California’s Prop 8 – The Case for Traditional Marriage

Author’s Note: My intention with this blog is to help people understand the Latter-day Saint (Mormon) religion and culture.  Because the gay marriage movement is an important issue of our day and because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has opposed this movement, I wrote this post.  However, my arguments are not “Mormon” arguments; they are my personal views.  Our church has received a lot of attention for its opposition to legalizing gay marriage in the state of California, but I have never once heard a sermon or Sunday school lesson on the topic of homosexuality or gay marriage.  The Church and its leaders have spoken and written on the topic, but it’s not something we preach in our church meetings.

What is special about marriage between a man and woman?

Whether marriage is a commandment from heaven or man’s invention, marriage between a man and a woman is the primal way in which communities are organized and children are created and nurtured. This type of marriage is found in every society on earth and has been so long as history remembers. Ellen Sauerbrey, U.S. assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration, explained at the fourth World Congress of Families in 2007, “The family predates all states, and can be found in every culture, in every era. … The state did not create the family; rather, families created the state.”

Furthermore, beyond its universality and antiquity, marriage between one man and one woman is the best environment for raising children. Social science strongly suggests that children raised with both their biological mother and father in the home have the greatest chance for well-being. In a July 2009 Time magazine article titled “Is There Hope for the American Marriage?” author Caitlin Flanagan writes,

“On every single significant outcome related to short-term well-being and long-term success, children from intact, two-parent families outperform those from single-parent households. Longevity, drug abuse, school performance and dropout rates, teen pregnancy, criminal behavior and incarcertaion – if you can measure it, a sociologist has; and in all cases, the kids living with both parents drastically outperform the others.”

Flanagan goes on to quote David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values:

“There’s a ‘sleeper effect’ to divorce that we are just beginning to understand. … Children have a primal need to know who they are, to love and be loved by the two people whose physical union brought them here. To lose that connection, that sense of identity, is to experience a wound that no child-support check or fancy school can ever heal.”

Later in her article, Flanagan reports the research on cohabiting. She quotes Robert Rector, a senior research fellow of domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation. She writes

“When children are born into a co-habiting, unmarried relationship, says Rector, ‘they arrive in a family in which the principals haven’t resolved their most basic issues,’ including those of sexual fidelity and how to share responsibilities. Let a little stress enter the picture—and what is more stressful than a baby?—and things start to fall apart. The new mother starts to make wifelike demands on the man, and without the commitment of marriage, he is soon out the door.”

Science is beginning to uncover what tradition has already assumed – that, where possible, children should be raised by their biological mother and father who are married. This is not to say that children who come from other types of homes cannot prosper. It is only to say that other situations are substitues and usually present some difficult challenges to the children involved.

Marriage in our nation is in decline with more and more children born outside of wedlock (currently about 40% of American children), and each year the number of divorces is about half the number of marriages. The breakdown of the traditional family is enormously costly to our nation, associated with poverty and nearly every other societal ill, and so states and citizens on all ends of the political spectrum are working to fight the disintegration of marriage.

Beyond recognizing that heterosexual marriages have a special role in society, one might still believe that homosexual partners deserve the institution of marriage. Homosexuality has certainly been practiced in all parts of the world throughout history. There are even a few recorded instances of governments recognizing these relationships.  Nevertheless, homosexuality has always been considered an aberration from the norm, and never until our time have homosexual relationships had the same status before the law as heterosexual relationship.

In other words, while homosexuality may be a fact of life, same-gender couples have never been considered an institution. Social experiments with the status of homosexuality may have been tried in the laboratory of history, but none of those experiments have survived for any notable length of time. Heterosexual marriage, on the other hand, was an institution before governments were an institution. Heterosexual marriage is no experiment; it is the tried and true building block of civilization.

Same-gender couples may provide each other with the social and financial benefits that heterosexual couples provide for each other. Furthermore, their emotional and sexual loyalty to each other may provide some benefits to society. Homosexual couples do not, however, have the unique physical ability nor the social responsibility to create and nurture children. A platonic friendship is sometimes the paramount relationship in an individual’s life, but it’s not a relationship recognized or promoted by the government. Homosexual relationships may indeed be of paramount importance to individuals, but they do not further any vital societal need such as creating and nurturing the next generation.

The term family is often used loosley, but it has always connoted a blood relationship. The term marriage has always described a relationship that is designed for procreation. In my view, calling a homosexual relationship a “marriage” or a “family” amounts to what George Orwell, author of Brave New World, would call doublespeak. It recognizes that homosexual partners can have deep affection and commitment for each other, as do married couples, but it obscures the fact that nature never gave homosexual partners the ability or responsibility of parenthood.   

What might be the legal consequences of legalizing gay marriage?

If homosexual marriage was institutionalized on the basis that homosexuals can have emotional and physical feelings as deep as those of a heterosexual couple, the state would be setting a problematic precedent. Consider two sisters who are single, never intend to marry and share a home. Their relationship is not sexual, but their love and commitment to each other might be just as deep as that of a married couple. Additionally, they may wish to benefit from the financial and legal benefits of marriage. How can we bar them from the social and financial benefits of marriage when we have given those benefits to others merely because their relationship is sexual? How can we bar threesomes or foursomes from obtaining marriage rights?

One can only imagine what legal complexities might arise and what difficulties courts would have in enforcing marriage laws if the depth of two people’s social connection and their desire to commit to each other should be the rationale for granting them marriage. And yet, this legal precedent is already being tried. My understanding is that California’s Proposition 8 was overturned on the basis that barring homosexuals from marriage interferred with their constitutional right to “the pursuit of happiness.”

In my view, the court in this case interpreted “the pursuit of happiness” too broadly. Defining the pursuit of happiness is, of course, difficult because happiness is subjective. Certainly the government interferes in our private lives every day in ways that could reasonably be said to counter our pursuit of happiness. A few examples are drug laws, prostitution laws, the regulation of medical professionals, FDA regulations, income taxes, the taxing of alcohol and cigarettes, and institutionalizing psychiatric patients.

Some may think the government should stay out of the situations listed above, but most believe this would be an impractical or impossible way to govern a nation. I believe the government must sometimes interfere with our personal lives in order to promote the greater social good, especially the well-being of children. It is the job of citizens, politicians, and courts, to find a practical and moral balance between interferring with the rights of individuals and protecting the welfare and stability of society at large. I do not believe government is overstepping its bounds when it defines marriage legally as a union between one man and one woman.

Many groups who oppose granting marriage status to homosexual couples, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church), do not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships for homosexual couples, which allow them to make a lifelong commitment to each other, to share a home and finances and to support each other through sickness and death.  In my experience, most people who oppose homosexual activists are not bothered that gay couples want to make life-long commitments.  What they are bothered by is calling such a relationship a “marriage.”  Calling a homosexual relationship a “marriage” amounts to changing the English language; doing so implies that families are a construct of the state, rather than a natural institution merely recognized by the state.  Furthermore, when a state requires its citizens to call a homosexual union a “marriage,” the state is, in effect, coercing its citizens to value homosexual and heterosexual relationships equally, a stance that threatens their religious liberty.   

What might be the social consequences of legalizing gay marriage?

Proponents of gay marriage believe legalizing gay marriage would help society acknowledge the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals as human beings and as citizens. I cannot pretend to know what will happen if gay marriage is recognized by the state, but I do believe it is a dangerous experiment because it further erodes and obscures the cultural ideal of traditional marriage.

A good comparison to the traditional family is the practice of breastfeeding. Both breastfeeding and the traditional family are the natural and historic way of nurturing children. Both the traditional family and breastfeeding create strong social bonds and provide physical benefits to all participants. Traditional families and breastfeeding are universal. Throughout time, both have sometimes been an impossible ideal and substitutes have been found. However, until the 20th century, never have substitues for either breastfeeding or traditional families been considered ideal, nor have they become so widespread as to challenge the norm.

In the 1940s, infant formula gained cultural acceptance as a proper way to feed a child; it was considered the modern and scientifically-proven way to feed a baby. A few decades later, in many parts of the world, breastfeeding became the exception, no longer the rule. This is unfortunate because only after the formula-feeding trend was firmly established did scientists begin to understand the significance of breast milk. Not only does the milk provide perfect nutrition for the baby, changing with the baby’s age, it transmits antibodies from mother to child. Furthermore, the frequence and physical closeness of nursing is thought to nurture the baby mentally and emotionally. Breastfeeding reduces a child’s risk for a myriad of ailments and correlates with higher IQs in adulthood.

When the state came to realize that breastfeeding is so beneficial to infant health, they began promoting it through the WIC program, through Medicaid and through media campaigns. A primary goal in these efforts is to reduce the cost of medical care to children, a cost that society largely bears together.

It is conceivable that some feminists may find this offensive. Who is the government to impose its ideas of gender roles on the public? Women are surely more valuable than their breasts and may find it restrictive to their lifestyle to breastfeed. Shouldn’t men help bear the responsibility of feeding infants? One might argue that the differences between breast-fed children and formula-fed children are so minimal that government is certainly overstepping its bounds in promoting breastfeeding—that government is unnecessarily intruding into the privates lives of women.

The government’s campaign to encourage breastfeeding seems to be working: breastfeeding rates are rising. What if feminists opposed to the government’s actions on this issue should fight for states to give the same support to bottle-feeding as it does to breastfeeding? What if they demanded that bottle-feeding also be called “nursing” so as to show that bottle-feeding is also an appropriate and loving way to “nurse” or nurture a child.

In the same way that bottle-feeding challenged the tried and true way of feeding a child, the idea of homosexual marriage challenges the tried and true way of creating families. The difference is that bottle-feeding has already been normalized and found to be inferior, while gay marriage has yet to become widespread. It is my belief that if we legalize homosexual marriage, within a few decades, the scientific evidence will accumulate to show that our nation’s experiment with homosexual marriage only added to our social problems.

Children are too valuable to be experimented with, and thus we should support policies that increase the likelihood of children being raised by their biological mother and father. We should preserve the ideal of mother-father-child.

What is a good solution to the LGBT community’s request for marriage?

One solution to satisfying the LGBT community’s desire for greater equality before the law would be to create a “significant other” law that could benefit anyone who is not married. It would allow any two people to make a lifelong commitment to mutually care for each other, share employee benefits such as health and life insurance, share finances, and make decisions for each other in the event of mental incapacity. This type of law could give all people the same legal advantages that marriage gives heterosexual couples.

A “significant other” law, along with enforcement of laws barring discrimination in employment and housing, would create a situation in which both traditional families and gay couples may prosper. To those who believe this amounts to discrimination, I agree. The true meaning of discrimination is simply to differentiate.  Discrimination can be evil or false as in differentiating between blacks and whites on the idea that one race is inherently superior. However, in other instances, differentiating between groups of people is not only morally acceptable but necessary, as in legally differentiating between adults and children with the age of eighteen. In the case of heterosexual and homosexual couples, I believe it is crucial to our nation’s well-being that we do differentiate between them so as to preserve the norm of the biological family, giving children the best possible start in life.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to California’s Prop 8 – The Case for Traditional Marriage

  1. Thatcher says:

    Wow! I love it. You should try for a wider audience. I wonder how that is done?

  2. Ana says:

    Hi Lara!
    I hope you remember me! We were in the R.S. presidency way back when at BYU. I hope life is treating you well. I LOVE your blog! I especially appreciated this article on Prop 8. It was very well stated and it’s wonderful to see your values AND your compassion shine through. Bravo.
    I hope life continues to go well for you.
    Take care and my best to you and your family,
    Ana Kemple Reeves 🙂

  3. David Morse says:

    First, I must state I am not a Mormon Christian, I’m a Methodist and therefore not entirely on the same page as you to start with. However, someone I greatly care about posted this article as an example of her feelings on the subject. I then read it and felt your argument was directed to a wider audience. If not, I apologize for intruding on a more personal endeavor.
    I will first say I appreciate the final point of trying to come to some understanding of fairness. Legal equality is my ultimate goal and I’ll admit I’m still not entirely convinced the word marriage is a necessity for that to occur. However, your ultimate point was to give any couple the rights of the legal contract portion of a marriage, except for Procreation. Even though you are arguing only on a state basis, I’ll extrapolate and assume these principles would include any federal laws including taxation. This is a commendable step of acceptance and a fairly Christian pursuit in numerous ways. However, your defense of the needed distinction results with our ultimate disagreement over the concept of procreation rights.
    First, I will target my concerns with your argument’s building blocks. The argument engages in a historical exercise to establish a pattern argument of “Marriage has always been between a Man and a Woman.” I will concur that “The family predates all states, and can be found in every culture, in every era. … The state did not create the family; rather, families created the state” -Ellen Sauerbrey, U.S. assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration. What I take issue with is the insinuation that the family has been a “marriage between a man and a woman is the primal way in which communities are organized and children are created and nurtured.” throughout time immemorial. This is factually incorrect, as it has been shown that in multiple cultures (including the Maasai of Kenya currently). For example, the ancient Greeks used a marriage of declaration and understanding to pass property. Or alternatively (if we want to use the Holy Bible as a factual text), Jacob and his ancestors all had families based on multiple wives. This combined with the omission of historical medieval marriages used largely as a means to transfer property (including but not limited to the women themselves) rendered suspicion on further argument. I think you were trying to establish the lack of historical precedent for gay marriage, but all it did was make me doubt what came next. Nonetheless, the next subject matter restored some credibility.
    There is a fine argument in favor of Marriage over Co-habitation with cited sources and a reasonable argument. Until this claim: “Science is beginning to uncover what tradition has already assumed – that, where possible, children should be raised by their biological mother and father who are married. This is not to say that children who come from other types of homes cannot prosper.” The assumption that a gay marriage is equivalent to a Co-Habitation has no back up and in fact it is a non-sequitur. By denying gay marriage, It remove the legal tools of creating a permanent obligation that would create the stable relationship that we want our children’s parents to have. Furthermore, the statistics about children born out of wedlock fail to tie the argument except by previous assertion.
    Now to the strategic meat: the argument relies on the history building blocks to point out how it has never been done. But as I previously pointed out, the historical building blocks were flawed, and nearly irrelevant to this paragraph. In fact, the resulting assertions (some of which I agree with and some of which I don’t) have no citation or back up. But in the end, it still boils down to “Regardless of the benefits that may or may not exist from Homosexual relationships, they are still aberrations, Hetero Marriages have stood the test of time. We shouldn’t risk children in a Non-Hetero marriage.” I’ll admit that non-hetero marriages have far less historical precedent. But multi-racial marriages have less proven time than single-racial, and marriages for love less historical precedent than arranged. The underlying argument I could simply move back to the relevant time period and reuse. I am not saying that you are a racist or a believer in arranged marriages. I just want to be clear that this argument is a reliable establishment social statist argument.
    This section finishes indelicately with a starting sentence which was personally offensive to me and many who values adoption (But I doubt this was your intended target, so it gets a pass). But family is more than bloodlines for many of us. This sentence: “The term family is often used loosley, but it has always connoted a blood relationship “ makes it hard to take this sentence seriously: “It recognizes that homosexual partners can have deep affection and commitment for each other, as do married couples, but it obscures the fact that nature never gave homosexual partners the ability or responsibility of parenthood.“
    Now into the new section used to address Prop 8 specifically. This part isn’t offensive to me personally, but it would offend nearly every person I know with a personal stake in this. The argument that allowing marriage to gays would open the door to incest and polygamy is again fairly indelicate and doesn’t even have a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” basis in reality. The problem with this argument is that why didn’t access to polygamy in our western history open the door to gay marriage? “The slippery slope” or “gateway” argument requires establishing a degree of severity to each aspect corresponding to a path of stepping stones. We know that polygamy and incestual marriages have been present in history, yet no Gay marriage appeared. Is this because Gay marriage is worse or equivalent? If they are immorally equitable why is one prevalent in history and the other non-existent? This particular argument has never been able to answer the relevant question and in this paper it is absent as well. It is also unnecessary to your point and only serves in the social arena, not in the legal one.
    Then tackling the legal challenge of Prop 8, it’s a fine layman’s perspective of understanding the difficulties concerning “pursuit of happiness.” But the base argument to preserve Prop 8 relies on the establishment of protecting children. Something I contest this article fails to prove.
    Now we come to the weakest section of the argument, comparing Gay marriage to Infant formula and Hetero marriage to breast feeding. The reason for its weakness is not the reliance on contested previous assertion; but rather, the fact that the Government does not mandate Breast feeding. In fact, some women cannot breast feed for biological reasons. The argument unintentionally implies that while Hetero marriage is preferred and should be promoted, the government should not prohibit Gay marriage as an alternative to preserve children. Surely, this was not the intention, but the argument is very vulnerable here. Hoping to inspire a fear of soon-to-be, but currently unproven, nebulous social ills is not worth the tradeoff of the vulnerability. Because the easiest response is: “But I’d rather an infant have baby formula than die from malnutrition.” And I still think the assertions established early on fail to provide the building blocks needed for the argument to fly.
    Finally, we come to the solution. It’s not a horrible solution, except it fails to take into account any extenuating circumstances. It mainly targets adoption possibilities; but it also gives the law a bias in favor of heterosexuality over a homosexuality in custody cases, potentially to the exclusion of other aspects. Homosexuality will be a defining reason to award custody away as they are defined as unfit parents. The people most likely to be punished in this system are children in the adoption system or the children brought into this world through the plethora of opportunities for these homosexual mothers and fathers and awarded away to Heterosexual parents who may be unfit for other reasons.
    Thank you for your patience and consideration through this. I appreciate the honesty and bravery of this post, and perhaps you can address some of my concerns with your position. But if not, have a good day!

    • Lara says:

      David, I replied to this several months back, but somehow it was deleted, and so for the sake of future readers, I am going to respond again to your arguments:

      You agree that marriage predates the state and is found in every culture, but then bring up the Maasai of Kenya, and I’m not sure why. Are you talking about polygamy, marriage between one man and several women? I didn’t address polygamy directly in my post, but I am lumping polygamous marriages in the same category as other heterosexual marriages because they bind together a man and a woman for life for procreative purposes. Polygamous marriages are certainly different from monogamous ones, but biologically they make sense, especially when a community has a shortage of men, from war for example. I believe polygamy is an institution prone to abuse, but that it can work, and that it honors the needs of children.

      I’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to with the reference to medieval marriages either. Are you saying that marriages were not made between a man and a woman and that children born to the woman were not assumed to be fathered by the husband? If you are saying that people in different times and places have used marriage for other purposes besides binding a man to a woman and thus her children, then I agree. Individuals have used marriage for their own purposes. However, marriage, so long as anyone can discover, has always served the societal need of creating reproductive order and securing a man to his children. In other words, I can’t say for certain why individuals decided to enter into marriage throughout time immemorial—indeed U.S. judges are struggling to decide why people today enter into marriage. I can say, though, that they did enter into it. The institution is so universal that your statement, “I’ll admit that non-hetero marriages have far less historical precedent” than homosexual marriages is an extraordinary understatement. We must admit that homosexual marriage is a social experiment. I reject the comparison between gay marriage and the legalization of inter-racial marriages and the social acceptance of marriages for love. These things changed the culture, but they did not alter the very nature of marriage from being an institution for procreative sex to something else.

      Next you take issue with my assertion that the word family connotes a blood relationship. True, there are times when non-related people become so close that they say things such as, “We’re like family.” Of course, this phrase is, in and of itself, evidence that my assertion is true. Occasionally people go even a step further and call non-related people things like “Grandpa” or “Auntie” because they have effectively adopted each other. Of course, adoptive parents do this, which is certainly the appropriate thing to do. But I find it silly that you would take issue with my statement that the word “family connotes a blood relationship.” If that were not the case, then this paragraph would make no sense at all. As it is, you understand the English language, and my words are perfectly sensible. Family is one kind of thing. Friends are another. Adoption is a substitute when biological family is not available or possible. My husband’s grandfather was an adult before he knew he was adopted, which shows that it wouldn’t normally occur to someone that they are not biologically related to their own parents. This is all common sense.

      Next up, I stand by my statement that it is doublespeak to call a homosexual relationship a “marriage.” By doing so we are altering the English language to suit people’s political purposes. If marriage had not always been between a man and a woman, then why can I say “marriage” and you assume I mean between a man and a woman, but if I want to refer to a homosexual relationship, I must prefaced the word “marriage” with “homosexual?”

      Next you take issue with my idea that homosexual marriage opens the door to polygamy and incest. I did not say it opens the door to incest; please re-read what I wrote. I did, however, say that it opens the door to polygamy. You say they have not occurred together in the past, therefore there’s no reason to believe they will occur together in the future. But this thinking omits the reason we are considering granting gay marriage—to treat people equally, to be fair and unbiased in our judgment of others’ relationships. How can we grant homosexual marriage to gay couples simply because they want to improve their social and legal standing and yet deny it to people who are already practicing polygamy, such as fundamentalist Mormons? Have you seen the reality show “Sister Wives” about a Mormon fundamentalist family? They love their way of life and consider polygamy an essential part of practicing their religion. Why should they be left out? Actually, their marriages are not only unrecognized by the government, they are considered criminal, and are often prosecuted when they are discovered to be performing them. Where is the justice in that? Muslims also practice polygamy. What if a Muslim family immigrates to the U.S? Should they be left out of our legal and social systems because they have an alternative way of marrying? I don’t see how anyone can be for legalizing homosexual marriage and polygamous marriage.

      Next you take issue with my comparison between infant formula and homosexual marriage. Your response is, “But I’d rather an infant have baby formula than die from malnutrition.” This statement is a false dilemma. I have not suggested we should outlaw formula feeding, only that we don’t call it breastfeeding. I have not suggested that we outlaw homosexual relationships, only that we don’t call them “marriages.” In comparing homosexual marriage to formula feeding I only mean to say that we’ve tried replacing biological norms with new, fashionable substitutes. It didn’t work then, so why are we so arrogant to think our new fashionable substitute will work? My earlier discussion of divorce and co-habiting is essentially the same argument. We have made co-habiting socially acceptable and divorce easy because we wanted to help adults live more freely. Now that we have enough children who come from these backgrounds, we can scientifically see how it has affected them, and the preponderance of evidence indicates that it sets them back. Homosexual marriage is another social experiment, and time has shown that our social experiments, especially when they replace a natural, biological process, are going to harm children. I find the idea that gay couples can replace natural parents without any unwanted side effects to be astonishing hubris.

      Next you talk about children who are adopted by homosexual couples or come to them through other means, presumably by sperm or egg donation. If there was a shortage of adoptive parents, there might be some merit in your argument, but that is not the case. It’s competitive to adopt children; Americans often pay a fortune and travel to Russia or Asia to adopt. Secondly, the current policy in most states is to place children for adoption into families of the same race if at all possible, the idea being that it’s more natural for the child and the parent. This seems a wise policy, to give preference to adoptive parents of the same race, so long as they are deemed responsible people. So how is it strange to suggest that children ought to be placed with heterosexual adoptive parents if possible because it’s a more natural situation? It’s only common sense.

      As far as sperm and egg donating go, I believe that is a well-intentioned form of human trafficking. I don’t believe it’s wise to sell or donate children. Children should come to this earth in a natural way. We don’t understand all the reasons why, just as we don’t understand all the reasons why natural foods are inferior to processed ones. Scientific research, again and again, reveals that nature is more complex than anyone had imagined, that we don’t understand all that is occurring in a common biological process such as sleep or reproduction. Social and natural science have offered us ample reason to give pause before trying to replace nature.

  4. Rebecca says:

    I read through your essay and David’s response and have some points to share. First of all, because it’s written on a blog called Mormon Worldview, he assumes it’s a Mormon point of view even though you use no doctrine to back yourself up. You use science. And so because you use (mostly) science, he took it apart like it was a science paper. And he did it pretty accurately. But you intended it as an op-ed piece, (which might have made it a weaker argument). Also, he objects to your so-called “offensive” statements, which were maybe not so p.c., but you can’t take an argument apart scientifically and then object if something offends you. Science doesn’t care if you’re offended, it’s about facts.

    Also, claims that a family is about blood is exceptionally weak. Even Mormons believe that sealing in the temple is more powerful than blood, since adoption and being sealed to a step-parent wipes out the claims of blood. And finally, I have to say that I personally hate when someone claims that “ancient civilizations did it such and such way”. What do I care what the ancient Greeks or Maasai do/did? Do you see any ancient Greeks around? No, cause their society is destroyed. Also, lots of ancient cultures kidnapped their brides and had slaves. Why are their ways considered superior to ours? Don’t we have science, the Gospel, and the Enlightenment on our side?

  5. Pingback: My New Favorite Blog | Mormon Worldview

  6. valerie mason says:

    Well written Lara. Of course I agree with your viewpoint and I’m not looking for ways to be offended your presentation. As to children being raised with other than biological parents, I am one of them. I have been blessed to stay with my mother and be adopted by a very good man but I can’t say that I haven’t had challenges. In fact, what is interesting is that I recognize more clearly later in life how my situation did affect me in negative ways when at the time I didn’t realize it. I consider that my life has turned out fairly normal although I believe my circumstances presented some challenges not usually found in biological parenting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *