Kids need mother, father

  • Follow Letters

This week the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the most pivotal human rights issue since it grossly erred in 1973 in the Roe v. Wade decision. The Obama administration directed the U.S. solicitor general to submit a brief to fabricate a hereto-unknown constitutional right to redefine the definition of marriage away from a husband and a wife. This effort contradicts the right of Californians who amended their constitution to preserve the tradition of marriage that has existed for thousands of years before formal governments or religions. If the Obama administration gets its way, the method we assign parentage to children will evaporate.

Currently, the law grants fatherhood to the legal husband of a wife, with motherhood granted to the woman who gave birth. Biology is essential to parenthood. A child must be entitled to a relationship with a mother and father. So-called “same-sex marriage” denies this connection with at least one biological parent. The natural attachment of husband-and-wife parentage ensures the children’s connection with genetic, cultural and social heritage.

We know by modern psychology, sociology and instinct that mothers and fathers are different, making unique contributions to the raising of children. Two very good mothers do not make up for the purposeful loss of a child’s father. Boys will respond and mature differently with the absence of a father than a mother, and vice-versa.

Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable. Children cannot protect their natural rights on their own, so we must. There is no other institution that will protect children in the absence of a biological mother and father. With the redefinition of marriage will come the government’s requirement that “Spouse 1” and “Spouse 2” and/or “Spouse 3” will be the legal parents of a child as a norm, not as the extraordinary case of adoptions, thus disregarding the biological parents’ rights.

More than two legal parents will occur, as has happened in Canada. Children will become a commodity to be legally contested rather than biologically traced. Do we really want to trust the government to decide parentage?

If marriage is no longer an opposite-sex structure for the public purpose of marriage, then only the nonessential private purposes will remain. Legal unions can protect adults’ rights who want to live together; traditional marriage is the only protection for children’s rights.

We have a moral obligation and societal interest in the stability of a child’s parents’ union, as they have a right to have a relationship with a mother and father. Traditional marriage is the preferred place to procreate children with their best chances of emotionally developing into a sound adult. Numerous broken families can attest to the loss of a mother or father from their lives. This has been borne out ever since no-fault divorces become commonplace.

Pray that the Supreme Court decides with wisdom and justice for the children!

Comments (22)

Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
jic
352
Points
jic 03/27/13 - 03:46 am
0
0

no evidence

Unpublished

to support your claims. There is plenty of evidence supporting the reality that children need safe, loving, stable homes run by one or two responsible adults, regardless of gender. The institution of marriage promotes that regardless of gender. Heterosexuals have done a poor job of demonstrating stability or personal responsibility toward each other and in child rearing. The world is full of unwanted children. If we are seriously concerned for the future its past time to put bigotry and fear aside and give the children the loving homes they deserve.

TrukinRanger
1575
Points
TrukinRanger 03/27/13 - 06:27 am
0
0

Flawed

Unpublished

Your letter is seriously flawed. Unless you plan on forcing unwed parents into their own marriages it will not help any children to ban same sex unions. You assume that all mothers and fathers are married before having children and stay that way. If non gays were doing such a great job we wouldn't have divorce rates that are so high. People are not holding back on sex until marriage- and children are being made outside of wedlock. At least there are others out there that want to take these children into their homes and give them life's necessities and love.

deestafford
18412
Points
deestafford 03/27/13 - 06:59 am
9
1

I read an article the other day that stated 48% of the first

time births in the US are to single, unwed mothers. What does that do for society? Here are some statistics:

Poverty rates: 37.1% single parent, female head of household vs
6.8% married, two parent family
whites 3.2% two parent families vs 22.0% single parent
blacks 7.0% two parent families vs 35.6% single parent
hispanics 13.2% two parent families vs 37.9% single parent

So you can see the societial acceptance of unwed mothers having babies, sometimes multiple babies by multiple fathers, has led to a downslide of society. The above statistics don't include that the majority of prisoners are from single parent families.

Until we get a handle on this situation, things are not going to improve.

agustinian
631
Points
agustinian 03/27/13 - 07:18 am
1
7

What is the harm?

