Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Prejudice runs deep in some

Letter by Kaitlyn E. Renaud, Enumclaw on March 29, 2011 at 1:34 pm with 53 Comments »
March 29, 2011 1:47 pm

Re: “Union’s goal should be procreation” (letter, 3-28).

The painful words that this woman write are cringe-worthy at best. Not only is the letter a slap in the face to many same-sex couples, but to any couples who medically cannot bear children or simply choose not to have kids.

The author comments that children do better “socially, emotionally and … materially” if they are raised “by their two parents in a single household.” Unfortunately, that is not the case. With divorce, absent parent figures and, God forbid, deaths of parents, the “single household” is no longer the only stable household.

And to say that a same-sex couple, single parent or foster parent cannot give as much love as any straight couple and cannot be the same “incubator of future citizens” is pretentious, cruel and egotistical.

While I am not part of a same-sex couple, nor are my parents a same-sex couple, I know this to be true: As long as a person grows up in a place full of love and support, anything is possible. I desperately hope the author of this letter learns that, and soon.

Tags:
,
Leave a comment Comments → 53
  1. Fibonacci says:

    I have found the anti-socialist, anti-liberals, anti-democrats to be among the least tolerant hateful peope I have met. THEY are not the ones destrohying the family, THEY are the ones perpetrating hate, racism, discrimanation, and other negatives in society.

    Truth–let he who is without sin cast the first stone. How about love and acceptance as family values? I say this and I am not even in favor of same sex marriage.

  2. itwasntmethistime says:

    I grew up in a single parent household (my dad died.) That gives me some expertise in this area. Having been in the situation myself I feel very strongly that children should be raised in a household with two parents.

  3. whatIdid says:

    Just to be clear, “do better” and “only stable household” are not one and the same.

  4. the3rdpigshouse says:

    Same sex marriage coupled with the expectation that they can then become a “normal” environment for raising children is an oxymoron and abnormal. Try placing same sex on an island – if they procreate without outside assistance we will consider it normal and acceptable!!!

  5. Rollo_Tomassi says:

    For those that yearn for family values of the past…

    How did we used to address physical spousal violence (It’s just a family matter)
    How did we used to address physical children violence (It’s just a family matter)
    How did we used to address sexual abuse (Turn away, don’t talk about it)

    Yearning for the perfect days of yesteryear requires an active case of amnesia.

  6. I don’t ask for too much out of life, but I would like to see a t.v. commercial again with a man and woman or a home improvement show with a straight couple or a house-hunter program with a man and woman looking to buy a house. Am I asking too much? I anxiously await the next lib poster.

  7. Rollo, are you saying that gay couples don’t fight? Are you saying that gay couples don’t break any laws? Well, I guess you found that utopia that has eluded man for thousands of years.

  8. Fibonacci says:

    taxedenough
    Just what is the “gay agenda”? I asked a gay friend and he said gays can’t all agree on anything any more than straights can. You know, I have no interest in watching two gays have sex either, but then I don’t know about you but I don’t want to watch two straights doing it either. And I don’t think either of them should be having sex in front of the children.

    Yes, June and Ward, or Ozzie and Harriet would be perfect, but somehow I don ‘t know how many grew up with that reality anyway.

  9. Fibonacci says:

    frosty
    We agree. I would like to see more mainstream people on advertisements too. Political correctness is pretty silly when it comes down to it. Not all commercials should be “white, middle class, 2.3 kids”, but they should be represented too. How is that for a “lib response”? Don’t judge all “libs” as being the same.

  10. taxed truth have set up a false dichotomy – sorry guys but no gay marriage doesn’t equal every child being raised by two heterosexuals. It isn’t the gay couples who adopt who are putting children at risk of not having an Ozzie and Harriet childhood – it’s the heterosexuals.

  11. I would like to see more mainstream people on advertisements too.

    Every group likes to see people like them represented in the media. But, really – Do you really think you are “mainstream”?

  12. bobcat1a says:

    It will make sense to ban gay marriage as soon as you family values guys demand a ban on divorce and forcible marriage for out-of-wedlock parents as well as proof of fertility and intention to procreate before issuing a marriage license.

