Slog
News & ArtsMonday, February 6, 2012
Hetero Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:25 AM
Yesterday in Pierce County:
The 2-year-old mystery surrounding the disappearance of Susan Powell might forever lack answers after police said her long-investigated husband, Josh Powell, set his house on fire Sunday afternoon, killing himself and his two young boys moments after a caseworker brought them for a supervised visitation.... Three bodies, believed to be those of Powell and his sons, Charlie, 7, and Braden, 5, were found in the same room in the house, authorities said.
Santorum in January:
For the second time in as many days, Rick Santorum waded into the issue of gay marriage, suggesting it was so important for children to have both a father and mother that an imprisoned father was preferable to a same-sex parent. Citing the work of one anti-poverty expert, Santorum said, "He found that even fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids were still better than no father at all to have in their children's lives." At a private boarding school Friday, the Republican presidential candidate's voice grew emotional as he argued that only a man and woman should be able to marry... [Three] students in the audience had gay parents.
Thank goodness those boys had a father. Lesbian moms—or lesbian foster parents—would've been tragic.
1
That caseworker is going to be blaming herself for this for the rest of her life, even though it looks like there was nothing she could have done.
2
Dan, this is a bad example to use against Santorum's idiocy. This case is/was not about typical abusive/arguing/irresponsible parenting by a “standard” couple. This case was so far extreme, it has no comparison.
A better example would be if Josh Powell grew up in a two-parent household and then became this horror – about the relationship of his parents, not the relationship of Josh Powell and his murdered wife and what he did to his kids.
A better example would be if Josh Powell grew up in a two-parent household and then became this horror – about the relationship of his parents, not the relationship of Josh Powell and his murdered wife and what he did to his kids.
3
Gosh Danny, you've convinced us.....
because some heterosexuals are mentally ill and/or evil
it must follow that allowing homosexuals to marry
is in the best interest of society.
it's been there staring us in the face
and we never connected the dots.
thank you thank you thank you
because some heterosexuals are mentally ill and/or evil
it must follow that allowing homosexuals to marry
is in the best interest of society.
it's been there staring us in the face
and we never connected the dots.
thank you thank you thank you
4
"Forever lack for answers" my ass. That's the act of a guilty, psychotic person if ever there was.
Not to mention, as widely reported, the kids had said "mommy was in the trunk" regarding the weekend camp trip during which she disappeared.
Not to mention, as widely reported, the kids had said "mommy was in the trunk" regarding the weekend camp trip during which she disappeared.
5
Newsflash: A father in jail who has abandoned his kids MAKES the mom a single parent. Durr hurr Dick.
6
Dan,
This horrific tragedy had nothing to do with Rick Santorum, marriage between any pair of genders, or biases against GBLT individuals as parents. For you to bring it up in this context is just plain sick, makes no point, and helps NO ONE.
This horrific tragedy had nothing to do with Rick Santorum, marriage between any pair of genders, or biases against GBLT individuals as parents. For you to bring it up in this context is just plain sick, makes no point, and helps NO ONE.
7
@ 2, any time some straight parent does something to harm their children, it counts. The particulars don't matter, because the opposite case is that, simply, gay parents can't be good parents. Ever.
8
Right, gay parents don't kill their kids. Like this Lesbian mother - she didn't just kill him, she tortured him first.
http://www.articlesbase.com/criminal-art…
http://www.articlesbase.com/criminal-art…
9
p.s. Why, other than for your own promo purposes, are you still bringing up Rick Santorum like he matters?
12
This was so horribly tragic.
And pointless.
After all Frank Lombard is out on parole
and looking for some little boys to adopt.....
And pointless.
After all Frank Lombard is out on parole
and looking for some little boys to adopt.....
13
Let's be fair to Rick. These boys did not have a mother and a father--at least not since their father killed their mother.
15
I understand why Dan posts these - but really the probably is so much deeper. We live in a society that absolutely and completely devalues the lives of women and children. This man murdered his wife with his children as witnesses. If violence against women and children was taken seriously this man would not have been allowed anywhere near his children. And now we've got states decriminalizing domestic violence as a way to save money in their budgets. Until this mentality changes, men will continue to murder their wives and children and any and all outrage about it when it happens will continue to fall on deaf ears. It's really easy to be outraged once someone is dead. How about some outrage before the lives are lost?
17
@2 This is an entirely relevant example. Santorum argues that NO MATTER WHAT kids are better off being raised by a mother and a father. When a father (almost certainly) murders his spouse, then blows up his house with himself and the children inside, that contradicts Santorum's premise pretty spectacularly, wouldn't you say?
@6 Santorum has made it his business to claim at every opportunity that children raised by straight parents -any straight parents- are better off than, for example, Dan's son. Therefore, every atrocity committed by straight parents can, and should, be used in an argument against Santorum.
@6 Santorum has made it his business to claim at every opportunity that children raised by straight parents -any straight parents- are better off than, for example, Dan's son. Therefore, every atrocity committed by straight parents can, and should, be used in an argument against Santorum.
18
And @8&9 It's true. Sometimes gay people kill their children. There are sociopaths of every gender, color, orientation, etc. Since Dan has never claimed that ALL gay parents are better than ALL straight parents, and he has certainly never claimed that straight people shouldn't even be allowed to have children, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by throwing that out there. As far as Dan's harping on Santorum at every possible opportunity, well, Rob in Baltimore answered that one for you, so I won't bother.
19
@9 - He matters enough that the media pays attention to him, therefore his bullshit needs to be smacked down.
If he doesn't matter to you, why do you care what Dan writes about him?
If he doesn't matter to you, why do you care what Dan writes about him?
21
@11
Santorum is nobody, an also-ran made larger by Savage's self-promotional crusade. The world at large has already decided RS is an asshole but Savage needs him as his career whipping boy.
@18
You're not sure? In saying facetiously that it "would have been tragic" if the dead boys had a Lesbian mom, Dan was arguing, in so many words, that what happened to the kids at the hands of a straight parent might not have happened if dad been gay. Of course that's not so. Got it?
Santorum is nobody, an also-ran made larger by Savage's self-promotional crusade. The world at large has already decided RS is an asshole but Savage needs him as his career whipping boy.
@18
You're not sure? In saying facetiously that it "would have been tragic" if the dead boys had a Lesbian mom, Dan was arguing, in so many words, that what happened to the kids at the hands of a straight parent might not have happened if dad been gay. Of course that's not so. Got it?
22
@7, 17 The reason I think this is a bad example is because it’s so extreme. Let’s look at the more mundane examples of children raised by unprepared, unintelligent, accidental-but-married parents and the typical examples of adopted-at-birth children raised by gay parents. (And maybe even throw in abuse statistics of adopted-at-birth children raised by straight married couples.)
Anyone can bring up examples of gay or straight parents abusing their biological or adopted children (comment #8, for example). Let’s go the scientific route and just look at the data. And where the data is lacking, let’s improve it.
The people who could be swayed by facts aren’t going to be swayed by these stories of how bad straight parents can be; we all know the horrors we can do to each other. So get the data and get it out there.
The people who can’t be swayed by facts/data are the very people who will never agree that gay parenting is acceptable. The religious, tea partiers, morons. They’re not going to come around on this issue. They’re always going to believe that gays are abominations, children raised in those homes are delinquents, and that gays will destroy our earth. They will excuse any story of bad or horrific straight parenting and just jump on the argument that gays can be just as bad, if not worse. So why play their petty game?
Anyone can bring up examples of gay or straight parents abusing their biological or adopted children (comment #8, for example). Let’s go the scientific route and just look at the data. And where the data is lacking, let’s improve it.
The people who could be swayed by facts aren’t going to be swayed by these stories of how bad straight parents can be; we all know the horrors we can do to each other. So get the data and get it out there.
The people who can’t be swayed by facts/data are the very people who will never agree that gay parenting is acceptable. The religious, tea partiers, morons. They’re not going to come around on this issue. They’re always going to believe that gays are abominations, children raised in those homes are delinquents, and that gays will destroy our earth. They will excuse any story of bad or horrific straight parenting and just jump on the argument that gays can be just as bad, if not worse. So why play their petty game?
23
@6 (Just Jeff)-- Santorum and his ilk like to paint a picture of Happy Normal 100% Wholesome Heterosexual Nuclear Families, and claim that they're the obvious alternative to Sick Deviant Evil Homosexuals.
Dan's adding some nuance to that picture.
Dan's adding some nuance to that picture.
25
Any child abuse story of heterosexual origin automatically fits Dan’s “Every Child Deserves” posts. With a low bar like that, they’re losing their fizz.
The real pertinent commentary was posted by Xina at @15.
P.S. to Xina. Our minds seem to fix errors as we read, so I didn’t need your correction on @16. I only send corrections if my error is truly puzzling.
The real pertinent commentary was posted by Xina at @15.
P.S. to Xina. Our minds seem to fix errors as we read, so I didn’t need your correction on @16. I only send corrections if my error is truly puzzling.
26
@ 21,
No. You're choosing to find that in those words, but that's not what those words say.
In saying facetiously that it "would have been tragic" if the dead boys had a Lesbian mom, Dan was arguing, in so many words, that what happened to the kids at the hands of a straight parent might not have happened if dad been gay.
No. You're choosing to find that in those words, but that's not what those words say.
27
For all of you comparing gay "parenting" with heterosexual parents you might remember a few things.
Gays and lesbians can't have kids without planning to do so. The process of adoption of IVF or meaningless sex with a normal person for the puposes of having a kid means considerable time and financial resources went into the process of being granted custodial care of a child. Comparing a pool of people entirely consisting of such caregivers with a pool many of whose members had kids by 'accident' is statistically skewed. It's like comparing vehicle reliability from two pools of car owners, one of which consists of mechanics.
The full effects of gay "parenting" on the child aren't known. Won't be for a generation or two. As an example, the full effets of welfare policies weren't known for a generation after the appalling and treasonous FDR. Laziness, an inability to plan ones own financial future, a reliance on the charity of others for the bare necessities of life not just for a few months of misfortune but for an entire lifetime weren't known to be the social consequences of these stupid policies until a generation grew up under them. Sure, anyone could have predicted that these would be the inevitable harvest of such idiotic policies, but they weren't statistically known for sure until time passed. Similarly, how gay "parenting" affects kids won't be understood until those kids start raising kids themselves. Basically, gay "parents" are using kids as guinneau pigs for their political games. Kind of unethical, immoral, even horrifying, but there you have it.
To take a concrete case- Any sane person could tell you that the unfortunate young man Savage and his boyfriend are raising has no example of morality or integrity or even basic heterosexual interaction to model his adult behavior on. It may be that he'll be financially successful. It may be that he won't be a criminal or drug addict. Having said that is NOT the same as saying that he's a healthy well adjusted adult. Not by a long shot. With two deviant perverts who celebrate their inability even to stay faithful to each other as custodial caregivers (NOT fathers) and at least one of whom is an habitual liar how could he be?
More...
Gays and lesbians can't have kids without planning to do so. The process of adoption of IVF or meaningless sex with a normal person for the puposes of having a kid means considerable time and financial resources went into the process of being granted custodial care of a child. Comparing a pool of people entirely consisting of such caregivers with a pool many of whose members had kids by 'accident' is statistically skewed. It's like comparing vehicle reliability from two pools of car owners, one of which consists of mechanics.
The full effects of gay "parenting" on the child aren't known. Won't be for a generation or two. As an example, the full effets of welfare policies weren't known for a generation after the appalling and treasonous FDR. Laziness, an inability to plan ones own financial future, a reliance on the charity of others for the bare necessities of life not just for a few months of misfortune but for an entire lifetime weren't known to be the social consequences of these stupid policies until a generation grew up under them. Sure, anyone could have predicted that these would be the inevitable harvest of such idiotic policies, but they weren't statistically known for sure until time passed. Similarly, how gay "parenting" affects kids won't be understood until those kids start raising kids themselves. Basically, gay "parents" are using kids as guinneau pigs for their political games. Kind of unethical, immoral, even horrifying, but there you have it.
To take a concrete case- Any sane person could tell you that the unfortunate young man Savage and his boyfriend are raising has no example of morality or integrity or even basic heterosexual interaction to model his adult behavior on. It may be that he'll be financially successful. It may be that he won't be a criminal or drug addict. Having said that is NOT the same as saying that he's a healthy well adjusted adult. Not by a long shot. With two deviant perverts who celebrate their inability even to stay faithful to each other as custodial caregivers (NOT fathers) and at least one of whom is an habitual liar how could he be?
28
@ 27, YOU aren't a healthy, well-adjusted adult. You speak, as always, from a position of extreme ignorance.
29
I understand _why_ Dan posts these comparisons. And yet I find it incredibly distasteful that this story would be used to further _any_ cause OTHER than the need to end violence against women and children, period. It is a tragedy, and honestly, I think that Dan looks like a troll for using it to support his otherwise morally superior argument for support of gay parents.
30
@27, I have a friend raised by a gay mom. She and her partner were long-term and exclusive, but did not live together. My friend just finished his doctorate in physical therapy (after a long stint as a professional ballet dancer). He and his wife also have a new baby boy.
My best friend was raised from the age of 11 with two moms. His dad (a very nice man) was also very involved in his upbringing. He's a high school teacher, married with two beautiful children.
These two men are devoted fathers and husbands, have professional careers, and live their lives with integrity. It's kind of insulting that you think they are somehow flawed human beings (more flawed than most humans, I mean), simply because they were raised by gay parents.
As an aside, both of my friends were born into opposite-sex marriages. Their mothers realized their orientations later in life, and had amicable splits with their husbands.
My best friend was raised from the age of 11 with two moms. His dad (a very nice man) was also very involved in his upbringing. He's a high school teacher, married with two beautiful children.
These two men are devoted fathers and husbands, have professional careers, and live their lives with integrity. It's kind of insulting that you think they are somehow flawed human beings (more flawed than most humans, I mean), simply because they were raised by gay parents.
As an aside, both of my friends were born into opposite-sex marriages. Their mothers realized their orientations later in life, and had amicable splits with their husbands.
31
Ssntorum takes his orders from the pope. He doesn't need to tell the truth. In fact, he's obligated to lie. Lie and hate. That's the pope's way. The Catholic Church way. Read your history.
32
Your acts of biracial sex, and marriage are to this day considered immoral my many. Just like people can't help what race they are born, they also cannot help what sex they are born. You chose the behaviors of biracial sex and marriage.
You believe that gay sex is immoral, but exactly what is immoral about it? Other than being gay, can you state why you believe Dan Savage is immoral?
You believe that gay sex is immoral, but exactly what is immoral about it? Other than being gay, can you state why you believe Dan Savage is immoral?
33
@27: Yes, homosexuals must CHOOSE to have kids. That is why having gay parents means that a child will always be wanted and cared for.
34
@32
I have never written that Savage is immoral because he's gay. I won't waste your time claiming I have gay friends. But I have gay neighbors who quietly live their lives, go to work, take care of their home and participate in the neighborhood whom I'd call very moral from what I know of them.
On the other hand, they aren't disgusting perverts asking others to embrace their sexual promiscuity, inability to maintain a faithful relationship to one person, and general moral depravity. Which of course neatly encapsulates the moral filth that is Dan Savage.
Nor have I once suggested that people can help the sex they're born. What this has to do with homosexuality is obscure to me, but okay.
My wife did not choose her skin color. Our relationship doesn't alter the millenia old social understanding of marriage as being between a man and woman.
Can you say the same of you or your friends demanding that this definition change for your convenience?
I have never written that Savage is immoral because he's gay. I won't waste your time claiming I have gay friends. But I have gay neighbors who quietly live their lives, go to work, take care of their home and participate in the neighborhood whom I'd call very moral from what I know of them.
On the other hand, they aren't disgusting perverts asking others to embrace their sexual promiscuity, inability to maintain a faithful relationship to one person, and general moral depravity. Which of course neatly encapsulates the moral filth that is Dan Savage.
Nor have I once suggested that people can help the sex they're born. What this has to do with homosexuality is obscure to me, but okay.
My wife did not choose her skin color. Our relationship doesn't alter the millenia old social understanding of marriage as being between a man and woman.
Can you say the same of you or your friends demanding that this definition change for your convenience?
35
@ 34, millenia of injustice doesn't mean that it's right to keep going that way. That's the kind of reasoning loyalists had in the 1770s.
37
Seattleblues, Dan and his partner didn't choose what sex they were born. You want to deny them marriage on based on a physical characteristic they cannot help.
Slavery was an millennia old institution as well. Does that mean it was wrong to change it? Marriage has repeatedly changed. There are many God sanctioned polygamous marriages in the Bible. Not to mention it says a virgin must marry her rapist. It changed again when miscegenation was legalized.
Why is Dan's relationship immoral. He and his partner are in agreement, and aren't deceiving anyone. Many people believe that folks who choose the miscegenetic lifestyle are "disgusting perverts".
Slavery was an millennia old institution as well. Does that mean it was wrong to change it? Marriage has repeatedly changed. There are many God sanctioned polygamous marriages in the Bible. Not to mention it says a virgin must marry her rapist. It changed again when miscegenation was legalized.
Why is Dan's relationship immoral. He and his partner are in agreement, and aren't deceiving anyone. Many people believe that folks who choose the miscegenetic lifestyle are "disgusting perverts".
38
@34: You know, Dan doesn't tell people to be huge filthy sluts or whatever. He's all about "whatever works, works, but be safe and honest about it".
39
Long live parental "rights"!
It isn't the caseworker who should feel guilty about what happened to those children; it's whatever fucknut judge decided that Powell should have ANY visitation of his sons, let alone visitation at his own home. That judge should thank his/her lucky stars that Powell didn't also murder the caseworker.
It isn't the caseworker who should feel guilty about what happened to those children; it's whatever fucknut judge decided that Powell should have ANY visitation of his sons, let alone visitation at his own home. That judge should thank his/her lucky stars that Powell didn't also murder the caseworker.
40
@39
It is to the credit of our judicial system that this could happen at all.
Powell had not been charged in the disappearance of his wife. That’s it. He is currently innocent in any connection to that matter. The judge could only rule on the safety of a home that contained child pornography. The children were removed. Last week Powell was ordered to have an evaluation.
Maybe his supervised visits should have been done in a secure setting, but the rarity of this act should not then add more onerous rules to the thousands of visitations in our area each week.
It seems there is only one living person to be held accountable for this travesty – the father of Powell who might have known his son was a monster and is himself a monster.
It is to the credit of our judicial system that this could happen at all.
Powell had not been charged in the disappearance of his wife. That’s it. He is currently innocent in any connection to that matter. The judge could only rule on the safety of a home that contained child pornography. The children were removed. Last week Powell was ordered to have an evaluation.
Maybe his supervised visits should have been done in a secure setting, but the rarity of this act should not then add more onerous rules to the thousands of visitations in our area each week.
It seems there is only one living person to be held accountable for this travesty – the father of Powell who might have known his son was a monster and is himself a monster.
41
@33
I really want a 1932 Bugatti. (I don't actually, but for purposes of argument..) They're well designed, rare as hens teeth and the coachwork is pure art. I could probably divest enough to buy one (even minus the costs of the inevitable divorce if I did so.) But I couldn't properly store or maintain an antique car of that quality and rarity after purchasing it. So, because I think them works of art deserving of conservation, I don't buy one.
A similar argument could be made of gays 'parenting.' Really wanting a child may make someone a more thoughtful parent, but you're still unable to give the child the sexual and social example any child needs to become a fully formed adult.
I really want a 1932 Bugatti. (I don't actually, but for purposes of argument..) They're well designed, rare as hens teeth and the coachwork is pure art. I could probably divest enough to buy one (even minus the costs of the inevitable divorce if I did so.) But I couldn't properly store or maintain an antique car of that quality and rarity after purchasing it. So, because I think them works of art deserving of conservation, I don't buy one.
A similar argument could be made of gays 'parenting.' Really wanting a child may make someone a more thoughtful parent, but you're still unable to give the child the sexual and social example any child needs to become a fully formed adult.
42
Dan,
I don't think it is a good idea to use this tragedy for political purposes. This horror is so immediate (a photo of the charred house was on the front page of the Times, I winced when I saw it) that it warrants only empathy for the family.
Yep, we know it. Some parents straight or gay can be monsters. Let those boys rest in peace.
I don't think it is a good idea to use this tragedy for political purposes. This horror is so immediate (a photo of the charred house was on the front page of the Times, I winced when I saw it) that it warrants only empathy for the family.
Yep, we know it. Some parents straight or gay can be monsters. Let those boys rest in peace.
43
It's interesting that you bring up "meaningless sex with a 'normal' [quotes mine] person", Seattleblues, since, when you assert that homosexuality is chosen, it is precisely that (or celibacy) to which you would apparently condemn the homosexual.
Basically, gay "parents" are using kids as guinneau pigs for their political games. Kind of unethical, immoral, even horrifying, but there you have it.Are you not, in a sense, using your own kids as part of an ongoing experiment in governing families by way of the counterintuitive posits and tenets of anthropomorphic monotheism and Western phenomenological, philosophical, and/or metaphysical dualism?
I won't waste your time claiming I have gay friends. But I have gay neighbors who quietly live their lives, go to work, take care of their home and participate in the neighborhood whom I'd call very moral from what I know of them.Assumes a lot of facts not in evidence. Is it not reasonable to believe that these neighbors might well have voted, might well be voting (in the present or future), for gay marriage, that they may be giving their money to groups lobbying for same?
On the other hand, they aren't disgusting perverts asking others to embrace their sexual promiscuity, inability to maintain a faithful relationship to one person, and general moral depravity.
44
These posts are worth it because they invariably bring out the troll with his free verse anger poetry, as well as the overwrought moralistic stylings of Seattleblahs.The only thing we're missing is loveschild.
45
There you go again SB. Stating opinion as fact with out even a personal anecdote, let alone a fact to back you up. Oh if only you had shown the same care regarding you progeny as you profess to have for that car, they'd have been spared such an embarrassing douche canoe for a father.
I do have personal experience with more than one adult raised by same sex parents, and they are all, without exception, healthy, happy, and successful both in their public and private lives. And they all grew up straight to boot. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I do have personal experience with more than one adult raised by same sex parents, and they are all, without exception, healthy, happy, and successful both in their public and private lives. And they all grew up straight to boot. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
46
Yeah, getting sarcastic and pithy about the deaths of these kids so soon after the fact just feels wrong, even if it is meant to zing a sleazy politician. Even though I'm on the side of gay rights, I feel that there are better ways to have made this point. These posts feel exploitative.
47
@41: If a parent is giving his/her children "the sexual...example any child needs to become a fully formed adult", he/she may be DOING IT WRONG.
48
It is actually Santorum and his ilk that led me to become a huge supporter of same sex marriage and adoption. I'm not gay, neither is anyone in my family(that I know of), but my dad did abandon the rest of us when I was at a young age. Then I hear Rick and the religious right talk about how "defective" my family must be because my mom is raising 3 kids on her own and how we all are going to grow up to be convicts because of a lack of a "father". And guess what? We all 3 graduated college, have careers(I even have a masters degree in computer science from one of the top universities in Japan, not too bad for someone from a "defective" family) etc
Well guess what Rick, people don't really take too kindly to having their families be labeled as defective, when I realized he was full of shit on this issue, I probed a little deeper and realized that he is full of shit about others he labels as "defective" as well.
Also, SeattleBlues, the micro machine doesn't' count as the real thing, you should probably move out of your mom's basement before thinking about buying a car.
Well guess what Rick, people don't really take too kindly to having their families be labeled as defective, when I realized he was full of shit on this issue, I probed a little deeper and realized that he is full of shit about others he labels as "defective" as well.
Also, SeattleBlues, the micro machine doesn't' count as the real thing, you should probably move out of your mom's basement before thinking about buying a car.
49
Come on , folks, don't let the troll stand on his "millennium-old institution of marriage as one-man-one-woman" line. Marriage in the Abrahamic tradition seems to have long been "one man and as many women as he can support," marriage in many African, some middle-eastern and at least one North American culture still fits that mold. Marriage in some Indian, African and North American subcultures has made provision in the past for one man and one (person roughly equivalent to a) transgendered woman. Finally, a VERY small number of tribal cultures have been documented wherein marriage was one woman and as many men as she could support. So even laying aside, "just because ideas are tenacious it [doesn't] mean that they are worthy," this idea is just not as tenacious as Seattleblues (and others) try to imply.
50
A similar argument could be made of gays 'parenting.' Really wanting a child may make someone a more thoughtful parent, but you're still unable to give the child the sexual and social example any child needs to become a fully formed adult.
So, uh.....
Those lesbian moms never have brothers....meaning any kid would have uncles, older cousins? Or gay guys having sisters? Surely they have grandparents, at least one of which is likely to be of the opposite gender. Or, you know, they could have been in a straight marriage and came out/divorced after the kids were born (I know at least 3 lesbian couples like that), so the kids' biological opposite-sex parent is still in the picture. Or, you know, the gay parents could have FRIENDS of the opposite gender, or be in touch with the biological/birth parent, or have a sports coach or favourite teacher or friends' parents or.....
When you make the comment about a kid whose parents are a same-sex couple missing out on that other gender, you're assuming that the kids are growing up in an utter vacuum in which NO OTHER ADULTS INTERACT WITH THEM EVHAR. It doesn't work that way. Not unless you're on a sheep station in the deepest outback of Australia, and even then it's a stretch.
So, uh.....
Those lesbian moms never have brothers....meaning any kid would have uncles, older cousins? Or gay guys having sisters? Surely they have grandparents, at least one of which is likely to be of the opposite gender. Or, you know, they could have been in a straight marriage and came out/divorced after the kids were born (I know at least 3 lesbian couples like that), so the kids' biological opposite-sex parent is still in the picture. Or, you know, the gay parents could have FRIENDS of the opposite gender, or be in touch with the biological/birth parent, or have a sports coach or favourite teacher or friends' parents or.....
When you make the comment about a kid whose parents are a same-sex couple missing out on that other gender, you're assuming that the kids are growing up in an utter vacuum in which NO OTHER ADULTS INTERACT WITH THEM EVHAR. It doesn't work that way. Not unless you're on a sheep station in the deepest outback of Australia, and even then it's a stretch.
53
"Any sane person could tell you that the unfortunate young man Savage and his boyfriend are raising has no example of morality or integrity or even basic heterosexual interaction to model his adult behavior on. (SB)"
What in the Seven Hells are you talking about?
Exactly what kind of "modelling" did your (presumably) hetero parents provide for you?
No, gay parents obviously cannot represent an idealized man-women marriage to their children. But so what? I didn't look to my straight folks for "romance" or "intimacy" lessons - as Dan S. says, there's some things you have a right to NOT know about your family members.
Growing up watching my folks interact with each other, I learned things like honestly, fidelity, patience, mutual respect, healthy boundaries, a sense of humor and proportion.
Is there some reason why I could not have learned that from two men? Or two women?
What in the Seven Hells are you talking about?
Exactly what kind of "modelling" did your (presumably) hetero parents provide for you?
No, gay parents obviously cannot represent an idealized man-women marriage to their children. But so what? I didn't look to my straight folks for "romance" or "intimacy" lessons - as Dan S. says, there's some things you have a right to NOT know about your family members.
Growing up watching my folks interact with each other, I learned things like honestly, fidelity, patience, mutual respect, healthy boundaries, a sense of humor and proportion.
Is there some reason why I could not have learned that from two men? Or two women?
54
(cont)
Well, not if the two were rotten people. But wouldn't the problem there be what kind of people they ARE, not what kind of people they FUCK?
Sheesh.
Well, not if the two were rotten people. But wouldn't the problem there be what kind of people they ARE, not what kind of people they FUCK?
Sheesh.
55
@8, that case of the lesbian mother torturing and murdering her child is 22 years old. We hear of similar cases involving fathers every month or so. It is indeed horrific, but if such cases involving lesbian moms are that few and far between, I'd rather have kids take their chances with dykes than dads any day.
56
The "Every Child Deserves" entries are getting repetitive and the connections seem tenuous now. We get it. Point taken. Preaching to the converted here. (Youth Pastor Watch, however, remains devastatingly mind-blowing.)
57
The "Every Child Deserves" entries are getting repetitive and the connections seem tenuous now. We get it. Point taken. Preaching to the converted here. (Youth Pastor Watch, however, remains devastatingly mind-blowing.)
58
"At a private boarding school Friday, the Republican presidential candidate's voice grew emotional as he argued that only a man and woman should be able to marry.."
What IS this man's obsession with what marriage is or isn't? I got to wonder what's in his family history has him choked on the subject.
What IS this man's obsession with what marriage is or isn't? I got to wonder what's in his family history has him choked on the subject.
59
These posts are almost starting to give the impression that Dan delights in hearing about straight parents who abuse their kids because it helps prove his point. Not cool.
60
@xina FTW
"We live in a society that absolutely and completely devalues the lives of women and children. This man murdered his wife with his children as witnesses. If violence against women and children was taken seriously this man would not have been allowed anywhere near his children. "
You nailed it. That is what "family values" should be about : protecting children and women (also some men) from violent psychopaths that happen to be members of the same family. It should be about making the inside of a family a safe place for children - and a safe place means one where they won't be murdered, nor physically abused, nor morally abused ; not one where the parents are from different genders.
Real family values have nothing to do with preventing gay people from marrying and adopting. Santorum and followers must be reminded that.
"We live in a society that absolutely and completely devalues the lives of women and children. This man murdered his wife with his children as witnesses. If violence against women and children was taken seriously this man would not have been allowed anywhere near his children. "
You nailed it. That is what "family values" should be about : protecting children and women (also some men) from violent psychopaths that happen to be members of the same family. It should be about making the inside of a family a safe place for children - and a safe place means one where they won't be murdered, nor physically abused, nor morally abused ; not one where the parents are from different genders.
Real family values have nothing to do with preventing gay people from marrying and adopting. Santorum and followers must be reminded that.
61
Yes, people keep repeating the 'heterosexual couples are better parents' without giving any specific evidence in favor of that, and apparently disregarding the evidence against it, including the people who have been raised by homosexuals and who are now out outspoken defenders of their parents and who show they lacked nothing in their upbringing.
Holy thousand-year-old definitions have been defeated as a matter of course (interracial marriage, slavery, monarchy, etc.). Why is marriage=man+woman any better?
It's a pity that so many people keep claiming such things as if they were indeed defensible points -- and without even trying to defend them (except with worn-out ad homines, again without support). As if anything could be simply 'assumed' to be true (as geocentrism was). Lucklily, more and more people see through this self-defeating emotionality and realize that it stresses how anti-marriage-equality advocates are simply fundamentally wrong: they can't even defend themselves without emotionality, arguments of authority, and mere tradition (again, see geocentrism, which was once defended with the same three 'arguments').
Holy thousand-year-old definitions have been defeated as a matter of course (interracial marriage, slavery, monarchy, etc.). Why is marriage=man+woman any better?
It's a pity that so many people keep claiming such things as if they were indeed defensible points -- and without even trying to defend them (except with worn-out ad homines, again without support). As if anything could be simply 'assumed' to be true (as geocentrism was). Lucklily, more and more people see through this self-defeating emotionality and realize that it stresses how anti-marriage-equality advocates are simply fundamentally wrong: they can't even defend themselves without emotionality, arguments of authority, and mere tradition (again, see geocentrism, which was once defended with the same three 'arguments').
62
@59, I don't think he likes it, but it does help prove his point, which means they are relevant. It's like his old "Pastor Watch" posts.
63
"Traditional" marriage, for the vast majority of Human History, has been one man {the "Patriarch"} and as many women as he can support; plus his free sexual access to female {and often male!} slaves, concubines, young female servants, and harlots. THAT has been the Majority Tradition all over.
The other forms of marriage, in the course of all History, are by contrast merely oddball, minor variations: Monogamy being FORCED on men who couldn't afford otherwise, and they escaped from it as soon as they could; Polyandry {several husbands, often brothers, "sharing" a woman when females were scarce}; "Group Marriage" as practiced by some cults; Celibacy {and Celibate Marriage}; Serial Monogamy in our culture {Newt Gingrich being the latest best example}; Same-Sex Marriage as practiced by some Privileged People in tribal settings, and in the Early Christian Church {yes!}; all these are "deviant practices" from the STANDARD of Polygyny, if you go by their Majority and Minority statuses.
I can't help LAUGHING AT the sheer IGNORANCE of History, exhibited by those who keep yammering about "Traditional" Marriage being "one man one woman". That is an extremely recent development in a limited cultural area. Missionaries supported by thuggish Colonial Administrators were able to IMPOSE this unnatural state of affairs on foreign cultures, wherever Colonial Exploiters set up shop to exploit.
You've heard of the "Missionary Position" in sex? There's a REASON it's called that!
The position itself was as weird, "unnatural" and novel to the "Natives", as was the idea of one-man-one-woman in that position being the ONLY form of marriage available. {And the Missionaries tried to make damn sure, as best they could, that the "Missionary Position" was the ONLY position the "Natives" were allowed, for procreative purposes only, of course!}
More...
The other forms of marriage, in the course of all History, are by contrast merely oddball, minor variations: Monogamy being FORCED on men who couldn't afford otherwise, and they escaped from it as soon as they could; Polyandry {several husbands, often brothers, "sharing" a woman when females were scarce}; "Group Marriage" as practiced by some cults; Celibacy {and Celibate Marriage}; Serial Monogamy in our culture {Newt Gingrich being the latest best example}; Same-Sex Marriage as practiced by some Privileged People in tribal settings, and in the Early Christian Church {yes!}; all these are "deviant practices" from the STANDARD of Polygyny, if you go by their Majority and Minority statuses.
I can't help LAUGHING AT the sheer IGNORANCE of History, exhibited by those who keep yammering about "Traditional" Marriage being "one man one woman". That is an extremely recent development in a limited cultural area. Missionaries supported by thuggish Colonial Administrators were able to IMPOSE this unnatural state of affairs on foreign cultures, wherever Colonial Exploiters set up shop to exploit.
You've heard of the "Missionary Position" in sex? There's a REASON it's called that!
The position itself was as weird, "unnatural" and novel to the "Natives", as was the idea of one-man-one-woman in that position being the ONLY form of marriage available. {And the Missionaries tried to make damn sure, as best they could, that the "Missionary Position" was the ONLY position the "Natives" were allowed, for procreative purposes only, of course!}
64
Mr. Meat Weapon and I frequently ponder how we might provide our daughter with sexual examples. Our heterosexual neighbors have offered to let her watch them, but we think we should wait until she's at least two. We believe in her first 23 months she should only be exposed to the sexual examples her daddy and papa provide her.
65
Four points:
>Rick Santorum is a bastard.
>The story of that family is abysmally tragic.
>The story of a man who killed his gay partner and their adopted toddler son last year in First Hill is also abysmally tragic:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
>When it comes to raising a family, I tend to believe that there is something uniquely special about a loving, committed union of a female spirit and a male spirit.
I believe -- all other criteria being equal -- a straight couple can provide a more nourishing environment (emotionally, pscyhosocially) for raising children than a gay couple can.
I don't know if it ever happens, but I tend to believe -- all other criteria being equal -- gay couples should not compete with straight couples to adopt children.
>Rick Santorum is a bastard.
>The story of that family is abysmally tragic.
>The story of a man who killed his gay partner and their adopted toddler son last year in First Hill is also abysmally tragic:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
>When it comes to raising a family, I tend to believe that there is something uniquely special about a loving, committed union of a female spirit and a male spirit.
I believe -- all other criteria being equal -- a straight couple can provide a more nourishing environment (emotionally, pscyhosocially) for raising children than a gay couple can.
I don't know if it ever happens, but I tend to believe -- all other criteria being equal -- gay couples should not compete with straight couples to adopt children.
66
I disagree with my fellow commentors. I think this is the perfect example to use. It is one that Santorum (spreadingsantorum.com\) is taking a stand on. It is exactly the right example.
It is clear that the most horrific person who mutilates or kills or otherwise acts INhumanely, is more human than a gay person in the legal view of Santorum. It needs confronting.
It is clear that the most horrific person who mutilates or kills or otherwise acts INhumanely, is more human than a gay person in the legal view of Santorum. It needs confronting.
67
@65, I understand you believe this.
But why should I, or anyone else, especially when evidence keeps accumulating that points in the opposite direction? Namely, that, all things being equal, gay couples and straight couples are, well, equal at raising kids?
I understand you're afraid of something, but there is at least some chance that, like the proverbial monster under the bed, this something you're afraid of isn't there, and that, all other things being equal, gay couples are just as good at raising kids as straight couples are. Just as interracial couples also are.
But why should I, or anyone else, especially when evidence keeps accumulating that points in the opposite direction? Namely, that, all things being equal, gay couples and straight couples are, well, equal at raising kids?
I understand you're afraid of something, but there is at least some chance that, like the proverbial monster under the bed, this something you're afraid of isn't there, and that, all other things being equal, gay couples are just as good at raising kids as straight couples are. Just as interracial couples also are.
68
Jesus, Dan. Enough. Really. Let Charlie and Braden rest in peace. Their tragedy has nothing to do with same sex parenting rights. Don't belittle their tragedy with sarcasm and politics, regardless of how correct your overall point is.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
GOP Congressman: We Have to Ban Abortion Because Fetuses Are Masturbating In There by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
The Wednesday Morning News by Goldy
-
Less Than a Quarter of Americans Have Confidence in Newspapers by Eli Sanders
-
Jobs-Killing Socialism Drives Seattle's Unemployment Rate Down to 4.7 Percent by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (68) RSS