Posted on 06/27/2005 3:18:04 PM PDT by Capt. Canuck
For several years it has been common for politicians for claim that some intrusive nanny-state rule should be made law ‘for the sake of the children’. An anonymous email rant talk of how the adults today made it though childhood alive in a time when bicycle helmets were unheard of, dodge ball was allowed at recess and using seatbelts was optional.
Although it certainly is possible to go too far in trying to shelter children from the bumps and scrapes of life, society does have a duty to protect the next generation and foster their development into productive members of society.
Time and again studies have established that loving and committed biological parents provide the ideal environment for children. Children from such families tend to display far lower incidents of criminal activity, emotional problems, and suicide. They also accomplish greater academic achievements and have a much better chance at having a successful marriage of their own.
No parents are perfect though, and sometimes those imperfections (or other factors) make it impossible to achieve and maintain the ideal environment. Sometimes the best situation possible is for the child to be in a single parent family; sometimes a parent makes the painful sacrifice of putting their infant up for adoption so that their child can have an upbringing as close to ideal as possible.
However these situations arise, it is rare and reprehensible when they are the intended outcome from the start. They are necessary adaptations for special circumstances in an imperfect world, not options to be casually chosen as if there were no consequences. Most parents make every reasonable effort to avoid putting their children in these circumstances, and rightly so.
Deliberately depriving children of the best environment they could have is not just a bad idea, it is a violation of the rights all children have. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child lists that children “shall have… as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents”.
This right is threatened by the legalization of same sex marriage. Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act, makes no mention of protection for this basic right. The government has made it clear that they intend to eliminate any difference between mixed and same gender couples, how then will government justify allowing society to continue to promote the traditional family structure as superior?
Already evidence is mounting that same sex parenting is harmful for children. Last year the American College of Pediatricians examined the scientific evidence and issued a report stating: “…it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation.” A recent Spanish study (portions translated to English are online at preservemarriage.ca) found that children suffer more stress, mental illness, drug abuse problems, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases and self esteem problems when raised by a same sex couple. The Spanish Association of Pediatrics said a “family nucleus with two fathers or two mothers is clearly dangerous for the child”.
Even advocates of same sex parenting admit it amounts to an experiment with the lives of children. Dr. Meilee Clunis and Dr. Dorsey Green write on page 243 of ‘The Lesbian Parenting Book’ that “It will be interesting to see over time whether lesbian sons have an easier or harder time developing their gender identity than do boys with live-in fathers”
The reason we have a Mother’s Day and a Father’s Day every year is to recognize the fact that good parenting requires sacrifices, and not just financial sacrifices. We hold in deep respect parents who put the needs of their children above their own freedom, goals, and desires.
Same sex parenting puts the desires of the couple above the needs of the child right from the start. That is why it should be no surprise to hear that Rosie O’Donnell forced her lesbian partner to wean her month old baby purely out of jealousy. The good health of the baby (and the mother) had to take second place to her feelings.
Already things have gone too far. There are children in Canada today with a birth certificate that list a same sex couple as parents. Long before those children understand the mechanics of sexual reproduction they will be aware of a large void in their life, and it will likely be a void they will never have filled, a question they will never find an answer to.
Inventing same sex marriage as a human and legal right will only make the situation worse. Promoting the ideal family as the best environment for children will become politically incorrect, in time it may be branded as homophobic. Meanwhile, same sex couples will have the government’s blessing and protection to experiment with the lives of children, deprive them of a basic right, and inflict lasting harm on their future.
But on the good side, those children will still have to wear bicycle helmets.
Although it certainly is possible to go too far in trying to shelter children from the bumps and scrapes of life, society does have a duty to protect the next generation and foster their development into productive members of society.
Yes, but attempting to protect children from all possible danger, and trying to eliminate all stress from their lives is doing them no favors. When they enter the Adult World many today are completely unprepared.
So, are you saying the dangers to children posed by SSM should just be ignored? They don't justify passing laws to protect children from the harm they would suffer being trapped in that situation?
bump/ping
Thank You America for standing up against SSM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.