Same sex Marriage

This is an inaccurate interpretation of the very text you've highlighted in red.

There is a big difference between stating:

1) We are already in a huge mess failing to properly protect ALL children and should therefor choose the least evils under which approach gay parenting cannot possibly impact the overall social patterns formed within substitute families and households for those not fortunate enough to be raised by their biological parents in a loving and stable setting any worse than the system already does as a whole.

and

2) A gay household in an ideal world provides the exact same needs for a child as does a happy family with a mother and a father.

It is the very thing Obamanation has stated earlier that in light of how things are, it wouldn't make a big difference IF indeed gay parenting had a negative influence.

It doesn't mean the President of that commission believes that gay parenting is to be considered equally nurturing to traditional parenting.

It is simply him accepting that it would be naively idealistic at this point and time to fight for whatever is best while the system overall is too much of a mess to focus on only one aspect that couldn't possibly solve all of the other issues of Foster care and substitute parenting and the impacts its lacks already have.

 

Okay, well seeing we've moved from marriage to parenting there's plenty of stuff you can read from Google.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-the-childs-view/story-e6frg8h6-1226593075295

http://www.howstuffworks.com/5-gay-parenting-myths.htm#page=1

It seems many here come from the "it's weird to begin with" angle, though a lot of you do weird stuff I'd bet. In reality stuff is not actually weird when you live it daily and, what kind of parent discusses their sex life anyway?

I think emptying sewage tanks for a living would be "weird" too but that's because I don't live it (and probably wouldn't stomach the thought). No offence intended to those who do.

 

I wasn't even getting at that. My question is whether or not it is fair to a child to deprive him or her the experience to bond with a parent of the sex not present within the union.

 

In regards to gay marriage, considering a good amount of my friends are gay and various family members, I'm surprisingly indifferent to it. I'm not opposed to it being legalized, I just wish someone would do it, get it out of the way and focus on actual issues.

Would be fairer than having me as a dad and whatever crazy chick I end up with as a mum, where the child will probably be an accident.

I don't buy the argument that gay parents can screw up a child. I come from a home with two loving heterosexual parents, in a well off middle class family. I got to travel alot and my parents were always open to talk about everything and to teach me. And I'm so f**ked up its not funny, I can't talk to people, can't maintain a relationship and as soon as I turned 18 I moved as far away from home as possible and keep minimal contact. I do not think I would be any better or worse off if my parents were same-sex. My brother turned out fine - depends on the child as much as the environment.

Plus there are always other role models of the opposite sex - I always bonded more with my grandfather than my father and with my best friends mother than my own.

 

Blogmaster:

Despite the fact that within this forum, those opposed to "same sex marriage" have muddied the waters with all sorts of commentary about "parenting"...that is not the issue.

The issue is about marriage.

On an aside though, as it has to do with parenting maybe what the conservatives would like is a religious tribunal that evaluates all married couples with kids all the time to ensure proper upbringing. I'm sure some Iranian styled Sharia religious figures or certain Catholic Priests, or various religious figures from Afghanistan (known for abusing children and especially young boys) would leap at the opportunity to provide oversight on raising children.

 

That is what I don´t get. If we remove the issue of the blind support of Israel by neo-con Republicans, they are so similar to Iranians fundamentalist on every issue from economy, tax, social security to moral values that they can be twin brothers separated on birth.

 

You should read the citations behind that Wiki page. They are fascinating. They spell out a wonderful argument in defense of cousin marriage and polygamy. No detectable effect on the outcome of the child. How can such discriminatory laws be allowed to remain on our books?

Our marriage law is directly tied to the effects on child rearing. Do try and keep up.

Mmmm.... my best friends mom.

 

I am keeping up. I suggested to GR to attempt to "think" and try the process. I further suggested that if he was scared and nervous about it...he come to you for support, a hug, and understanding.

How has that gone so far?

nice pic....none of my friends had mom's like that and I never got that close to seeing one of them dressed that way. LOL You have obviously been fantasizing on the movie The Graduate.

 

Thats Stiplers mom from American Pie, a must see for those with a mild Oedipus complex or the natural and healthy desire to go back to breast feeding.

 

Marriage laws were not invented in USA and those are continuation of historical laws and regulation. The reason behind the marriage value to society is the question of inheritance and not the effects on the child because before the DNA, we could not know who was the father from whom the child should inherit. That is the reason before polygamy was accepted because all the children would inherit from the father. In India where women were landowners, the question of who was the father was not important and that is the reason in India women could have multiple husbands since the child would inherit from the mother. In France it became popular to try to find the real father of a child who was born in a marriage in order to disturb the inheritance process which was causing a lot of problems in society and that was the reason behind Napoleonic law that any child born in a marriage is the child of the husband, no matter who the real father is and even research in the identy of the father became illegal and punishable by prison term. This law was later adapted in different countries.
Marriage value for society is all about inheritance and not child rearing as you mention.

 

Well that's quite tame compared to those claiming it will lead to people marrying their dogs imho.

Polygamy, well why not?

Cousins is a different argument as we are told straight cousins are likely to produce a "faulty" offspring. Should there be laws to stop people risking an almost certain faulty offspring and if so, seeing all of us pass down our own faulty genes to the next generation, what kind of limitations should there be?

Gay cousins on the other hand, well why not?

 

And this is exactly what I have been talking about earlier.
What you just demonstrated is what I see within society overall. You don't demonstrate interest whether or not a child could be negatively effect, but instead turn this into something purely of religious and political nature.

