The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

My view on same sex marriage is

52% 52% 
[ 15 ]
45% 45% 
[ 13 ]
3% 3% 
[ 1 ]
 
Total Votes : 29

Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Tony Bennett on 24.02.14 23:37

Statement from the 'Coalition for Marriage' (C4M) today, 24 February 2014:

The Government now realises that same-sex marriage will require a massive re-write of legislation dating back to 1285 AD – including airbrushing out the terms “husband” and “wife” from many of our laws. Crucial safeguards will also have to be introduced to safeguard the Monarchy.

The Government are rushing to introduce all these changes through ministerial orders.

The proposals include changing the law:

•To prevent a man from becoming Queen in the event a King 'marries' another man

•To prevent a man from becoming the Princess of Wales in the event that the heir to the throne enters a same-sex marriage

•To stop the 'husband' of a male Peer being referred to as Duchess, Lady or Countess

•To replace the terms “husband” and “wife” with “partner” or “spouse” in a huge raft of English law

Redefining marriage means rewriting our language as well as our laws. All this just goes to show that marriage should never have been redefined.

C4M said all along that thousands of laws would need to be changed. These, and other far-reaching consequences, flow from redefining marriage.

MPs are expected to agree the draft orders tomorrow with the House of Lords considering them on Thursday. No doubt there will need to be further changes to clear up the legislative mess created by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act.

Parliament may have changed the law, but it is vitally important that we continue to assert the truth that marriage is between one man and one woman.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Guest on 25.02.14 10:31

What practical differences are there between the existing civil partnership arrangements and the forthcoming marriages for same sex couples?

I'm certainly all in favour of equality across the board but at the moment I'm unclear as to what extra benefits there will be in the new scheme.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by PeterMac on 25.02.14 11:52

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:What practical differences are there between the existing civil partnership arrangements and the forthcoming marriages for same sex couples?  
I'm certainly all in favour of equality across the board but at the moment I'm unclear as to what extra benefits there will be in the new scheme.

You speak for me too.
I cannot see why the word "Marriage" has to be de-based in this way.
Either use Civil partnership and leave all the pension and inheritance rules as they are for married couples, or find another word
but leave Marriage to mean what it has always meant.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 25.02.14 12:03

Gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. End of story.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 25.02.14 12:06

@Tony Bennett wrote:
Parliament may have changed the law, but it is vitally important that we continue to assert the truth that marriage is between one man and one woman.

I - and many others - shall continue to assert the truth that all people should be treated equally, regardless of what some ancient text has to say on the subject.

Husbands used to be able to beat their wives. Luckily, that got 'redefined'. People use to be able own other people as property. Luckily, that got 'redefined'. Women didn't used to be able to vote. Luckily, that got 'redefined.'

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Guest on 25.02.14 12:07

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:Gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.  End of story.

You don't think it's a bit sexist, having a marriage of two people with only one sex in it? Where's the "diversity"? Bloody hypocrites  big grin 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Guest on 25.02.14 12:07

No arguments there for me WLBTS but I'm just not sure what extra benefits the new laws will give them than they don't already have.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Woofer on 25.02.14 12:12

For me, it is simple - nothing to do with religion or customs :- Male = positive charge, female = negative charge.
Join them up and it completes the circuit of energy be it light or a new being.  Two positives repel, as do two negatives.

____________________
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Guest on 25.02.14 12:15

@Woofer wrote:Two positives repel, as do two negatives.

I guess it's like magnets. You can always get them to stick together if you turn one of them round the other way.









Did I really just say that?  Shocked 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Woofer on 25.02.14 12:17

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
@Woofer wrote:Two positives repel, as do two negatives.

I guess it's like magnets. You can always get them to stick together if you turn one of them round the other way.









Did I really just say that?  Shocked 

Yor norty  laughat

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Cristobell on 25.02.14 12:39

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
Parliament may have changed the law, but it is vitally important that we continue to assert the truth that marriage is between one man and one woman.

I - and many others - shall continue to assert the truth that all people should be treated equally, regardless of what some ancient text has to say on the subject.

