Historic Day in California Today

[Steph Laberis]

I am so freaking proud of where I live today. Let's hope it passes on the ballots in November.

http://imgsrv.kcbs.com/image/kcbs/UserFiles/Image/gay%20marriage.jpg

Amazingly, only 3 of Phelps' cronies showed up to protest. They were so sorely outnumbered :confident:

[Ashtonw]

I love my state right now! :D

[Izi]

good for them, let's keep it that way...

[James Kei]

Rejoice!

I drove by City Hall this morning, and there were about 12 news vans out in front.
It was great to witness this historical event.

[Izi]

lets all marry girls to celebrate

and then divorce them

freedom!

edit:

oh i thought this was the girl forum, my bad...

[0kelvin]

Sweet. California scores one for human rights.


Eric

[S.C. Watson]

about damn time.

I just hope the rest of the Union catches up soon.

~Oreg

[Ilaekae]

Damn! Next time I get married, now I'll have to check TWO g'damn genders to find somebody dumb enough...

[Mirana]

I am so freaking proud of where I live today. Let's hope it passes on the ballots in November.

Funny, I was never so disgusted of MY state as when they passed an amendment to ban gay marriage.

How does that logic work anyway? "Separation of church and state" REALLY? Even if you were opposed to gay marriage, SURELY there are bigger issues to spend time and money on than passing law to to interfere with our citizens PRIVATE lives in something that makes them happy (theorically, anyway ;D) and does no harm to anyone else.

I think we should pass an amendment banning marriage for everyone so it can be fair. At least then you'd be sticking with your mate for reasons OTHER than legal ones. :D

[Elwell]

I am so freaking proud of where I live today. Let's hope it passes on the ballots in November.

I think the odds of that are good, and why it was so important that the courts let this go ahead, rather than granting a stay for appeals etc. There's a natural conservatism which is the basis for most anti-marriage equality feelings. But once this happens without gravity failing and the earth spinning off its axis, that same conservatism isn't going to let most people tell thousands of couples that they can't be married anymore.

So, congratulation to all the handsome brides and lovely grooms!

[Aly Fell]

Yay! Good for California!

[bluefooted]

Funny, I was never so disgusted of MY state as when they passed an amendment to ban gay marriage.

How does that logic work anyway?

I was arguing with some dickbag on another forum about this, and his argument was that gays already have the right to marry: a gay man can marry a woman anytime he wants, or a gay woman can marry a man. Seriously. That was his argument as to why the ban doesn't violate separation of church and state and there's no discrimination against gays.

Oh, and you should read this hilarious (yet terrifying) screed against gay marriage (I'm linking to a blog discussing the article, rather than the site that hosts it): http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/05/pragers_nonsense_on_the_califo.php#more

Basically, his argument is that if we allow gay marriage, all women will choose to become lesbians

Anyway, I'm very happy for my home state :)

[Duq]

Its about time, well done :D

[Matsign]

wtg California. I understand how important this is to a lot of couples.

Marriage is personally nothing I'm concerned about of. Maybe one day when I find the right girl/boy.

:D

[Blaz]

Aww, I expected the worlds biggest marshmallow or something similar.

[Costau D]

That is so gay. In a good way. I'm not gay though I just think it's good... *ehem*

[Vhan Juju]

Sorry, I can't agree with this. Marrige is for a man and a woman, I really can't believe that what they have is really "a marrige"...

[B u r l]

I think this is great. Love is love.

[egerie]

Lawyers are quivering with trepidation. The money and drama of those divorces!

Bluefooted : ahahhaahaha what???

I was wondering how long (or how much guts) it would take for detractors of the motion to comment in the thread. I’m not disappointed Vhan Juju!

Anyway back on topic, I'm suprised it took this long for California. I'm happy to see that ideas are evolving and that society (mostly) adjusts to it. Our values are changing and I'm really curious on how future generations (say, 500 years from now) will look at this. It's a bit like how we look at values from the middle ages compared to now on law, value of life, etc.

[Steph Laberis]

Vhan: Well, my parents hardly had a real "marriage" as well (you're supposed to actually love each other, they say that's part of it, right?), but I guess it's obvious where I stand on it being the thread's author and all ;)

Egerie: Agree on all counts (especially the divorce, hate to say it but nothing screws a marriage more than rushing into one!). Not to cheapen the significance of the day as well but we were all reminded on the news last night that the state is in a financial crisis and an estimated $64 million in revenue will be brought in by this ruling. I mean, I know there were other motives to this event but let's not overlook the "practical" ones :/

[mwillustration]

the problem with this is that the courts in this case created legislation which constitutionally is only for congress to do, plus they went over the heads of the people by going against how they VOTED.
when a select few who are appointed and not elected start to make law, freedom and the will of the people begin to fade.

regardless of whether you believe in same sex marriage or not, this case is bad for liberty because the people's decision doesn't matter and it's sets a precedent that will only continue on to other issues. the next case of judges making law might not be one where you like the outcome.

[Elwell]

Our values are changing and I'm really curious on how future generations (say, 500 years from now) will look at this. It's a bit like how we look at values from the middle ages compared to now on law, value of life, etc.
One doesn't have to go back very far at all to see how profoundly attitudes can change. From the wikipedia article on anti-miscegenation laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws):
Most white Americans in the 1950s were opposed to interracial marriage and did not see laws banning interracial marriage as an affront to the principles of American democracy. A 1958 Gallup poll showed that 96 percent of white Americans dissapproved of interracial marriage.

[Mr.Otsredir]

what i dont like is that marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman. and in most religions, homosexuality is considered wrong. when looking at it that why, gay and lesbian marriage shouldnt be allowed.


now the problem lies in that marriage gives the couple benefits. to withhold the same benfits from gay and lesbian couples is wrong, so they should be able to get that. i just dont believe it should be considered marriage.


but in the end, this is such a small issue to me that i really dont care. theres more important issues we need to be looking at.

[Elwell]

when a select few who are appointed and not elected start to make law, freedom and the will of the people begin to fade.
Although California Supreme Court justices are appointed, they must be confirmed by a retention vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_California#Retention_votes) at the next general election and every twelve years thereafter.
The electorate has occasionally exercised the power not to retain justices; because Chief Justice Rose Bird and Associate Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin opposed capital punishment they were removed in 1986.

You say "freedom and the will of the people" as if they were automatically congruent, whereas they sometimes are in direct conflict. Our system of government, with written constitutions and a separation of powers, was set up precisely do deal with such situations.

[fukifino]

From Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History)

The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal. In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public.

So the ban on it due to religious reasons is relatively new. Indeed, religion itself hasn't always even had a part in the joining of a couple.

From About.com (http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm):
The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

and

There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation.

There's also some interesting information about the history of marriage here (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html) if you'd care to take the time to read it.

Modern marriage doesn't hold much, if anything, in common even with marriage at the supposed time of Christ. Using religion as a basis for banning same sex marriage is narrow minded and ignorant.

[Flake]

what i dont like is that marriage is a religious ceremony

Not necessarily, over here you can have completely "religion free" ceremonies that are just as official.

We're a bit behind on the same sex thing though.

[fukifino]

Not necessarily, over here you can have completely "religion free" ceremonies that are just as official.

We're a bit behind on the same sex thing though.

Indeed, I'm getting married in a few months. And there will be no church involved.

[mwillustration]

Although California Supreme Court justices are appointed, they must be confirmed by a retention vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_California#Retention_votes) at the next general election and every twelve years thereafter.


You say "freedom and the will of the people" as if they were automatically congruent, whereas they sometimes are in direct conflict. Our system of government, with written constitutions and a separation of powers, was set up precisely do deal with such situations.

my problem with this is that the people of california already voted to ban same sex marriage and these judges didn't seem to think that that mattered much. the next election cycle this'll come up on the ballot again and probably have the same outcome. people vote to ban it, judges decide to allow it.

when something that is voted on by the people is taken away by a very few, my freedom feels very threatened. it's like them saying "sorry we know this is what you wanted, but we know better than you do."
when that happens this fails to be a country of, by and for the people.

[Elwell]

when something that is voted on by the people is taken away by a very few, my freedom feels very threatened. it's like them saying "sorry we know this is what you wanted, but we know better than you do."
when that happens this fails to be a country of, by and for the people.
You might have felt differently if you were living in the south fifty years ago.

[wassermelone]

my problem with this is that the people of california already voted to ban same sex marriage and these judges didn't seem to think that that mattered much. the next election cycle this'll come up on the ballot again and probably have the same outcome. people vote to ban it, judges decide to allow it.

when something that is voted on by the people is taken away by a very few, my freedom feels very threatened. it's like them saying "sorry we know this is what you wanted, but we know better than you do."
when that happens this fails to be a country of, by and for the people.

Its less that the judges are saying 'we know better than you do' and more that they are checking to see if the law was illegal in the first place. What with constitutions and all.

[mwillustration]

You might have felt differently if you were living in the south fifty years ago.

sorry to be so dense, but could you please explain?
why would i want the will of the people to be overturned by a few judges?
i assume you're equating this issue with the civil rights struggle...
;)

[gruve24]

lets all marry girls to celebrate

and then divorce them

freedom!Whose gonna pay alimony ?? When the honeymoon is over and reality sinks in and the divorce papers come through who will have the most to lose ??

How will this effect divorce for straight marriages ??? Will men finally get a fair deal and not be at risk for losing most of their assets simply because their a male.

Will the courts finally treat men and women as true equals ???

[Elwell]

sorry to be so dense, but could you please explain?
why would i want the will of the people to be overturned by a few judges?
i assume you're equating this issue with the civil rights struggle...
;)
Because in that case the will of "the people" (the majority of the citizens of Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Arkansas, etc) was overturned by the few judges of the Supreme Court. Now, some of the opponents of civil rights were raving, evil racists, but many were people of good will and principle who realized after the fact that they had been on the wrong side of history.

[wassermelone]

why would i want the will of the people to be overturned by a few judges

I hate to Godwin... but the will of the people can be very very very wrong.

Germany elected Hitler.

Majority rule can be as dangerous as minority rule.

[Justice Von Brandt]

Yeah but then when does it stop?

[mwillustration]

Because in that case the will of "the people" (the majority of the citizens of Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Arkansas, etc) was overturned by the few judges of the Supreme Court. Now, some of the opponents of civil rights were raving, evil racists, but many were people of good will and principle who realized after the fact that they had been on the wrong side of history.

thanks for the clarification.

i don't see it as an issue of them not having the same rights as straight couples. i don't care about them being together or even having the same rights, imo, just don't call it marriage. we're changing definitions and institutions here that are not inherently evil whereas slavery and discrimination toward someone based on the fact that they happen to be a different color and therefore less of a person was evil, imo.

i understand the desire to paint this as the same as the civil rights struggle, but to me it's not even close. it's the fact that they want to be called "married" that bugs me. that has always been for a man and a woman farther back than the roman empire. i know this'll rub people wrong, but marriage is a Biblical concept and that's why i think it should stay for only two consenting adults that are of the opposite sex.

sorry, i just can't fall in line on the "group-think" of this one.
i know it's a lost cause here, but i just had to voice my opposition.
not all artists think the same way.

[Meloncov]

regardless of whether you believe in same sex marriage or not, this case is bad for liberty because the people's decision doesn't matter and it's sets a precedent that will only continue on to other issues. the next case of judges making law might not be one where you like the outcome.

The precedent was set in Monroe vs. Marshall, in the 1700s (well, for the national supreme court. The California supreme court wouldn't exist for some time, but it was deliberately crafted in the image of the national Supreme Court). The Supreme Court has the right to determine if laws are in violation of the constitution, as they argued (with good reason) the ban on gay mairage did.

The people can, of course, amend the constitution, as they are trying to do now.

[mwillustration]

I hate to Godwin... but the will of the people can be very very very wrong.

Germany elected Hitler.

Majority rule can be as dangerous as minority rule.

even so, it ceases to be a representative democracy then which is what america is supposed to be.

and not wanting same sex marriage is not equivalent to voting for hitler.

[Justice Von Brandt]

What does it matter if it is called marriage or another name? It will still be the same thing.

[wassermelone]

i know this'll rub people wrong, but marriage is a Biblical concept and that's why i think it should stay for only two consenting adults that are of the opposite sex.

So can Hindus marry? I mean, they don't follow the Bible after all. What about athiests? Can they marry? How did people marry before the Bible?


What I don't get is why not think of it this way:
The government lets anyone marry.
You, under your religion don't acknowledge them as married under your God.
There. Done. Its no skin off your back... they arn't 'married'. No skin off their back, they are 'married'. I don't understand the fervor to take Christian ownership of the word. Which Christianity anyway? There are a lot of them!

even so, it ceases to be a representative democracy then which is what america is supposed to be.

and not wanting same sex marriage is not equivalent to voting for hitler.

The US isn't a democracy. Its a republic. And true, its not equivilent to voting for Hitler. But Hitler is a great example of how the will of the people can be pro something we very easily see today as horrific. The 'will of the people' arguement doesn't hold a lot of water.

[0kelvin]

What does it matter if it is called marriage or another name? It will still be the same thing.
Exactly. So we might as well just call it marriage.


Eric

[Elwell]

i know this'll rub people wrong, but marriage is a Biblical concept and that's why i think it should stay for only two consenting adults that are of the opposite sex.

But as far as the government of the United States in concerned, marriage can't be a biblical concept, only a legal one.
Furthermore, the biblical concept of marriage doesn't demand consent (for women), adulthood (for women), or limit marriage to two people (for men).

[mwillustration]

So can Hindus marry? I mean, they don't follow the Bible after all. What about athiests? Can they marry? How did people marry before the Bible?


What I don't get is why not think of it this way:
The government lets anyone marry.
You, under your religion don't acknowledge them as married under your God.
There. Done. Its no skin off your back... they arn't 'married'. No skin off their back, they are 'married'. I don't understand the fervor to take Christian ownership of the word. Which Christianity anyway? There are a lot of them!



The US isn't a democracy. Its a republic. And true, its not equivilent to voting for Hitler. But Hitler is a great example of how the will of the people can be pro something we very easily see today as horrific. The 'will of the people' arguement doesn't hold a lot of water.

not everything you disagree with is horrific or hitleresque.
sometimes people can just disagree on principle.
just because i don't think like you doesn't make me a nazi.

[Elwell]

not everything you disagree with is horrific

Exactly.

[mwillustration]

But as far as the government of the United States in concerned, marriage can't be a biblical concept, only a legal one.
Furthermore, the biblical concept of marriage doesn't demand consent (for women), adulthood (for women), or limit marriage to two people (for men).

but it can be a Biblical concept in terms of the culture even if it's not recognized as one.
but you do bring up a good point, why not let marriage become something that anyone can enter into... like without both consenting, or with multiple wives or husbands or with children and adults or with animals to take it to an extreme-(sorry but there are sick people out there)
if it's not strictly defined as the american culture has accepted it and by what the majority believes/wants it to be, where does the redefining stop?
i mean, i think NAMBLA may be loving this decision right now, as it could benefit them.
there has to be a boundary imo.

[bluefooted]

i don't see it as an issue of them not having the same rights as straight couples. i don't care about them being together or even having the same rights, imo, just don't call it marriage. we're changing definitions and institutions here that are not inherently evil whereas slavery and discrimination toward someone based on the fact that they happen to be a different color and therefore less of a person was evil, imo.

'Separate but equal' has been tried before, and it doesn't work. In this case, allowing gays to have domestic partnerships but not marriages is not equal because the laws that govern the benefits and priveleges of domestic partners varies from state to state. Marriage rights do not.

i understand the desire to paint this as the same as the civil rights struggle, but to me it's not even close. it's the fact that they want to be called "married" that bugs me. that has always been for a man and a woman farther back than the roman empire. i know this'll rub people wrong, but marriage is a Biblical concept and that's why i think it should stay for only two consenting adults that are of the opposite sex.

Other people have already pointed this out, but a government-sanctioned marriage must be separate from a 'religious' marriage because the government cannot endorse a particular religion.

sorry, i just can't fall in line on the "group-think" of this one.
i know it's a lost cause here, but i just had to voice my opposition.
not all artists think the same way.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I hope that in a few years or so, you'll see that you are wrong on this issue. There is no good legal argument that can be made to justify denying equal rights to a minority population.

edit:
but it can be a Biblical concept in terms of the culture even if it's not recognized as one.
but you do bring up a good point, why not let marriage become something that anyone can enter into... like without both consenting, or with multiple wives or husbands or with children and adults or with animals to take it to an extreme-(sorry but there are sick people out there)
if it's not strictly defined as the american culture has accepted it and by what the majority believes/wants it to be, where does the redefining stop?
i mean, i think NAMBLA may be loving this decision right now, as it could benefit them.
there has to be a boundary imo.

This is a ridiculous argument. You do realize that, right? Children and animals are obviously not consenting adults, so there is absolutely no relevance to the issue of gay marriage. There's no slippery slope there.

As far as polygamy, that's a more interesting argument. If you truly feel that marriage should only reflect what is portrayed in the bible, then you should be pushing to get this legalized. You should get right on that.

[wassermelone]

not everything you disagree with is horrific or hitleresque.
sometimes people can just disagree on principle.
just because i don't think like you doesn't make me a nazi.

Gah. I should have known better than to pull a Godwin.

I wasn't comparing you to Nazis. I apologize for the Godwin. Saying the 'Nazi' word in an argument is just asking for misinterpretation.

But the point still stands: I was trying to show that argument ad populum has a rather ridiculously strong example of why its fallacious. I was disapproving of your method of argument, not comparing being anti gay marriage to the murder of millions.

So let me reiterate; why not think of gay marriage like this:

1. The government lets anyone marry.

2. You, under your religion don't acknowledge them as married under your God.

3. There. Done. Its no skin off your back... they arn't 'married' in your eyes. No skin off their back, they are 'married'. I don't understand the fervor to take Christian ownership of the word. Which Christianity anyway? There are a lot of them!

