shuamort

Study Results
Researchers looked at information gleaned from 15 studies on more than 500 children, evaluating possible stigma, teasing and social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths.

Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.

"Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."

Another study of 37 children of 27 divorced lesbian mothers and a similar number of children of heterosexual mothers found no differences in behavior, adjustment, gender identity, and peer relationships.

Orius

There is no rational evidence one can use against homosexuality... only bigotry and religious doctrine, both of which have no relevance in court. Unfortunately, these bigots still have the right to exercise the vote which they will happily do. The only thing the evangelicals can hope for in stopping gay marriage is a turnout of their sheer, ignorant numbers.

the makeout hobo

A Field Poll (very good pollster for the state) just put out a poll that put Prop 8, the gay marriage ban, at 42-51. That's right, a majority of californians are voting NO on prop 8.

__________________
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).Vague is a man of honor

Kandahar

It seems highly likely to me that this will be defeated by a greater than 2-to-1 margin. California is simply not a state that's going to put up with this stupid **** from the Christian Taliban, in this day and age.

__________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams

The silenced majority

That's right ignorant bigots.


I'm sure that the soldiers who died in Trenton, Yorktown, Gettysburg, face down in the sands of Normandy & Iwo Jima, in Saigon, Fallujah, Baghdad & Kabul fought so that American history could be summed up as the actions of white homophobic bigots.


Bigots or not, this country, where the will of the people is routinely usurped by activist judges & group identity pressure, is quickly becoming a place that a pretty good portion of the people are becoming more and more detached from.

roguenuke

There will always be a fight for balance between what is fair and what some people think they deserve over other people because of who they are or what they believe in. Homosexuality is just one of those topics which that fight seems to have some hard punches.

For example, if all things about the government endorsed marriage were fair then the government would put out exact qualifications and reasons for allowing certain unions and not allowing others that did not contradict each other. And it would stop allowing laws to be made that take away someone's right to say or think or do something that doesn't actually harm someone else but makes them feel "uncomfortable", i.e. hate crime laws that have no other crime connected to them and insistence on being PC.

TheNextEra

The anti-gay marriage folks are just upset their days of discriminating against gays will be over. It is sad that conservatives are the ones that want to discriminate the most.

Thank goodness we do have protections in this country to prevent the tyranny of the majority on rights of individuals.

The silenced majority

I agree. Marriage IMO is a unique social institution that's chief sanction is it's antiquity and shouldn't be impugned; kind of like the right to own private property.

I understand where you are coming from. I believe that people wanting to preserve a social institution like traditional marriage is quite different than somebody seeking out the government to create laws to prevent an individual from being offended.

Some people who seek to defend traditional marriage don't do so because they are "offended" by homosexuals; of course many do though, I'll concede that, to be clear.

roguenuke

An institution that is a part of our government should not be defended for its inequality based on tradition. I would say that the only reason that the government could see only a man and a woman together in marriage as a benefit to society is due to the belief that they may one day have and raise their own children, which has been proven time and again to be the most desirable family structure in most cases. However, this explanation does not explain why we still allow women who have gone past menopause to get married (just one example, but the most easily recognizable group unable to naturally have their own children with the person they are marrying within heterosexual couples). Since our government still chooses to allow this type of marriage without giving an alternate explanation as to why this would be allowed but that gay couples are not, then the government is discriminating against gays based on tradition and ideological principles. The purpose of government regulation of marriage should be to ensure that the couple is two consenting adults and neither are married to someone else. (I don't have a problem with polygamy, but think that it should be regulated a little different than a two-person marriage just due to certain extra legal issues that may arise from it.) Just the fact that two people are willing to take responsibility for each other should be a benefit to society, but it might also allow for some more children to have a loving home with two married parents to raise them, no matter what sexual orientation those parents may have.

VTA

What's progressive about it? I don't particularly have an opinion on gay marriage, but why would being for it be viewed as 'progress'? How is it beneficial to society? Who benefits, outside of the people who would be married? Does it further us a society?

A want by a certain demographic is simply that: a want, not necessarily a benefit to society.

__________________
-VTA