Skip to comments.Momlessness and Dadlessness as a Way of Life: How Same-Sex Marriage Betrays Children
Posted on 09/30/2013 7:13:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The gays have pushed the pendulum way too far.
And it will swing back.
Way too far the other way.
And I eagerly await that time....they started it...and it will be finished in a way they might not appreciate.
This is the real evil of redefining marriage. It has real victims, wholly innocent ones. Before long, it will probably be illegal even to mention it.
I agree 1000% with this however the hero-nization of single moms made Dad's only required to be the cash cow in modern conventional wisdom family.
Given how draconian child support laws are and as conventional wisdom, a child having two mommies legally and no cash cow daddy makes no sense.
Kids want and need one of each. Not two of a kind.
The left can persuade the kids that it’s really all right, but that doesn’t change how the kids feel, even if they can’t express it.
sorry, I am not going to accept it if my relatives do it
I have seen what this evil does.
Our (former because I have returned to the Catholic Church) minister’s daughter first decided she didn’t want to be a nurse anymore and went to divinity school or whatever they call it, seminary, I guess and became a minister in the Methodist Church.
then she decided it would be a good idea to get a divorce from her husband and become a lesbian
our minister who was a sweet if not that bright man, suffered
Freedom of association is not the same as freedom to marry.
Mutual consent is implied in both instances, with the added caveat that “to marry” is to draw up a solemn commitment. But this proves to be problematic when there is no biological reason or social benefit for progressing to such a commitment.
Contract law does exist, and at its heart, the state-sanctioned marriage is a contractual bargain between two individuals, nothing more. There is no divine blessing involved, and the responsibilities of each party are largely spelled out, if not during premarital counseling, then surely in the divorce court. Most of the doctrine that has to do with state-sanctioned marriage has to do with provisions for the spouse with the lesser economic leverage, and for any children who may be issue and responsibility of the union.
Nothing in the law prevents two persons from drawing up their own contract of interpersonal obligations and benefits with another person, regardless of gender. If one should wish to become the personal attendant and entirely subservient to the degree that the other holds full power of attorney over every act, perhaps nothing would prevent that, so long as it was a contract freely entered upon by both parties. In other words, the old-fashioned bond servant agreement, or by another view, slavery.
Almost every state now has some provision on the books for “civil unions” that provide the equivalent rights and obligations that exist in the long-accepted definition of “marriage”, but when between same-sex couples, or pairings in which children are neither anticipated or expected, there is reason to distinguish between “marriage for procreation” and “civil unions”.
The term “marriage” is by its very nature exclusive of the other baggage of “inclusive” definitions of other interpersonal relationships.
About the time Political Correctness and the global warming scam die.
Well considering that half the kids get raised by a mother only, I find the theory almost irrelevant.
The damage to the child is due to the immorality, not the circumstance.
Observe the devastation that dadlessness has wrought among the African American families.
There, fixed it!
When I mentioned the need for children to have role models of each gender (thus God's design for families), my friend said that her husband served as the male role model in the children's lives.
Uh huh. This is the same guy who sits in his rocking chair all day doing and saying NOTHING while my friend runs the show.
Needless to say, my friend and I aren't very close any more.