The one thing I want to say to Nathan that is nowhere to be found on this post – life is not black & white. We can only study what is and draw conclusions but that does not preclude what we know nothing about.

(a great example of this is many primitive societies have all kinds of sex initiation rituals around puberty which we find abhorrent. BUT they do not seem to cause harm to their children/adolescents. Neither way is “right” or “wrong, just different)

For sure, life and its institutions are not static – to pretend otherwise as most Blogs on this top do is dishonest. But most important, you cannot assume all straight people are good parents or even cut out to be parents and that all Gay people are bad parents. One must always look at the individual.

Hell, if you REALLY are concerned about children, everyone should have a license to have children. You can’t practice medicine, drive a car or anything else without a license….

In case you are interested (not looking for a debate!):

I just saw this, and highly recommend it.

http://www.vtmarriage.org/html/__david_blankenhorn.htm

(part 3 is especially good)

Best,
Nathan

Thank you very much for not cutting off the comments.

Please understand, I am all about love and respect here, and where you don’t want to go, or think its appropriate to go, I promise not to go. So anyone who was thinking about answering those questions – please respect Walt’s wishes and don’t do so. : )

Walt, in my mind at least, I do seriously want to understand your position… perhaps I am deceiving myself, but I don’t think so: the heading of this post “I still don’t understand… [why anyone would...]” is mine as well. I, for one, really *struggle to understand* how a person could think that concern that children would receive everything they are supposed to be able to count on does not have anything to do with love (of course I want to treat my gay friends and acquantences with as much compassion and sensitivity as I can muster as we deal with these very hard issues – I want them to have more rights than you might suspect I do)

Love is indeed key as you say. This man, writing in the secular “laddie mag” “Details” has much of interest to say:
http://men.style.com/details/blogs/details/2008/03/would-you-reall.html#comments).
(in the article, we learn that many young people find coming out to Christian parents to be easier in that that these parents know God expects them to love their children, no matter what life brings – the artilce contends its actually the progressive parents who often can’t cope)

Again, when you write “I still don’t understand…”, I understand you when you say this does not mean you are confused, but I hope that you will forgive me for thinking that perhaps you wanted to talk with someone who seems to know something about the topic and has thought about it at a deep level (all the while I would totally understand if you thought that you had determined I was not such a person).

All the best Walt. I promise I am through here if that is what you wish. Thank you again for you hospitality.

And thank you again for all you do (this blog, free journal, etc.),

Nathan

“Here’s something somebody said on this topic. We want point-by-point refutations.”

Today it’s Fauntroy. Tomorrow it will be someone else.

Just not gonna happen. You’re not trying to “seriously understand” my position, and Fauntroy isn’t directly involved in this discussion. (Neither did Fauntroy in any way address my original discussion–note the total absence of “love” anywhere in his statement.)

You’re now in the “put out third-party statements and ask lots and lots of questions” mode–which, as I’ve seen in other similar discussions, eventually leads to “but you didn’t answer THIS question” or “I don’t think your answer to THIS question is acceptable.”

There are plenty of places for extended “debate” of this sort. This isn’t one of them.

Let it go, or take it elsewhere. You’ve already pretty much admitted that you’re not interested in changing your mind (and I’m not asking you to).

I’m not cutting off comments…yet.

Walt, thanks for the link to the Carrol column. Interesting take.

I’m following others’ views here with interest. Really. At the same time, I too think more and more every day there is little point in debating this, I guess, since persons seem quite entrenched on the issue.

With that in mind, I don’t think it hurts to try to seriously undertand other person’s positions as well as possible (I am not sure if this will create empathy or make things worse, but it seems like the right thing to do at least).

So, I am genuinely curious. Regarding Mr. Fautroy’s comments where he says [gay marriage] would “set in legal stone” the following:

*There are no differences between men and women that matter
*marriage has nothing to do with procreation
*children do not really need mothers and fathers
*the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children

…do you think this is true or not? And if you do think it is true, would this be a good thing? And if it would not be a good thing, why so much confidence that it is not something to really be concerned about? Finally, if you think opposition to same sex marriage is wrong it this just a bigoted thing (Christian? Religious in general?) promoting hate and alienation, or can this be a practical philosphical kind of thing?

Thanks in advance to any takers!

Thanks,
Nathan

Gay marriage is pretty much a non-issue here. It’s been legal for a while and the sky has not fallen, the earth has not opened up to swallow us nor do I feel any less married to my wife. Even the Conservative government realizes that there’s no advantage to be had from opposing it, even within a lot of elements in their own party.

1. The fact that comments appear, with or without responses, doesn’t mean I agree with them or endorse them, even when they’re high-fiving another comment.

2. I noted a post in another blog linking to this post and saying I was “confused.” That’s not the case. I wasn’t confused four years ago and I’m not confused now. Nor, for that matter, have I heard any new logic or information. If people are coming from that link hoping to “inform” or convince me, they’re failing.

I haven’t been responding mostly because I don’t see anything new here.

Some of you may find this treatment of the issues–written by someone who’s about my age, similarly long-time-married, and in fact attended the same alma mater at the same time, but who DOES have children (and also writes much better than I could ever hope to) worthwhile. Some of you may not:
Jon Carroll’s column for May 19, 2008

Exactly right – that is more breif, informative, direct, and persuasive (?) than I could ever hope to be. I remember a day long past when it was considered a tragedy that a child was deprived of a mother or a father.

~Nathan