Conservative Ken Davenport is exasperated:
The left wants to rewrite history, biology and physics to fit their ideological orthodoxies. Unfortunately, it seems to be working. They've been doing it in Europe for generations, and we now see a continent in denial about its past and its present. Now it seems to be coming to America in all its secular revisionist glory.My occasional lefty commenter, JBW, responds:
We have same sex marriage and parenting in the name of tolerance, because the left believes that there is no real difference between boys and girls - only the presence of "love" is needed.
Puhhhhlease.
Anyone who has had kids knows two things: 1) that boys and girls are wired differently from birth and require the influence of both mothers and fathers to develop fully and 2) that moms and dads bring decidedly different (and important) parenting skills to the child's life. Men and women are not interchangeable just because the left wishes it to be so. This isn't an issue of same sex equality - its an issue of what is best for children. And on that score, traditional marriage wins hands down.
We are headed to an America where the minority is in charge, largely because the majority is disorganized and lacks the courage of its convictions. Any reasonably educated person knows that kids belong in a stable family with a mom and a dad. But in the face of the culture wars, where everyone is afraid of being labled "sexist", "racist", "homophobic" or worse, we've been reduced to jelly. Its a shame.
Sadly, common sense is dead. How do I know? Because Al Franken will be the U.S. Senator from Minnesota.
Need I say more?
Shorter JBW: Abuse isn't the problem, gender and hetero stereotypes are...Jesus Ken ... Nobody of any psychological or anthropological repute on the left is saying that "there is no real difference between boys and girls" ...
Of course boys and girls are wired differently: it's how we've evolved as a species. And yes, the ideal situation is obviously for every child to have a loving and supportive mother and father. Was your childhood ideal? Because mine wasn't and I would wager that most people can say the same of their own.
If the left's argument was that we should remove children from families with straight parents and force them to be raised by gay parents then I can see why you would get so bent out of shape but no one is suggesting that at all.
What they are suggesting ... is that absent your happy idyllic fantasy world, children having loving parents of the same sex is still preferable to having stupid, racist, abusive, prejudiced or crazy parents of the opposite sex or even worse, no parents at all.
And if you think the minority gay, leftist agenda or even Al Franken are the only things keeping kids out of stable families with a mom and dad then you'd better pull your head out of the sand because the reality is a lot uglier than you can possibly imagine.
All people like you accomplish with your archaic and outmoded views of what constitutes an acceptable society is to destroy dedicated and loving families. I hope your own children have it a lot easier than those of the families you would tear apart in the name of "traditional values"; I truly do.
Now, check out Helen Rittelmeyer's more complex analysis of gender differences and gay marriage, "If She Says She Wants “Equality, Not Sameness,” She’s Lying," especially this part:
A culture that cannot acknowledge gender differences has hobbled itself: it can’t speak the truth and, if we know one thing about truth, it’s that it always comes out one way or another. If we can’t talk about gender, we can’t develop helpful ways to deal with it; if we can’t deal with it, we guarantee that, when gender differences do surface, it will be in unhealthy ways. If gay marriage consigns us to that slow, unpleasant declension—and it does—it’s something to think twice about.That's snipping out a whole lot of Rittelmeyer's context, but what can you do in a quick link-love post like this.
See also, Robert Stacy McCain and Memeorandum.
7 comments:
Her point about gay men wanting to have sex only with men is quite valid. If gender didn't matter at all that would not happen.
Thanks for visiting Shoprat!
What one is stating is that children need both a male and female influence throughout their formative years. To say that because a small minority of man/woman marriages have problems in child rearing is to toss away a working relationship that has served children and the species since our development.
JRW seems to believe that because he had less than a stellar childhood that now every heterosexual parenting unit should pay. No matter how one tries to justify same sex parenting it still lacks a consistent relationship with one or the other sex which leaves the child without that experience and governs its future relationships with that opposite sex.
This relationship that most male/female marriages provide is and should not be so lightly dismissed by those who have an agenda, those who want to punish their own parents by denigrating them, or some progressive idea that anyone can raise a child to maturity with all the tools necessary to create a well rounded functioning adult.
To constantly select the worst case scenario as that which epitomizes something is deceptive and dishonest. Literally billions of children have been raised by the only model that has the possibility to provide the total environment for growth of children.
Thanks Dennis!
Don, first: I prefer the sobriquet "liberal" to "lefty"; if Ken is described as "conservative" in the same post I don't believe that this is too much to ask.
Second: I spoke out against gender and hetero stereotypes in my comment. Men and women are not equal and I never said that they are; in fact, I agreed with Ken's point that they are wired differently. I would not want an ancient male ancestor of mine trying to nurture an infant in lieu of his mate doing it any more than I would want my ancient female ancestor trying to run down a mammoth for dinner in lieu of the male doing that.
Unless there was no other way to feed that baby or kill that meal. Yes, it would be far less than ideal but it would still improve their chances of passing their genes on to the next generation.
And despite your protestations, abuse is a HUGE problem when it comes to child care, as is stupidity, racism, prejudice and craziness. All of those things contribute to a far less than ideal environment in which to raise a child, opposite-sex parents or not. All I'm saying is, if we can live with all of those things going on in households all over America without the nation crumbling to it's core, then a same-sex, loving relationship is at least as preferable an environment for raising a child if not much more so. Just the same, thanks for posting my comment (even if you missed the gist).
Dennis, first: my initials are JBW. I'm taking the time to write your name correctly; please extend me the same courtesy.
Second: how does every heterosexual parenting unit "pay" when same-sex couples are allowed to marry and raise children? I guess I need you to explain that one to me but please do a better job than the people who claim that gay marriage threatens their own marriages because they usually come off as prejudiced fools.
It seems to me that the crux of your argument is that children of both sexes need the influence of adults of both sexes to develop fully. I agree, but I'll pose this question to you: what about overly effeminate yet still heterosexual men? Or very butch yet still heterosexual women? I'm sure you've met people of both genders you initially thought were gay only to learn that they were not, and vice versa. Where do you draw the line on who should and should not be allowed to raise children based on how well they fit into Don's "gender stereotypes"?
And just to beat the dead horse: what rules should our society have in place to prevent stupid, racist, abusive, prejudiced or crazy people from raising children? I can only assume that you don't condone such behaviour yet all of your rancor is aimed at same-sex couples. Will their children be a bigger detriment to society than those raised by the former group? I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this.
OK Dennis and The Donald. You don't want gays to be able to enjoy the right to get married. Now you don't want gay couples that want to get married but can't because people like you think they don't deserve the right to marry, to be able to raise children either.
Hey guys. Gays can vote and drive. You better get a group together to fight these outrages and attacke s on wholesome civilized society as well.
Again, a fundamental misunderstanding of same-sex relationships and child rearing issues by Donald and his acolytes.
First of all, I would like to see some proof that kids raised in single-sex homes turn out somehow more damaged than the majority of kids who are now raised in either single-mom homes or extended family homes. (You offer none.) The norm is not mom-dad-kids. Divorce is over 50%, so if you really gave a shit about this you would be campaigning about outlawing divorce. I guarantee you that 99% of damaged kids come from broken marriages, or so-called heterosexual homes.
Secondly, every gay-single sex relationship that raises children, to my knowledge, actively encourages friends and relatives of the opposite sex to participate, guide, and be a part of the children's lives. This is why, when they so actively seek out children in their lives, that they are often nurtured very well.
You need to show and discuss the other side of the coin on issues like this, otherwise you come across as Ann Coulter, who also has a book out this week where she (shock!) blames everything wrong in the world on liberals.
But this is not analysis, this is weak opinion that seeks merely to demonize liberals, and blame them for the moral collapse in the world. It's been done before.
Grade: D
Post a Comment