Friday, May 16, 2008

Why Fat People Can’t Marry

The current social wave of banning marriage for homosexuals (excuse me, “Defining marriage legal in such a way that homosexuals can’t marry”) is a form of coercion. It is a way of saying, “I don’t like what you do; so I am going to make it as uncomfortable as possible for you in another aspect of your life.”

Why do we care if they marry? (I say “they” because I am a heterosexual.) Seriously—why? I don’t care if two teenagers marry. I don’t care if two people 50 years difference in age marry. I don’t care if people marry in mixed races. I don’t care if divorcees marry, if Ohioans marry, if two people of different religions marry or if two people marry when one of them is pregnant. Oh, we may care from a concerned standpoint—but no one is out petitioning laws to ban such practices.

If Bob and Tom want to marry—how exactly is that affecting you? What great tragedy has just entered your life which is so insurmountable we must enact amendments to State constitutions to keep this tragedy from happening again?

What I see is a group of people (not just Christians) who simply don’t like homosexuality. Whether for religious reasons, or the way the person was raised, or cultural pressure. And since the laws making homosexuality illegal have failed; the next best thing is to deny them some other privilege. Some other way to make ‘em uncomfortable.

We don’t have a problem with homosexuals driving. They seem adapt enough to do so. We don’t have a problem with them working—they make fine customers and patrons and tenants and debtors. We don’t have a problem with them voting, or serving in governmental positions (not legally, anyway), or walking in the park, or being on television.

But if they want to marry—GASP! The horrors! Have you ever stopped to think why? What the big deal is?

I will submit the two worst arguments for banning homosexual marriage are the slippery slope claim and “The Bible says ____.”

Slippery Slope

This argument is typically framed, “If we let gays marry it would start a slippery slope. What is to stop polygamists from marrying? Or people marrying pets? Or pedophiles marrying small children?”

Hmm…let’s think about that for a second, shall we? *snaps fingers* That’s it! That’s what would stop such a slippery slope from happening--we can actually think! Do you know it is possible to enact laws to allow some groups of people do some things, without the necessary eventuality that ALL people will do ALL things? Really—you can!

Do you also realize we could use the “slippery slope” argument on just about anything to preclude us from passing laws on just about anything? For example: If we pass a law to allow 18 year olds to marry, this could dangerously lead us to allowing 17 year olds to marry, which could, by slippery slope, lead to allowing 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6…. Oh wait. Why doesn’t that happen?

Because we actually can figure out how to determine a cut-off and stop. Lawmakers do look at the laws they are passing, and the reasons behind them. They do not shrug and say, “Aw, gee. We let homosexuals marry. Guess we gotta let people marry a tree as well.” Frankly, if I was a representative, senator or governor I would be insulted to think it was claimed I was so stupid I couldn’t figure out how to put limits on anything once I passed a law.

The following is the classic example of how silly a claim of “slippery slope” can be:

But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system?

And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you Greg -- isn't this an indictment of our entire American society?

Well…you can do whatever you want to us. But we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

”The Bible says ____”

…or “God says ___.” Now at first blush, this may seem to be an infringement upon another person’s right to petition for laws which they favor. It is not. They can. I have no problem with that. If a person said, “I don’t want homosexuals to marry because I don’t want it”—they are perfectly within their constitutional rights to pursue such a cause to their utmost.

However, if they are going to cloak this right in some sort of divine admonition, or divine ordinance—I will look to that with a far closer scrutiny. To see what that basis is, and further to determine whether they are making up what their god says to justify what they want.

First of all, it should be noted the Bible is silent (both in the Tanakh and the New Testament) regarding homosexual marriage. Probably because it was not being practiced during the time of either writing (certainly not on a large scale, if at all). The same way the Bible is silent regarding e-mail, or coffee in church, or whether to buy an SUV compared to a Mini-van. The issues didn’t exist at the time—so the Bible wouldn’t address it.

The Bible does address acts of sex which are homosexual. Rom. 1:26-27. “A-ha!” the person may say, “If homosexual acts are sinful—we have every right to ban them from marrying to commit such acts.”

Where did it become your obligation to stop others from sinning? When did you become the “Sin Police”? The ending of Romans One is a list of sins which the world (the non-believers) are engaged in. In one of the greatest turns of irony, vs 26 starts off with, “For this reason God gave them up…”

According to the very verses you use, your God isn’t trying to stop them; who are you to assume a duty even your God won’t do?

I’ll let you in on two (2) not-so-secret secrets.

Lean in close.


1. They are having sex regardless of not being married.

Yep, it’s true. Did you honestly think the entire homosexual community consists of frustrated virgins aching for the laws of America to change so that one day they could actually have sex by consummating their marriage? In fact, in yet another short-sighted irony, the fact they cannot marry makes them less likely to wait for marriage. ‘Cause they can’t!

How many people do you really think are not committing homosexual acts because they can’t be homosexually married? Do you think this is making even a dent in your duties on “Sin Patrol”? Do you think you are preventing a single homosexual act of sex by virtue of not allowing marriage?

Why not pass a law prohibiting homosexuals from having driver’s licenses? This would be far more effective in reducing acts you consider sin.

2. Being homosexual is more than sex.

I am not qualified to talk in this area, but in reading what homosexuals write, and having associated with a few, I have come to understand it is who they are. It is more than a preference for a certain sexual act. It is an attraction to the same gender.

Much the same way I am attracted to my female wife for more than just a certain shape of bones and skin. I am fascinated with the way she smells. The way she talks. The way she moves. The way she thinks.

If a person feels that same way about another of their same gender…you won’t be able to legislate it away.

Secondly, as I look at your Bible and your God, I start to read other sins. Sins like allowing someone to marry who was previously divorced for reasons other than adultery. (Matt. 5:32, 19:9) Where is the call for laws prohibiting divorced people from re-marrying?

Look, if you are trying to convince me you…er…I mean your God…has its panties all in a pinch over sins occurring, then why is it only the sins YOU don’t like? Why is it you…er…your god is not equally all up in arms over a violation of this sin as well? Shouldn’t the laws define marriage as “One man and one woman, neither of whom has been divorced, unless the divorce arose out of adultery or the person was previously married to a non-believer who left them”? (1 Cor. 7:15)

Many Christians hold that 2 Cor. 6:14 (“Do not be unequally yoked with non-believers.”) is a prohibition against believers marrying non-believers. A sin! Where is the call for the laws of marriage to be changed to prevent this grievous harm? Now our definition reads, “One man and one woman of one belief, neither of whom has been divorced, unless the divorce arose out of adultery or the person was previously married to a non-believer who left them.”

And don’t forget the famous passage of 1 Cor. 7:9. “Better to marry than burn with passion.” Is it a sin to be so horny? Although no specific verse addresses it, many Christians infer pre-marital sex is a sin. If you can’t wait—we should order marriage quickly. Where is the call for the definition: “One man and one woman of one belief, neither of whom has been divorced, unless the divorce arose out of adultery or the person was previously married to a non-believer who left them, who must get married before they become so horny they fornicate prior to hearing, ‘I now pronounce you husband and wife.’”

Ah—we don’t want to follow all those pesky sins associated with marriage, do we? Just the ones that affect others. You know—the gays.

The Bible equally speaks against gluttons. Prov. 23:20-21, Titus 1:12. Just as homosexuality is amongst a list of sins in Romans 1, gluttony is included in a list of bad character traits and sins in Matt. 11:19 and Luke 7:34.

Where is the call banning fat people from marrying? Oh, I hear the cries of differentiation. The reason homosexual marriage is to be banned is that homosexuals will continue to be sinning throughout the marriage by committing homosexual acts.

Yet equally, won’t fat people encourage each other to eat more? To sin? Worse, will they provide a lifestyle which will encourage their children to become gluttons? At least homosexuals will allow their children to choose their orientation—will gluttons provide a similar choice for their own children? To eat healthy?

Further, this concept of “their marrying will provide more opportunity to sin” falls flat on its face when viewed in light of all the other areas which marriage provides more opportunity to sin. You can’t commit the sin of a wrongful divorce without marrying. Gay or straight. The only way to commit the sin of failing to love your wife is to…yeah…you get it. Have a wife.

Regardless of who marries who—according to your God and your Bible, the roles of marriage offers greater opportunities to sin. If it is post-marriage sin you are so worried about, let’s ban it altogether.

I tire of the cloaked justification for why a person is “entitled” to be against homosexual marriage. If you don’t like it—fine! I can understand preference. But don’t try and sell the concept it has nothing do with your likes or dislikes and you are (reluctantly) bound to follow some moral code you secretly don’t like. Don’t try and sell you are just doing what your God wants you do to, and if it was up to you--it would be a fine thing.

Nobody buys it anymore.

(Endnote: I wrote most of this yesterday, prior to the California ruling. Good timing.)


  1. I very much like your explanation of the slippery slope argument.

  2. Amen, Amen, a thousand times, Amen!

    FWIW, even though you are an atheist heterosexual, this gay Christian thinks you hit the proverbial nail on the head!

    I keep having this surreal argument with a man who was divorced and remarried a woman not of his own race, who says that gay people should be denied legal rights because "it's contrary to the Inspired Word of God", but when I bring up Biblical bans on second marriages and "miscegenation", all of a sudden he gets real liberal with the hermeneutics.

  3. Thank you, flycandler.

    I confess, I wondered (and was a bit concerned) about your reaction. As you point out, I am an atheist heterosexual, so talking about Christians and their reaction to homosexuals is arguably outside my qualifications.

    I appreciated your comment. It will let me sleep a little better, knowing I wasn’t completely out of my league. *grin*

  4. They are also discussing this on the 'Stand to Reason' blog and I am not sure they quite get it either - not saying I do - but you do a good job explaining here.

    I am not sure why homosexual marriage bothers so many - visuals in their head? Thanks TV generation - lol.

    I am going to debate the 'stand to reason' people on their blog and their arguments - which I find flawed. They are actually calling marriage for gays a 'special right' - and I don't quite get it myself - isn't it just a right that we all have? They also denied it as a 'civil right' and seem to believe sexuality in this area is about 'behavior'.

    My personal thing with this is I have friends that are 'gay' and I have been to the 'gay bar' with them. Although I am also a married, straight person - and I don't identify fully with their struggles - I admire them as my equals. And if I can be married...

    Christianity wants to bash this one against the rocks more it seems - and I also find their arguments against marriage very lacking...and even contrived at times.

    Most people in the Christian faith will not check into the original meanings of the texts and the lack of substance on the issue (very rarely mentioned - and the word homosexual is not even a greek or Hebrew word) speaks loudly about the issue being - well - not very contentious (Jesus is actually silent on the issue).

    I almost think some Christian people are leaning towards not loving the gay person at all? Unless they fit some standard aformentioned for them to 'morph' into.

  5. Dagoods, I think that your dual experience as both an "insider" and "outsider" when it comes to Christianity helps. At least you understand where these folks are coming from.

    In fact, a lot of what you said is fairly close to things I've heard from GLBT-advocacy groups within the church (yes, they exist). Some straight clergy point out that if it is indeed an interest of the church to discourage promiscuity and to promote stable, lifelong relationships, then the church ought to be advocating for gay people to get married. Or as a Jewish radio talk show host put it, the best way to prevent ANY people from having sex is to get them to get married.

    I think that after a lot of strum und drang and schisms and fights over property, the mainline churches will follow the lead of denominations like the United Church of Canada (which ordains and marries gay people in a country where same-sex marriage is legal AND THE SKY HAS NOT FALLEN!) and lag slightly behind the rest of society, but ultimately doing the right thing. A generation later, more conservative churches will either quietly join or quietly keep their prejudices alive (not unlike with past rows over miscegenation, ordination of women, divorce, etc.). It's so predictable; sometimes I wish I could just hit the FF button and get on with it.

    And to Societyvs' observation, I sure as hell don't want a visual of John Hagee having sex, either, yet the Rev wants me to cheer him on! (shudder)

  6. Flycandler,

    Could you please explain to me just how you think you are going to destroy my marriage? I heard again today from Chicago's idiot radio host Sandy Rios that this is part of the homosexual agenda, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why I should flush away twenty-four years of marriage to a woman I love very much just because gay people have the right to wed as well. Nor can I figure out why my son and daughter (who appear to be straight [although I have not seen and direct proof]) would decide that traditional marriage was a no longer a viable or desirable option (unless of course their mother and I have not set the example that I hope we have).

