RECENT  POSTS:  » Why Colorado will soon have marriage equality courtesy of Colorado's head opponent of marriage equality » Audio: AFA owns its extremism » FRC prays for God's people to 'arise' against LGBT rights » Michael Brown will save his waning movement by grouping homosexuality with incest » GOP pollster Luntz to Heritage Foundation's Anderson: 'Gay marriage is harmless' » Read: Federal court judge rules against Colorado's discriminatory marriage ban » You guys, will you please pipe down so Sen. Rubio can dismantle your deserved freedoms? » 'Mask is coming off' LGBTs, says man who vowed to export and/or criminalize LGBTs » Exxon, infamous holdout on fair and decent employment protections, could be running out of options » Oregon baker who refused same-sex wedding cake bakes for 'ex-gay' org  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

02/13/2009

Mom-dad setups are always right? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

by Jeremy Hooper

Want more proof that our organized opposition doesn't really understand or at least won't admit the true nature of rights? Well here, check out this terse quote from a Maine-based Concerned Woman For America:

Charla Bansley, State Director for CWA of Maine, says, “Why do I care if homosexuals marry? Because same-sex ‘marriage’ hurts children. If children have the right to anything, it is to begin life with a mother and a father.”
Rally for Marriage in Maine this Sunday [CWA]

Okay, let's think about this for a second. In Ms. Bansley's world, children have an inalienable right to have both a mom and a dad. And by that, she obviously 200902130940doesn't mean a sperm and an egg -- she means a mother and father to raise, nurture, and foster a child into a well-rounded citizen. But what does this short-sighted worldview really mean, both for the children and the grown-up kids who care for them? Let's examine.

If taken to its logical extreme, Ms. Bansley's wording would mean a world wherein two parents are constitutionally committed to a child, regardless of their own willingness, desire, or compassion for said kid. In Bansleyworld, a drug-addicted father and a soulless monster of a mother are more suited to the task of parenting than a single mother wonderwoman who balances both a CEO job and breastfeeding with maternal ease. And as for two-parent same-sex-headed households? Well forget them. Regardless of their stability, financial security, love, or achievements, they are innately lesser-than two deadbeat heteros whose means, both emotional and monetary, are below bottom-barrel.

Let's also think of the child. In Bansleyworld, you have to look at what that "right" to a mother and father means in its true application. Does this right also give the mother and father the right to retain control of their child, regardless of the damages they might bring to the table? Doe it give kids the right to force their bio-parents to stay in the picture, even if those genetic links would rather sail off the coast of Bora Bora than share in their child's love of an explorer named Dora? So where does their supposed right end? Will those who are supposedly so interested in "protecting children" acknowledge that kid-defense sometimes requires adults to make the best decisions for those youthful minds?

Look, we're not bashing mothers and fathers (despite what social conservatives want you to believe). Heterosexual parents are still in the vast majority, both in two-parent and separated households. The setup is a good one and can come with much success. Yay, moms and dads!

However, the setup is not the ONLY one that can come with success. In MANY cases, what is best for the child is an alternative arrangement. These arrangements may be one mom, one dad, or two of the same. What we are asking is for social conservatives like Charla Bansley to respect that the TRUE "right" should be one wherein scenarios that are exactly right for individual families are supported rather than denounced by either the government or the self-appointed morality police! We are asking them to get off their myopic high horses and start looking at the societal landscape that truly exists.

Does same-sex marriage (no fear quotes needed) hurt children? Well, only those childish folks who've been taught by the right that they have a right to demand nothing but two-parent heterosexuality. The rest of, who prefer the real world to Bansleyworld, will continue to judge people, both grown and wee, on their merits, abilities, and contributions rather than their attractions.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

"Homosexuals shouldn't marry because it hurts children! Children should have a mother and a father! Homosexuals shouldn't marry because they can't produce children and that is what marriage is for!"

So, which one is it, Fundies?

Posted by: stojef | Feb 13, 2009 5:29:00 PM

I actually am a student of Ms. Charla Bansley. In our English class, of which she teaches, we were, school wide, given the project of writing a letter to the editor of our local newspaper, the Bangor Daily News, expressing our views on same sex marriage, whether we were for it or against it. I, myself, decided to write for it. Well, that turned out to not be such a good idea after all. I almost got expelled. I was specifically told, that I was allowed, as everyone else was given the choice, to write one way or the other and that would not effect my grade. I found out that was true, but what I wasn’t told was that if I was to write for Gay marriage, my letter would be given to our principal, my parents, and our “superintendent”. The outcome was that a meeting was called, (now this is a Christian school, mind you, and a very strict one at that, in some respects), to discuss my letter. My mother had signed off on letting me admit my letter, but had not remembered doing so, (I had been in a rush that morning and asked her while she was still in bed, bad idea.). So the meeting was held one night after our church service, and we sorted the matter out, I claimed to have been the “Devil’s Advocate,” which I most certainly was because I hate to follow a crowd, and I wrote for it (as everyone else had wrote against it. Given there are only 50 something kids in our high school.) Later on I was informed by my father that if that meeting had not gone well, I most probably would’ve been expelled. I was shocked, dumbfounded! I could not believe that my little one page letter, (which didn‘t get published after all, even though I got a B on it.), could’ve possibly have gotten me expelled. I do love my school, and Ms. Bansley is a wonderful teacher, don’t get me wrong about that, I just wished to express this somewhat publicly.

Anonymous.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 10, 2009 11:54:16 PM

paddy'o. dont even.

Posted by: Anonymous. | Sep 30, 2009 10:17:54 AM

Paddrick Thomas from CCCS Orrington, ME don't even try to hide behind the anonymous name we all know its you

Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 18, 2009 5:17:59 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails