Category Archives: Homosexual Agenda
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.
Imagine having five parents! Here’s what it means: it means going back and forth between all those households on a regular basis, never having a single place to call home during your most tender and vulnerable years. It means having divided Christmases, other holidays, and birthdays–you spend one with one parent, and another with the other parent, never spending a single holiday or birthday with both parents. Imagine having each of your parents completely ignore the other half of you, the other half of your family, as if it did not even exist. Meanwhile, imagine each parent pouring their energy into their new families and creating a unified home for their new children. These experiences give you the definite impression of being something leftover, something not quite part of them. You live like that on a daily basis for 18+ years.
I don’t have to imagine, because I had five parents. I had five parents because my mom and dad divorced when I was about three; my mom remarried once and my dad remarried twice. So I had a mom and two step-moms, and a dad and one step-dad. In this day and age children can already have five parents. That’s how badly marriage has deteriorated already. The main difference between what Gessen advocates and my experience is that my step parents were not legal parents; she advocates for all of the adults in her situation to be legal parents.
Having more than two legal parents will be a nightmare for a child. Of course, I am making the reasonable assumption that the legal parents will not be living under the same roof, because there is no longer any societal accountability for adults to create a unified home for children. Thus, adding additional legal parents will create more disruption for children’s daily lives, more chaos, more confusion, less unity. And why are we doing this? So that adults can have the sexual partners they want.
Masha Gessen had a mom and a dad, so it appears that she benefitted from the socially conservative family structure--it appears she was not raised under the family structure she advocates. That sounds about right. I’ve talked to many people who think deconstructing the family in favor of adult sexual choice is a good thing… and these very same people lived under the socially conservative family structure with their one mom who spent her life with their one dad, and they all lived together in their unified home. Since I lived under the family structure they advocate, I will sometimes ask them: would you trade childhoods with me? They either say no or they don’t reply.
If what I had is so great, then why don’t they want it as children? Here’s my conclusion: they want it as adults but not as children. They want the benefits of the socially conservative family structure when they are children. But as adults, they want sexual freedom, or at least they want to appear “open minded” and “tolerant” about others sexual choices, even at the expense of children, even though they themselves would never want to live under what they advocate. It’s a bizarre sort of a “win-win” for them, I guess.
It’s very painful for me to have conversations with these people. They don’t understand what they advocate, and they don’t seem to want to understand.
“Marriage expresses the reality that men and women bring distinct, irreplaceable gifts to family life, especially for children who deserve both a mom and a dad,” said Senior Counsel Byron Babione. “That is why Arizonans approved a constitutional amendment to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The court should uphold the right of Arizonans to define marriage consistent with this public policy, which is motivated by their concern over what’s best for children and society.”
ADF attorneys were appointed by Attorney General Tom Horne to assist the Arizona Solicitor General’s office in defending the state’s marriage laws after six same-sex couples sued county clerks in Pinal County, Maricopa County, and Coconino County.
According to the brief filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in the case,Connolly v. Roche: “[M]arriage has always existed to channel the presumptive procreative potential of man-woman relationships into committed unions in order to join children to both their mother and their father. Nevertheless, some now seek to redefine marriage from a gendered to a genderless institution, while many others legitimately believe that such a change would obscure marriage’s animating purpose and undermine its social utility. So far, the States have reached differing decisions on this important question. Yet Plaintiffs, discontented with the sovereign decision of Arizonans, argue that the public debate about the meaning, purpose, and future of marriage was meaningless… But Plaintiffs are mistaken. The Constitution has not removed this question from the People.”
“The laws of Arizona have always reflected the man-woman nature of marriage,” added ADF Legal Counsel Jim Campbell. “The court should not endorse the recently conceived notion that marriage is about special government recognition for adult relationships, but instead should uphold the time-honored laws preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”