Momlessness and Dadlessness as a Way of Life

SameSexThumbby Linda Harvey
Former attorney general of Ohio Jim Petro and his wife have jumped on the “gay marriage” bandwagon because their daughter Corbin got hitched, so the fantasy goes, to another woman in Massachusetts. He joins another prominent Ohio politician, U.S. Senator Ron Portman, in recently discovering human rights our forefathers missed.

Many people don’t believe two females are an authentic marriage, no matter how sincere, but the Petros are fully committed, parentally and politically, to the so-called “freedom to marry,” as Jim said in recent newspaper editorials.

And he’s willing to endorse the effort in Ohio to deconstruct marriage, now named “Why Marriage Matters Ohio” by the Human Rights Campaign affiliate, Equality Ohio, despite the lack of Ohio citizen support in recent polls, and also despite current marriage freedom and equality for people in Ohio. People can marry someone of the opposite sex, a right suddenly discovered by many ex-homosexuals. Same person, different perspective. Homosexual advocacy and the behavior itself are the stumbling blocks, not a lack of justice in Ohio.

Well, the Petros now have a grandson, and they are publicly cooing as most new grandparents do. Ecstatic or not, the reality is, this baby is actually the Petros’ adopted grandchild — no blood relation — because their daughter’s partner was the birth mother. The father? At the time of this writing, no one has said. Friend? Sperm donor? Who knows?

Oh, well, not important. An identifiable father in a boy’s life, offering heritage, caretaking, known genetic background, wisdom, financial support, spiritual guidance? Dispensable, just as mothers are in the minds of two men who decide to be “parents.” Just as children often are in the world of sexual liberals when they are not wanted.

But even when they are convenient, the children and their needs and rights are really not where the story begins and ends. The adults are the central figures in a play about “making me happy according to what I think I want today.” The kids are essentially props to be trotted out, sadly, at events like “pride” parades. Yet at some point, children are not stupid and will figure this out.

No one needs to care who the other parent is, we are told. Asking the question displays immense bigotry.

But will it be bigotry motivating the Petro grandson, who at age six or so will most likely ask that awkward question, “Who is my daddy?” He will see children at school with moms and dads, and despite the best efforts of granddad, he will figure out the “dad” figure is missing, and no one will give him a straight answer, so to speak.

Dadlessness is a significant deficit in a child’s life, but to do it deliberately, cavalierly, is close to child abuse. Every child deserves to know mom and dad. Homosexual parenting, deliberately excluding either a mom or dad, does not make sense, child-welfare-wise, and is frankly, cruel.

We are supposed to buy the fiction that “love is all that matters.” But where’s the love for the child? The structure of mom and dad is a foundation that others only mimic. Yes, it’s a fact that moms and dads today too often do not stay together, but this doesn’t justify same sex marriage or parenting. Just because the Mercedes has a cracked windshield, does not mean we also take a sledge hammer to the hood.

The social revolution does not end at the threshold of the new “gay” household, however. Advocates of homosexuality abound in primary and secondary education, and here’s where they are having a dramatic and virtually unreported impact.

Your children are learning in the classroom that husband or wife, a mom or dad for their children, may be optional in their own futures.While sometimes an opposing viewpoint is allowed, in states where same sex marriage is legalized, the balance disappears. Marriage change puts the “gay” school agenda on steroids.

The insidious thing about same sex marriage is that it quickly becomes a weapon to force cultural change on everyone and to mess with the minds of vulnerable kids as early as possible. Little Logan will learn when he’s seven that some people are born to be “gay” (despite a lack of science supporting this contention), that there’s nothing anyone can do, and when he grows up, he will date and marry a girl or it might be a boy, and he’s not supposed to stress out over the uncertainty of this emotional quicksand.

At age seven, he really dislikes girls, so does that mean he’s “gay”? Logan doesn’t know his future. Experimenting with the formative years like this is a recipe for deeply insecure children at a very basic level. Such insecurities won’t be disclosed by many of them, because they won’t know what “normal” is. They will have been taught that questioning the narrative means you are a hateful, horrible person, a “bully.”

