Originally posted by 99SESPORT:

---

Here's a quick answer, without too much Biblical "interference." I think you'll be able to tell which side of the wall I would fall on....

And I know half of you won't read it, but I still had to add it in and for those that ask why I couldn't answer in my own words? WHY should I when these guys hit the nail on the head....

Originally posted by http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/faqs/a0026916.cfm:</font><hr>Is Marriage in Jeopardy?
August 27, 2003

by Glenn T. Stanton

Are you confused about what �??marriage�?� really means today?

Many people, even Christians, are confused by the arguments they are hearing today on the subject of homosexual marriage. Superficially, what the advocates are saying may seem fair and logical. Scratch the surface, however, and you�??ll find that their assertions don�??t hold up.

This article contains some of the frequently asked questions and often-heard statements about this important issue, along with the answers that will help you in the debate. This is a cataclysmic social battle, and it will be with us for some time to come. No Christian, no citizen, can afford to sit this one out on the sidelines.

Click here for the PDF version of this FAQ.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Shouldn�??t two people who love each other be allowed to commit themselves to one another?

A: Absolutely, and people do that all the time. But we don�??t call it marriage. There are lots of loving commitments that are not marriage. Friends are committed to each other, a parent is committed to a child, grandparents to their grandchildren, and people are committed to their pets. All of these are forms of love. All of them result in commitments. None of them is marriage.

Q: What�??s wrong with letting homosexuals marry?

A: No human society�??not one�??has ever tolerated �??marriage�?� between members of the same sex as a norm for family life. And that is what is at stake here, making �??marriage�?� between two men or two women as normal as between one man and one woman. It is saying that neither arrangement is any better than the other. As Dr. Dobson writes, only until the last few �??milliseconds�?� of history and experience (i.e. Canada and some European nations) have we arrogantly believed we can improve upon this ancient and universal institution.

This public meaning of marriage is not something that each new generation is free to redefine. Marriage is defined by the God of nature and nature�??s God�??and a wise society will protect marriage as it has always been understood. Marriage is the way our culture promotes monogamy, provides a way for males and females to build a life together, and assures every child has a mother and father.

Q: Homosexuals can�??t have children, but many other couples can�??t as well. Why do we let them marry?

A: This is the exception and not the rule. Many of these childless couples adopt, and their adoptive children receive the benefits of both father and mother this way. It is impossible for a homosexual couple to bestow that benefit�??the presence of a father and a mother�?? on any child, even if that couple adopts or uses artificial insemination.

Q: Isn�??t it true that what kids need most are loving parents, regardless of whether it�??s a mother or father?

A: No. A child needs a loving mother and father. A wealth of research over the past 30 years has shown us this. (However, same-sex marriage and parenting intentionally deprive children of a mother or father.) The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman. A gay man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman. A lesbian cannot teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a good husband. Is love enough to help two gay dads guide their daughter through her first menstrual cycle? Like a mom, they cannot comfort her by sharing their first experience. Little boys and girls need the loving daily influence of both male and female parents to become who they are meant to be.

Q: Isn�??t that cruel?

A: That�??s only because of the times in which we live. Our society prizes what seems fair, more than what is true. Children truly need both a mom and a dad. It is cruel to intentionally deny them this. The research supporting this is both substantial and unequivocal!

Q: What about people who are too old to have children, even adopted ones? We let them marry.

A: Yes, of course we allow older folks to marry. Having babies is not a requirement of marriage. The reason for supporting the institution of marriage is not rooted only in childrearing. Man and woman were made for each other, and the State has a compelling interest in supporting it�?? with or without children.

Q: But isn�??t it better for a child to grow up with two loving same-sex parents than to live in an abusive home or be bounced around in foster care?

A: You�??re comparing the worst of one situation (abusive heterosexual parenting) with the best of another (loving same-sex parenting). That�??s apples and oranges.

Actually, research reveals that child abuse is at its lowest when children live with both biological parents compared with higher rates for children who live with at least one nonbiological parent or caregiver.1 Same-sex parenting situations make it impossible for a child to live with both biological parents, thus increasing their risk of abuse.

Those who want homosexual marriage are not asking to take the children living in the most difficult situations, so it�??s intellectually dishonest to preface the argument with that claim. They are asking for the same thing all parents desire: healthy, happy children they can call their own. So let us dispense with the idea that same-sex couples will serve some high social good by only taking children in the most difficult situations. They have never asked for this.

Q: Apart from the issue of children, don�??t gays have the same legal right to marry that heterosexuals do?

A: All people have the same right to marry, as long as they abide by the law. You cannot marry if you�??re already married, you cannot marry a close relative, an adult cannot marry a child, you cannot marry your pet, and you cannot marry someone of the same sex. Let�??s be clear, everyone has access to marriage as long as they meet the requirements. This is not about access to marriage. It�??s about redefining marriage to be something it has never been.

Q: But heterosexuals can marry according to their sexual orientation. Why shouldn�??t homosexuals be allowed to marry according to their orientation?

A: No U.S. court has ever recognized, nor has any scientific study ever established, that homosexuality is rooted in nature and therefore is the same as heterosexuality. Scientists understand that homosexuality is rooted in a collection of biological, psychological and social factors. We cannot treat them as the same thing.

Q: But I thought homosexuals couldn�??t help it? This seems intolerant.

A: Then nature itself is intolerant. Marriage has not been �??imposed�?� upon culture by some religious institution or government power from which it needs to be �??set free.�?� It was established by God, is enforced by the nature which God bestowed upon mankind, and we tamper with it at our own peril.

Here�??s what is intolerant. Same-sex �??marriage�?� is being forced upon us by a small, but elite, group of individuals dressed in black robes�??judges�??who say that thousands of years of human history have simply been wrong. That is a very arrogant notion that will bring great harm to our culture.

Q: Isn�??t banning gay marriage just like banning interracial marriage?

A: Not at all! Being black or white, Hispanic or Asian is not like being homosexual. Again, no academic institution in the world nor any U.S. court has ever established that homosexuality is unchangeable, as are race, nationality or gender.

But this assertion really implies that opponents to same-sex marriage are bigots and that is not true. They simply believe marriage is between men and women for good reason.

Q: But haven�??t we seen all kinds of family diversity in various civilizations throughout history?

A: No. Anthropologists tell us that every human society is established by males and females joining in permanent unions to build a life together and bear and raise their children. The differences we see in family from culture to culture are primarily variations on this model: how long the male and female stay together, how many spouses either can have and how the labor is divided. Some cultures make greater use of extended family than others. Family diversity is largely confined to these differences. But there has never been a culture or society that made homosexual marriage part of its family model.

Q: But how does someone�??s homosexual �??marriage�?� threaten everyone else�??s families?

A: Gay activists are not asking for just one homosexual marriage, even though they often personalize it by saying, �??Don�??t you interfere with my family and I won�??t interfere with yours.�?� What the activists want is a new national policy saying that no longer is a mom and a dad any better than two moms or two dads. That policy would turn some very important principles upside down:

Marriage would become merely an emotional relationship that is flexible enough to include any grouping of loving adults. If it is fair for two men or two women to marry, why not three, or five, or 17? The terms �??husband�?� and �??wife�?� would become merely words with no meaning.

Parenthood would consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids. �??Mother�?� and �??father�?� would become only words.

Gender would become nothing. The same-sex proposition cannot tolerate the idea that any real, deep and necessary differences exist between the sexes. It must rest on a �??Mister Potato Head theory�?� of gender difference (same core, just interchangeable body parts). If real differences did exist, then men would need women and women would need men. Our children would learn that sexual differences are like mere personality types. Wait until your kids start bringing those papers home from school.

Q: But doesn�??t expanding marriage to include homosexuals actually help strengthen marriage?

A: Just the opposite. There is recent evidence from the Netherlands, arguably the most �??gay-friendly�?� culture on earth, that homosexual men have a very difficult time honoring the ideal of marriage. Even though same-sex �??marriage�?� is legal there, a British medical journal reports male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly �??committed�?� relationships.

Contrast that with the fact that 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last 10 years, and more than threequarters of heterosexual married couples report being faithful to their vows.2

No. Watering down the definition of marriage does not help strengthen marriage.

Q: Even so, traditional marriage isn�??t doing all that well, with so many divorces.

A: You�??re right. Marriage isn�??t working well, so what should we do? Erase the marriage laws? Look at it this way. We have laws against murder, but people still commit murder, so what should we do? Erase the murder laws? Of course not. When laws aren�??t working, legislators try to fix them. We should strengthen marriage, and many are beginning to do just that.

As a matter of fact, the evidence favoring marriage is so overwhelming that the federal government has begun to encourage the inclusion of a marriage training component in all state welfare plans.

Q: But doesn�??t our culture benefit from trying new things?

A: New does not always mean better. �??New�?� and �??improved�?� have only become synonymous in our consumer age. Anything that departs from specific instruction in the Scriptures is a bad idea, inevitably.

Thirty years ago, our nation entered a dramatic social experiment on the family called �??no-fault divorce,�?� thinking this would improve family life. The research that examined the next 30 years of experience, however, has judged this experiment a massive failure. Children and their parents have been hurt far more deeply�??and for much longer�?? than we ever imagined.

The revolutionaries of the no-fault divorce movement claimed that the �??til death do us part�?� portion of marriage wasn�??t that important. They were wrong. The same-sex proposition claims the �??husband�?� and �??wife�?� portion doesn�??t matter. Here we go again.

Q: Surely, though, homosexuals need marriage to feel like full members of society, don�??t they?

A: Need marriage? No. What we are talking about here is self-esteem and it is not the place of government to bestow self-esteem on any individual or group.

Q: Why do you have to be so narrow in your definition of marriage?

A: Nature is narrow in its definition and for very good reason. Research over the last 100 years consistently shows us that marriage provides a treasure chest of good things for adults, children and society.

Q: What benefits does marriage provide?

A: Research consistently shows that married adults do better in virtually every measure of well-being. Married people live longer, happier lives. They enjoy higher levels of physical and mental health, they recover from illness quicker, earn and save more money, are more reliable employees, suffer less stress, and are less likely to become victims of any kind of violence. They find the job of parenting more successful and enjoyable and they have more satisfying and fulfilling sex lives. These benefits are largely equal for men and women.3

Compared with children in any other situation, children with married parents need to visit doctors less often for physical or emotional problems, and they do better in all measures of intellectual and academic development. They are more sympathetic toward others and much less likely to be in trouble at school, at home or with the police. They are much less likely to use drugs and be involved in violent behavior or premarital sexual activity and childbearing. It is uncommon for kids who live with married parents to live in poverty or be victims of physical or sexual abuse.4 Research is clear: marriage makes a substantial, positive difference in people�??s lives.

Q: So wouldn�??t opening marriage to same-sex couples mean more people benefit from marriage?

A: Just the opposite. Marriage is more than an emotional, committed relationship. It is the permanent union of the two complementary parts of humanity who complete each other in their differences. This is why marriage provides good things for adults and children, which same-sex relationships, by definition, cannot provide.

The ultimate result of expanding the definition of marriage is that marriage would mean everything�??and nothing. The goal of most influential gay leaders who are spearheading this movement is not to broaden the benefits of marriage, but to strip it of any meaning. They see redefining marriage in this way as the first step toward abolishing marriage and the family altogether thus eliminating the benefits of marriage for everyone.

Q: But isn�??t same-sex marriage all that is being argued for?

A: Yes, gay marriage is viewed by many as a civil right. But, if such a right is established, then on what basis can marriage be denied to any coupling or group? In a remarkably sobering article in The Weekly Standard writer Stanley Kurtz explains that polygamy is getting more widespread endorsement than ever before, with friendly commentary in several major newspapers recently. Kurtz predicts the ACLU will soon rise as its foremost defender.

And it won�??t stop there. Kurtz reports further on the coming popularity of something called polyamory, which is a $10 word for group marriage. Already polyamory is on the cutting edge in family law, and is promoted by professors at some of our nation�??s leading universities. Kurtz explains that this �??group marriage�?� movement is marching down the same trail blazed by the same-sex proponents.5

For all the other problems this will cause, government and industry would be forced to provide health and legal benefits for any grouping of people who declare themselves to be �??married�?� under these laws, or more likely, court decisions. Could your business afford health-care benefits for 5 or 9 people in a group marriage? In fact, in this brave new world, what would keep two heterosexual single moms�??or even six of them�??from �??marrying�?� simply so they can receive family health, tax and social security benefits together? The increased cost to business and government would be crippling.

Conclusion
Marriage is not just a private affair. Every marriage is a public virtue in that it responsibly regulates human sexuality, brings the two parts of humanity together in a cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship and it delivers mothers and fathers to children. Society benefits from the well-being of marriage; nearly every dollar spent by our government on social welfare is in reaction to a marriage breaking down or failing to form. Good things happen when we honor what marriage is. Bad things happen when we try to change it.

Ultimately and inevitably, the future and the health of humanity rests upon the health and future of marriage.

To see how same-sex marriage is harmful to children click here. (SEE BELOW)

To sign an electronic petition in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, click here and you will be taken to the American Family Association's NoGayMarriage.com Web site.



Developed by Glenn T. Stanton; Also by Pete Winn, associate editor of CitizenLink at Focus on the Family.


Glenn T. Stanton is Director of Social Research and Cultural Affairs and Senior Analyst for Marriage and Sexuality at Focus on the Family. He is also author of Why Marriage Matters: Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Postmodern Society (Pinon Press).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Catherine Malkin and Michael Lamb, �??Child Maltreatment: A Test of the Sociobiological Theory,�?� Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25 (1994): 121-133; David Popenoe, Life Without Father, (New York: The Free Press, 1996).
2Maria Xiridou, et al., �??The Contributions of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,�?� AIDS, 17 (2003): 1029.38.
3Glenn T. Stanton, Why Marriage Matters: Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Postmodern Society, (Colorado Springs, Pinon Press, 1997); Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier and Better Off Financially, (New York: Doubleday, 2000); Robert Coombs, �??Marital Status and Personal Well-Being: A Literature Review,�?� Family Relations 40 (1991) 97-102; Lois Verbrugge and Donald Balaban, �??Patterns of Change, Disability and Well-Being,�?� Medical Care 27 (1989): S128- S147; I.M. Joung, et al., �??Differences in Self-Reported Morbidity by Marital Status and by Living Arrangement,�?� International Journal of Epidemiology 23 (1994): 91-97; Linda Waite, �??Does Marriage Matter?�?� Demography 32 (1995): 483-507; Harold Morowitz, �??Hiding in the Hammond Report,�?� Hospital Practice (August 1975), p. 39; James Goodwin, et al., �??The Effect of Marital Status on Stage, Treatment, and Survival of Cancer Patients,�?� Journal of the American Medical Association, 258 (1987): 3152-3130; Benjamin Malzberg, �??Marital Status in Relation to the Prevalence of Mental Disease,�?� Psychiatric Quarterly 10 (1936): 245-261; David Williams, et al., �??Marital Status and Psychiatric Disorders Among Blacks and Whites,�?� Journal of Health and Social Behavior 33 (1992): 140-157; Steven Stack and J. Ross Eshleman, �??Marital Status and Happiness: A 17-Nation Study,�?� Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60 (1998): 527-536; Robert T. Michael, et al., Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1994), p. 124-129; Randy Page and Galen Cole, �??Demographic Predictors of Self-Reported Loneliness in Adults,�?� Psychological Reports 68 (1991): 939-945; Jan Stets, �??Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: The Role of Social Isolation,�?� Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991): 669-680; �??Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1992,�?� U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, (March 1994), p. 31, NCJ-145125; Ronald Angel and Jacqueline Angel, Painful Inheritance: Health and the New Generation of Fatherless Families, (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1993), pp. 139, 148; Richard Rogers, �??Marriage, Sex, and Mortality,�?� Journal of Marriage and the Family 57 (1995): 515-526.
4David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling Evidence that Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensible for the Good of Children, (New York, The Free Press, 1997); Glenn T. Stanton Why Marriage Matters: Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Postmodern Society, (Colorado Springs, Pinon Press, 1997); Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994); Deborah Dawson, �??Family Structure and Children�??s Health and Well-Being: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey on Child Health,�?� Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991): 573-584; Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), p. 103; Richard Koestner, et al., �??The Family Origins of Empathic Concern: A Twenty-Six Year Longitudinal Study,�?� Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 (1990): 709-717; E. Mavis Hetherington, �??Effects of Father Absence on Personality Development in Adolescent Daughters,�?� Developmental Psychology 7 (1972): 313 �??326; Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, Single Mothers and Their Children: A New American Dilemma (Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1986), pp. 30-31; David Ellwood, Poor Support: Poverty in the American Family (New York: Basic Books, 1988), p. 46; Ronald J. Angel and Jacqueline Worobey, �??Single Motherhood and Children�??s Health,�?� Journal of Health and Social Behavior 29 (1988): 38-52; L. Remez, �??Children Who Don�??t Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems,�?� Family Planning Perspectives, January/February 1992; Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee, Second Chances: Men and Women a Decade After Divorce, (New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1990); Judith Wallerstein, et al., The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study, (New York: Hyperion, 2000); Nicholas Zill, Donna Morrison, and Mary Jo Coiro, �??Long-Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment, and Achievement in Young Adulthood,�?� Journal of Family Psychology, 7 (1993): 91-103.
5Stanley Kurtz, �??Beyond Gay Marriage,�?� The Weekly Standard, August 4-11, 2003, p. 26-33.

[\quote]

Originally posted by http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/ssuap/a0027554.cfm:</font><hr> Why Children Need Father-Love and Mother-Love
August 29, 2003

by Glenn T. Stanton

To be concerned with proper child development is to be concerned about making sure that children have daily access to the different and complementary ways mothers and fathers parent.
If Heather is being raised by two mommies and Brandon is being raised by Daddy and his new husband-roommate, Heather and Brandon might have two adults in their lives, but they are being deprived of the benefits found in the unique influences found in a mother and father�??s differing parenting styles. Much of the value mothers and fathers bring to their children is due to the fact that mothers and fathers are different. And by cooperating together and complementing each other in their differences, they provide these good things that same-sex caregivers cannot. The important value of these gender-based differences in healthy child-development will be explored here.

The fathering difference is explained by fathering scholar Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads matter simply because �??fathers do not mother.�?�1 Psychology Today explains, �??fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.�?�2 A father, as a male parent, brings unique contributions to the job of parenting that a mother cannot.

Likewise, a mother, as a female parent, uniquely impacts the life and development of her child, as Dr. Brenda Hunter explains in her book, The Power of Mother Love: Transforming Both Mother and Child.3 Erik Erikson explained that father love and mother love are qualitatively different kinds of love. Fathers �??love more dangerously�?� because their love is more �??expectant, more instrumental�?� than a mother�??s love.4

The following are some of the most compelling ways mother and father involvement make a positive difference in a child�??s life. The first benefit is the difference itself.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

�??Children need mom's softness as well as dad�??s roughhousing.�?�

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mothers and Fathers Parent Differently
This difference provides an important diversity of experiences for children. Dr. Pruett explains that fathers have a distinct style of communication and interaction with children. Infants, by 8 weeks, can tell the difference between a male or female interacting with them. Stanford psychologist Eleanor Maccoby, in her book The Two Sexes, explains mothers and fathers respond differently to infants. Mothers are more likely to provide warm, nurturing care for a crying infant.5 This diversity in itself provides children with a broader, richer experience of contrasting relational interactions �??more so than for children who are raised by only one gender. Whether they realize it or not, children are learning at earliest age, by sheer experience, that men and women are different and have different ways of dealing with life, other adults and their children.

Mothers and Fathers Play Differently
Fathers tend to play with, and mothers tend to care for, children. While both mothers and fathers are physical, fathers are physical in different ways.

Fathers tickle more, they wrestle, and they throw their children in the air. Fathers chase their children, sometimes as playful, scary �??monsters.�?� Fathers are louder at play, while mothers are quieter. Mothers cuddle babies, and fathers bounce them. Fathers roughhouse while mothers are gentle. One study found that 70 percent of father-infant games were more physical and action oriented while only 4 percent of mother-infant play was like this.6 Fathers encourage competition; mothers encourage equity. One style encourages independence while the other encourages security.

Fathering expert John Snarey explains that children who roughhouse with their fathers learn that biting, kicking and other forms of physical violence are not acceptable. They learn self-control by being told when �??enough is enough�?� and when to �??settle down.�?�7 Girls and boys both learn a healthy balance between timidity and aggression. Children need mom's softness as well as dad�??s roughhousing. Both provide security and confidence in their own ways by communicating love and physical intimacy.

Fathers Push Limits; Mothers Encourage Security
Go to any playground and listen to the parents. Who is encouraging their kids to swing or climb just a little higher, ride their bike just a little faster, throw just a little harder? Who is yelling, �??slow down, not so high, not so hard!�?� Of course, fathers encourage children to take chances and push limits and mothers protect and are more cautious. And this difference can cause disagreement between mom and dad on what is best for the child.

But the difference is essential for children. Either of these parenting styles by themselves can be unhealthy. One can tend toward encouraging risk without consideration of consequences. The other tends to avoid risk, which can fail to build independence, confidence and progress. Joined together, they keep each other in balance and help children remain safe while expanding their experiences and confidence.

Mothers and Fathers Communicate Differently
A major study showed that when speaking to children, mothers and fathers are different. Mothers will simplify their words and speak on the child�??s level. Men are not as inclined to modify their language for the child.8

Mother�??s way facilitates immediate communication. Father�??s way challenges the child to expand her vocabulary and linguistic skills, an important building block of academic success.

Father�??s talk tends to be more brief, directive, and to the point. It also makes greater use of subtle body language and facial expressions. Mothers tend to be more descriptive, personal and verbally encouraging. Children who do not have daily exposure to both will not learn how to understand and use both styles of conversation as they grow. These boys and girls will be at a disadvantage because they will experience these different ways of communicating in relationships with teachers, bosses and other authority figures.

Mothers and Fathers Discipline Differently
Educational psychologist Carol Gilligan tells us that fathers stress justice, fairness and duty (based on rules), while mothers stress sympathy, care and help (based on relationships). Fathers tend to observe and enforce rules systematically and sternly, which teach children the objectivity and consequences of right and wrong. Mothers tend toward grace and sympathy in the midst of disobedience, which provide a sense of hopefulness. Again, either of these by themselves is not good, but together, they create a healthy, proper balance.

Fathers and Mothers Prepare Children for Life Differently
Dads tend to see their child in relation to the rest of the world. Mothers tend to see the rest of the world in relation to their child. Think about it.

What motivates most mothers as parents? They are motivated primarily by things from the outside world that could hurt their child (i.e., lightning, accidents, disease, strange people, dogs or cats, etc.). Fathers, while not unconcerned with these things, tend to focus on how their children will or will not be prepared for something they might encounter in the world (i.e., a bully, being nervous around the opposite sex, baseball or soccer tryouts, etc.)

Fathers help children see that particular attitudes and behaviors have certain consequences. For instance, fathers are more likely to tell their children that if they are not nice to others, kids will not want to play with them. Or, if they don�??t do well in school, they will not get into a good college or job. Fathers help children prepare for the reality and harshness of the real world, and mothers help protect against it. Both are necessary as children grow into adulthood.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

�??To be concerned with proper child development is to be concerned about making sure that children have daily access to the different and complimentary ways mothers and fathers parent.�?�

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fathers Provide A Look at the World of Men; Mothers, the World of Women
Men and women are different. They eat differently. They dress differently. They smell different. They groom themselves differently. They cope with life differently. Fathers do �??man things�?� and women do �??lady things.�?� Mothers and fathers both help little girls and little boys learn how to grow to be women and men. Anthropologist Suzanne Frayser explains this is constant in all human societies, �??Each process complements the other. The boy can look at his father and see what he should do to be a male; he can look at his mother and see what he should not do to be a male.�?� Frayser continues, �??The importance of contrasts in gender roles and specification of gender identity may be clues to the psychological importance of sexual differentiation in all societies.�?�9

Girls and boys who grow up with a father are more familiar and secure with the curious world of men. Girls with involved, married fathers are more likely to have healthier relationships with boys in adolescence and men in adulthood because they learn from their fathers how proper men act toward women. They also know which behaviors are inappropriate. They also have a healthy familiarity with the world of men. They don�??t wonder how a man�??s facial stubble feels or what it's like to be hugged or held by strong arms. This knowledge builds emotional security, and safety from the exploitation of predatory males. They also learn from mom how to live in a woman�??s world. This is especially important as they approach adolescence and all the changes that life-stage brings.

Boys who grow up with dads are much less likely to be violent. They have their masculinity affirmed and learn from their fathers how to channel their masculinity and strength in positive ways. Fathers help children understand proper male sexuality, hygiene, and behavior in age appropriate ways. Mothers help boys understand the female world and develop a sensitivity toward women. They also help boys know how to relate and communicate with women.

Fathers and Mothers Teach Respect for the Opposite Sex
FACT: A married father is substantially less likely to abuse his wife or children than men in any other category.10 This means that boys and girls with fathers learn, by observation, how men should treat women.

Girls with involved fathers, therefore, are more likely to select for themselves good suitors and husbands because they have a proper standard by which to judge all candidates. Fathers themselves also help weed out bad candidates. Boys raised with fathers are more likely to be good husbands because they can emulate their fathers' successes and learn from their failures.

The American Journal of Sociology finds that, �??Societies with father-present patterns of child socialization produce men who are less inclined to exclude women from public activities than their counterparts in father-absent societies.�?�11

Girls and boys with married mothers learn from their mothers what a healthy respectful female relationship with men looks like. Girls who observe their mothers confidently and lovingly interacting with their fathers learn how to interact confidently with men.

Fathers Connect Children with Job Markets
A crucial point in life is the transition from financial dependence to independence. This is usually a slow process spanning the years from about 16 to 22 years of age. Fathers help connect their children, (especially boys) to job markets as they enter adulthood. This is because fathers, more than mothers, are likely to have the kinds of diverse community connections needed to help young adults get their first jobs. They are also more likely have the motivation to make sure their children make these connections. When dad is not around, boys are not likely to have the connections necessary to land a summer job at the tire store or warehouse.

As Dr. David Popenoe warns,

We should disavow the notion that �??mommies can make good daddies,�?? just as we should disavow the popular notion of radical feminists that �??daddies can make good mommies.�?? �?�The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary �?? culturally and biologically �?? for the optimal development of a human being.12

Conclusion

To be concerned with proper children development is to be concerned about making sure that children have daily access to the different and complementary ways mothers and fathers parent. The same-sex marriage and parenting proposition says this doesn�??t really matter. They are wrong and their lack of understanding will hurt children. It will rob children of the necessary and different experiences mothers and fathers expose children to. As a result, children growing up in mother-only or father-only homes will suffer deeply in terms of lack of confidence, independence, and security. Boys and girls will be at greater risk for gender confusion, abuse and exploitation from other men. They are less likely to have a healthy respect for both women and men as they grow into adulthood.


Glenn T. Stanton is Director of Social Research and Cultural Affairs and Senior Analyst for Marriage and Sexuality at Focus on the Family. He is also author of Why Marriage Matters: Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Postmodern Society (Pinon Press).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Kyle D. Pruett, Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child, (New York: The Free Press, 2000), pp. 17-34.
2�??Shuttle Diplomacy,�?� Psychology Today, July/August 1993, p. 15.
3Brenda Hunter, The Power of Mother Love: Transforming Both Mother and Child, (Colorado Springs: Waterbrook Press, 1997).
4As cited in Kyle D. Pruett, The Nurturing Father, (New York: Warner Books, 1987), p. 49.
5Eleanor E. Maccoby, The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart; Coming Together, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 261.
6Maccoby, 1999, p. 266.
7As cited in David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage are Indispensable of the Good of Children and Society, (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 144.
8Maccoby, 1999, p. 269.
9Suzanne G. Frayser, Varieties of Sexual Experience: Anthropological Perspective on Human Seuxality, (New York: Human Relations Area File Press, 1985), p. 86.
10Jan Stets and Murray A. Strauss, �??The Marriage License as a Hitting License: A Comparison of Assaults in Dating, Cohabiting, and Married Couples,�?� Journal of Family Violence 4 (1989): 161-180; Jan Stets, �??Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: the Role of Social Isolation,�?� Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991): 669-680; Michael Gordon, �??The Family Environment of Sexual Abuse: A Comparison of Natal and Stepfather Abuse,�?� Child Abuse and Neglect, 13 (1985): 121-130.
11Scott Coltrane, �??Father-Child Relationships and the Status of Women: A Cross-Cultural Study,�?� American Journal of Sociology, (1988) 93:1088.
12David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage are Indispensable of the Good of Children and Society, (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 197.

---

---

Those are perfectly good reasons. If you happened to read them.

Quote:

---

Anybody take a second to compare our society to the great and might FALLEN Roman Empire from ages past? Anybody? Anybody?

What was going on before the fall? What was rampant before they lost everything and were no longer?

Overindulgence in everything which includes sex, eating, material belongings, etc, homosexuality was becoming the norm, not the exception, they were killing their future generations (either through some form of abortion or infancticide or both), sex was not sacred anymore, greed, money, the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer, and on and on and on and on and on it goes.

Does this sound at ALL like our country? Hmmm, yep. That's one reason why it's so IMPORTANT to keep homosexuals without rights to marriage. But a more important reason is that HOMOSEXUALITY IS JUST MORALLY WRONG!!

As crude as it is, "D for Chicks" is how we were created. I don't like the phrase, but that's the way it is. Deal with it.

Marriage is for procreation and to fulfill a man's need and woman's need. We are all different, and each of us (as in my earlier post) have different things we add to the marriage and the children that are a product of the marriage. Birth Control destroyed the need to keep sex in the marriage bed and allowed sex to become a free for all. Homosexuality is one of the abnormal ways to have sex and connect to others in society as our society slowly goes down the downward spiral. I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but then again, I'm not sorry, becuase JESUS CHRIST offers everybody forgiveness if they ask and will turn from their sins.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 99SESPORT:

---

Originally posted by bishop375:

---

Originally posted by 99SESPORT:

---

HOMOSEXUALITY IS JUST MORALLY WRONG!!

As crude as it is, "D for Chicks" is how we were created. I don't like the phrase, but that's the way it is. Deal with it.

I'm not sorry, becuase JESUS CHRIST offers everybody forgiveness if they ask and will turn from their sins.

---

Yeah, you're following his teachings of tolerance and love for your fellow man, alright, you hypocritcal moron. Homosexuality is against YOUR morals, make that distinction. My morals are FAR removed from yours, and frankly, if there came a time where you and I were candidates for the pearly gates, they'd welcome me in there before you, chuckles. Sleep on that one.

Remember, the bible was written when the earth was still flat and people were polytheists... if polytheism (practiced by the two of the most important societies the world will ever see) was "proven" wrong by Christianity, who's to say that Christianity won't be "proven" wrong by someone else in the future?

Originally posted by 99SESPORT:

---

Overindulgence in everything which includes sex, eating, material belongings, etc, homosexuality was becoming the norm, not the exception, they were killing their future generations (either through some form of abortion or infancticide or both), sex was not sacred anymore, greed, money, the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer, and on and on and on and on and on it goes.

---

You neglect to mention the rampant inbreeding by the straight couples to keep the "family lineage" through marriage. Yeah, being married and being able to reproduce is REAL helpful there, right? Shot yourself in the foot with that.

---

Yeah, I really shot myself in the foot . It actually doesn't change the argument at all. It adds to what is happening and could happen in America. (For all we know, it's probably happening right now) It may give a reason to stop it all now. Do you not realize how blessed this country has been and fruitful this country has been? Coincidence?

I know I won't be able to change your mind, and I know I look "hypocritical" to you, but in all reality, I'm speaking with love and truth from the Bible. The Bible states that homosexuality is a sin, just like all the other sexual acts out there (sex with sister/brother/father/ mother, adultery etc) and when I speak I speak with the attitude that they can turn from their sins just like all of us can and need to.

Do I treat those in the midst of homosexuality any different than I would anybody else? No, in fact I have several friends who are or were homosexuals. SIMPLE AS THAT.

In other words, I'm not hypocritical, and I believe sin is sin, regardless of that sin, and one day all of us, including you, will have to stand before a right and just God to account for what you have done on Earth. I know that the "pearly gates" will be opened for me becuase I trust in JESUS CHRIST as my savior and am looking forward to glory with Him.

Originally posted by bishop375:

---

And, yeah, I reposted my own quotes, but, that's because nobody can argue the point. I've also known a few couples who got married because they loved each other, and never wanted children. Does that mean they shouldn't have been allowed to marry each other? NO. Who cares what their opinion on children is? Does it affect you? No, it doesn't. Your life will ALWAYS be your own life. Live it the way you want to. But do NOT take away the rights of others while you do it... THAT is what this country is about, NOT preventing gays from marrying.

---

I know a lot of couples who got married with no intention to have children. This country is not ABOUT individualistic freedoms and rights. In fact, this country was all about freedom from the oppressive state and that states religious oppressions. They founders and followers came here to get away from the state CHURCH so they could worship the God of the Bible with freedom. They didn't come here to give sinners free reign, and to give justification to sinners where justification doesn't exist.

What I just quoted from you shows that if I want to murder, I can murder, if I want to have sex with animals, I could, I suppose if I want to torture my children I could, I suppose if I want to do something, ANYTHING, i could because nothing is wrong anymore, it's all up to me, and if it's what I want then it is what I want. As long as it doesn't affect anybody else. Is this kind of like the guys who are watching porn in their cars? They can do it, as long as it doesn't affect anybody else right? Well, they are sitting in jail right now because you CAN'T DO ANYTHING YOU WANT BECUASE IT WILL ALWAYS AFFECT SOMEBODY ELSE!!!!

This rampant individualistic attitude must go. Every action has a reaction and everything you do affects everybody else around you. You are not the only person on this earth. If you took a dump in a remote part of the forest, do you not think it would affect anybody else? Hey guess what, it is going to affect the wildlife. If you are married and you begin looking at other women, and lusting after them, and partaking in pornography, do you really not believe it won't affect anybody around you? It's a "victimless crime" right? NO! It is going to affect everything about your marriage.

In other words, homomarriage is going to affect us in more ways that I want to even imagine. Simple as that...

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 99SESPORT:

---

Originally posted by sigma:

---

Quote:

---

In other words, homomarriage is going to affect us in more ways that I want to even imagine. Simple as that...

---

So you compare "homomarriage" with other "rampant individualistic actions" such as beastiality, murder, and molestation...

Do you tell your homosexual "friends" that? I guarantee you they wouldn't be your friends very long.

I just wanna know how homomarriage (God, I hate that word) is going to affect "us in more ways than I want to even imagine". We've had this discussion before, and you've never been able to successsfully answer that, you just keep saying it's going to totally change our lives.

---

Homosexuality is a sin, just like all the others metioned above, so yes, I do tell my friends.Anybody that is my friend will understand that if they don't already. I in fact worked with a VERY VERY outward homosexual who knew how I felt about the whole situation because we spent hours after the restaurant closed discussing such topics. He was never less than a friend because I loved him, as a friend and he knew it.

And I believe I have actually successfully answered the question about how it will affect us. I have said it will destroy the children (not that the rampant divorce rate etc hasn't already), it will tear at the fabric of what we know to be right and true, it will give justification and rights to a sinful and destructive life pattern, it makes what was once wrong right, and to be completely honest with you, it will confuse future generations on what is right and wrong. I have shown, quite briefly, that Rome fell becuase just like the U.S., it over indulged itself in everything under the sun. Another example would be Sodom and Gomorrah. Homosexuals were rampant there and other indulgences in every pleasure known to man were replacing what was known to be right. That city was destroyed for its sins.

And for those who ask me to take the Bible out, then you might as well change our timeline that we use, might as well get rid of America because it is based on Biblical principles, get rid of the church which has basically kept the country together in times of need and most important, you might as well rip the soul out of everybody and allow us all to walk around as individualistic monsters who know nothing of our neighbor. You can also take out all the laws we have because without the Bible, without the truth in the Bible, our laws mean nothing. Why is it wrong to murder? Because in the beginning God said so. Why is it wrong to steal? Because in the beginning God said so. So, NO, I will not remove my "religion" from my discussion as the religion is the foundational truth behind our country, our laws, and our families.

Quote:

---

And how is homosexual marriage any more "individualistic" than your own marriage -- seeing that the vast majority of people get married for no other reason than their inate desire to do so.

---

I got married not because of my innate desire to do so (although it was there and I did want to get married). Rather, I got married because I met my wife, fell in love, and wanted to raise a family with her. I got married to have a mate, somebody to fill me in, smooth my rough spots etc etc etc. She was that person.

To keep the personal information level to a low, my wife and I do not use any form of birth control because we want our marriage to have a lasting impact on society. Divorce does not exist in our vocabulary and we got married young enough to possibly see our 75th wedding anniversary (which we are looking forward to). Our foundation is Jesus Christ, whose teachings we will follow and who will hold us together through the rough times. We didn't get married because of sex, we didn't get married to get married, heck, we didn't even get married to show off (although she is gorgeous). We got married because the Bible says that is what is supposed to happen and we have children with more on the way because God said that is what a marriage is for. Our marriage is based in God, based on Biblical principles, which if followed, will hold us together. Marriage is not easy in today's society, and it is scary at times, but Karen and I look forward to living each and everyday out together until one of us is taken from this earth.

Now for the real kicker, my marriage is hopefully a example of how God described his relationship to us. Jesus was the groom and we are the Bride. This is a whole other topic and should not be discussed here, but to put it quickly, God brought Karen and I together and only God, in taking us to His glory, will take us apart. My marriage is that important.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 99SESPORT:

---

Originally posted by daenku32:

---

Originally posted by 99SESPORT:

---

And for those who ask me to take the Bible out, then you might as well change our timeline that we use, might as well get rid of America because it is based on Biblical principles, get rid of the church which has basically kept the country together in times of need and most important, you might as well rip the soul out of everybody and allow us all to walk around as individualistic monsters who know nothing of our neighbor. You can also take out all the laws we have because without the Bible, without the truth in the Bible, our laws mean nothing. Why is it wrong to murder? Because in the beginning God said so. Why is it wrong to steal? Because in the beginning God said so. So, NO, I will not remove my "religion" from my discussion as the religion is the foundational truth behind our country, our laws, and our families.

---

I disagree. Our Constitution overrides Bible. If there is a disagree between the two (ie. Atheism, Constitution says it's OK, Bible say it's wrong.), Constitution wins. Always.

I don't need a God to tell me what is wrong. Stealing and Murder are pretty obvious. But of course that's why you used them as an examples for biblical morality. Not something that is limited to the religion alone.

---

Wow, the constitution overrides what it is based on. So what you are saying is that society is progressive, kind of Darwinian in theory I suppose. As we go on, we get smarter and are able to override God? I don't think so. God wrote the Bible through very faithful men, and that has been proven over and over again. Constitution unfortunately does not win every time. God is right, man is fallible.

Stealing and murder, let's step away from them. Incest? Wrong or not? NAMBLA, boys and men, right or wrong? Pronography, lust, adultery etc? Right or wrong. How about disrespect of parents? Infancticide? Abortion? I could go on and on, but the simple fact is, is that it is all wrong, and all immoral, including homosexuality. How about lying? IMMORAL. How about cheating? Same thing, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on. They are all in the Bible. The truths we live by are found in the Bible, why? BECAUSE BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES WORK!! That's why, regardless of a "Constitution" or "Bill of Rights." As I wrote just a second ago, our government is not our final judge, like most would like to forget.

Originally posted by daenku32:

---

If you are attempting to convince us otherwise, you need something that consists of things we BOTH already consider as facts. Otherwise your points are lost.

What is Right is treating people equal. Homosexuals are not criminals. No matter WHAT your Bible might say.

---

No, homosexuals are very nice people, and are in fact very good dressers, and they are very stylish. We can treat people equal without justifying their sins. We should treat all people, including the criminals as humans. Homosexuals fall in the "all" people category. What we should not do, is give them justification, or the ability to believe they are doing the right thing, because they aren't. There might be a reason why history is the way it is.

---

---