  13. “itwasntmethistime says:
    March 29, 2011 at 2:27 pm
    I grew up in a single parent household (my dad died.) That gives me some expertise in this area. Having been in the situation myself I feel very strongly that children should be raised in a household with two parents.”

    ——————————————————————————————————-

    Maybe then, you can find some time to work with heterosexual couples on avoiding divorce.

  14. “taxedenoughintacoma says:
    March 29, 2011 at 3:12 pm
    What was wrong with the family values of a past time in this country?”
    —————————————————————-

    Ask Larry Craig, David Vitter or Newt Gingrich.

  15. “taxedenoughintacoma says:
    March 29, 2011 at 3:12 pm
    I think we have degraded as a country and the gay agenda to make the country accept their lifestyle has had a negative effect on the family. When I think of the gay sex act I am disgusted and how do you explain the gay sex act without harming a child. You can’t justify perversion and the unnatural acts of the gay lifestyle.
    ——————————————————————————————–
    So many issues. One at a time:

    Gay agenda? I didn’t know that there was one.

    Accept their lifestyle? Do they not accept the heterosexual lifestyle? I’d interacted with lots of gay people and never had one tell me I’m living my life wrong.

    “Think of gay sex”. Hmmmmm. I wonder if “taxed” realizes that woman-on-woman pornography is intended for a male audience. Remember the Republicans that were spending campaign money at the strip club that catered to men who wanted to see this sort of show?

    “Explain to a child” – don’t explain anything that you wouldn’t explain about heterosexual sex acts. Otherwise, I’d say you are being rather perverted.

    “You can’t justify perversion and the unnatural acts of the gay lifestyle.” – Much of their activity is exactly what heterosexual couples do

    It appears that someone is a bit obsessed.

  16. Frosty Bunker – I’ll suggest that you take a tip from Senator Al Franken who said “when I see two gay men holding hands in public, I’m not suddenly compulsed to divorce Franny and marry a man so that I’ll have someone to watch football with.

  17. TacomaPastor says:

    I would say that the vast majority of people who are trying to make decisions for others perhaps might want to look inside themselves first.

  18. Hallelujah, Pastor!

  19. “whatIdid says:
    March 29, 2011 at 7:38 pm
    Love the shotgunning snail… have you ever thought maybe Al is already… nevermind.”
    —————————————————————————————————
    I’d respond, but the last time I responded to one of your allegations about the sexuality of a political figure, my comment was strangely deleted because someone couldn’t handle the idea of being in the closet pointing out.

  20. “truthbusterguy says:
    March 29, 2011 at 2:06 pm
    Can’t you see what this is all doing to the American family. Socialist, liberals, democrats are destroying the family. It doesn’t take a village to raise a child, it takes a married man and woman. Stop the destruction of America and the family. Return to family values and pray we survive the liberal assult on the family.

    It’s time for a u-turn and retun to the closet for gays.
    ———————————————————————————————-
    In a study done at a pediatric emergency unit in Denver, CO, it was determined that less than one percent of sexual abuse cases were same sex oriented. Couple with this fact, that most sexual abuse of children happens within the family and you’ve eliminated “truthbuster’s” case for the “American Family” aka, traditional family.

    Maybe the heir to SC Johnson can be the spokesperson for “truth”

  21. And before the source is denied:

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/1/41

    Setting. Child sexual abuse clinic at a regional children’s hospital.

    Patients. Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys) referred to a subspecialty clinic for the evaluation of suspected child sexual abuse. Mean age was 6.1 years (range, 7 months to 17 years).

    Data collected. Charts were reviewed to determine the relationships of the children to the alleged offender, the sex of the offender, and whether or not the alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

    Results. Abuse was ruled out in 35 cases. Seventy-four children were allegedly abused by other children and teenagers less than 18 years old. In 9 cases, an offender could not be identified. In the remaining 269 cases, two offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian. In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community.

    Conclusions. The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people.

  22. taxedenoughintacoma says:

    All of the gay lovers out there can spout all the biased data they want. It comes down to a couple of simple questions.

    1. Is society better off as we degrade the importance of the traditional male/female family in America. answer NO

    2. Do you want a gay man or woman leading your Boy or Girl Scout troop. Answer NO

    3. Do you want to live next to sex offender. Answer NO

    Well, gay people offend God’s laws so they are sex offenders in his eye and he is the law.

  23. “taxedenoughintacoma says:
    March 30, 2011 at 7:25 am
    All of the gay lovers out there can spout all the biased data they want.”
    ____________________________________________________

    A perfect case of “don’t try to tell me facts, my mind is made up”. The study was done in a medical setting with no ax to grind.

    Your final comment about “God” and “God’s law” says it all. A medical scientific study is bunk, but the Great Fairy in the Sky is the answer.

    In answer to your questions –

    1. I already demonstrated that children are more at risk in a “traditional family”

    2. How do you know that there aren’t scout troops being directed by homosexuals? Heck, we had a homosexual from Idaho with a predilection for mens room stall sex in the Senate.

    Again, you mistakenly equate homosexuals with sexual predators.

    3. Most sexual offenders are heterosexual. How many times does this have to be repeated?

  24. As to “God’s law”, didn’t he say something like “judge not, lest ye shall be judged”?

  25. All of this “homosexual talk” has reminded me of an episode of my childhood. At a meeting at our school, they could not recruit enough “Den Mothers” for Cub Scout troops, so my best friends father volunteered. Since my mother volunteered I was relegated to her den.

    Boy…… did I get the short end of the deal!!

    Instead of making popsicle stick jewelery boxes, my best friend’s dad taught their den to use wood and carving tools to make really cool stuff.

    Den #1, directed by a “male Den Mother” won all the contests for the 50th year celebration of Scouting, held at UPS Fieldhouse.

    Now, just think it parents would have assumed that any man wanting to be a “Den Mother” was homosexual and a predator……..

  26. frankiethomas says:

    Taxedenough – don’t equate gay with pedophilia.

  27. theogsters says:

    Thanks, Kaitlyn, for writing so logically and passionately. Your message needed to be expressed and I notice the majority of readers agree with you. It’s time we take a stand against the self- appointed moral authorities who presume to speak with divine guidance.

  28. omega629 says:

    I cant count, or keep track of all the kids that were raised by single parents in High School that were getting into trouble or being expelled. Where are they now?? Who knows.. probably having more troubled babies of their own. Now, the kids that were raised by two parents , male and female, seemed to have adjusted much better and actually became active members of society. This is just based on the greater Tacoma area and my own personal experience of course…I am sure there are exceptions.

  29. omega – I will say it again – how does preventing gay couples from getting married and/or adopting do anything at all to lower the number of single parent families?

  30. bEERbOY- probably nothing… except studies have shown that children that grow up in a same sex family tend to have more social and mental problems. That in turn might lead them to make bad choices… like whoring around and having bastard babies, then calling it an accident!!

  31. MarksonofDarwin says:

    There is an important fact that never seems to be acknowledged when discussing gay couples and their children…they don’t have accidents. It is impossible for them to suddenly find themselves pregnant.

    Every one of the children born to, or adopted by gay couples is brought into their home after extra effort and forethought.

    I’m not suggesting that they love their children more than heteros….I’m suggesting that raising their children is clearly a priority….if they don’t want children, that choice is very easy for them.

  32. MarksonofDarwin says:

    Omega,

    That simply isn’t true.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm

    You must be thinking of the study that shows children do poorly with single parents.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/04/health/main539283.shtml

  33. I guess i dont understand the difference between same sex parents and single parents. Its either one or the other, right? Not male and female? I think there is more balance with man and woman and Nature likes it that way. Other wise females could get pregnant from other females.. and males from other males.. but Survival of the fittest doesnt work like that, does it???

  34. MarksonofDarwin says:

    I guess I didn’t make myself very clear. My apologies.
    I wasn’t comparing the two at all….

