Wait... Why call God "father-mother"? Looks to me like only fathers are important in this relationship. Say, where is the mother or mothers anyway? Men can't contribute eggs or carry children in a womb, after all. Special points to these guys for not only depriving these girls of a mother, but also ensuring that they will have old fathers (whose life expectancies aren't promising). Hey, as long as you have what you want, right?Their history-making same-sex wedding in Washington was followed minutes later by another, when Reggie Stanley and Rocky Galloway, both 50, were married as their 15-month-old daughters Malena and Zoe looked on.
The Reverend Sylvia Sumter called on "the loving, loving father-mother God" to bless the union of the two African-American men who have been together for six years.
"Marriage is a gift that was long denied to everyone in DC, but today we open that gift," said the Reverend Dwayne Johnson as he married the third couple to be wed at the ceremony at the HRC headquarters, Darlene Garner, 61, and Lorilyn Candy Holmes, 53.The gift isn't being "opened" to everyone, apparently. It’s nice to see Johnson taking time away from making popcorn movies.
[More after the jump.]
"Now, in Washington, everyone has the same opportunity to get married, no matter what their sexual preference," Fenty said.I'll say it as long as they continue to say it: everyone had the same opportunity before, everyone has the same opportunity now. This is not a matter of equalizing opportunity.
While strong security dampened the mood at the HRC weddings, the afternoon church wedding of Rick Imirowicz, a 43-year-old Catholic, and Terrance Heath, a practicing Buddhist two years his junior, was more traditional and peaceful.
Traditional? I’m pretty sure it isn't in line with Catholic doctrine for a Catholic guy to marry a Buddhist, but hey, if a "Catholic" can get past the aspect that he's "marrying" another man, then I guess the Buddhist thing is no sweat. I wonder if the article would refer to me as a vegetarian as I chowed down on a steak? Marriage is no big deal. It's only one of the main sacraments and one of the most important decisions a person can make - why take it so seriously or actually follow your professed religion?
The article then tries to liken these brideless and groomless pairings to marriages in which one person has lighter skin than the other. However, I don't expect any of these unions will be able to naturally produce a future President of the United States or the world's best golfer.
Let's see, the article had the long-term couple, the couple that made babies with someone else but that other person isn’t mentioned... but these recent articles lack the usual quote from someone appealing to the Bible in objecting. Well, shoot, if they’ve dropped that, then there's no hope they'll ever include a quote from someone making a non-religious argument.
Sad for the little girls with no mommies. It was a court-appointed rip-off.
ReplyDeleteSpecial points to these guys for not only depriving these girls of a mother, but also ensuring that they will have old fathers (whose life expectancies aren't promising).
ReplyDeleteAccording to news reports, the girls' mother chose these two men to be their adoptive parents. Their birth father is deceased.
Are you saying that the girls' mother should have been ignored in favor of a generic woman, because women are interchangeable? In what way did these men "deprive" these girls of anything?
Further, the life-expectancy for 50-year-old men in the U.S. is approximately 27.6 years. The average life expectancy for black men is shorter.
Are you saying that black men should refrain from adopting because they are black?
Phil - so the mother knows no acceptable bride+groom couples? I'm sure adoption agencies do.
ReplyDeleteThese men are depriving these girls of a mother.
"Further, the life-expectancy for 50-year-old men in the U.S. is approximately 27.6 years. The average life expectancy for black men is shorter."
And what about the life expectancy of men who engage in homosexual behavior? Also, it isn't just the life expectancy, it is the age - will these guys have the energy to be full time parents to these kids in ten years? Fifteen years? And before anyone asks, I don't recommend straight couples make babies (or adopt babies) when one or both of them is 50. Adopting older kids is another matter.
The mother is depriving these girls of a mother. The men are taking them in and providing them with a loving family. As for age, would you like to prevent all people over the age of 50 from adopting and fostering children, or just gay people?
ReplyDeleteWhen encountering such debates it is important to note….
ReplyDeleteAccording to statistics provided by both the National Survey of Family Growth and the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute there are approximately 120,000 children in the United States waiting to be adopted each year. About half of these children are adopted by family members, leaving about 60,000 children who are waiting to be adopted by non-related adoptive parents. By contrast, each year there are anywhere between 70,000 and 162,000 married couples in the United States who have either filed for adoption or in process of filing. That means that in any given year, there are between 1.2 and 2.7 married couples per waiting child. In other words, there is no child-centered need to open up adoption to homosexual couples.
What if these two were brothers, or simply two trusted friends who were entrusted with the baby?
ReplyDeleteI'm all for the mother being able to decide who she trusts to raise a child, but the article underlines the importance of marriage to help take care of these children. Yet if the two weren't gay... sore and out of luck.
There are a number of care-giving situations, but this article makes it seem that gays only care about gays when it comes to protecting benefits.
What... you don't think two or three or four people who are simply banding together to raise children are a "marriage"?
Fitz, are you certain that none of those family members are gay? If some of them are gay (and I would imagine this is the case), then either 1) you think it is okay for some gay people to adopt children or 2) you think that it is better for children to go to strangers rather than gay relatives. I'm curious as to which you believe, and if it is 1, how you can then justify not letting other gay people adopt or foster children.
ReplyDeleteCertainly begs the question why the mother didn't just marry one of these fine gentlemen.
ReplyDeleteProfessional single african-american males are hard to come by these days, and quite a catch from what I hear.
Here's a photo of the happy family http://www.hillrag.com/CCN_Website09/images/papers/DCN/Nov/1109/storypics/KidsFam/GayCouple.gif
By the way Emma,
ReplyDeleteI don't think two of one gender makes an adoption option, gay or not.
But for trusted fostering, what does it matter if they are gay? Wouldn't two non-gay men do just as good as two gay men? Wouldn't two non-gay men get all the same benefits that two gay men would?
Emma..
ReplyDeleteThe point is their is no child -centered reason to open up adoption to male/male or female/female couples.
We have traditionally had a preferance for realatives to adopt if parents are dead or deemed unfit.
Absent that they should be placed in the best known enviroment a married Mother/Father union.
What you are doing is using a variation of the realtive preferance and trying to say that gay couples should adopt. No they should not. But gay or straight individuals who are related should be given some preferance in adoption, as should traditional married couples.
In other words, there is no child-centered need to open up adoption to homosexual couples.
ReplyDeleteThat statement can only be true if you hold that every possible heterosexual couple on the list represents a better environment to raise a child than every possible gay couple in the country.
Since it is entirely possible that there are heterosexual couples who are unfit to parent for reasons that have nothing to do with their sexually dimorphic bodies, you can't make the blanket claim that there is no child-centered reason for gay adoption, even if you hold the belief that mixed-sex couples are better for child-rearing than same-sex couples.
But gay or straight individuals who are related should be given some preferance in adoption, as should traditional married couples.
ReplyDeleteFitz,
Are you trying to say here that gay relatives who are single are preferable for adoption to gay relatives who are part of a gay couple?
And before anyone asks, I don't recommend straight couples make babies (or adopt babies) when one or both of them is 50. Adopting older kids is another matter.
ReplyDeleteThat's a fair thing to say.
Emma, late to the conversation but I don't believe biological relatives who happen to be gay should be discriminated if a niece or nephew are unable to be cared for by his parents.
ReplyDeleteAlso I mentioned this while I posted on Opine concerning the fertility pagan ritual "Beltrane" celebrated on May 1st.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wedlok.com/lasvegaswedding/traditions/beltane_and_the_sacred_marriage-110377.html
"From the perspective of the ancient Celts ... they had been cooped up in doors for a long winter. Beltane came at the peak of spring, and brought life back to the people and the land. Not only does the warmth of the Sun help plants blossom. People fall in love and consume each other in fiery passion.
The reason this holiday is so sexy yet sacred is that it is symbolic of the passion and love between the Goddess and God. Divine passion, it was believed, was evident in all of nature’s bounty springing forth this time of year.
As an ode to nature -- and an offering to God and Goddess – maids and lads would frolic in the fields from Sundown to the morning after. Part of this celebration included enacting the rites of fertility as an offering to ensure continued fertility of the lands – as well as the continuation of the tribe.
The local men and women did it, in the groves and the fields. "