Back in my post about Christopher Young, I said, meh, anti-homos don't matter in Rhode Island, so few of them, especially in politics, etc. Thank you fate for reminding me to stay on guard.
In your May 16 story “Calif. High court OKs gay marriage,” you note that “Rhode Island has no statutes either allowing or prohibiting same-sex marriage.” You forgot to mention that our state also has no statutes either allowing or prohibiting a man to marry his dog or his cat.
Oh, for &$%#@ sake. This again? Really? Has it still not occured to any cowardly heteros that this man-dog argument says more about them than it does about the rest of us, straight or gay? Out here in the sane world, we don't think like that. When we support gay marriage, we think, two consenting adults who share love, trust, and bed and want to share bank account and health insurance. Extra, extra emphasis on two. consenting. adults. Adult = human, obviously.
To anyone out there who starts looking at a house pet sideways when contemplating marriage, I suggest men with white coats, not a constitutional amendment.
But then there's the "think of the children" argument in
another letter:
The May 26 Commentary piece “Children need mothers and fathers” by Dr. Daniel Harrop should pretty well put to rest the whole debate about same-sex marriage... A man is not a complete human being until he has become a father, a woman until she has become a mother. A child cannot be a complete adult unless he or she has both a mother and father.
First, let's look at Dr. Daniel Harrop. A doctor. Brown University. I'm impressed. But also the
chair of the Rhode Island Republican Liberty Caucus, the party whose platform is flat-out anti-homosexual. Also, Dr. Harrop is
running for political office. Why does a doctor want to be in politics? Well, he has decided he doesn't like Providence's current mayor, David Cicilline, our first openly gay mayor. Hm - I smell an agenda.
Now to dispute the good doctor's professional opinion.
There are no data to suggest that children who have gay or lesbian parents are different in any aspects of psychological, social, and sexual development from children in heterosexual families. There has been fear that children raised in gay or lesbian households will grow up to be homosexual, develop improper sex-role behavior or sexual conflicts, and may be sexually abused. There has been concern that children raised by gay or lesbian parents will be stigmatized and have conflicts with their peer group, thus threatening their psychological health, self-esteem, and social relationships. These fears and concerns have not been substantiated by research.
From the
Child Welfare League of America: "The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) affirms that lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts."
Q. Do gay and lesbian adults make fit parents?
A. Gay and lesbian parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide healthy and supportive environments for their children. Lesbian and heterosexual women do not differ markedly either in their overall mental health or in their approaches to child rearing. Nor do lesbians' romantic and sexual relationships with other women detract from their ability to care for their children (the limited data on the children of gay fathers suggests similar findings). Recent evidence suggests that gay and lesbian couples with children tend to divide child care and household responsibilities evenly and to report satisfaction with their relationship.
Q. Does parental sexual orientation affect children’s development?
A. Studies of various aspects of child development reveal few differences among children of lesbian mothers and heterosexual parents in such areas as personality, self-concept, behavior, and sexual identity. Evidence also suggests that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support.
So,