 

Maybe you're ignoring the obvious as it's plainly not affecting the kids, as pointed out all over Google. What is it about if it's not ALL about silly religious sensibilities?

And, what do you suggest people should do?

 

It's not obvious to me, unless you have read something I haven't. Not too long ago, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness. Where was the bridge leading from calling gay couples mentally ill to saying they provide a perfect household for a child?

Maybe in regards to the marriage aspect if you base it on who is most vocal in the media. But when looking at the social aspect and what comes with it such as gay parenting, there are many are not religious at all who voice concern.

I'd say leave the political and religious aspects out of those discussions as much as possible.

Gay activists tend to be tax payers. So do members of the "Christian right".

All study groups and commissions are under enormous pressure from both.

It's leading nowhere and society becomes divided rather than everyone working on a clear cut solution.

 

You are missing the point. Christian right wants to control other people life while gay people want the right to control their own life. The choice is quite easy, fu*k Christian right.

 

Who are you and what have you done with GWorld? If you are going to start writing posts with legitimate arguments and facts, I will be forced to start responding to more of them.

While I appreciate your foray into the history and origins of marriage, the world has changed, and US marriage law as it exists today is not solely focused on inheritance. Obviously there are more issues at play, including the well being of the child. As evidence to that fact, one of the largest issues in divorce law is child custody. Recall my earlier post mentioning a husband to pay child support for a child that is not his own, based solely on his marital status at the time of birth. Even if marriage law today revolved solely around inheritance, by necessity, it would include children. Inheritance flow from spouse to spouse is already covered by our civil union law.

On the topic of inheritance and child custody (outside of marriage), I recall reading stories of law suits relating to child custody (and inheritance?) relating to sperm donors and surrogate mothers.

Gay marriage won't "lead" to these activities. People have tried to marry their cousins, multiple wives, multiple husbands, and sometimes their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, since time began. We have laws on the books against such marriages in most states, except for the liberal ones, CA, NY, etc, though polygamy is banned universally in the US.

You make mention of faulty offspring, but what of adoption? Why not marry your cousin or sister or brother or mother and adopt? If you love the person, what is the harm? Once you take offspring out of the formula, as gay marriage has done, the only argument remaining against such marriages is our current concept of morality.


Another thing. Those advocating for gay marriage in the US do so under the concept of Equal Protection. The argument goes that the state cannot deny Marriage, as a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right, to one group of people while granting it to another. Setting aside the argument as to whether marriage is a fundamental right for a moment, the state can and does already license marriage in a discriminatory fashion, and not just against gays. If the court overturns the gay marriage ban under the auspices of equal protection, I find it hard to understand how any of the other marriage prohibition laws can remain.

Pedophilia is now making this transition to a sexual orientation instead of a disease. I'm hard pressed to see how it isn't both.

Sorry Bush, but to me it seems perfectly legitimate to say that people of a certain sexual orientation are ill or abnormal. We have had this discussion before. It doesn't mean they have to be discriminated against, nor that they can be cured, especially by means of religion. It is just how they are. More than one of my friends have referred to me as abnormal in the past. I don't even bother to dispute the point.

 

Liberal ones? Do you think Texas, Utah, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, New Mexica, south Carolina,... are liberals? The center for inbreeds are southern states, the Republican territory. This can also explain why they are Republicans.

The question of pedophilia is much simpler than you think and people confuse the issue by discussing if it is a sexual orientation or disease. The simple answer is that who cares, it is illegal and should be punished because a child cannot consent to a sexual act and therefore pedophilia is no different than rape. After all no one tries to justify rape by calling it a disease or sexual orientation.

 

The marriage part does not concern me.



This concerns me. And it has not a thing to do with homophobia.

And the same way you may be annoyed by the Christian right being against gay marriage, I am annoyed that there are no lines being drawn and gay rights activists at the same time advocate that a gay household is equally suited for bringing up a child.

Only problem: Not one study proves that it is.

The only claim made is that there is "no evidence" to the contrary.

 

You left out California and New York. Most of the southern states (Solid Red) have it outlawed. What states have it outlawed is beside the point (though the inbreds in California and New York might explain how people like Nancy Pelosi hold elected office). The point is, these are not children, they are adults. Who cares if they happen to be blood relatives? Equal protection is equal protection.

Science cares. You sound a bit like a religious fanatic when you advocate ignoring science in favor of focusing on the morality of a thing.

Science is perfectly happy to diagnose a young child with ADHD for being a bit distracted and put them on Ritalin for their childhood and beyond to "cure" them of their "disorder". In most cases, the scientists are more than happy to identify, categorize, and label anything out of the norm as a disorder that can or cannot be treated. For some of those disorders, the state will refuse you a license to own a firearm. For others, they won't issue you a drivers license. Others still, they may "commit" you and strip you of your civil rights.

The political correctness with which Scientists and politicians deal with sexual orientation and gender identity is stunningly hypocritical in my opinion, bordering on anti-science. Politics aside, I can assure you that somewhere in the world, there is right now a team of scientists working on isolating the sexual orientation gene, if such a thing exists. I would bet you many/most of those scientists have no religious convictions whatsoever, unless you consider the church of the almighty dollar an organized religion.

 

That was exactly my take away from reading the wiki research on the matter. They cited several studies using exactly the weasel words used above, but none of the actual studies were readily available for review via the internet, not even in summary format. Granted, the weasel worded summary was issued from a credible board of medicine, but it seems to me that anything as controversial as this would have copious amounts of peer reviewed information readily available in this information age.