations if we encourage gay families that those genetics will spread and eventually the number of straight folks may dwindle to such a level that there will be no more reproduction - or at least not enough to sustain a society. So, it's in the best interest of society to keep traditional marriage.
We limit marriage on many sides (age, must be a person - not animal, cannot be an immediate relative, can only be one other person). IMO this is no different. It does not take away civil rights. Any adult can marry. They just have to marry ONE PERSON of LEGAL AGE who is not an IMMEDIATE RELATIVE and is of the OPPOSITE GENDER.

I do find it interesting that you supported such conservative measures yet voted for the most liberal Senator of our time.

But again - nice to find a voice saying what I feel.

Retro Housewife said...

Well, I believe a conservative approach is called for when dealing with one of the foundations of society - marriage. The "feminists" of the 60s gave it quite a beating - the effects of which we are still reeling from.

As for Obama, he has one of the most brilliant minds I have encountered and while I do not agree with him on a variety of issues, I think he will approach things in a thoughtful manner.

He has amazing leadership abilities and can inspire - which is what you need if you want to accomplish anything. He spent a year on wall street so he at least has an idea of the
fundamentals of finance.

Finally, he is a Thirteener - or GenX who as a group are a practical lot and don't like to waste time arguing for the point of argument's
sake. They like to get things done - and since he/we/they grew up in the wake of Typhoon Boomer are rather used to
making do in adverse situations.

RH

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous down there wants to shove his/her beliefs down everybody's throats and if they don't agree they are "haters". I am sure some are but I suspect most are not. What amazes me is the incredible arrogance displayed by those comments - Anonymous is right and everybody else are wrong."

Hmmm...you are entitled to have your opinion and so am I. You also seem to say that you are right and everybody's wrong. I'm sorry but you posted your opinions on a public blog: this is a serious issue. YOU are telling gays what they should do by voting against Prop 8.

Gays and lesbians have hurt enough in their lives. Let them be EQUAL to us. If they're happy, why do you care so much? Have you actually known any children raised by gays? You really seem to have prejudices, and don't twist my words for this: it comes from what you say.

I come from a country that legalizes gays and there was no referendum for it. People lead their lives the way they want: that is what living in a free country is for. I'm so sick of those republican neo-cons trying to merge religion and state together.

Please open your mind and your heart to gays adopting kids. Being gay does not make the person a bad parent. Being denying THEM of human rights, you are not loving them. Christ taught about loving one another, not judging. I hope someday you will encounter a gay kid that you love and accept his or her decision to one day have kids.

And to the poster that thinks being gay is genetic and will eventually kill evolution, I'm still laughing.

Retro Housewife said...

Well dear if you are so smart, then why haven't you figured out that two people of the same sex can't have kids on their own. That is the way nature wants it. There is no right.

Kids are not there to cheer people up.

Why do you not care at all about children? You keep saying they will be fine, but really you don't know that...

Did you say you have children? Just what do you do with your own kids that you are so hell bent on justifying all this?

What is your secret? I think you have a guilty conscience and you are trying to talk yourself into something.

A real mother would not take such a cavalier attitude towards the well-being of children.

Yikes.

Anonymous said...

Yikes indeed. You are showing a very nasty side of yourself Retro Housewife. I'm very sorry that I and everyone else has been exposed to it.

I'm not just talking about the issue itself, everyone is entitled to their opinion, although mine is different then yours on that subject. The most disturbing thing has been your attitude and replies to the commenters.

Let's hope we don't see to much of THIS side of you in the future.

Retro Housewife said...

Yes, It was nasty. Also totally unfounded and reactionary.

Which is how I see it when you tell me that I hate other people because I see things differently than you do.

Maybe we could stop saying things like that.

RH

Anonymous said...

I didn't say you hated anyone. There seem to be several anonymous posts here. I am this one (obviously) and the one just before.

I don't have a google identity, I am Retromiad on the forums.

Mary said...

Ah, too bad! What could have been a civil discussion about the hurt that rash generalizations and knee-jerk reactions cause (the core of this whole conflict) has devolved into a name-calling shouting match.

The fact is, none of us is 100% right *in all situations.* If we would all just concede that simple truth we could make great strides forward in this world. There is room for everyone if we can all see that we are equal *and* individual.

Bummer.

Retro Housewife said...

OOOOOPS Big fat OOOPS I am so sorry - I thought I was talking to only one anonymous - stupid assumption really.

Anyway, this is a topic that is a bit too hot to handle. I do understand the other points of views here, and I hope society can come up with a solution that works.

My hope is that a rational discussion of society's obligation to the kids of gay couples should be takes place before any big decisions are made.

RH

Sorry again - Retromiad! I was addressing the person who said I and 1/2 of California hate gay people which was very frustrating.

Anonymous said...

It's a pity there isn't a way to use our forum names for comments. I thought I had done that once before. I don't normally comment on your blogs, I did on only one other I think, but I can't remember how I did it, lol!!

Retromiad

Anonymous said...

Gays can already adopt kids in California. Prop 8 was about making civil unions for gays illegal again, and you say you're all about legalizing civil unions?

Retro Housewife said...

Here is some information for you on NPR.org concerning the effects of No on Prop 8.

I am not sure what your definition of civil union is, but here is what Prop 8 did: Voting YES on PROPOSITION 8 will define MARRIAGE in California to mean only a union between one man and one woman.

YES will add exactly 14 words to the California State Constitution:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”

Retro Housewife said...

According to the now defunct British Family Court Reporter Survey, children are no less than 20 to 33 times safer when they live with their biological parents than when they live in any other type of household. In 1989, the University of Iowa studied 2,300 cases of sexual abuse and found that non-natural fathers were almost four times as likely as natural fathers to sexually abuse children in their care. Another report found that, although mothers’ boyfriends contributed less than 2% of non-parental child care, they committed almost half of all the child abuse by non-parents.

American sociobiologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson found that the risk of children being killed by a stepparent was 50 to 100 times higher than at the hands of a biological parent. They also found that preschool age children not living with both parents were 40 times more likely to be sexually abused than those who were. "The presence of a stepparent is the best epidemiological predictor of child abuse yet discovered," they observed.

The thrust of such findings was confirmed in Britain in 1994 by Robert Whelan, of the Family Education Trust. Drawing on research by the NSPCC and the Family Court Reporter, Whelan showed that the natural two-parent family was in a significant minority in every category of child abuse. This was even more remarkable since the majority of children lived in such families.
http://fathersforlife.org/fv/child_abuse_roles_of_sexes.htm#NSPCC

Retro Housewife said...

Young children who live in households with one or more unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die from an inflicted injury, usually being shaken or struck, as children living with two biologic parents, report researchers from the University of Missouri-Columbia and the University of Chicago in the November 2005 issue of the journal Pediatrics.
http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2005/20051107-abuse.html

Anonymous said...

So you are saying that the effects of step-parenting are the same as adopting? Wow. So heterosexual couples shouldn't adopt because they are not the biological parents?

Retro Housewife said...

As I see it, and have said before, adopting a child is spiffy and good. In that case, you are going from bad situation to better situation.

I would still hope that all is done to place the child in the best possible family - which I consider to be mom + dad + puppy.

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, then I would rank - assuming no mdp's were available - a lesbian couple and then a gay i.e. two men.

I am not sure where I would put single males or females. - Unless of course one of said singles was a relative and check out to be not a nut case or wierdo. Grandparents take absolute priority assuming willing and able.

That is assuming the child is already there and the parents can't or won't care for him/her.

That is different than when it becomes the norm to bring a child into the world with the default situation being one bio parent one not.

That concerns me because a) I don't think it's fair to the kid to be deprived of one bio parent and b) there does seem to be evidence that a % of the kids living with a non bio parent are going to meet an early demise - so then the question is how many kids are you willing to sacrifice so a bunch of adults can to what they want?

That clear things up for you?

RH

Anonymous said...

This post of yours is filled with numerous logical fallacies and the chief one being naturalistic fallacy. Your sole argument is that LGBT folks should be treated like second class citizens because they cannot naturally reproduce. That makes absolutely no sense and is a non-sequitur given the fundamental right of marriage as defined by Pace and Loving cases has nothing to do with their ability to reproduce.

Also, if you are going to pull out citations, may I remind you that American Psychological Association, American Pediatric Society, American Psychiatric Association, American Medical Association, etc ALL support LGBT couple adoption and have published numerous research articles showing that children raised by homosexual couples are no different in their wellbeing than heterosexual couples ?
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

Also, since when did banning gay marriage stop gay couples from having children and leading a life as families ?

All you are doing is justifying that their families be treated different from your's and mine and their children be reduced to bastards in the eyes of law.

Not exactly very "pro-family" or "pro-child" if you ask me.

How is breaking up families, taking away the rights of parents and their children by any means "preserving family" ?

But what would I know ? I am just a demented mother of 4, aren't I ?

Anonymous said...

By the way, all that you cited was about HETEROSEXUAL step parents or parent figures. Absolutely nothing about adoptive parents. At least try to justify your stance on something relevant instead of using such non-credible and laughable links as "fathersforlife.com"

Retro Housewife said...

You can gripe until you are blue in the face, but that still won't change the fact that marriage is between a man an a woman. That's how it was defined, and what it is intended for.

Two people of the same sex do not a marriage make. Nobody is being treated like second class citizens, certain pairings are being deemed not equal because they are not equal.

As for the experts you quote, I believe they are also the ones who claimed that divorce is not harmful to kids and that working mothers can spend "quality time" with their kids and everything will be rosy.

Do a poll and ask people if they would rather be raised by their real mother and father or a gay couple and see what you come up with.

RH

Anonymous said...

So basically all you can come back with is "I say so and hence it is so" ?
That's pretty weak and it increasingly seems that you indeed are against LGBT rights. Not because you give two hoots about "family", or children. Merely because you wish to stick to your ideology over the rights of people.

Also, please do not resort to lies. I'd love for you to present me citations from American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Pediatric Society, etc

Also, please do present me a poll of kids raise by LGBT parents and get back to me if they'd like to switch to heterosexual parents.

(Btw, the link I put in which it seems you never bothered to read included reference to a study wherein children of LGBT parents actually are slightly more well-adjusted than their peers raised by heterosexual parents).

You are closed-minded and its rather ironic that you accuse others of being that way. You can keep negating facts, keep denying all the psychologists, pediatricians, social workers, etc for as long as you wish, but come 2010---you can cry about how these homosexuals are destroying your marriage by getting married.

People like you are no different from the people who looked at me and my husband with contempt because we were of different race back when we lived in California in the early 60s.
And soon enough, you will be forced to hide your homophobic views the way those racists are now compelled to hide their racist views from decent society.

Retro Housewife said...

Ah yes, the joys of fascism. I can't wait - just think of the peace and quiet of everybody cowering in their respective ideological corners afraid to open their mouths for fear of retribution by the PC police.

Closed minded, I suppose is when one doesn't agree with you, it seems. Tell me, which of your parents would you give up, your mother or your father? Don't worry, you get two of the one you decide to keep and then you will be better adjusted.

In fact, why don't you just have a lesbian couple raise your four children for you? You obviously don't give a hoot about them since you "chose" to enter into a closed minded marriage of a man and a woman.

Or better yet, your husband can get another wife - because polygamists have rights too you know - and then your kids will the most well adjusted of all!

What fun!

Boy did mother nature screw up royally when she decided to make a male and a female necessary for human reproduction. Have you at least sent a telegram letting her know?

Maybe you should call mother nature some names too - I suggest yelling at the sky because that is where most people presume mother nature, or God or whatever to be.

You might want to check on gravity too while you are at it - it is quite possible that gravity is denying somebody their rights too - or at least discriminating against them in some fashion - for example gravity and stairs have colluded to discriminate against fat people - who have to expend more energy to get up them!

We must get rid of stairs! I bet you didn't think of that did you?

Not only that, but the sun discriminates against white people - who tend to burn easily. From now on, I think we should refer to the sun as "the evil fireball" and make a law that it can only rise on Thursdays. We still have the moon... unless of course it starts to misbehave.

RH