    I was simply showing you that studies have shown that children raised by a gay couple do no worse (or better) than children raised by hetero couples.

    The children who are at the most risk, and have the most problems, are children of single parent households.

    You claimed that children did worse being raised by a gay couple….I was simply disputing that and providing proof.

  35. X60 – the closet thing that I know of to a gay agenda, is they want to enjoy the same legal benefits as everybody else, and to live openly and freely as law-abiding citizens.

    Kind of like what Blacks, Asians, Irish, Italians, and everyone else wanted.

  36. omega629 says:

    MARKSONOFDARWIN-
    I guess I didn’t make myself very clear. My apologies.
    I wasn’t comparing the two at all….

    No, you were clear… but i was comparing the two. My point is that to be brought up in the most healthy atmosphere is with one female and one male parent. You need both female and male components to make this work. Having two female parents or two male parents is the same as being raised by a single parent. In my opinion.

  37. “omega629 says:
    March 30, 2011 at 10:29 am
    bEERbOY- probably nothing… except studies have shown that children that grow up in a same sex family tend to have more social and mental problems. That in turn might lead them to make bad choices… like whoring around and having bastard babies, then calling it an accident!!
    ———————————————————————————————

    Fascinating! A most recent public spectacle of a youngster “whoring around and having bastard babies” was also paraded around the national spotlight by the GOP as her mother ran for Vice President. According to her mother, the union between parents is intact. According to some media, that may not be so. Since the father is male and the mother is female, this just shouldn’t have happened…..right??????

  38. omega629 says:

    X_6zero says-
    Fascinating! A most recent public spectacle of a youngster “whoring around and having bastard babies” was also paraded around the national spotlight by the GOP as her mother ran for Vice President. According to her mother, the union between parents is intact. According to some media, that may not be so. Since the father is male and the mother is female, this just shouldn’t have happened…..right??????

    I bet it happens a lot less when both parents are around.. male and female. And it shouldnt have happened.. but you know like i do that there are exceptions. Or are you saying that i didnt take into account exceptions and that it NEVER happens… right????

  39. “omega629 says:
    March 30, 2011 at 3:01 pm
    I bet it happens a lot less when both parents are around.. male and female. And it shouldnt have happened.. but you know like i do that there are exceptions. Or are you saying that i didnt take into account exceptions and that it NEVER happens… right????”
    ———————————————————————————————
    You can bet all you’d like. How about providing facts?

    The fact is that Sarah Palin’s little girl not only was having sleepovers, but mom was knowledgable about it.

    As if it were not enough for her to be….as you put it…..”whoring around and having bastard babies”….she was then put on display with comments from Presidential contenders saying “what a wonderful family”.

    Not only are Bristol Palin’s parents an opposite gender marriage, they are allegedly religious with “family values”. Result? Pregnant teen mother who is now raising a child as a single parent.

    Question, if single parent families are questionable, then are we not working on generation number two of the Palin problem family?

    On an aside, from the language used by the next Palin Princess, “I’ll bet” that you have another in waiting…..

  40. omega629, your opinion thagt having two parents is the same as having one parent first makes no sense on the face of it, and second, is disputed by the entirety of all studies done on the subject.

    Having gay parents is shown to be the equivalent of having two opposite sex parents, and several studies found that the children of gay parents actually did much better in lots of respects than those of heterosexual parents. So, have any opinion you want, this is a free country, but don’t expect sane people who can find out real facts to agree with you.

  41. “Socialist, liberals, democrats are destroying the family”
    ——————————————————————————————
    Unless the Wisconsin Assembly and Senate are socialists (we know they are not liberals or Democrats), the above statement is inaccurate.

    A group of Repubicans in Wisconsin are trying to make it more and more difficult for working families to survive while filling the pockets of wealthy businesses.

    It’s not all about sexual orientation.

