Family Matters.
With all the talk in the news lately about a gay marriage ban, I thought I'd take a moment to share my thoughts on the whole issue. These are my opinions and thoughts on the matter. Feel free to agree or disagree, and your comments are welcome.
The progression of society is based on family. Family is made up of adults and their children who live together as a committed unit. At the end of the day, when you return from school or work, it is family to whom you return. Family can be made up of any mixture of parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandmas, grandpas, or more and still have love. Love can transcend gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and all the other factors that influence our lives. This talk isn't about love. This is about what kind of family I feel is best to raise children.
Ideally, I feel like a child should be raised with the experience of a mother and a father. As a person of belief, I believe God planned it that way. That's why only a man and a woman can come together to reproduce. A mother and a father each have something to bring to the table. Each has their own gender experiences that a daughter or son each need to know about. Does this mean that the worst set of a mom and dad will do better than any lesbian couple? No. But at the core, I feel like a family should be led by a man and woman who are married to each other. A gay marriage does not offer that.
But this has wider implications. It means that I don't think it's right for single mothers to go at it alone. I commend single mothers for their dedication to their children without any companion to fall back on. I'm not saying that a single mother cannot be an effective parent. I'm not saying that single mothers should be illegal. I'm saying that, ideally, it would be a man and woman in a married relationship both raising the children together. Hopefully that single mom will be able to get as much help as is needed from the children's father(s) or another dedicated man in her life.
Life often hands us lemons, so we must make lemonade. I'm not discounting that. Although I know that gay couples have adopted and raised children together, I'm a little squeamish about the idea of gay marriage being legal. I think it sets a bad precedent and sets askew what our society's priorities should be. I am also, however, squeamish about making a ban on gay marriage a constitutional amendment. I don't even have all the answers within myself on this issue, but these are my thoughts. I welcome your comments.
The progression of society is based on family. Family is made up of adults and their children who live together as a committed unit. At the end of the day, when you return from school or work, it is family to whom you return. Family can be made up of any mixture of parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandmas, grandpas, or more and still have love. Love can transcend gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and all the other factors that influence our lives. This talk isn't about love. This is about what kind of family I feel is best to raise children.Ideally, I feel like a child should be raised with the experience of a mother and a father. As a person of belief, I believe God planned it that way. That's why only a man and a woman can come together to reproduce. A mother and a father each have something to bring to the table. Each has their own gender experiences that a daughter or son each need to know about. Does this mean that the worst set of a mom and dad will do better than any lesbian couple? No. But at the core, I feel like a family should be led by a man and woman who are married to each other. A gay marriage does not offer that.
But this has wider implications. It means that I don't think it's right for single mothers to go at it alone. I commend single mothers for their dedication to their children without any companion to fall back on. I'm not saying that a single mother cannot be an effective parent. I'm not saying that single mothers should be illegal. I'm saying that, ideally, it would be a man and woman in a married relationship both raising the children together. Hopefully that single mom will be able to get as much help as is needed from the children's father(s) or another dedicated man in her life.
Life often hands us lemons, so we must make lemonade. I'm not discounting that. Although I know that gay couples have adopted and raised children together, I'm a little squeamish about the idea of gay marriage being legal. I think it sets a bad precedent and sets askew what our society's priorities should be. I am also, however, squeamish about making a ban on gay marriage a constitutional amendment. I don't even have all the answers within myself on this issue, but these are my thoughts. I welcome your comments.
posted by Michael Buttgen - The "Barefoot Voice" at
08:00
6 Comments:
So how many gay people do you actually know? Not just know, but that you are friends with and you socialize with on a regular basis? (my guess is 0)
Relationships involve 2 people with different personalities and experiences. Because of THESE differences there can be a healthy balance in the relationship. It has NOTHING to do with a person's genitals.
Although children often enter the picture later, that's really not the core issue. The issue really is about marriage itself- not who is better fit to raise children. So what is marriage? It is a legal commitment that binds 2 people together for life. So the real question at hand is: should 2 people of the same sex be allowed to make this legally binding commitment to eachother?
I say absolutely. Gay couples love eachother and desire to make a life-long commitment to one another and they should be allowed to do so. If a gay couple gets married, does that affect you? No, it doesn't. It has nothing to do with you.
I am curious as to what you think society's priorities should be. And what is this "bad precedent" that you speak of?
I do enjoy arguing with you, Michael Darling!
By
Anonymous, at 10:04 PM, June 07, 2006
Whoa.. it looks like Jen kind of summed up what I would have said. Not to upset you, Michael. I still love you. :)
Even though this is quite the heated issue in Congress right now, I can't help but be more concerned about the future of our environment.
By
Anonymous, at 2:21 AM, June 08, 2006
I am confused about this first comment. Who said anything about genitals???? Does this person actually believe that the only difference between men and women is their plumbing?
Male and female are different from before birth. Do you think that "Y" chromosome just makes "outies" instead of "innies"? The male brain goes through a different hormone wash than female brains. One result is that males only use one side of their brains at a time, while females switch back and forth rapidly. This is why guys get confused during emotional arguements with women. The woman pulls things out of every part of her brain into the discussion while the guy is trying to focus on one thing at a time. This is also why the famous "watch the kids" situation exists. Guy is watching TV, is told to watch the kids. Female means watch the kids, literally, at the same time he watches TV. Guy does his best by watching TV a little, then watching the kids a little, thereby giving the kids that tiny window of opportunity to get into trouble. The guy is wondering what he could have done differently, the woman thinks he doesn't love her or the kids enough to pay attention to them.
This is just a general description of the differences. It is even true with transsexuals so please, let's put the genitals arguement in the dumpster. Men and women, boys and girls, all think differently than each other in so many subtle and not so subtle ways that they could actually be from two different planets . . . oh like, maybe, Venus and Mars.
I have to agree with Michael. The basic family unit consisting of a male father and female mother committed to each other and to their children is the best, most advantageous scenario for a healthy society and should be set apart as such.
-rtb
By
Anonymous, at 1:07 PM, June 11, 2006
Wow, rtb. What a really long rant about something that was not really the point. Men and Women think in different ways. Yeah, I know. And?
Once again, the issue is about marriage. The fact is that there are people in the government that are trying to pass a law which discriminates against the gay community. They are trying to pass this law because of their personal religious beliefs. Not ok.
You can't say that a family that consists of a man and a woman is more healthy than one that consists of 2 men or 2 women. You don't know what a same-sex relationship is like. So maybe you should stop passing judgment on something that you know nothing about. Just because something differs from your personal experience does not make it wrong or unhealthy. Open your eyes. Straight couples screw up their kids every day.
By
Anonymous, at 10:33 PM, June 12, 2006
Without restating what I posted in the original blog entry, I must also interject:
How long, then, will it be before we allow marriage to be between MORE than two people? If three women love each other and want to be legally bound together for life, why can't they? If we allow marriage between two people of the same sex, would we then allow two lesbian sisters to marry? If not, why not? There's no potential for incest! I really feel like we do have to "draw the line" somewhere and this is the time and place to do it.
If we can all compromise and allow civil unions, fine. That would allow any two people to set up the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage between each other. Two gay men. Two lesbian women. Two very close identical twins. Whatever.
I am in no way saying that gay couples should not be allowed to love each other or be together. I'm all right with gay couples having legal connections to each other under the law. But marriage is about a man and a woman. It's always been that way and it needs to stay that way.
Compromise is a give and take and compromise is what this issue needs. I know that a lot of conservative christians would deny gay couples any legal rights to each other. I'm willing to give them that through civil unions if "marriage" can stay between one man and one woman. I don't think that's an unreasonable arrangement.
Jen probably disagrees.
By
Michael Buttgen - The "Barefoot Voice", at 11:28 PM, June 12, 2006
Interesting viewpoints, though I maintain my last point; I'm more worried about our planet's health. That's my paramount concern.
Love who you love, I say.
By
Anonymous, at 4:40 AM, June 20, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home