Husbands used to be able to beat their wives.  Luckily, that got 'redefined'.  People use to be able own other people as property.  Luckily, that got 'redefined'.  Women didn't used to be able to vote.  Luckily, that got 'redefined.'


Bravo WLBTS!   Society is based on a 2000 year old text because no-one has come up with something better.  I don't know what the Law has got to do with any of it, although on the face of it we are Christians, we are in fact a secular society, and all humans should have equal rights.  From my perspective if someone wants to shackle themselves to another with the words of a MAN made law, they want their bumps felt.  yes

And just to throw another (feminist) log on the fire, why should married parents receive financial privileges above their their non married contemporaries merely for being married?  Isn't that a little bit antiquated, and on a more sinister level, a form of social engineering?  

There will be many experts who will come forward and state that the best environment for a child is within a stable marriage with a heterosexual couple, and if you don't come from that kind of home, your life is wrecked.  I would argue that as many lives are wrecked through keeping up the pretence that everything is tickedy boo and trying to live up to society's expectations.

The past 20 years has seen a rise in homosexual couples adopting children, most notably Elton John, and even among white middle classes.  Time will tell whether these children grow up to be disturbed adults, imo, they won't, because they were much wanted, and much loved, and any child who receives enough love will not grow up to be a criminal.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by PeterMac on 25.02.14 13:22

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:Gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.  End of story.
They already DO.  That is the point I was making.
A formally registered civil partnership already confers all the inheritance rights, pensions and everything else on the other partner.
And it may be accompanied by a solemn ceremony according to the wishes of the persons involved, Humanist, Church or any other form of Blessing they deem appropriate.
But why call it Marriage.

There is a similar devaluation of the word Graduate, which started in the USA
In Britain you graduated on receipt of a degree from a recognised University
Then in the states the end of term party for 6th formers became "6th form graduation"
This has, sadly spread to the UK
And there are even junior schools where the children '"graduate" at age 11.   (All of them obviously.  No one can be seen to fail )
And some are complete with silly little mortar boards.

Which is all nice and Disney, but what do you now call the ceremony of receiving a Degree from a decent University ?

All that has been achieved is the hijacking of a perfectly well understood word, so that now, if you are interviewing someone and they say they "graduated" in law, for example, you have no idea whether this was O level, A level, LLB, or an LLM.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Guest on 25.02.14 13:36

Perhaps we could have a separate topic for the misuse of words!

Adding to PeterMac's education related post, I dislike the modern usage of students instead of pupils when referring to school-age children.

I do fully accept though that language has to change over the years.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 25.02.14 13:36

@PeterMac wrote:
They already DO.  That is the point I was making.
A formally registered civil partnership already confers all the inheritance rights, pensions and everything else on the other partner.
And it may be accompanied by a solemn ceremony according to the wishes of the persons involved, Humanist, Church or any other form of Blessing they deem appropriate.
But why call it Marriage.

There is a similar devaluation of the word Graduate, which started in the USA
In Britain you graduated on receipt of a degree from a recognised University
Then in the states the end of term party for 6th formers became "6th form graduation"
This has, sadly spread to the UK
And there are even junior schools where the children '"graduate" at age 11.   (All of them obviously.  No one can be seen to fail )
And some are complete with silly little mortar boards.

Which is all nice and Disney, but what do you now call the ceremony of receiving a Degree from a decent University ?

All that has been achieved is the hijacking of a perfectly well understood word, so that now, if you are interviewing someone and they say they "graduated" in law, for example, you have no idea whether this was O level, A level, LLB, or an LLM.

Yes, I understand your point, it's the same point that NFWTD made. But my stance is this - if it is the same set of rights, then why call it something different. Most heterosexual people grow up with the idea that they may get 'married' one day. I don't see why LBGTs should be denied that. Language is important.

On the graduation thing, I graduated, but all I care about is how my degree looks on my CV :)

So to summarise, my question is this:

Why not call it marriage?

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Referendum in Ireland on gay marriage

Post by Enid O'Dowd on 25.02.14 13:47

Next year we are having a referendum to see if citizens want to change our constitution which only permits marriage between couples of the opposite sex.

