September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« France 2010 | Main | Jack's Ethical Instincts »

January 09, 2009



Children have needs, but what rights do they have legally?

Do any of those rights apply to this discussion?

This is the reason that France has rejected same-sex marriage.

The Report on the Family and the Rights of Children found that same sex marriage was not in the best interest of the child and therefore was not consistent with the French government's adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of Children.

For those who maintain there are no secular reasons to exclude same-sex couples from marriage, I recommend you read the French Parlimentary Commission's report.

This is not a question of whether the child of a gay/lesbian couple "has" a mother or father--everyone has to have both! In every child's case there is a mother or father 'out there' that is alienated from their child. Too bad children don't have the money and influence to have a lobby group looking out for their rights.

So why don't we have legislation against single parents? For many single parent families, the child may not know the mother or the father. By your logic this is also a threat to the children's well-being, so shouldn't something be done to regulate single-parent families?

Kevin Winters -

One difference I see is that there is no widespread concerted effort among single parents to push the view that single parenting is equal to/beneficial as a two parent, mother and father household.

Single parent households usually seem to arise from the same "wants of the adult over the needs of the child" phenomenon- granting that the vast majority of divorces are essentially frivolous (and not based on abusiveness or infidelity, although I'd expect that infidelity has also increased for similar reasons). Essentially, we have adult children who think marriage (and raising children) is all about (their) happiness- which has never been the case.

So, yes, (most) single parent households are subject to the same objections, at least in my view. Of course, it's been long known that single parent households, as well as divorce and remarriage, are harmful to the well-being of children. Of course, you wouldn't expect that to be enough to stop people.

Legislation is another question- single parent households can arise for all sorts of legitimate reasons (every reason for a legitimate divorce, as well as widowing). So legislation against them would really be making divorce more difficult. That would essentially be a return to the way we used to do things, before the explosion of divorce rates- so that might not be an entirely bad idea.


But the fact remains that if one of the primary objections to homosexual marriage is the effect of single-gender parenthood on the children, then a similar compaign against single families should be done for the sake of the children. I think this would be particularly important as there are probably more single-parent *families* than there would be homosexual *families* should gay marriage be allowed. So single-parent marriage is destroying our great nation!!


Homosexual relationships with children are not illegal, just as single-parent families are also permitted. The problem is when either of these sub-ideal family situations are promoted as equally valid/beneficial as a traditional family--they're simply not.
This isn't about outlawing particular forms of child rearing, but affirming the best form of child rearing (which unfortunately excludes some).

Whoops... I meant homosexual relationships accompanied by the practice of parenting. Homosexual relationships with children (and heterosexual too) is indeed very, very illegal.


The government isn't "regulating" homosexual relationships, they are simply refusing to bestow approval on them by calling them "marriages."

In fact, there would be more governmental regulation if the government did recognize Same sex marriages...that would come with a whole lotta political and social trappings that would have to be enforced by the gov't....the rigamarole in Massachusetts schools and the successful lawsuits against the couple in NM who refused to photograph a gay wedding are examples of this.

Really, though, the bottom line is that homosexuals can walk down the isle and form loving relationships, but they do not have a right to societal approval. Most people recognize that the same goes for single parents: they are free to be single parents, but they aren't going to argue for a right to be held in the same regard as two parent families.

> ... the successful lawsuits
> against the couple in NM who
> refused to photograph a gay
> wedding...

We don't even have any such thing as same-sex marriage here in New Mexico.

Elane's got sued for refusing to take pictures at a non-marriage ceremony...

You (Somebody on here) is right, homosexual parenting, as well as singular parent households are both two aspects of something extremely undesireable. You could perhaps apply the "two wrongs" line of logic to it, but nevertheless their are like someone stated, legit reasons for a single parent household.

I guess, one major difference between the two is that in a same-sex household, that child pretty much has 0 chance of ever having a 'normal family' given the nature of the corresponding ramifications to marrital fallout in a same sex household. In a single parent household (which is also, unfortunate), atleast for the most part that person is usually actively seeking a spouse, and just maybe that spouse will fill in the longing that that child is having.

Thats an extremely pretty brief and poorly written analysis, but perhaps you can see where im going with that


Most people agree and research indicates children are most benefited developmentally when they are raised by their biological parents. Thus, single-parent homes hinder proper child development. Yet, single-parent relationships are NO LONGER legislated.

It does not follow, though, to argue same sex marriage should remain unlegislated because other damaging relationships to child development remain unlegislated. Arguing other damaging relationships exist neither excuses nor removes legislation of a specific type of relationship that is unhealthy for children.

^^ Exactly where i was going with the "two wrong's" statement

to further the damage is counterproductive

well said

Kevin (writes)

So why don't we have legislation against single parents? For many single parent families, the child may not know the mother or the father. By your logic this is also a threat to the children's well-being, so shouldn't something be done to regulate single-parent families?

#1. What Denis said.

#2. We do - its called marriage. Supporting, subsidizing and honoring the BEST family formation.

#3. This is a common objection from same-sex marriage supporters. It's akin to saying we don’t "really" take marriage seriously because we don’t jail un-wed mothers & fathers.

#4. Even under sivorce a Child is still known and knows his natural Father & Mother. The concept that they should be married is bestowed by the fact that they once were. In contrast gay ‘parenting” by design removes the natural mother or father completely from the child’s life. It says essentially that either (or both) are superfluous to a child’s life.

Very good fitz!

The comments to this entry are closed.