Gary marriage and children
Discuss David Blankenhorn's Sept. 19 Op-Ed article.
Comments will close after two days.
From the Los Angeles Times
| Advertisement |
|
|
The Latest | news as it happens
- Playboy said to be in takeover talks - Money & Company 11/12/2009, 11:12 a.m.
- Real estate roundup: U.S. foreclosures slow, California new home sales dip - L.A. Land 11/12/2009, 11:00 a.m.
- Fly-angler and fishing show host Diana Rudolph lands near-record permit as cameras roll - Outposts 11/12/2009, 10:49 a.m.
- Another old white guy to receive Golden Globe's Cecil B. DeMille Award - Gold Derby 11/12/2009, 10:47 a.m.
- Ft. Hood shooting suspect charged with 13 counts of murder - L.A. Times - National News 11/12/2009, 10:47 a.m.
Save more than
To David: Children primarily need LOVE. Duh.
Grapes @ 8:24 AM PDT, Sep 19, 2008
David, what about divorce? If we want to protect children's rights to have both biological parents they should be forbidden from separating right? And if marriage is about children only, then why do we give benefits to married couples under federal law that have nothing to do with children?
John @ 8:22 AM PDT, Sep 19, 2008
Shame on LA Times for printing this bigoted essay. Yes, if you're against gay marriage, you're a bigot plain and simple because your position claims that gays are not equal to heteros in the realm of relationships. Fortunately Prop 8 is not going to pass and all the bigots will see that the institution of family didn't collapse and that kids with gay parents grow up as healthy or healthier than their straight peers.
Tony in L.A. @ 8:17 AM PDT, Sep 19, 2008
As for adoption, a lot of gay and lesbian couples will take in children that would otherwise have no home besides the state. Should these parents not have the protection of the state to care for those children in a loving home as a couple, same as my husband and I would have if we chose to do the same?
MiddleAgedLadyFromPasadena @ 8:13 AM PDT, Sep 19, 2008
I take it, then, that you are against sperm donation for heterosexual couples with fertility problems? Or egg donations? Because in those cases the child is intentionally created by a couple who knows that the baby will not be raised by one or both biological parents. I guess these children also should not be told that their advent was "something wonderful that happened."
MiddleAgedLadyFromPasadena @ 8:13 AM PDT, Sep 19, 2008
The view that marriage is primarily for procreation went out of favor, and practice, decades ago. People get married because they love each other and want to build a life together, sometimes with children, sometimes without. With or without marriage, gay couples already adopt children (and raise them beautifully) so why don't you just go deeper into your argument and call for a ban on gay adoption too. Liberal democrat, indeed.
Tony in L.A. @ 8:12 AM PDT, Sep 19, 2008
First comes marriage, then comes kids. But what about unwed parents, like Palin's daughter, where the child was conceived before marriage. Unwed parents may choose not to marry but still remain in the child's life. The child's "right" remains. Does Blankenhorn condemn parents for not getting married? On the flip side, does Blankhorn condemn those marriages that don't result in procreation? If you really want to protect kids, start by making parenting classes mandatory.
D.Kobayashi @ 8:10 AM PDT, Sep 19, 2008
This is an embarrassingly simple minded argument and an affront to families of all persuasions and sizes.
colin daly @ 8:08 AM PDT, Sep 19, 2008
Finally, remember, that in this state, same sex couples can already adopt children. The marriage issue is not about having children. It is about the myriad of other rights that I receive simply because I am married to someone of the opposite sex that people in same-sex unions do not receive. It is about equality, and I'm all for that.
KJ @ 8:08 AM PDT, Sep 19, 2008
Thank you for your thoughtless and ignorant piece. Just so you know, the United States is one of only two UN member states NOT to have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Somalia is the other. Good for us. I would have to assume on the basis of this article that you oppose, in all circumstances, divorce and adoption. Those things can or do "deny children their birthright." Of course no one opposes divorce or adoption for that reason. Nor should anyone oppose gay marriage. Clearly your year "studying the anthropology of marriage" has made you more ignorant. Leave the subject alone from now on.
Austin Bean @ 8:08 AM PDT, Sep 19, 2008
Next