Though the referendum is over a year away there has been much media coverage in recent weeks stemming from a controversial interview by a gay rights campaigner on a Saturday night chat show.  Google Panti Bliss to get more info on this.

The sad thing is that resulting from this coverage those with doubts about this proposed change may be afraid to say so for fear of being called a 'homophobe.'

An opinion poll taken in the last week found 76% in favour of the change which surprised me.

I am hoping for a rational debate here in Ireland with no name calling by either side. 

The yes side say it is a straight forward equality issue. 

I am undecided on the issue but at least I have time to make up my mind before the vote.

____________________
Author of Fateful Decisions: there's a fine line between acceptable parenting and neglect.   www.enidodowd.com
Author of A Review of the background to setting up the limited company Madeleine's Fund: leaving no Stone Unturned and a forensic examination of the company accounts. Available on www.mccannfiles.com

Enid O'Dowd
Researcher

Posts : 107
Reputation : 20
Join date : 2013-11-14

View user profile http://www.enidodowd.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Woofer on 25.02.14 13:59

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
They already DO.  That is the point I was making.
A formally registered civil partnership already confers all the inheritance rights, pensions and everything else on the other partner.
And it may be accompanied by a solemn ceremony according to the wishes of the persons involved, Humanist, Church or any other form of Blessing they deem appropriate.
But why call it Marriage.

There is a similar devaluation of the word Graduate, which started in the USA
In Britain you graduated on receipt of a degree from a recognised University
Then in the states the end of term party for 6th formers became "6th form graduation"
This has, sadly spread to the UK
And there are even junior schools where the children '"graduate" at age 11.   (All of them obviously.  No one can be seen to fail )
And some are complete with silly little mortar boards.

Which is all nice and Disney, but what do you now call the ceremony of receiving a Degree from a decent University ?

All that has been achieved is the hijacking of a perfectly well understood word, so that now, if you are interviewing someone and they say they "graduated" in law, for example, you have no idea whether this was O level, A level, LLB, or an LLM.

Yes, I understand your point, it's the same point that NFWTD made.  But my stance is this - if it is the same set of rights, then why call it something different.  Most heterosexual people grow up with the idea that they may get 'married' one day.  I don't see why LBGTs should be denied that.  Language is important.

On the graduation thing, I graduated, but all I care about is how my degree looks on my CV :)

So to summarise, my question is this:

Why not call it marriage?

Because you are distorting the true meaning of the word and besides, its absolutely ridiculous to say that two men or two women are `married`.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by tigger on 25.02.14 14:00

@Cristobell wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
Parliament may have changed the law, but it is vitally important that we continue to assert the truth that marriage is between one man and one woman.

I - and many others - shall continue to assert the truth that all people should be treated equally, regardless of what some ancient text has to say on the subject.

Husbands used to be able to beat their wives.  Luckily, that got 'redefined'.  People use to be able own other people as property.  Luckily, that got 'redefined'.  Women didn't used to be able to vote.  Luckily, that got 'redefined.'


Bravo WLBTS!   Society is based on a 2000 year old text because no-one has come up with something better.  I don't know what the Law has got to do with any of it, although on the face of it we are Christians, we are in fact a secular society, and all humans should have equal rights.  From my perspective if someone wants to shackle themselves to another with the words of a MAN made law, they want their bumps felt.  yes

And just to throw another (feminist) log on the fire, why should married parents receive financial privileges above their their non married contemporaries merely for being married?  Isn't that a little bit antiquated, and on a more sinister level, a form of social engineering?  

There will be many experts who will come forward and state that the best environment for a child is within a stable marriage with a heterosexual couple, and if you don't come from that kind of home, your life is wrecked.  I would argue that as many lives are wrecked through keeping up the pretence that everything is tickedy boo and trying to live up to society's expectations.

The past 20 years has seen a rise in homosexual couples adopting children, most notably Elton John, and even among white middle classes.  Time will tell whether these children grow up to be disturbed adults, imo, they won't, because they were much wanted, and much loved, and any child who receives enough love will not grow up to be a criminal.

I'm confused, whichever law it is, it will be man-made. I cannot see any other way the laws are made.
I also didn't know society is based on a 2000 year old text? Or would that be the Pauline gospel?

This is not meant to upset you, a genuine query.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 25.02.14 14:05

@Woofer wrote:
Because you are distorting the true meaning of the word and besides, its absolutely ridiculous to say that two men or two women are `married`.

No, that meaning of the word is yours.  It isn't mine.  And I see nothing ridiculous about saying that two men or two women are married.  Or is marriage simply the ability to insert penis into vagina (apologies for crudeness)? I really can't see any difference except for the private parts of the people involved, which is nobody's business except theirs.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Guest on 25.02.14 14:07

@Enid O'Dowd wrote:Google Panti Bliss to get more info on this.

I can't tell you how relieved I was to discover that Panti Bliss is not some poor individual's actual name.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Woofer on 25.02.14 14:17

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
Because you are distorting the true meaning of the word and besides, its absolutely ridiculous to say that two men or two women are `married`.

No, that meaning of the word is yours.  It isn't mine.  And I see nothing ridiculous about saying that two men or two women are married.  Or is marriage simply the ability to insert penis into vagina (apologies for crudeness)?  I really can't see any difference except for the private parts of the people involved, which is nobody's business except theirs.

It is not `simply` but yes, in part. As I said before its basic science and/or occult teaching - a positive and a negative completing a circuit to bring something into manifestation.  But homosexuals cannot do this as scientifically and in occult terms they repel each other. But the homosexual gets round this by inserting his penis into the exit point for excretion (apologies for crudeness). No point into getting into a discussion of whether this is natural or not because it could get heated.  I agree its no body`s business but theirs but resent it being labelled a marriage.  Just my opinion which I will not change.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Guest on 25.02.14 14:21

@Woofer wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
Because you are distorting the true meaning of the word and besides, its absolutely ridiculous to say that two men or two women are `married`.

No, that meaning of the word is yours.  It isn't mine.  And I see nothing ridiculous about saying that two men or two women are married.  Or is marriage simply the ability to insert penis into vagina (apologies for crudeness)?  I really can't see any difference except for the private parts of the people involved, which is nobody's business except theirs.

It is not `simply` but yes, in part. As I said before its basic science and/or occult teaching - a positive and a negative completing a circuit to bring something into manifestation.  But homosexuals cannot do this as scientifically and in occult terms they repel each other. But the homosexual gets round this by inserting his penis into the exit point for excretion (apologies for crudeness). No point into getting into a discussion of whether this is natural or not because it could get heated.  I agree its no body`s business but theirs but resent it being labelled a marriage.  Just my opinion which I will not change.

If you read the story referred to by Enid O'Dowd, you will find that this opinion has been rendered empirically homophobic. No further debate seemingly required or, indeed, invited.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 25.02.14 14:25

@Woofer wrote:
It is not `simply` but yes, in part. As I said before its basic science and/or occult teaching - a positive and a negative completing a circuit to bring something into manifestation.  But homosexuals cannot do this as scientifically and in occult terms they repel each other. But the homosexual gets round this by inserting his penis into the exit point for excretion (apologies for crudeness). No point into getting into a discussion of whether this is natural or not because it could get heated.  I agree its no body`s business but theirs but resent it being labelled a marriage.  Just my opinion which I will not change.

So it's all about private parts then :)

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 25.02.14 14:26

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
If you read the story referred to by Enid O'Dowd, you will find that this opinion has been rendered empirically homophobic. No further debate seemingly required or, indeed, invited.

If people are discussing whether what people do in their private lives is 'natural' or not, that tends to happen.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Woofer on 25.02.14 14:27

Tony is a great one for bringing up topics that are sensitive and are barred from the dinner table  big grin

____________________
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The views of Robert Lopez, Assistant Professor of English, California State University - brought up by lesbians

Post by Tony Bennett on 25.02.14 14:29

Amidst the clamour of voices today for 'equal rights' for homosexuals to be able to marry and adopt children, and so forth, one voice that is studiously ignored - almost deliberately silenced in fact - is that of the child of homosexual or lesbian parents.

This is a long, but important, read, from a boy brought up by two lesbians, I commend it to anyone interested in the possible consequences of fostering 'gay marriage', 'gay adoptions', ever more surrogacy arrangements so that homosexuals and lesbians can bring up their own children, and so on.

Let Mr Lopez speak:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View

by Robert Oscar Lopez

August 6th, 2012
   

The children of same-sex couples have a tough road ahead of them—I know, because I have been there. The last thing we should do is make them feel guilty if the strain gets to them and they feel strange.

Between 1973 and 1990, when my beloved mother passed away, she and her female romantic partner raised me. They had separate houses but spent nearly all their weekends together, with me, in a trailer tucked discreetly in an RV park 50 minutes away from the town where we lived. As the youngest of my mother’s biological children, I was the only child who experienced childhood without my father being around.

After my mother’s partner’s children had left for college, she moved into our house in town. I lived with both of them for the brief time before my mother died at the age of 53. I was 19. In other words, I was the only child who experienced life under “gay parenting” as that term is understood today.

Quite simply, growing up with gay parents was very difficult, and not because of prejudice from neighbors. People in our community didn’t really know what was going on in the house. To most outside observers, I was a well-raised, high-achieving child, finishing high school with straight A's.

Inside, however, I was confused. When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird. I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions. I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast.

My peers learned all the unwritten rules of decorum and body language in their homes; they understood what was appropriate to say in certain settings and what wasn’t; they learned both traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine social mechanisms.

Even if my peers’ parents were divorced, and many of them were, they still grew up seeing male and female social models. They learned, typically, how to be bold and unflinching from male figures and how to write thank-you cards and be sensitive from female figures. These are stereotypes, of course, but stereotypes come in handy when you inevitably leave the safety of your lesbian mom’s trailer and have to work and survive in a world where everybody thinks in stereotypical terms, even gays.

I had no male figure at all to follow, and my mother and her partner were both unlike traditional fathers or traditional mothers. As a result, I had very few recognizable social cues to offer potential male or female friends, since I was neither confident nor sensitive to others. Thus I befriended people rarely and alienated others easily. Gay people who grew up in straight parents’ households may have struggled with their sexual orientation; but when it came to the vast social universe of adaptations not dealing with sexuality—how to act, how to speak, how to behave—they had the advantage of learning at home. Many gays don’t realize what a blessing it was to be reared in a traditional home.

My home life was not traditional nor conventional. I suffered because of it, in ways that are difficult for sociologists to index. Both nervous and yet blunt, I would later seem strange even in the eyes of gay and bisexual adults who had little patience for someone like me. I was just as odd to them as I was to straight people.

Life is hard when you are strange. Even now, I have very few friends and often feel as though I do not understand people because of the unspoken gender cues that everyone around me, even gays raised in traditional homes, takes for granted. Though I am hard-working and a quick learner, I have trouble in professional settings because co-workers find me bizarre.

In terms of sexuality, gays who grew up in traditional households benefited from at least seeing some kind of functional courtship rituals around them. I had no clue how to make myself attractive to girls. When I stepped outside of my mothers’ trailer, I was immediately tagged as an outcast because of my girlish mannerisms, funny clothes, lisp, and outlandishness. Not surprisingly, I left high school as a virgin, never having had a girlfriend, instead having gone to four proms as a wisecracking sidekick to girls who just wanted someone to chip in for a limousine.

When I got to college, I set off everyone’s “gaydar” and the campus LGBT group quickly descended upon me to tell me it was 100-percent certain I must be a homosexual. When I came out as bisexual, they told everyone I was lying and just wasn’t ready to come out of the closet as gay yet. Frightened and traumatized by my mother’s death, I dropped out of college in 1990 and fell in with what can only be called the gay underworld. Terrible things happened to me there.

It was not until I was twenty-eight that I suddenly found myself in a relationship with a woman, through coincidences that shocked everyone who knew me and surprised even myself. I call myself bisexual because it would take several novels to explain how I ended up “straight” after almost thirty years as a gay man. I don’t feel like dealing with gay activists skewering me the way they go on search-and-destroy missions against ex-gays, “closet cases,” or "homocons."

Though I have a biography particularly relevant to gay issues, the first person who contacted me to thank me for sharing my perspective on LGBT issues was Mark Regnerus, in an email dated July 17, 2012. I was not part of his massive survey, but he noticed a comment I’d left on a website about it and took the initiative to begin an email correspondence.

Forty-one years I’d lived, and nobody—least of all gay activists—had wanted me to speak honestly about the complicated gay threads of my life. If for no other reason than this, Mark Regnerus deserves tremendous credit—and the gay community ought to be crediting him rather than trying to silence him.

Regnerus’s study identified 248 adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships. Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda. Yet the results are backed up by an important thing in life called common sense: Growing up different from other people is difficult and the difficulties raise the risk that children will develop maladjustments or self-medicate with alcohol and other dangerous behaviors. Each of those 248 is a human story, no doubt with many complexities.

Like my story, these 248 people’s stories deserve to be told. The gay movement is doing everything it can to make sure that nobody hears them. But I care more about the stories than the numbers (especially as an English professor), and Regnerus stumbled unwittingly on a narrative treasure chest.

So why the code of silence from LGBT leaders? I can only speculate from where I’m sitting. I cherish my mother’s memory, but I don’t mince words when talking about how hard it was to grow up in a gay household. Earlier studies examined children still living with their gay parents, so the kids were not at liberty to speak, governed as all children are by filial piety, guilt, and fear of losing their allowances. For trying to speak honestly, I’ve been squelched, literally, for decades.

The latest attempt at trying to silence stories (and data) such as mine comes from Darren E. Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, who gave an interview to Tom Bartlett of the Chronicle of Higher Education, in which he said—and I quote—that Mark Regnerus’s study was “bullshit.” Bartlett’s article continues:

Among the problems Sherkat identified is the paper’s definition of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”—an aspect that has been the focus of much of the public criticism. A woman could be identified as a “lesbian mother” in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child, regardless of the brevity of that relationship and whether or not the two women raised the child as a couple.

Sherkat said that fact alone in the paper should have “disqualified it immediately” from being considered for publication.

The problem with Sherkat’s disqualification of Regnerus’s work is a manifold chicken-and-egg conundrum. Though Sherkat uses the term “LGBT” in the same interview with Bartlett, he privileges that L and G and discriminates severely against the B, bisexuals.

Where do children of LGBT parents come from? If the parents are 100-percent gay or lesbian, then the chances are that the children were conceived through surrogacy or insemination, or else adopted. Those cases are such a tiny percentage of LGBT parents, however, that it would be virtually impossible to find more than a half-dozen in a random sampling of tens of thousands of adults.

Most LGBT parents are, like me, and technically like my mother, “bisexual”—the forgotten B. We conceived our children because we engaged in heterosexual intercourse. Social complications naturally arise if you conceive a child with the opposite sex but still have attractions to the same sex. Sherkat calls these complications disqualifiable, as they are corrupting the purity of a homosexual model of parenting.

I would posit that children raised by same-sex couples are naturally going to be more curious about and experimental with homosexuality without necessarily being pure of any attraction to the opposite sex. Hence they will more likely fall into the bisexual category, as did I—meaning that the children of LGBT parents, once they are young adults, are likely to be the first ones disqualified by the social scientists who now claim to advocate for their parents.

Those who are 100-percent gay may view bisexuals with a mix of disgust and envy. Bisexual parents threaten the core of the LGBT parenting narrative—we do have a choice to live as gay or straight, and we do have to decide the gender configuration of the household in which our children will grow up. While some gays see bisexuality as an easier position, the fact is that bisexual parents bear a more painful weight on their shoulders. Unlike homosexuals, we cannot write off our decisions as things forced on us by nature. We have no choice but to take responsibility for what we do as parents, and live with the guilt, regret, and self-criticism forever.

Our children do not arrive with clean legal immunity. As a man, though I am bisexual, I do not get to throw away the mother of my child as if she is a used incubator. I had to help my wife through the difficulties of pregnancy and postpartum depression. When she is struggling with discrimination against mothers or women at a sexist workplace, I have to be patient and listen. I must attend to her sexual needs. Once I was a father, I put aside my own homosexual past and vowed never to divorce my wife or take up with another person, male or female, before I died. I chose that commitment in order to protect my children from dealing with harmful drama, even as they grow up to be adults. When you are a parent, ethical questions revolve around your children and you put away your self-interest...forever.

Sherkat’s assessment of Regnerus’s work shows a total disregard for the emotional and sexual labor that bisexual parents contribute to their children. Bisexual parents must wrestle with their duties as parents while still contending with the temptations to enter into same-sex relationships. The turbulence documented in Mark Regnerus’s study is a testament to how hard that is. Rather than threatening, it is a reminder of the burden I carry and a goad to concern myself first and foremost with my children’s needs, not my sexual desires.

The other chicken-and-egg problem of Sherkat’s dismissal deals with conservative ideology. Many have dismissed my story with four simple words: “But you are conservative.” Yes, I am. How did I get that way? I moved to the right wing because I lived in precisely the kind of anti-normative, marginalized, and oppressed identity environment that the left celebrates: I am a bisexual Latino intellectual, raised by a lesbian, who experienced poverty in the Bronx as a young adult. I’m perceptive enough to notice that liberal social policies don’t actually help people in those conditions. Especially damning is the liberal attitude that we shouldn’t be judgmental about sex. In the Bronx gay world, I cleaned out enough apartments of men who’d died of AIDS to understand that resistance to sexual temptation is central to any kind of humane society. Sex can be hurtful not only because of infectious diseases but also because it leaves us vulnerable and more likely to cling to people who don’t love us, mourn those who leave us, and not know how to escape those who need us but whom we don’t love. The left understands none of that. That’s why I am conservative.

So yes, I am conservative and support Regnerus’s findings. Or is it that Regnerus’s findings revisit the things that made me conservative in the first place? Sherkat must figure that one out.

Having lived for forty-one years as a strange man, I see it as tragically fitting that the first instinct of experts and gay activists is to exclude my life profile as unfit for any “data sample,” or as Dr. Sherkat calls it, “bullshit.” So the game has gone for at least twenty-five years. For all the talk about LGBT alliances, bisexuality falls by the wayside, thanks to scholars such as Sherkat. For all the chatter about a “queer” movement, queer activists are just as likely to restrict their social circles to professionalized, normal people who know how to throw charming parties, make small talk, and blend in with the Art Deco furniture.

I thank Mark Regnerus. Far from being “bullshit,” his work is affirming to me, because it acknowledges what the gay activist movement has sought laboriously to erase, or at least ignore. Whether homosexuality is chosen or inbred, whether gay marriage gets legalized or not, being strange is hard; it takes a mental toll, makes it harder to find friends, interferes with professional growth, and sometimes leads one down a sodden path to self-medication in the form of alcoholism, drugs, gambling, antisocial behavior, and irresponsible sex. The children of same-sex couples have a tough road ahead of them—I know, because I have been there. The last thing we should do is make them feel guilty if the strain gets to them and they feel strange. We owe them, at the least, a dose of honesty. Thank you, Mark Regnerus, for taking the time to listen.

Robert Lopez is assistant professor of English at California State University-Northridge. He is the author of Colorful Conservative: American Conversations with the Ancients from Wheatley to Whitman. This year he will be publishing novels he wrote in the 1990s and 2000s.

              
James Q. Wilson: Another View
Lawrence M. Mead , March 19th, 2012
A Muslim View on Respecting Life
Suzy Ismail , February 7th, 2012
Contemporary Family Law: Divorcing Marriage from Children
Helen Alvaré , December 7th, 2011
Defend Marriage: Moms and Dads Matter
Maggie Gallagher , August 23rd, 2011
Suffer the Little Children: Cohabitation and the Abuse of America's Children
W. Bradford Wilcox , April 22nd, 2011

About Robert Oscar Lopez
- See more at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/#sthash.RfA22UXB.dpuf

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum