Pull Up A Chair, NOM. I Have Some News.

From an email from the National Organization for Marriage:

How many generations of children will be sacrificed to the gods of the gay lobby who demand the redefinition of marriage as an idol to their political movement? How long will children be told that men and women are not unique, that children don't need a mom and a dad, and that there's no special connection between marriage and child birth and rearing — it's just a sperm and egg that can be carried by anyone; any two people will do. Oh, and there's no need to limit parentage to just two people. If adults want to form a plural relationship and obtain rights to a child, who's to say they shouldn't if that makes them happy.

Ok.  Let's unpack that.

How many generations of children will be sacrificed to the gods of the gay lobby who demand the redefinition of marriage as an idol to their political movement? 

I'm not sure what that really means.  For example, I don't know what a "gay lobby" looks like (and least in a non-theater sense).  But I know what other words mean, and the answer to this question is zero.  Zero generations of children will be sacrificed to…. well, to anything.

How long will children be told that men and women are not unique…

Well, they have distinguishing qualities, but that just because they are different doesn't mean they both can't be parents.

…that children don't need a mom and a dad…

Yyeaah.  This is the part that got my attention.  Guess what, NOM?  Children don't need a mom and a dad.  How do we know this?  There are millions of children who don't have one or the other.  It's not only that way now; it's been that way throughout history.  I was one of those children.  So was our president.

…and that there's no special connection between marriage and child birth and rearing…

Well, there IS a connection between marriage and childbirth.  There's also a connection between marriage and cohabitation.  But it is not a necessary connection.

it's just a sperm and egg that can be carried by anyone; any two people will do.

Well, no.  See, here's where you mess up.  You think that respective owners of the sperm and the egg are necessarily the best parents by virtue of being the owners of the sperm and the egg.  But the sperm itself does not exude parental skills on its owner.  Neither does the egg.  There's simply no connection.  Put another way, a biological mother and biological father can be terrible parents to their biological offspring.  

I'm not saying "any two people will do".  I'm saying that, while the male and female biological parents usually have a vested interest in being good parents to their generated offspring, it's not a biological rule that they MUST be.  And the world is full of excellent adoptive parents (some oppo-sex, some same sex) which disproves the whole "sperm and egg" theory.

Oh, and there's no need to limit parentage to just two people. If adults want to form a plural relationship and obtain rights to a child, who's to say they shouldn't if that makes them happy.

I'm not sure how your mind works, but it is pretty creepy. "Rights to a child"?  Who is talking about children like they are chattel?

I don't think that's anyone's position.  I think the concern is what is best for the child.  And while study after study shows that two parents are better than one (all other things being equal), study after study shows that the sexual orientation of the parents does not cause any deteriment to the health and well-being of the child, physically or emotionally.  

NOM's fanciful example isn't an issue.  I'm not even sure what it means.

These people are dinosaurs.

What do you think?