- Joined
- Jan 12, 2005
- Messages
- 23,580
- Reaction score
- 12,388
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
And you have no proof for this assertion.
Sure I do.
And you have no proof for this assertion.
Single parents can indeed do an exemplary job of rearing children as can gay parents. I know a number of people in both groups. But that does not change the fact that whether they are straight or gay, children generally benefit more from having a traditional loving mother and father in the home.
The statistics say otherwise.
I've known 2 parent families who would have been better off being divorced. My best friend as a tween had raging alcoholics for parents, and while my parents had issues, they were Ward and June Cleaver next to her parents. I swear I think the only reason they did not divorce was because they wouldn't have had anyone else to beat up.
There is a saying for that. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. I took statistics in college and learned early on how easy numbers are to manipulate
Yup, but in this case the statistics are not being used to manipulate the perception.
You can always find anecdotal arguments for just about anything. My argument is not on a case by case basis but on the big picture overall.
But that's sort of the point I'm making. When a society makes traditional marriage unnecessary or unimportant and rejects what it is intended to be and/or the positive attributes it produces or redefines what it is, then more and more people just don't bother to engage in it.
But there's more to life than money - and I find women so much more fun ...You're too limited in your thinking. A man statistically has a better income, or so it is claimed, so what you want is another husband. Or better yet, do what I did and get one of each.
But there's more to life than money - and I find women so much more fun ...
The statistics say otherwise.
Sure I do.
Good morning Captain.
My "point" is only pointless to the one who disagrees. Even in your profession, not everyone is in agreement. That is why you find articles written by psychiatrists for and against same sex couples raising children. For and against different treatments for gender confusion. etc.
Men and women are not only different physically, their minds work differently. But just as their physical bodies are designed to compliment one another in a relationship, so do their minds when working as a team. I call it the head and the heart. Too much of one or the other can result in bad consequences. It takes a balance of both. In all honesty, there are things my spouse contributed to the raising of our children that I lack simply because of my physical limits but most of all because the way I am wired. Even with two of me, there would still be that void and visa versa.
Morning Captain.Two things of note. Research disagrees with you. So much research has demonstrated that two same sex parents do as well as two opposite sex parents that major organizations such as the APA, the AMA, and WHO have accepted this as a given and stated that there is no good reason that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt. Secondly, the differences that you describe are more about the individuals rather than the sex of the individuals. Two parents who have different strengths tend to do better, then two parents who are too much alike.
Morning Captain.
You keep mentioning ALL this research to support gays raising children but there is also ALL this research out there that says differently. Organizations like the APA and the AMA can be just as political as those in robes on the Supreme Court. I believe it was in the year 1974 maybe 73 the APA was under pressure to remove homosexuality from their list of disorders. So by a vote of 13 trustees, overnight they cured with a vote what they classified as a disorder for over a century and removed it from the list. Did those 13 trustees represent the opinions of every member of the APA? Absolutely not. Did those 5 justices who were politically appointed that took it upon themselves to redefine marriage for this country represent a large portion of citizens in this country? No they did not. It always seems to boil down to a small group of elitists calling the shots for everyone. Take global warming. You have an elite group of scientists telling us the sky is falling. If a scientist dissents they are mocked in hopes of others will not take them seriously. It is as if all things start and end in politics.
Yes.
This concept of marriage has been twisted beyond recognition and it is time to end the government involvement in the bedroom. Churches or whatever can continue to marry people but there should be no government benefits involved. The value of marriage is simply that which the married couple/group place on it and the esteem in which they hold it.
Government issued special benefits given for marriage have come a long way. Perhaps the government thought that it was good public policy to encourage family stability for the development of children. But that idea is outdated now and what is left is this silly, Biblical based, idea that sexual relationships are so important that they should be done only by 2 people in a long term committed relationship and that government should support this by giving special benefits.
Keep government out of the bedroom and allow equal rights to asexuals, nonsexuals, people who encourage and support short-term non committed sexual relations, polygamists, polyandrists, etc.. This can be done by either eliminating all those special marriage rights or somehow granting equal rights to all those other people. Remember, we are approaching 50% of the adult population being unmarried, many for life. Where is their "equality"?
Morning Captain.
You keep mentioning ALL this research to support gays raising children but there is also ALL this research out there that says differently. Organizations like the APA and the AMA can be just as political as those in robes on the Supreme Court. I believe it was in the year 1974 maybe 73 the APA was under pressure to remove homosexuality from their list of disorders. So by a vote of 13 trustees, overnight they cured with a vote what they classified as a disorder for over a century and removed it from the list. Did those 13 trustees represent the opinions of every member of the APA? Absolutely not. Did those 5 justices who were politically appointed that took it upon themselves to redefine marriage for this country represent a large portion of citizens in this country? No they did not. It always seems to boil down to a small group of elitists calling the shots for everyone. Take global warming. You have an elite group of scientists telling us the sky is falling. If a scientist dissents they are mocked in hopes of others will not take them seriously. It is as if all things start and end in politics.
I find your answer odd, coming from a self described "very liberal".Yes, they do. Especially since your god is not an elected or recognized power within the United States government.
Most of society views marriage as having a value, including societal value.
You don't have to have sex to get married. Marriage is about establishing a legal kinship, not sex.
Those that aren't married yet are free to get married if they want the benefits of marriage, of the kinship established by marriage. Just like if you want the benefits established by any other contract with another person.
I find your answer odd, coming from a self described "very liberal".
Why should the government be involved in the bedroom? That is the real issue here. For some time, same sex couples have been allowed to cohabitate and to call themselves married. This ruling really concerned the special rights given to governmentally approved marriages by the government and the "equality" that these special rights should grant. But think about this. As currently defined, marriage is based on a basically Biblical belief that sex between 2 individuals is so special that it should be only done by adults in a long term loving relationship. And because it is so special , government grants these couples special rights. How archaic is that?
Before, only hetero couples got these special government issued rights. Now same sex couples do as well. And, as we approach 50% of the adult population being single, many for life, where is the equality for them? Why are special rights given to people who subscribed to the Biblical idea that sex should only be done between 2 people in a long term, loving relationship? What about asexuals, non-sexuals, polygamists, polyandrists, and, most importantly and the biggest group, the people who do not prescribed to the Biblical ideals and are content to have a variety of short term non committed sexual encounters?
Keep government out of the bedroom by ending all government issued benefits based on this religious concept. The value of "marriage" is from the participants themselves and the esteem in which they hold marriage. No government special benefits need to be required.
I find your answer odd, coming from a self described "very liberal".
Why should the government be involved in the bedroom?
They don't, and my point didn't reflect that. Being allowed a marriage license and having sex are separate issues.