[wassermelone]

but it can be a Biblical concept in terms of the culture even if it's not recognized as one.

I guess I will reiterate on this as well...

Considering they don't hold to the bible... can Hindus marry? And in follow up to that, do you believe that their concept of marriage comes from Christianity?

[mwillustration]

Exactly.

just to be clear, i didn't call it horrific or anything like that.
please don't put words in my mouth. (as it seems you're trying to do)
i've disagreed purely on substance.

[mwillustration]

'Separate but equal' has been tried before, and it doesn't work. In this case, allowing gays to have domestic partnerships but not marriages is not equal because the laws that govern the benefits and priveleges of domestic partners varies from state to state. Marriage rights do not.



Other people have already pointed this out, but a government-sanctioned marriage must be separate from a 'religious' marriage because the government cannot endorse a particular religion.



You're entitled to your opinion, but I hope that in a few years or so, you'll see that you are wrong on this issue. There is no good legal argument that can be made to justify denying equal rights to a minority population.

edit:


This is a ridiculous argument. You do realize that, right? Children and animals are obviously not consenting adults, so there is absolutely no relevance to the issue of gay marriage. There's no slippery slope there.

As far as polygamy, that's a more interesting argument. If you truly feel that marriage should only reflect what is portrayed in the bible, then you should be pushing to get this legalized. You should get right on that.

whose to say it needs to be consenting adults?
see what i mean?

also, as far as polygamy goes, it's mentioned in the Bible, but that doesn't mean it's approved by it.

[JessiBean]

I think Wassermelone hit on something important here... marriage isn't exclusively tied to the Christian faith or it's rules on morality, even in the US. People all over the world marry, under all manner of faiths and governments. But since this topic is about the US, when someone is married here, they go apply for the state (government) issued license which recognizes you as married under the law, and a separate religious ceremony can be performed, but isn't required. You can just see a Justice of the Peace to be married, and many straight couples do, and these unions have nothing to do with religious affiliation. I think this speaks to the fact that what homosexuals are pushing for here isn't your Christian acceptance, but governmental acceptance of their right to a legal and sanctioned partnership and the benefits it carries (financial, personal, emotional, etc.) Since the US doesn't have a state sanctioned religion, what anyone's God or religion says is right is completely irrelevant, and just as Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Non-denominational (heterosexual), etc. unions are recognized, so should all marriages be recognized regardless of the orientations of the parties involved.

From Wiki: Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are sanctioned with governmental, social, or religious recognition.

[mwillustration]

I guess I will reiterate on this as well...

Considering they don't hold to the bible... can Hindus marry? And in follow up to that, do you believe that their concept of marriage comes from Christianity?

it still holds with the american cultural concept of marriage.
i'm just explaining why i and others might disagree based upon personal beliefs.

all this is getting away from the point that the people had their will thwarted.

[arttorney]

Funny, I was never so disgusted of MY state as when they passed an amendment to ban gay marriage.

How does that logic work anyway? "Separation of church and state" REALLY? Even if you were opposed to gay marriage, SURELY there are bigger issues to spend time and money on than passing law to to interfere with our citizens PRIVATE lives in something that makes them happy (theorically, anyway ;D) and does no harm to anyone else.

I think we should pass an amendment banning marriage for everyone so it can be fair. At least then you'd be sticking with your mate for reasons OTHER than legal ones. :D

Of course, in reality, banning marriage for everyone would also be struck down as an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment freedoms of religion and association, but I applaud your distaste for the government meddling around in everybody's bedroom.

Lawyers and adoption service providers are going to make fortunes out of this development.

[Art_Addict]

Will the courts finally treat men and women as true equals ???


????!!!!! People seemed to have just ignored this post but holy fuck dude!! You've got to be kidding me !!!! :nohope:

[bluefooted]

whose to say it needs to be consenting adults?
see what i mean?

No. The law changes nothing relating to this.

also, as far as polygamy goes, it's mentioned in the Bible, but that doesn't mean it's approved by it.

Give me a citation where the bible condemns polygamy. If you can, I can show you ten more that show polygamy is A-Okay with god.

all this is getting away from the point that the people had their will thwarted.

'The People' passed a law that was wrong. The courts rightly overturned that law. One of the responsibilities of our government is to secure the rights of all citizens, not just those who are in the majority.

[JessiBean]

Just one more thing...

i know this'll rub people wrong, but marriage is a Biblical concept and that's why i think it should stay for only two consenting adults that are of the opposite sex.

Marriage is MUCH MUCH MUCH older than the bible and, in fact, pre-dates reliable recorded history.

[wassermelone]

it still holds with the american cultural concept of marriage.
i'm just explaining why i and others might disagree based upon personal beliefs.

all this is getting away from the point that the people had their will thwarted.

I understand that the general cultural view of marriage in America is a heterosexual Christian marriage. But this is a religious viewpoint, and as set forth in America's Bill of Rights as part of the Constitution:

...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This is why Hindus, Jewish, Muslims, athiest, Scientologist, etc etc. can marry with impunity. Since 'marriage' is something that can be attained by law and we cannot have law advocate any particular religion, we cannot legally have any religious BARRIER to marriage. The will of the people was 'thwarted' because the will of the people was illegal under the most basic laws of the land.

[aedman]

Yeah... the idea that soon marriage will be between anyone and anything and society will spiral out of control doesn't really hold water. It's basically the "slippery slope" concept, which can be a classic logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
if you're curious.

I swear, if logic and rhetoric for debate was taught in schools and as a rule used in debates/discussions... the whole conversation would be elevated. Not that I know enough of it either, just what my logic driven, physics student former roommate passed along and called me out on when we would discuss something.

[J Wilson]

Man, this is exactly why I hate religion in general. It makes people so closed minded in a "just because" kind of way. Over the course of history has there been any other book to have indirectly caused as much misery as the Bible? Don't get me wrong, religion has been used to do some great wonderful things, mainly from people who take the general meaning of "treat other people well and love them." Then there are the idiots and assholes who take the book and use a phrase here and there to back up whatever fucked up position they happen to have, and use it tell others that the life they are living is wrong and evil, or at the least they are not entitled to equality.

Answer this question: WHY isn't it a marriage between people of the same sex? Is it because there can be no children, and thus no "family" like I've heard others say? How do you feel about straight married couples that either can't or chose not to have children? What real difference is there?

just to be clear, i didn't call it horrific or anything like that.
You didn't say it, but you did put it on equal terms as beastiality, NAMBLA, and marriage without consent, which is so highly offensive if I had to power I'd ban you for suggesting it. Where do we draw the line? How about two loving consenting adults?

Maybe you need to get to know a few gay/lesbian people before you cast your judgement against them. Hell, you probably already do and don't know it, because they know how closed minded you are. I'll tell you, before a few years ago I didn't have especially strong feelings about the subject. I was for gay rights as a principle, but it wasn't anything that I got especially fired up over either. Then I met a great girl and we became really fantastic friends. After knowing her for a few months we got closer and she started to reveal/realize that she was a lesbian. It was a whole different experience knowing someone who had to go through what she did as she slowly came out-to everyone but her family- her mom is a minister. It's tough for her, and lonely, and I'd like to know that one day when she meets the right girl she'll be able to get married and walk with her love out in the open. Luckily we're in a very progressive area, but it's still tough. She is truely one of the best friends I've ever had, and it saddens me to no end that there are people who are so closed minded they judge her as less than everyone else just based on who she loves and is attracted to. And for what? Semantics on what you think a word means?

[kev ferrara]

I find I'm really wobbly on this issue. There are days when I think, "Life is too short and being gay must be tough as it is. So if it makes them happy, why shouldn't homosexual couples get married?" Or "The word "marriage" must be used rather than "domestic partnership" because any other word besides marriage would imply the homosexual partnership is a lesser union than "real" marriage."

But when I hear many of the pro-gay marriage arguments I start to bridle.

Sorry Steph, but "My parents marriage sucked, so marriage ain't no big deal to me, so why not let gays get married" really bothers me as an argument. (please let me know if I am misinterpreting you here) That argument, in a sense, puts down gays by saying "see, marriage is crummy enough to let gays do it." But to my mind, gays must be allowed to marry with the same social approbation that heteros get, or else you are conceding that somehow gay marriage is inferior to hetero marriage. They must be equivalent.

And of course that's a problem, socially speaking.

And that leads to the rights argument, which goes "Every adult has a right to be married to the person of their choice." The problem here is language and meaning and how it interacts with the meaning of the law. If marriage has always been between a man and a woman, that is its definition. So when the word marriage appears in the law, it means a union between a man and a woman. To allow gay marriage is to change the language in order to change the law. But language is a social construct, it cannot be changed by a minority. The word marriage must be accepted by the majority as including homosexual unions before the marriage laws may be said to apply to homosexual unions. So first, in this line of argument, homosexual marriage is a political problem. Once the politics is surmounted, and the definition of marriage is expanded societally, then the question becomes a matter of law.

And lastly, there's the argument that dare not be discussed, which is "If two dudes can get married, why can't three dudes get married? Or a dude and his trusty horse?" Everybody always dismisses this one out of hand, but I think that's because it is the most problematic argument. When "norms" are disputed, why not dispute all norms? Polygamy, bestiality, marrying children... Again, this gets back to societal definitions and the political problem of the meaning of words and how that defines the law.

I hope this post doesn't offend anybody. I am trying to be serious about the topic.

Anyhow
kev

[arttorney]

I'd like us to be careful about phrasing with respect to what "people" want. People had their will thwarted not only by this California Supreme Court opinion. Other people had their will thwarted by the gay marriage ban. Say "the majority" if that's what you mean. I'm straight, but even I am a little bit unnerved when language seems to imply that same sex couples are not people, or they do not have a will that can be thwarted.

The First Amendment not only contains the Freedom of Religion clause and the Freedom of Association clause, it contains the Establishment clause. The government can't make normative laws in this area of religious thought, period.

[Aly Fell]

You can argue the semantic definition of marriage till the cows come home; it doesn't really matter. What this amounts to, and should, is that gay couples can have a 'marriage', 'civil union' whatever you wish to call it, and be treated equally under the law. And why not? Be happy and proud that the American democracy in California has recognised another minority’s rights not based on prejudice or pre-conceived and received opinion. Brilliant! If you really object to it, look at your motives and ask yourself are they based purely on the legal definition of marriage?

[mwillustration]

Just one more thing...



Marriage is MUCH MUCH MUCH older than the bible and, in fact, pre-dates reliable recorded history.

in my view it began with the story of Adam and Eve.

but again, just because my religious beliefs compel me to disagree with same sex marriage doesn't change the fact that the people of california already had their say on this. the unconstitutional argument is weak at best imo.
they're just forcing this to go a constitutional amendment battle which does not bode well for those in favor of same sex marriage.

[Grooveholmes]

in my view it began with the story of Adam and Eve.


HAHA, your avatar truly fits that statement.

[wassermelone]

Kev, I'm not offended, but I do think you are wrong in the second part of your post.

I see two major things wrong with it:

1. You are picking out of all the valid arguments in this thread for gay marriage, one that was less an argument and more a joke on marriage as a whole (Steph's comment).

2. You say that nobody is bringing up 'the argument that dare not be discussed', yet its been mentioned several times in this thread. In fact, it was mentioned not a couple posts before you and even links to the wiki page that discusses in great length why this is a logical fallacy and has been recognized as one for a rather long time.

I think the two great arguments FOR the legalization of gay marriage is the one that you tendered at the beginning of your post. The second is that it is actually under our established constitution completely illegal to disallow it in the first place.

Anyhoo.

[mwillustration]

kev and posh, i appreciate your measured tone and willingness to discuss this issue without trying to paint those that disagree as means of being banned or full of hateful intent.

i can disagree with fervor, but i'm not attacking anyone personally.
i'd appreciate the same in return.

[wassermelone]

they're just forcing this to go a constitutional amendment battle which does not bode well for those in favor of same sex marriage.

I'm curious, how so?

--
Also, I hope you don't think I'm attacking you. I'm trying to assault your position, certainly, but I have no problem with you. In fact, I have no real problem with people not liking gay marriage if they realize that they shouldn't blanket apply their religious views to everyone.

[Duq]

There was a time when a marriage between protestants and catholics was considered illegal and impossible. Yet we generally dont care anymore.

There was a time when a marriage between two different races was considered illegal and impossible. Yet we generally dont care anymore.

I hope to say this about the gay marriage one day.

[Grief]

God is gay.

[Vhan Juju]

Man, this is exactly why I hate religion in general. It makes people so closed minded in a "just because" kind of way.

Yea, there is a bandwagon element in most anything mainstream. But people should note that "just because" is never a good enough answer, you have to be willing to back that up with claims. To many religions attemt to argue on this isshue without offering an adiquite defence, but please don't think that we are all that closed minded and willing to accept that its wrong just because someone told us so.

Kudos to Kev Ferra for encourage me to explore my own opinions.

[mwillustration]

Man, this is exactly why I hate religion in general. It makes people so closed minded in a "just because" kind of way. Over the course of history has there been any other book to have indirectly caused as much misery as the Bible? Don't get me wrong, religion has been used to do some great wonderful things, mainly from people who take the general meaning of "treat other people well and love them." Then there are the idiots and assholes who take the book and use a phrase here and there to back up whatever fucked up position they happen to have, and use it tell others that the life they are living is wrong and evil, or at the least they are not entitled to equality.

Answer this question: WHY isn't it a marriage between people of the same sex? Is it because there can be no children, and thus no "family" like I've heard others say? How do you feel about straight married couples that either can't or chose not to have children? What real difference is there?


You didn't say it, but you did put it on equal terms as beastiality, NAMBLA, and marriage without consent, which is so highly offensive if I had to power I'd ban you for suggesting it. Where do we draw the line? How about two loving consenting adults?

Maybe you need to get to know a few gay/lesbian people before you cast your judgement against them. Hell, you probably already do and don't know it, because they know how closed minded you are. I'll tell you, before a few years ago I didn't have especially strong feelings about the subject. I was for gay rights as a principle, but it wasn't anything that I got especially fired up over either. Then I met a great girl and we became really fantastic friends. After knowing her for a few months we got closer and she started to reveal/realize that she was a lesbian. It was a whole different experience knowing someone who had to go through what she did as she slowly came out-to everyone but her family- her mom is a minister. It's tough for her, and lonely, and I'd like to know that one day when she meets the right girl she'll be able to get married and walk with her love out in the open. Luckily we're in a very progressive area, but it's still tough. She is truely one of the best friends I've ever had, and it saddens me to no end that there are people who are so closed minded they judge her as less than everyone else just based on who she loves and is attracted to. And for what? Semantics on what you think a word means?

i have a close friend who is gay, so please, don't just assume.
i'm not attacking you, i just disagree.

[Steph Laberis]

Sorry Steph, but "My parents marriage sucked, so marriage ain't no big deal to me, so why not let gays get married" really bothers me as an argument. (please let me know if I am misinterpreting you here)

Oh no no no, that's not what I meant at all! I was trying to say that I was disagreeing with Vhan Juju's statement of "Marrige is for a man and a woman, I really can't believe that what they have is really "a marrige"...". I meant to show that a man and a woman tied by marriage are not an automatic recipe for success - indeed I know of several married gay couples who function far better than some straight married couples I know, including the situation with my parents. Just trying to wipe gender out of the happy couple equation :)

Does that make sense? While it's obvious that my personal feelings about marriage are at times cynical, I wasn't trying to say "Hey, it's shitty for hets, gays can have it too! Haw!" If you're with the person that compliments you and you work hard at it, it doesn't matter what does or doesn't dangle between their thighs. I've seen enough people live half-lives of lies to think otherwise.

[J Wilson]

I'm not attacking you personally. I don't know you. But your suggestion that gay marriage in any way is similar to beastiality, NAMBLA, or a marriage against someone's will is so distasteful it IS hateful. To suggest gay marriage opens to the door to any of those is disgusting, and of course wrong. I'm sorry (for you) if you don't see that.

i have a close friend who is gay, so please, don't just assume.
i'm not attacking you, i just disagree.
I find it impossible to fathom having a close friend and still believing they don't deserve the same equality you have, including the simple right of acceptance. For what you have and take for granted, others struggle and it causes them such emotional pain to be denied that you may not be able to understand. Why anyone would wish that on a close friend I can't understand.

I don't for a second think you are attacking me. Despite my heated position (which I get about things I feel strongly about) I understand a difference of opinion. My main opposition to your statements was the only slightly veiled suggestion that homosexuality is a perversion ranking up there with child abuse, rape, and beastiality. All of those are torturous things done to others against their will or full understanding. A gay or lesibian couple love each other as fully as you or I ever have, and they harm no one.

[mwillustration]

I'm curious, how so?

just because it's already been voted down in the proposal that it's likely to go similarly especially if it's brought up again at the next election.

i don't think you're attacking me, but some really enjoy the pile on when they smell the lone Christian in the thread.
talk about minority.
:)

[Elwell]

they're just forcing this to go a constitutional amendment battle which does not bode well for those in favor of same sex marriage.

I think you're wrong on this, as I've said earlier in the thread. For a "people" whose "will" has been "thwarted," the citizenry of California hardly seems to be rising up in mass protest. Instead, the pictures we are seeing are of happy families celebrating a profound and joyous event. And the very normalcy is what is already turning this into a non-issue, even among many young evangelical Christians. The same people who are willing to say homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry in the abstract are far less likely to say to an already married couple, "I'm sorry, you can't be married anymore." Possession is nine tenths of the law, and it is far more difficult to take something away from somebody than to tell them they can't have it in the first place.

[mwillustration]

I'm not attacking you personally. I don't know you. But your suggestion that gay marriage in any way is similar to beastiality, NAMBLA, or a marriage against someone's will is so distasteful it IS hateful. To suggest gay marriage opens to the door to any of those is disgusting, and of course wrong. I'm sorry (for you) if you don't see that.

i'm not saying it's similar, i'm saying that if the definition is so moldable, then those are possibilities for some that want marriage to change as well.

but if you think those things are so wrong, aren't you close minded too?
i mean why are they wrong? because they're not culturally normal?

[Grooveholmes]

i don't think you're attacking me, but some really enjoy the pile on when they smell the lone Christian in the thread.
talk about minority.
:)


I love how xtians always manage to find a way to claim oppression, even as they oppress all others.

[wassermelone]

just because it's already been voted down in the proposal that it's likely to go similarly especially if it's brought up again at the next election.

i don't think you're attacking me, but some really enjoy the pile on when they smell the lone Christian in the thread.
talk about minority.
:)

Well, a constitutional amendment would be a lot harder than any law.

Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Not only would 2/3s of the states have to propose a convention, at that convention 3/4s of the states would have to ratify it. So 38 of the 50 states would have to ratify the change in the constitution. So, to say it would go similarly is a little off.

And, heh, I do find it kind of humorous to be part of a secular majority on websites at times. Its certainly a turn about from where I live.

[Mirana]

i don't think you're attacking me, but some really enjoy the pile on when they smell the lone Christian in the thread.
talk about minority.

Pretty sure you can't claim "only Christian" or "that's why you guys don't agree." Many gays are Christian. My family is Baptist and my father is very much conservative Republican. Neither of my parents and none of my siblings are anti-gay-marriage. My parents have more gay friends than I do. The Southern Baptist(!!) side of my family just had a reunion at the house of my cousin and her "wife"...and their dad(/"in-law") is a preacher! This wasn't really a discussion on religion until YOU made your view of your religion the hinge point. Not all Christians or Christianity is the same (Disagree? Just start your own church! :D).


his argument was that gays already have the right to marry: a gay man can marry a woman anytime he wants, or a gay woman can marry a man. Seriously.

Haha! Y'know, I was going to ask if anyone had some "good" (as in "funny as hell") anti-gay-marriage stand points because the only one I've heard repeatedly was the: "What am I going to say to my CHILDREN when they see some gays MAKING OUT?!?!" Yes. Because you having a short discussion with the kiddos about "Because they love each other! :D" is on the scale of keeping a couple from marriage. Right. Hell, the kiddos wouldn't even care so long as they saw YOU didn't. ;)

[kev ferrara]

You can argue the semantic definition of marriage till the cows come home; it doesn't really matter. What this amounts to, and should, is that gay couples can have a 'marriage', 'civil union' whatever you wish to call it, and be treated equally under the law. And why not?

The words do matter. Marriage is a different word than civil union. I'm 100 percent for civil union. That's not really the question. The question is whether the word "marriage" is the term for a same sex union. And that is a complicated question. I'm probably for gay marriage, I just want to hear the best arguments on both sides.

On the slippery slope argument... I've read those logical fallacies a thousand times and they're great and helpful. But there is such a thing as precedent in law. A new precedent leads to any number of new questions. You can think of this as a slippery slope or not. But precedent does lead to new avenues of legality and we have to be prepared for them.

So who is willing to say consensual polygamy is not allowed? Who wants to be that particular bigot? :)

[bluefooted]

i'm not saying it's similar, i'm saying that if the definition is so moldable, then those are possibilities for some that want marriage to change as well.

but if you think those things are so wrong, aren't you close minded too?
i mean why are they wrong? because they're not culturally normal?

Sorry, but those things are not comparable to a marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex. The very fact that you bring them up in this thread is what is ticking people off. There is no slippery slope here because there are already laws that protect both children and animals from abuse and injury, and from entering into legally binding contracts like marriage.

There are no good legal arguments for denying marriage to same-sex couples. The argument from tradition ("marriage has always been between a man and a woman") is also not valid because that obviously isn't true. Even from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, that isn't true.

Honestly, it just makes me sad that people still do not support equal rights for gays and lesbians. It seems like we should be able to get past this as a society.

[egerie]

and in most religions, homosexuality is considered wrong. when looking at it that why, gay and lesbian marriage shouldnt be allowed.
Um, I don’t know the extent of your research on that statement but “most religions” = Catholics + Islam? Hot dang, if everyone things that’s bad, than it HAS to be wrong, right?

like without both consenting, or with multiple wives or husbands or with children and adults or (…)
If you look beyond your borders (heck, unconsenting weddings still happen in the US), you’ll notice that this happens quite frequently and still called a marriage. Not a Christian one, but still.

Thanks bluefooted for clarifying some things I was about to comment on (i.e. why marriage and not civil union or PaCS, etc.)

J Wilson: Religion isn’t so bad… It’s been serving as a guideline to life and values for thousands of years and billions of people. Of course, what you do with it is your own prerogative and how open minded to other ideas changes from one person to another.


What bugs me the most is the interpretation people have made of the bible and all the “revisions” out there. I wonder, though, if Christianity is the main religion in the states, compared to atheists or agnostics, etc.

EDIT:
But if you marry in California and then move to a non supporting state, your marriage is NOT recognised. Are you subject to sanctions?

[Aly Fell]

The words do matter. Marriage is a different word than civil union. I'm 100 percent for civil union. That's not really the question. The question is whether the word "marriage" is the term for a same sex union. And that is a complicated question. I'm probably for gay marriage, I just want to hear the best arguments on both sides.


That comment wasn't aimed specifically at you Kev; maybe I should have said 'one' rather than 'you'. However, this is where the argument does become semantic. Should the word 'marriage' be solely a prerogative of heterosexual couples. If so then it ultimately comes down to a perpetuation of inequality at a semantic level, and I don't buy that. If a gay couple, joined in a civil union wish to have their 'marriage' identified as such and accorded all the rights and responsibilities that go with it, then why is that even debatable?

I don't know why, but I keep thinking of Tom Lehrer here: "I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that." ;)

[fukifino]

EDIT:
But if you marry in California and then move to a non supporting state, your marriage is NOT recognised. Are you subject to sanctions?


Actually there is some precedent for deciding this. Originally, divorce wasn't a federally mandated right and each state made separate laws regarding divorce. So it could have been true that you could get legally divorced and remarried in one state, yet according to another state you were an illegal bigamist.

I imagine that eventually there will be a federal law similar to the one that currently allows your legal divorce in one state to be legal in another, only for gay marriages (assuming this whole thing continues down this path).

[kev ferrara]

I hate to disagree with you Bluefooted, but a few scattered exceptions to Hetero marriage in thousands of years of publicly sanctioned unions does not destroy the tradition argument, nor the semantic/law argument which arises from it (i.e. the use/meaning of the word "marriage" in the context of state law.)

Posh: The argument "stop being mean and let them be married" is a good one, and one that I often think is the right one.

[arttorney]

The words do matter. Marriage is a different word than civil union. I'm 100 percent for civil union. That's not really the question. The question is whether the word "marriage" is the term for a same sex union. And that is a complicated question. I'm probably for gay marriage, I just want to hear the best arguments on both sides.

On the slippery slope argument... I've read those logical fallacies a thousand times and they're great and helpful. But there is such a thing as precedent in law. A new precedent leads to any number of new questions. You can think of this as a slippery slope or not. But precedent does lead to new avenues of legality and we have to be prepared for them.

So who is willing to say consensual polygamy is not allowed? Who wants to be that particular bigot? :)

One argument in favor of using the word marriage is that the California Code is riddled with the word "marriage" in hundreds of instances where it hands out rights and obligations. (well I just did a quick search and it is mainly confined within about twenty blocks of code sections with each block being about 3-10 statutes. These are mostly in the Family Code, of course, but some are in the Evidence Code, Business and Professions Code, and the Health and Safety Code)

If we want clearly to give civil unions all those same rights, it would be necessary for the California legislature to go through the California Code section by section and vote to amend it "and civil unions" in all those places.

In a way that would be cool, because they wouldn't have enough time to enact as many lame tax and spend provisions as they currently do, but it's so easy to solve the problem by using the word "marriage."

[bluefooted]

I hate to disagree with you Bluefooted, but a few scattered exceptions to Hetero marriage in thousands of years of publicly sanctioned unions does not destroy the tradition argument, nor the semantic/law argument which arises from it (i.e. the use/meaning of the word "marriage" in the context of state law.)

I'm willing to bet that it was probably not 'a few scattered exceptions to hetero marriage' as we know it today. Polygamy was probably very common for a very long time. But either way, there are many traditions that we now find unacceptable, and we change the law to reflect that. Slavery, for example. Maintaining a tradition is not a very good argument.

Kev, you're a reasonable guy. I know we are probably at opposite ends of the spectrum, politically, but I know you value logic and reason.

So, can you give me a reasonable and logical argument for why two consenting adults of the same gender should not be allowed to get married. And I mean the whole deal 'marriage', just like a heterosexual couple. I am honestly curious.

Posh: The argument "stop being mean and let them be married" is a good one, and one that I often think is the right one.

This is a good one, maybe the most important one. But I can think of a few others:

1. Establishment of standard regulations and procedures regarding the care and custody of children of gay couples.

2. Establishment of rights of a partner to inherit in the event of the other partner's death and lack of will.

3. Establishment of rights re care and decision making in the case of one partner becoming incapacitated.

I think society benefits when these issues are settled. Right now (and under 'domestic partnership' laws) there is a lot of gray area on these issues.

[Rist]

I do not understand the OP's post, elaborate for those outside the US that do not inquire into some other countries sub-government.

[arttorney]

A ruling of the California Supreme Court has overturned a ban of same sex marriages within California. There was a short period following the ruling during which the status quo remained. Now, though, same sex couples can be married in California. As you can see, the debate goes on about whether it ought to be this way. Regrettably, Portia di Rossi has married, or will do so shortly. Oh well.

This does not affect the other 49 states, although it is the sort of thing that may lead to U.S. Supreme Court activity or attempted legislative override in various ways.

[Elwell]

I do not understand the OP's post, elaborate for those outside the US that do not inquire into some other countries sub-government.
Here ya' go, Rist, I even made it a link to the Beeb:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7458304.stm

[kev ferrara]

Bluefooted, I really doubt we are that far away politically. It might take a bit of a discussion before you came to realize how close we are, however.

I agree that tradition is no reason to continue tradition. But for those who hold the tradition argument to be valid, I do not think historical exceptions are sufficient to defeat their claims. And if the meaning of the word marriage remains what it generally has meant in the population, there is a case to be made for only civil unions, rather than "marriage". (I realize this is legalistic, rather than humanistic argument, and I would not insist on it.)

To answer your question, no, I cannot think of a good reason why two consenting adults of the same sex should not get married or have a civil union (which would take into account inheritance and decision making during incapacitance.)

However, all things being equal, and maybe here's where we part and I become a fascist homophobe, but I think a mother and a father should be the preferred situation for adopting a child. And not just for reasons of tradition. Also for reasons of psychological health, diversity of experience and thought in the household, possible influence of parental hormones/pheromones or whatever on healthy childhood development, and some other points related to my personal observation of gays I've known, especially with respect to homosexual male behaviors. Which is to say, I would prefer a female female household to a male male, in terms of adoption, if that was the choice. While I realize personal experience is only a very small sampling to draw from, it would be difficult for me to throw out what I have observed from my considerations, as it was rather "psychologically extreme", for lack of a better phrase. And it was consistent over the population that I encountered.

I guess, at the end of the day, it would depend on the couple looking to adopt, however. But I think the rights of the child take precedence over the rights of prospective parents. And who gets to decide what is best for a child is a very tricky matter, but I would err on the side of the conservative on this question. Alas.

kev

[bluefooted]

However, all things being equal, and maybe here's where we part and I become a fascist homophobe...

Unfortunately, I think it is, though I'm glad you recognize that using personal experiences to draw sweeping generalities is essentially worthless. Especially when making decisions that impact large numbers of diverse people.

I guess, at the end of the day, it would depend on the couple looking to adopt, however.

That is how it's done. And, I'm assuming, how it will continue to be done.

[Art_Addict]

And not just for reasons of tradition. Also for reasons of psychological health, diversity of experience and thought in the household, possible influence of parental hormones/pheromones or whatever on healthy childhood development, ...

I guess, at the end of the day, it would depend on the couple looking to adopt, however.

Psychological health? Excuse me? Care to elaborate on that?

I think you conclude correctly.

[Mr.Delicious]

I agree with Kev. I have no problem with same sex marriage... But when a child is involved I think you need both male and female to properly raise a child. Men and women in a general sense think totally differently imo and a kid needs both of these opinions and points of view to grow mentally. Of course there can be good and bad parents... But from what I've seen the kids of same sex parents grow up to be pretty socially awkward. only because the friend I did have had two moms and he just had a really hard time acting the right way in front of girls. Theres no way of really putting this without sounding like a huge asshole, but I think in reality if they can't have the baby naturally then they shouldnt naturally take care of the baby. I can be politically correct all day and get lots of approval but I just feel theres a reason for a mother and a father.

[James Kei]

I agree with Kev. I have no problem with same sex marriage... But when a child is involved I think you need both male and female to properly raise a child. Men and women in a general sense think totally differently imo and a kid needs both of these opinions and points of view to grow mentally. Of course there can be good and bad parents... But from what I've seen the kids of same sex parents grow up to be pretty socially awkward. only because the friend I did have had two moms and he just had a really hard time acting the right way in front of girls. Theres no way of really putting this without sounding like a huge asshole, but I think in reality if they can't have the baby naturally then they shouldnt naturally take care of the baby. I can be politically correct all day and get lots of approval but I just feel theres a reason for a mother and a father.

There are simply far to many variables to consider when analyzing ones personality as being flawed. It's all relative, and depends on the individual more than anything. The people that I know from gay households are loving, and personable people. Statistically, A child raised by a single mom is more at risk than a child raised by two moms.

Kev, the argument of Man/horse, Polygamy, etc. is valid, but they are simply too far outside of the norm to consider adjusting the law for. Theres also the logistics of interfering with other laws. For example, a horse cannot take custody of a child, or acquire the lease of a house in the instance of the spouses death.
The percentage of gay couples living in America is great enough to earn a place on the ballot.

[bluefooted]

I agree with Kev. I have no problem with same sex marriage... But when a child is involved I think you need both male and female to properly raise a child. Men and women in a general sense think totally differently imo and a kid needs both of these opinions and points of view to grow mentally. Of course there can be good and bad parents... But from what I've seen the kids of same sex parents grow up to be pretty socially awkward. only because the friend I did have had two moms and he just had a really hard time acting the right way in front of girls. Theres no way of really putting this without sounding like a huge asshole, but I think in reality if they can't have the baby naturally then they shouldnt naturally take care of the baby. I can be politically correct all day and get lots of approval but I just feel theres a reason for a mother and a father.

You know that gay men and women are perfectly capable of having a baby 'naturally'? What about couples who are infertile? I guess lesbian couples should be able to have twice as many children as heterosexual couples?

If you think about the issues you've brought up, logically, then the answer to the 'problem' of children being raised without one parent of each gender isn't banning gay marriage, it's banning single parenthood.

Because the number of children raised by single mothers will probably always be much much higher than the number of children raised by gay couples.

[JessiBean]

Children are a small variable at best... lots of couples do and don't want children, straight or gay. And adoption agencies or similar services would be the parties determining fitness as parents in these cases, just as they would with straight couples, hopefully with a lack of prejudice due to sexual orientation -- which is illegal. The quality of someone as a parent has absolutely no bearing on their gender and/or sexual orientation, it is about your quality as a person -- not to mention all the idiots out there having kids every day, and no one is making that illegal.

Getting back on topic, however, this ruling isn't about a gay couple's fitness as parents, it is about the legalization of marriage rights for homosexual couples and access to the legal benefits of married status under US law. That's it. It is not about religion, it is not about children, it is not about polygamy or people who want to love horses. It is about a human being's right to love another human being and to have that union respected in the eyes of the law. And I haven't seen an on-topic argument yet for why homosexuals who choose to marry shouldn't have those same rights and benefits as every other US citizen.

[kev ferrara]

Art_Addict... I simply think it is psychologically healthier for a child to grow up in "normal" family environment, all other things being equal. I realize this is not the politically correct line to take, but there it is. I think anybody who comes from a single mom home knows what is missed when a father isn't around, for instance. I assume not having a mother is even worse, but I don't know. If it were up to me, every child would be raised in an extended family.

James, the horse thing was a joke. The polygamy question is valid I think. Forget politics, what is the argument against consensual polygamy? I can't think of one. Polygamists are a minority, and minority rights are the issue here. Are we only to allow rights to a minority if enough of them exist to generate sufficient political force to demand equal rights? That's no way to do things.

Bluefooted, I'm sorry that you find my opinion on this topic objectionable. I assure you my disturbing experiences are not the main driver of my opinion on the matter. That notwithstanding, I hope you don't mind that I push back.... You seem to have pre-determined that a same sex couple offers everything that a het couple offers. What are you basing that generalization on? Where's your evidence? Do you have some scientific report to show me that proves your contention? Because if not, I think we have to defer to nature on this one, and nature's pattern for humans seems to be hetero rearing with a greater emphasis on feminine care in the early years. I hardly think that is a fascist notion to hold.

Of course any loving couple of parents would be better than none, in my opinion. But I stand by the hierarchy of "optimal family units" outlined in my previous post. Point being: When a child has two moms, that child has no father. When you have two fathers, that child has no mother. And a child, if at all possible, should not be deprived of either a mother or a father.

[Mr.Delicious]

You know that gay men and women are perfectly capable of having a baby 'naturally'? What about couples who are infertile? I guess lesbian couples should be able to have twice as many children as heterosexual couples?

If you think about the issues you've brought up, logically, then the answer to the 'problem' of children being raised without one parent of each gender isn't banning gay marriage, it's banning single parenthood.

Because the number of children raised by single mothers will probably always be much much higher than the number of children raised by gay couples.

Yea, I hate the whole motion its going towards... I mean to me a parent should realize the great responsibility they hold when they have a child and shouldn't be allowed to just leave the kid and have a fresh slate. I personally believe they should take it apon themselves to suck it up and not have the easy way out through divorce. Of course there are different circumstances for each case but overall I feel most people don't think about the kid. Thats really all that bothers me, I don't think single parents are right either. But anyways, we all do the best we can and we're already headed in that direction so I guess it couldn't make anything worse. I'm not against gay marriage or anything I just hope everything works out for the best and that the children end up ok in the end. If all evidence is against what I said then I guess I just haven't really looked into it and sorry to be rude.

btw- the only thing i meant by naturally was that men and women can have babies. So a man and a woman will naturally raise this baby. Unless you count implanting sperm as natural.

[JessiBean]

I think anybody who comes from a single mom home knows what is missed when a father isn't around, for instance. I assume not having a mother is even worse, but I don't know.

Woah, wait a moment... How is growing up the child of a homosexual couple the same as growing up with only one parent? We were talking about two people, regardless of sex, rearing children and how you think one is superior to the other. But now you say being raised by two gays is the same as being raised by only one parent? Where did the other parent go? Are two gay people only equal to one straight person, are they half as worthwhile as people?

I think what you are arguing here is that a child needs two parents to grow up as healthy as possible (and studies show this is indeed true) so by that very logic, gay couples who would like to have children SHOULD be allowed to marry to ensure that the children have the best possible home environment. Whether it is with two men, two women, a man and a woman is not the point, having good, stable parents in a committed relationship is the issue on this point.

Some statistical reading: http://www.urban.org/publications/900732.html

btw- the only thing i meant by naturally was that men and women can have babies. So a man and a woman will naturally raise this baby. Unless you count implanting sperm as natural.

Just because a man knocks a woman up, doesn't mean he is going to stick around and raise the kid, EVEN if they are married, since the divorce rate in the US is skyrocketing and the number of single parents out there is growing with it. Someone's ability to make a child does not make them an excellent or reliable parent, it just means you're fertile.

[Mirana]

but I think a mother and a father should be the preferred situation for adopting a child.

I'm thinking the psychological "issues" a child of a gay couple might have are pretty minimal compared to just about everything else a kid has to go through. How many kids have biological parents that are abusive or neglictful?

Most people would agree that their parents or childhood wasn't perfect and most parents aren't put under near the scrunty that adoptive parents are (or furthermore, gay or single adoptive parents). Occationally we catch up with the abusive ones, but we don't have the manpower we should. :/

[kev ferrara]

JessiBean, I wasn't addressing the single parent versus same sex couple question. I don't know what the answer is to that.

I was simply addressing the fact that those who have grown up with only one parent miss some psychological nourishment because of the lack of the other type of parent. Therefore a two mom household, for instance, while possibly a beautiful thing, would nevertheless mean the child is missing out on having a father. Thus, it would seem patently obvious that a "normal" family unit would be better for offering more gender-diverse psychological nourishment. This is a simple analysis that has nothing to do with the fact that there are sucky het parents out there by the boatload. I cannot believe that anybody would disagree that, all things being equal, a "normal" upbringing wouldn't be more desirable for the average child in the average town than a same sex parent upbringing.

Mirana, again, the badness of some het parents is indisputable. This does not change the fact that a child of a same sex marriage would be missing out on the "natural" experience of having both types of parents to draw emotional sustenance from.

kev

[gruve24]

People seemed to have just ignored this post but holy fuck dude!! You've got to be kidding meWhat would I be kidding you about ??

[J Wilson]

I've worked with a few troubled teens, and known more than a few people that have had screwed up childhoods. Let me tell you almost all of them would have preferred two loving parents regardless of their sex. "All things being equal" I agree it's probably easier to grow up with the text book mother and father family unit. By the same token "all things being equal" it's better to grow up with plenty of money, but many people grow up happy and healthy without it. I think it's a fairly safe to say that most people live in families that are in one way or another less than "ideal".

J Wilson: Religion isn’t so bad… It’s been serving as a guideline to life and values for thousands of years and billions of people. Of course, what you do with it is your own prerogative and how open minded to other ideas changes from one person to another.
I really don't have a problem with religion. I feel for the most part the message of most religions are fairly spot on. My only real problem is when people use religion as an excuse to treat other human beings badly.

[Matsign]

I know a few cross-dressing men I would of called mom.

[Blahm]

gay divorce court is gonna be brutal.

[Mirana]

Thus, it would seem patently obvious that a "normal" family unit would be better for offering more gender-diverse psychological nourishment.

How do you stand on interracial families then? Some people would argue that a kiddo placed in a fam of the same race is "better" than one placed in an interracial one because the kiddo is missing out on the culture of the race they "came from." How about a kid from a fam with parents of different religions? There are MANY factors that could contend with the level of "confusion" a kid might go through outside of the nuclear family but there's no LAW keeping the above from happening because it's certainly not something that hurts children.

I don't really see how this is a major argument in keeping marriage rights (or family rights) from gays.

[Aly Fell]

Art_Addict... I simply think it is psychologically healthier for a child to grow up in "normal" family environment, all other things being equal. I realize this is not the politically correct line to take, but there it is. I think anybody who comes from a single mom home knows what is missed when a father isn't around, for instance. I assume not having a mother is even worse, but I don't know. If it were up to me, every child would be raised in an extended family.

Ha ha! I love your posts Kev. You have a wonderful way of damning without actually donning a devil mask. 'Politically correct' carries quite a bit of baggage. It's not really a conscious decision to be so, but rather a recognition that there is more than one way to skin a cat (what a horrible expression). Personally I know a number of incredibly happy and contented children with parents in same sex relationships, (and one that isn't...) and none of those parents made a decision to be, or wish to be recognised as 'politically correct', but merely as a happy family, albeit an unconventional one. And the child does indeed grow up in an extended family, as all the relations of each parent are as involved as in a heterosexual one including male and female role models.


Posh: The argument "stop being mean and let them be married" is a good one, and one that I often think is the right one.

I didn't think I was being quite as simplistic as that, but then again, maybe I was! ;)

[Art_Addict]

Usually I try to refrain myself from posting in the lounge, but I feel compelled to reply here.. ahem..
Kev Ferrara : This is all utter conjecture on your part. People have already adressed many of the points I would have replied with but I will say this.
The single most important thing a baby or child needs is LOVE ! It is one of the few needs necessary for survival. And it has a huge impact on our development if we are partly deprived from it.
All other stimuli and influences that may come from living in a gay couple household are inferior. And hold no ground as a debatable argument because they are different within every family regardless of gender or sexual preference on the side of the primary caretaker(s).

You asked for scientific evidence? I personally don't know of a study that researched developmental differences within children growing up in same sex marriage households versus woman/man marriage households. But there is a ton of research literature available, both academic and populist on the role of the parent in raising a child :) I will be happy to provide you with some that I find worth reading.

The only thing that I can think of which raises some concern are the expectations people may have towards the prospect of welcoming a child in their family. But this accounts for both gay or straight couples who have trouble having a child the natural way... When going through adoption agency's etc... The build up expectations towards the child within the couple are possibly higher then within a couple who easily got pregnant because it's usually a longer waiting process. These high expectations can possibly have an impact on the child, who can never fulfill these expectations and the gap towards acceptance which is so important might grow bigger...


gruve24 : While this is somewhat off-topic, the mere fact that women are being, discriminated, humiliated and confronted with gender inequality on a daily basis ALL OVER THE WORLD, within all religions, all cultures, all classes and all races.. and on top of that is socially accepted , makes your post and statement so unbelievably ignorant that I could hardly believe you were being serious. I will not discuss this anymore, Good day to you sir.


Tom

[bluefooted]

Bluefooted, I'm sorry that you find my opinion on this topic objectionable. I assure you my disturbing experiences are not the main driver of my opinion on the matter. That notwithstanding, I hope you don't mind that I push back.... You seem to have pre-determined that a same sex couple offers everything that a het couple offers. What are you basing that generalization on? Where's your evidence? Do you have some scientific report to show me that proves your contention?

I do, actually, though I'm not at my work computer and won't be until tomorrow. I'll put them up then. Studies have obviously been done on this issue because gay couples are allowed to adopt in some states... they can't get married, but they can adopt kids. Children of gay couples do just as well as children of heterosexual couples.

Because if not, I think we have to defer to nature on this one, and nature's pattern for humans seems to be hetero rearing with a greater emphasis on feminine care in the early years. I hardly think that is a fascist notion to hold.

This is just silly. If we were looking at humans objectively on a scale of sexual behavior from highly monogamous to extremely polygamous, then humans fall somewhere in the middle - sometimes monogamous. Humans have probably always lived in social groups, so there probably was no need for daddy to stick around at all.

Again, if you think feminine care is so important (and it's not), then bar single dads from raising their kids after death or divorce. Banning gay marriage does nothing to address this issue.

Assuming they're relevant at all, how does opposing gay marriage address any of the issues you've brought up? Gay couples can and do have children now - their own biological children, not just adopted. I can't imagine that anyone who really wanted to have kids is going to let anything stop them. The government is never going to ban that. Single fathers and mothers raise kids.
So how is it relevant whether or not gay couples can get married?

btw- the only thing i meant by naturally was that men and women can have babies. So a man and a woman will naturally raise this baby. Unless you count implanting sperm as natural.

You're right, infertile couples should not be allowed to get married. I can't imagine why anyone would not support that law.

[N D Hill]

in my view it began with the story of Adam and Eve.


Ah. And as a secular state we are still somehow obligated to accept that as truth?

[wiggum]

Personally I don't agree with gay marriage and when I saw this thread I planned on going out and finding some legitimate arguments against it. But then I started thinking, why bother?

My reasons for not approving of gay marriage are ultimately moot because at some point in the not too distant future I will be in the minority on this issue and gay marriage will be legal (a recent poll shows 30% approve of gay marriage, 30% don't approve but don't mind civil unions, and 60% don't want anything. The 30% that approves is the largest portion of the population ever to approve of gay marriage and it is likely to continue to grow until these numbers are reversed). So why waste time and energy delaying the inevitable?

As far as I know U.S. law does not specifically define marriage as being between a man and a woman (even though that is probably what they meant).

Although it is worrisome, the argument that the legalization of gay marriage will lead to polygamy and bestiality is probably nothing but hot air.

To my knowledge, there have been no appreciable negative effects experienced by the countries that have already approved gay marriage.

While most people would prefer children to be raised by a man and woman, there doesn't seem to be much, if any, negative effects on children raised by gay couples.

My point here is that gay marriage will not hurt me, or really anyone else, if it becomes normal. I don't like the idea of same sex marriage, but there is not whole lot I can realistically do to prevent it.

There are literally dozens of other issues that are actually hurting me and people near me right now (war, high gas prices, loss of manufacturing jobs and the god awful economy to name just a few). So I'm going to go get worked up about that!! I hope other conservatives will join me in doing the same.

[kev ferrara]

??????

Is anybody actually paying attention to what I'm writing? Bluefooted? I'm not against gay marriage. I'm not against bi-racial, bi-religious, or anything else marriage. I'm not even against polygamy. I don't have a problem with same sex couples adopting. Of course a loving home is the essential thing. Yes there's more than one way to comprise a family successfully. Yes, couples aren't always monogamous. Yes extended social groups have been normative.... but I would posit that parents are more than simply a social group, and that there are fundamental developmental benefits inside a loving iconic male-female family unit... which cannot be replicated by simply having two loving people around called "parents".

All I am saying is, and this is a very simple point, having a mother and a father seems the optimal situation. Having a mother and a father is the one way to ensure that the child is not deprived of either a mother or a father. I happen to think it is intrinsically self-obvious that having a mother is developmentally important in an iconic way. And having a father is developmentally important in an iconic way. I doubt anyone posting on this thread would want to deprive a child of either a mother or a father, if available. Yes, there are many other satisfactory options, but it seems like it should be obvious that the happy iconic family is the optimal situation. This is not to "damn" same sex parents, but to consider the good of the child above all else, including sensitivity to minority rights.

[Elwell]

Personally I don't agree with gay marriage and when I saw this thread I planned on going out and finding some legitimate arguments against it. But then I started thinking, why bother?

My reasons for not approving of gay marriage are ultimately moot because at some point in the not too distant future I will be in the minority on this issue and gay marriage will be legal (a recent poll shows 30% approve of gay marriage, 30% don't approve but don't mind civil unions, and 60% don't want anything. The 30% that approves is the largest portion of the population ever to approve of gay marriage and it is likely to continue to grow until these numbers are reversed). So why waste time and energy delaying the inevitable?

As far as I know U.S. law does not specifically define marriage as being between a man and a woman (even though that is probably what they meant).

Although it is worrisome, the argument that the legalization of gay marriage will lead to polygamy and bestiality is probably nothing but hot air.

To my knowledge, there have been no appreciable negative effects experienced by the countries that have already approved gay marriage.

While most people would prefer children to be raised by a man and woman, there doesn't seem to be much, if any, negative effects on children raised by gay couples.

My point here is that gay marriage will not hurt me, or really anyone else, if it becomes normal. I don't like the idea of same sex marriage, but there is not whole lot I can realistically do to prevent it.

There are literally dozens of other issues that are actually hurting me and people near me right now (war, high gas prices, loss of manufacturing jobs and the god awful economy to name just a few). So I'm going to go get worked up about that!! I hope other conservatives will join me in doing the same.

This is exactly what I was talking about.
The times they are a changin'.

[bluefooted]

??????

Is anybody actually paying attention to what I'm writing? Bluefooted? I'm not against gay marriage.

Well that's good. I honestly couldn't tell from your argument about 'legal definitions' and the word 'marriage' exactly what your position is.

All I am saying is, and this is a very simple point, having a mother and a father seems the optimal situation.

And the science says that you are wrong on this issue. Homosexual parents and heterosexual parents appear to be pretty much identical in terms of their abilities to produce well-adjusted, 'normal', happy children.

I searched for about 5 minutes for relevant studies. There are plenty more. These articles are probably only available if you have a subscription, but I'll post the abstracts here so you can look them up if you wish.

Author(s): Anderssen N, Amlie C, Ytteroy EA

Source: SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY Volume: 43 Issue: 4 Pages: 335-351 Published: SEP 2002
Times Cited: 25 References: 63

Abstract: Twenty-three empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers were reviewed (one Belgian/Dutch, one Danish, three British, and 18 North American). Twenty reported on offspring of lesbian mothers, and three on offspring of gay fathers The studies encompassed a total of 615 offspring (age range 1.5-44 years) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires or interviews. Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done.

Author(s): Patterson CJ, Redding RE

Source: JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ISSUES Volume: 52 Issue: 3 Pages: 29-50 Published: FAL 1996
Times Cited: 26 References: 89

Abstract: In this paper, we provide an overview of variability across jurisdictions in family law relevant to lesbian and gay parents and their children, showing that some courts have been negatively disposed to these families, We summarize recent research findings suggesting that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as are heterosexual parents to provide home environments that support positive outcomes among children. Research findings suggest that unless and until the weight of evidence can be shown to have shifted, parental sexual orientation should be considered irrelevant to disputes involving child custody, visitation, foster care, and adoption.

Author(s): Wainright JL, Russell ST, Patterson CJ

Source: CHILD DEVELOPMENT Volume: 75 Issue: 6 Pages: 1886-1898 Published: NOV-DEC 2004
Times Cited: 19 References: 37

Abstract: This study examined associations among family type (same-sex vs. opposite-sex parents); family and relationship variables; and the psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic attractions and behaviors of adolescents. Participants included 44 12- to 18-year-old adolescents parented by same-sex couples and 44 same-aged adolescents parented by opposite-sex couples, matched on demographic characteristics and drawn from a national sample. Normative analyses indicated that, on measures of psychosocial adjustment and school outcomes, adolescents were functioning well, and their adjustment was not generally associated with family type. Assessments of romantic relationships and sexual behavior were not associated with family type. Regardless of family type, adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported better school adjustment.

Author(s): Herek GM (Herek, Gregory M.)

Source: AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST Volume: 61 Issue: 6 Pages: 607-621 Published: SEP 2006
Times Cited: 15 References: 144

Abstract: Whether and how civil society should recognize committed relationships between same-sex partners has become a prominent, often divisive, policy issue. The present article reviews relevant behavioral and social science research to assess the validity of key factual claims in this debate. The data indicate that same-sex and heterosexual relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to her or his ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. It is concluded that same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships. Trends in public opinion toward greater support for legal recognition of same-sex couples are discussed.


Having a mother and a father is the one way to ensure that the child is not deprived of either a mother or a father. I happen to think it is intrinsically self-obvious that having a mother is developmentally important in an iconic way. And having a father is developmentally important in an iconic way.

This is a thread about gay marriage. Either this is your reason for opposing gay marriage or it's not. Why would you bother to bring this up otherwise?

[J Wilson]

Personally I don't agree with gay marriage and when I saw this thread I planned on going out and finding some legitimate arguments against it. But then I started thinking, why bother?

When I first started reading your post my reaction was "Wow, there is still a lot more anti gay marriage sentiment than I realized. Why are people so threatened by this?"

Then I read the rest of your post and found that while you disagree, you are still very open minded, which I find really refreshing. I can understand the topic being uncomfortable and worrisome to some people, and for them to not be able to agree with or support it. It's nice that there are people who can look past that and see that there is no reason to oppose it, even if you don't agree with it.

There are a lot of issues that people have to get used to over time, and during that transition phase it can be very turbulent and tough to accept. The Civil Rights Movement and Women's Suffrage come to mind, as does the abolishing of slavery. But for all of the difficulties that society went through to make those changes, as time passed people began to realize that the world was a better place for the change.

Can anyone here seriously argue against women's right to vote? I'm curious if even the people who rush to tell us the bible condemns gay marriage would feel the same way about women voting, even though you can find multiple cases of the bible saying that women should be subservient to their men and husbands. It's obvious that many of these bible thumpers pick and choose which parts of the bible to take literally, and which they take with a grain of salt and open to more lax interpretation.

[Ilaekae]

This is veering slightly off-topic, but has some relevance if anyone here is stupid enough to get into mushing gays and pedos into the same mold in an attempt to argue against gay marriage/family units/child rearing...

It's common knowledge among those who seriously study the so-called "primitive" peoples across the Americas that they also had gays (SURPRISE!) and in many tribes, this was seen as a special gift or at least access to an opportunity for the tribe--homosexuals were considered perfect "baby sitters" or "protective mothers" of small children, and were often in charge of the tribes' entire collection of children while the parents were off hunting/gathering. They were treated with great respect for this service...

[Dirty C]

thanks for the clarification.

i don't see it as an issue of them not having the same rights as straight couples. i don't care about them being together or even having the same rights, imo, just don't call it marriage. we're changing definitions and institutions here that are not inherently evil whereas slavery and discrimination toward someone based on the fact that they happen to be a different color and therefore less of a person was evil, imo.

i understand the desire to paint this as the same as the civil rights struggle, but to me it's not even close. it's the fact that they want to be called "married" that bugs me. that has always been for a man and a woman farther back than the roman empire. i know this'll rub people wrong, but marriage is a Biblical concept and that's why i think it should stay for only two consenting adults that are of the opposite sex.

sorry, i just can't fall in line on the "group-think" of this one.
i know it's a lost cause here, but i just had to voice my opposition.
not all artists think the same way.


I can appreciate what you're saying to a certain extent, but it basically comes down to semantics. You're used to the word 'marriage' being used in a certain way in your lifetime and you place significance on your own experiences. To you, marriage is a religious ceremony and God should be present in these things. That's fine I can understand that.

The thing is, a lot of Christian denominations don't ban gays anymore (most non-catholic or orthodox churches outside the US don't) and marriage has been secular for a long time anyhow.

Basically what I'm saying is that when thinking about the rights of others - or any moral issue really - people should consider the facts and the consequences of the issues. When people get hung up on particular words, they miss the point of the argument.

[kev ferrara]

This is a thread about gay marriage. Either this is your reason for opposing gay marriage or it's not. Why would you bother to bring this up otherwise?

I brought it up in response to your post #87. It seemed to me that you implied a definition of "marriage" in that post that specifically included the right of same sex couples to adopt children, whereas my feeling was that marriage was simply "civil unions" but with the added social cache involved in having the word "marriage" applied to the union. Since there are hetero married couples who can be denied adoption rights, I separate the adoption right from the overall marriage-right question. But again, I have not disputed the right for gays to adopt. I have disputed that there is no additional psychological benefit to having both a mother and a father in the home, all other things being equal, than two mothers or two fathers.

Thank you taking the time to unearth those studies. I have seen similar ones, albeit with the actual data, and I think there is much to discuss about these kinds of studies that go far beyond the purview of this thread. Regardless, they still don't answer my fundamental question, which I will re-word this way to try to isolate the issue: Is there a benefit to having a father that is different than the benefit of having a mother?

kev

[Steph Laberis]

When I first posted this thread, a couple of thoughts popped into my head, two of which being:

1.) How long till someone mentions Hitler or Nazis?
2.) How long till the downward spiral and the thread gets closed?

...and I'm really impressed with the overall maturity, eloquence and rational thought from people on both sides of the issue here. Time are indeed changing :)

[woodbert]

Is there a benefit to having a father that is different than the benefit of having a mother?

kev

I can only speak from my own personal experience and say that my wife is far more nurturing towards our children than I am. I love to cuddle my kids also but when something's really wrong I know I'm a distant second to my wife and the kids are going straight to her every time.
Parenthood is instinctual and a learned trait. We learn from those around us and make it up as we go.

I'm totally in support of gay/lesbian marriage btw, and their having children but I assume their will always be differences between the sexes.

[egerie]

It's common knowledge among those who seriously study the so-called "primitive" peoples across the Americas that they also had gays (SURPRISE!) and in many tribes, this was seen as a special gift or at least access to an opportunity for the tribe--homosexuals were considered perfect "baby sitters" or "protective mothers" of small children, and were often in charge of the tribes' entire collection of children while the parents were off hunting/gathering. They were treated with great respect for this service...
Funny, I almost mentionned that in my previous post in this thread. Anyhoo, wasn't it also the trademark of some of the tribe's shamans?

On raising kids (I know, off topic but it’s still a major thing on your mind when you get married.) : Admittedly it’d be great to have same sex couples raised as jocks or social butterflies, let’s not make this an issue of double standards.
Although I don’t have a background in psychology, I understand that it’s the general idea that kids growing up have mother figure and father figures. I believe you can find the role model outside of a parent binome for this kind of references.
As for being in an optimal situation, we could always scrap all that and go all the way to become a Brave New World…….

[bluefooted]

I brought it up in response to your post #87. It seemed to me that you implied a definition of "marriage" in that post that specifically included the right of same sex couples to adopt children, whereas my feeling was that marriage was simply "civil unions" but with the added social cache involved in having the word "marriage" applied to the union.

Actually, I was thinking of the biological children of gay couples - i.e., the biological child of one of the partners who has been raised as that couple's child. What happens in the event of the biological parent's death when there are no relatives?

[Sir_E_Pent]

As liberal as our country has gotten, it will never be totally socially accepted. Especially where I come from. Even though I live only a short drive for Gay Capital of South. I mean FL. And I would also like to mention, when you get married, they have a record. They will find you in the end and I do not believe it will be a pretty end. All I am saying is PROTECT yourselves. Think about what you are getting yourself into. There is no going back from this one. Nothing else matters except what is on paper and that piece of paper may condem you. I know. I lost a career, home, car, friends, all because of what went down on paper.

[gruve24]

You all need to heed Tony's wise words !! This is no joke ! most of you getting married have absolutely no idea what kind of hole your digging yourselves into, none !!

[Zilant]

As liberal as our country has gotten, it will never be totally socially accepted. Especially where I come from. Even though I live only a short drive for Gay Capital of South. I mean FL.

I don't think anybody was really counting on the deep south to spearhead social reform. I say this as a southerner myself, for whatever street cred there is in mocking your own.

But as Elwell pointed out earlier, the somewhat canonically antiquated South has already wailed against a human rights issue and the legal system responded by smacking it with a rolled up newspaper and issuing a firm finger pointing "No". So I suppose in the eyes of the law social acceptance doesn't count for much, really.


Honestly,
I just can't believe stopping gay marriage is an issue, because I'm fairly sure the average straight citizen is far too wrapped up in their own lives to particularly give a damn. It's one thing to debate Gay Marriage on principal, and lord knows the internet is a medium just begging for exactly that. But it's not like civil rights, the odd person who really takes to the streets in protest of homosexuality or a homosexual's rights tends to be treated rather dubiously. Even within the social sphere where that behavior should probably theoretically be tolerated, the religious sphere; you have people who agree, disagree, shrug noncommittally, and just to confuse us religious plebeians, are gay themselves.

In the grand scheme of things the active protest against Gay marriage is pretty minimal and peaceful.
Considering that, I just wonder what took the courts so long.

[Elwell]

rixkck8QnjY

[Aly Fell]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7461256.stm

[Jabo]

Aaah, California. That's great news, grats!

[Sir_E_Pent]

I must say this. The word gay did not mean homosexual until the ladder part of the 20th century. Find a dicionary from the fifties and look up the word gay. Is it not easier to say nothing and just live? I understand that in a marriage the rights are spelled out for us. You have a piece of paper that says, "Hey, I got you and you got me and if we don't there will be hell to pay." Marriage is a celebration of two people uniting and sharing that union with family and friends. That is all. That piece of paper is only good for the Laws of the Land.

Now I am bringing the Creator into this. You can't tell me He didn't play with his first creations? Man and beast. They say a dog is man's best friend. And what do we see dogs doing? Getting their rocks off where ever they can. I would go on but, I believe I have said enough for now. I am a firm believer in monogamy.

PS
I really hate the word gay. And homo- We are all homo.

This was brought to you by NBC "The more you know."o)

[s.ketch]

As liberal as our country has gotten, it will never be totally socially accepted. Especially where I come from. Even though I live only a short drive for Gay Capital of South. I mean FL. And I would also like to mention, when you get married, they have a record. They will find you in the end and I do not believe it will be a pretty end. All I am saying is PROTECT yourselves. Think about what you are getting yourself into. There is no going back from this one. Nothing else matters except what is on paper and that piece of paper may condem you. I know. I lost a career, home, car, friends, all because of what went down on paper.

You all need to heed Tony's wise words !! This is no joke ! most of you getting married have absolutely no idea what kind of hole your digging yourselves into, none !!


lol. :nohope:

[bluefooted]

As liberal as our country has gotten, it will never be totally socially accepted. Especially where I come from. Even though I live only a short drive for Gay Capital of South. I mean FL. And I would also like to mention, when you get married, they have a record. They will find you in the end and I do not believe it will be a pretty end. All I am saying is PROTECT yourselves. Think about what you are getting yourself into. There is no going back from this one. Nothing else matters except what is on paper and that piece of paper may condem you. I know. I lost a career, home, car, friends, all because of what went down on paper.

How old are you?

[woodbert]

I must say this. The word gay did not mean homosexual until the ladder part of the 20th century. Find a dicionary from the fifties and look up the word gay. Is it not easier to say nothing and just live? I understand that in a marriage the rights are spelled out for us. You have a piece of paper that says, "Hey, I got you and you got me and if we don't there will be hell to pay." Marriage is a celebration of two people uniting and sharing that union with family and friends. That is all. That piece of paper is only good for the Laws of the Land.

Now I am bringing the Creator into this. You can't tell me He didn't play with his first creations? Man and beast. They say a dog is man's best friend. And what do we see dogs doing? Getting their rocks off where ever they can. I would go on but, I believe I have said enough for now. I am a firm believer in monogamy.

PS
I really hate the word gay. And homo- We are all homo.

This was brought to you by NBC "The more you know."o)

What are you talking about???
The discussion is about equal rights for all, not how bad you got burnt in a marriage.

[kev ferrara]

Bluefooted, you still didn't answer the question about whether you thought the benefit to a child of having a father was different than the benefit of having a mother. (Psychologically, developmentally, etc.)

kev

[Sir_E_Pent]

Rights, will someone explain to me who has the power to give rights? Or take them away? There should only be one right, the right to live, how ever you see fit.

Oh, and two moms, two dads, a family unit is who loves you. I have friends who I would call my kin more than my blood. Better or worse. A child learns from everyone they are around. My dad is a redneck from hell. Love em but damn. And my mom is a faghag. I grew up around that life and learned a great deal about how that part of society functions. And I do not feel I was tainted by them. Hell, they new how to have a good time. My parents taught us acceptance and tolerance. For all walks of life. A child will not know the difference if they are taught properly. Remember My Two Dads? Well, that is what it would be. Or I have two mommies. Besides, the roles of the family unit have changed. We have lost the separation of Masculine and Femanine. Now it is dominate and submissive.

Also, what I was stating before is: If we dropped the GAY/STRAIGHT idea and just focused on marriage, which is what this discussion is about, alternate life styles getting married then we just might move forward in evolution. Thank you.

P.S
I have never been married, and I have been to college and served my country, that should give you some idea of how old I am.

[Dougbot]

Bluefooted, you still didn't answer the question about whether you thought the benefit to a child of having a father was different than the benefit of having a mother. (Psychologically, developmentally, etc.)

kev

I can't answer for Bluefooted, but personally I'd say no. There's a little boy in my daughter's preschool class that has two mommies and he's totally well adjusted. He plays army and trucks like every other 'normal' boy. Oh course I think both his moms are ex -military. I should also mention he's only four, maybe five.

What I think matters is how the child is raised. I raise my girls not much different that I would raise a boy. My oldest and I read Astroboy comics together and play My Little Pony. Right now she's into Speed Racer and drives her cereal box Mach 5 around the house (she hasn't seen the movie and won't for several years). She gravitated towards pink and more 'girly' things on her own. I've never pushed any of that on her. I know I'm a good Dad, it's one of the only things I'm sure of.

But we all know, or knew those kids whose Dad never got involved, never seemed to care, and was too tired at the end of the day. Or the mom that was too willing to let her kid do anything with no concern or consequence. I knew plenty of kids whose parents never even seemed to care that they had kids, or where always yelling at there kids, or who couldn't wait to kick the kids out of the house. There will be plenty of same sex couples who will have the same problems as those I stated above, but it won't be because of their sexual orientation. It will be because they're shitty parents, not willing to put in the time to properly raise their kids.

In the end it's the parents that matter, whether two mom's, two dad's, or a mom and a dad, or a mom and step-dad, and a step-mom and dad. To be honest, I think the plague of divorce in our nation is far more serious, and a million times more damaging to children, than same sex marriages will ever be.

[nonie]

I was raised by a single mom. I added a second mom on my own when I was little, my mom's best friend, also a single mother... I'd be at her house as much as my own. My dad showed up in my life again when I was around 12 and it was cool to have him around but I couldn't rely on him for anything the way I relied on my two moms. He's a career alcoholic and a lot of the time when we were supposed to go visit him he'd be drunk, so my mom would just take us back out of there.

I got a lot more "how not to be" parental guidance from him by example than anything else. And though my two moms weren't romantically involved and didn't live together, I still felt I had the benefit of two loving, *present* parents. My mom had a few close lesbian friends and some gay friends and straight couple friends and I could see who was loving and good from a very young age, and I didn't care one whit that Scotty was dating men or Rose and her girlfriend lived together, I just knew they were good, happy people and I liked them. All kids are like that, they will get love from everywhere it's available, and the more they get the better they turn out. One kind is not better than another.

Edit: Just wanted to add that since gay couples can't have kids by accident you're ruling out the biggest source of bad parenting I think... Not to say accidental children can't have good parents or that parents with planned kids don't fuck it up, but hey, at least gay couples will have to have lengthy decision-making talks first.

[s.ketch]

Bluefooted, you still didn't answer the question about whether you thought the benefit to a child of having a father was different than the benefit of having a mother. (Psychologically, developmentally, etc.)

kev

EDIT: Not trying to step on bluefooted's toes. Pardon my entrance.

I grew up with a single father. My mom skipped out when I was a baby. My girlfriend grew up with both parents and I dont think we're that different. Im a bit more independent when it comes to taking care of myself and the house, but there doesnt seem to be any major psychological problems. I think im a dectent persong given the circumstances of my upbringing.

I think it mostly depends on the parent. My mom wasnt a very responsible person, and I think that has had an impact on my half sister, who grew up in my mom's care. I mean she's 16, wears tons of makeup, has a nose ring, and is dating my mom's husband's son. All of which certainly as hell wouldnt have happend under the care of someone like my dad.

I think my life debunks the whole stereotypical "moms know best" idea held by society. When I was in school teachers always assumed that I lived in a home with both parents, and those who knew my parents were divorced assume I lived with my mom. Like I said before, I think its more of a matter of the personality of the parent rather than the sex. Even though history may suggest that men are usually the assholes and a child needs a woman and a man to raise them, I don't think there are any requirements for healthy development other than food, shelter, clothing, love, and support.

[Mirana]

I must say this. The word gay did not mean homosexual until the ladder part of the 20th century.

That would be incorrect. The use of the term "gay" originally meant "sexually active" in terms of hetero prostition (as far back as Chaucer re: "gay girl"). It was then recorded in use during The Cleveland Street Scandal of 1889 by a male prostitute witness who described his "associates" (male and female) as "gay." It was then appropriated by the Gay Liberation Movement in the 60s. (Hughes, 1998, p.232) There are plently of recorded words that meant homosexual before and after this.

Also, what I was stating before is: If we dropped the GAY/STRAIGHT idea and just focused on marriage, which is what this discussion is about, alternate life styles getting married then we just might move forward in evolution.

I think I get what you're trying to say, but your solution is ideal and not reality. Where there is "difference" there must be terms for "GroupA" versus "GroupB" to keep the discussion clear. Marriage is not available for one group and so the discussion is not about everyone's current rights.

[kev ferrara]

It is no surprise that a website full of artists would have "interesting parental situations" about from which to draw experience. :) Our particular "broken field" histories are not the issue. The issue is, does a good dad offer something different than a good mom to a young child's development. And I guess if the answer is "yes", could a "fatherly" mother #2 really be an exact substitute for a fatherly father?

BTW, I agree that the divorce rate/single mother problem is a far more devastating phenomenon than gay marriage will ever be. But that's not the topic, so let's leave it aside.

kev

[kingshaj]

go ca and go ca this is great.

on an ironic note...the concept of serial divorce doesn't seem to bother the "sanctity of marriage" crowd, at all... so its clear that the objections arent about the legal extrapolations, or about the union at all...its about the fear that this decision further legitimizes homosexuality. just plane'ol xenophobia

serial marriage..punitively litigious divorce, estranged kids, alimony ...these are the things that have destroyed marriage...

a man and his horse, oddly would cause fewer societal problems...fewer legal ramifications....no joint custody...no court time arbitrating structured settlements or garnished wages
just the odd horse with good health care.


in all seriousness i know almost no one who's biological parents are still married...a few, but very rare and usualy illicits a "no way?..thats great!" because of it's rarity. i think marriage has lost its societal meaning altogether


and if anything the gay marriage debate reminds us what marriage was s'posed to be about.


edit: woops divorce argument left aside.

[Art_Addict]

The issue is, does a good dad offer something different than a good mom to a young child's development. And I guess if the answer is "yes", could a "fatherly" mother #2 really be an exact substitute for a fatherly father?

kev

No that is not the issue.. did you even read my reply earlier or those of others?
The answer to your question is probably; yes.
Q : But does it matter? No, not in the way you present it. "Something different" What exactly are you thinking about when you use that term?

[s.ketch]

The issue is, does a good dad offer something different than a good mom to a young child's development.
kev

Does a good brother or sister offer something different than a good dad or a good mom to a young sibling's development? Even if a good dad, good mom, or good sibling brings something to the table that the others do not, theres nothing to say that that one something is required or essential for a healthy child. Then it would turn into a matter of perspective and opinion on who is the most beneficial to the child's development.

Not only that, but lets say that one parent had something special over the other that the child needed, then it would be a question of "could the other parent learn that one element of parenthood.?" Once we ask that in comes a question of their personality more than their gender.

Unless you are suggesting that maybe both genders have exclusive elements they bring to a child's up bringing. But I would disagree with that because from where I stand I cant see anything one gender offers over the other except for certain biological necessities breast feeding.

[kingshaj]

It is no surprise that a website full of artists would have "interesting parental situations" about from which to draw experience. :) Our particular "broken field" histories are not the issue. The issue is, does a good dad offer something different than a good mom to a young child's development. And I guess if the answer is "yes", could a "fatherly" mother #2 really be an exact substitute for a fatherly father?

BTW, I agree that the divorce rate/single mother problem is a far more devastating phenomenon than gay marriage will ever be. But that's not the topic, so let's leave it aside.

kev
you may be on to something

but most studies showthat the relationship with the mother (particularly for boys) is far more crucial to early emotional development. specifically the bio mom...where as dads, feminine or macho, have more interchangeability..if these studies hold any water...i suspect it is because of the prenatal connection.

[kev ferrara]

No that is not the issue.. did you even read my reply earlier or those of others?
The answer to your question is probably; yes.
Q : But does it matter? No, not in the way you present it. "Something different" What exactly are you thinking about when you use that term?

Art_Addict, I'm getting that this is more than an academic conversation to you, but try defcon 5 for a more congenial conversation, eh? Relax.

Yes, I read the replies. They glanced off the question, generally and onto the kind of sociological teenage-years studies that aren't really the issue (Since teenage years are generally miserable, its not exactly a great time to make comparisons).

I'm more interested in early childhood development. And I do think my question is important in order to establish a hierarchy of "goods" with respect to childhood development, and therefore, if we wanted to be scientific about it, a protocol for placing foster children. If we care about what is best for childhood development, we have to be honest about what is most beneficial. In terms of "what I am thinking about" is brain development, whether both male and female pheromones affect the development of child, how much of that has actually been studied, whether the differing iconic styles of parenting (female, nurturing and communication, male, risk taking and independence) find parallels in same sex parents, etc.

Anyhow,
kev

[J Wilson]

Just wanted to add that since gay couples can't have kids by accident you're ruling out the biggest source of bad parenting I think... Not to say accidental children can't have good parents or that parents with planned kids don't fuck it up, but hey, at least gay couples will have to have lengthy decision-making talks first.

Another good point. Anyone who has long dreamed to be a parent, whether gay or straight, has a better chance in my opinion of not taking the whole experience for granted. They are not going to be as prone to casual neglect as someone who didn't want a child may be.

Kev, I see where you are coming from, and I might be prone to agree that an "ideal" family might be an over all better choice in an abstract way. I see where you are coming from with the thinking that a balance of the male and female perspectives may give rise to a more balanced and healthy adult. It's one of those theories that I think sounds better on paper than it might actually work out. If you make a blanket statement that male/female parents are the preferred situation, then you cut out of the equation so many other factors on parenting. I think you agree that in some situations some gay couples will be better parents than some hetero couples, so why make an arbitrary bias towards one set of parents just based on one set of factors? I know you said "all things being equal" but you'll never be able to determine all of those other factors.

As for a protocal for placing children, you could probably make a case that white parents be given preference over minorities, based on the many additional hurdles that minorities face. Or you could make a case against other lifestyle choices, such as "no parents in risky jobs such as the military or police officers" for fear of the impact that fearing for a parent's life (or the real possibility of actually losing the parent). I see where you are coming from, and you can probably make a case for it, but like I mentioned above there are so many other factors that weigh in, that it's almost silly to chose any of them to make a decision based on it. At some point you just have to simplify it to "Will these people do as good of a job at raising a child as they can? Will they love them? Can they afford a child?" and if so, leave it at that.

[kev ferrara]

J Wilson... it isn't just about "perspectives", its about brain development, intellectual, emotional, and physical development, and how the physical presence of a parent of either type has particular effects, chemical, neurological, or otherwise.

On idealization, you're going back to the previous arguments of "any port in a storm." We all agree with that. But sound law starts with ideals, so ideals should be considered, outside of political considerations.

But I can see that there is this revulsion to touching that third rail of judgmentalism... Wherein people actually say unequivocally that, all other things being equal, a mom and dad is the optimal situation. Instead there is a constant hedging away... i.e. I "might be prone" to agree "abstractly." Frankly, this inability to say what is simple and true baffles me. Is it a revulsion at Judgment or Ranking itself? "Christian" values? Authoritarianism? Is it a question of not supplying any political ammunition at all to one's opponents? A fear of being labeled "conservative"? A fear of reprisal from Illaekae? A distaste for absolutes? A reluctance to admit that one's own parents were not the ideal and therefore "I" am not the ideal?

Anybody?

[Mirana]

Wherein people actually say unequivocally that, all other things being equal, a mom and dad is the optimal situation. Instead there is a constant hedging away... i.e. I "might be prone" to agree "abstractly." Frankly, this inability to say what is simple and true baffles me.

Are you asking this only of people who say they "might" agree with your POV, or everyone?

All things "perfect" in a parental situation I do not agree with your standpoint. A child born "into" a unit with two "perfect" parents would benefit universally despite gender of those parents--IMO. I don't think your viewpoint is simple OR true. :shrug:

[kev ferrara]

Fair enough, Mirana. I am assuming then that you think there is absolutely no benefit a child gets from a mother that can not be gotten from a father and vice versa... not neurologically, not hormonally/pheromonally, not in terms of guidance or styles of thought, etc.

[Grief]

Rights, will someone explain to me who has the power to give rights? Or take them away?

the Law is dictated by users with 395414 in their user title.

[Ilaekae]

"A fear of being labeled "conservative"? A fear of reprisal from Illaekae?"

Watch it, you Fascisti Oinker...I'm equal rights all the way...I hate everybody... :P

[bluefooted]

But I can see that there is this revulsion to touching that third rail of judgmentalism... Wherein people actually say unequivocally that, all other things being equal, a mom and dad is the optimal situation. Instead there is a constant hedging away... i.e. I "might be prone" to agree "abstractly." Frankly, this inability to say what is simple and true baffles me. Is it a revulsion at Judgment or Ranking itself? "Christian" values? Authoritarianism? Is it a question of not supplying any political ammunition at all to one's opponents? A fear of being labeled "conservative"? A fear of reprisal from Illaekae? A distaste for absolutes? A reluctance to admit that one's own parents were not the ideal and therefore "I" am not the ideal?

Anybody?

You're probably going to continue to be frustrated because it's likely that the answer to your question isn't going to be 'simple or true' for every case. Absolutes are rarely useful in the real world.

As far as whether a parent's gender is important. My guess would be as good as yours, that is to say, worthless. I'm not at work, so I can't look up any studies. But I'm guessing that whatever differences researchers found in the quality or type of contribution made by male vs. female parents are probably vastly overshadowed by the differences between 'good' and 'bad' parents.

[s.ketch]

Frankly, this inability to say what is simple and true baffles me. Is it a revulsion at Judgment or Ranking itself? "Christian" values? Authoritarianism? Is it a question of not supplying any political ammunition at all to one's opponents? A fear of being labeled "conservative"? A fear of reprisal from Illaekae? A distaste for absolutes? A reluctance to admit that one's own parents were not the ideal and therefore "I" am not the ideal?

Anybody?

You're assuming that the statement no one is saying is "simple in true." From what I see its just an opinion yet I know you're too smart to fire off at the mouth without having anything other than your own random thoughts to back it up, so please share the info. I find it neat that you put yourself away from both groups on either end of the argument without walking down the middle of the road. (Sincerely, not being a smart ass). I sympathize with and respect what you are doing.

However, I have to ask are you afraid of being labeled a liberal? Or a conservative? Are you afraid of being grouped with the rest of us? Do you have disdain for the free spirit, hippy, one love, lets all just hold hands view of this? Do you really think all of us are under some kind of Democratic delusion where we're programmed to blindly agree with minorities' rights out of some kind of synthesized guilt, orchestrated by the liberal nut jobs of this country?

[kev ferrara]

You're probably going to continue to be frustrated because it's likely that the answer to your question isn't going to be 'simple or true' for every case. Absolutes are rarely useful in the real world. As far as whether a parent's gender is important. My guess would be as good as yours, that is to say, worthless. I'm not at work, so I can't look up any studies. But I'm guessing that whatever differences researchers found in the quality or type of contribution made by male vs. female parents are probably vastly overshadowed by the differences between 'good' and 'bad' parents.

Thanks BF. However I didn't say I was frustrated. And when I say I'm "baffled" I'm sorta playing around. What I really am is curious as to how one comes to not give the benefit of the doubt to "Mom and Dad" as the optimal parental unit, all other things being equal. As a scientist, despite exceptions throughout history, I would assume you would give mother nature more credit than your average well-meaning social engineering project. Instead, what continually happens to the question is it becomes "well in the real world things are too messy" when this is simply not so. There will come a time when the choice is, does baby Jessica go to couple A (Judy and Ralph) or couple B (Judy and Nancy). And the only criteria to make the decision is, is there something about a male that matters?

I consider this an open question that deserves research. I assume you do too.

And absolute hierarchical standards, benchmarks, protocols, etc. are quite useful in the real world or else nobody would use them.

Best
kev

[bluefooted]

There will come a time when the choice is, does baby Jessica go to couple A (Judy and Ralph) or couple B (Judy and Nancy). And the only criteria to make the decision is, is there something about a male that matters?

I consider this an open question that deserves research. I assume you do too.

Well, yes and no, actually. I don't consider it an open question. Because it's already been looked at pretty thoroughly by researchers, in a number of different studies. Children raised by heterosexual couples and those raised by lesbian couples (or male couples) turn out essentially the same.

Pretty much every study has found that kids do well when they've got good parents (or parent).

[kev ferrara]

...are you afraid of being labeled a liberal? Or a conservative? Are you afraid of being grouped with the rest of us? Do you have disdain for the free spirit, hippy, one love, lets all just hold hands view of this? Do you really think all of us are under some kind of Democratic delusion where we're programmed to blindly agree with minorities' rights out of some kind of synthesized guilt, orchestrated by the liberal nut jobs of this country?

I believe in equal rights, period. On the other hand, nature is not an egalitarian. And I believe nature is far craftier than the human intellect, at least for now. So human rights are abrogated by nature, in the main, and attempts to overturn that natural order should be well scrutinized before implementation. I don't like emotionalism when it comes to social engineering. I believe in equal opportunity, but think an effort to foster "equal outcomes" is the road to totalitarianism, pace Hayek, which is to say I believe wholeheartedly in the law of unintended consequences. I think K-12 education needs to be totally driven by market forces, entrepreneurship, and choice because at the moment it's a disgrace. Religious schools should not get accreditation and Saudi influence on Title VI is bullshit. Every other day I think the Boomers are the most irresponsible media-addled generation in history and I mistrust everything they say, do or believe. I hate bigots and anything religious, ideological, dogmatic, political, superficial, pandering, or boring. I think real science can never be bigoted, even if it seems that way. I think Al Gore is slightly smarter than George W Bush, which is to say, I think he's a full of shit idiot demagogue. I think people who believe that the consumption of newspapers and television news programs make them informed are a large part of the problem. I think cynicism is the worst possible substitute for an education and critical thinking skills need to be turned on themselves.

And I am a free spirit!

kev

[kev ferrara]

Well, yes and no, actually. I don't consider it an open question. Because it's already been looked at pretty thoroughly by researchers, in a number of different studies. Children raised by heterosexual couples and those raised by lesbian couples (or male couples) turn out essentially the same.

Pretty much every study has found that kids do well when they've got good parents (or parent).

Again, the specific scientific question about parental-gender influence on early childhood development is not answered by the widely adoption-age variant sociological surveys you are citing. Honestly, I don't think "they all sorta turn out well if the parents are loving" is sufficiently rigorous. This may be our impasse, barring more specific studies.

In messy circumstances, any port in a storm, sure. In the close choice, it might be nice to have some science to draw on (or not, if there turns out to be no specific developmental benefit associated with either parental gender.)

Anyway,
kev

[s.ketch]

I believe in equal rights, period. On the other hand, nature is not an egalitarian. And I believe nature is far craftier than the human intellect, at least for now. So human rights are abrogated by nature, in the main, and attempts to overturn that natural order should be well scrutinized before implementation. I don't like emotionalism when it comes to social engineering. I believe in equal opportunity, but think an effort to foster "equal outcomes" is the road to totalitarianism, pace Hayek, which is to say I believe wholeheartedly in the law of unintended consequences. I think K-12 education needs to be totally driven by market forces, entrepreneurship, and choice because at the moment it's a disgrace. Religious schools should not get accreditation and Saudi influence on Title VI is bullshit. Every other day I think the Boomers are the most irresponsible media-addled generation in history and I mistrust everything they say, do or believe. I hate bigots and anything religious, ideological, dogmatic, political, superficial, pandering, or boring. I think real science can never be bigoted, even if it seems that way. I think Al Gore is slightly smarter than George W Bush, which is to say, I think he's a full of shit idiot demagogue. I think people who believe that the consumption of newspapers and television news programs make them informed are a large part of the problem. I think cynicism is the worst possible substitute for an education and critical thinking skills need to be turned on themselves.

And I am a free spirit!

kev

I can accept that. But what can we do if something were to come up and something scientific said that the healthiest environment for a child is in the female mom and male dad parent family? Would we pass a law against or make restrictions on not "normal" parents?

Yeah nature is one thing, but human rights are another, and they don't go hand in hand. You want to see a violation of nature, go to your local hospital and see the thousands of lives that are saved everyday. You're violating nature's course when you go and get a tetnis shot or a vaccination. So I don't really mind screwing nature over and letting a child be raised by a homosexual couple. Besides there are so many experiences and factors that effect a child's development that it can go sour under the care of any type of family. Possibly even with the nearly the same probability across the board.

I mean, i agree with you, don't think im arguing against you or anything. Nature definitely has its own thing going on and it isn't fair. But do we as a sentient species choose to let nature take its course or do we step in and save someones life. Or with regards to the subject, allow a homosexual couple to raise a child with the same amount of scrutiny and support a heterosexual couples do, regardless of nature.

But yeah, I agree with you. Peace!

[aedman]

I feel like I should say this because of my slippery slope post, I don't think it really applies to your statements, since you're aware of it and I'm sure considered it beforehand.

Kev,

I see and agree with your view that it could be a slippery slope (one that is not a logical fallacy) in terms of setting legal precedent going towards polygamy, since that situation still would involve consenting adults. Which I don't necessarily have an ethical problem with I guess but I could see problems with tax/healthcare/work leave issues arising out of polygamist situations. Though I don't think polygamy would become that common a practice. I could be wrong though. Crazy celebrities and all that...

I don't think it would go as far as people marrying houses or horses or kids, because existing age and consent guidelines that I don't think could be pushed legally in the same way that consenting adult situations could.

That said multiple angles on this issue seem to be well represented and so I think I've said my piece.

[kev ferrara]

BW, I wasn't proposing some christian science medical policy. I was proposing consideration and caution and an appreciation of the fact that our own best intentions can have crap results because we're pretty damn terrible at understanding complex systems, especially ones involving us. Therefore I'm always assuming hidden variables and constantly advocating for more rigorous questioning of the "givens" being bandied about. Especially in research areas that have political gravity.

[Elwell]

I believe in...
sBfdl6hNZ9k
Or perhaps
This I Believe (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4538138)

[Costau D]

My cousin was brought up by his two lesbian aunts, and he seems pretty on the ball. Has girlfriends, and now is joining the airforce (not that that has anything to do with homosexuality), but he's normal. Well, as normal as normal can be he's had a hard life before he ended up with his aunts.

I mean wouldn't it just be the same as my other cousin who was brought up by her mother who also shared the house with friends moving in and out. I don't think sexuality has anything to do with it. It's just whether or not the people were responsible parents, and influenced the child in a positive way.

It's really not that big of a deal. If some people are worried that the child will be influenced to think being gay is normal that is hardly the truth. it's only normal if that is how you honestly feel. It would just equate with bad parenting to convince the child they are taking care of to be something they are not sexually. Just like other parents enforcing weird ideas that have nothing to do with sexuality with other children. What about the mother who brought up her son to wear girls clothing, and made him look like a girl because she wanted a daughter? A kid with gay parents who gets teased at school, would be just the same as the kid with only one parent who was teased in school. You learn to deal with the stupid criticism you get, because that's all this is about. People being weirded out by something they dont think is normal, or understand, but is completely fine.

I personaly think the argument is bull.

[kev ferrara]

Again, CosmoChimp, you are talking "messy" circumstances. I think we all agree on the "any port in a storm" argument of necessity.

[Elwell]

I would think that the nuclear family is a relatively recent development, evolutionarily speaking. Throughout human history, storms have been far more plentiful than ports.

