HOUSTON – One recent day at Dr. Natalie Carroll's OB-GYN practice, located inside a low-income apartment complex tucked between a gas station and a freeway, 12 pregnant black women come for consultations. Some bring their children or their mothers. Only one brings a husband.
"A mama can't give it all. And neither can a daddy, not by themselves," Carroll says. "Part of the reason is because you can only give that which you have. A mother cannot give all that a man can give. A truly involved father figure offers more fullness to a child's life."
Statistics show just what that fullness means. Children of unmarried mothers of any race are more likely to perform poorly in school, go to prison, use drugs, be poor as adults, and have their own children out of wedlock.
A quiet calamity.
ReplyDelete"Children of unmarried mothers of any race are more likely to perform poorly in school, go to prison, use drugs, be poor as adults, and have their own children out of wedlock."
ReplyDeleteAnother great reason to allow same-sex couples to marry: their children will be better off. What more reason do you need that the welfare of children?!
Royal Oaker,
ReplyDeleteThese communities needs our help, in getting fathers involved so children can do better. Again every individual had one mother and one father, as evident through our DNA, as evident in means each individual is created from a mother's egg and a father's sperm. One of each. It is inherent as a part of the human experience, that we have biological kin to bond and be raised by them.
By the nature of homosexual activity, it is not procreative. No child comes from the sexual activity between two people of the same sex, where as your statement that same-sex couples have children is scientifically false.
Some couples/individuals do have legal custody of children (regardless of sexual orientation), either by means the biological parents have failed with complete abandonment in which the state (like Massachusetts, takes every step possible to ensure a child has both biological parents in its life) or by means of the trafficking of sperm/eggs/surrogacy in which for a price with third parties the child loses a biological parent or parents for the wants and desire for a individual or couple (again regardless of sexual orientation).
Only heterosexual activity between one man and one woman creates a child, with the natural right a child having both biological parents and without third parties. These families need our help, but otherwise you don't care about these woman.
I won't deny the rights of the natural rights of individuals, marriage is based on the one man/one woman model because individuals as children have rights, public policy may benefit the couple, but that policy serves a purpose. The purpose to promote the stabilization of heterosexual couples is to protect a child that MAY come from heterosexual activity.
Unless conversation will speak upon the needs of unwed mothers, I ask you ever so kindly to leave this thread alone.
Thanks,
Renee
I suppose we could just change the definition of marriage and SAY that these "unmarried parents" are indeed married after all. I'm sure that would help the children -- the problems would simply go away.
ReplyDeleteThat makes just about as much sense as Royal Oaker's suggestion.
Also to note, this post isn't about welfare but rather unwed mothers and children without fathers.
ReplyDeleteDue to economic factors, many children receive public assistance even if both mother and father are married to each other. Fathers hold a social function, not just an economic one. A man could be paying his child support on time, it still doesn't make his a dad. Men, especially in times and places that have high unemployment, can feel less worthy of their role being a dad. Right now we want fathers to contribute as much as possible, as we help in the economic growth of these communities and overall in our country.
“No child comes from the sexual activity between two people of the same sex, where as your statement that same-sex couples have children is scientifically false.”
ReplyDeleteMany same-sex couples are raising children and often the children are the biological offspring of one of the partners. Just like when someone on a second marriage raises children with a second spouse. Marriage is still good for kids: they are raised by a couple encouraged by law and society to stay together. That’s a more stable environment for raising children.
“Only heterosexual activity between one man and one woman creates a child, with the natural right a child having both biological parents and without third parties.”
Children have no legal right to much of anything, unfortunately. It is perfectly legal for single people to raise children, as it is for same-sex couples. So long as this is the case, same-sex couples should be encouraged to solidify their relationship through marriage. It’s better for the children they’re raising.
“The purpose to promote the stabilization of heterosexual couples is to protect a child that MAY come from heterosexual activity.”
That’s a great purpose for homosexual couples raising children, as I’ve noted.
Many same-sex couples are raising children and often the children are the biological offspring of one of the partners.
ReplyDeleteNot all of these same-sex couples are homosexual, are they?
Marriage is still good for kids
Is it?
_______
THE BAD NEWS ABOUT STEPPARENTS
Perhaps the most striking, and potentially disturbing, new research has to do with children in stepparent families. Until quite recently the optimistic assumption was that children saw their lives improve when they became part of a stepfamily. When Nicholas Zill and his colleagues began to study the effects of remarriage on children, their working hypothesis was that stepparent families would make up for the shortcomings of the single-parent family. Clearly, most children are better off economically when they are able to share in the income of two adults. When a second adult joins the household, there may be a reduction in the time and work pressures on the single parent.
The research overturns this optimistic assumption, however. In general the evidence suggests that remarriage neither reproduces nor restores the intact family structure, even when it brings more income and a second adult into the household. Quite the contrary. Indeed, children living with stepparents appear to be even more disadvantaged than children living in a stable single-parent family. Other difficulties seem to offset the advantages of extra income and an extra pair of hands. However much our modern sympathies reject the fairy-tale portrait of stepparents, the latest research confirms that the old stories are anthropologically quite accurate. Stepfamilies disrupt established loyalties, create new uncertainties, provoke deep anxieties, and sometimes threaten a child's physical safety as well as emotional security.
Parents and children have dramatically different interests in and expectations for a new marriage. For a single parent, remarriage brings new commitments, the hope of enduring love and happiness, and relief from stress and loneliness. For a child, the same event often provokes confused feelings of sadness, anger, and rejection. Nearly half the children in Wallerstein's study said they felt left out in their stepfamilies. The National Commission on Children, a bipartisan group headed by Senator John D. Rockefeller, of West Virginia, reported that children from stepfamilies were more likely to say they often felt lonely or blue than children from either single-parent or intact families. Children in stepfamilies were the most likely to report that they wanted more time with their mothers. When mothers remarry, daughters tend to have a harder time adjusting than sons. Evidently, boys often respond positively to a male presence in the household, while girls who have established close ties to their mother in a single-parent family often see the stepfather as a rival and an intruder. According to one study, boys in remarried families are less likely to drop out of school than boys in single-parent families, while the opposite is true for girls.
A large percentage of children do not even consider stepparents to be part of their families, according to the National Survey on Children. The NSC asked children, “When you think of your family, who do you include?” Only 10 percent of the children failed to mention a biological parent, but a third left out a stepparent. Even children who rarely saw their noncustodial parents almost always named them as family members. The weak sense of attachment is mutual. When parents were asked the same question, only one percent failed to mention a biological child, while 15 percent left out a stepchild. In the same study stepparents with both natural children and stepchildren said that it was harder for them to love their stepchildren than their biological children and that their children would have been better off if they had grown up with two biological parents.
--Barbara Defoe Whitehead
“Not all of these same-sex couples are homosexual, are they?”
ReplyDeleteYes, if they call themselves a couple.
“THE BAD NEWS ABOUT STEPPARENTS”
This is what happens when people divorce and commit adultery, I mean, remarry. It shows how tough it is on kids to lose one parent, and see that parent replaced with another.
That’s why it’s crucial to let same-sex couples marry, to stabilize the relationship and keep the couple together.
Sean: >>> Many same-sex couples are raising children and often the children are the biological offspring of one of the partners.
ReplyDeleteMe: >> “Not all of these same-sex couples are homosexual, are they?”
Sean: > Yes, if they call themselves a couple.
If you appeal to my generous nature to help people raising children together, then why should I care if they identify themselves with the romantic intonations of "being a couple" or not? Why do you care?
They are a couple of people raising children together, often one is a biological parent of the children. Why is anything else in that equation important?
“If you appeal to my generous nature to help people raising children together, then why should I care if they identify themselves with the romantic intonations of "being a couple" or not? Why do you care?”
ReplyDeleteI am happy for any unmarried adults not closely related to marry. I don’t know whom you’re referring to when you talk about a couple who are not romantically involved. “Couple” generally includes notions of romantic involvement. But if they’re not romantically involved, and meet other eligibility requirements, raising children or not, they should be free to marry.
Why do you oppose two adults of the same sex getting married, particularly if they are raising children together?
“They are a couple of people raising children together, often one is a biological parent of the children. Why is anything else in that equation important?”
I don’t think it is. Do you?
Sean: > But if they’re not romantically involved, and meet other eligibility requirements
ReplyDeleteWhat eligibility requirements make sense for an institution that tries to help out people raising children together but doesn't matter if they are romantically involved or not?
"What eligibility requirements make sense for an institution that tries to help out people raising children together but doesn't matter if they are romantically involved or not?"
ReplyDeleteNot closely related, since that's traditional, constitutional, and they already have a kinship relationship; over a certain age, so they have the maturity to make a sound marital decision; not already married, so ensure their commitment is uniformly mutual.
Sean: > Not closely related, since that's traditional, constitutional, and they already have a kinship relationship;
ReplyDeleteIs it historically rare (at best) for two closely related people to "help out people raising children together"?
How is it not constitutional for two closely related people to "help out people raising children together"?
And does that kinship relationship provide all the benefits of marriage that you claim are needed for two people raising a child together to be as "good for [their] kids" as marriage?
Sean: > not already married, so ensure their commitment is uniformly mutual.
What does "uniformly mutual" mean for two people who are not romantic? And how does an existing marriage prevent that from being able to happen where no romance is expected between them?
I'm going to combine another thread in this conversation since they have converged on the same point...
Sean: >>> most Californians, and most Americans generally, favor legal recognition of same-sex couple relationships
Me: >> "Why do you think that is?"
Sean: > Because they know their own romantic experiences, and they know that their legal commitment to their partner was based in the same feelings and longings that same-sex partners experience, probably.
We've finally reached the tipping point of empathy: these people are more like me than different from me. They are "similarly situated," as the Iowa Supreme Court would say.
So is it because the non-romantic couples have the same feelings and longings as homosexual couples why, Sean, you don't mind extending marriage to them also? Are you saying they are similarly situated as homosexual couples?
"So is it because the non-romantic couples have the same feelings and longings as homosexual couples why, Sean, you don't mind extending marriage to them also? Are you saying they are similarly situated as homosexual couples?"
ReplyDeleteHuh?
Where's the disconnect?
ReplyDeleteActually if you are hung up on that one, then go ahead and let it drop for now, perhaps it will come up again later in a way you will understand better.
ReplyDeleteI'm more interested in the answers to the other questions that were in the same comment...
Is it historically rare (at best) for two closely related people to "help out people raising children together"?
How is it not constitutional for two closely related people to "help out people raising children together"?
And does that kinship relationship provide all the benefits of marriage that you claim are needed for two people raising a child together to be as "good for [their] kids" as marriage?
What does "uniformly mutual" mean for two people who are not romantic? And how does an existing marriage prevent that from being able to happen where no romance is expected between them?
“Actually if you are hung up on that one, then go ahead and let it drop for now, perhaps it will come up again later in a way you will understand better.”
ReplyDeleteOr maybe you could write your questions and responses in English.
“Is it historically rare (at best) for two closely related people to "help out people raising children together"?”
I don’t know.
“How is it not constitutional for two closely related people to "help out people raising children together"?”
It is perfectly constitutional.
“And does that kinship relationship provide all the benefits of marriage that you claim are needed for two people raising a child together to be as "good for [their] kids" as marriage?”
No the kinship relationship doesn’t provide anywhere near the benefits of marriage. Married couples are protected from, say, having to testify against each other in court. Siblings are not. Two brothers raising a child are in a very vulnerable relationship, from the child’s standpoint: either one can decide to move away, go off and get married, etc. Marriage is the “last stop” in relationships, the “terminal” degree, like a PhD, if you will. There is nothing above it to aspire to.
“What does "uniformly mutual" mean for two people who are not romantic? And how does an existing marriage prevent that from being able to happen where no romance is expected between them?”
I don’t know what either question is asking.
Sean: Or maybe you could write your questions and responses in English.
ReplyDeleteMore proof how out-of-touch Sean is. What language does he think the questions are written in? Chinese? Afrikaans? I'll give Sean enough credit to believe he knows the questions are in English. He knows what he wrote is wrong. Sean doesn't write things because they are true or even because he believes them. He writes them because he must to maintain his pre-derived conclusions.
"Sean doesn't write things because they are true or even because he believes them. He writes them because he must to maintain his pre-derived conclusions."
ReplyDeleteYou're a loser if you have to resort to second-guessing Sean's motivations. Feel free to counter my arguments! Wouldn't that be a novelty on this website!
Sean: Feel free to counter my arguments!
ReplyDeleteAnother new low. Not only does Sean show he can't understand the real world or our legal system, he also shows he can't understand reason itself. Sean thinks that showing his premises are false somehow doesn't "counter [his] arguments."
Whatever. Loser.
ReplyDeleteSean: Whatever. Loser.
ReplyDeleteNote what passes for rational argument in Sean's loopy world.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"Constitutionally protected fundamental rights need not be defined so broadly that they will inevitably be exercised by everyone. For example, although the ability to make personal decisions regarding child rearing and education has been recognized as a fundamental right (see, e.g., Pierce v. Society of the Sisters (1925) 268 U.S. 510, 534- 535), this right is irrelevant to people who do not have children. Yet, everyone who has children enjoys this fundamental right to control their upbringing. A similar analogy applies in the case of marriage. Everyone has a fundamental right to “marriage,” but, because of how this institution has been defined, this means only that everyone has a fundamental right to enter a public union with an opposite-sex partner. That such a right is irrelevant to a lesbian or gay person does not mean the definition of the fundamental right can be expanded by the judicial branch beyond its traditional moorings." 1
ReplyDelete1- In re Marriage Cases, App. 2006, McGuiness, P. J. (writing for the majority.)
The majority next rejected the idea “that a right to same-sex marriage has taken hold to the point that it is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in history and tradition of Maryland.” In fact, the court noted that previous cases recognizing a fundamental right to marry “infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species.” In fact, the court said that virtually all of the cases “indicate[] as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”
In terms of the justifications for the current marriage law, the court ruled “fostering procreation is a legitimate government interest” and the “‘inextricable link’ between marriage and procreation reasonably could support the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only, because it is that relationship that is capable of producing biological offspring of both members (advances in reproductive technologies notwithstanding).” The court held “the fundamental right to marriage and its ensuing benefits are conferred on opposite-sex couples not because of a distinction between whether various opposite-sex couples actually procreate, but rather because of the possibility of procreation.”