  7. i) The Bible rebukes gluttony.
    ii) The Bible rebukes homosexuality.
    iii) Same sex marriage is not biblical.
    iv) Therefore gluttonous heterosexual couples shouldn't marry.
    Oops, no, that doesn't follow, does it?

    Hi Dagoods :-)
    The liberals are doing well with this march to court-mandated same-sex marriage because they have successfully defined the parameters of the debate. They have defined it as a battle over civil rights. It is not. It's a battle over benefits.

    A civil right is a basic freedom that we all enjoy. It does not come at a cost. In the case of marriage, the government gives tax breaks to married couples. Married couples with children get more breaks. They are raising the next generation therefore we give them extra benefits. If we include gay couples their new tax breaks will cause others' tax burdens to rise.

    Gays have a right to marry in the same way that Dennis Kucinich says that we all have a "right" to clean water. But clean water comes at a cost and that makes it a benefit. Of course we want clean water so we vote for the projects we are willing to pay for.

    Now Flycandler points out that marriage between races was banned on biblical grounds. This is untrue. An argument using the Bible as an authority to deny marriage between races doesn't have enough strength to lick its own wounds. We are one race descended from one man and one woman according to the same Bible.

    Now the courts overturned these racist laws because they were unfair. Mixed race couples raise children also, and that is why we have the benefit in the first place.

    Which leads to my penultimate point, that the benefit of marriage is for the benefit of raising children. Gay couples cannot produce children naturally that are descended from both parents. They could adopt children, and Fly likes to point out that that could even "reduce abortions".

    Is that the best environment for the child, though? As Christians, we believe the best model is father, mother, and child. And anyone growing up in a man, man, child model is going to be missing the mother figure or on the other end, the father figure. This might sound nerdy or passe to you guys, but these children will also dismiss biblical truth.

    A recap, and no, I didn't see you address any of these points on your post.
    1) Marriage a benefit, not a civil right. [Not a question of semantics, but popular control]
    2) The benefit is for the raising of children. [SS couples don't produce children]
    3) Children are best raised in a family with a mother and father. [children will be deeply confused by this arrangement]

    However, if the public continues to categorize this as a civil rights issue, we can just go ahead and congratulate Flycandler now. Victory is in the definitions that people accept.

    In any event, I'm not going to lose sleep over this. The ruling is a victory for gays and lesbians everywhere and I hope something good will come from all this. On my blog I even congratulated Flycandler being that the opinion followed the very argument he was making. I'm a good sport. :-)

  8. Jim Jordan,

    Your meandering comment did not make much sense to me. I am uncertain as to how you are defining the term “benefit” and some of this is just…well…nonsensical.

    For example, first you state:

    Jim Jordan: [SS couples don't produce children]

    but then you say:

    Jim Jordan: Children are best raised in a family with a mother and father.

    Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow! My neck hurt from the whiplash of this 180-degree turn in argument. Wonder if I know any good lawyers? *grin*

    If you are against gay marriage because gays can’t produce children, then why worry about how children are raised in a gay marriage? They can’t have any, right? If you are worried about children in a gay marriage, why complain about marriage being barred because gays can’t have children—apparently they can!

    Sounds to me you are more against gays adopting, or gays bringing in children from previous marriages, or gays bringing in surrogate parents than marriage. (Pssttt…Did you know homosexuals are doing that anyway WITHOUT being married? Its true! If this is your argument—sounds like you are focusing on the wrong thing.)

    All I can do is pick a few of the more…. interesting (shall we say?) comments:

    Jim Jordan A civil right is a basic freedom that we all enjoy. It does not come at a cost.

    Might read some U.S. History on that one. Tell it to the slaves. To Rosa Parks. To Martin Luther King, Jr. To John Lawrence. Thirteen Topeka parents. And on and on and on.

    Civil rights IS a cost/detriment determination. The “cost” of not allowing police officers to enter your house at will provides a “detriment” some crimes will go unpunished. Yet that is a “cost” we are willing to live by.

    I could go on for hours, so I will presume I must have read you wrong, or you meant something different, ‘cause I cannot imagine you are saying what I am reading.

    Jim Jordan If we include gay couples their new tax breaks will cause others' tax burdens to rise.

    Seriously? THIS is your argument against Gay marriage? Your Pocketbook?

    Oh…I forgot who I was dealing with.

    Yeah—you probably WOULD consider this a good reason.

    Did you know the homosexuals already HAD the tax breaks in California? That the “tax burden” (as you call it) was already there? You are about 2 years too late to worry about that one.

    Tax burden…give me a break. You would gladly assume the tax burden babies would cause by going on welfare instead of being aborted. That is a cost/detriment you are more than willing to assume because of your belief.

    Jim Jordan Which leads to my penultimate point, that the benefit of marriage is for the benefit of raising children.

    You might be interested in reading the opinion. The California Court dealt with this argument very nicely. It pointed out how we allow marriages to two people who cannot have children. If marriage is solely about having kids, we should ban those as well. We allow marriages to people who do not intend to have children. Same resolution—not allow ‘em.

    Further, there are many legal ramifications of marriage (like…uh…”tax burden”) which have nothing whatsoever to do with children.

    And if you all are so gung-ho about marriage being about the kiddies, why are you stuck on “Marriage is defined as one man, one woman.” Where are the children in that definition?

    The whiplash in my neck is aching.

    Jim Jordan As Christians, we believe the best model is father, mother, and child.

    My very point of this blog entry. As Christians we believed the best model was divorcees not re-marrying too. Where is the call for laws prohibiting those marriages? We believed the best model was a father who loves his wife. Where is the call for laws prohibiting those marriages? We believed the best model was a wife who submits to her husband. People of the same religion. People who are horny and can’t wait.

    All those are shoved under the rug because it would actually cost the Christian something to live by their own rules on those requirements!!

  9. I figured I was wasting my time with that comment and now I'm certain of it. Are you deliberatey trying to be obtuse by seeing the 2 statements as contradictory? SSMs can't produce children but they can also adopt and also have children from previous marriages.

    Your deliberate twisting of what I meant by "cost" [I was saying civil rights doesn't come at a cost?) is intellectually dishonest. The point about cost dealt with after not before.

    And abortion is another issue entirely. Babies have a right to life. They cost money to raise but they also pay into the system later [when they are adults and are seen as human]. In 10 years the 40 million workers aborted won't be able to keep social security from bankruptcy.

    I stayed on the thread of marriage being a benefit not a right, but all bets are off for same-sex marriage if marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. But since words mean whatever we want them in this age then anything is possible I suppose.

    Regarding divorcees re-marrying, another blogger writes that it was Christians watering down marriage that helped lead to what we see today. I think he's right.

    Where are the children in that definition?

    One is what marriage is and the other is the society's reasonable reaction in extending benefits. I thought you'd give this a more thoughtful response but I was wrong.

  10. The "As Christians, we believe the best model is father, mother, and child" comment left me breathless, if only because it isn't true.

    It IS true that historically, Christians did use religious justification to ban interracial marriages (whether or not Jim wants to believe it) and remarriage after divorce.

    The "a child needs a man figure and woman figure else s/he will be a nutcase" fallacy has already been disproven by the science. Additionally, the church has never been an advocate of the insular nuclear family (itself an idea not even a century old). The ideal "model" is for a child to be surrounded by loving and responsible family members and supported in his/her spiritual, emotional, intellectual and psychological growth by a loving and nurturing church "family". This is one of the functions of infant baptism in the denominations (like mine and Jim's) that practice it--it signifies the "official" entrance of the child into the church family and the family of God.

    Anecdotally, we all know of kids raised outside the Father-Mother-Children "model" who all turned out fine. Death of a parent, divorce, adoption, all lead to different kinds of families.

    My own significant other was born in South Korea, adopted by white Canadians, his adopted mother died of cancer, and his dad remarried a woman who was widowed herself with two kids of her own. It's a complicated family structure, but everyone considers everyone else family and no one turned out any more (or less) psychotic than the rest of us when it comes to family.

    Growing up, I knew kids raised by their grandparents after their parents died in a car accident. I know someone who, after her sister died of ovarian cancer, raised her niece as her own daughter with the help of extended family members.