[s.ketch]

BW, I wasn't proposing some christian science medical policy. I was proposing consideration and caution and an appreciation of the fact that our own best intentions can have crap results because we're pretty damn terrible at understanding complex systems, especially ones involving us. Therefore I'm always assuming hidden variables and constantly advocating for more rigorous questioning of the "givens" being bandied about. Especially in research areas that have political gravity.


I didn't mean to put words in your mouth or twist what you were saying, I was just trying to go down your track of thought and "what if?"s I know what you mean about people throwing caution and intelligence to the wind in favor of being politically palletable. AFter all "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

[Costau D]

Again, CosmoChimp, you are talking "messy" circumstances. I think we all agree on the "any port in a storm" argument of necessity.

I don't know maybe it's being analyzed too much. Throughout history families were families. Depended on where you came from, and kids were taken care of in many different ways. But, that is just from an idealistic point of view of mine. A family is a family no matter what.

The nuclear family was a set standard because it offers a set standard, and it's easier too manage. We've just gotten use to it, but it doesn't make it perfect. Then again I am only speaking from experience. From an economical point of view (which is sort of sad to have to think about it this way) it might cause problems if the system was broken.

I was brought up by my dad alone once my mom passed when I was 15. My aunts and family took over on the mom part I guess you could say. It was all an effort. I help my sister take care of my neices and nephew. Too sum it up I dont come from a nuclear style family.

Some marriages are only seen as financial agreements, or too benefit each other.


"Well, it depends on the man. I had a man around. He used to wake me up every morning by flicking lit cigarettes at my head. He'd say, "Hey, asshole, get up and make me breakfast." You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, or drive a car. Hell, you need a license to catch a fish! But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father."

-Tod (Keanu Reeves)

Too much human emotion, and influences are involved in the concept of marriage and family I think perhaps letting gays be married is not that big of a deal aside from making some redneck feel akward about it.

[Sir_E_Pent]

Amen!

[kev ferrara]

I would think that the nuclear family is a relatively recent development, evolutionarily speaking. Throughout human history, storms have been far more plentiful than ports.

I would think the extended family was the normal state of affairs, it being a natural module of the tribe. Also, I think monogamy is probably as old as promiscuity, which is to say mom and dad have been around from the evolutionary start. And that would mean there was some adaptive something going on between "normal" parents and offspring. The guess is that after puberty, the adaptation benefit ends, because most parents died before 30 in knuckle-dragging times of yore.

And ain't one definition of love, "any port in a storm?" :yum:

[Prometheus|ANJ]

tl;dr;, but,

Wouldn't the natural environment for a kid to grow up in include, parents, grandparents, some other relatives or strangers, and also some goats, cows and pets? It was probably pretty common in the old days that biological parents went missing or died. Our modern day situation with Mom+Dad+Kid in a house alone with one parent working... might not be normal. I've noticed that parents+grandparents+uncle (me) isn't even remotely enough to manage 2 kids/babies when they're in rampage mode.

(Edit, I'm a slow typer, seems similar replies were posted just now. Convergence like this always makes me feel like a bot.)

[J Wilson]

But I can see that there is this revulsion to touching that third rail of judgmentalism... Wherein people actually say unequivocally that, all other things being equal, a mom and dad is the optimal situation. Instead there is a constant hedging away... i.e. I "might be prone" to agree "abstractly." Frankly, this inability to say what is simple and true baffles me. Is it a revulsion at Judgment or Ranking itself? "Christian" values? Authoritarianism? Is it a question of not supplying any political ammunition at all to one's opponents? A fear of being labeled "conservative"? A fear of reprisal from Illaekae? A distaste for absolutes? A reluctance to admit that one's own parents were not the ideal and therefore "I" am not the ideal?

Anybody?

Good point. I'll clearly say my aversion is to absolutes, except in a few circumstances.

My point earlier wasn't a reinforcement of the "any port in a storm" argument. It was more about there being a LOT of factors you could argue for. Would you feel comfortable making a blanket statement that people with the most money be given preferential treatment, because money often means opportunities? Would you argue that nice white families in suburbs be given preferential treatment in adoptions, again due to perceived opportunities? I think there are a lot of factors that you could use to determine "best", but I'm not sure any of them really matter in the long run because humans are nothing if not adaptable. Any perceived benefit of gay versus straight parents in the end might just be a drop in the bucket of shaping influences, and so ultimately not really worth mentioning.

You might have a point, but I'd want to see some facts to show this isn't more than just something that seems like it SHOULD be true. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest it doesn't really matter. Even if it WAS true, would you advocate "no gay adoptions until all the hetero couples have gotten their kids first"? Or would it just be one factor among many? How would you weight it versus other advantages/disadvantages?

[Icon]

i feel warm and fuzzy to call this new place my home. :3 finally a place with the right attitude!

[Mirana]

Fair enough, Mirana. I am assuming then that you think there is absolutely no benefit a child gets from a mother that can not be gotten from a father and vice versa... not neurologically, not hormonally/pheromonally, not in terms of guidance or styles of thought, etc.

Correct. I know men way more nuturing than I...gay OR straight. ;)

I do not think you will find a source that could prove your point anyway since parents being "perfect" is subjective and there wouldn't really be a way to control environment or developmental factors on the large scale. Too many other things are larger factors.

[emily g]

Kev, I’ve been following the thread and been thinking about some of your comments.
I simply think it is psychologically healthier for a child to grow up in "normal" family environment, all other things being equal.
But we already know from the studies that children raised by same-sex couples turn out just as psychologically healthy as children raised by opposite-sex couples.
you still didn't answer the question about whether you thought the benefit to a child of having a father was different than the benefit of having a mother. (Psychologically, developmentally, etc.)
Of course a mother and a father will provide different benefits—any two people will provide different benefits. But I know that’s not what you’re asking. You’re asking if they will provide different benefits specific to their gender. Yeah, they might—but I don’t think the differences are significant in a way that would negatively affect a child raised by same-sex parents. If that were the case, it would have shown up in the studies.

The line of thinking that “dads provide something that moms can’t and moms provide something that dads can’t” comes from when social scientists were trying to explain why kids raised by single parents turned out statistically “worse” (higher crime rates, drop-out rates, etc.) than those raised by two parents.

They guessed or assumed that the missing parent would have provided something essential—something specific to their gender--that the other parent could not provide. They were partially right—the missing parent would have provided something, but not necessarily something specific to their gender. What the missing parent would have provided was another loving adult in the child’s life and a partner to the other parent in raising the child. (This is all statistically speaking, of course.)
In terms of "what I am thinking about" is brain development, whether both male and female pheromones affect the development of child, how much of that has actually been studied, whether the differing iconic styles of parenting (female, nurturing and communication, male, risk taking and independence) find parallels in same sex parents, etc.

I’ll try to hit these the best I can, by grouping them into two main categories:
Regarding pheromones/chemical development, etc.:
We know that when breastfeeding, antibodies from the mother are passed along to the child.
We also know that during breastfeeding, the mother’s body releases hormones like oxytocin which help the mother bond to the baby.

Are these good things that a father cannot provide? Yes. But will the child be negatively affected if the mother does not breastfeed? No, I don’t think so. The child could miss out on some slight benefits, but I don’t think it will really be negatively affected overall.

Regarding iconic styles of parenting:
Using your descriptions of “female, nurturing and communication, male, risk taking and independence,” will a child be raised differently based on parenting style? Yes, of course they will. But there are females with the “risk taking/independence” style and males with the “nurturing/communication” style and lots of people who are somewhere in between or somewhere else entirely.

So, to sum up: does a parent provide something specific to their gender that a parent of the opposite gender cannot provide? In some cases, yes. In other cases, no.
Does it really matter? I don’t think so.
My understanding from looking at different studies is that the individual relationship between the child and the parent is the most important factor.

[Art_Addict]

Art_Addict, I'm getting that this is more than an academic conversation to you, but try defcon 5 for a more congenial conversation, eh? Relax.

Yes, I read the replies. They glanced off the question, generally and onto the kind of sociological teenage-years studies that aren't really the issue (Since teenage years are generally miserable, its not exactly a great time to make comparisons).

I'm more interested in early childhood development. And I do think my question is important in order to establish a hierarchy of "goods" with respect to childhood development, and therefore, if we wanted to be scientific about it, a protocol for placing foster children. If we care about what is best for childhood development, we have to be honest about what is most beneficial. In terms of "what I am thinking about" is brain development, whether both male and female pheromones affect the development of child, how much of that has actually been studied, whether the differing iconic styles of parenting (female, nurturing and communication, male, risk taking and independence) find parallels in same sex parents, etc.

Anyhow,
kev


I'm sorry, I don't understand your first sentence apart from the 'relax' part. :)

But I'm glad you brought that up, early childhood development, and yes brain development. Well, since no one has mentioned it yet let's start here : Bowlby and his attachment theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory).
I think in more recent years the results of biological psychology and brain research have gradually confirmed many speculations involving the effects on brain development, neurological connections/consequences, etc.. by different types of attachment.

I think if you would gather more information about this and other developmental research I suspect you would find the question of gender/sexual preference and its importance in the role of caretakers to be
not so much of an issue. What I'm trying to say is that I think other more underlying principles are far more important.

but, hey what the hell do I know.. there is sooooo much research being done about this around the world that I feel I don't know jack shit about all this. And when it comes to knowledge of the brain I think it's safe to say none of us do.

I am however personally inclined to agree from a biological stand point that the biggest chance of creating an ideal environment for a baby would be with its biological mother and father.

Tom

[bluefooted]

Again, the specific scientific question about parental-gender influence on early childhood development is not answered by the widely adoption-age variant sociological surveys you are citing.

Yes, it is. When you compare cases where one gender of parent is missing, you see no differences in the children. The children of single-gender parents are identical to children of two-gender parents. And not all of those studies are on adopted children.

I think the question has been answered well by these studies and hundreds like them. In fact, one of the abstracts I posted is from a review article that compared hundreds of studies that made a variety of different comparisons of parenting types. There is already sufficient research on this subject.

Honestly, I don't think "they all sorta turn out well if the parents are loving" is sufficiently rigorous. This may be our impasse, barring more specific studies.

Okay, I'll be more explicit. The major, single, most important factor that researchers have found that has an effect on childrens' psychological and emotional, and academic, etc, etc, etc, well-being is how good* the parents are at being parents. *Good is measured in a variety of different ways: how much time is spent with the children, how involved parents are, how children rate parents, etc, etc.

The effect of this is so strong that, frankly, it doesn't matter if there are any other factors because this one is orders of magnitude more important than anything else that's been looked at.

In messy circumstances, any port in a storm, sure. In the close choice, it might be nice to have some science to draw on (or not, if there turns out to be no specific developmental benefit associated with either parental gender.)

The situation doesn't have to be 'messy' or dire before two good parents of the same gender are better than average parents of the opposite gender. They're already better.

The reason we do science, which I know you know, is so that we don't have to say things like, "it seems like," or, "there should be", or "I guess".

There is plenty of science to draw on to answer the questions you have brought up here, and your concerns about parent gender contributions are really not an issue in the real world. However, I don't think my citing more studies will convince you. If you want me to I will, but it will have to wait until Monday. I need to work on my LMS 3 entry :)

[chaosrocks]

I wonder how many of the people so furiously discussing parenthood in this thread, actually have children.......

as a parent, I have to say, we do the best we can, no matter what our gender or partnership. we all make it up as we go along and all the studies in the world can't tell you whats going to be best for the unique individual that is your child.

[Art_Addict]

I wonder how many of the people so furiously discussing parenthood in this thread, actually have children.......

as a parent, I have to say, we do the best we can, no matter what our gender or partnership. we all make it up as we go along and all the studies in the world can't tell you whats going to be best for the unique individual that is your child.


Chaosrocks, I understand your comment. It's one that so many co-parents draw upon.

However,... when discussing such a delicate and emotionally loaded subject as parent/child relationship, I feel so many people get into a defensive position because they perceive a lot of those studies as dictating rather then just informative. And I think there lies a danger in that. As some one that co-raises a 4 year old myself, having been informed about attachment for example and other developmental studies has really broadened my perspective and insights and was at times very confronting as well about parental relationships. And it actually brought me closer to the actual instinctive responses. Something which definitely would not have happened without.

Can I ask you a question?
Do you feel because your the parent of your child that you are better suited to tell what's best for her/him? It's an honest question.

Tom

[kev ferrara]

BF, I am not in disagreement with the studies you are citing, or your assessments of the importance of good parents, of whatever gender, over all other considerations in the general run of real world situations. Yet you keep pressing and pressing those points like we're competing on some TV game show and your buzzer won't work for the million dollar question. Yes, I hear you. Your buzzer works. :) If you have studies discussing infant development specifically in regard to my questions, I would like to see them. (On the other hand, I would much rather see more of your art.)

Art Addict, thanks. I'm in agreement with your post. Fyi, Defcon is a gauge of what level of threat readiness the US military is at. Defcon 5 is "peace footing". Defcon 1 is "war footing". "Congenial" means friendly.

Emily, I am in agreement with your post, mostly. It is hard to disagree with "good parents are good parents" and kids are lucky to have em, no matter what gender. The mud turtle in me, however, still wants hard info on chemical signalling and neurological development in infants with respect to these matters.

Mirana, you may be right.

J Wilson, you ask very difficult questions. All other things being equal, I would rather have grown up wealthy. You? And therefore, quelle horreur, maybe an orphaned child, given two equal choices of loving homes, might also find it more efficacious to grow up rich, rather than poor. See what a free spirit I am? :)

[emily g]

Kev, you say you want more info on "chemical signalling and neurological development in infants." I guess you want to find out whether or not men provide something to infants that women can't (or vice versa)?

My sister has 1 year left to getting her PhD in infant development. I can ask her for more info about these types of studies if you want. (Based on what she and I have discussed in the past, I think I know generally what she'll say, but I can ask her for more specifics.)

[bluefooted]

BF, I am not in disagreement with the studies you are citing, or your assessments of the importance of good parents, of whatever gender, over all other considerations in the general run of real world situations. Yet you keep pressing and pressing those points like we're competing on some TV game show and your buzzer won't work for the million dollar question. Yes, I hear you. Your buzzer works. :) If you have studies discussing infant development specifically in regard to my questions, I would like to see them. (On the other hand, I would much rather see more of your art.)

Then I guess I'm done here, Kev. You say the studies don't address your points (whatever they are - you keep changing them), I say they do. Now you want studies on 'infant development' specifically? Why? How are those going to address your questions in a way that looking at child development over a number of years do not?

Anyway, thanks for dismissing me - I'll go work on some art, I guess :rolleyes:

[kev ferrara]

Bluefooted, I am certainly not dismissing you! I was complementing you on your art. Or I thought I was. (Well sometimes I suck, what can I say.) Anyway, we had miscommunication a few times during this thread, for which I apologize. I should have made clear that my developmental questions were related to infant development, mostly... Baby adoption, rather than 13 year old adoption. I think if a child has been in foster care since the age of 6 and is taken into a house at 11 years old, the questions I have are mostly moot. Although, there are studies about steady fathers during puberty preventing daughters from early promiscuity... whether you think that's a good thing or not. And it does seem like most would agree that, all things being equal, a mom-dad situation is best. Does this make everybody bigots? Dupes of conformity? Or just sensible?

Anyhow... you're pretty snarky sometimes too, y'know.:geekg: :gasmask: Go draw, mean icky girl.

Emily G... that's exactly what I was after. Cool.

kev

[J Wilson]

J Wilson, you ask very difficult questions. All other things being equal, I would rather have grown up wealthy. You? And therefore, quelle horreur, maybe an orphaned child, given two equal choices of loving homes, might also find it more efficacious to grow up rich, rather than poor. See what a free spirit I am? :)

Right, I agree. But would you make a preferential decision based on that? I know I wouldn't, because there are so many other factors involved in raising kids that using that as your decisions making tool, is really no different than tossing a coin. You have toss out all of those "maybe this might be a little better" situations and just stick with the basics in my opinion. Meet basic requirements, and then give everyone an equal chance.

[kev ferrara]

Right, I agree. But would you make a preferential decision based on that? I know I wouldn't, because there are so many other factors involved in raising kids that using that as your decisions making tool, is really no different than tossing a coin. You have toss out all of those "maybe this might be a little better" situations and just stick with the basics in my opinion. Meet basic requirements, and then give everyone an equal chance.

Why not make a preferential decision based on wealth? Who are we trying to help here, the child, or our own consciences? Newsflash: Life isn't fair. And we're going to change that by preventing a needy child from having a rare opportunity to have economic advantage? Makes no sense to me at all. Wealth is a benefit, and therefore it should be a factor in the choice, among all the other factors. And if everything else is split down the middle, I would have no problem using wealth as the tie breaker.

kev

[Zilant]

Kinda' wondering, who are these lucky orphans that get to snub potential parents for not having enough bling?

[Dose206]

Can I ask you a question?
Do you feel because your the parent of your child that you are better suited to tell what's best for her/him? It's an honest question.

Tom

I know this question wasn't directed at me and to be completely honest I didn't scroll down to see if Chaos has replied (sorry Chaos, I do actually want to know how you answer this question) but I would like to put in my two cents.

As a parent of a child that was neither planned nor particularly welcome (by me) I feel as though after the 1st 2 years of his life that my wife and I are very well suited to tell what's best for him. The two of us have spent (vastly) the most time with him and know is personality best. That being said, of course we will look to precedence on how children with similar traits have been raised/treated/disciplined in any given situation.
The flaw in your question is the word "better". Better than who? I suppose a psychologist who has spent their whole life studying children may have a better idea of how different parenting styles will affect my child, but against any other set of parents of one two year old child my wife and I are definitely hands-down better suited to tell what's best.

And BTW, while my son was not particularly welcome (by me) when his embryo was first discovered or the nine months leading up to birth, I cannot now imagine a life without him and find that he is the dearest thing in my life. Just an example of how an unplanned baby need not necessarily be an unappreciated, scorned of badly treated baby.

But, as my whole post has been grossly off topic, go Cali. I've known quite a few couples in my time who I'm sure are very happy with this development. Just so happens most of them ended up moving to California some time ago. Sweet for them.

[Art_Addict]

The flaw in your question is the word "better". Better than who?

I agree. I should have used "best".

[sve]

I think that

Wise, educated, loving, understanding gay parents equal to wise, educated, loving, understanding straight parents.

Loving, uneducated, understanding, poor family is better than wealthy, cold, educated one, IMO only.

Wise, educated, loving, understanding gay parents are better than hysterical, degrading, egoistical, indifferent, abusive straight parents.

Loving, wise father is better than irresponsible, indifferent mother.

Loving, wise single mother is better than abusive, destructive full family.

Two loving parents better than one loving parent.

When people can't live together without poisoning each other life, divorce is a blessing.

Sexual side of the life of two parents doesn't have anything to do with parenting, child doesn't witness this side of relationship, and because of that sexual orientation of the parents doesn't effect his/her life. His surrounding outside of his own family, their open mindedness or lack of it might make him feel inadequate.

Parents' personalities and priorities in life and their approach to the parenting do matter.

[chaosrocks]

actually my kids are old enough that I think They are the best deciders of their course. Ive always blived it was my place to offer them experiences, but it was their choice wether to pursue them.

[emily g]

Kev, I'm preparing a post for you, but I realized that I need some clarification on something.

Again, the specific scientific question about parental-gender influence on early childhood development is not answered by the widely adoption-age variant sociological surveys you are citing.

I should have made clear that my developmental questions were related to infant development, mostly... Baby adoption, rather than 13 year old adoption. I think if a child has been in foster care since the age of 6 and is taken into a house at 11 years old, the questions I have are mostly moot.

Are you saying that the studies that have been cited do NOT include children who were raised by same-sex couples since infancy? Or is your complaint that the studies include them, but do not specifically compare them to children adopted at an older age?

I am confused by your language about "adoption-age variant sociological studies" and "baby adoption, rather than 13 year old adoption."

Thanks.

[kev ferrara]

Whatever info you have would be of interest, Emily. (Only 1 study posted so far, unless I'm missing something, indicates a child as young as 1.5 years old, and we have no idea how many in that study were actually in that age range and over how long a period they were studied and to what extent neural or hormonal issues were examined. Beyond that, a lot of the language in the abstracts is vague enough to make me suspicious given the political importance of any findings.)

Anyhow,
kev

[emily g]

Thanks for the reponse, Kev. I apologize for the delay—it’s been a busy week. :)

A lot of studies have been done over the past few decades showing that during the first years of a child’s life, a lot of things happen that are really important to the child’s development. Unfortunately, the way this has been translated to the general public by the media/parenting magazines is somewhat exaggerated. They make it sound like the first few years are some insanely critical time and if everything doesn’t go exactly right, the child will be messed up forever.

The first few years are important, but not THAT important. What matters most is that the child is able to form an attachment with at least one person (not necessarily a biological parent) who provides the child with love and care.

You can see the flaw in the exaggerated “formative years” thinking when you look at the Head Start program. This program was meant to give poor and disadvantaged children some extra help during these special formative years. While the children are attending Head Start, they do start to do better. But once the support of the Head Start environment is taken away, these children will often fall behind their classmates who were never in Head Start. This effect has been termed the “Head Start Fade.”

Almost all hormonal and/or chemical brain development that a child receives directly from a parent happens while the child is still in the womb (from the mother, obviously).
Outside the womb, the baby can get antibodies from the mother’s breast milk.

The child can also learn to recognize his mother from her pheromones. This is why a mother of a baby in a Neonatal ICU will give her baby a handkerchief that she has slept with--to get the baby used to her smell.

There are some benefits that the child can receive indirectly:
Nursing mothers’ bodies release chemicals like oxytocin and prolactin, which are sometimes called “bonding chemicals.” These chemicals help her feel calm and promote bonding with her baby.

In response to the mother’s pheromones, the father’s testosterone levels may decrease, causing him to be less aggressive and better able to bond with the baby.

Almost all hormonal/pheromonal benefits specific to gender that a child gets from its parents are at about this level. And a child can still grow up fine if he’s not breast fed or if daddy happens to be in Iraq during this important period of life.

The most important thing for brain development is that there is someone to care, love, hold and interact with the child (as opposed to being left alone in a crib, staring at a white wall in a third-world orphanage.) There is a lot of interesting stuff about brain development and how parental interaction is involved. It just turns out that there are other things that are more important to this than the gender of the parent.

[emily g]

Here are the abstracts from some studies that focused on children raised from infancy by same-sex couples.

Title: Child Adjustment and Parenting in Planned Lesbian-Parent Families.

Authors: Bos, Henny M. W; van Balen, Frank; van den Boom, Dymphna C.

Source: American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Vol 77(1) Jan 2007, 38-48.

Abstract: One hundred planned lesbian-parent families (i.e., two-mother families in which the child was born to the lesbian relationship) were compared with 100 heterosexual-parent families on child adjustment, parental characteristics, and child rearing. Questionnaires, observations, and a diary of activities were used to collect the data.
The results show that especially lesbian social mothers (i.e., nonbiological mothers) differ from heterosexual fathers on parental characteristics (e.g., more parental justification and more satisfaction with the partner as coparent) and child rearing (e.g., more parental concern and less power assertion). Child adjustment is not associated with family type (lesbian-parent families vs. heterosexual-parent families), but is predicted by power assertion, parental concern, and satisfaction with the partner as coparent.


Title: Family functioning in lesbian families created by donor insemination.

Authors: Vanfraussen, Katrien; Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, Ingrid; Brewaeys, Anne.

Source: American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Vol 73(1) Jan 2003, 78-90.

Abstract: In this study, we want to focus on parenting in relation to a specific feature of the lesbian DI (donor insemination) family, namely, the presence of a social mother. We want to investigate whether the lack of a biological connection influences the social parent-child interaction. To discover this, a comparison is made between both parents within the lesbian household. The second aim of this study is to explore the content of the role of the social parent in a lesbian family. A total of 24 lesbian families participated. The quantitative and qualitative data of this study on family functioning in lesbian DI families reveal that according to both parents and children, the quality of children's relationship with the social mother is comparable to that with the biological mother. Unlike fathers in heterosexual families, the lesbian social mother is as much involved in child activities as is the biological mother. Furthermore, the lesbian social mother has as much authority as does the father in heterosexual families.


Title: Division of labor among lesbian and heterosexual parents: Associations with children's adjustment.

Authors: Chan, Raymond W; Brooks, Risa C; Raboy, Barbara; Patterson, Charlotte J.

Source: Journal of Family Psychology. Vol 12(3) Sep 1998, 402-419.

Abstract: This study compared lesbian and heterosexual parents' division of household labor, satisfaction with division of labor, satisfaction with couple relationships, and associations of these variables with psychological adjustment of children. Participating lesbian (n=30) and heterosexual (n=16) couples all became parents by using anonymous donor insemination and had at least 1 child of elementary-school age. Although both lesbian and heterosexual couples reported relatively equal divisions of paid employment and of household and decision-making tasks, lesbian biological and nonbiological mothers shared child-care tasks more equally than did heterosexual parents. Among lesbian nonbiological mothers, those more satisfied with the division of family decisions in the home were also more satisfied with their relationships and had children who exhibited fewer externalizing behavior problems. The effect of division of labor on children's adjustment was mediated by parents' relationship satisfaction.

[Elwell]

I love my wire monkey mommy.

[emily g]

Here is an abstract for a paper on parenting styles that you may find interesting, kev.

Title: Family relations and emotional intelligence of children raised by lesbian or heterosexual parents.

Author: Giammattei, Shawn V.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. Vol 68(7-B), 2008, pp. 4823.

Abstract: This study examined the relationship between qualities of the parenting couple's relationship, parent-child interactions, division and satisfaction with childcare and household labor, and the emotional intelligence of children. Thirty-one lesbian parent families and 26 heterosexual parent families completed the California Inventory of Family Assessment, the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire, and the Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth Version (EQ=i:YV). Group comparisons were analyzed using two-group MANOVAs and the associations among variables were examined using Pearson correlations. The results of this study showed no significant differences in overall emotional intelligence between children raised by lesbian parents and those raised by heterosexual parents. In addition, no relationship was found between qualities of the couple relationship, the division of childcare and household labor, or satisfaction with these divisions and the overall emotional intelligence of children. However, for heterosexual mothers, a significant negative relationship was found between an authoritarian parenting style and emotional intelligence.
In particular, mothers who used corporal punishment had children with lower overall emotional intelligence, and heterosexual mothers were much more likely to use corporal punishment than lesbian primary caregivers. Significant differences also were found between lesbian co-mothers' versus fathers' behaviors within the authoritative parenting style, with lesbian co-mothers showing more warmth and support and with fathers showing more emphasis on rules, consequence, and use of reasoning following children's misbehavior. The differences found in qualities of the couple relationship showed that lesbian primary caregivers reported receiving more nurturance and less physical intimacy from their partners than heterosexual mothers, and heterosexual fathers reported more intrusiveness from their wives than lesbian co-mothers. Furthermore, lesbian couples were more egalitarian regarding the division of household chores and childcare and more satisfied with these arrangements than heterosexual mothers. The findings in this study may help motivate parents and clinicians to find more helpful parenting styles for dealing with misbehavior and to identify ways they can foster stronger emotionally intelligent skills in their children. This study adds to the growing body of literature showing that the children of lesbian parents are functioning similarly to children of heterosexual parents on psychological variables of interest. Collectively, these findings may inform policy makers and family courts when called upon to decide what is in the best interest of children. The implication of these findings is that exclusion of lesbian parents from equal adoption or custody rights in some states and jurisdictions seems based solely on prejudice toward lesbians rather than based on the best interests of children.

Also, I wanted to address this comment you made earlier:

Although, there are studies about steady fathers during puberty preventing daughters from early promiscuity...

It’s easy to make guesses about why this would be:
--Maybe there is something about the fathers' hormones that are important to the development and behavior of girls during puberty.
--Perhaps fathers have a more authoritarian style of parenting and have more control of their daughters’ behavior.
--Maybe receiving love from a male figure at home reduces the daughters' need to search for it outside the home through early sexual activity.

But maybe it has nothing to do with the father being male at all—it could just be the fact that he’s a second, loving parent in the daughter’s life. The way to tease this out would be to compare the sexual behavior in girls raised in opposite-sex homes vs. those raised in lesbian same-sex homes. If it really is the maleness that matters, then girls raised in lesbian same-sex homes will have the same rates of early sexual behavior that girls raised by single mothers have.

Luckily, one of the abstracts posted by bluefooted already addresses this. This is from the third study she posted, the one specifically focused on adolescents:
Normative analyses indicated that, on measures of psychosocial adjustment and school outcomes, adolescents were functioning well, and their adjustment was not generally associated with family type. Assessments of romantic relationships and sexual behavior were not associated with family type.
So it didn’t matter whether the adolescents were raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents—their sexual behavior was the same.

The same-sex vs. opposite-sex parenting argument is rather similar to the day care argument, I think. When it comes to choosing between being sent to a day care or being at home with mom, it seems obvious that being at home with mom would be better. But the research doesn’t really bear this out. It turns out there are good and bad parents and good and bad day cares.

You have said in this thread that it seems “obvious” that a child should be in a home with a mother and a father. Well, it may seem obvious, but that doesn’t mean it matches reality. :P There are good parents and there are bad parents, regardless of gender. And the quality of the parenting just happens to matter a LOT more than the particular gender of the parent.

[emily g]

Lol, Elwell.

If anybody doesn't know what he's talking about, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Harlow).

[sve]

Thanks Emily, I learned two new things from your summery although I would wish and wait for studies with a bigger number of families participating in the experiment involved... 30... 24 families is not very big selection, interval of errors might be close to this number. Maybe. Nevertheless, those conclusions are very interesting and very important: about influence of the authoritarian parenting on emotional intelligence of the child. I wish it was explain what they meant by this.

Never heard about the conclusion that mother's pheromone lower father's aggressiveness and enhance bonding.
Thats is a very interesting study, I wish to read more about this one.

[kev ferrara]

Great posts Emily! Thank you. Very informative.

[Sir_E_Pent]

This went from a "Congrats you lucky fags!" to "Who is the better parent?". Science-VS-Nature. The ultimate showdown. Have you ever wondered about the beginning of all things. I have. I think of nothing else. And I do have the answer. Stop focusing on the emotional and think about the literal. Today children are not raised by "Mom and Dad" or "Parents". They are raised by Coca-Cola, Pepsi, MTV, NBC, CBS, TNT, VH-1, HBO, Skinamax, Showtime, Bravo, Logo, Lifetime, We, and the other 5000 channels you can get beamed into you brain. Now we do have teachers and preachers if you have time to expose your children to that sort. Oh I will get back to the first statements later. I write in stream of conscienceness, it sucks.

Natural order of things. We are born, we grow up, we pay bills, we die. That has become the natural order of things. How we do this is general. Get a job that lasts 40 years hoping it will take care of you till your death and you have it made. I will admit I have not done this. Found that job that will carry me to my death. And hopefully neither have you. Back to the point. Are children are being raised not by people but by companies. We are being trained to want this over that. Mommy, mommy I need this toy and if I don't get it I will cause a scene and make you look like a bad parent. And we don't want that now do we?

I was watching the idiot box and saw the Gay couple raising kidz with the christian mother live-in who was against everything they hold dear. Now is that not great TV or what?! Taboos becoming nature. First it is not natural for a man to lie with a man as a man lies with a woman. Well, Wo man. Ever thought the first there was man and beast for a while. Not that I'm into beastiality or anything but you get the idea. And instead of man and woman there would have been male on male, not really in a sexual nature but just as a play mate, companionship. And the creator was like, I'm bored. And thus a cycle what created. Female came into existance and so did the cycle. It happens once a moon.

The creator did not start with the atom and work his way, and yes it is a male, forward. He did what we are doing. Thought about it and it happened. Well, more like he thought about it and then blew it into existance. We are the ones who need to explain it, so we did, not him. He could care less how it worked. For him, it just did.

Now back to this thread. Screw it. What you do in your house is your business. Now when your child goes into school, the beginning of social orders for all of us, where are they going to be placed? That is the question. Parents don't decide, the pubilc does. I have been denying my place for a great many years. Fifteen to be exact. And I know harder times are ahead of us. The basic nessecities are costing a lot more and we are making less. The world has more stock in my country than we do and we let it happen. So enough about this subject and just live. Eat waffles.

E PLURIBUS UNUM: With this, we control you.

[S.C. Watson]

Speedy, that was quite the load of anti-everything-not-sure-what-the-hell-you're-yellin-about-psycho-babble I've read in a while.

Still trying to decide if I want to stomp on you or not, or just close the thread to avoid another stupid assed flame war from developing... :er:

[Elwell]

422501

[Mirana]

Ever thought the first there was man and beast for a while. Not that I'm into beastiality or anything but you get the idea. And instead of man and woman there would have been male on male, not really in a sexual nature but just as a play mate, companionship. And the creator was like, I'm bored. And thus a cycle what created. Female came into existance and so did the cycle. It happens once a moon.

Awesome. You should write your own Bible. :D

[Sir_E_Pent]

Give me all you got. And what has been presented before my speech is psyco babble. Studies, polls, examinations, Doctors and Psycologist, What is to say studing a group really gives us anything? People have been studing the stars and we still don't know. Hell, it is all about social order. Controlling the masses. Popular opinion. What works here should work over there. I will leave you with this and it really doesn't have anything to do with this thread in perticular. You have two ant hills in your yard. You can get poision and exterminate them, but that cost money. or you can take a part of one ant hill and put it on the other and vise versa. Now, check them a day later. See what happenes.

Eat Waffles.

[kev ferrara]

Tim Gunn said it best:

c5ExBCp9Myw

[Sir_E_Pent]

First, Thank you Kev, That is pretty funny. And yes lets. So it is said, it shall be done. By the way, if I were looking for the keys, where would I go?

[Elwell]

South
422583

[Sir_E_Pent]

No I don't think those are the right keys. These keys are in the place that is hidden.

[Mr.Delicious]

those last few posts were real good hahaha

[guggemmaneuver]

hereby agreed on the "what are you saying, 'bama?" and waffles what?

[Sir_E_Pent]

Well... Lets c. This started out as a win for counterculture to the psycological development of a child. The arguments went from right or wrong to "What about the children". I would go deeper but, I don't believe this is the right time. And EAT WAFFLES!!!!!!! Just sayin'

Also, I have a spin on creation. He has shown me.

[N D Hill]

Ringing any bells? (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=126955&page=4)

[Jason Rainville]

Give me all you got. And what has been presented before my speech is psyco babble. Studies, polls, examinations, Doctors and Psycologist, What is to say studing a group really gives us anything? People have been studing the stars and we still don't know.

You're right. Let's try to stop all inquiry as well never get anywhere with that. You're right again, We've been studying the stars for as long as we've been here, and they STILL haven't given us the answer to the big question; is it alright to stick it in another man's pooper. I for one am sick and tired of all these "mister sciiiiientists" (moar like scientits amirite?) doing all these studies on cosmology and still the answer on the morality/parenting skills of gay couples eludes them.

There should be more people like you really. I mean, with one rambling post without even studies, citations or even LOGIC (you didn't need all that shit since you're so awesome) you singlehandedly proved your point. Whatever it was.

Ringing any bells?

It's Notre dame cathedral in my head.

[Ashtonw]

Coincidentally I just remembered why I don't smoke pot.

[Ilaekae]

...?...

Wtf?!