I would suggest that the homosexual community has suffered tremendous hardship in the past and that society in general should attempt to accomadate their concerns. The big issues as I see it are marriage and children.
I would propose an institution called gayriage that would encompasses all the rights of marriage including monogamous expectation,for better or worse etc. That would provide equality under the law, and preserve the concept of marriage as an uniquely hetero institution that originally was religion based.
I believe all adults should have the right to bear children. But I also believe that all children should have the expectation of a male and female parent. I would have great difficulty if the state did not take that into account. Notwithstanding lesbian couples who are able to give birth by various means, the issue here is the state approving adoptions. I would suggest that homosexual couples secure a legal arrangement with a person of the opposite sex , for the purpose of parenting. Such a role could provide difficulties, but no more than divorce situations as we see them today.
Is there common ground here? Or are christians and homosexuals so far apart like Palestinians and Israelis.
P.S. It is not my intention to provide any clarification of my poroposals. If you have concerns or have better ideas for compromise I would like to hear them.
“But I also believe that all children should have the expectation of a male and female parent.”
—Ummm, why? Would you like to elaborate on this?
[I was going to get all huffy and say, “a male and female parent? Like Victor-Victoria, the sideshow freak?” Or say, “Yeah, I think all children should have the expectation of a million bucks a year and a private maid, but that ain’t gonna happen either.” Note that I decided to be all grown-up and ask a serious question instead!]
I echo Eve’s thoughts – why does there need to be a parent of each sex? Hell, there are a lot of situations now where there is only one parent, period. I would think that two parents, no matter what sex they are, would be better than that.
In the end, I don’t think it matters if the kid is raised by two men, two women, one of each, only one or the other, or two dogs and a llama, as long as the child is loved and cared for appropriately. Certainly such an arrangement as you describe would create additional complications for the child in explaining his/her homelife, after all.
I will let more erudite posters, and those who know more about the subject go into detail, however - I’m stuck going on my gut reaction.
And as for your last comment…
:rolleyes: Considering that there are gay Christians…
First off, the name. “Gayraige?” Making it something so obviously derivative robs it of whatever dignity it may have as a separate, but equal, institution. I’ve known people who regret the word “women” because of it’s derivation, and the same objections apply. I’m writing pretty fast here, and perhaps not all that clearly, but do you see? Hu-man. Man. Wo-Man. As if “Man” is the basic element, and not just half of it. In the same way I don’t think the gay community is going to unequivically endorse “gayraige.”
And why should they? Why not simply allow marriage to occur between any people that want to form the contract?
And the expectation of a male and female parent. Again, why? Sure, you’re going to tell me that the child will suffer hardship and prejudice from outside the home if s/he is raised in a gay household. Granted that this will occur, but why pander to it? It just preserves the prejudice. Why not, instead, teach the child to say, “These are my parents and I love them. Deal with it.”
All of your suggestions have, at their base, the assumption that Christians and other straight people have in intrinsic superiority to gay people. Gay people are just not going to sign on to that.
And, though I’m not an expert on foreign affairs, I believe that the Palestinians and Israelis claim the same territory. Gay people and straight people don’t.
To echo Dogsbody, many (if not most) Christians believe it is possble to be both gay and Christian. I realize you may not, grienspace.
But . . . and I hesitate to seem to agree with grien, but I do feel that it is best for a child to grow up with both male and female role models. That certainly does not require the legal contract of marriage, nor does it preclude the child being raised directly by one parent, two of the same sex, or more. But if two parents are better than one, having positive, present rolemodels of both sexes is better.
:eek: So, were I married with children and my wife died, would the Feds send a woman to my door with a letter from President Hillary stating she is to be my court appointed wife until I can find a valid substitute?
I would humbly suggest gays fight a battle they can win, and not just try to get the same unequal rights for themselves that heterosexual government approved marriages already have versus singles of all sexual orientations.
I just want to interject here to say I am fully aware that there are lots of gay christians. Why just last week here in Canada, 2 gay couples got married in a specifically gay church of 500 members. I am assuming that gays see Christianity as their number one obstacle to feeling completely comfortable and equal in society. And I don’t need to explain the problems that fundamental Christians have with homosexuality period.
I agree children should have positive role models of both sexes, but why do they have to be married to each other? A lot of people I know consider adults other than their biological parent to be their strongest role models - some other relative or family friend. My father was in the Navy and rarely around for my childhood. When he was, he was a distant, rather scary figure. As a result, my male role models were my grandfathers, both of them excellent men in very different ways. I do not feel deprived and my relationships with men have been generally quite good. On the other hand, my mother was at home, but not a very good role model at all, so once again I looked to other female relatives.
Anyway, as I’ve stated in other marriage threads, the law has no place in the bedroom, and any consenting adult should be able to marry any consenting other adult with no gender, racial, or religious bias.
In many states, you can still be fired for being gay. Gaybashing is routine in schools. Gay teenagers are many times more likely to commit suicide, be depressed, be rejected by their peers, be thrown out of their houses, be addicted to drugs or alcohol… just for being gay. Gaybashing is the last “righteous” bastion of the intolerant. Gays and lesbians are routinely ostracized by their families, their friends, their faith, their co-workers… gays cannot serve openly in the military. Anti-gay ballots are routinely served up around the country. One of the most recent, which was only narrowly defeated, actually proprosed to make it illegal to even mention homosexuality in public schools.
I would suggest that you have a lack of perspective. Unfortunately, so do some of the members of the gay community.
Personally, I think there are much better things to worry about than marriage. Not that it isn’t a worthy cause, to be sure… but I always felt like there were better fights to be had. Let me not worry about getting slammed up against a locker and threatened with rape in high school. Then we can talk flower arrangements.
**
And then there are those of us who are gay Christians who do not go to “gay churches”, but rather are in the fairly difficult position of trying to justify our belief in Christ to people who feel we are sinners as well as the gay community who feels (somewhat rightfully) that the church has turned their back on them.
Others have pointed out the flaws in your arguement.
Sorry, andros! I just picked a post at random that seemed to jive with the position of the OP. I didn’t mean to characterize that as your opinion, and I recognize you don’t think the government needs to be involved in ensuring what is “best” for children. But, grien does seem to hold just such a position – even if he limits the issue to adoption.
Surely** jmullaney** you are not suggesting that the government stay out of the adoption process? Do you think private adoption agencies without regulation are the way to go? That certainly sounds like an ultra conservative opinion.
It seems to me that Joel is suggesting that you are saying that government must “appoint” a female/male parent to those who wish to adopt/raise children in a single-gendered household, and that is what he’s objecting to.
If I’ve misread him I’m sure he’ll clarify.
But he brings up a good point. Would someone whose spouse died also be required to enter into a contract with someone of the opposite gender under your regulations above? What about a gay parent whose SO wants to also adopt his biological child (from a former spouse) when the parent’s wife/husband has no objections? Are they also going to be forced into a relationship with an “appropriate gendered rolemodel?”
In a civilized society, the problem shouldn’t come up except under really extrodinary circumstances. But were a child to be abandoned, or his parents to die without heirs (or if the child’s godparents die at the same time), I don’t see why the government should discriminate against anyone who wants to raise the child.
You bring up some good points. I don’t want government dictating or taking an active role in our lives. My suggestion is the requiring of gay couples to designate an opposite sex adult(friend) who pledges to provide a quasi- parental role for the childs development.
My mother died when I was fourteen. There was no one around that would guide me as to dating, what women are all about etc, and I got all that information from Penthouse. But that doesn’t mean that the government should demand a replacement mother for me.
Would be parents should ensure that they can provide for their children financially, and adoption agencies take that into account. I shudder to think that I could have nurtured my eldest daughter through her teenage years without my wife, and I don’t see any of my male friends who could fufill her role. So I say likewise gay couples should be required to provide for the emotional support that two opposite sex parents can provide in order to succeed in the adoption process. If that relationship breaks down subsequently(unless the process was a deliberate sham) then the state has no further responsibilityother than what it presently has.
Marriage as an institution, for better or for worse, should be open to everyone, IMHO. As was pointed out, seperate is not equal.
Adoption agencies vary from state to state, but gay parents are a lot more common than you’d think. There are so many unwanted children, any child psychologist and/or placement agent will be the first to tell you that if someone’s qualified, they could be green for all they care - a loving parent is a loving parent, regardless if there’s two of them, one of them, two sexes or one. My very dear friend in Washington state, single and a gay male, is going through state channels to adopt, and he’s encountered absolutely no problems - he’ll make the perfect parent. And of course he’s going to surround that child with loving relatives and friends, both men and women, straight and not-so. That’s the way every child should be raised (a village?).