The author states:  “The social benefits of committed, exclusive heterosexual unions include the generation of children and the raising up of future citizens; a supportive and safe environment for the nurturing of these children; two parents who are biologically connected to their child and who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of that child; two complementary parents who can provide appropriate gender role modeling; and an inter-generational connectedness within families and societies where parents are encouraged to save and provide for their children and grandchildren.”

Ah - so that will be why there are no child casualties of marriages gone wrong, no married parents who abuse their children or each other, and no grandparents who are separated from their grandchildren due to the breaking up of marriages then?

It seems to me that what heterosexual marriage is offering society far too much of these days is a hothouse environment with frequent violence and breakdown in which childhood is a terrifying journey of uncertainty and peril. 

It may be that a “perfect” marriage would be an ideal environment in which to raise a child, but even the most perfect marriage comes under strain unless there is a larger support network - where are the extended families of yesterday?  Many people will now have “chosen” families or support networks which offer huge advantages over the isolation that traditional married couples often find themselves in.  It is a nonsense to pretend that chosen family has less commitment to the members than blood families.  Indeed commitment is often stronger as it has been pondered and decided instead of being “expected”; also there is less baggage from the past to get in the way of supporting each other.

I’m not arguing that polyamorous groups should get the same kind of benefits as married couple families however, I firmly believe that the children should attract the benefits regardless of how they are being supported.

There is no human reality that does not have the capacity to go awry, even “polyamorous” groups. The pain caused by marriage breakdown and/or domestic violence is maybe more indicative of the precious good being harmed than of some intrinsic flaw in the institution itself. I agree entirely with what Chris Meney says on marriage and family - society fragments without it.

I don’t know what kind of families nickie is used to live with, because the huge majority of the ones I know resemble more the heterosexual ones described in the article and not the ones mentioned by nickie’s comments

If a loving traditional family is the best thing we have in society, then that is what we should be concentrating on. Just because we have broken families in our midst does not mean we should throw in the towel. Making all sorts of relationships valid will prove to be detrimental to society.

Excellent article! May I make three points which re-inforce the argument for “married heterosexual unions”.

Firstly its seems to me that all studies show that chidren do better in such households. I am not claiming to have read all these - only a few of them but I am just repeating the trust of what many researchers say.

Secondly, in respect of one of the stadies which I did read (it was some time ago and to my regret I forget the reference) it was notable that children with a single parent where this was a results of the death of widowhood did markedly better than those from families broke by divorce or where the mother had never married.

Thirdly, here in the UK (where I regret the government has given in to the anti-family lobby) the situation is that certain benefits for poor people are disproportionately weighted in favour of single parents. This has had a disastrous effect on the numbers of people married. Poor people have few options available to them. Sadly this is one with very grave consequences for the long term benefits of the child. So over the past several years in the UK the number of marriages has declined while the proportion of children born to single parents (or to unmarried couples where the mother pretends to be a single parent) has increased markedly.

“Some argue that ‘equivalence’ between types of sexually intimate relationships no longer needs to be concerned with the predisposition to procreate and to care for one’s children.”

I wonder if we focus excessively on the genital aspect of household arrangements. My great aunt and uncle who never married lived together and were very much a family. Maybe they might have taken on the care of children – eg, of nephews and nieces whose parents had died. Such situations though relatively rare today were all too common a century or two ago. Of course, back then, hardly anyone was paid any kind of benefit by the state other than the charity of the churches or via the paltry and restrictive support of the poor laws. Then again, hardly anyone paid taxes and so the state was very limited in its capacity to support anyone.

Unfortunately, in deciding to extend support to married couples with children, we cannot ignore the reality that children grow up in settings other than nuclear families which incidentally are a very recent phenomenon (as compared to the extended family of old). Legislation ultimately must support children wherever they happen to be.

Our families are rooted in the marriages of our parents!! It takes both our parents to continue being in love with each other, till the end,if a marriage must continue sincerely. On this love grows the children in the family, like the sap in a plant !!
The worth of a core family can never be compromised.

Hahahaha! Ha....

Oh wait, this isn’t a joke? This is actually a legitimate attempt at an argument? Ah, sorry, my bad… still hilarious, though.

I’d like to start by saying: almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. Not in marriage. And, um, whether you like it or not, we’re -going- to get married to each other, and soon. What is it, like, a year before Bush is out of office? If… I’m sorry, -when- we get a non-right-wing-nutjob president, then guess who’s getting marriage rights?

*raises hand*

Hoo, I could get all angry and unpleasant about this, but I think this issue should be treated with the disrespect it deserves ^_^

To your credit, you do correctly state that a child needs good gender role-modeling. Which is why I’ve zero intention of ever raising a boy^^

I think I’ll pass this message on to those I love and care about… they’ll get such a kick out of it ~_^

Have fun in twenty years!

Chris Meney is right on!!

Gay, polygamous, polyamorous unions, etc… must get over themselves and focus on the best interests of the child. 
What’s next - equivalent rights for love unions between humans and goats in raising ‘kids’?

There is a flaw in this and other anti-gay marriage views. Allowing same-sex marriages will in no way cause an obstacle for heterosexual marriage. So people can make the case against gay marriage all they want, but the simple fact of the matter is that these people are afraid of gay and lesbian society. It’s really just paranoia. Children are being used as examples, when many heterosexual couples do not procreate. Gay marriage should also not be put in the same boat as bestiality/polygamy/pedophilia. The latter are harmful behaviors (in pedophilia there is a difference of experience in which the adult takes advantage of the child, in polygamy love cannot be shared equally and jealousy may occur), but if a gay/lesbian relationship promotes equality and loving between partners, there is no non-religious reason I’ve seen that it is wrong, especially if the couple does not seek to adopt.

Anti-gay marriage supporters.... How are gays harming you in your own “sacred institution of marriage?” They’re not; it’s just your own fears at work. They’re not stopping you from marrying and raising your children. So what if we’re different? If two people of the same gender, who can intellectually make their own decisions, have a healthy and loving relationship, why should they not be allowed the same rights as heterosexual couples?

That’s the tragic flaw in your argument. We’re not hurting you, so stop complaining.

I dont agreee with gay marriage… I think its disgusting. but its there choice in what they want to do so let them be. we should be paying more attention on our country’s needs and helping our soilders we shouldnt be wasting our time thinking about gays getting married

Damon^^

I don’t “agreee” with your point of view on gay marriage…
But actually, you’re probably right on that second part of your post. It does seem ridiculous that people are so preoccupied with us that they’re not paying attention to the rest of the world, huh?
Trust me, you’re not the only one wishing that people would leave us alone for a tad.

excuse me, but what the bloody crap are you on about?

hetero-sexual marriage is better how exactly??

in truth, there is no difference

families and marriages need love and togetherness, who cares if it’s a man and woman or two men or two women?

stop trying to cover up your homophobic views with this rubbish, it’s not fooling anyone, and anyone it does fool is an idiot.

Well first of all this is a total mess. My question is why do you all think that having sexual relations by the same sex is ok? Because its not, its horrible. If u ask me or any other person in there right mind its disgusting as a matter of fact

I Don’t Understand (etc)^^

It’s refreshing to see that people can still write the sort of stuff you do. IE, effectively calling over 75% of the posters “out of their right minds”, even as they spell out three letter words like “you” and put their apostrophes in the correct places.
Good grammar is not a winning hand, that’s for certain; but bad grammar -is- a losing one, when dealing with who has a right mind on their side.

If you’d care to back up your accusations with documented occurrences or perhaps a fleshed-out reasoning of why you feel the way you do, you might yet have something worth reading.

Good luck! Have a nice day^^