To this day, I have never heard a strong argument against gay marriage. I could never understand why allowing two same sex partners to commit themselves to a binding monogamous relationship, hurts my own marriage or anyone else's marriage. I thought D-I-V-O-R-C-E was the biggest threat to marriage.

I think the Supremes need to stay out of the issue and allow this to be absorbed into the American social structure through the normal democratic processes. In 20 years, I think this will pretty much be a non-issue.

palmetto1008
9782
Points
palmetto1008 03/27/13 - 07:22 am
1
7

Poverty and

Unpublished

Poverty and single-parenthood: which is the egg and which is the chicken?
Single-parenthoood and prison: perhaps both chickens from a common egg??

Valkyrie1
315
Points
Valkyrie1 03/27/13 - 09:18 am
1
9

That is awfully judgmental

That is awfully judgmental about single parents Palmetto. My mom was a single mom of 3 children. My father died in a car accident when I was 3 and she had to raise us on her own. She did her best but we were dirt poor. She used the life insurance money to buy a car and a house and we scraped by after that.
As for gay marriage I support it. I see no legal reason it should not be allowed. The biological parent claim is bullocks because kids are adopted all the time. I agree with the need for two parents but I see no reason they have to be of differing genders.

myfather15
42226
Points
myfather15 03/27/13 - 10:54 am
10
4

Legalizing gay marriage is

Legalizing gay marriage is going against nature. There will be serious repercussions for going against nature. I must also disagree about this being a non-issue in 20 years. Once legalized, you're going to hear about this issue FOREVER. Why? Because they will still consider themselves "minority couples". Therefore they will still fight for more equality and fair treatment.

It doesn't matter how much legislation you pass, gay couples will NEVER be "Normal". They realize this and they will never be satisfied until they are considered "normal". They will still claim to experience discrimination by government agencies, public restaurants and other locations, benefit companies such as insurance companies and MUCH more.

Example; lets say gay marriage has passed and I own a private insurance company and offer discounts to married couples. Remember this is a PRIVATELY owned insurance company in a FREE Country. I'm FREE to operate my insurance company how I choose. Lets say a gay couple comes in and presents their marriage certificate, expecting a discount. Now, what happens when I refuse to give it to them because my personal faith tells me homosexuality is wrong and shouldn't be legal? I will get my pants sued off, thats what happens. So in essence, I'm being FORCED to go against my personal FAITH and FORCED to offer discounts to people whom I completely disagree with. Just like the Churches being FORCED to supply birth control to employees, completely against their FAITH.

But thats EXACTLY what this issue is about, isn't it? This isn't about people RIGHTS. It's about subtly weakening peoples faith, without them even realizing it. Global Warming is the EXACT same method. It's weakens a persons faith in God, without that person even realizing its happening. See; how can you believe in God AND believe He would allow mankind to destroy the earth? You CAN'T believe in both; you can't believe the Bible which says the EARTH SHALL BE FOREVER and believe WE (mankind) can destroy it. You can't believe in God being in FULL control and believe in global warming, I'm sorry but you can't.

This issue is absolutely NO DIFFERENT. This issue will FORCE people to accept something that is against their FAITH. Private individuals who are Christian and own businesses, will be FORCED to accept this or face massive lawsuits which would ruin their lives.

Obama's goal is to destroy and weaken this Country financially and he is doing this job very well. People that are supporting this issue and issues like abortion; it's their job to destroy the moral fabric of society. Again, this is working quite well. They formed a brilliant plan, long ago and have executed it flawlessly. See, what most people are clueless about is the Four Horns mentioned in the Bible, and what they are. The four horns used to confuse and seperate God's children. These are the main tools used by the enemies of God to confuse and divide God's children. Those tools are Education, Religion, Economic and Political. You control all of these and you control the future. Yes, I PROMISE YOU, they are in complete control of religion also, right now.

But there is ONE aspect they haven't accounted for and He will be their undoing.

RMSHEFF
11029
Points
RMSHEFF 03/27/13 - 10:23 am
7
2

The destruction of the family

The destruction of the family as defined by the Creator. Satin has been trying to destroy the family every sense the beginning of time. God gave man the pattern for relationships in Genesis and satin has been successfully trying to destroy everything God has said was good every sense. Satin know that to destroy society he must first destroy the family and the best way to destroy the family is through sexual sin. This all started with the "sexual revolution" in the 60's and 70's . If it feels good do it, love is all you need, free sex generation of which I was a part. This has led to the 50% divorce rate an sky high abortion rate even with accessible birth control. Also high crime and incarceration rates along with poverty rates and drug use. Most likely homosexual marriage will soon be the norm and next on the horizon is polygamy, after all, why should a man or woman not be able to have as many wives and or husbands as he or she wants as long as the all "love" each other. Unfortunately, this is followed by the destruction of America or rather God unleashing His judgment and it started with the sexual revolution and now with the homosexual revolution and then the reprobate mind. And what the reprobate mind is, is an inability to think straight, where you begin to laugh at this calamity. It's the Jerry Springer show gone berserk. And I look at that and I see that as the hand of God withdrawn.

palmetto1008
9782
Points
palmetto1008 03/27/13 - 10:24 am
3
6

Valkyrie, "Judgmental?"

Unpublished

Valkyrie, "Judgmental?" Perhaps you missed my point: in ausgusian's comment, it was inplied that single-parenthood was responsible for poverty. I asked the question could it be that poverty is responsible for single-parenthood. And, similarly is there a common cause to the relationship between imprisonization and single-parenting (e.g., poverty) which would render the relationship spurious??

grouse
1596
Points
grouse 03/27/13 - 10:28 am
0
1

There is so much factually

Unpublished

There is so much factually wrong with this letter, I don't know where to begin...There is no Constitution amendment that defines marriage, so the discussion of what the Constitution says about it is moot. Fatherhood is not necessarily defined by the law to a man married to a women. I'm sure there are plenty of unmarried men paying child support who will attest to that and, if that were the case, my brother-in-law didn't have to go through the trouble of adopting his wife's child. "So-called “same-sex marriage” denies this connection with at least one biological parent." So does adoption by two people not related to the child. "The natural attachment of husband-and-wife parentage ensures the children’s connection with genetic, cultural and social heritage" -- see the adoption comment above. The same argument was made about mixed race marriages and a subsequent child's "confusion" about his cultural and social heritage. "Boys will respond and mature differently with the absence of a father than a mother, and vice-versa." This comment Dr. Tribby has pulled out of his derrière. There is simply no proof from this gross, unsubstantiated assessment. Unfortunately, I have not the time to further rebut Dr. Tribby's argument descends into la-la land, but it will be self-apparent to those who use reason and fact instead of belief to make decisions instead of superstition and fear.

soapy_725
43306
Points
soapy_725 03/27/13 - 10:37 am
0
0

myfather is dead on

Unpublished

Defense of Marriage Act. Destruction of Marriage Act. Every single aspect of human life that has some connection to a Supreme Creator is to be destroyed. Every thought of something being "sacred", as with human life has been destroyed.

Sodom and Gomorrah were the world capitols of perversion. Not of man's rules. man has not rules. Perversion of The Supreme Creators rules.

No chance occurrences here folks. The Deceived are following the Deceiver. He is leading all who will listen to a collective destruction.

God's Word tells those who will believe that the day is coming when this world system will be in such a chaotic state, that if HE, the God of Creation, does not directly intervene, no human living flesh would survive. Human life as we know it would cease to exist. Adam and Steve ordained by the "apostate church" can bring this to pass as a couple. But they will get help from the baby murderers and the roaming street dogs.

Is this not dog eat dog? Things are going to get a lot worse.

chascushman
6653
Points
chascushman 03/27/13 - 10:54 am
4
2

“I asked the question could

Unpublished

“I asked the question could it be that poverty is responsible for single-parenthood.”
The liberals/democrats are mostly to blame.

RMSHEFF
11029
Points
RMSHEFF 03/27/13 - 10:57 am
3
2

Palmetto1008

The common thread that runs through almost all of societal's ills is a dysfunctional or broken families and is generational. If you need facts or data to verify this statement read a book called "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray.

myfather15
42226
Points
myfather15 03/27/13 - 11:14 am
6
1

@palmetto

So now, if everyone were rich; there wouldn't be a single divorce occuring in the United States? Aaaah, yes; one of those that believe MONEY fixes all things.

Why yes, it must be that a person being poor is the reason they make terrible decisions their whole life. Well, it could be that they are poor because of their terrible decisions.............wait, no that can't be.

I supposed poverty is the reason De'Marquise Elkins' mother and Aunt lied to the police, right? Poverty is to blame for everything so they MUST have lied and hindered the investigation into the murder of a infant because they are sooooooo poor. They just wanted to have a little better life, we should feel sorrow and pity for them.

Yes, people circumstances often times effect their decisions. BUT, they are free willed human beings. They have to ability to THINK about the consequences of what their doing, before they engage. BUT, thats EXACTLY what liberals DON'T want people to do, is think about consequences. They want people to do "Whatever feels good"; no matter the consequences. Don't worry, the government will take care of you if you get pregnant, so go ahead and have as much sex as you want. People becoming MORE and MORE dependent on the government fits right into the socialist/communist plan.

Like the woman in Florida said "Someonebody has got to take care of all these children." How about YOU TAKE CARE OF THEM, or give them up for adoption. But that would take away from her check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0QBD6CXgdo

Little Lamb
40311
Points
Little Lamb 03/27/13 - 11:44 am
10
1

Words

agustinian posted:

To this day, I have never heard a strong argument against gay marriage.

Words have meaning. The word marriage means a governmentally-recognized union between a man and a woman. The homosexuals who wish to have a governmentally-recognized union between two persons of the same sex need to come up with a different word.

I suggest garriage.

Jane18
12331
Points
Jane18 03/27/13 - 12:21 pm
4
2

Chicken or the Egg?

Palmetto, the chicken* came first=single parenthood. Next came the egg(s)=poverty and imprisonment! *Gen.1:28 and 2:20

twolane
191
Points
twolane 03/27/13 - 12:30 pm
0
0

fairy tales and the bible

Unpublished

it scares me that people in this day and age of technology allow themselves to be ruled by the idea of an invisible man in the sky that controls everything....you folks really worry me...lets join the 21st century and let these fairy tales wither like greek mythology

GiantsAllDay
8219
Points
GiantsAllDay 03/27/13 - 01:26 pm
3
5

Again, addressing those on

Again, addressing those on the wrong side of history. In their narrow, myopic world:
MURDERERS have the right to marry.
RAPISTS have the right to marry.
WIFE BEATERS have the right to marry.
MEN WHO MOLEST THEIR OWN DAUGHTERS have the right to marry

However these 2 women, with 4 well adjusted sons do not.

http://www.news10.net/news/article/237132/2/Equal-rights-say-Prop-8-plai...

RMSHEFF
11029
Points
RMSHEFF 03/27/13 - 01:42 pm
5
2

GiantsAllDay

Whats your point? Sinner have the right to marry? A murdering, wife beating, homosexual rapist who molested their own daughters is also free to marry a woman. You are the one with the myopic view. The only thing these 2 lesbians can't do is show you a piece of paper stating they are married.

ultrarnr
875
Points
ultrarnr 03/27/13 - 02:43 pm
0
0

Thought

Unpublished

It’d certainly be fascinating if we discovered that gays were better at being married than heterosexuals are. Talk about irony.

palmetto1008
9782
Points
palmetto1008 03/27/13 - 02:51 pm
2
7

I don't know why I have

Unpublished

I don't know why I have trouble remembering that I won't find many with critical thinking skills on this forum.

Little Lamb
40311
Points
Little Lamb 03/27/13 - 03:57 pm
2
1

Rights

There is the sticky matter of the U.S. Constitution. The tenth amendment would seem to be relevant in the debate:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Since the Constitution did not and does not delegate any powers regarding marriage to the United States government; therefore those powers are reserved to the states. It is the states who regulate marriage within their state borders. The federal government should butt out; and that goes especially to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The tenth amendment is the one most abused, followed closely by the fourteenth which is followed closely by the interstate commerce clause.

InChristLove
21971
Points
InChristLove 03/27/13 - 04:03 pm
4
1

GAD, they have a right to

GAD, they have a right to marry.....just not someone of the same gender. Yeah, murderers, rapist, wife beaters, men who molest their daughters, and even homosexuals have the right to marry.....just to someone of the opposite gender as stated in the description of marriage.

If two people of the same gender wishes to get a legal license to be a couple, let them do so and call it something else but it is not a marriage.

RMSHEFF
11029
Points
RMSHEFF 03/27/13 - 04:13 pm
4
1

PALMETTO1008

1 Corinthians 1:27

God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.

We are fools and you are the wise !

KSL
106516
Points
KSL 03/27/13 - 04:47 pm
6
2

palmetto

"People who lack critical thinking skills"=people who don't agree with you????

KSL
106516
Points
KSL 03/27/13 - 04:54 pm
6
2

This whole thing is an in

This whole thing is an in your face thing to people who claim marriage is the term for the legal union of 2 members of the opposite sex.

Frankly,I have no problem with 2 loving and faithful couples of the same sex having a legally recognized union, if that is what they want. Usurping the term "marriage" is offensive to me.

deestafford
18412
Points
deestafford 03/27/13 - 09:14 pm
1
1

I want to clarify one thing particularly as it pertains to Valky

When we are talking about single parent we are not talking about widows and divorcees. We are talking about unmarried, never married women. Situations such as you described are not what the out of wedlock births I was discussing. I should have made that clear.
Poverty does not cause the out of wedlock births...even among the black community. In the 30s, 40s, and 50s blacks were poorer than they are today and there was segregation and vast majority of black families had two parents and their poverty rate was very similiar to that of the whites with two parents. It wasn't until LBJ and his "Great" Society came along that the destruction of the black familiy began.
Liberal do-goods have done more to destroy the black culture than anything segregation and the KKK ever did.

OJP
4779
Points
OJP 03/27/13 - 10:47 pm
1
1

"[Society] progresses one funeral at a time." - Max Planck

It's going to happen, folks, just look at the stats. Young people support it in overwhelming numbers (as do the majority of Americans).

Of course, in the not-too-distant future, most of you will act as if you supported marriage equality all along...

OJP
4779
Points
OJP 03/27/13 - 10:48 pm
1
0

@ICL:

"GAD, a white person who loves a black person has a right to marry.....just not someone of a different race."

Same [filtered word], different decade. Battles continue, but the war is won.

WalterBradfordCannon
1160
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 03/28/13 - 07:07 am
1
1

I've read through reams of

I've read through reams of sociological studies on children raised by gay parents. Some things stand out. Children raised by parents with more education do better than children raised by parents with less. Children in higher socioeconomic brackets do better. Children with only one parent suffer. Adopted children do worse than biological children - they overwhelmingly go from low socioeconomic status, poorly educated parents to well educated high socioeconomic status parents.

And as to gay parents? Well, if the parents are married and gay, the best evidence is that it matters less than any of the factors I mentioned above. Biological children in lesbian families do better than those adopted by heterosexuals, and MUCH better than those raised by single parents. As far as sociological factors than matter in parenting, sexual orientation is at best a very, very, minor one (and many argue that children in lesbian couples' households do better!)

Our society suffers from a lack of adequate numbers of high quality parents for adoptees. Gay marriage would certainly help with this societal problem, and would inarguably be better for these children. As a scientist and a Christian and a parent, I consider it immoral to argue that gay marriage should be denied based on parenting skills when the evidence says exactly the opposite, and there are so many who need help.

Back to Top

Loading...