    Yes, I was raised in a "nuclear family". My parents are coming up on their 35th wedding anniversary, and my sister and I are their only offspring. Yet, they taught us to be open to friends and schoolmates who had different kinds of families, and those kids' families were no better or worse than ours, just different. And of course we were (and are) close to my grandparents and aunts, uncles and cousins. And church was integral to our upbringing.

    To expand on an earlier point, if it is in the interest of the church to discourage promiscuity and instead promote stable, lifetime monogamous relationships, then the church ought to promote marriage. By the same token, if it is in the interest of the church to promote the psychologically and spiritually healthy growth of children, then of course it must be supportive of all families who seek the church's care.

  11. Fly--The "a child needs a man figure and woman figure else s/he will be a nutcase" fallacy

    No, actually one is generally a better model for parenting over time. Saying that SSM families leads children to become nutcases per se is going beyond what I said.

    How do you feel about adopting children? Might you adopt when the time would be right? Regards.

  12. No, actually one is generally a better model for parenting over time

    Except for the fact that the science says that is an incorrect conclusion. The research has found no significant difference between children raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents, other than that the former tend to be less judgmental toward gay people (surprise).

  13. Vinny, I am still plotting on how to undermine your marriage. It's not easy, considering that I am waaaaay behind on my checklist of things to do for the Homosexual Agenda. Nobody told me this whole world-domination thing would be so bad for the skin!

    Another Jewish talk show host put it this way: "if I'm walking down the street with my wife and see two men holding hands, wearing wedding bands, I'm not going to turn to her and say 'honey, it's been a great 30 years, but I gotta get me some of that.'"

  14. Don't even get me started on the Jews! They're so far behind on their agenda that it's no longer funny. It's getting hard to find an evil cabal that I can still believe in.

  15. I guess all we have left are the "Islamofascists", whoever the hell they are.

  16. I am going to have to check with my wife on that. I think she may have signed us up for a Spineless Islamofascist Appeasers Group. It was either that or a square-dancing class.

  17. This is to all who think that it makes no difference whether or not you have different gender parents.

    As a person who grew up in a single parent home(father died), I dont need a scientist to tell me it doesnt make a difference. The fact is I and many, many people I have known through the years who lacked the same sex parent have issues relating to it. It doesnt mean I wasnt loved or respected, but it does mean that a piece of me is somewhat missing. I truly believe this is one of the drawbacks to Gay parents and also single parents. To think not is truly delusional.

    Thats not to say that Gay or single parents should not be allowed to adopt, but I do think that the optimum model is different sex parents.

    I actually heard a funny one for our "New" diagnosis of A.D.D....attention deficit disorder...


  18. John, with all due respect and sympathy to your situation, psychologists say that your situation is probably the exception to the rule. I know that doesn't make it ache any less for you, but the science has to take priority when it comes to public policy over anecdotes.

    Most people I know (yes I know, anecdotal, but the research tends to back this up) from single-parent households tend to find role models who fill that space. For the child of a single mother, it may be a grandfather, an uncle, a pastor, a teacher, a coach. A lot of kids with both parents end up with psychological damage from a father or mother who is abusive or distant. The fact is that two same-sex parents devoted to their kids are much better for society than two opposite-sex parents who treat their kids like garbage.

    As I mentioned, my S/O's adopted mother died from cancer. It was a terribly traumatic event for a child. A few years later, his dad remarried. Having a woman in the house did not heal the (to use your term) AMD. The woman he knew as his mother was gone, and that didn't change.

    This goes far beyond gender.

  19. Flycandler,
    What do you mean by "THE SCIENCE has to take priority"? How do you make a scientific conclusion that children of same sex couples are not adversely affected by their circumstances? We wouldn't know anything conclusively for a generation or more. Every study I've looked at reflect the predisposition of the "scientists" so I'd look for a stronger argument to shore up your point if I were you.

  20. Ok Fly

    We could debate whos psychologists are better equipped, but thats kind of like arguing over GOD. Fruitless. Let me put it more succinctly. I wasnt clear enough the first time.

    The Optimum for a child is a Healthy Male and Female parent. There are other excellent parents out there, as was in my case, my Mother. But unfortunately they are not the Optimum. Secondary parents, well, are just that, Second.

  21. The problem, (as we all should know) with anecdotal evidence, is that we can always find another anecdote to counter the one raised by differing viewpoints. For every child raised in an “optimum” family who turned out great, I can show you a similarly situated child who turned out rotten. Or ones that were raised in other family situations (whether single parent, or same-sex parent, or raised to discover “mom” was actually “grandma” and “older sister” was actually “mom,’) who likewise turned out to be great/rotten/somewhere in-between.

    (And Jim Jordan, this is what Flycandler meant by science taking priority. Science looks for patterns—not absolutes. And as a pattern, what Flycandler is saying, the children turn out fine. There are exceptions, true. Just like there are exceptions in an “optimum” family.)

    Not sure we can define “optimum.” Certainly impossible to implement. In a family with more than one child, “optimum” would necessarily entail differences, because of the uniqueness of humanity. What would be optimal for one child would not be for the other and vice versa. There would HAVE to be some sort of compromise.

    Further, there are differences which would necessarily happen by virtue of the differing focus that comes from the variety of life. A child in a same-sex marriage may be less prejudice than one in an different-gender family. Is that “better?”

    I think we are stuck, due to our society, with various family structures. To start to impose laws in an attempt to be optimal sounds dangerous.

  22. Dagoods,

    From de-converted gay, you hit the nail on the head. The slippery slope was hilarious. Those who use it really don't seem to be able to make general distinctions between groups like pedophiles, alcoholics, murders and... gays of course.

    Marriage is a benefit for raising kidletts? So when are they gonna take away the benefit from married folks who have no kids? Should they be prosecuted for fraud?

  23. Dagoods

    Love your blog by the way. Though you are a lawyer, I can work around that LOL.

    Ok, let me quantify this. We're all somewhat whacked and Im sure theres a scientist out there charting who is better and who is not. The scientific fact is that nature intended to originally have One male and one female making the baby. So that is the optimum. Now is there many other variances ou there. You bet. Not so sure its what was intended though. I know thats not scientific, just my somewhat rational brains way of thinking. Im not even remotely suggesting to take away anyones right to family. Im just pointing out what I see in Animal Kingdom and the Human world.

  24. John T, the problem is that homosexuality is fairly common in the animal kingdom, and same-gender pairs often raise offspring (this is particularly common in some species of birds, where the couple will "adopt" an abandoned egg). The biggest disadvantage with these Scottish Common Sense arguments is that it relies on reality matching up nicely with a bunch of 17th Century Scotsmen.

    It's also the old "if God had meant for man to fly, He would have given him wings". I'm jetting off to Newark on Friday (quel glamour), and it will neither be physically impossible nor will it offend God.

  25. Fly

    Ok heres the simplest way for me to explain myself. Ask a child if he could have equally loving parents with all the opportunities of finances and schooling and family around. Yet couple was the same sex and the other mixed(male and female).Which would he/She choose? I dont think we have to wait for your answer. There is an Optimum.

  26. If I ask a child if s/he would rather have a hot fudge sundae for dinner or a plate of brussels sprouts, s/he would go for the ice cream. Does that mean the "Optimum" in nutrition is ice cream?

    I agree with Dagoods in that using the law for social engineering is dangerous. Wait, I thought conservative Christians were supposed to be against that!

  27. Fly

    Im not talking about changing any Laws. Im not talking about any specific rules in regards to Homosexuality or Parenting. Im not religious nor am I prejudiced. I am saying from my perspective as a person who grew up in a single parent home the optimum for a Child is the healthiest expression of his/her creating parents. Thats it, nothing more. Im not talking about great gay parents or great single parents. I dont believe either to be the Optimum regardless of how good they are. Can you see what I am trying to say?

  28. Have a safe trip, Fly...and don't wear your arms out! :-)

  29. Again, John, I understand where you're coming from emotionally, as my own S/O had the same loss of a parent to cope with growing up. In his case, it was the loss of his mother, so for some of his formative years, his only parent was a male one.

    But a deceased parent is not the same as having two parents of the same gender, particularly when both parents are active in their kids' lives. The pain you feel is not a direct result of not having a male influence in the home--it was from the very real pain of losing a parent. That's something that would be earth-shattering to any child. And I should know, because the man I love was once one of those children.