Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

CriticalThought said:

I'm advocating on behalf of children and you are advocating against them. That is the case.

Click to expand...

Yep,.. you got me,.. that's what I'm known for.

And with tactics like this, you wonder why you have a hard time getting the results you want.

/ignore

Chuz Life said:

Yep,.. you got me,.. that's what I'm known for.

And with tactics like this, you wonder why you have a hard time getting the results you want.

/ignore

Click to expand...

As a completely off-topic side discussion...

I don't see the point of actually using the ignore function to ignore someone.

You may disagree, and their arguements may make no sense whatsoever to you (or even anyone, for that matter), but they still exist, and ignoring them may lead to your forgetting that line of arguement (however insane, in your opinion).

The Mark said:

As a completely off-topic side discussion...

I don't see the point of actually using the ignore function to ignore someone.

You may disagree, and their arguements may make no sense whatsoever to you (or even anyone, for that matter), but they still exist, and ignoring them may lead to your forgetting that line of arguement (however insane, in your opinion).

Click to expand...

I've deleoped (over time) another use for the ignore function.

You're right,.. their sentiments will continue to exist regardless.

I use the ignore function to remind myself the type person I'm dealing with. And When I peek at what they say,... I do so with it in mind that it's likely not going to be a productive exchange were I to re-engage them in debate.

It's a time managment thing.

Chuz Life said:

I've developed (over time) another use for the ignore function.

You're right,.. their sentiments will continue to exist regardless.

I use the ignore function to remind myself the type person I'm dealing with. And When I peek at what they say,... I do so with it in mind that it's likely not going to be a productive exchange were I to re-engage them in debate.

It's a time management thing.

Click to expand...

Ah, thanks for the explanation.

Edit: Back on topic now, side discussion over.

The Mark said:

Hmm, that could be.

I think what I read had more to do with the different parenting styles that a male would use as opposed to a female, and how the two combined would be better than two females.

Although not much, if I recall.

Perhaps if I rephrase, as I recall more of that which I read.

If two persons raise a child with the well-being of the child in mind, all things being equal, a male-female parent combo will result in a more balanced child than a female-female combo.

Although only just.

A male-male combo would be third, followed by a single female, and lastly by a single male.

Of course, that doesn't count multiple females and one male, or multiple males and one female, or multiple females and multiple males, in any given combo.

But those are the exceptions, not the rule.

And, of course, this was presented as a general guideline, as there would always be exceptions.

Click to expand...

The gender role hypothesis. There isn't any evidence to back it up. The thing is that a child is exposed to more than just their parents. Grandparents, uncles, aunts, teachers, mentors, etc. A child who is raised by two parents of the same sex will still develop their gender role. No study have ever found that children raised by lesbians or gays are any better or worse adjusted than those raised by heterosexual couples.

For you benefit, here is the original argument I made with the evidence to back it up.

There are 8 to 10 million children of gay parents and same sex couples and the latest 25 years of research indicates that gay couples can raise children just as well as different sex couples. Furthermore there are tens of thousands of children in the foster care system who will never be adopted by a different sex couple and who would do better being raised by a married same sex couple than they would being raised by the state or by an individual parent. Two parent homes whether different sex or opposite sex, are the best at raising children, and the state has an interest in promoting them for the purpose of raising children. Even institutions like the American Pediatric Association have conclusively found that those children would benefit from same sex marriage.

So if you believe in general welfare, then I would assume you believe in the welfare of all those children, and thus you would choose to support same sex marriage.

Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents: Resources for Professionals and Parents-Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents: Resources for Professionals and Parents

http://www.teach.virginia.edu/files..._children_of_lesbian_and_gay_parents_cdps.pdf

The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children -- Pawelski et al. 118 (1): 349 -- Pediatrics

Click to expand...

The reason some people believe in the gender hypothesis is because social conservatives have misused statistics of single mothers, so called "fatherless" statistics, to argue that a parent of both sex is needed in the home. The reality is that most of the problems of those children are the result of being raised by a single parent, rather than by two parents. Half the income and attention alone accounts for why single parents have difficulty providing as adequate parenting as two parent homes.

Chuz Life said:

I've deleoped (over time) another use for the ignore function.

You're right,.. their sentiments will continue to exist regardless.

I use the ignore function to remind myself the type person I'm dealing with. And When I peek at what they say,... I do so with it in mind that it's likely not going to be a productive exchange were I to re-engage them in debate.

It's a time managment thing.

Click to expand...

You are a social conservative. You use the ignore function to avoid arguments that threaten your beliefs. Since I reduced your argument to simply your opinion versus the facts, you had no choice but to run away or face changing your beliefs. Call it what you want, it is cowardice.

And no, I'm not going to be nice to someone who ignores facts so that they can dictate what kind of relationship I can have.

CriticalThought said:

The gender role hypothesis. There isn't any evidence to back it up. The thing is that a child is exposed to more than just their parents. Grandparents, uncles, aunts, teachers, mentors, etc. A child who is raised by two parents of the same sex will still develop their gender role. No study have ever found that children raised by lesbians or gays are any better or worse adjusted than those raised by heterosexual couples.

Click to expand...

Hmm, that could be.

It wasn't presented as a gender role issue though, but more as if the male-female combo provided a broader spectrum of responses and thus better developed the child.

The female half was presented as having a greater effect, and thus a female-female combo was a close second.

Or something like that...

But the thought of other relatives did occur to me when I was typing my last post. Depending on what role they played, it would obviously have a corresponding effect.

CriticalThought said:

For you benefit, here is the original argument I made with the evidence to back it up.

Click to expand...

Thanks

CriticalThought said:

The reason some people believe in the gender hypothesis is because social conservatives have misused statistics of single mothers, so called "fatherless" statistics, to argue that a parent of both sex is needed in the home. The reality is that most of the problems of those children are the result of being raised by a single parent, rather than by two parents. Half the income and attention alone accounts for why single parents have difficulty providing as adequate parenting as two parent homes.

Click to expand...

I don’t have any way of knowing that this is true, but it does sound plausible.

It would seem that even if you removed the income aspect, the attention time aspect required would still lead to better results from two or more parental figures. Not to mention watching the by-play between two or more parents probably assists in a child’s communication skill development.

A thought I had, however…

I don’t suppose there is much data out there, but I wonder if multiple (as in, more than two) direct parental figures has a positive or negative effect on a child’s development?

Damn, I'm getting sidetracked from the gay marriage issue here...

The Mark said:

Regarding the aspect of this discussion focused on the children facet of marriage.

I think I read somewhere that as a general rule, a Male + Female parent combo was best for raising a child.

Followed by Female + Female.

I cannot recall where I read this, and it obviously depends on the individuals involved, but I thought I’d throw it into the mix.

Click to expand...

Probably has something to do with promiscuity and the stability of said relationships, but idk.

The Mark said:

I don’t suppose there is much data out there, but I wonder if multiple (as in, more than two) direct parental figures has a positive or negative effect on a child’s development?

Damn, I'm getting sidetracked from the gay marriage issue here...

Click to expand...

There is an old saying. "It takes a tribe to raise a child."

Humans are primates, and that means we naturally congregate in formations of several extended families called tribes. The nuclear family is an artificial construct that has only emerged in the last few hundred years of human existence.

CriticalThought said:

There is an old saying. "It takes a tribe to raise a child."

Humans are primates, and that means we naturally congregate in formations of several extended families called tribes. The nuclear family is an artificial construct that has only emerged in the last few hundred years of human existence.

Click to expand...

So one could argue that Mormons are actually the true conservatives?

:mrgreen:


Just sayin'

Edit: Actually, that's probably not quite the same...More like a really large "nuclear family".

People have a right to defend their religion. And that includes the religious ceremony known as marriage.

It's none of their business, though, if gay people want to form some sort of legal agreement. As long as they don't call it marriage..

sazerac said:

People have a right to defend their religion. And that includes the religious ceremony known as marriage.

It's none of their business, though, if gay people want to form some sort of legal agreement. As long as they don't call it marriage..

Click to expand...

What if some religions believe in Gay Marriage and want to call it that?

Dezaad said:

What if some religions believe in Gay Marriage and want to call it that?

Click to expand...

I would say accept that other religions don't accept it.

sazerac said:

People have a right to defend their religion. And that includes the religious ceremony known as marriage.

It's none of their business, though, if gay people want to form some sort of legal agreement. As long as they don't call it marriage..

Click to expand...

Your argument is fallacious. The religious beliefs of this country are not uniform. There are those who believe that gay marriage is moral and those who believe it is immoral.

Dezaad said:

What if some religions believe in Gay Marriage and want to call it that?

Click to expand...

I think the issue is one of the legal usage of the word "marriage".

As long as it's a purely religious usage, as in one religion uses marriage to refer only to male-female unions, but another uses it to define all two-person unions (or perhaps more?), I would hope most wouldn't have an issue.

But using it to define the legal union of two persons (financially, and otherwise) as is currently the case, if looked at in one way "forces" it's usage for unions that some would disagree with (on religious grounds).

That said, Jerry made a good point that the only real reason there is a legal "marriage" is mostly for financial reasons, and the financial incentives were put in place to encourage raising children (or at least I think so).

Now, obviously male-male unions or female-female unions CAN raise children, but it seems probable that the majority (even if it's only a few percentage points) would not plan to (male-male unions probably to a greater extent).

Now, we could re-define the usage of a legal marriage as exclusively for the purpose of raising children (if that's not the case already in some areas), but enforcing that would be really "interesting"...

Meh.

I've found it's not much of an issue for me.

It's just a word.

But I think using a different legal term would lower resistance by some.

The Mark said:

Now, obviously male-male unions or female-female unions CAN raise children, but it seems probable that the majority (even if it's only a few percentage points) would not plan to (male-male unions probably to a greater extent).

Click to expand...

What do you base that on? Furthermore, based on the census only 44% of married couples have children. That means that less of half the people who are married have kids.

CriticalThought said:

What do you base that on? Furthermore, based on the census only 44% of married couples have children. That means that less of half the people who are married have kids.

Click to expand...

I base that on nothing other than my own observations of the news items covering the gay marriage debate.

Have children been mentioned at all?

If so, I have yet to hear of it.

It's all about the "right" to be legally equal, and so forth.

If the raising of children were the reason, you would think it'd be mentioned.

But, regarding your stat, it only proves my point, even if gay marriages were completely identical to heterosexual ones - it would still be the minority that were for the purpose of raising children...

Yeah, I know... :mrgreen:

But perhaps my thought of re-defining the legal usage of marriage is more poignant then...

Perhaps there should be two union types, one for child-raising purposes, with better tax breaks, and one for simple financial union purposes, with lesser ones.

If, after all, the point of legal marriages is still to encourage the raising of children.

CriticalThought said:

What do you base that on? Furthermore, based on the census only 44% of married couples have children. That means that less of half the people who are married have kids.

Click to expand...

You're assuming no one is misusing "marriage". Please account for your assumption.

Also, how many of those couples have had children who are now grown or deceased? How many of those couples have had children but aborted them? How many of those couples want to have children someday but do not have children presently?

Most importantly, what % of gay couples have children now?

sazerac said:

I would say accept that other religions don't accept it.

Click to expand...

But they still don't get to have their gay parishioners be married and to call it marriage?

The Mark said:

If, after all, the point of legal marriages is still to encourage the raising of children.

Click to expand...

Touche. It is one of my greatest frustrations that the GM movement does not use the family argument. Marriage has other institutional functions. Married people longer, healthier, more emotionally fulfilling lives. But I can't argue that marriage is solely for children. I find it ironic that conservatives are more inclinded to do things that will affect heterosexuals people's marriage than gays have ever planned. If gays are allowed marriage, it will virtually have no effect on the marriages of heterosexual people, but if some conservatives have their way, they would annul nearly 60% of the heterosexual marriages in this country. Funny, isn't it? You begin letting conservatives control the definition of marriage, and they slowly start destroying it in ways that gays never could.

Jerry said:

You're assuming no one is misusing "marriage". Please account for your assumption.

Also, how many of those couples have had children who are now grown or deceased? How many of those couples have had children but aborted them? How many of those couples want to have children someday but do not have children presently?

Most importantly, what % of gay couples have children now?

Click to expand...

I have no idea what percentage of gay couples have children now. I only know that up 8 to 10 million children could benefit from it, in addition to thousands of kids in foster care.

If you have better statistics to indicate how many married people over the course of their lives have kids, then I would love to see them. What is clear is that currently less than half the people who are married, have kids.

Jerry said:

You're assuming no one is misusing "marriage". Please account for your assumption.

Also, how many of those couples have had children who are now grown or deceased? How many of those couples have had children but aborted them? How many of those couples want to have children someday but do not have children presently?

Most importantly, what % of gay couples have children now?

Click to expand...

Its easy enough to have marriage be about couples with children and still be fair to gay people: Don't consider a marriage a legal marriage unless the couple has children. Once all the children are of the age of majority, dissolve the marriage. (They could still be together in a relationship, they just wouldn't be married anymore).

Hmmm, I wonder why we don't do this... OHHHHHH, its because marriage isn't about children. It is obviously about society's interest in providing a stable framework for long term relationships that become financially and socially entwined.

Dezaad said:

Its easy enough to have marriage be about couples with children and still be fair to gay people: Don't consider a marriage a legal marriage unless the couple has children. Once all the children are of the age of majority, dissolve the marriage. (They could still be together in a relationship, they just wouldn't be married anymore).

Hmmm, I wonder why we don't do this... OHHHHHH, its because marriage isn't about children. It is obviously about society's interest in providing a stable framework for long term relationships that become financially and socially entwined.

Click to expand...

So perhaps my recent thought of two types of unions might be an idea.

Although...

I suppose that is already the case, what with increased tax breaks the more children you have...

I give up. I'm just going to let the heteros destroy marriage. They have been doing a good job of destroying their institution, so it only makes sense to let them finish it off. That way they can't blame the gays for it.


Edit: Oh, who am I kidding. They will still blame the gays for it.

CriticalThought said:

I have no idea what percentage of gay couples have children now.

Click to expand...

Those numbers are critical to your argument, because they certainly would convince social conservatives like myself.

CriticalThought said:

I only know that up 8 to 10 million children could benefit from it, in addition to thousands of kids in foster care.

Click to expand...

That's true but worthless since the same can be said for incest; that argument doesn't say anything specific of gay couples, but of just any couple one can imagine.

CriticalThought said:

If you have better statistics to indicate how many married people over the course of their lives have kids, then I would love to see them. What is clear is that currently less than half the people who are married, have kids.

Click to expand...

That statistic only shows how corrupt out culture is. The divorce rate substantiates this as well.

"56% will not raise children like like heteros" is not a convincing argument to those of us who oppose heteros marrying without intent of raising children.

Heteros are not a pure sample for gays to then point to and claim that they are just like.

I put my support behind gay marriage which is exactly like all other marriages I support. This means that I automatically oppose gays marrying when they will form a step-parent family because I oppose heteros doing the same thing. I oppose gays marrying "for the legal benefits" because I already oppose heteros doing the same thing.

All of these distinctions are lost when you look at the issue of marriage through the eyes of identity politics. It's not about social groups, it's about the function an institution is supposed to perform. Any couple capable of performing that function should have access, but you can't identify such a couple merely by what social group they belong to.

So should gays have the right to marry? Hell no they should not. Any couple in loving, stable, committed relationship should have the right to marry be they opposite sex, same sex, mixed race, etc.

The right should not be accessible by just any gay couple just like it shouldn't be accessible by just any hetero couple now.

"Gay rights"...pht, I don't give a **** about "gay rights". How about "stable couple" rights, "couples raising children" rights.

I'm not about to support a gay couple just because of their sexual orientation. That's reverse homophobia and is just as irrational.