But free-floating guilt and denial of basic reality are the end products of school activism on homosexual “rights.” Using the issue of bullying in school lessons, the ground is sowed with seeds of real and imagined mistreatment of past and future homosexuals. Simply punishing poor conduct of actual bullies isn’t enough for the activists. Only re-education programs suffice so all children will welcome homosexuality.Those who don’t are socially unjust bigots.

This propaganda, using children as guinea pigs, is the rotten fruit of same sex marriage as it has played out in Massachusetts and other parts of the liberal Northeast and West Coast and it may come to Ohio unless voters get wise. The daughters of future quasi-liberal politicians in Ohio and elsewhere will hear in school only one approved opinion, and it’s not one that reveals the harmful truth about homosexual conduct, gender change chaos, and — oh, yes — prospective parenting options.

Because if same sex relationships are all about love, why are people bringing a third, unknown party into a relationship to be the “father” or “mother” behind the curtain? When this kind of love means you can never conceive a new human with the person you love, isn’t this is a big clue that things were never supposed to be this way?

It’s the ancient story. Humans insist on writing adisjointed tale, no matter what it costs us or our precious children. Yet some will nod approvingly and call this “progress.”
__________________________________________________
Linda Harvey is president of Mission America and hosts a talk show on Salem affiliate WRFD in Columbus, OH. • (1481 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Momlessness and Dadlessness as a Way of Life

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Good parents make sacrifices for their children. Fewer and fewer people today are willing to do so. (Of course, I’m not a parent, or even married, so perhaps I’m no one to talk. But I can still observe what happens, and think about it.)

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I’m not a parent. Not married. Nor do I hate gays. But it seems nearly impossible to disentangle the idea of accepting (not necessarily “celebrating”) gayness and still respecting the idea that children are much better off with a real mother and real father. I agree with Linda Harvey that much of what the Left and the gay movement is trying to ram down our throats as normal is tantamount to child abuse.

      • faba calculo says:

        “I agree with Linda Harvey that much of what the Left and the gay movement is trying to ram down our throats as normal is tantamount to child abuse.”

        That almost seems to be an inevitable result of our current school system. Controlling our top down education system is a winner-take-all proposition. Yet another reason I sooooo favor vouchers.

      • griffonn says:

        The idea that protesting the wrong way of doing things equals “hatred” is the biggest success of the left.

        It successfully shifts the focus away from the real question, which is “what is the definition of family?”

        Is family a “choice”? Can it be a “choice”?

        Blood kinship is stable precisely because there is no choice involved. You can’t ditch your obligations easily. Adoption works for precisely the same reason: in the case of an orphan, everyone has to agree to do what is right – there’s no choice, there’s only a judgment as to what is best. This system is strong and stable.

        We are changing it to a system that is not strong and stable – one where kinship, and the obligations that go with it, is something you can choose, which also means it is something you can refuse to choose. People can be written out of family trees. Adoption is no longer constrained only to what is best. Babies can be traded around at whim, rather than according to the logic of what’s actually best for the child in question.

        That is a HUGE difference. I keep thinking of chemistry, with the strong bonds and the weak bonds – we are trading our strong bonds for weak, fluid, fickle bonds, and we are expecting structures to stay just the same anyway.

    • faba calculo says:

      The key sacrifice (large or small) being the sacrifice of living and supporting the other parent to the exclusion of all others! And, yeah, we’re bad at this already and getting worse.

  2. Kung Fu Zu says:

    “Because if same sex relationships are all about love, why are people bringing a third, unknown party into a relationship to be the “father” or “mother” behind the curtain? When this kind of love means you can never conceive a new human with the person you love, isn’t this is a big clue that things were never supposed to be this way?”

    Exactly! This is another way of confirming the fact that the primary purpose of marriage throughout history has been to raise children!

    Your statement also points out the lie too often left unchallenged. “All about love” my posterior. All about narcissism, more likely. It’s like two children playing house, pretending to be adults, except in this case, the dolls they are playing with are vulnerable children.

  3. faba calculo says:

    “People can marry someone of the opposite sex, a right suddenly discovered by many ex-homosexuals.”

