Faulty Logic In NOM's Talking Points

ElvenKnight's picture

Talking Points From The National Organization For Marriage website

"• Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

• Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further."

My Response:
~It is a nice thing for a child to have a mother and the father. More important, however is for a child to have a GOOD mother and a GOOD father.
~ So what about all the children in this country that are being raised by persons other than their biological parents? Do they not count for something?
More important than having a mom and dad, is having a positive male, and a positive female role model.

Comments

elph's picture

Is There a Message Here...

that you feel is important for either a single gay parent or a gay couple (married or otherwise) raising a child?

Please state your view clearly about the propriety of gay parents. It appears that you disapprove. Am I reading you correctly?

ElvenKnight's picture

,

Oh, no, not at all, you're missing the point...
What I was doing was dicxussing the issue on THEIR terms.
THEY claim that same-sex marriage will put children at peril. My point is that same sex marriage will put children in no greater peril than traditional marriage already has

elph's picture

Thanks for the clarification

But you should be aware that your point is not immediately obvious. The last sentence is open to being interpreted ambiguously.

ElvenKnight's picture

Hmm?

"More important than having a mom and dad, is having a positive male, and a positive female role model."

I fail to see how saying heterosexual couples don't necessarily make good parents, can be construed as saying gay couples make bad ones.

ElvenKnight's picture

Addendum

the opposite sex role model doesn't have to be a parent,
they can be an aunt or uncle, grandparent, cousin, close family friend, etc...

jeff's picture

hmm...

You only found two faulty talking points on that site?! ;-)

---
"People who are happy are slugs... They do not move the human race forward."
-- Camille Paglia, on Oasis

Lol-taire's picture

What I hate most about the

What I hate most about the sentimentalisation of the family by the Right, is that it ignores what children desperately do need. And that's security- financial, emotional. It's decent quality housing, it's not having your parents/ caregivers live in fear that you could be made homeless. It's having parents who are able to look after you- who aren't exhausted, who aren't disenfranchised, who aren't humiliated, who aren't struggling to get by. It's medical care free at the point of need. It's safety, it's not having to fear or experience violence. And of course, it's education.

Because at the end of the day the idealised nuclear family under capitalism- even in this century- is still a unit of production. It's within the interests of the ruling classes not to let it's underpinning be challenged.

Historically the way we expect children to be brought up these days is very new.

In many ways it's good- at least we pay lip-service to the rights of children, at least we condemn the idea of neglect and abuse (even if we set up society in a way that tolerates neglect in practise). At least children do receive a form of state education, at least in my country we have an NHS.

Societies all over the world at various times have tolerated infanticide- across western Europe up to the 18th century it was a tacit form of family planning, the baby farming in the late 18th- 19th century you could argue fulfilled a similar purpose. Societies have encouraged child labour (continue to)- throughout history, but most egregiously in the forms of child labour that meet the needs of industrial capitalism.

Faced with all of this gay couples having kids- or single parents raising kids- or whole damn towns raising kids- are the least of children's problems.

Fuck- even having good positive male and female role models (a reactionary concept- but points for trying, I'm not here to shout you down since you're not the idiot) pales in comparison to what children really need.

Anyone who is really for the rights of children should be working against poverty, against the unequal society, against domestic violence, for education, for free healthcare.

Not against gays.

But obviously it's not about children. It's about family and the state.
So don't even humour the bastards by pretending it's a child protection issue.

ElvenKnight's picture

What It Is About

more than anything else, is the desire to impose religious dogma upon civil society.

jeff's picture

Err...

I think their perspective is that society is civil BECAUSE of religion.

---
"People who are happy are slugs... They do not move the human race forward."
-- Camille Paglia, on Oasis

ElvenKnight's picture

yea

That is what they WANT us think.

Nanook's picture

Well, considering the way

Well, considering the way things are going in terms of the construct which is gender-roles, there's not going to be a huge differentiation between the two. In the past twenty years, the distinction between the two has greatly decreased which can be documented in the Bem and Bem studies. So to say "a positive female" or "a positive male" I think isn't very practical anymore.

And besides, children aren't raised solely by parents. Our friends, our kin, our institutions of education, our communities and our media are the all products of what we are. So to make a statement that children "need good parents" - I think - is ridiculous. Why don't we look at how self-expression, individuality, or just being different, in certain instances, is vilified by society - by our groups. I was a pretty unhappy child on the inside for a while because I hated myself for being gay. My parents certainly didn't have any negative connotations towards being gay - they actually embrace it. Instead, I derived my connotations from my groups and from the media.