The Case For and Against Gay Parents


Funny, when my kids were little I only knew one conservative mother that breastfed her kids. Mostly, their husbands didn't like the idea of "their" breasts being used for the very thing they were meant for.

Thompson is making the case that no one is safe to marry a man.
I cringe at the quality of arguments here - it's like the whole topic is being deconstructed for comedy.
So I take it Thompson agrees that two women should be allowed to marry?
So a lesbian couple would be twice as good at raising a child. Marriage for gay women only, no problem! Inch by inch... soon gay male couples will sue because only gay females can marry...
Therefore the Prop 8 people are going to promote lesbian marriages?
perhaps men just aren't trying hard enough to lactate.
Any woman incapable of breast-feeding should be banned from marriage. Ergo? Ergo??? WHO'S WITH ME???
So now the gay marriage proponents are going to deny that only mothers can provide such a fundamental and basic nutritional resource so important in the first years of life? That's their new strategy?

This is at the heart of this issue, denial, denial of the distinctively important roles that females and males play in a child's formative years.

What about gay men who have no desire to adopt? Can we get married?
Mercy, LC - as if you've ever found the heart of anything.
I don't get what children have to do with marriage. Last I checked, gay couples can't conceive children - if there were any legitimate reason to prevent gays from parenting, it should be a battle fought through laws concerning adoption and IVF.
Oh thank goodness. I breastfed, some 14 years ago. Now that he's no longer a sweet little baby and is a kind of punk teen, can I just claim "job done" and go on a cruise? Oh brother.
Wow Loveschild, you cannot understand what you read, can you? Yet something else goes over Loveschild's head.
Povery is correlated to higher rates of domestic violence. Should poor people not be allowed to marry?

Native Americans have a high rate of alcoholism. I guess they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Also - I'm not sure I see the connection between marriage and parenting here. In a same-sex male couple with a child, whether or not they're married doesn't at all change the fact that men are more prone to x,y, or z. So why is it a factor in the marriage debate? Weird.
@11 What's keeping you from cohabiting with another gay and taking part in a domestic partnership? Why the insistence on marriage especially now after the extensions, isn't that what people like you were saying that they only wanted? The rights, protections, visitation rights, inheritance rights and such.
Is there a questionnaire you fill out before you get married that determines whether or not you're fit to be a parent? I've never been married (and at the rate things are going legislatively, not gonna happen anytime soon) so I wouldn't know... But judging by the numbers of terrible heterosexual marriages involving children, I would guess not.
17, Loveschild you're still trying to push that old debunked lie?


In LC's world, it's only a lie if someone else says it...
Shit, he's making a good case for removing marriage rights from heterosexuals and giving them only to lesbians.
@17 - actually i think you're on the right track. the term "marriage" should be completely removed from State and Federal law. everything having to do with our legal system, IRS, etc. should be civil unions - gay and straight. civil unions would have all the legal/tax benefits of the current idea of "marriage" but just not be called "marriage".

then anyone who wanted to get "married" could go to church or whatever and read some scripture and burn some incense or whatever else they want to do in a purely symbolic ceremony.
Obviously, the only people fit to be parents are lesbians.
@17 - Civil Unions offer far fewer rights than legal marriage and you know this already.
But men CAN breastfeed!
@17: I spent about $6,000 extra on my taxes last year because the federal government doesn't consider domestic partners to be married. So, that's a difference.

And the surrogate for both of our children pumped and provided us breast milk for six months after they were each born. So they weren't technically "breast fed" (well, except for the first week or so), but they did receive breast milk.

Jeez, even the proponents can't state our case for us.
What the hell does the right to marry have to do with procreation, anyway? That's the most hollow argument of all. Denying someone the right to marry based on whether or not they're good parent material is akin to basing the right to marry on income.
#22 nails it. The main reason that this is an issue is that for many (most?) people, marriage is a religious issue. There is much less (and less organized) opposition to extending benefits to gay couples through civil unions. They could pass in every state (even in the south) very quickly, with benefits to everybody. Interestingly, in those states that have passed civil unions, many straight couples opt for that choice. Civil unions would create equality rapidly, and marriage would wane in popularity (as it has in Europe), to be limited just to those who want the religious aspects in their union.
Secondly, I'm not sure why married couples should get tax benefits other than the presumption that they need help to raise kids (unless you buy into the obsolete idea that the woman is necessarily at home not earning money); so yes, #27, the presumption by the state is that marriage is about procreation, not love.
I'd have no problem only allowing the lesbians to have kids. Straights/gays could be nice uncles and aunts.
Yeah, men can't breast feed, but neither can most women who adopt children. As far as I know, you can only breast feed if you have been pregnant and have continued breastfeeding since that pregnancy. Isn't that right, or is there something I've misunderstood? So what the hell does this have to do with a legal right to marry?
Yes, Mr. Meatweapon and I have the breastfeeding discussion quite a lot lately since this is one we'll have to deal with when our adoption enters the placement phase later this year.

It seems like the milk banks only serve hospitals because there's such a need for it with premature babies and failure-to-thrive babies. Wetnurses have come back into fashion somewhat, but such arrangements are difficult to find and very costly.

Of course, back when Nestle convinced Americans that their formula was superior to breastmilk, we had a couple of generations raised on formula. Now that people widely acknowledge breastmilk's superiority (in all ways it is the perfect food for infant humans), the formulas have gotten a little better.

This is a tough one. Breastmilk's benefits go way beyond the benefit to immunity. It sets up healthy feeding patterns that follow children well into their childhood. It helps developing bodies learn how to metabolize cholesterol. It helps in the formation of the dental arch. Etc. etc. etc.

Lots of babies are deprived of this perfect food (most adopted infants, regardless of the gender composition of the families who adopt them, for example), but it's painful being unable to provide it. Maybe there's a source I haven't considered or found yet.
@30- It is possible for a woman who has not recently given birth to start lactating, but rare. There are even a few documented cases of men lactating. Hormones and nipple stimulation are key..