    But, I would maintain, this is not the same thing as equal protection of the law. The bar against interracial marriage could have made a similar claim. (Note: this is a comparison, not an attempt to label everyone who is against gay marriage a bigot.) In fact, the ban on interracial marriage was, at least in some ways, less of an obstacle to those it impacted than the ban on same sex civil marriage is for those it impacts today. This is because, while those involved in an interracial couple that broke up or failed to form over that ban didn’t, necessarily, fall in love with someone of another race the next time around, homosexuals so blocked from same sex civil marriage will, by definition, be blocked from any marriage with someone with whom they can be romantically in love with. This is not to say that romantic love is all that matters in a marriage, but it IS widely considered to be a very important (and often essential) element.

    For this reason, I believe that the fact that gays are as free to marry someone of the opposite gender as are straights misses an important point and that such bans are ripe for being challenged on equal protection grounds.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Race has nothing to do with marriage. There have been interracial marriages far back into history (realizing that the concept of race is itself modern). So bans on interracial marriage were explicitly acts of racial separatism. But until our modern, increasingly perverted times, no society ever had homosexual marriage — not even the Greeks, who were as sympathetic to homosexual behavior as any society there’s ever been. But their men still married women. So homosexual marriage is clearly a forced redefinition of the concept of marriage. If the people make that choice, that’s their business; but it should not be pushed through by juristocrats like Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, and the 3 Weird Sisters of SCOTUS (or lower-level courts).

      • faba calculo says:

        “Race has nothing to do with marriage.”

        I used that only by way of analogy.

        “But until our modern, increasingly perverted times, no society ever had homosexual marriage”

        I’m not sure I would totally agree, but certainly upwards of 99.99% of all marriages have been between members of the opposite sex.

        “But [Greek] men still married women.”

        But romantic love was a much, much smaller part of marriage in ancient Greece than it is today. It appears to have been more about turning this generation’s allies into next (or the one after that) generation’s blood relatives. That being the case, gay marriage would be useless. Furthermore, I think that the idea of equal protection itself would have been alien to the ancient Greeks.

        “If the people make that choice, that’s their business; but it should not be pushed through by juristocrats”

        That would depend on how one interprets the concept of equal protection.

        • Kung Fu Zu says:

          Please give an example of that 0.01% when marriage has been between people of the same sex, except in the last few years.

          • faba calculo says:

            I’m not sure. I’ve heard the claim that there were marriages of same-sex couples in pre-Columbian North America, but I’m dubious. Hence my use of the phrases “I’m not sure” and “upwards of”.

      • Kung Fu Zu says:

        Thanks Tim for pointing out points which seem to escape Faba’s grasp.

        As to Faba’s assertion that Romantic love is fairly important in marriage, that is not true in all societies and wasn’t true in any society until fairly recently, historically speaking. Marriage was about children which Faba seems to not notice.

        And if a loving relationship is all that matters, why not polygamy, (which I already critiqued for Faba) or incest or maybe one could marry a dog or cat. Perhaps one can have a loving relationship with a lamb, but that would probably be child abuse.

        If anyone thinks I am over the top, please remember the lengths to which the left has gone to destroy our culture over the last few decades. Perverts such as Abbie Hoffman, a strong proponent of sex with children, have done and said and will do and say most anything to push their agenda. I really do believe they have a undying hate for Western culture and values. The emotional hole which exists in them will not even begin to be filled by legalizing homosexual marriage. They will move on to new crusades to destroy our heritage in the effort to fill this vast void.

        One of the things which irks me most about leftists is they turn the language upside down in order to further their agendas. Orwell had their number on this point.

        As for the supposed claim that this is about civil rights or even equal rights, I am pretty sure this is balderdash. No one is stopping two people from living together if they so choose. No one is stopping them from entering into contractual agreements about their belongings, if they so choose.

        As I have written elsewhere, homosexual couples make up less than 1% of US households and there is really no huge push for such marriage except from the nattering nabobs of negativity, i.e. the vanguard left.

        And this gets down to what this issue is really about, curtailing religious freedom. As is already the case with Obamacare, religious freedoms are being trampled by the government. And once homosexual marriage is “legal” the government will have the power to stamp down on those “religious bigots” even more.

        How many millions of people do you believe hold religious beliefs against homosexual marriage as opposed to the actual number of those homosexuals who really wish to get married?

        Do you think the civil rights of those religious people will be trampled on?

