Letters to the Editor

About kids and same sex marriage

By From page A5 | April 17, 2013

Julie Samrick’s commentary about kids and same-sex marriage was articulate and well-intended, but is founded on some large assumptions. She states that the foundation of marriage is to conjoin with another person to begin a new family together, which usually means creating children. Conjoining two people in marriage does create a new family, but the objective may not to be to create new children. Many people get married without the intention of having children. Or later finding themselves unable to create children. Their marriage is no less valid or meaningful in this case. Perhaps the foundation of marriage should be love, which Julie admits homosexuals are capable of feeling.

She states that two people of the same sex can’t create a family, and that’s a fact. However, the argument that homosexuals cannot have children is only biologically correct from a specific moral perspective. After all, Melissa Etheridge and Julie Cypher had children fathered by David Crosby. This may not meet the moral litmus test that many will apply to the creation of a family, but it seemed to work fine for the interested parties. More importantly, homosexual couples without access to David Crosby may pursue adoption as a means to start a family. Children in desperate need of a family, finding two loving and committed people to raise them in a stable and healthy household. That sounds like a match made in heaven.

She states that society should not discount the importance of a father and a mother in a child’s life. That may be an ideal, but it is certainly no reason to prevent loving committed people of the same sex from getting married, and raising a family if they choose. There are plenty of cases where the father or mother, or the toxic combination of the two, is a terrible influence on the child’s life, even fatal in some cases. Having a father and a mother does not guarantee a happy home. There are also socioeconomic influences on a child’s life. A well-educated, affluent family is probably also to be preferred. Perhaps we should regulate which heterosexual couples can get married, have children, and raise a family on the basis of intelligence, or education, or income? Or on the basis of some genetic ideal?

Most arguments against same-sex marriage come down to the fact that it is unfamiliar, or personally abhorrent. They are not like us, therefore let them be separate. Julie admits homosexuals should not have to hide who they are, or be bullied, or be prevented from loving each other by the government, or be denied any of the rights that married couples have. They should just not call it marriage. That is not hate, or fear, or discrimination. Is it?

Randy Hartgrove
El Dorado Hills

Letter to the Editor

Leave a Comment

Discussion | 1 comment

  • tiverbrookApril 19, 2013 - 3:38 pm

    I would like to comment on your statement: There are plenty of cases where the father or mother, or the toxic combination of the two, is a terrible influence on the child’s life, even fatal in some cases. Having a father and a mother does not guarantee a happy home. Same sex couples can be toxic to a child too. People are not toxic because of their partner, people are toxic because they are bad. Kids need a male and female influence. That is the ideal situation.

    Reply

Search


  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Follow Us On Facebook

  • Special Publications »

    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
    Copyright (c) 2017 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.