  42. I have no problem with gay marriage- I am all for committed relationships. Good marriages improve our communities and families. This is true for committed heterosexual and homosexual relationships. I have a problem with irresponible sexual behavior that results in producing children that aren’t taken care of, financial irresponisbility and the speading of sexual transmitted diseases. This behavior has nothing to do with if a person is homosexual or heterosexual. This behavior has to do with taking responibility for one self.

  43. x-6zilch, couldn’t help yourself huh? Just had to bring Palin into the discussion, when all else fails, bring up Palin. Now it’s the republicans in Wisconsin. Phew!! Poor little public sector workers, they will have to pay about 50% of what their neighbors pay for their health care and retirement. Pity the poor souls! Although the letter writer freely admits that she is not in a same sex relationship nor are her parents, she goes on and claims that she knows what’s good for the children. Sounds like a lot of speculation to me. Or could it be that she is yet just another social worker?

  44. “See mainstream people on tv commercials” – I’ve been accused of watching too much tv, and I see nothing but mainstream people on TV commercials. Except of course for the super people (young, skinny, attractive) that we are suppose to emulate.

  45. Yep…..if TV commercials showed more “mainstream” folks it would put a lot of fat, ugly actors to work!

  46. Funny how the same folks who claim that desires to tax the rich are based in envy turn around and justify cutting working folks’ benefits by envious claims.

  47. MarksonofDarwin says:

    bB,

    OK, the subject has changed, so I have to weigh in on your shallow assertion that cutting public sector compensation is simply based on envy.

    1) We don’t pay those “rich” people’s salaries, unless we purchase their product/service. And unless you own stock in a company, I don’t understand all the gnashing of teeth over CEO compensation….are they overpaid? Probably, but it’s up to the board and stockholders to make those changes….certainly NOT the government’s job at the very least. (see #3)

    2) Public workers, while their contribution is valuable and they should be paid for their labor, are NOT above other workers. There’s nothing magical about their jobs. They should be paid fairly, but their compensation is completely out of whack, and in some cases extremely burdensome to continue.

    3) If you are talking about the TARP money that was thrust upon us by BOTH parties, then we would agree that tax money shouldn’t have bailed ANY private enterprise out. But we did….and now we will reap the moral hazard of that slimy decision. If a company needs to be “too big to fail” to receive government protection….then don’t be surprised when corps. start becoming humongous. But, that’s a different subject entirely.

  48. MarksonofDarwin says:

    Now I kinda feel bad about the complete thread jack that has happened on this important subject. I wish I could cut/paste my last comment onto a more appropriate letter….but there it is.

    Back to the subject:
    Children do best when they live in a loving, nurturing and supportive environment. It’s really that simple folks. If the parents are combative, dysfunctional, or absent, the children suffer. And that has zilch to do with sexual orientation.

  49. MoD – I was responding to the statements that compare public sector benefits to private sector benefits, something along the line of “I pay $x a month for my health insurance, why should teachers get their insurance cheaper?”

    You are correct, breaking down state/federal budgets to single items is absurd. The whole picture needs to be seen. And, while I do believe that some of the cost-cutting needs to come from compensation packages, to try to balance budgets while reducing tax rates for the wealthy solely by cutting labor costs is an unbalanced approach that is supported by demonizing public-sector unions (not cops and firefighters but especially teachers). And that is done by demeaning and devaluing the hard-working folks who are performing vital services for our society.

    But….back to the thread topic….we are in total agreement about the benefit of loving parents regardless of gender or sexual preference (not as much fun when that happens)

  50. Whether the radical Liberals or the academics like it or not, our bodies were
    designed for reproduction and, without that capability, the human race would
    become as extinct as the dinosaur. PERIOD!

  51. PERIOD! at the end of the post always reinforces the close-mindedness of the statement that precedes it.

    Humans are much more at risk of extinction due to out of control population growth than from the miniscule minority who choose not to spawn.

  52. Another of the many Liberal myths supported by none other than, BeerBoy, Overpopulation! Hogwash! Back in the 70s you libs supported Global Cooling! Now, using the same statistics as in the 70s, you call it Global warming! You Liberals are drinking too much Koolade.

  53. averageJoseph says:

    Over population… LMAO.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0