        Again, the long-term goal is to destroy our society as we know it. Destroy people’s religious beliefs and reform them to be believers in government.

        As we have learned during the five years of lawlessness that are the Obama administration, change is not equal to better.

        • faba calculo says:

          “As to Faba’s assertion that Romantic love is fairly important in marriage, that is not true in all societies and wasn’t true in any society until fairly recently, historically speaking. Marriage was about children which Faba seems to not notice.”

          As my comments about the differences of marriage in ancient Greece vs. today in my own response to Tim (which predate your own by a few minutes, and are thus independent of it) should make clear, your claim here is not true: I am, indeed, well aware that our current emphasis on romantic love is fairly new, historically speaking. So what? My comments in this area were addressed to the present day.

          • Kung Fu Zu says:

            How is my claim not true? Romantic love is still not important in many societies. Go to India. Go to the Middle East. Go to large parts of China. Go to many places in Africa.

            So your response that you were addressing the present day is not true. You were addressing the present day in specific parts of the world. And even your response doesn’t take into account that we are not talking about fads. We are talking about an institution which has been around for 5-10,000 years, perhaps longer. This whole discussion cannot be honestly discussed if your point of departure on the history of marriage is “the present day”.

            Also, you conveniently forgot to mention the main point I made in that paragraph, i.e. that marriage is about children.

            • faba calculo says:

              “How is my claim not true? Romantic love is still not important in many societies.”

              You misread. What I wrote was, “…your claim here is not true: I am, indeed, well aware that our current emphasis on romantic love is fairly new…”. Thus, what I was disputing wasn’t that romantic love is much less emphasized in other times and places, but that I wasn’t unaware of this. I originally thought that what I was disputing might not be clear, so I added the remark after the colon, which, I thought, would make what I was saying sufficiently clear.

              “So your response that you were addressing the present day is not true. You were addressing the present day in specific parts of the world.”

              Fair point. Of course, the legal guarantee of equal protection is embedded in the US Constitution, so at least those parts are properly so reserved.

              “And even your response doesn’t take into account that we are not talking about fads. We are talking about an institution which has been around for 5-10,000 years”

              The importance of romantic love to marriage is no “fad”. It’s been around for your entire life and will, very likely, be there for the rest of it and that of your children and grandchildren as well. If I had to guess, I’d say that the importance of romantic love, while not universal to the world, is only growing.

              Hell, by this logic, marriage itself would a fad, as 5 to 10 thousand years is a pittance compared to how long humanity has been around. And the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection isn’t even that yet.

              “This whole discussion cannot be honestly discussed if your point of departure on the history of marriage is “the present day”.”

              Why not? The issue I was addressing is whether or not limiting gay civil marriages to members of the opposite sex can be considered fulfilling the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law. Maybe in an age or country when there’s much less expectation that ones civil marriage is the only proper focus of ones romantic interactions (at least for the married) my argument would have less force, but that’s not the case today and here.

              “Also, you conveniently forgot to mention the main point I made in that paragraph, i.e. that marriage is about children.”

              Not anymore to the exclusion of all else. It IS also about romantic love and it IS about having someone to grow old and die with. And those two rolls are by no means independent of each other (i.e., in our culture, at this time, we generally want the person we grow old and die with to be the same person we are romantically in love with). To not notice that is the exclude the present of your own culture from your analysis.

              And I fail to see why you would want to do that.

              • Kung Fu Zu says:

                Before I respond to your post I would like to know if you would agree or disagree with the following types of marriages:

                1. one man and two women.
                2. three men.
                3. one man and a dog.
                4. two men and two women.

              • faba calculo says:

                I will answer this with “agreeing/disagreeing” meaning “permit to be legal / not permit to be legal, were it up to you”. If this is not the meaning you intend, please specify.

                Furthermore, I’ll assume we’re talking civil marriage here. Some kooky-ass church wants to see what a dog looks like in a wedding dress, more power to them.

                With those assumptions:

                1) Yes
                2) Yes
                3) No
                4) Don’t know

                That doesn’t mean I think 1 and 2 are particularly wise marriages. Nor do I think that, even if they were allowed, they would occur often.

                For #3, I assume that, were this form of marriage allowed, laws forbidding bestiality would remain in effect. If not, I would REALLY oppose it.

                As for #4, are we talking one self-contained group of four or a situation where A can be married to B who is then married to C but without C being married to A? If the former, mark me as a “yes”. If the later, I’ll go with “probably not, but I haven’t really thought about it”.

                P.S. Now might be a good time to start a new chain in this thread.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Two very important points there. First of all, as I’ve pointed out in a number of places, the issue has never been banning homosexual marriages, but giving them official government recognition. I gather that homosexuals have occasionally “married” for a few decades in avant-garde places like New York, but only recently have they received official recognition. And, as the experience of Catholic Charities and a series of recent cases have indicated, official recognition of homosexual marriage tends to include official banning of non-cooperation with homosexual marriage, even by explicitly religious organizations.

          • faba calculo says:

            “First of all, as I’ve pointed out in a number of places, the issue has never been banning homosexual marriages, but giving them official government recognition.”

            This is, indeed, the issue, which is why I refer to CIVIL marriage.

            “I gather that homosexuals have occasionally “married” for a few decades in avant-garde places like New York, but only recently have they received official recognition.”

            They’ve probably settled down together wherever homosexuality has existed. Actual ceremonies likely depended on them feeling safe being so public about their relationship. Places where the Abrahamic religions were dominant haven’t always been so kind to gays who were out (though, as its influence wanes, lands traditionally Christian, are proving much more friendly).

            “And, as the experience of Catholic Charities and a series of recent cases have indicated, official recognition of homosexual marriage tends to include official banning of non-cooperation with homosexual marriage, even by explicitly religious organizations.”

            That was an egregious case, but the other things usually cited under this topic actually are much more problems of employment and housing discrimination laws than of gay marriage.

  4. faba calculo says:

    The issue of whether or not gay parentage is comparable to that of straight marriage would seem to be an empirical question to me, one that, unfortunately, we don’t have the data to adequately answer (the pro-gay’s endless stream of studies based on small samples of convenience not-withstanding). Until the decennial census includes questions designed to address this issue, thereby creating an adequate sampling frame for further research, at least in the US, we’re likely to be left guessing.

    That being the case, now would be a good time to discuss what issues would need to be examined and what questions would need to asked (and how and when they should be answered), for an answer to this question to be adequately addressed. Is it enough to merely ask parents questions about their children and compare the answers from gays to those of straights? Unlikely. Gays will probably know (or at least suspect) that surveys of their children will be used to address this very question, so an incentive to shade the truth will exist. This will be less of a problem when those being surveyed aren’t being recruited via gay newspapers, which kind of tips the researchers hand, but merely through random selection from Census files. But, no matter what, for a survey to be truly strong in addressing this question, independent verification of the answers will be desirable.

    Furthermore, WHEN should the questions be asked? While the child is growing up, or later when they’ve come into their adulthood? I would maintain that, until we actually are observing how the child turned out, we aren’t getting the info we’ll need for a strong conclusion.

    As for the questions themselves, a host suggest themselves, including those addressing income, educational attainment, self-reported happiness (about the only way to address that particular topic, unfortunately, unless you want to interview friends and family as well), outcomes of their own relationships, sexual identity (the issue of ‘does having gay parents cause you to be gay’ will likely need to be addressed), and, ultimately, life span.

    Another issue is going to be the credibility and transparency of the surveys themselves. This is a hot-button issue, and it’s not as if sociologists are a particularly conservative (or even moderate!) group on people. All the surveying in the world won’t do us any good if reasonable doubt exists over the honesty of the process.

    Finally, there is the question what the consequences of different findings would be. If gay parents have parenting outcomes similar to (or better than) straights, a significant argument against gay marriage, child-rearing, and adoption will likely fall. But how inferior, on average, do the outcomes with gay parents have to be when compared to otherwise similar straight parents before there start to be implications for the reasonableness of laws supporting gay civil marriage?

  5. faba calculo says:

    “Dadlessness is a significant deficit in a child’s life, but to do it deliberately, cavalierly, is close to child abuse.”

    The parenting outcomes of gay couples would have to be massively inferior to those of straight parents for this to be the case. If evidence for so strong a conclusion is anywhere available and credible, I’ve never heard of it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *