Skip to content

Why Gay Marriage is Threatening

Here is an excellent essay on why some people are threatened by gay marriage. Not because gays marrying threaten the institution of marriage, but because they threaten traditional gender roles.

I’ll include one quote, not because this captures the entire (relatively short) essay, but just to get you to go read it.

Same-sex marriage makes a lie of the very foundation of traditional gender roles. Same-sex marriages say that a woman can run a household, or that a man can raise a child. This does not square with those whose lives and beliefs and relationships depend on upholding and living their lives based on differences between the sexes. Over and over on C-SPAN I hear people in 2013 arguing that both a mother and a father are needed in order to raise children – indeed, that children have a RIGHT to both a mother and a father. (And so, you see, proponents of same-sex marriage are not actually supporting the granting of rights, but rather the taking away of rights… of children. The twists in logic are mind-boggling.)



  1. a regular reader wrote:

    Not for nothin’, but this-here man is pretty darned good at raising kids, if I do say so myself… During the marriage I was their primary care provider, aka Mr Mom, and nowadays they’re with me half the time–delightful little kids that they are–when they’re not with their mother, my ex. (And when we visit my nonagenarian folks back home in MO, they and their old-fogey friends rave about how well-behaved and bright the kids are–just like most everyone here in NYC does. SO THERE!)

    Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 1:43 am | Permalink
  2. ebdoug wrote:

    I know swans co raise their offspring. What other animals besides humans co raise offspring? From studying anthropology, I said it is very rare. I learned in school that in Sparta boys went to live with their Fathers when they were 13. Ironically two of my three sons left to live with their respective fathers when they were 13. Seems to be the age a son needs a father’s guidance. Since teenagers are not fun animals to be around, I wasn’t one bit upset. All three of my sons are very good fathers having been raised in a single parent home. One even uses guns while neither his father nor I do. He hunts and does all those man things his father and I did not.

    Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 6:33 am | Permalink
  3. From a species perspective the male/female child bond can be the strongest and healthiest for the child, that is if males and females acted appropriately. The rub is that dysfunctionality is present in many heterosexual couples with children and that good parenting, by same sex couples, can eclipse and replace that bond.

    Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 10:00 am | Permalink
  4. PatriotSGT wrote:

    Interesting. I see it in several different ways. First there are heterosexual couples who have no business raising children and there are same sex couples who do a great job. There is however some merit to the discussion of what nurturing, learning and experience is brought to the raising of a child that a 2 gender couple bring (provided of course they are good parents). Men and women are very different adaptations of the same species from how they process information to the preferences they have. My wife and I talk about our differences all the time and how they contribute to the overall childhood experience of our children. Personally I think it’s both important and necessary for the overall development of a child to have both. Now thats not to say a same sex couple couldn’t find such experiences for a child to learn from, but in my observations same sex couples tend to adopt or raise a child of the same sex as the couple and i’m not quite sure why that is, matter of fact in the 10 or so same sex couples I personally know (who have children) they all have children of the same sex as the parents.

    Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 1:30 pm | Permalink
  5. wildwood wrote:

    Perhaps the ideal family structure is one dad and one mom, but so many children don’t have that, regardless of the sex of their parents that there is surely nothing wrong with a child having loving parents, regardless of the sex or number. One parent is better than no parent, two same sex parents are better than no parent.

    Perhaps same sex parents pick a child of the same sex because it’s what they are comfortable with. They are males so they feel better in that capacity or they are females and feel better with a girl child. I think to a lot of males, (straight or gay), the idea of raising a girl and preparing her for adulthood might just be frightening and the same may be true of the female parents who might struggle understanding how to treat a boy.

    Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 3:23 pm | Permalink
  6. Dan wrote:

    Let’s say there was a study that showed that, all things being equal, it’s somehow slightly beneficial for a child to have parents of both sexes (interactions with both genders), than one.

    Let’s say that in the same study, it turned out that, all things being equal, it’s considerably more beneficial for a child to have one and only one sibling than any other number of siblings.

    What then? Would there be a discussion about the value of siblings? About public policy and legislation regarding the number of children in each family?

    Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 11:28 pm | Permalink
  7. ebdoug wrote:

    Excellent point Dan.

    Wednesday, April 10, 2013 at 5:14 am | Permalink
  8. Iron Knee wrote:

    Fantastic point, Dan.

    Let’s say that there is a study that shows that, all things being equal, it’s slightly beneficial for a child to have rich parents. Would we prohibit poor people from having children?

    But the best example, IMHO, is let’s say there is a study that shows that, all things being equal, it’s very beneficial for a child to have parents who wanted to have that child. Would conservatives then support abortion? Because there are plenty of studies that show that.

    Wednesday, April 10, 2013 at 7:37 am | Permalink
  9. il-08 wrote:

    Here is what I am getting from this discussion, in the words of the immortal Bill Murray in ‘Meatballs’: “It just Doesn’t Matter!”

    Best situation for a child is to be raised by two GOOD parents. Who knows, maybe it would be better to be raised by THREE parents.

    As for the sex of the parents, I am absolutely sure you would find a higher correlation between healthiness and INCOME rather than sex. Perhaps we should legislate that only rich people can have children….

    Wednesday, April 10, 2013 at 7:52 am | Permalink
  10. PatriotSGT wrote:

    I’m not implying that same sex can’t do a good job and untimately I agree with Il-08 and IK that what probably matters most is having 2 good parents that really want a child.

    I think the abortion issue is a different discussion for the other post.

    Wednesday, April 10, 2013 at 9:40 am | Permalink
  11. Dan wrote:

    To what degree do potential foster parents have to show that they have the financial means to support an adopted child? If they do, then in that sense the “rich parents” dimension is already used.

    I once had a friend going through troubled times, and I asked her about her plans for children. She said her gift to her child will be “happy parents”, if and when that becomes possible. Eventually she succeeded!

    Wednesday, April 10, 2013 at 5:31 pm | Permalink
  12. PatriotSGT wrote:

    Dan, I don’t think the bar is too high for foster parents to adopt. The social workers and health care folks look at the quality of life the child is likely to have more then then fianacial assets. But basically can the parents put food on the table, a roof over there heads and give them all the love they can handle.

    Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 11:44 am | Permalink
  13. Dan wrote:

    P, I don’t think that the bar is too high at all, and certainly did not mean to imply that. Quite the contrary: the careful vetting that foster parents receive is evidence that there’s more to good parenting than being heterosexual and being able to conceive.

    Friday, April 12, 2013 at 12:12 am | Permalink